User talk:Wikmoz

nCoV labelling
Hi. You may like to comment on my removal of the labels 2002-nCoV, 2005-nCoV and 2012-nCoV, which don't appear to be in actual use, at Talk:Novel_coronavirus. - Onanoff (talk) 10:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

2019-nCoV naming clarification
Hello Wikmoz, my name is Rebestalic

I noticed that you reverted my edit regarding names at Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2; specifically, I believe 'Wuhan Coronavirus' should be regarded as an alternate name for this virus

Would you believe so too? If not, I'm very happy to discuss

I'll change it back for the moment, though

Thank you, Rebestalic [dubious—discuss]  23:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Rebestalic: Thanks for reaching out! No strong opinion and happy to leave it as you have it. Definitely worth including for the historical account but not sure it's worth bolding per MOS:BOLD. Bolding is usually reserved for the first mention of the offical name (and current alternate names in common use) in the lead. "Wuhan coronavirus" seems outdated and particularly informal in the context of a medical topic about the virus strain. However, I could definitely be wrong. - Wikmoz (talk) 00:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * You're welcome, Wikmoz! I think you're right haha, much more so than wrong. I shall revert my change--enjoy your day!  Rebestalic  [dubious—discuss]  00:34, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * P.S. That was a very very fast reply 😂

Best compromise to COVID-19 lead
Hi there. I note your interest in the COVID-19 lead and the issues surrounding the current edit. Please let’s clear this thing up once and for all, and reach a quick consensus if possible. I’ve included below a link for you to vote on a best compromise. Current edit as it stands is quite misleading and more damaging the longer it is up given that people will read it and freely socialise thinking that as long as nobody coughs at them then they’re all good.

This is a compromise between leaving out the ‘primarily’ which therefore mentions coughing as though it’s the only way droplets are formed (per current misleading edit), and the other side which is actually mentioning exhaling and sneezing. This way, the primary method is stated, no secondary methods stated, and the reader knows that other forms of droplet production are possible.

Please vote using the link below, thanks in advance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic#Compromise_of_all_positions

Magna19 (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

So we're clear
I'm not a proponent of letting most people get sick and hoping most of those come out stronger. Just saying the idea was floated by a specific person with a specific number for a specific population. Vagueness is the real invisible enemy. I hope for a vaccine as strongly as I doubt it. If I were to promote any strategy, it'd be 21 days alone for everyone, no excuses, no hospital admissions. Virus dies off, some humans die, everyone has a normal May. Could cure the formerly-common cold, too. Hard to get eight billion people to understand simultaneously and continuously, though. Maybe a worldwide three-week telethon featuring literally everyone's favourite celebrity co-hosts and performers via webcam? Anyway, no ulterior motive, just clarity and wonder. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:26, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the note. I was not suggesting you were proponent of the approach. Just that we should try to add some context around Vallance's idea. Hahahaha. I do like your three-week global telethon idea. :) - Wikmoz (talk) 06:38, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't mind context, if it's not overtly editorial. No prefacing the favoured view with "However...", "But in fact..." or whatever. If the second expert is directly rebutting the first, then it can be framed competitively. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Trump's Rose Garden speech
Hi Wikmoz. If you want to include his opening statements of his speech, or other things, in Donald Trump photo-op at St. John's Church can you get reliable secondary sources that highlight those particular quotes? We can't rely on the primary source of the transcript because then any editor can include any sentence, or indeed every sentence from the transcript. For example, I could choose to include, but is this really important? We need sources who highlight a specific quote as important or notable, then we can highlight it too (but please don't get sources which provide the full transcript either).  starship .paint  (talk) 02:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The speech is primary material but also the object of analysis so I wouldn't classify the transcript as we would a White House press statement describing the speech. Per WP:TRANSCRIPTION, I reviewed the replay alongside the transcript and included the most relevant content. For example, the full "As we speak..." sentence that I added was from the transcript, not the AP article. Videos of the speech are included in the referred matierals but I've added a CSPAN link which pairs up each paragraph with a video clip. I've also trimmed down the text a bit but I think we need to recognize that the speech did acknowledge the Floyd family. If the notion of whether or not Trump knew about the curfew was in debate then yes, it would be worth presenting that fact regardless of whether the specific quoted appeared in a secondary source per WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. - Wikmoz (talk)


