User talk:Pepper Gaming

September 2017
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Paint the Night has been reverted. Your edit here to Paint the Night was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_UMPKD9tWgY) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 14:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

September 2017
Your recent editing history at Main Street Electrical Parade shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Ahecht (TALK PAGE ) 17:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Ahecht (TALK PAGE ) 17:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

September 2017
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Your unblock request was incorrectly formatted. I've fixed it so that someone will see it. As to its content, waiting until right after 24 hours have elapsed to start edit warring again is gaming, and that's not tolerated either. 3RR means that you will be blocked for more than three reverts. It does not mean that you won't be blocked for fewer. Take it to the talk page, and listen carefully to what other editors are telling you there. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Reliable Sources
I saw your response on the edit warring block request. Disney cast members, shareholders, fan sites, and their twitter accounts are not WP:RELIABLE, as I kept telling you. Any of these people can say anything they want, and they are not really backed up at all (my example of Cinderella Castle and one site saying it was "all but announced" that a bar was coming to Tower of Terror in Florida a couple of years ago, are both a couple of examples of this). The only sources truly reliable for Wikipedia purposes on Disney matters are Disney official sites (like D23 and the Disney Parks Blog), the official and verified Twitter accounts of Disney (@Disney, @DisneyParks, @Disneyland, @DisneylandToday, @WaltDisneyWorld, @WDWToday, etc.), Orlando Attractions Magazine (since they do actual reporting), and nationally reputable sources (New York Times, LA Times, Orlando Sentinel, etc). Nearly everything else (there are always a few exceptions) is not reliable enough to use. These sources also are verifiable, which is another requirement your source failed. If you have any questions, please ask. --Elisfkc (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Do youtube videos of D23 panels count as reliable sources e.g: from DAPS magic, Inside the magic ect. Pepper Gaming (talk) 20:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Also i'm fairly new to wikipedia so i don't know what are reliable and what aren't so a former cast member who still has contacts to CM's who work at Disneyland so i'm not going to add this anymore and lets forget about what happened and do you honestly believe that it has gone back to an offsite warehouse near Disneyland because i believe that and finally one of the reasons i kept adding it back is because it seemed like you and ahecht don't believe that a former DL CM confirmed it and i feel bad for putting it on there and i would also feel bad if it turned out you personally believed it was true and reliable i'm not meaning if you think it is reliable to be on Wikipedia but if you personally think it is reliable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepper Gaming (talk • contribs) 20:38, September 15, 2017 (UTC)


 * Concerning the panels, it is one of the gray areas (it really depends on who is talking, what they said, etc). Usually, if it is something notable, someone reliable (Attractions Magazine, a national source, etc) mentions it elsewhere. As for the CM question, both myself and told you numerous times in our edit summaries as well as last time that cast members are not reliable sources. And, just like last time, it does not matter what any of us believe, it is what is reliable and verifiable that matters.Elisfkc (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@Elisfkc i know it doesn't matter what any of us believe but this is your own personal opinion about if you believe the CM and i'm not asking you if it's reliable based on Wikipedia's rules as you have sted it dosen't fall under reliable and you think its reliable based on wikipedias stuff and I WILL NOT add it again but at the end of the day DO YOU PERSONALLY BELIEVE that MSEP has gone to an offsite warehouse and you didn't get the question but i know what your on about as CM's are not reliable sources as they aren't for wikipedia (which i now know) but in my opinion they are still reliable sources NOT for wikipedia and the thing about cinderella castle i don't think that was made up by a cast member niether do i think the thing about Tower of Terror was made up by cast member but i think it was more made up by the Disney community

@Elisfkc to put this another way the answer you gave me was WRONG as I didn't want nor expect the answer about CM's not being reilable souces to wikipedia i was more expecting the answer on weather YOU think the thing about MSEP moving to an offsite warehouse and im asking you if you think it's reliable yourself and the answer to the CM quetion i was expecting was either yes i think it's reliable but not for wikipedia as you've told me that too many times or no you dont think its reliable and this is not related to wikipedia what so ever  Finally this question is not related to wikipedias rules. So i'll ask you that quetion one more time do you PERSONALLY believe that MSEP has moved to an offsite warehouse?

@Elisfkc after no response I'll just assume that you be believe this is true about MSEP moving to an offsite warehouse

Is this following statement reliable as someone added this to the Main Street Electrical Parade page without a reliable source, I removed it then they added it back: There were 3 versions of the parade.

Version A (Disneyland version) was built in 1972. This version ran at Disneyland Park (in Anaheim) from 1972 until 1996. It then moved to Magic Kingdom (in Orlando), where it lasted from 1999 until 2001. After that, it moved to the struggling Disney's California Adventure Park (in Anaheim), where it ran from 2001 until 2010. When it ended there, it moved back to the Magic Kingdom (in Orlando), where it lasted from 2010 until 2016. It then left Magic Kingdom (in Orlando) to move back to its home park, Disneyland (in Anaheim), where it ran from January 19, 2017 to August 20 of the same year.

