MBRZ48

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, MBRZ48, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Mais oui! 09:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, MBRZ48, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Merovingian (T, C, @) 03:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Law enforcement

Hi. I notice you've been contributing to policing related articles. If you're interested, check out WikiProject Law Enforcement. New members are always welcome to contribute what they can in helping improve the body of articles within the scope of the project. Cheers, Bobanny 07:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Fire service articles

Hello, I welcome your contributions to the various fire service articles a few of which I have started. I'm grateful for any cited input on the legislation in NI and Scotland, but can I respectfully ask that you take care with headings and opening sections of articles which are often the subject of much debate on talk pages. In your change to fire service in the United Kingdom, you changed fire service to fire services, but the article is not just about fire services, it deals with a concept. Please try to bear in mind that a minor change can make a substantial difference to the way an article reads. Regards. Escaper2007 11:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the legislation that applies to FRS in Scotland: [1] not the FSA 1947. Escaper2007

The sections of the FSA 1947 which concern pensions are still in force in Scotland. The effect of the repeals in FRSA 2004 was in Scotland limited by s.63 of that Act and unlike in England did not repeal the whole Act.

I've added the entire act as a footnote, it took a bit of finding and when I did, I discovered that it never did apply to NI, so I've now re-written and re worked some of your edits. Escaper2007 14:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Devolution

Many thanks for this edit!

I am often amazed by how facile and vague Wikipedia articles can be regarding the division of powers in the UK. The fact that health, transport, culture, sport, law and order (Scot only), rural issues, education, planning etc, etc, etc are devolved is often unclear, or even not mentioned at all.

And many people seem to be under the misapprehension that seperate administration in NI, Scot and Wales is some kind of new invention. As you are obviously aware from your edit, it long predates '97. Keep clarifying! --Mais oui! 18:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Noticed you added a comment about James Stuart of Lynchork. My wife is one of his descendants and I wondered if you have anymore information on him than that you have put on wikipedia. Fitaloon 12:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Watford DC Line

Hi, I was just reading your latest edit, and wondered what you meant about circuit breakers not clearing faults. Please can you explain?

A circuit breaker merely disconnects the power supply while the fault exists. It is usually still necessary for someone to detect and remove whatever has caused the fault although on some occasions (e.g. wind-blown metallic rubbish) the fault might no longer be in place when the circuit-breaker is reset.

Also, if the 4th rail is not required for trains, and is not required for ensuring a low resistance path to ensure that the protection equipment at the substation operates to clear faults, then why is the 4th rail still retained? If you looked at the arrangement, you would notice that it is bonded to the traction return rail at regular intervals.

The line was originally built with 4-rail electrification, thus the "natural" arrangement is for power to be connected to the conductor rails. Conversion to 3-rail in the 1970s produced a "hybrid" arrangement with both the 4th rail and one running rail carrying traction current (i.e. the bonding arrangements are different from LU where traction current must not reach running rails under normal conditions). My recollection is that the 1970s bonding arrangements still assumed the 4th rail as the main conductor and conversion to "proper" 3rd rail would have been needed if the 4th rail had been removed anywhere, thus it was easier/cheaper north of Harrow to just drop the otherwise-surplus 4th rail onto the sleepers. Where track has since been relaid it is possible that normal 3-rail traction-current connections (i.e. normal/primary traction bonds on the relevant running rail with occasional secondary bonds to the 4th rail) have been made and the 4th-rail is the "extra" conductor bonded to the running rail (the DC line has never been "standard" since the day it opened). A visual survey might be necessary to determine exactly what now exists at various locations. Other factors to consider are 1)in the 1960s the electrical system coped with about 25-30 tph on the busiest section and 2) the current signalling system does not permit anywhere near that number of trains to operate thus the present power demands are significantly less. The lower resistance return path is basically an unintentional consequence rather than a design requirement.

One more request, please can you provide a source for your information.

Local (amateur) knowledge and past issues of "Underground" (journal of the London Underground Railway Society).

Olana North (talk) 05:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

--MBRZ48 (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Jurisdiction

It is an entirely appropriate term. From Wikipedia: "Territorial - Authority confined to a bounded space, including all those present therein, and events which occur there". NI is outside GB and is beyond the "bounded space". --MJB (talk) 23:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

NHS Direct Wales

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of NHS Direct Wales, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: NHS Direct. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 03:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Sexual Offences Act 2003

I've adjusted your amendment to this article, as the references to extent were not quite accurate. Section 142(4) provides that "Unless otherwise provided, any amendment, repeal or revocation made by this Act has the same extent as the provision to which it relates.", so the repeal of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 had the same extent as the 1997 Act (ie including Scotland for most provisions), there being no provision otherwise. These extent provisions can be a nightmare to try to follow. As someone has already commented on this page, keep up your efforts to correct jurisdictional errors and assumptions that the UK is a single entity.--George Burgess (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd re-read s.142 before your message was flagged up and s.142(4) did start to look like it had the effect which you now confirm. Some post-2003 Parliamentary material doesn't help by describing the 1997 Act as "re-enacted" rather than e.g. "carried into the 2003 Act".--MBRZ48 (talk) 00:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually "re-enactment" is the correct technical term - see for example section 17 of the Interpretation Act 1978 [2] which deals with repeal and re-enactment. Might have been clearer to say that the 1997 Act was repealed and re-enacted. Of course Parliament and Government don't always get it right - I'm currently dealing with cases where the re-enactment was done but the repeal omitted, leaving a mess!--George Burgess (talk) 07:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

