![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 19 |
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).
![]()
|
Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. A draft RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft) and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.
WP:FILMPLOT states that plot sections should be no more than 400 to 700 words; the IP-hopper on the other hand insists on an overly long and bloated plot with extraneous information which isn't essential to summarise the story concisely like the main character's antics or whatnot. The real kicker here is that said anon has been continually re-adding the bloated plot despite numerous reverts as what the edit history can attest. Blake Gripling ( talk) 06:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Dear Kevin, I understand your decision. However, part of my edit about Urtica was based on a literature review, which is a secondary source, as far as I know. I also cited promising primary research, which seemed justified to me. Please note that the article about COVID-19 already mentions which drugs are being tested, although their usefulness in fighting off this virus hasn't been confirmed by secondary sources yet. This information encourages people to try using the drugs, too, which brings profits to the manufacturers. Unfortunately it's completely unprofitable to study common herbs and that is why less information is available about them. Because of unjustified bias against medicinal herbs, little attention is paid to their great potential. For centuries poor people have added the nutrient-rich stinging nettle to soups in early spring, and this has helped them to survive the difficult period. During the pandemic it's crucial to draw researchers' attention to promising medicinal herbs. Why don't we leave the information and simply add an explanation like "Primary research suggests that ... but confirmation is still needed"? I'm deeply convinced that stinging nettle could save much more lives than chemical drugs, thanks to its amazing nutritional and antiviral properties, indicated by the sources cited by me and probably also many other sources, too, but I do not have time to look for them (I have 6 children). Please consider searching for better sources yourself when new promising edits are not justified properly, instead of deleting the edits and imposing bans. Such an approach would be much more beneficial for the Wikipedia community and for all people suffering from COVID-19 (both directly and indirectly). Sylwia Ufnalska ( talk) 23:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
I am not familiar with editing on Wikipedia yet. I was wonder if you remove a incorrect map shown on the Somalia main page? I do not want readers provided with wrong information.
Somalia is a sovereign nation that still controls it's regions (ex: during this Cornovirus pandemic, the Somali government has cancelled all flights in the country since it's controls the airspace. The global map shows a region that is 'self-declared' but not recognized by any international organization (U.N., African Union or Arab League) I am contesting that there is a consensus for the current map. Users (FOARP) and (Kz155) both have taken the liberty of providing a map that's not current. Both users have shown biased opinions and believe only they hold power to change the page, please refer to the Talk section on the page. Please remove the map showing the light-green region all completely. 'Somaliland' is still respectively part of Somali Republic (Somalia) and does not control all the regions in North Somalia. Territories like Khatumo State have expressed their allegiance to the union strongly.
Around 90 countries, territories and regions around the world are not recognized by the UN. So why don't those countries have incorrect map on their main page as well? Greatly appreciated if you could remove the global map from the page permanently. I don't want to believe that Wikipedia does not respect Somalia sovereignty or want to mislead the readers that visit the page. Thank you so much for the help in this matter.
This is the correct map of Somalia. - /info/en/?search=African_Union#/media/File:African_Union_(orthographic_projection).svg https://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/somalia.pdf https://www.google.com/maps/place/Somalia/@5.2038057,37.2306352,5z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x181d2ea7ecd15b83:0x9e393ace5ce9e5be!8m2!3d5.152149!4d46.199616 https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/world-map.html
Stay safe and healthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:480:4000:A190:AC16:FB56:A9FD:6BF2 ( talk) 03:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi! This a follow up to my previous request for semi-protection of Timeline of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic from November 2019 to January 2020. I'm very concerned about the addition of misinformation and WP:OR-based speculation to this article by anonymous editors. This article does not receive as much scrutiny for verification as other COVID-19-related articles and these additions can stay there for weeks, see this new example: [1], [2]. Given the media thirst for new exclusives on the topic, this can easily result in new WP:CITOGENESIS cases. -- MarioGom ( talk) 08:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm new to ArbCom rules and participation. My reading is that cases will close when there is a 4-vote gap, or failing that when there is an absolute majority after all active members voted. Is that right? Because it looked like a 3-vote gap and not all active members voted. Or is there also a time limit? -- Green C 16:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
It is mathematically impossible for the case to be accepted. In this case, even if all of the active arbs who haven't commented vote to accept, the request was eligible for closure, and explicitly authorized on the clerks-l mailing list. I know ArbCom procedure can get pretty complicated and clunky, and I'm sorry about any hassle this has caused. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
User:L235 - Either you have removed the wrong Request for Arbitration as declined by the committee, or something more complicated is wrong with the display of Requests for Arbitration. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
At RFPP, you said that you had blocked the unregistered editor who is currently edit warring at Harvard Extension School. But he or she is still editing, most recently from 2600:1003:B451:EA91:B8F6:BF1C:81CE:39CF; can you please double check the block? Thanks! ElKevbo ( talk) 12:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi Kevin - I just wanted to say thank you for approving my request to become a pending changes reviewer. As I begin to get back into active editing, I'm very excited to have this new tool at my disposal to help work on backlogs. I appreciate the advice you left me, and will definitely review and bookmark those links - if you have any other suggestions on how I can best be of service, please let me know! Cheers - Paradox society 05:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I would like if we could add the documents from the North Carolina state boards official documents to Rashid Buttar’s Wikipedia page showing his reprimanded status. He is a conspiracy theorist and people need to know the truth behind this person. I also feel it is not in the publics best interest to be linking to his youtube page. MamaKitti ( talk) 23:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for granting me reviewer right access and your kind note. Have a good day, -- PeaceNT ( talk) 09:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Regarding User:Shadowblade08 should the edits on my talk page [3] be redacted too do you think? Theroadislong ( talk) 17:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for letting me know! Could you tell me which edits were suppressed? I would like to know so I do not make the same mistakes in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaniHart08 ( talk • contribs) 19:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).
