User talk:Jim Ellis
I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:
For more information click here. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: [[User:Stevertigo|St]]|[[User_talk:Stevertigo|eve]] 22:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC).
Be bold!
¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 9 July 2005 16:20 (UTC)
Hyper-Calvinism[edit]
I've noticed & appreciated your edits on Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism. It seems to me, however, that this "subgenre" of Calvinism still exists (on the WWW, in many congregations, even to some degree in some more conservative Reformed denominations); could you mention it on the wikipages? While I know Hyper-Calvinism is still with us, I certainly defer to the expertise of folks like yourself and Flex in "things Calvinist". Thanks for considering! KHM03 13:28, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for your attention & insight. I agree that the "hyper-" designation is used too often as a "name calling" tactic utilized when one wants to marginalize an opponent. I am an Arminian, and avoid using the "hyper-" designation at all costs (though I've run into many who probably fit the description!). No, hyper-Calvinism is not a fair representation of what Calvinism is all about, but hyper-Calvinists would certainly disagree with that (and we need to respectfully be NPOV as much as possible), and they are sometimes the loudest folks in the debate (as would be more "fundamentalist" oriented Arminians). I always defer to folks who know more about Calvinism than I do...I'm happy to keep tabs and such, but you and User:Flex seem more equipped to deal with this than I am. Thanks! KHM03 14:28, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for changing a date[edit]
Jim, Thanks for changing the date on the Calvinism article from 1617 to 1618-1619. It had that wrong date from Dec. 7, 2004 until your change. Eeek. Liblamb 02:13, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Just wanted first to give thanks for your efforts at editing that article; I think it reads much better. Probably does need to be gone over to remove redundant wikilinks (second links to the same page); my instinctive impulse upon seeing large blocks of unlinked text is to add them, and I am certain this has ended up with some redundancies. Smerdis of Tlön 18:29, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Covenant Theology[edit]
Jim, it looks like we were editing Covenant Theology at the same time. Please make sure I didn't tromp on your stuff; I tried my best to identify your changes. --Flex 14:35, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Restoration Movement Copied from Salvation discussion[edit]
Responding to Jim Ellis questions. Good questions! Q: (1) My thought is that this is a somewhat obscure term which is really just a reference to the "Churches of Christ". Why not just say "Churches of Christ"? A: The Restoration Movement also includes some Independent_Christian_Churches/Churches_of_Christ and the ICOC which are distinctive from the Churches of Christ. Perhaps listing them individually would clarify. I did not want to burden the entry with too much detail. I am not opposed to using Churches of Christ. Q: (2) Regarding their doctrine, I am under the impression that the things you list as "needs" (repentance, baptism, and continuing obedience) are more properly termed "conditions" which man must fulfill. A: You are correct, I will make the necessary edit. Thanks. 19:23, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC) Pspadaro
Dispensationalism again[edit]
I got your note asking about an anon's addition to the list of people at that article. The only names I did not recognize in the list were Brookes and Bigalke. Brookes was apparently Scofield's Bible teacher, and Bigalke has published books in print, which I suppose makes him notable; his biography didn't have any obvious POV problems. Not sure there's an issue with his appropriateness for inclusion generally; whether he's significant enough to include is something I have no opinion on. Probably need to add Jack Van Impe as well. Smerdis of Tlön 18:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Total depravity[edit]
Hey, Jim. If you have a second, you might assist by giving your two cents at Talk:Total depravity#Wesley & the Methodists. Grazie. --Flex June 30, 2005 20:34 (UTC)
You may find this interesting and may want to chime in (if you wish). KHM03 2 July 2005 00:44 (UTC)
Greetings, St. James...I think we were editing this page at the same time...hope I didn't throw any of your work off! Sorry! KHM03 6 July 2005 13:02 (UTC)
St. James...good work on getting things started; it has needed attention for some time...but, then again, we all need perfection. Obviously, it is a subject with which I mightily disagree, and I didn't want to just write an anti-Calvinism polemic, which, while easy to do, would not have been proper. When I have time, I'll add some spice to the page, though, to get in the "opposition views" and to generally annoy Mkmcconn and Flex. At any rate...good job! KHM03 6 July 2005 19:46 (UTC)
- Yes, I appreciate Boettner's honesty. But I find the notion of predestination to damnation absolutely reprehensible. I'm a solid Wesleyan guy, so that's no surprise, I'm sure. It's easy to counter and attack...that's why I didn't want to write the article myself...it would have been WAY too negative. And most Calvinists that I know don't like to talk about reprobation...it's like the ugly cousin from the other side of town that nobody mentions when everyone gathers at Thanksgiving or Christmas. I am firmly convinced that Wesleyan theology is the most Biblically faithful (which, I suppose, is a big reason why I'm a United Methodist pastor and not Presbyterian).