 * Wikmoz, you've missed my point. I'm not doubting that Trump said what he said. I'm asking you, how do we know that this particular part important? If it's important, reliable secondary sources will cover it. It should not be up to you to decide the most relevant content before a reliable secondary source does so.  starship  .paint  (talk) 04:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The solution is for you to find reliable secondary sources that highlight:, and find reliable secondary sources that highlight: . Not the White House press statement or C-SPAN.  starship .paint  (talk) 04:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


 * That is not my understanding of Wikipedia policy. Again, per WP:TRANSCRIPTION and WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD, "Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources." - Wikmoz (talk) 04:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikmoz. I am not saying primary is bad. I am saying, are those quotes WP:DUE? What is the prominence of those quote in the published, reliable sources?  starship .paint  (talk) 04:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * We may just have different interpretations of WP:DUE as well. From my read, it focuses on neutrality and appropriately balancing conflicting viewpoints. I disagree that it means every sentence on Wikipedia needs to be paired with a secondary source. If you are concerned about the article's length and whether or not the sentence is burdensome to the reader, you are welcome to raise your concern on the talk page. I'll wait for an independent editor to address the verification flags. - Wikmoz (talk) 05:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You identified 40+ words in his 800+ words speech as important, that's why you quoted them. So back yourself up with secondary sources that also identify these particular 40+ words as important. Right now you have no sources doing so.  starship .paint  (talk) 05:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the material. The WP:ONUS is on you to achieve consensus for inclusion. I will be clear, if your sources are (1) secondary and (2) reliable (green on WP:RSP), and if the material is supported by these sources, I will not object. With the exception of full transcripts or C-SPAN recordings, I will object.  starship .paint  (talk) 05:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I walk the talk, here you see me citing reliable secondary sources to material in the same article that was mostly primary sourced. You just have to do the same, and I'll support.  starship .paint  (talk) 06:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


 * We'll have to agree to disagree on Wikipedia editing standards and policy enforcement methods. I did my best to walk the talk here. I'll leave your edits as they stand and defer to other editors to expand the section as appropriate. Regarding your other edits, I think Trump's closing remarks read better in first person. It's a little awkward to read "[his]" in that sentence when it's easily avoidable. Also, for historical accuracy, we should provide the context that the strongly armed military personnel to which trump is referring in the sentence regarding immediate D.C. enforcement were National Guard troops. Not sure where you're located but it's getting late here. Have a great night! - Wikmoz (talk) 06:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I've reinserted the first person. I am trying to find a source for the National Guard troops. Good night, it's not night here.  starship .paint  (talk) 06:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick edit! I made a minor edit to get the subject "I" into the quote. Also left in the CSPAN link for readers interested in seeing more of the speech. - Wikmoz (talk) 07:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The sources    do not clarify that "thousands and thousands" are National Guard. If you can find a reliable source tomorrow, I will not object.  starship  .paint  (talk) 06:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks again! All of the sources you provided note that the "heavily armed soldiers" and "military personnel" being deployed in D.C. were National Guard troops. I haven't seen any source indicate that there were any active duty troops deployed. It's an important distinction as the latter would be illegal and is the subject of the debate between Esper and Trump. Without this context in this section, it's reasonable that a reader could infer active duty military were involved. Off to bed for real this time. :) Have a great night. - Wikmoz (talk) 07:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You'll see this tomorrow - it's a bit further than the source. Yes, there were present AP, they were specifically  - ABC. The Justice Department also says they were working with the D.C. National Guard. CBS. The specific problem is that the sources don't say Trump was referring to the D.C. National Guard, we are missing that connection.  starship  .paint  (talk) 07:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 *  starship .paint  (talk) 07:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Tenryuu, Thanks so much! It was great collaborating with you. I was actually planning to send a barnstar to you and one other user last week but got lost in the long list of badge options. I will make it a plan to select one this weekend and send it your way. - Wikmoz (talk) 05:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020
On the redirect 2019-2020 outbreak, you changed the redirect, and it has been reverted by an anonymous user. 2019-2020 outbreak redirecting to COVID-19 pandemic was the result of this RFD. If you think that the redirect should be retargeted, you will need to start a new one. Thank you, Seventyfiveyears at 02:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't see the RFD. Thank you for clarifying. I've opened a new RFD as suggested. - Wikmoz (talk) 01:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Would appreciate an extra pair of eyes at COVID-19 pandemic in Canada
Hey Wikmoz, hope you've been doing well. The PEIS limit at COVID-19 pandemic in Canada has been breached, and a discussion has been started on the talk page (analysis. I the "Statistics" section to see if that would fix the problem, but nothing happened. Right now COVID-19 pandemic data/Canada medical cases chart, but another editor suggested that we try retaining that on the page if possible. If it's not too much trouble, could you see anything if there's something I'm missing or a possible alternative solution to removing the aforementioned template? — Tenryuu 🐲  ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 05:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Once again, thanks for helping resolve the PEIS issue over at COVID-19 pandemic in Canada.

— Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 23:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC) 


 * Haha! Glad the fix worked. Always happy to help where I can! - Wikmoz (talk) 03:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Interview request
Hello, Wikmoz!

My name is Daniel, and I’m a senior at Harvard University currently writing an undergraduate thesis about Wikipedia. I’m particularly interested in how the Wikipedia community decides what facts are relevant and/or notable enough to warrant inclusion on a particular article — especially in regards to articles on contentious topics.

I noticed that you’ve been quite active editing the “COVID-19 pandemic” article over the past few months. So, would you mind if I send you a few questions (via email or right here) about your work editing that article, and the approach that you take? I’d really love to hear from you.

Thanks so much! --Dalorleon (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Just checking in again, Wikmoz! I'd love to ask you some questions about your editing work for Wikipedia. Let me know if you're available. If not, no worries! --Dalorleon (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Dalorleon, sorry for the delay. This sounds like a fantastic and important thesis. I'd be happy to answer your questions. I just emailed you. - Wikmoz (talk) 05:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

You're invited! Coronavirus in New York City: Translate-A-Thon - ONLINE - February 6th, 2021 -
--Wil540 art (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Removing other users' edits
Your recent edit removed the changes I made to the template COVID-19 vaccination data earlier (separating the world from sorting similar to that of COVID-19 pandemic data). Was there a valid reason for that? Content removal is OK but should be described in the edit summary. Since you didn't state a reason, I restored the changes I made earlier. In the future, please specify the reason if you go and remove other users' edits. For further information, see Content removal. Zarex (talk) 23:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for updating the template! I'm sorry for stepping on your edit. I set up the template so that it could be easily updated using an Excel formula. I just copy and paste the full table results without looking, thus the comment only noted the data refresh. I'll take a look at your edits and try to incorporate into the Excel formula for future automated updates. - Wikmoz (talk) 03:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 vaccination data
Hi. In this template, is there a way to allow other people to manually add sources so that they do not need to go to the GitHub page? LSGH (talk) (contributions) 01:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * LSGH, yes and no. For all of the countries covered by Our World in Data, numbers are sourced from their GitHub repository. This data is updated daily. The process overwrites any prior edits. Users can add additional countries not yet listed by OWID to the bottom of the table. You'll see that Vatican City and some COFA nations were added there. This section is separated in the code so it's not overwritten by the daily refresh. By default, these entries appear at the bottom but integrate into the table when a viewer changes the table column sort. - Wikmoz (talk) 04:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Suppose a country is already covered by OWID, do others need to wait for OWID to update the source? What if they are able to find another reliable source before OWID can? LSGH (talk) (contributions) 01:27, 13 March 2021 (UTC)