Regarding the second item here , there's User:Alex Smotrov/histcomb.js which I use, it should do exactly what you want? It can also (and will by default) shorten talk, undo, and contributions links, which you may not want. I could/should probably add thanks and block to that list... ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 09:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Now that the case has been declined, has it been properly archived, and can it be removed from the main case listing? Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, in Dec 2018 you removed "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit" from the ARBPIA editnotice on the grounds that it was overturned by motion. As far as I am aware, you were correct and that hasn't changed, but the sentence has snuck back in. I don't see it in the official summary. If you agree, please delete it again or tell me that you won't object if I delete it. Thanks. Zero talk 02:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
ha ha... your mascot is a tree. (said in good humor to you as it was to me) Springee ( talk) 19:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
if you're on could you go to today's FA because an ip there is killing it (AIV filed) USS Oberrender and AIV report thx. ToeFungii ( talk) 06:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
TY ToeFungii ( talk) 06:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates#RfC on welcome template standardisation.
Naypta ☺ |
✉ talk page | 08:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Naypta ☺ |
✉ talk page |
08:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Sorry about the IP: the contributions were left unsigned when I had an edit conflict during editing; and a complete talk page section had vanished (which shouldn't have happened either). I will not edit the page until further cleanup, but then:
-- Francis Schonken ( talk) 18:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Can you please bring back rollback? I was kind of surprised when suddenly I couldn't rollback anymore. 🐔 Chic dat Chicken Database 10:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I sent an email to ARBCOM a short while ago. I was just wondering if it was received and if it was actively being ignored etc. Thanks. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Just dropping a note that I hard-blocked the TFA vandal on Marko Elsner. -- qedk ( t 愛 c) 15:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Umm, " legitimate damage", new concept or misphrased? Cabayi ( talk) 08:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello, (almost) a month ago you gave me rollback rights ( here). Will i get them back? (I know this sounds dumb, but I don't know how to say it better. :D) -- TheImaCow ( talk) 16:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi L235, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.
Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.
To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!
Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, Sam-2727 ( talk)
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2020).
Does that mean the same computer? Browser? Modem? I'm a bit hazy on terminology. Cheers, -- Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 19:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks -- Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 02:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello, there is a concern that you archived an ArbCom request prematurely before it had been adequately considered by arbitrators. Can you review the discussion here: User_talk:Literaturegeek#ArbCom_question. Many thanks.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi Kevin, In January you granted me Pending Changes Reviewer userright and I would like to have this regranted as I have in recent days found the need to use it again, especially to accept revisions especially at MasterChef Australia (series 12) and other similar articles. Happily888 ( talk) 10:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your help on Mick Jagger. However, I noticed that the page just came off three month semi-protection and you protected the page for a much shorter length of time. Can you consider putting in a longer protection length? This page has been a vandalism target for several months. Abbassan ( talk) 17:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Kevin ( L235) a new sockpuppet have emerged. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jesien1. Thank you. ~ Amkgp 💬 20:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi Hope you’re well! I just found out tonight (still learning Wikipedia and just tried to edit) and learned that I am blocked w my IP I didn’t realize I edited before while not logged in. I saw the post about co location on the Gypsy punk article as reason for block. I would like to understand what I did/how to avoid that when unblocked in a few years/ how to fix harm I may have did. I just learned about the revert rule tonight as I was reading policies —I accidentally mis typed on the Wikipedia article a few times and thought I messed up the formatting so I went back in. Didn’t know that’s a revert. Sorry!! The only other thing I can think of was not putting a source for my comment about the name/ totally didn’t think it needed one, would be far more diligent in future. Also just learned about sanctions so could it be because it’s related to race and think city? I am very sorry for breaking any rules, I’m reading all of them in depth the next week now (should have done before) . Thank you so much for your time! My Ip: 185.245.84.0/22 (talk) The one other thing I can think of would be that my password manager has a VPN option and sometimes I’ve put that on. I don’t really know aliy about tech/just that my stuff isn’t secure and I need to do better. A friend mentioned VPN as important for that and I so I turned it on to see what it would do. I only sort of understand. Would like to understand and do better /learn from my mistakes. Thank you so much for your time!!! I really appreciate it! J Kizemet ( talk) 09:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Realized I didn’t sign and date so fixing Kizemet ( talk) 09:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC) Jordan 6/26/20 Kizemet ( talk) 09:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi! Gotcha Is it possible to unblock me or do I stay blocked? Sorry very new If I include in summary can I put my edit back if not through VPN
Thank you so much!! Kizemet ( talk) 00:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Kevin( L235) while I came across your action at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rind Khan I want to draw your attention on a discussion at User_talk:Mowahid_Mohsin#Reliable_references, which seems a possible WP:CANVAS done in good faith, as the creator is new as per WP:YOUNG. Please have a look. Thank you ~ Amkgp 💬 18:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Per this, I have come back here for renewal. Thanks. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA talk 11:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2020).
RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. The RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC and is open to comments from the community.
all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles.