- Above and beyond all that, though, I am absolutely committed to Christian ecumenism. I think it's vital that we who agree on the essentials (Incarnation, Trinity, Atonement...at least that it HAPPENED!, Resurrection, etc.) work together and recognize our fundamental unity in Christ. John 17 and all that. Anything else is disrespectful to our Lord and his Spirit.
- Here's a good quote...
- "Let the Presbyterians do what they please, but let the Methodists know their calling better." - John Wesley to Francis Asbury
- Wait! Wrong quote...sorry! Here it is...
- "All theologians bring certain doctrinal presuppositions and biases to Scripture as they seek to construct from Scripture their theologies. The true Wesleyan admits this and does not make correct doctrine a condition for salvation. We understand that if our sins are forgiven at the time of our death, we will be taken to heaven, even if our theology is off base a thousand miles. We are Christians if God, for Christ's sake, forgives our sins. He is able to do this only because of the death and resurrection of the virgin-born God-man, Jesus Christ. But we do not need to believe in any given theory of the Incarnation or the Atonement in order to be forgiven through Christ." - J. Kenneth Grider in A Wesleyan-Holiness Theology (1994)
- That's a great quote. I have worked with and in various ministerial groups and we agree on that quote...and the Spirit has done miraculous things when we commit to serving as one. It's SO IMPORTANT! "They will know we are Christians by our love..."
- Good working with you and disagreeing with you and (hopefully) learning and growing with you!
- And it's Keith. KHM03 6 July 2005 23:32 (UTC)
- Nice addition of the category for Category:Christian theology. I've often thought about creating that category, but never got around to it. But do you think that reprobation and Calvinist predestination belong in a Christian theology category? :-b Just kidding! KHM03 15:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Jim, thank you for your work on Amyraldism. It's a helpful article. Would you work in your more accurate description of Baxter, into the Amyraldism section of the Calvinism article, please? And, reconcile the contradictory statements made about Amyraut being "more calvinistic" than Baxter, witht the (less accurate, I think) statement that Baxter's version is considered a less radical revision. The fact is that, Baxter is better loved, not less radical. Shall I meet you over there at Calvinism, to discuss this? Mkmcconn (Talk) 23:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- You might be interested in a new import: Helvetic Consensus. It should probably be referenced in the article on Amyraldism. --Flex 14:10, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the objections, Jim! I edited the section a bit; your first paragraph had no objections, just a summary of the doctrine itself. Also, I think maybe you could expand a bit more...the other objections seem a little too concise and with a tone of "this is self-evident". Any further help is appreciated! Thanks...KHM03 11:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- How could anyone oppose prevenient grace AND imparted righteousness?! You pagan!! :p KHM03 13:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Jim...made some more edits under the "objections" section. Most of what I did were for NPOV reasons (beginning statements with things like "Calvinists believe..." or "Wesleyans maintain...", so as to not favor one side or the other), inclusivity reasons (changing "man" to "humanity" or something similar, unless it was part of a quote), or clarifying both an objection and/or a response. Hope it works for you! If not, do what you must....and I'll take a look later. Blessings...KHM03 16:33, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
- New response on talk page...take a deep breath, brother! It's all OK! Keith 23:04, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
- I actually liked Erickson's inclusion, as he is a pretty well known theologian, whereas the other guy (Schreiner?) may be good but is relatively unknown (at least by non-Calvinists). Whether Erickson is truly Calvinist or not isn't the main thing; he's a well known & respected theologian who doesn't agree with prevenient grace, and therefore a fairly strong contemporary opposition voice. Just thought I'd share! I'm leaving for most of the week, so defend the article, be looking for God's prevenient grace in YOUR life, and keep going on to perfection! KHM03 15:08, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
spurgeon[edit]
"Word wrap" might depend on the fonts you use. Web pages cant be absolute because there are so many end user variables -- monitor size and resolution, color depth, text size, minimum text etc. I use Firefox with a larger minimum text, which makes some formatting look odd - particularly with overwide templates, main page text wraps (or no wraps) etc. Its all a balance. Sinreg,-St|eve 22:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Zoroastrianism[edit]
You may be interested in participating in this vote. KHM03 15:37, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
TOCright[edit]
The TOCright in Protestant Reformation looks horrible. Having sich feature disrupts user reading concentration and should be abandoned. Pavel Vozenilek 01:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
MacArthur[edit]
Jim, Could you give your two cents on the discussion at Talk:John F. MacArthur? Thanks! --Flex 13:31, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
You did a good job; Thank you.[edit]
I wanted to give feedback on your edit on the Christianity page that you just made. After I pulled out the magnifying glass and looked closely at it, I think you did a good job; Thank you.