 * OWID generally updates their data daily from the most reliable source in each country. I'm not sure there's much benefit to updating more frequently, especially if that means complicating the automated update process. Some users add a mid-day update for individual countries using the same source as OWID. No downside to doing this. If there's a more reliable source for a specific country, the best thing would be to suggest that source to OWID on GitHub. They're very responsive to suggestions. - Wikmoz (talk) 03:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you!
The browser I'm using is a bit old so hopefully this makes sense. Thank you for replying to my inquiry about "No data" for U.S. recoveries for Covid on the talk page. I've used Wikipedia on and off for years but know little about editing. Thanks for directing me to where I can discuss that table more directly. If I knew how I'd give you a "cookie" (Is there such a thing as acookie like a barnstar or what have you, like a thank you? can't remember what you call those.) anyway, thank you! 63.248.183.81 (talk) 09:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Birth certificates
Sorry I came late to the discussion, I have been very ill. Has this been resolved? Please reply to me at Commons or ping ! Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 13:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Ellin Beltz, So sorry to hear that! I hope you feel better soon. Yes, I edited a number of images in Birth certificates and an admin hid the old versions. Discussion archived here. Wishing you well! - Wikmoz (talk) 00:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 pandemic data
It turns out that you are correct. I already agree that OWID can be used as a source for both this template and this template. The first template is already being updated by TolBot, but the second template is still being updated manually. Because the number of editors who still continue to edit the template is already decreasing, I feel that there is more need to implement automated updates as soon as possible. There is visible progress here, here, and here, but I do not know yet if and when implementation can proceed. What do you think? LSGH (talk) (contributions) 15:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Very cool to see some progress is being made to prepare an automated solution. It's been a while since I've edited these templates. I'm not sure how OWID data differs from Johns Hopkins, which is already used here. I'd sugest starting a thread on Template talk:COVID-19 pandemic data outlining the proposed change and ping TolBot, Sdkb, and Phoenix7777 for comment there. If you go that route, create a pointer to that discussion on the talk pages for COVID-19 pandemic and COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory to improve visibility. - Wikmoz (talk) 04:27, 15 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks. In my opinion, both OWID and JHU are reliable sources, while Worldometers and the like are not reliable sources. I remember that Phoenix7777 told me a few weeks ago that consensus need to be gained before the new table can replace the current table. Two months ago, this discussion had a positive outcome and there was no opposition to the proposed changes. I'll try to come up with some supporting arguments so that editors can be convinced. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 16:10, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Close call
Someone alerted me to a bug this evening, and I was racing around trying to fix it and was within five or ten minutes of rolling everything back, when I figured out a workaround that fixed their immediate issue, but not the general problem. Basically, someone noticed that the find_sources transclusion in this Afd page was broken, in particular, the transclusion of (a redirect to find sources) failed, searching for the whole term 'Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House Hippo (2nd nomination)' instead of just the last part. The wrapper never handled param title, because I never knew such a param even existed; none of the Talk headers use it and I never saw any other page use it. But apparently Afd did use it, and it was a legal param, so it broke all the Afd pages for titles that had parenthetical disambiguation when we cut over.

Meanwhile, the guy was leaning on me to roll back (see here, and that's a type of Admin Noticeboard, so they weren't going to wait very long and the pressure was high), and I was sweating bullets trying to figure out what was going on, and how to fix it. Lucky for me, the Afd page uses Find sources AFD, a redirect to 'Template Find sources', so when I figured out what was going on, all I had to do was redirect it to Find general sources and that fixed *their* problem. (There were 20 other redirects, and I pointed them all at find general sources, in case some other groups are doing something similar.) But it didn't fix the general case, which is still broken in the wrapper, if anybody did something like, find sources. The fix is to just recognize param title and pass it through to the module, and then it should work fine. Will keep you up to date on progress, and if you have any time to test the new cases (not yet written, just sketched out) tomorrow, that would be great. Mathglot (talk) 05:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Really nice job on the quick workaround! Reading up on this now and will reply to the Template talk:Find sources thread. - Wikmoz (talk) 05:27, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a survey about medical topics on Wikipedia
Dear fellow editor,

I am Piotr Konieczny, a sociologist of new media at Hanyang University (and User:Piotrus on Wikipedia). I would like to better understand Wikipedia's volunteers who edit medical topics, many associated with the WikiProject Medicine, and known to create some of the highest quality content on Wikipedia. I hope that the lessons I can learn from you that I will present to the academic audience will benefit both the WikiProject Medicine (improving your understanding of yourself and helping to promote it and attract new volunteers) and the wider world of medical volunteering and academia. Open access copy of the resulting research will be made available at WikiProject's Medicine upon the completion of the project.

All questions are optional. The survey is divided into 4 parts: 1 - Brief description of yourself; 2 - Questions about your volunteering; 3 - Questions about WikiProject Medicine and 4 - Questions about Wikipedia's coverage of medical topics.

Please note that by filling out this questionnaire, you consent to participate in this research. The survey is anonymous and all personal details relevant to your experience will be kept private and will not be transferred to any third party.

I appreciate your support of this research and thank you in advance for taking the time to participate and share your experiences! If you have any questions at all, please feel free to contact me at my Wikipedia user page or through my email listed on the survey page (or by Wikipedia email this user function).

The survey is accessible through the LINK HERE.