Hey can you please close this SPI case. I shouldn't have made it as it could've been handled at WP:AIV and you just blocked the account. Sorry again, Field Marshal Aryan ( talk) 20:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | |
Two years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:57, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi Kevin,
Thanks for granting me rollback! Just a small question - at the end of my trial period do I need to re-apply through the standard channel or will someone automatically review whether to make my rights permanent? Once again, thanks! Giraffer ( stay home) 07:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Kevin. Thanks for the kind words about my request for clarification of the Brahma Kumaris case. You mentioned that this would be a good time to take care of housekeeping, and I noticed that article probation still appears on the list of active sanctions. Whilst I'm happy to replace templates on talk pages, this one's a bit above my pay grade. Cheers, BlackcurrantTea ( talk) 02:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi L235, and thank you for sending me an email. Yours was the last message I received of several, and I have closed my ORCP. Admittedly, I was not expecting to receive such a volume of feedback so quickly, but I was pleasantly surprised.
I’ve reached out to a couple of other editors including a potential nomination. If you have the time, I’d certainly welcome that review - I’m always looking to make myself the best editor I can, and it couldn’t hurt to have more feedback to prepare for a run in the very near future. Thank you for taking the time to reach out to me; I appreciate it. Red Phoenix talk 21:43, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
" Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, Lightbreather (talk · contribs) is unbanned." That's wrong, or did I misunderstand something? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 21:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi, L235 (Kevin) I would like to request help regarding Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DineshRedbull. Thank you ~ Amkgp 💬 18:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello Kevin,
You granted me rollback on July 16th, which is set to expire on the 30th (of July) and I was wondering if you could review my record for a renewal? While I have been patrolling the edit filter quite a bit, I have not seen many opportunities to make use of the tool (or maybe I am using it sparingly), and I would ask that you take into consideration when I didn't use it as well as when I did. Also, at your recommendation I have enrolled in CVUA, and am working well with my trainer, Cassiopeia, whom I have pinged in case they have any additional comments.
Thanks, Giraffer ( munch) 10:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020).
Hey. Regarding ARBGMO, the committee authorised DS and 1RR here. This was amended in this motion to have a narrower scope(?). But it seems like they forgot to modify the 1RR restriction as well, which had the exact same scope as the DS before it was amended? So, I guess if one wants to wikilawyer this, GMO currently has a 1RR with a broader scope than the DS itself? ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 13:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi, L235,
I see that you have been contributing to Wikipedia for over 6 years. However, I see that your name is Kevin. There is another user called
Kevin. This user has not been active on Wikipedia since 2015. I would like to know if you have any relationship with User:Kevin. I am sorry for bothering you or annoying you. Thank you.
Friend
505
15:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Your close of the Lightbreather thread says she was unbanned, but my reading of the vote (after changed votes) is that the motion did not pass. Is the close summary a mistake due to the vote changing, or was their an off-wiki decision that is being reflected in the summary? ResultingConstant ( talk) 18:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, Lightbreather (talk · contribs) is unbanned.was part of the motion to be voted on and was not enacted, but was voted on and is therefore archived. This seems to be a common source of confusion so I would welcome any ideas on how to make that more clear. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:12, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I noticed you are one of the only admins online right now. Would you be able to block 2604:3D09:6C7D:BC00:FC63:B89C:42AA:51BF ( talk · contribs)? They are causing a lot of problems through disruptive editing and vandalism. Already given final warning and reported at WP:AIV. Thanks, TribunalMan ( talk) 03:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi! Sorry for not getting back to you sooner, I was taking a bit of a wikibreak. I believe you asked me to leave you a message when my PCR perms expired, for you could decide if I should retain the perm. Thanks! -- 17jiangz1 ( talk) 01:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Hey buddy, long time no speak (again, lol). How are you keeping? How's adminning? You still studying? Good to see you're still around! :) UaMaol ( talk) 06:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
I'm back! After another month of rollback, I am looking to be granted another extension or possibly permanent. Due to various delays IRL, I have not been very active in the past couple weeks for various reasons IRL, so progress with CVUA has slowed. For some reason the required diffs are hard to come by. My latest assignment didn't go too well, but I fully understand my mistakes and have taken onboard the lessons for when I am combating vandalism. I have never been challenged on a rollback action and have only been challenged once on any counter-vandalism actions, but was quickly (and amicably) resolved. That can be found at the bottom of my talk. If you would like me to withhold my request until I have completed CVUA, I can do so. Thanks, Giraffer ( munch) 08:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm confused about the status following Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Lightbreather_unban. It appears their account is still blocked but they were unbanned. Is this out of order? ☆ Bri ( talk) 17:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).
mustor
shoulduse the articles for creation process.
Hi there, thank you for the recent close at Joe Biden. I'm happy you are open to questions. I'm not interested in challenging your close, but only to grow as an editor. In that vein, a few thoughts...
One is that section headers are meant to help readers navigate through content, and I don't think they expect editors to censor it for any reason. My other thought is related: Brett Kavanaugh has allegations that not only have no corroboration, but alleged witnesses have come out and said the assault didn't happen. That's all documented in his bio. And yet, we have a large section titled " Sexual assault allegations", and even mention it in his Lede (without mentioning the existence of negative corroboration - a clear BLP violation).
I learn by watching and reading policy. Keeping the assault allegation against Biden out of the section heading is an anomaly in my experience. I'm not sure how to understand it. I'm probably wrong here, but I did expect some of the arguments to be ignored when closing the RfC as not based in policy. For instance, the only reason a thing is mentioned in the header is because it's contained in that section. Arguments that the allegation isn't important or verified have no bearing on whether it should be mentioned in the section title, but whether it should be mentioned at all. However, those arguments were given credence. Per WP:NHC, The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious...