Version B (Walt Disney World version) was built in 1977 and premiered in Magic Kingdom (in Orlando). It was a clone of the one that was running in Anaheim. It lasted there until 1991, where it moved across the Atlantic to Disneyland Park (Paris). It lasted from 1992 up until 2003, where it was sent to Hong Kong Disneyland, but never appeared there. It has been rumored that the floats were destroyed.

Version C (Tokyo Disneyland version) was built in 1985 and never left Tokyo Disneyland Park. It premiered in 1985, and closed in 1995. After it closed, all the floats except for Swan Lake were severely damaged by the Japanese weather and were destroyed. Swan Lake was sent to Disneyland Paris in 1997 due to it being the only working float from this version.

Version D (Dreamlights) was built in 2001 and like with version C, has stayed in Tokyo Disneyland.

and there is no reliable source on this so is it reliable or is it classed as a rumuor? Thanks. Pepper Gaming

Tokyo Disneyland Electrical Parade Dreamlights
I can prove to you they are newly built floats. All of them use unique designs that are nothing like the original, and a website proves that the original TDEP was destroyed.

Another proof is with Swan Lake. Swan Lake from the original was still in Paris when Dreamlights premiered. so the model used is newly built.

And please stop edit warring. Luigitehplumber (talk) 00:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't the one edit warring, also this is regarded as Rumor so there is no reliable evidence to add it to the Main Street Electrical Parade wikipedia page so if you want to add info like this, please add it to Disney Wiki and not to Wikipedia. Also reverted your edit for the same reason as I did as there was no reliable source and you have also been warned of this when you reported me for edit warring when I wasn't and i'm pretty sure  would agree with me that this is a Rumor as well. Pepper Gaming (talk) 23:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Gosh... You always never admit anything... I'm removing the version page if all you do is argue about rumors. Luigitehplumber (talk) 18:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

December 2017
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Dennis Wise, you may be blocked from editing. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

all I was doing is adding something saying to not change his hieght from 5ft6. I wasn't trying to vandalise the page Pepper Gaming (talk) maybe I should have put in the edit summary added warning as that's what I was doing in that edit on Dennis Wise on the 1 December 2017 Pepper Gaming (talk) 22:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should indicate in an edit summary what you are doing, and maybe you should consider that encyclopedic content needs reliable sourcing. Drmies (talk) 20:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but certainly content should be verified by reference to reliable secondary sources. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Disney/Fox merger
Regarding the Disney/Fox merger, please see WP:CRYSTAL, and keep in mind the infoboxes should reflect basic information about its subject, not things that might happen. Trivialist (talk) 19:34, 29 July 2018 (UTC)


 * we know it's pending so it should be included. If this was a bidding war between Disney and comcast then or a template issue I would agree that it shouldn't be on there but since it isn't it should say 'sale to The Walt Disney Company pending' because Disney is going to be buying 21 CF and at this point it seems likely. Also give me a reason why it shouldn't be included Pepper Gaming (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

August 2018
You were told about Wikipedia's stance on pending takeovers & mergers (WP:CRYSTAL) on your talk page by on 29 July. On 1 August, in a clear case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT you went WP:FORUMSHOPping to Template talk:Infobox company with the same issue. told you "no" & you claimed to not understand what "no" meant. I gave you a practical example of why we wait for things to happen before we write about them, and you asked me to remove it, because it wasn't the instance you had in mind. Wikipedia's stance is longstanding and well-settled. Your unwillingness to accept it is disruptive.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. Cabayi (talk) 10:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I was asking what he was meaning by that reply because he put no whith a question mark at the end but he then fixed it because his exanation was unclear. I was also asking why something saying don't add

Sale to _________ pending was not on the template. The reason I asked what the 'no?' meant and also what 'possible future games' meant is because that certain reply was unclear. As for him telling me no I said something along the lines of "thanks, since you have template editing permissions can you put 'don't add sale to _________ pending' to the template page" to which his reply was confusing so your wrong with that. As for the House of Fraser thing you put on you could have saod 'this is an example why we have to wait until buyouts happen' instead of just saying it has collapsed.