You appear to have separated the previously conflated (intertwined) duel issues of faith and works well, to satisfy Jim Wae's concern, and I am satisfied that the main points are there.
In addition, I am a Christian myself, and I hope to personally gain a benefit from the edit I have made to this page, since I think that point is among the most important of all of the faith's beliefs. To the extent that it is difficult to practice what I have made the page preach on its faith (mine too, but I write in the disinterested third person NPOV manner, to be fair) ...anyhow, to the extent that it is difficult to practice what I myself preach, I would be grateful that you would pray for me, and should you have specific questions, you can ask either God or me.
Thank you, --GordonWattsDotCom 15:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- Oh,just a brief heads up: I made a brief comment in the talk page of Christianity as well supporting your edit. The talk page has been lively and probably thorough/complete too. (A little long for my tastes; I need to spend less time online.)--GordonWattsDotCom 16:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
~ I got your message on my talk page. Yes, we're humans, and sometimes it's easier to just do things without a full explanation. Actually, I have you to thank for this recent success at fixing the article up with a more improved doctrine section, because if you had allowed my prior edit to stand, it would have not been placed in the main area, where it could be of benefit to the explanation of main tenets and beliefs.
~ In spite of your brief edit comments, you did think and try. These are the "hidden things of the dark" and "counsels of the heart" described in 1st Corinthians 4:5. That is, you had better listening skills than you recall, but what you forgot, God didn't. This verse, as explained in the late Rev. Roland Buck's book, http://AngelsOnAssignment.org and transcribed by Charles and Frances Hunter, points out than many people think these are "bad" or "evil" hidden things, but the angel told him in his visitation that this refers to the good things we forget about ourselves.
~ Anyhow, I am simply too busy to spend much time online, and I may not have many more edits if I am to spend my time wisely (another thing of prayer), and I played a pivotal role in several Terri Schiavo lawsuits, and not having been a lawyer who did better than Jeb Bush in court drained me financially and emotionally. (I tried to free her from illegal imprisonment, since she was not allowed to be housed in a place solely for terminally ill people, and I also challenged other felony abuses she endured.)
~ Well, thanks once again for the reply -and also for your hard work in keeping these web articles up to high quality standards.--GordonWattsDotCom 16:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up...I touched up a bit (very minor stuff). As a general rule, I'm not a big fan of taking from another encyclopedia, be it Elwell's, Catholic Dictionary, or whatever. Most aren't written in the concise manner of wikipedia; it could be a whole lot clearer. But there's much to work with here. I'm not really familiar with the concept of "common grace", which seems to me to be the Calvinist version of Prevenient grace, so I don't know that I'll have a whole lot to add in the future. My guess is that Flex, Mark, and yourself will do most of the work here...it's certainly not a concept which Wesleyans are likely to oppose. Thanks again...KHM03 16:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
- It does need work with conciseness; but I think I'm about to make it worse before it gets better. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi. Do you have an opinion about the issues raised in this discussion? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:22, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
If you'd rather not be involved that's okay, of course. I really would like your views about how it turned out, though, if you have an opinion. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 06:14, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
"...we're all Wesleyans now."[edit]
from Christianity Today Keith 19:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
RfA[edit]
Uncle Ed, Please support my request for adminship:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/GordonWattsDotCom
Thx.--GordonWattsDotCom 14:44, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
See the latest edits by an anonymous user? Keith 18:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
- Please weigh in on the Hyper-Calvinism talk page when you can. Thanks. Keith 23:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
- By the way...hope you do stay involved, even if you do take a wee break. KHM03 23:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Cfd[edit]
If you have a second, please vote on this: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_September_29#Category:User_la-N. It was overturned last time because of some jokers. --Flex 15:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Dispensationalism yet again[edit]