Finally, readers are going to find a rape allegation discussed under a heading that reads "inappropriate physical contact". I think that sends an unfortunate message, and I would have regretted staying silent about this, so thank you again, petrarchan47 คุ ก 06:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
the only reason a thing is mentioned in the header is because it's contained in that section), and (2) why my close is appropriate in light of the contents of the article Brett Kavanaugh. Regarding (2), this question is outside of the scope of my role as a closer. The structure of other articles may (or may not) be a good consideration for participants at an RfC, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS-style arguments are not generally credited on their own. I haven't personally read the history of the discussions for Brett Kavanaugh, so I can't answer your question specifically as to why the consensus is for the current state of the article, but if you disagree with that article's contents you should discuss that question there. Perhaps the context surrounding the decisions was different.
Hi, L235,
As an admin/editor, I don't work much with SPI or bring cases to checkusers but I stumbled on to a very unusual situation that I hope you might offer your opinion on. It concerns User:ADQ_BAB_TUT2020/sandbox, a regular user sandbox. But if you look at the page history, you'll see about 7 or 8 brand new editors have edited this editor's sandbox over the past 4 days. I don't know whether it is sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. I thought that it might be a collaborative editing project but I can't see where any of these editors have communicated with each other or any one, there are no talk page posts from any of the editors working on this sandbox.
The issue is that these editors aren't doing any damage. And I have no idea why any one editor would create so many different accounts to edit the same page. So, I was unsure about filing a formal SPI case since it seems to be a productive effort and there isn't any obvious explanation of what could be going on. Maybe a school project? But it seems like off-season for schools. Any way, if you have any ideas, let me know. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 01:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Kevin, I wanted to ask that you double check the diff in your closure of Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2020#Meta2. Right now it links to an edit on The Shoop Shoop Song (It's in His Kiss) which I don't think is what you meant to link to. I hope you're keeping well despite the storms and pandemic, and thanks for setting up the ACE RFC. — Wug· a·po·des 04:16, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure BillSchorrIsAThief is the same person as the IP whose edits you had to oversight on Bill Schorr. 2605:A000:1327:6313:4DE1:63B7:A890:CA48 ( talk) 18:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Hey, regarding your recent closure (also see this discussion), does the closure says the 5 paragraphs should be condensed down to 2 sentences (not more)? Thanks. -- Mhhossein talk 13:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
"Specific citations, along with analysis of the prominence given by reliable secondary sources to differing opinions"? I want to know it just for my own information. Thanks. -- Mhhossein talk 13:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Many thanks for your detailed reply. I wanted to respond to this: among other things, participants argued that the proposed change would place undue weight on the Reade allegation and imply that there was more than one person who made sexual assault allegations against Biden. I can't reject the undue weight argument out of hand; after all, only a small portion of the section is about the Reade allegation.
I guess I don't understand this reasoning. My issue is that we do have to mention this allegation, and we have. Yet, it is situated underneath the "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact" section, telling readers that we at WP consider an allegation of what is legally rape to be "inappropriate physical contact". Rape is a felony, it cannot be categorized as merely inappropriate physical contact, not if WP wants to be taken seriously, not accused of whitewashing, and not accused of downplaying sexual assault.
I didn't take seriously the !votes complaining that the wording put too much emphasis on the Reade allegation, because the RfC didn't offer any suggestion for wording, it simply asked whether we should differentiate between the types of allegations in the section, or lump them together as inappropriate touching.
The solution could be to decide how it should be worded in a way that doesn't claim rape = merely inappropriate contact, and yet doesn't give more weight to this than it is due. I don't think any editors want to give it undue weight by any means, and I don't think coming up with acceptable wording is such an impossible task we should throw our hands up and leave it as is, because currently it's inaccurate at best. We had some suggestions early on. It seems easy to remedy the fact that adding "and sexual assault" makes it unclear there was only one. There are enough wordsmiths here that this shouldn't be a reason to call the whole thing off. Another option is to give the allegation its own properly titled subsection.
I'm interested to hear your thoughts on this, and if you have any suggestions for a remedy. Thanks again, petrarchan47 คุ ก 01:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
it is situated underneath the "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact" section, telling readers that we at WP consider an allegation of what is legally rape to be "inappropriate physical contact". Rape is a felony, it cannot be categorized as merely inappropriate physical contact, not if WP wants to be taken seriously, not accused of whitewashing, and not accused of downplaying sexual assault.– This is the principal argument made by your side, and I did not discount it at all. However, this is an editorial decision and no matter how much I personally agree, as a closer, I cannot discount opinions that implicitly or explicitly disagree with this statement. Additionally, it's not a dichotomy between "give undue weight to Reade allegation" and "categorize sexual assault and 'inappropriate physical contact'", though the structure of this particular RfC and the arguments made at it may contribute to participants' impression that it is such a dichotomy. There are alternatives, as I discuss below.
I didn't take seriously the !votes complaining that the wording put too much emphasis on the Reade allegation– I don't have a policy-based reason to discount "undue weight" opinions, and in fact the structure of the RfC explicitly asks users to form a consensus to change "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact" to "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact and sexual assault". As I mentioned in my closure, I did consider the previous discussion where people suggested other options, but none of them received even close to enough discussion to represent community consensus. As a closer, I am generally constrained to assessing consensus, not imposing decisions from above that received little discussion. (That's why it's important for RfCs to be structured well and for participants to voice support for alternatives if they prefer those alternatives to the status quo.)
throw our hands up and leave it as is. Further discussions are allowed; perhaps a sub-subsection would resolve the concerns of some participants, or a broader "Allegations of misconduct" heading, or including the material in the section in the existing sections (for the rest of the "2020 presidential campaign" section is chronologically ordered, rather than the topical separation of the "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact" section). I am not personally invested in the article and I don't currently plan on engaging with those discussions myself, but I'm happy to be a sounding board for any further thoughts or questions you may have. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 19 |
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).