I can also say that the issue has been resolved, one of the reasons I went over to Template talk:Infobox company was to double check if the thing I was constantly adding was OK to be added thats I went there in the first place. Pepper Gaming (talk) 11:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

December 2018
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Sky (company), it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Companies House still lists the company as Sky plc. ViperSnake151   Talk  19:47, 9 December 2018 (UTC)


 * , other than companies house, where else does it say that sky is a plc? Also, how can sky still be a plc when it is now delisted from LSE and 100% owned by comcast? The reason why I removed plc was because we know it is no longer public but we don't know anythng about it's new legal name yet. Thanks for your understanding. Pepper Gaming (talk) 23:08, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

21st Century Fox & Fox (company) pages
Pepper Gaming, visit my talk page section of the same name to express your opinion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.165.180.110 (talk) 15:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Millionaire
Hi, I'm not sure YouTube can be used as a reference (see WP:YTREF) Fort esc (talk) 02:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi there, The video is the documentry that someone managed to get somehow and thats why I left the link and tbh in this case I guess it counts as a refrence because it's the documentry itself thst people may not be able to find. Thanks for your undertanding. Pepper Gaming (talk) 02:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

MSEP
Why do you keep removing all of my work? you have no reason to undo information that I put in with sources. -Zach Janisch


 * Hi there, first of all there were no sources that were cited, and second of all most of the information you posted there was irrelevent and had no need to be mentioned anyway Pepper Gaming (talk) 20:48, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I Placed a source at the end of an interview with Don Dorsey, where he goes into detail of all of the things i mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zach Janisch (talk • contribs) 13:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I still don't think there was any need to mention all that extra redundant info anyway when the info about the announcements that is already there is enough. Pepper Gaming (talk) 20:48, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Main Street Electrical Parade
Hi PepperGaming, It looks like you reverted two edits that I made to Main Street Electrical Parade today, adding sources: this edit added Jim Korkis' Secret Stories of Extinct Disneyland, and this edit added Chris Strodder's The Disneyland Encyclopedia. Since the article has a tag asking for additional sources for verification, I'm assuming that you did this accidentally in an edit conflict. :) Do you have any objection to me adding those sources back into the article? -- Toughpigs (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi ther,I have no objection, althouh the edits that I was reverting were so done that I could revert edits made by which included changing the photo back to the outdated DCA/ Magic Kingdom photo and rv'ing other unsourced edits made by said user Thanks Pepper Gaming (talk) 00:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Bob Chapek
I reverted your revert here because this isn't a section for Disney CEOs. It's a section of Disney history grouped by major eras or leadership. That's why the sections use "Leadership" not "CEO". Disney is still under Iger's leadership regardless of the title. Chapek reports to Iger, not the other way round. So, until Chapek is the one at the top calling all the shots, it's still Iger's leadership. Hope that makes sense. — Starforce13  06:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I still feel there should be STILL a Chapek era mentioned which is NOT merged with Igers leadership. I believe anything regarding Chapek being handed the CEO title SHOULD NOT be mentioned under Igers leadership since they're two separate people. If I were you, I would cobsult the Talk Page to agree a consensus before adding it back again. Pepper Gaming (talk) 12:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) The transition paragraphs can go on either the previous or the next section. 2) Chapek being handed over CEO doesn't mean he's now the leader. Like I said, this isn't about who is the CEO. The existing consensus is that they're grouped by historical/leadership eras, not list of CEOs. A lot of leaders don't even get their own section. You will see a lot of them are grouped together. You don't just give a section just because someone is a CEO. They'd need to have enough content on their own, not just the transition line. — Starforce13  14:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I still see no reason why everything regarding Chapek as CEO should be under Iger's section. Please take it to the talk page and discuss this with other editors because I'll just be in favour of both sections being seperate. Pepper Gaming (talk) 14:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There is nothing about Chapek as a CEO yet besides the transition paragraph. These have nothing to with CEOs. This is a "History" section about the company leadership. That's the existing consensus. If you want to change that consensus and make it about CEOs, instead of history/leadership, then that's up to you to request a consensus change in the talk page. — Starforce13  14:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

If Iger was still CEO and Chapek was a COO AI'd agree with you, also why is it up to me to request that consensus change? And where has this consensus been discussed before? Pepper Gaming (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * 1) "Leadership" doesn't mean "CEO," it means the person(s) leading the company. Chapek is not leading the company, he never has. He still answers to Iger. This is simple English, I don't know why were even arguing. Whether the top boss is called "CEO", "President", "Manager", "Commander", "Executive Chairman" etc... doesn't matter.
 * 2) If you understand WP:CONSENSUS, then you would know that the established status quo is always the default consensus with or without an actual discussion. This is a section about the company's "History" and "Leadership", not company's "CEOs"... as you can see from the section titles. It's been that way for over a decade. So, that's the existing consensus. If you want to change this from being about the company's history and leadership to being about the company's CEOs, then you'd be change the status quo/consensus. That's why you would be the one who needs to request a consensus change. —  Starforce13  14:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