NHS Direct & NHS Direct Wales

Hi. I assume from your "12 hours?!" comment that you are questioning my reversal of Coren's article move. As I stated at User talk:Coren, "I would recommend restoring the article to NHS Direct as that one should remain in place despite whatever happens to the Welsh article." I have not questioned the need for a Welsh article, but simply Coren's creating a redirect at NHS Direct that points to NHS Direct Wales. I don't see a problem with the reverse move, unless you are suggesting that we shouldn't have an article at NHS Direct but instead have a combined English and Welsh article at NHS Direct Wales?
If you wish to create a new article at NHS Direct Wales then that is up to you and the consensus of editors. Road Wizard (talk) 00:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we're roughly in agreement then. Even WRT England the NHS Direct article looks outdated and is certainly outdated WRT Wales. There is an increasing likelihood of the current single article describing non-trivial matters which might no longer apply in Wales or others which might be continuing in Wales but not in England (and vice versa). A new "split" will possibly cause less bother if an NHS Wales article is a new creation rather than an appropriately-modified cut and paste.--MBRZ48 (talk) 15:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

NHS

Why did you remove the Manx NHS? Its reciprocal arrangement with the other four might involve the DoH

Man is not part of the UK so the arrangement is made with the UK government (according to http://www.edms.org.uk/edms/2009-2010/708.htm it is made with the "Justice Secretary, who has responsibility for the bilateral and constitutional relationships between the United Kingdom and Crown Dependencies") not with the health systems collectively or individually; the UK's health systems in turn have the consequent obligations imposed on them. Thus the appropriate main article to carry it might be the Department of Health (United Kingdom) rather than the National Health Service article which has more or less become a basic gateway to the four individual health systems in the UK; while the Justice Secretary has made the agreement the actual implementation in my understanding is down to the Department of Health as relevant Statutary Instruments for e.g. charging of non-residents seem to be issued by the SoS for Health.

(and may even change over time) but that wasn't the primary reason for its inclusion - it's still a National Health Service of a country in the British Isles and common Travel Area,

The Irish Republic is also in the Common Travel Area and in the British Isles.

using the same logo and branding as three of the home countries

No two national health systems in the UK share logos or brandings, one (Northern Ireland) does not seem to use the terms NHS/National Health Service at all. Where the "English" NHS logo is used outwith England it will (barring errors) be for an authority (e.g. UK Blood and Transplant) which has exceptional cross-border functions (for UKBT all-UK responsibility for organ transplant but not for blood services which it deals with only in England; Scotland has a body with similar cross-border functions in the form of the State Hospitals Board which also has routine responsibility for patients from Northern Ireland).

(and in fact identical to England's)

The Manx Department of Health general symbol (http://www.gov.im/lib/images/dhss/health/healthlogo.jpg) is three open hands (usually green) arranged around the centre of a triangle, imitative of the traditional triskelion.

and providing a similar service to the four home country Services. I believe the information is worth inclusion, even to provide disambiguation, and would value a debate.

I would suggest it sits better with information regarding reciprocal arrangements with EU countries which are also a matter of negotiation and with some lack of permanence (i.e. those matters which go beyond the non-negotiable minimum service which must be provided to the citizens of another EU country) and other places outwith the UK.

By the way I'm not Manx and have no axe to grind on this issue Zagubov (talk) 21:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC) --MBRZ48 (talk) 00:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply - I apologise for my goof that the logo was the same as the English one.

I was hoping to be comprehensive and avoid needing separate articles for the NHS and UK systems, or a disambiguation page for NHS (UK) or NHS (Isle of Man). If Ireland had a system called the NHS that would need to be dealt with as well.

There has never been a UK health system (one of the reasons that there is no longer a single NHS article), Scottish health matters became the responsiblity of the Scottish Office in the 19th century and now continue under the Scottish Government; similarly, the Northern Irish system has always been separate.

Both the UK and the Isle of Man are English-speaking countries in the British Isles and I don't see much reason to mention either in the other's articles, but this looks like a rare exception.

Man is not in the UK so the relationships between the health systems are not set by the health systems but by the relevant governments' health departments.

If a British (UK) or a British (Manx) person looked up NHS in the wikipedia they'll be looking for different things.

An English-speaking person in Africa or in India looking up "elephant" could well be looking for different animals, (and if an English -speaking person from somewhere else was looking it up, who knows what species they're looking for) - and that article deals with it quite well.