Piotr Konieczny Associate Professor Hanyang University If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:24, 13 December 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) 01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Query: How Can I Stop Other Editors' Vandalism?
Alright then. What is the appropriate procedure for stopping people who're doing harm to the article? I've removed inappropriate text from the lede and left an explanation on the talk page for why that shouldn't be reverted. Ock Raz  talk  17:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


 * PS: If there's an article about a historical event where there are different scenarios in conflict with one another and sources for both accounts, how is it not improper to deem one version correct in the introduction and only later address that there are conflicting accounts? This doesn't even seem like it ought to be a controversial question with regard to the proper format for an encyclopedia article, but in this case it's alleged that it's a violation of 'consensus' to follow normal procedure. It's not even clear to me what is meant here by consensus. I don't see where the matter was previously adjudicated on the article talk page. Is there an assumption that the question is a matter on which there's a public consensus? Ock Raz   talk  17:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * OckRaz, All great questions! And thank you for reaching out. I'm buried in work today but will reply in full tomorrow with some history on the current consensus and suggestions on how to take the current debate forward. - Wikmoz (talk) 03:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)


 * OckRaz, Thank you for your contributions and dedication. Wikipedia has a lot of documentation on editing policies and guidelines. The upside is it covers just about every editing scenario. In the case of editor disagreement, the usual approach is to allow the status quo (WP:STATUSQUO) to stand until there is a consensus to change it. If your edits are being reverted by multiple editors, do not continue making the same edit and instead try to find a resolution on the talk page (WP:DISPUTE).


 * 99% of consensus (WP:CON policy) on Wikipedia is accomplished through editing. There's no explicit debate or discussion. Rather there's an implicit consensus that rises through crowd editing. It's not always the case but the longer a statement appears on Wikipedia without change through numerous edits, the greater the presumed consensus. So that's part of the rationale for WP:STATUSQUO.


 * With respect to the protesters being "peaceful", this is supported by numerous reliable sources (WP:RS) and videos of the protest. In a reversion to one of your edits, I pointed to prior discussions of "peaceful" here and here. If you feel that the word doesn't belong then you need to bring new evidence the proves the status quo is wrong. That evidence needs to be more specific than saying "it is disputed" or there are "conflicting sources". A greater level of detail is needed here. You can also refer to WP:DISPUTE for additional ideas like posting to a notice board to invite more editors to the conversation.


 * I hope this is helpful. I'll try to chime in on the talk page discussion for the actual debate. - Wikmoz (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * With respect, what some are calling consensus and reliable sources seems to me to be what one ought rightly to call merely a dominant narrative. I disagree that there's any need for new or additional evidence in order to remove the word peaceful given that there's sufficient justification for removal in the body of the article's text:
 * U.S. Park Police issued a statement claiming that "at approximately 6:33 p.m., violent protestors on H Street NW began throwing projectiles including bricks, frozen water bottles, and caustic liquids." The claim was disputed by multiple reporters and video taken at the scene.
 * There's no need for anything further. If I understand your position, it's that there's a consensus amongst editors about whom to believe in a factual dispute and who the encyclopedia will implicitly call liars. I don't see how that is the role of a reference work.
 * The appropriate way to deal with this would be to make no claims about whether or not there were violent protesters, and instead note that there is a disagreement and who takes what position. This is just standard and I can't see any good reason why a special exception ought to be made in this instance. Ock Raz   talk  19:54, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * OckRaz... I noted in the talk page discussion that the contrast between the peaceful protesters and violent law enforcement response is central to what made the event notable. You're welcome to continue to debate this or suggest alternate wording on the talk page. You can post the above USPP quote there to see if that shifts the debate. Otherwise, you can check out WP:DISPUTE for other resolution ideas. Try to avoid edit warring on this though because it doesn't accomplish much and will eventually result in ban. - Wikmoz (talk) 01:58, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * re: "the contrast between the peaceful protesters and violent law enforcement response... made the event notable" - That isn't a statement of fact though. That is an opinion. A factual description would be that the event garnered media attention because allegedly peaceful protesters were contrasted with the police use of force to clear the square. We don't know that the protesters were peaceful. That's my point. It's wrong for an encyclopedia article to be written from a point of view that takes for granted that when two sides disagree, that the disliked side is lying.  Ock Raz   talk  03:19, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * PS: I've been editing for well over a decade, but I honestly don't know how much a ban really would matter if "consensus" becomes an excuse for letting mob rule decide what gets counted as the truth. I used to think it worked better than that. Ock Raz   talk  03:23, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * PS: I've been editing for well over a decade, but I honestly don't know how much a ban really would matter if "consensus" becomes an excuse for letting mob rule decide what gets counted as the truth. I used to think it worked better than that. Ock Raz   talk  03:23, 9 April 2023 (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) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)