![]()
|
Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. A draft RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft) and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.
WP:FILMPLOT states that plot sections should be no more than 400 to 700 words; the IP-hopper on the other hand insists on an overly long and bloated plot with extraneous information which isn't essential to summarise the story concisely like the main character's antics or whatnot. The real kicker here is that said anon has been continually re-adding the bloated plot despite numerous reverts as what the edit history can attest. Blake Gripling ( talk) 06:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Dear Kevin, I understand your decision. However, part of my edit about Urtica was based on a literature review, which is a secondary source, as far as I know. I also cited promising primary research, which seemed justified to me. Please note that the article about COVID-19 already mentions which drugs are being tested, although their usefulness in fighting off this virus hasn't been confirmed by secondary sources yet. This information encourages people to try using the drugs, too, which brings profits to the manufacturers. Unfortunately it's completely unprofitable to study common herbs and that is why less information is available about them. Because of unjustified bias against medicinal herbs, little attention is paid to their great potential. For centuries poor people have added the nutrient-rich stinging nettle to soups in early spring, and this has helped them to survive the difficult period. During the pandemic it's crucial to draw researchers' attention to promising medicinal herbs. Why don't we leave the information and simply add an explanation like "Primary research suggests that ... but confirmation is still needed"? I'm deeply convinced that stinging nettle could save much more lives than chemical drugs, thanks to its amazing nutritional and antiviral properties, indicated by the sources cited by me and probably also many other sources, too, but I do not have time to look for them (I have 6 children). Please consider searching for better sources yourself when new promising edits are not justified properly, instead of deleting the edits and imposing bans. Such an approach would be much more beneficial for the Wikipedia community and for all people suffering from COVID-19 (both directly and indirectly). Sylwia Ufnalska ( talk) 23:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
I am not familiar with editing on Wikipedia yet. I was wonder if you remove a incorrect map shown on the Somalia main page? I do not want readers provided with wrong information.
Somalia is a sovereign nation that still controls it's regions (ex: during this Cornovirus pandemic, the Somali government has cancelled all flights in the country since it's controls the airspace. The global map shows a region that is 'self-declared' but not recognized by any international organization (U.N., African Union or Arab League) I am contesting that there is a consensus for the current map. Users (FOARP) and (Kz155) both have taken the liberty of providing a map that's not current. Both users have shown biased opinions and believe only they hold power to change the page, please refer to the Talk section on the page. Please remove the map showing the light-green region all completely. 'Somaliland' is still respectively part of Somali Republic (Somalia) and does not control all the regions in North Somalia. Territories like Khatumo State have expressed their allegiance to the union strongly.
Around 90 countries, territories and regions around the world are not recognized by the UN. So why don't those countries have incorrect map on their main page as well? Greatly appreciated if you could remove the global map from the page permanently. I don't want to believe that Wikipedia does not respect Somalia sovereignty or want to mislead the readers that visit the page. Thank you so much for the help in this matter.
This is the correct map of Somalia. - /info/en/?search=African_Union#/media/File:African_Union_(orthographic_projection).svg https://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/somalia.pdf https://www.google.com/maps/place/Somalia/@5.2038057,37.2306352,5z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x181d2ea7ecd15b83:0x9e393ace5ce9e5be!8m2!3d5.152149!4d46.199616 https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/world-map.html
Stay safe and healthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:480:4000:A190:AC16:FB56:A9FD:6BF2 ( talk) 03:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi! This a follow up to my previous request for semi-protection of Timeline of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic from November 2019 to January 2020. I'm very concerned about the addition of misinformation and WP:OR-based speculation to this article by anonymous editors. This article does not receive as much scrutiny for verification as other COVID-19-related articles and these additions can stay there for weeks, see this new example: [1], [2]. Given the media thirst for new exclusives on the topic, this can easily result in new WP:CITOGENESIS cases. -- MarioGom ( talk) 08:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm new to ArbCom rules and participation. My reading is that cases will close when there is a 4-vote gap, or failing that when there is an absolute majority after all active members voted. Is that right? Because it looked like a 3-vote gap and not all active members voted. Or is there also a time limit? -- Green C 16:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
It is mathematically impossible for the case to be accepted. In this case, even if all of the active arbs who haven't commented vote to accept, the request was eligible for closure, and explicitly authorized on the clerks-l mailing list. I know ArbCom procedure can get pretty complicated and clunky, and I'm sorry about any hassle this has caused. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
User:L235 - Either you have removed the wrong Request for Arbitration as declined by the committee, or something more complicated is wrong with the display of Requests for Arbitration. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
At RFPP, you said that you had blocked the unregistered editor who is currently edit warring at Harvard Extension School. But he or she is still editing, most recently from 2600:1003:B451:EA91:B8F6:BF1C:81CE:39CF; can you please double check the block? Thanks! ElKevbo ( talk) 12:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi Kevin - I just wanted to say thank you for approving my request to become a pending changes reviewer. As I begin to get back into active editing, I'm very excited to have this new tool at my disposal to help work on backlogs. I appreciate the advice you left me, and will definitely review and bookmark those links - if you have any other suggestions on how I can best be of service, please let me know! Cheers - Paradox society 05:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I would like if we could add the documents from the North Carolina state boards official documents to Rashid Buttar’s Wikipedia page showing his reprimanded status. He is a conspiracy theorist and people need to know the truth behind this person. I also feel it is not in the publics best interest to be linking to his youtube page. MamaKitti ( talk) 23:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for granting me reviewer right access and your kind note. Have a good day, -- PeaceNT ( talk) 09:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Regarding User:Shadowblade08 should the edits on my talk page [3] be redacted too do you think? Theroadislong ( talk) 17:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for letting me know! Could you tell me which edits were suppressed? I would like to know so I do not make the same mistakes in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaniHart08 ( talk • contribs) 19:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).