I'm merely proposing we be as thorough and non-nationalistic as to not confine the term to the UK only - it's an international encyclopedia. By mentioning the wider use of the term NHS in the British Isles we're covering more information without I hope misinforming anybody. Happy to discuss Zagubov (talk) 21:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The NHS disambiguation page explains that there are four health systems in the UK and is also there to route users to any others; the interworking of services within the UK is dealt with in the National Health Service article. Moving on to the matter of interworking with non-UK services there does seem to be a gap in the market asking for a distinct article which could be something like e.g. "United Kingdom health services for non-residents" (change the country name as appropriate for other places) as there are various combinations of treatment type and patient origin which ought to provide enough material to maintain an independent article.

--MBRZ48 (talk) 06:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

That makes more sense to me now and I think the article is now clear enough - I'll leave well alone. Thanks for your patience. Zagubov (talk) 14:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987

Could you please ensure to reference your articles? Regards, Ironholds (talk) 20:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Sugar soap

Please see reference and comment here: [3]. --VanBurenen (talk) 09:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Fire-raising

Many thanks for this edit. We are sorely in need of more editors with a grounding in Scots law. I wonder if you'd be able to draft a referenced, introductory Stub- or Start-class article on the topic of the Scottish "arson-like" criminal offences, perhaps located at Fire-raising? (currently a one-edit Redirect created, probably unwisely, way back in 2005)

Further, have you read the Scots law article and associated sub-articles (family law, administrative law etc)? A well-informed copy editor would be worth their weight in gold on this crucial and until recently largely ignored set of articles. --Mais oui! (talk) 01:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Ho ho. This'll teach me to look at a User's contributions before opening gob!  ;)

I'll point the Fire-raising redirect in its direction.--Mais oui! (talk) 01:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of changing that to a disambiguation page so that I can also give a link to Pyromania. I think you might have caught me while I was creating the Wilful Fire Raising page but before I saved it. IANAL but I seem to be able to find where the Scottish Law Commission hides things ;-).--MBRZ48 (talk) 02:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Great! I'm logging off for now. Happy editing! --Mais oui! (talk) 02:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Scots law

Hi MBRZ48, Thanks for your recent addition to Scots law. Could you add a citation for those two statements, otherwise the addition becomes just a personal oppinion? Pyrotec (talk) 12:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

July 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to National Health Service may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Trusts generate 0.6% of core revenues this way, much less in the rest of the UK.<ref name=harker>{{cite web | url=http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn00724.pdf| title=NHS funding</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Changes to National Health Service

Hi there. Are you able to add citations for your changes to the NHS article? You have changed the named of the NI act in a way that does not appear to be supported by the evidence. Also, which powers in relation to NHS Scotland and NHS Wales (as opposed to wider Health policy in those countries) are reserved? Thanks Thom2002 (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Looking quickly at the Scotland Act 1998, reserved matters include (Schedule 5) regulation of health professionals, prices of medicines (distinct from prescription charges), xenotransplant, abortion, embryology, welfare foods. I had been under the impression that transplantation in general was reserved but this appears to be a shared function rather than a reserved one. Some other matters might be indirectly affected by reservation in consequence of treading into territory other than "health". Re the 1948 NI Act, this is the name (aka 1948 c.3) listed in various official references and in later legislation. If you think the particular Act is wrong, there is IMU occasionally a difficulty in specifying which of a group of associated Acts gets the credit for the creation of each health service.--MBRZ48 (talk) 22:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

PS I've just noticed the difference in the position of the word "Act" compared with official descriptions.--MBRZ48 (talk) 22:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)--MBRZ48 (talk) 22:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring the correct name of the Act - this distingushes NI legislation made in NI from legislation made for NI from Westminster. I think you are confusing health policy with the operation of a health system. NHS Scotland operates under its own management in every respect. DOH hold some residual policy interest, but that does not comprimise the operational independence of NHS Scotland from any other NHS. I believe you have introduced incorrect caveats. For example, Carstairs Mental Health Hospital is part of NHS Scotland, it is managed by NHS Scotland and is not managed in any way by Health and Social Care Northern Ireland. The integration is again at the political, not the operational management level. The four organisations are operationally independent Thom2002 (talk) 07:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The state hospital is a bit of an oddity. The current arrangement results in it serving Northern Ireland which does not have its own domestic state hospital thus it is consequentially also at least as much part of the NI health system (you don't need to be a criminal to be in there) as e.g. various commercially-owned/run services are part of the English system. --MBRZ48 (talk) 02:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Having now dug up "The Transfer of Mentally Disordered Patients - Guidance on the transfer of mentally disordered patients detained under the Mental Health (NI) Order 1986 to and from Hospitals in Great Britain - August 2011" (issuing NI government department not specified) we seem to have an instance of one health system made dependent on two others due to a lack of relevant domestic provision. As Carstairs has no direct NI input on its management board that kills the idea of joint management but not joint use although not as deliberate "sharing". It seems to merit mention somewhere, certainly in the appropriate articles for NIR and SCT but possibly also briefly in this article to avoid being recognised as an intentionally shared resource.

Disambiguation link notification for October 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited National Rail, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Intellectual Property Office. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Watford DC Line, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CrossRail. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Neasden Power Station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page London Transport. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, MBRZ48. 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)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, MBRZ48. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, MBRZ48. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 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 Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)