User talk:Gorgak25

This whole thing could just drift into the past. It's not huge. So, an IP's talkpage looks like a user page and it has the word "shit" or something. I cant even remember now. :) Who will ever read it? It exists in a tiny corner of the web. Maybe just be the bigger editor. Forget old foes, make new friends. If you ever need anything, just ask. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I know but I'm a bit annoyed he claims that I was spamming, hence me about to make a request for a ban as having them break the 3RR rule.

Oh trust me, you'll probably see me asking a million questions in the IRC. :)

Small edit: one second thoughts, look like he's already had a few warnings so hopefully they get an account and we're both happy :) Gorlack36 (talk) 15:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm most terribly sorry, I made a mistake. Your edit was perfectly sensible. Apologies. That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 16:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Where did I attack anyone...? Gorlack36 (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts exactly. How is that an attack? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, don't worry about it. All is forgiven! :)Gorlack36 (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No sweat. Actually, the offending editor was being quite "un-dude", and has now reemerged as User talk:Christanandjericho. We'll see how that goes rather quickly. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that myself on the IP's talk page... and now that account is blanking the talk page after been warned. I doubt it'll last long at all. Gorlack36 (talk) 16:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Sometimes confessions aren't a good idea. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think they were trying to bend the rules. Despite the fact we did try to help them... they basically thought they found a loophole and decided not to wait for the 24 hours. Oh well, hopefully it'll work out completely. 16:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

didn't u guys just said if i have an account u guys would be happy? this account was made in like 2010 or early 2011 i forgot anyway check that sock suspect page i explained everything --Vince (talk) 17:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've been blocked for 24 hours. Now, yes, you did make an account a long time ago. Had you have kept quiet and not said the account was yours, nobody would have known and you'd have been fine. But because you (as a person, not just your IP) have been blocked and you said on your IP page that you own the account, you're in this mess now. I don't know what will happen; you might get any IPs connected to User talk:27.3.18.100 or Vince permantly blocked from making accounts or nothing might happen; I have never dealt with Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry before. I'm not an admin so I have no idea why you assume I can help you. I did give you good advice on the IP's talk page but you thought you found a quick fix to your 24 hour ban and now this happened. So I really don't know how to help you. Gorlack36 (talk) 17:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Gorlack36. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 19:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed on a couple of edits, including [1] and [2] that you might have used rollback on ambiguous or good-faith edits. Most of your other uses of the tool look valid, though, so please be extra careful in the future when using rollback to avoid accidentally using it on good faith edits. If you do find that you've accidentally used rollback when you meant to provide an edit summary, no worries, just be sure to try to make a dummy edit in order to provide a retroactive edit summary. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 20:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay, thank you. I remember there was one (I believe it is the Voltaire edit where it was a misclick, though I can't be 100%). I remember going to chat right away thinking I was in trouble but since you did mention it to me just now, it was a misclick. The one about the WWE game was because I did leave a warning but the IP choose to ignore it so I felt rollback was valid in that case. I assume it's only for more blatant vandalism that would actually disrupt an article (like blanking sections or inserting random curse words to just ruin the article)? If so, again, sorry I felt I was right in doing so but I'll be more cautious in future.

Is there any other edits I made that you need to ask about? And thanks for letting me know. :) Gorlack36 (talk) 20:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's a bit unusual for a user as newbie-ish as y

ou to get the rollback tool, so if I could step in, I'm just going to recommend that you take it slowly and remember that it shouldn't be used for anything other than obvious vandalism. In fact, at the risk of sounding harsh (but wanting to convey the truth of the matter!), clear misuse of the tool can be grounds for removal of it - something I imagine may even be more true for a reviewing admin should that admin see your new account status. Hope that clears it up, and that I don't sound too harsh. Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello my friend. I agree. Be super-careful because it's such a good tool. You don't want to lose it! :)

Do:

• If you have the slightest doubt, undo instead.

Don't:

• Drink half a bottle of vodka, go here, and click every [rollback] on the page.

Follow those tips and you're golden. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I don't recommend drinking and editing Wikipedia at all, unless you don't mind waking up the next morning to find you've made nonsense edits to a protected page. Oh wait.

