User talk:Steth

Hello, and Welcome to the Wikipedia, Steth! Thanks for the astute correction over on the Chiropractic article. Hope you enjoy editing here and becoming a Wikipedian! Here are a few perfunctory tips to hasten your acculturation into the Wikipedia experience:

• Take a look at the Wikipedia Tutorial and Manual of Style.
• When you have time, you can peruse The five pillars of Wikipedia, and assume good faith, but keep in mind the unique style you brought to the Wiki!
• Always keep the notion of NPOV in mind, be respectful of others' POV, and remember your perspective on the meaning of neutrality is invaluable!
• If you need any help, post your question at the Help Desk.
• Explore, be bold in editing, and, above all else, have fun!

And some odds and ends: Boilerplate text, Brilliant prose, Cite your sources, Civility, Conflict resolution, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Pages needing attention, Peer review, Policy Library, Utilities, Verifiability, Village pump, Wikiquette, and you can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes: SteveBot (talk) 07:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Best of luck, Steth, and most importantly, have fun! Ombudsman 13:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.--Deglr6328 03:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to the article Applied kinesiology which consist mainly of the removal of valid references and links to critical sources constitues NPOV violation and borders on vandalization. Stop doing this. --Deglr6328 16:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you violated the three-revert rule on Pseudoscience. I have disabled your editing permissions for 24 hours. Please read our guide on dispute resolution during the time you are unable to contribute to Wikipedia. Feel free to return after your block expires, but take your differences to the talk page and please refrain from edit warring. Cheers, —Ruud 03:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can email me by clicking here. I do not know if I wil be able to do anything things you are concerned about but I could at least offer advice. —Ruud 23:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More anti-chiros hard at work "mass marketing" their skeptical POV... I would assume. Right now, I am trying to juggle Chiropractic and Pseudoscience articles, but it is overwhelming when I see the other articles with POV against chiropractic (spinal adjustment, vertebral subluxation, DD Palmer, etc.). Thanks for alerting me to this. Nice to meet someone else one the side of NPOV for chiropractic. TheDoctorIsIn 02:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are a fan of Fyslee, I thought you like this entry of his. TheDoctorIsIn 17:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your vandalism to the chiropractic has been reported. You have fail to discuss reasons for reverts (other than to abuse other editor and accuse them of POV), engage in personal attacks, and appear convinced you have the right to question other editors about their private lives. When they fail to respond you draw conclusions without evidence then indulge in further personal attack and accusations of conspiracy, followed by further reverts.

For your information the WP definition includes "Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia."

Your attempts to remove scientific citations from the article, your attempts to remove well sourced material which you do not like, and your personal attacks are not good WP behaviour. Mccready 07:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steth. I don't think we've been formally introduced.  :) I noticed you just reverted most of the Chiropractic article. You left the statement in the introduction, though. I posted to the Talk:Chiropractic page, pointing out that the lack of any reliable (WP:RS) and verifiable (WP:V) sources in the article in support of that statement really undermines including the lack of "scientific standards" statement in the introduction. Do you feel there is support in the article for its presence in the introduction? I thought, specifically, the fact that the article seems to contradict it being there was quite peculiar:"Some traditional medical practitioners do not believe that chiropractic is science-based." Some does not mean all. And some certainly doesn't sound like support for such a statement to be in the introduction of the article. Thoughts? (And, thanks again, for staying calm and professional through this whole Chiropractic ordeal!) Justen Deal 00:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a page at User:Steth/RfC. You might also want to create a user page at User:Steth and write a little about yourself; people tend to take your less seriously without one. Cheers, —Ruud 21:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steth, I am beginning a RfC against you for violation of WP:LEAD. Your constant reverts removing mention of science from the introduction are in violation of policy. Mccready 12:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steth. AS you know I try to keep neutral and think that all editors have a legitimate role to play. I think that both you and Mccready have valid points; the wording below is a suggestion that reflects article content but doesn't seek to imply that chiropractic is without value. I think it would be good if both of you could put a stormy history behind you and accept as I believe that you are both working honestly and conscientiously in trying to be fair, however imperfect our efforts are sometimes. "Evidence for the clinical efficacy of chiropractic does not meet the scientific standards of evidence-based medicine, but many medical doctors are willing to refer their patients to properly qualified chiropractors." Gleng 15:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your level-headedness, Gleng. Perhaps Mccready can cite where he found such a statement that applies to ALL of chiropractic, as well as, how this was determined. You know, ALL of medicine does not meet the scientific standards of evidence-based medicine. In fact, many studies and articles indicate the worrisome high rate of faked "evidence" as well as the often negative influence of drug companies, advertising, gifts, etc.