if it's a section about the history & leadership of the company why is each section of it's history under every company CEO? Also, I've always thought that WP:CONSENSUS was reached through discussions and not default without discussions Pepper Gaming (talk) 14:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you mean, the existing sections are for CEOs, not historical/leadership eras? Here are the current sections. Do they look like a list of CEOs to you?
 * 1923–1928: Founding and silent film era
 * 1928–1934: Mickey Mouse and Silly Symphonies
 * 1934–1950: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, World War II, and package films
 * 1950–1966: Television, Disneyland, and Walt Disney's death
 * 1966–1984: Roy O. Disney's leadership and death, Walt Disney World, Tatum, Walker, and Miller's leaderships, and theatrical malaise
 * 1984–2005: Michael Eisner's leadership, Disney Renaissance, and "Save Disney" campaign
 * 2005–present: Bob Iger's leadership and company expansion
 * As you can see, Eisner and Iger are the only CEOs with their own dedicated sections but that's because a lot of history happened during their time. And the only reason they're listed is because they were the top leaders in the company, not because they had the "CEO" title. If Iger was reporting to someone above him, then it would be that other person's leadership regardless of their title.
 * As for consensus, see WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS which explains that undisputed edits become the new consensus. And since for over a decade, the structure here has been to group them by historical eras and leadership not just based on "CEO" titles, that's more than a simple edit consensus. — Starforce13  15:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

You've still not changed my mind about this. They're still two seperate people within the company and so they should be two seperate eras. I believe at the very least there should be a new section with the title mentioning that It's a transition period between Iger and Chapek. Pepper Gaming (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't need to convince you on anything, it's just basic English and common sense. The company is still under Iger's leadership, so, the latest section should be Iger's leadership. Once Chapek takes over leadership and has enough WP:NOTABLE content, then we'll have a section for him. It doesn't matter if they're two different people. This isn't a section about people, it's a section about the company's history. So, you can't have parallel histories. That's just basic logic. If you don't understand what "History" or "Leadership" means, please look it up. —  Starforce13  17:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd either mention the stuff regarding Chapek in another sub-section of the history section (with a possible title saying "2020  Transition between Iger and Chapek"), in the lead or not to be mentioned at all. I don't think it fits under Iger's leadership. Pepper Gaming (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's still part of Iger's leadership because it mentions the major things that happened while Iger was in charge. Also, the sentence about Chapek literally talks about Iger's new title. So, no matter how you look at it, the sentence fits in Iger's section.— Starforce13  19:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If it's still part of Igers leadership so I've made the Iger leadership section into two parts, unless you can find a better middle ground it's the best solution. Pepper Gaming (talk) 14:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This is about major historical eras, not about who is the CEO. It's a "History" section. There's a separate section for management. You shouldn't make the changes before a new consensus is reached. Otherwise, that's just disruptive editing. —  Starforce13  14:24, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks like someone else has reverted you as expected. If you continue insisting on the changes, you're just edit warring. — Starforce13  14:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

The College of Arms has confirmed that Charles is now the Duke of Edinburgh
See https://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/news-grants/news/item/187-hrh-the-duke-of-edinburgh :
 * These peerages are hereditary and on the death of His Royal Highness have passed to his eldest son, HRH The Prince of Wales. In the event of the Prince of Wales or any subsequent holder of these titles succeeding to the Crown, these titles and all others held will merge with the Crown.

-- Marnanel (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I would wait until a more Official Announcement comes out. Pepper Gaming (talk) 17:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Feel free to wait, but please leave the article alone in the meantime. This is as official as it needs to be: royal genealogy is part of why the College of Arms exists. Marnanel (talk) 17:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, the creation of the dukedom specifies that on Philip's death, the dukedom goes to his son. Changing this would take an act of parliament; official announcements are only acknowledging the current law. Marnanel (talk) 17:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * It could be Prince Edward or Prince Andrew for all we know. That's why I think it's best to leave it as Vacant until Further Notice.Pepper Gaming (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * PS. Here's an Article that says it could be inherited by Edward https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/prince-philip-duke-edinburgh-title-20353285. Pepper Gaming (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Did you read the article? It explicitly says "not until after the death of the Queen" and "a title held by someone who becomes monarch is said to merge with the Crown and ceases to exist, so can be recreated for someone else." The "someone" is Charles. Marnanel (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * It's definitely Charles. Titles go to the eldest son. This is the law. This is not in doubt. Marnanel (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I'd still wait until an official Announcement. Until then, It should be "Vacant" Pepper Gaming (talk) 18:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Unless we hear otherwise, which we won't, we can write what the law actually says. Marnanel (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Well if thats the case then you should Edit Charles' Wikipedia page and add that he's now the Duke of Edinburgh. Pepper Gaming (talk) 20:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)