Regarding the second item here , there's User:Alex Smotrov/histcomb.js which I use, it should do exactly what you want? It can also (and will by default) shorten talk, undo, and contributions links, which you may not want. I could/should probably add thanks and block to that list... ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 09:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Now that the case has been declined, has it been properly archived, and can it be removed from the main case listing? Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, in Dec 2018 you removed "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit" from the ARBPIA editnotice on the grounds that it was overturned by motion. As far as I am aware, you were correct and that hasn't changed, but the sentence has snuck back in. I don't see it in the official summary. If you agree, please delete it again or tell me that you won't object if I delete it. Thanks. Zero talk 02:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
ha ha... your mascot is a tree. (said in good humor to you as it was to me) Springee ( talk) 19:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
if you're on could you go to today's FA because an ip there is killing it (AIV filed) USS Oberrender and AIV report thx. ToeFungii ( talk) 06:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
TY ToeFungii ( talk) 06:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates#RfC on welcome template standardisation.
Naypta ☺ |
✉ talk page | 08:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Naypta ☺ |
✉ talk page |
08:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Sorry about the IP: the contributions were left unsigned when I had an edit conflict during editing; and a complete talk page section had vanished (which shouldn't have happened either). I will not edit the page until further cleanup, but then:
-- Francis Schonken ( talk) 18:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Can you please bring back rollback? I was kind of surprised when suddenly I couldn't rollback anymore. 🐔 Chic dat Chicken Database 10:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I sent an email to ARBCOM a short while ago. I was just wondering if it was received and if it was actively being ignored etc. Thanks. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Just dropping a note that I hard-blocked the TFA vandal on Marko Elsner. -- qedk ( t 愛 c) 15:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Umm, " legitimate damage", new concept or misphrased? Cabayi ( talk) 08:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello, (almost) a month ago you gave me rollback rights ( here). Will i get them back? (I know this sounds dumb, but I don't know how to say it better. :D) -- TheImaCow ( talk) 16:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi L235, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.
Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.
To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!
Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, Sam-2727 ( talk)
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2020).
Does that mean the same computer? Browser? Modem? I'm a bit hazy on terminology. Cheers, -- Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 19:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks -- Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 02:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello, there is a concern that you archived an ArbCom request prematurely before it had been adequately considered by arbitrators. Can you review the discussion here: User_talk:Literaturegeek#ArbCom_question. Many thanks.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi Kevin, In January you granted me Pending Changes Reviewer userright and I would like to have this regranted as I have in recent days found the need to use it again, especially to accept revisions especially at MasterChef Australia (series 12) and other similar articles. Happily888 ( talk) 10:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your help on Mick Jagger. However, I noticed that the page just came off three month semi-protection and you protected the page for a much shorter length of time. Can you consider putting in a longer protection length? This page has been a vandalism target for several months. Abbassan ( talk) 17:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Kevin ( L235) a new sockpuppet have emerged. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jesien1. Thank you. ~ Amkgp 💬 20:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi Hope you’re well! I just found out tonight (still learning Wikipedia and just tried to edit) and learned that I am blocked w my IP I didn’t realize I edited before while not logged in. I saw the post about co location on the Gypsy punk article as reason for block. I would like to understand what I did/how to avoid that when unblocked in a few years/ how to fix harm I may have did. I just learned about the revert rule tonight as I was reading policies —I accidentally mis typed on the Wikipedia article a few times and thought I messed up the formatting so I went back in. Didn’t know that’s a revert. Sorry!! The only other thing I can think of was not putting a source for my comment about the name/ totally didn’t think it needed one, would be far more diligent in future. Also just learned about sanctions so could it be because it’s related to race and think city? I am very sorry for breaking any rules, I’m reading all of them in depth the next week now (should have done before) . Thank you so much for your time! My Ip: 185.245.84.0/22 (talk) The one other thing I can think of would be that my password manager has a VPN option and sometimes I’ve put that on. I don’t really know aliy about tech/just that my stuff isn’t secure and I need to do better. A friend mentioned VPN as important for that and I so I turned it on to see what it would do. I only sort of understand. Would like to understand and do better /learn from my mistakes. Thank you so much for your time!!! I really appreciate it! J Kizemet ( talk) 09:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Realized I didn’t sign and date so fixing Kizemet ( talk) 09:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC) Jordan 6/26/20 Kizemet ( talk) 09:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi! Gotcha Is it possible to unblock me or do I stay blocked? Sorry very new If I include in summary can I put my edit back if not through VPN
Thank you so much!! Kizemet ( talk) 00:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Kevin( L235) while I came across your action at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rind Khan I want to draw your attention on a discussion at User_talk:Mowahid_Mohsin#Reliable_references, which seems a possible WP:CANVAS done in good faith, as the creator is new as per WP:YOUNG. Please have a look. Thank you ~ Amkgp 💬 18:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Per this, I have come back here for renewal. Thanks. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA talk 11:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2020).
RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. The RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC and is open to comments from the community.
all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles.