I am only comparing the two, because the term "evidence-based medicine" has been invoked. If ALL of medicine doesn't meet these standards, why would this be added to an article on Chiropractic? Isn't this, not only an unverifiable opinion being passed off as a fact, but also a double standard? Your thoughts? Steth 15:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you have a fair point. I've just revised the section on Science to try to remove the possible implication that lack of EBM evidence means a treatment is ineffective, this goes some way towards meeting your concerns I think. However some studies of chiropractic have been reviewed, and it is fair to mention their outcomes - I don't know if this is selective citation, and I would support inclusion of any reputable evidence of effectiveness. Gleng 16:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply/discussion moved to article Talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chiropractic

Steth 17:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steth,

No real need to keep thanking me for my work on VS. I can see you and Fyslee have a bit of a history, to put it mildly. I haven't gone over and had a look at Chiropractic yet, and I don't know I really should, since there's a fair amount of friction already with Fyslee about VS.

Ithink that you're right; EBM is a scientific way of measuring the impact of a treatment because it takes the philosophical position that treatment must be measurable (evidentially supported) and documented. This, with conditions which are mostly painful and have subtle symptoms not related to lesions and bleeding, such as back pain, is as we both know oft times difficult because people report pain in a very objective fashion.

This is why I disagree with Fyslee. I'm going through a chiropractic treatment. It isn't an immediate cure; my back's still fucked to be honest. But chiro adjustment does help me, short term and long term. It is possible to see spinal maladjustment on x-rays, even I can see that. Maybe the reported benefits and changes are a bit made up, maybe not. I can't make that judgement. Hence why my edit maintains the "chiropractic claims" line; that's NPOV because it does not state anything as fact.

Given you've received flak for reverts...don't worry about watching VS. I can argue toe to toe with skeptics who don't want to admit things and let other points of view on chiro/VS get onto wiki. While NPOV is an ideal, its practically impossible to attain, especially with regards to a lot of alternative medicines (most of which are bullshit in my opinion) where treatments have worked for people, placebo effect or not. I think we have to keep an open mind. Fyslee has his view on the "truth" or otherwise about VS, and its obviously coloured a lot by the 1800's history of Chiro with Palmer, etc. But like I said on the VS talk page, the medical profession is just as full of that kind of history, and times have changed, as has the definition of VS.

Maybe its good not to put on overly glowing advertising style material for VS. But what really irks me is that for a skeptic...there were NO references which even managed to disprove VS or chiro, nada.

Bah. Who knows? Far too much red wine makes me crap on. So, in summary, no need to keep prodding people into responding by parroting praise at me. Just go find some decent references online or something and build the case you want to defend. I've done as much as I can. Rolinator 12:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, Rolinator.

Yes, there is some very heavy-handed brute editing here by some with anti-chiro agendas who claim to own all knowledge of anything regardig chiropractic. Pretty funny considering they are neither chiropractors nor patients. They also consider themselves the self-appointed historians. Apparantely the more time they spend trying to damage chiropractic and dehumanize chiropractors and their patients for using chiropractic, the more the authorities they consider themselves to be. It takes a lot of work to hate something this much.

Medicine has more BS (and deaths) Death by Medicine than any field can ever hope to achieve, so it is not surprising that many of the most extreme chiro-haters are involved somehow in the medical field.