Hi Jim, thanks for your kind encouragement! While working on Lindsey's article, I happened to read Dispensationalism, and wound up doing quite a lot of minor correcting for clarity there. Since this seems a subject of particular interest to you, and I am but a humble re-write editor, I make this request: if you have the time, could you examine the diff of my edits there, to make sure I didnt accidently destroy the sense of some abstruse theological point? I say this b/c my edits were quite far-flung, and often just changes to one or two words, so I'm afraid just reading it someone might miss them. I'd post a link to the diff, but I'm afraid I don't know how. Well, if you have time, anyways. And thanks again! Eaglizard 17:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks a bunch. Sorry about that 'fatness' quote, I forgot I meant to look that up before saving. A minor point: I still disagree that Scofeild's bible was an 'innovative literary coup' - what was innovative about the coup? And why was it literary and not, say exegetical or theological? And why a coup at all? Not to downplay the notable literary qualities of his writing, but perhaps it was 'an exegetical innovation'? In any case, I don't think its at all clear what the existing text is supposed to mean, but I'll defer to you here.Eaglizard 12:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Peace[edit]
Shalom brother. KHM03 04:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- "The Problem with Evangelical Theologies" -- KHM03 17:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Merry Christmas[edit]
I pray you have a very merry Christmas and a truly blessed 2006. KHM03 19:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
An Invitation[edit]
| You are cordially invited to participate in WikiProject Christianity
The goal of WikiProject Christianity is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Christianity available on Wikipedia. WP:X as a group does not prefer any particular tradition or denominination of Christianity, but prefers that all Christian traditions are fairly and accurately represented. |
|
A.J.A. 02:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Up your alley?[edit]
Duty-faith...AfD. KHM03 20:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Revision of Arminianism[edit]
I'm working on a revision to the Arminianism page, and KMH03 mentioned that you were involved pretty heavily at one point. If you're interested in giving feedback and helping with the revision, see User:David_Schroder/Arminianism. See the discussion there...it will be ongoing until the page gets finished, checked, and approved. David Schroder 19:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Revision of the Covenant Theology article[edit]
I'm working on a revision of the Covenant Theology article. The current version is unsatisfactory. If you are interested in giving feedback and helping with the revision, see User:Guðsþegn/Covenant Theology. You can leave comments on the discussion page there. I've been working on it for about a week. It will probably be at least another week before it is ready to be posted. GUÐSÞEGN – UTEX – 23:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Calvinist confederacy[edit]
If you have a moment, please lend your thoughts to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calvinist confederacy. --Flex 01:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- The article was deleted some time ago. DFH 16:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Amyraldism (2)[edit]
If you have a moment, please lend your thoughts to Talk:Amyraldism#Recent edits. --Flex 20:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- and some further edits today of mine to Amyraldism. Thanks. DFH 15:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Puritan covenant[edit]
If you have a moment, please lend your thoughts to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Puritan_covenant. --Flex 02:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Calvinism v. Arminianism external link[edit]
The author of this article on Arminianism v. Calvinism has requested that we link to it in relevant articles, but he does not want to violate the policy of personally adding a link to material he himself wrote. What do you think of it with reference to WP:EL? --Flex (talk|contribs) 15:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- I would not add a link to this site anywhere! Apart from skirting the WP:EL by asking someone else to add the link, I have two reason's for not doing so: (1) on his site, the author does not give any credentials or even a brief biographical intro of himself, just his name. (2) he is obviously expressing his opinions which are not referenced to any published or scholarly sources. I see no value added. Jim Ellis 17:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the input, Jim. I would suggest, however, that it's not skirting the policy to ask someone else to evaluate and possibly add a link. That's appropriate behavior similar to what's recommended under WP:COI. Regarding credentials, we'd need to delete a lot of external links in following that rule strictly (for that matter, how many WP articles are edited and maintained by uncredentialed people?). I'd say the hallmark of a good link for the WP is verifiability -- particularly, that the writer cites his sources. The other article this user asked to be considered is much better in that regard, IMHO, and also less proselytizing in tone. --Flex (talk|contribs) 18:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Sola scriptura[edit]
If you have a moment, please share your thoughts at Talk:Sola_scriptura#Bible_verses. --Flex (talk|contribs) 16:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, I've added an article on the analogy of faith as an umbrella article over sola scriptura viz-a-viz tradition. Please take a look, and feel free to edit, correct, or otherwise improve! --Flex (talk|contribs) 20:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Calvinism invitation[edit]
Hi. I've been told that you're one of the Three Calvinists of Wikipedia, so I thought I'd issue an invite:
| You are cordially invited to participate in WikiProject Calvinism
The goal of WikiProject Calvinism is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Calvinism available on Wikipedia. WP:WikiProject Calvinism as a group does not prefer any particular tradition or denominination of Calvinism, but prefers that all Calvinist traditions are fairly and accurately represented. |
|
-- TimNelson 13:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Creation of Ultradispensationalism Wiki Page[edit]
Hello Jim Ellis, I have created a new Wiki page Ultradispensationalism which expounds and accommodates E. W. Bullinger Acts 28 theology and I have moved all of the relevant content from the Hyperdispensationalism page, along with all references and improved the layout to that page to Ultradispensationalism. This change has been needed for a long time, as the two systems of belief of Ultradispensationalism and Hyperdispensationalism are clearly two separate systems of belief and schools of thought. The Open Directory [1] clearly states these as two different theologies/schools of thought. I respectfully suggest that may like to consider moving your comments on the Hyperdispensationalism user page over to the Ultradispensationalism user page as they appear to be no longer relevant to the content of the Hyperdispensationalism Wiki page. I am sure that you have many valuable contributions and edits to make to the Ultradispensationalism Wiki page in the future and I hope that you will continue to enjoy editing Wikipedia. In His Service, Mysteryofthegospel (talk) 08:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Question on Hyper vs Ultra[edit]
I have noted with interest your recent edits separating Hyper-disp. from Ultra-disp., and I have a question/request. Could you give/cite a reputable published source for making this distinction? I would like to see something other than a website. I noted the Berean Bible Society article with interest, but was hoping for a published book source. Does Baker's A Dispensational Theology, 1971, make the distinction? If so could you provide an appropriate quote from it? Thanks in advance, Jim Ellis (talk) 14:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello Jim, Thank you for your message, and very pleased to hear from you. It is always interesting that God always uses questions from others to push us to further research and study of His Word, and for that, I am always glad. "Wrongly dividing the Word of Truth" by Harry Ironside expounds on the folly of all post-Acts chapter 9 dispensational doctrine and puts both "camps" in the same "heresy bucket." E.W. Bullinger "The Companion Bible" contains the late Mr. Bullinger's exposition of Acts 28:28 doctrine concerning his belief in the beginning of the Church. There are many Bible studies (which have been published in paper form) by the late Pastors J.C. O'Hair and Pastor C.R. Stam which are archived at the Berean Bible Society [2] and which expound on the differences between the Acts 9-13 position and the Acts 28:28 position and "Dispensationalism, Revised and Expanded" by Charles C. Ryrie [3] but, more interestingly, there is already detail of the "two camps" (the "camps" of which I did not create - I am only expounding on what was already written there, as there was error and no Bible references) which are expounded on in Wiki at Dispensationalist theology I am over there right now, adding Scripture and amending text. Please join. In Him, and for His Glory Mysteryofthegospel (talk) 00:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, Jim. I see this question/answer dialogue has been posted in several places, but I will only respond to it here on your talk page. I'll let you decide if this should be copied to the other places. As far as I can tell, Baker's Dispensational Theology never makes this distinction between Ultra- and Hyper-Disp. But Dr. Norman Geisler uses the terms interchangeably in his Systematic Theology, Volume 4 (copyright 2005). On page 27, he refers to Bullingerites as "extreme ultradispensationalists"; while Baker, Stam and O'Hair are called "less-extreme ultradispensationalists". On pages 680-681, under the section of Ultra-Dispensationalism, Dr. Geisler again includes Baker in his description of ultra-dispensationalists, while Bullinger is again called an extreme ultradispensationalist. He states: "Ultradispensationalists call themselves the grace movement... Compared to even more moderate dispensationalists like John Walvoord (1910-2002) and Charles Ryrie (b.1925), the grace movement is ultra- or hyperdispensational." So it looks like these two terms are used interchangeably (at least by non-hyperdispensationalists), although there are certainly differences between the mid-Acts and Acts 28 positions. I hope this helps. Brwebb (talk) 17:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
RCC or CC[edit]
You took part in Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 3#REQUESTED MOVE to Catholic Church there is a new requested move see Talk:Catholic Church#Requested Move --PBS (talk) 08:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
The article Robert Aitken (publisher) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Lacks the significant independent coverage required by WP:GNG
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Oo7565 (talk) 19:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Ichthus: January 2012[edit]
 |
ICHTHUS |
| January 2012 |
In this issue...
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here
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) 13:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)