Hey can you please close this SPI case. I shouldn't have made it as it could've been handled at WP:AIV and you just blocked the account. Sorry again, Field Marshal Aryan ( talk) 20:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | |
Two years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:57, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi Kevin,
Thanks for granting me rollback! Just a small question - at the end of my trial period do I need to re-apply through the standard channel or will someone automatically review whether to make my rights permanent? Once again, thanks! Giraffer ( stay home) 07:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Kevin. Thanks for the kind words about my request for clarification of the Brahma Kumaris case. You mentioned that this would be a good time to take care of housekeeping, and I noticed that article probation still appears on the list of active sanctions. Whilst I'm happy to replace templates on talk pages, this one's a bit above my pay grade. Cheers, BlackcurrantTea ( talk) 02:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi L235, and thank you for sending me an email. Yours was the last message I received of several, and I have closed my ORCP. Admittedly, I was not expecting to receive such a volume of feedback so quickly, but I was pleasantly surprised.
I’ve reached out to a couple of other editors including a potential nomination. If you have the time, I’d certainly welcome that review - I’m always looking to make myself the best editor I can, and it couldn’t hurt to have more feedback to prepare for a run in the very near future. Thank you for taking the time to reach out to me; I appreciate it. Red Phoenix talk 21:43, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
" Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, Lightbreather (talk · contribs) is unbanned." That's wrong, or did I misunderstand something? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 21:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi, L235 (Kevin) I would like to request help regarding Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DineshRedbull. Thank you ~ Amkgp 💬 18:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello Kevin,
You granted me rollback on July 16th, which is set to expire on the 30th (of July) and I was wondering if you could review my record for a renewal? While I have been patrolling the edit filter quite a bit, I have not seen many opportunities to make use of the tool (or maybe I am using it sparingly), and I would ask that you take into consideration when I didn't use it as well as when I did. Also, at your recommendation I have enrolled in CVUA, and am working well with my trainer, Cassiopeia, whom I have pinged in case they have any additional comments.
Thanks, Giraffer ( munch) 10:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020).
Hey. Regarding ARBGMO, the committee authorised DS and 1RR here. This was amended in this motion to have a narrower scope(?). But it seems like they forgot to modify the 1RR restriction as well, which had the exact same scope as the DS before it was amended? So, I guess if one wants to wikilawyer this, GMO currently has a 1RR with a broader scope than the DS itself? ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 13:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi, L235,
I see that you have been contributing to Wikipedia for over 6 years. However, I see that your name is Kevin. There is another user called
Kevin. This user has not been active on Wikipedia since 2015. I would like to know if you have any relationship with User:Kevin. I am sorry for bothering you or annoying you. Thank you.
Friend
505
15:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Your close of the Lightbreather thread says she was unbanned, but my reading of the vote (after changed votes) is that the motion did not pass. Is the close summary a mistake due to the vote changing, or was their an off-wiki decision that is being reflected in the summary? ResultingConstant ( talk) 18:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, Lightbreather (talk · contribs) is unbanned.was part of the motion to be voted on and was not enacted, but was voted on and is therefore archived. This seems to be a common source of confusion so I would welcome any ideas on how to make that more clear. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:12, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I noticed you are one of the only admins online right now. Would you be able to block 2604:3D09:6C7D:BC00:FC63:B89C:42AA:51BF ( talk · contribs)? They are causing a lot of problems through disruptive editing and vandalism. Already given final warning and reported at WP:AIV. Thanks, TribunalMan ( talk) 03:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi! Sorry for not getting back to you sooner, I was taking a bit of a wikibreak. I believe you asked me to leave you a message when my PCR perms expired, for you could decide if I should retain the perm. Thanks! -- 17jiangz1 ( talk) 01:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Hey buddy, long time no speak (again, lol). How are you keeping? How's adminning? You still studying? Good to see you're still around! :) UaMaol ( talk) 06:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
I'm back! After another month of rollback, I am looking to be granted another extension or possibly permanent. Due to various delays IRL, I have not been very active in the past couple weeks for various reasons IRL, so progress with CVUA has slowed. For some reason the required diffs are hard to come by. My latest assignment didn't go too well, but I fully understand my mistakes and have taken onboard the lessons for when I am combating vandalism. I have never been challenged on a rollback action and have only been challenged once on any counter-vandalism actions, but was quickly (and amicably) resolved. That can be found at the bottom of my talk. If you would like me to withhold my request until I have completed CVUA, I can do so. Thanks, Giraffer ( munch) 08:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm confused about the status following Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Lightbreather_unban. It appears their account is still blocked but they were unbanned. Is this out of order? ☆ Bri ( talk) 17:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).
mustor
shoulduse the articles for creation process.
Hi there, thank you for the recent close at Joe Biden. I'm happy you are open to questions. I'm not interested in challenging your close, but only to grow as an editor. In that vein, a few thoughts...
One is that section headers are meant to help readers navigate through content, and I don't think they expect editors to censor it for any reason. My other thought is related: Brett Kavanaugh has allegations that not only have no corroboration, but alleged witnesses have come out and said the assault didn't happen. That's all documented in his bio. And yet, we have a large section titled " Sexual assault allegations", and even mention it in his Lede (without mentioning the existence of negative corroboration - a clear BLP violation).
I learn by watching and reading policy. Keeping the assault allegation against Biden out of the section heading is an anomaly in my experience. I'm not sure how to understand it. I'm probably wrong here, but I did expect some of the arguments to be ignored when closing the RfC as not based in policy. For instance, the only reason a thing is mentioned in the header is because it's contained in that section. Arguments that the allegation isn't important or verified have no bearing on whether it should be mentioned in the section title, but whether it should be mentioned at all. However, those arguments were given credence. Per WP:NHC, The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious...