Hope you decide to stick around. Thanks, Steth 18:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ackoz 15:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC): Could you please read this Cochrane_Collaboration and maybe do some more reading before u spit the fire around again?[reply]

Hi Steth, please keep cool. We're all entitled to our opinions and Talk pages are a good place to express them freely - its opinion in articles we want to avoid, and although we can never completely free ourselves of this I think Fyslee actually tries very hard to be objective in what he does in articles. We also have to characterise different opinions in the articles, and we can do that better when we understand them clearly. I have to say I don't like the way you talk about "hating" chiropractic. I'm a little sensitive about this because what I do attracts real hate - occasional bombs, personal abuse, vandalism, harrassment of families - so let's keep some perspective. Maybe strong views, but that's OK. I've met very few people that I didn't like when I knew them and I'm pretty sure that I'd like both you and Fyslee if I met you, and wouldn't be surprised if you liked each other too. I know some people who feel strongly about animal experiments, doesn't stop me liking them. Smile. The world's a better place for diversity of opinion.Gleng 09:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Fasten 16:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the Wilk summary (thanks 4 the link fyslee) it seems there may be some validity to the assertion that the AMA has not stopped their overt/covert war against chiropractic. For some fun and laughs, do a google search on Stephen Barrett. Apparently the court system in the good ole USA doesn't agree with him.  :) I guess he's up to 20 web sites now. (shakes head) I'm giving myself a tea break, but I'll be back soon for more edit wars and "controversy" with the haters of things not medical. LOL See ya in the trenches.--Hughgr 02:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. I think it's o.k., and from what I've read, B.J. also had the first car in Davenport. He didn't want anybody to be confused over whose car it was so he had his name written on the side.  :) He wrote about his radio experience in one of the "green" books", pretty interesting stuff. He even wrote a book on making radio commercials that was used by nearly every radio station. Ultimatly, make those damn advertistments fun and interesting. He certainly was a visionary, eh. I've been following the farcus on the chiro page. Just not fun having all your edits reverted. Oh well, like scolidoc said, it's the main weakness of WP, anybody can edit, even if they don't have a clue.--Hughgr 05:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome, Hughgr. I agreee with your sentiment. Keep up the good work. Steth 15:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steth, this link does not seem to lead where it's supposed to on the Daniel David Palmer Page.

• Palmer DD: Textbook of the Art, Science and Philosophy of Chiropractic 1910

Wasn't sure if that is where you wanted it to go. Although, I learned a lot about ICA practice guidelines! --Dematt 01:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed recently that Chirotalk has started its own self-promoting article on WP. I nominated it for deletion. I thought you might want to chime in with your thoughts here. TheDoctorIsIn 22:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abotnick has twice today tried to delete the AfD template from the Chirotalk page. He has also tried to change the outgoing link to his forum site to have very "spammy" link text - something that he has been warned about previously. I have reverted his edits twice thus far. Anything that you can recommend doing? How much longer until the article is in fact deleted? Levine2112 21:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem by me, I wouldn't mind a completly different wording. Feel free to edit, if I feel there's a problem, I bring it up :)--Hughgr 23:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

abakharev 00:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for putting you through all that. Hope you're not going out of town anytime soon! --Dematt 04:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like when he describes me as one particular user dominates the Chiropractic article in this manner and needs to be watched. [1] Levine2112 01:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

one particular user dominates the Chiropractic article

Coming from him, that's a high compliment considering his full-time devotion to radical anti-chiropractic fundamentalist extremism. I guess you made his enemies list. Welcome to the club!Steth 03:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal attacks (see your edit summary) are expressly forbidden by Wikipedia policy. --Davidstrauss 06:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right. But it was made to an editor who gives as good as he gets, and though it may not be PC to admit it, it made me laugh out loud. WP would be a duller place without you Steth, but try to keep these as very occasional treats. I think the point with KV is now well and truly made.Gleng 12:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto all that! Don't get yourself kicked out, I would surely miss your candor! --Dematt 12:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually didn't intend to reinsert that sentence. I think you deleted it while I was reverting the removal of "complemetary and alternative". Sorry about that. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Steth 02:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Steth. I realise we don't see eye to eye on some facts, but please keep personal issues out of the discussion on pseudoscience. If you have a personal issue with me, discuss it civilly on my talk page. Thank you. KrishnaVindaloo 03:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I got one of those, too. See this. •Jim62sch• 10:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to weigh in your thoughts here, if you haven't already. TheDoctorIsIn 18:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Based on the comments left on AN/I, I issued a 30 day topic ban to Mccready. (see Community probation log [2]) Discussion on talk pages is encouraged. Admins can enforce the ban if needed. Crosspost from AN:

Based on this discussion on AN/I [3] and the numerous comments on Mccready's talk page, Mccready (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is issued a 30 day ban from editing all articles related to the Pseudoscience. Mccready is encouraged to discuss his ideas on the talk pages of these articles. The the suggested sanction for disregarding the article ban is a 24 hour block with the block time adjusted up or down according to Mccready's response. Admins are encouraged to monitor the ongoing effectiveness of this article topic ban and make appropriate adjustments if needed. FloNight 23:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion about the ban or request for enforcement can be made at AN/I or AN. FloNight 01:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come on over - [Dematts ChiroPractice page]--Dematt 23:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Levine has started three separate proposals to merge these three articles. The discussion for each amalgamation of the merge begins here begins here. I would appreciate you taking the time to give your thoughts for each proposal. Thanks NATTO 02:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steth, I sure will miss you. Before you respond to KV as I'm sure you'll want to, see [4] as facts are always nice to know. Keep cool.

Many of your edits have made me think. I think you surprised me once when you said we usually agree; but then I saw your point, maybe we have different opinions sometimes, but I think we equally respect the differences between facts and opinions.

Finally, am I right in guessing that you're a cross between Ruby Wax and Dolly Parton? If I'm close, the drinks are on me if and when we ever meet.Gleng 10:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...and again to ten (below). I will make a response to this, but I need to get to ten first too. Btw, single malts are good, but they're for drinking, not keeping. Gleng 12:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your user conduct is under scrutiny. I made a request for comment. You can find the link on the vitalism article. KrishnaVindaloo 03:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All yours Steth, rather sorry to see the RfC disappear. I'm reverting this so as not to clutter your Talk page, but you can read it in your History Gleng 09:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you might find this juvenile site fun. Check out the "Who we are" page and take note of its members. Levine2112 19:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could I suggest that mundane editorial disagreements are most likely to resolve quickly and productively when editors observe the following:

• Remain polite per WP:Civility.
• Solicit feedback and ask questions.
• Keep the discussion focused. Concentrate on a small set of related matters and resolve them to the satisfaction of all parties.
• Focus on the subject rather than on the personalities of the editors.

Thanks! [5] --Ronz 03:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the same thing. Your arguments are less convincing with the baggage. David D. (Talk) 17:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point well taken. When I see what I feel is hypocrisy, I believe in noting it. However, I will do better in the future. Thank you both. Steth 18:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the frustration but solid arguments always make one look more convincing. Thanks for taking it seriously. I was wondering if I'd get flamed ;) but you prove your seriousness with your reply , thank you. David D. (Talk) 18:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the response as well. Thanks. --Ronz 21:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you and I are the same person [6] TheDoctorIsIn 19:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check this one out. [7]. I don't know if I added it correctly with the AfD template. Let me know and correct if necessary. Thanks. (Am I talking to myself? :-) ) TheDoctorIsIn 19:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Persistant little bleeps, aren't they? •Jim62sch• 12:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I got it. F.F.McGurk 00:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've appreciated your contributions on the PS list talk page.

Would you mind dropping a line to me at aelewis at provide dot net ?

Thanks kindly!

Alan -- Alan2012 18:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that your comment [8]

BTW, what was the result of recent discussion as to whether or not Shot Info is Stephen Barrett's son? Was there ever any closure on that?

is inappropriate for Talk pages. See WP:TALK#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable. --Ronz 19:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I have removed your defamatory statement that Barrett is an "ex-psychiatrist." Retirement does not mean one is no longer a psychiatrist. Please stop adding these sorts of violations of WP:BLP on talk pages and elsewhere. It's unproductive and disruptive. Thanks. Jokestress 19:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Defamatory? I don't understand your protectionism of Barrett's feelings, but sorry if I have offended you, Jokestress. If he let his license lapse and is no longer practicing, doesn't that make him a former / ex psychiatrist or something? But no biggie. Thank you anyway for your clarification. Steth 23:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have not offended me, and I don't really care about Barrett's feelings. He is still a psychiatrist, though. "Former psychiatrist" is defamatory. Removing it again. Jokestress 23:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon (GMT time); I have accepted a Mediation Cabal case - requested by Levine2112 - to which you are listed as a party. Mediation has commenced at the case talkpage, where you are invited to participate. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me via email, IRC or my talk page; I will try to answer all your questions as fully as possible in so far as it does not compromise my neutrality. Kind regards, anthony[review] 01:29, Monday November 18 2024 (UTC)

Please remove your personal attacks against me from the mediation discussion page. Thanks. --Ronz 14:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the apology and changes, but I find "I believe this is wishful thinking of a true believing nature." to be inappropriate for these proceedings as they are still insulting and dismissing of other's viewpoints. I hope you'll consider removing it as a sign of good faith to all the editors involved in the mediation. Thanks again. --Ronz 17:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've analysed the post, and I believe no personal attacks were made, in accordance with WP:NPA ~ Anthony 06:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine then. This is much better behavior that I've come to expect from Steth, but at the end it's like always. I'll use it as an example of how editors here Wikilawyer in order to push their bias. Thanks for the great example. Quite ironic that the same exact issue is at the heart of the Barrett mediation. --Ronz 15:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well sorry, Ronz, it didn't go your way and work out how you had hoped. However, you 'sour grapes' comments are not appreciated. Steth 16:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My reply to Ronz, which he deleted from his talk page: :::No problem! Apology accepted. Unfortunately, your 'sour grape' attitude I don't find very congenial nor good Wikipedian behaviour. Perhaps you are too close to this 'protect Barrett' issue for you to be objective when editing this article. You might consider having a cup of tea. BTW, Barrett is the psychiatrist who failed his psychiatric boards, not me. If he is comfortable enough to come onto WP and let us know the details, maybe you should be OK with it, too. One can hide history but one can't change it, you know. Steth 17:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you're talking about when you label my comments as "sour grapes", but you're providing me with an even richer example. Thanks again! --Ronz 17:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be engaged in an edit war in Chiropractic. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Thanks. -- Ronz  23:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's not how it looks from my perspective. You seem to be late to the party. This topic has been discussed in the talk pages many times before going back quite some time. I have asked repeatedly for proof of what the beliefs of NACM's members were as claimed by those like fyslee who seem hell bent on it's inclusion. All I ever got back was blank stares. It was removed long ago and just recently put in, so the edit war is on the part of those who are submitting original research. The burden is on them to back up their statement.

IMO, the NACM is no kind of real organization at all. They hold no elections, collect no dues, conducts no seminars, has no meetings and keeps their membership a secret. The big red flag is that three of the four links at the end lead websites that are owned by Stephen Barrett, notorius for his extremist anti-chiropractic views. You may recall that there is controversy surrounding him as he failed his boards and thus lacked certification in his own field of psychiatry, yet acted as an 'expert' in courts and was paid for his testimony. It was only after he was put on the stand that he testified under oath that he failed his boards. I believe you were involved in that discussion.

So lacking anything concrete from those forcing it's inclusion, it remains OR and should be left out of the article. Thanks Steth 03:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's no excuse for edit-warring. Use the talk page to work out your disputed, not article space. -- Ronz  03:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you are giving the other edit warriors the same advice. Steth 03:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Stephen Barrett, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Stephen Barrett. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

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) 13:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]