(coming quite hypocritically from someone who doesn't believe in drinking). Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drinking and editing isn't something I'd do... now editing and drinking is perfectly fine! TBH, I made at least two mistakes (once by misclicking on wikipedia and again by misclicking in Huggle) so I've given up using Huggle and started using Twinkle and am learning to be much more careful when using a touchpad with a laptop. Gorlack36 (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gorlack36 - It appears that I made a decision that the community disapproves of. I have reverted my decision to grant you rollback after quite a few editors objected. This objection is not because of your editing and you've been careful with the tool while you had it. I think it would be best to wait a week and then request again once you have a bit more experience. I think you do good work, which is why I granted the tool in the first place, so please keep it up. I truly do apologize, feel free to contact me if you have any questions.--v/r - TP 18:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, I understand completely. I did misclick a few times and I think that's part of the problem. Thanks for letting me know, much appreciated, I'll consider requesting it again in a few weeks or so. Again, glad you pointed out I didn't do wrong (bar lack of experience), thank you. :) Gorlack36 (talk) 19:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that you misused rollback so much even though that was present, but your general knowledge of Wikipedia Policies such as this doesn't seem too good and I strongly recommend that you read it. Also you are too new for rollback, you need to have great commitment to it and not just do half a day's vandal fighting and just get it. Thanks. - PoliMaster ^talk/_spy 23:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment but I did see the other discussion about why I should have it removed. I don't see a problem with it. Being too new is a fine reason and I understand completely. The issue was (even though I did read about Huggle carefully) was that I wasn't aware that every edit made by Huggle is considered a rollback edit which obviously had a Hell of a lot to do with the argument against why I should have it removed. However, having discovered Twinkle, I can still do the same thing. I really wasn't trying to argue against my getting it back. I don't mind waiting a few weeks or a few months at all. It's not something I really *need* now. Still, thanks for your two cent. :) Gorlack36 (talk) 23:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, that's OK, it's just that you have a history of edit warring and I didn't want you to risk misusing Huggle, because if you had it would have led to a block. :-* P.S. where I am it's tupence (or two pence). - PoliMaster ^talk/_spy 23:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry. I'm in the Eurozone. I do wish we could still use punt and pence though... Completely of a different topic though! :P

Yeah, I can understand your concerns. That was (still is) by biggest concern though. I actually am surprised I'm not blocked since I did *a lot* of edits via Huggle which were most certaintly not vandalism. Still, I'm very lucky and very glad that there was just a dicussion and a decision to revert rather than block me. Again, thanks for your to pence or 0.02 sterling (I assuming you're from the UK). ;) Gorlack36 (talk) 23:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am! I was going to take it to the administrator's notice board but things would've got messy for you there. Also do one thing get an admin to explain the difference between vandalism and good faith edits to you. May I recommend going to IRC as you may remember seeing me there as 'politicalmaster'. Let me know if you do. :-) - PoliMaster ^talk/_spy 23:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gorgak25. You have new messages at Nascarking's talk page.
Message added 10:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

-- PoliMaster ^talk/_spy 10:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello my friend. You have all the makings of a great editor.

During our first interaction I felt that you handled yourself well. Your past IP sock thing is water under the bridge as far as I'm concerned. You are Gorlack36.

You handled criticism of a few questionable rollbacks well.

You handled the revocation of rollback well. Don't worry. They will restore it. You didn't do anything wrong.

A few points of advice over the scrap at Money in the Bank (2011): Don't war. Be patient. Be the bigger editor. Allow it. It's no big deal if a bad edit stands for a while. Others will come along and the best state will prevail. I know how it sucks to have someone who's wrong get the last edit. Relax and let it happen. Remember in those mafia movies. The heavy boss tolerates it with a smile. Then he makes the right moves. He's always calm. Be that guy. That's the attitude that wins the day.

Also, I can see User:Thepoliticalmaster antagonizing you. Allow it. Water off a ducks back.

If you ever need anything, just ask. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm very pleased to see the way you engage in article talkpage discussions, and encourage others to do the same in your edit summaries. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I like how you always tend to just zoom in and try to calm me down. I took what you said before about the other IP very seriously. I do know it's not a smart idea in the slightest to just get into an edit war. I felt that asking people to discuss the problem of Money in the Bank (2011) in the talk page was the right way to go. Despite the fact that I feel only my last edit (the one I did by Nascarking) was wrong another admin thinks it was edit warring. But at this point it feels like Nascarking is still upset about the edit war by himself and me (when I had an IP). Frankly, I'm still bothered that my repeat messages to ask to talk on the article's talk page was ignored by all editors but one. I know the only thing that comes from edit warring is a block and I really do not want to get this account banned since I don't see the point in having a blocked account. Yeah, the whole thing over rollback was handled really well by the other admins; I did like how the points were explained as to why I shouldn't have it and that made it far easier to understand. I don't mind not having rollback; I just jumped in head first and felt that Huggle would be far easier to use to revert things that are bad... except I'm obviously blind and didn't notice each edit by Huggle counts as a rollback! Still, I'm glad it was just taken away and I got to see why rather than just being told "you did wrong, you're getting it taken away". I don't think Thepoliticalmaster is really trying to be antagonizing, I think it's more of a "I've more expierence and just want to make sure you understand everything". I have the same attitude. All in all, though. I do appreciate you checking in on me and giving your opinion and advice to me; it's nice to read. But you are fully right about the page... I just left it after last night and am going to hope I can get some sort of contact going with Nascarking before the event takes place so we can decide on what wording should be used. Much appreciated! :) Gorlack36 (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to mention that refusing to talk on the talk page is not vandalism and isn't an excuse to ignore the 3RR. Not that it happened, but it appeared it might in your edit summary.--v/r - TP 16:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I know it's not vandalism. But it's obviously blatantly rude. The only reason there are four reverts in a 24 hour period on the page is because one of them was an edit of one of my other edits. Gorlack36 (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't worry about rude. Respond with politeness and you come off the hero. Shower the offender with pleases and thank yous. Remember the show Cops?:

• BADDIE: "You son of a $#$%@, I'm gonna $%#$#@ you mama, goddam $%$$#@@!#$%..."
• COP: "Yes sir. Please empty your pockets. Ah. A crack pipe. Sir, you are toast. Please put your hands..."

• You were not actually warring. I just wanted to encourage you to stay well away from that whole vibe.
• Trust me, you want rollback. It's very, very useful.
• I'm glad you left the page and slept on it. That fits with these concepts and strategies:

• Step back and watch and it often sorts itself out.
• Stay in the fray, and others who would help just sit back and watch you scrap.
• Step back, and others see the injustice and step in to do what's right.
• Step back so you come across as the level-headed one. That often wins the day.

• Thepoliticalmaster doesn't really have more experience. Besides, it's not how many edits one has, it's one's conduct. Thepoliticalmaster is driving everyone nuts on IRC PMing them against their objections, and IMHO picking on you.
• What TParis says about vandalism and 3RR is bang on.
• If you often find yourself pushing 3RR, you are usually not handling things in the best way, even if your right.

Keep up the good work. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Resilient Barnstar
	For taking the criticism in stride and learning from past mistakes. You're continued improvement will surely make you a valuable editor! v/r - TP 02:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The edit I made, which you decided was vandalism was: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=News_International&action=historysubmit&diff=438144284&oldid=438143375

Please explain how that is vandalism? I have deleted your warning from my user page. 77.103.5.197 (talk) 00:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	Thepoliticalmaster's unique and special barnstar
	Here, because you're not very political, here is this for you. :-) - PoliMaster talk/spy 08:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At least with respect to the storyline, CM Punk is WWE Champion and no longer under contract to the company. John Cena is fired, per the stipulations of the match, unless they really want to try to stretch this and have del Rio cash in a Falls Count Anywhere 24/7 ridiculosity. There is no guess here, sir.

I don't care what you think happens. This is not a blog. You either source things or you do not add them. Common sense or even your own opinion is *not* a valid source. Do not edit it back in. Gorlack36 (talk) 03:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The user has had disruptive edits before that, the type of warning he or she is at does not involve me. I suggest the converation you both are having be moved to the talk page. ℥^nding·start 03:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Explain exactly how it was vandalism. Gorlack36 (talk) 03:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sending this to say, "Thanks for helping me get through noob status!".*On an unrelated note* I mean, Seriously, how cute is THAT!?!?!?!?!?

WikiWanderer99 (talk) 22:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may be technically correct about limiting talk pages to material that strictly applies to the article, but IMHO, your removal of my related comment was a worse violation of Wikipedia rules. At one line long, my comment did no harm. There are lots of folks who like to apply the rules very strictly around here, but I often feel as if they are missing the point about rules - they are meant to make life easier for everybody - not harder. Please consider this the next time you have an urge to do something like this. And please remember the 1st rule that was adopted by Wikipedia WP:IAR. If you don't understand that rule, you don't understand any of them..

All the best,

Smallbones (talk) 00:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still, the problem was that it wasn't actually talking about improving the article, at all. While it was a bit harsh given the nature of what took place... the fact is that it was a comment that would have been more suited to a forum or chat room; instead of a talk page on Wikipedia. Gorlack36 (talk) 00:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A page not being in English does not automatically qualify it for CSD. You can either do a quick machine translation to determine whether it meets other CSD criteria or simply tag it with the notenglish tag so that someone who does know the language can potentially translate or improve the article. Dac04 (talk) 21:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Gorgak25! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

I'm well aware of how to add information to Wikipedia, having been doing so since 2007. Not every line needs a source but if you would give somebody a chance to add the source as well without deleting the info, somebody might actually get a chance to do so. Don't race to delete information. Try seeking a source instead and contributing instead. NJZombie (talk) 05:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You added speculation. Who is to say it was a challange? You're getting fan ideas mixed up with editor ideas.

There was no confirmantion, at all, that Taker challenged HHH.

• That can and would have been cleared up. Let people get a chance to clean up. When you instantly delete, it makes it harder for corrections to be made. NJZombie (talk) 05:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then don't edit articles without sources. It's easier to get a source and add it; addiing information without sources causes problems.

But I still fail to see where Taker wants to wreslt HHH at WM.

• You're not listening. You're just repeating the same thing. Information will not always be instantly accurate, especially regarding a current event. Don't race to just delete an entire section just because it wasn't instantly satisfactory. It may take two or there consecutive edits for an editor to properly express something. That may include adding the source after the fact. Try placing a citation needed template in the future, especially if you know the event happened. If it's not supplied in a reasonable amount of time, go back and delete the questionable information then. This is standard procedure. NJZombie (talk) 05:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You edited it so that it claimed there was a challenge made. Nothing like that took place. That was why I removed it and then read through the wwe.com page again incase they had changed that. But they hadn't.

• No, somebody else edited to say that. All I did at first was remove the header. Each time you reverted, you interrupted any potential further edits anybody else may have been making to make the sentence more accurate. Once again, if the part about the challenge was what was wrong, then correct it with what can be confirmed. Don't race to delete everything because a piece of a sentence or paragraph isn't to your liking or interpretation of the guidelines. NJZombie (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But if it's not being done by the guidelines, then it has to be fixed. Putting things up without sources is grounds to have it removed.

• So like I said above, fix it yourself. Add a source or remove the one piece that isn't suitable. Deleting the entire paragraph while others might be working on cleaning it up is not fixing it. Once again, not every sentence requires a source but if you think something does, use Template:Citation needed to grab a template and mark it. Especially if it's part of something you admitted viewing with your own eyes. This is the actual solution. Instant deletion is not. NJZombie (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Gorgak, I noticed your CSD on the Forum bans page from RC. It didn't really fit any of the criteria, so I removed the CSD tag, and after a little further thought, changed it to redirect to Ban (law); specifically, to the video games/forums section. Just thought I'd let you know. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for doing that! :-)

I honestly had zero idea of what the right critera was and I felt it should have *something* done with it but figured CSD was best since, well, it didn't really fit into Wikipedia. Thanks again for fixing it to a direct (wish I thought of that) :P Gorlack36 (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! I know the feeling of wanting to do *something* with an article, but not knowing what. A redirect only occurred to me because I've had someone turn one of my CSDs into a redirect, too. PROD's also a good choice. It's always nice to add another entry into other people's playbooks. ;) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - try not to tag pages with CSD:A1 or CSD:A3 just moments after an editor creates a page. Sometimes new editors will take a few edits to add in all the info, or they will save the page just to see if it "works". Happy editing! "Pepper" @ 00:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am very new here, but can you help me in finding about becoming a Wikipedia administrator or editing semi-protected articles.--GoShow (...............) 21:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship and on the talk page of the article you would like to see edited place a {{Edit semi-protected}} in your section and state what you would like to see edited.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gorgak25, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I deleted LPS Computer, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided. The speedy deletion criteria are extremely narrow and specific, and the process is more effective if the correct criterion is used. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you.  7  03:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sammygrtfghj Shmeelkid (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Gorgak25. I am Irelan12's friend and I just wanted to make sure you realize Nick did provide proof that the others were dishonest.--50.103.147.66 (talk) 00:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'd just like to tell you that G11 was the wrong tag for that page, as it did not have a promotional tone. I've tagged it as A3, because it only consists of external links and there is a lack of content. Regards, Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 15:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for patrolling new pages. Although anyone can do it, it is generally assumed that it will be done by users with experience. Please take a moment to reflect on the difference between WP:A1 and blatant vandalism - it seems with OwnagePranks you missed the point entirely. Happy patrolling! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it fell under both vandalism and lacking context so I classed it as what came first using Twinkle Gorgak25 (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was already determined beforehand.

Re this AIV report: I blocked the account for a username policy violation and you were right to report it. But reports of username violations should be made to WP:UAA. Daniel Case (talk) 16:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, dang. I used (and have been using it for a long time) Twinkle to do it automatically.

I'll be more careful in future, thanks! Gorgak25 (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your comments there. Prestigiouzman is attributing a quote to Rawlinson that is actually from Laurence Gardner's "Genesis of the Grail Kings" and he needs to stop reinserting it. It isn't even a content dispute. Prestigiouzman, a new editor, also needs help in understanding our policy on original research. He may not pay much attention tome, perhaps you could help. Dougweller (talk) 10:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was certainly an eventual short while but he's blocked now (thankfully).Gorgak25 (talk) 12:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Am i, can you explain why you undid a paragraph highlighting the genetic similarilys shared between the Irish,basque,and bashir people that is shared among no other ethnic grouping, it seems you waited until you thought i was blocked to delete that one, we both know what your at now,dont we--Prestigiouzman (talk) 02:51, 7 September 2013 (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 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) 16:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite the passage from the source in question? Nightscream (talk) 01:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gorgak25. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]