Finally, readers are going to find a rape allegation discussed under a heading that reads "inappropriate physical contact". I think that sends an unfortunate message, and I would have regretted staying silent about this, so thank you again, petrarchan47 คุ ก 06:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
the only reason a thing is mentioned in the header is because it's contained in that section), and (2) why my close is appropriate in light of the contents of the article Brett Kavanaugh. Regarding (2), this question is outside of the scope of my role as a closer. The structure of other articles may (or may not) be a good consideration for participants at an RfC, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS-style arguments are not generally credited on their own. I haven't personally read the history of the discussions for Brett Kavanaugh, so I can't answer your question specifically as to why the consensus is for the current state of the article, but if you disagree with that article's contents you should discuss that question there. Perhaps the context surrounding the decisions was different.
Hi, L235,
As an admin/editor, I don't work much with SPI or bring cases to checkusers but I stumbled on to a very unusual situation that I hope you might offer your opinion on. It concerns User:ADQ_BAB_TUT2020/sandbox, a regular user sandbox. But if you look at the page history, you'll see about 7 or 8 brand new editors have edited this editor's sandbox over the past 4 days. I don't know whether it is sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. I thought that it might be a collaborative editing project but I can't see where any of these editors have communicated with each other or any one, there are no talk page posts from any of the editors working on this sandbox.
The issue is that these editors aren't doing any damage. And I have no idea why any one editor would create so many different accounts to edit the same page. So, I was unsure about filing a formal SPI case since it seems to be a productive effort and there isn't any obvious explanation of what could be going on. Maybe a school project? But it seems like off-season for schools. Any way, if you have any ideas, let me know. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 01:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Kevin, I wanted to ask that you double check the diff in your closure of Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2020#Meta2. Right now it links to an edit on The Shoop Shoop Song (It's in His Kiss) which I don't think is what you meant to link to. I hope you're keeping well despite the storms and pandemic, and thanks for setting up the ACE RFC. — Wug· a·po·des 04:16, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure BillSchorrIsAThief is the same person as the IP whose edits you had to oversight on Bill Schorr. 2605:A000:1327:6313:4DE1:63B7:A890:CA48 ( talk) 18:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Hey, regarding your recent closure (also see this discussion), does the closure says the 5 paragraphs should be condensed down to 2 sentences (not more)? Thanks. -- Mhhossein talk 13:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
"Specific citations, along with analysis of the prominence given by reliable secondary sources to differing opinions"? I want to know it just for my own information. Thanks. -- Mhhossein talk 13:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Many thanks for your detailed reply. I wanted to respond to this: among other things, participants argued that the proposed change would place undue weight on the Reade allegation and imply that there was more than one person who made sexual assault allegations against Biden. I can't reject the undue weight argument out of hand; after all, only a small portion of the section is about the Reade allegation.
I guess I don't understand this reasoning. My issue is that we do have to mention this allegation, and we have. Yet, it is situated underneath the "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact" section, telling readers that we at WP consider an allegation of what is legally rape to be "inappropriate physical contact". Rape is a felony, it cannot be categorized as merely inappropriate physical contact, not if WP wants to be taken seriously, not accused of whitewashing, and not accused of downplaying sexual assault.
I didn't take seriously the !votes complaining that the wording put too much emphasis on the Reade allegation, because the RfC didn't offer any suggestion for wording, it simply asked whether we should differentiate between the types of allegations in the section, or lump them together as inappropriate touching.
The solution could be to decide how it should be worded in a way that doesn't claim rape = merely inappropriate contact, and yet doesn't give more weight to this than it is due. I don't think any editors want to give it undue weight by any means, and I don't think coming up with acceptable wording is such an impossible task we should throw our hands up and leave it as is, because currently it's inaccurate at best. We had some suggestions early on. It seems easy to remedy the fact that adding "and sexual assault" makes it unclear there was only one. There are enough wordsmiths here that this shouldn't be a reason to call the whole thing off. Another option is to give the allegation its own properly titled subsection.
I'm interested to hear your thoughts on this, and if you have any suggestions for a remedy. Thanks again, petrarchan47 คุ ก 01:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
it is situated underneath the "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact" section, telling readers that we at WP consider an allegation of what is legally rape to be "inappropriate physical contact". Rape is a felony, it cannot be categorized as merely inappropriate physical contact, not if WP wants to be taken seriously, not accused of whitewashing, and not accused of downplaying sexual assault.– This is the principal argument made by your side, and I did not discount it at all. However, this is an editorial decision and no matter how much I personally agree, as a closer, I cannot discount opinions that implicitly or explicitly disagree with this statement. Additionally, it's not a dichotomy between "give undue weight to Reade allegation" and "categorize sexual assault and 'inappropriate physical contact'", though the structure of this particular RfC and the arguments made at it may contribute to participants' impression that it is such a dichotomy. There are alternatives, as I discuss below.
I didn't take seriously the !votes complaining that the wording put too much emphasis on the Reade allegation– I don't have a policy-based reason to discount "undue weight" opinions, and in fact the structure of the RfC explicitly asks users to form a consensus to change "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact" to "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact and sexual assault". As I mentioned in my closure, I did consider the previous discussion where people suggested other options, but none of them received even close to enough discussion to represent community consensus. As a closer, I am generally constrained to assessing consensus, not imposing decisions from above that received little discussion. (That's why it's important for RfCs to be structured well and for participants to voice support for alternatives if they prefer those alternatives to the status quo.)
throw our hands up and leave it as is. Further discussions are allowed; perhaps a sub-subsection would resolve the concerns of some participants, or a broader "Allegations of misconduct" heading, or including the material in the section in the existing sections (for the rest of the "2020 presidential campaign" section is chronologically ordered, rather than the topical separation of the "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact" section). I am not personally invested in the article and I don't currently plan on engaging with those discussions myself, but I'm happy to be a sounding board for any further thoughts or questions you may have. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC)