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 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 19 |
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2021).
delete-redirect
userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello, L235. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Perry Township Police Department, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 04:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I'll send you an email shortly... and now sent. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Would you mind taking a look at something? I came across an IP user who can be disruptive, but also very confrontational with even a passing interaction. They post very lengthy comments, but also looong edit summaries. Currently posting from 103.163.124.95 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), but also [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. They post on Al Jazeera related pages. Wasn't sure what to do until I noticed identical behavior from indef'd user Mohd.maaz864 ( talk). For example, pointing out the perceived advantage that registered users have because of the their "WP:UAL"; [8] & [9]. Anyway, the user was blocked after this ANI you posted. Between your experience with this user and your knowledge of SPI (which I have little of), I thought I would ask you to take a look. Thanks - wolf 05:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello, L235. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " Perry Township Police Department".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 03:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2021).
Interface administrator changes
oversight
will be renamed to suppress
. This is for
technical reasons. You can comment at
T112147 if you have objections.Dear Kevin, I have definite topic bans for edits concerning COVID-19 and Complementary and Alternative Medicine, imposed about a year ago. In the meantime, I have published several articles about COVID-19, including an editorial in a prestigious Springer journal: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10311-021-01249-0. Could I apply to the Abritration Committee to resonsider my bans? I have never done it so far, as the procedure seems very complicated. Sylwia Ufnalska ( talk) 22:16, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Dear L235,
Thank you for participating in the recent
discretionary sanctions community consultation. We are truly appreciative of the range of feedback we received and the high quality discussion which occurred during the process. We have now posted a
summary of the feedback we've received and also a preview of some of what we expect to happen next. We hope that the second phase, a presentation of draft recommendations, will proceed on time in June or early July. You will be notified when this phase begins, unless you choose to to opt-out of future mailings by removing your name
here.
--
Barkeep49 &
KevinL (aka L235) 21:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Kevin, regarding recent actions taken by an sysop revoking all of my Permissions because he did not like my answers and I made a few mistakes I just wanted to know which would be the right formal way to let this check and being revoked. I checked already DR but this is not the right place, looks more like an Arbcom issue??! CommanderWaterford ( talk) 07:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi.
Thanks for checking the user's relationship. :)
Sorry, but the En wiki is not my usual one, so it's just for makingnsure I don't misunderstand.
I'm guessing the no comments about the IPs means that they don't get to be veryified not having been... endorsed or not having local reasons? Or is it something else? Thanks for your time. --
Lost in subtitles (
talk) 23:49, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Greetings,
I'm letting you know in advance about a meeting I'd like to invite you to regarding the Universal Code of Conduct and the community's ownership of its future enforcement. I'm still in the process of putting together the details, but I wanted to share the date with you: 27 June, 2021. I do not have a time on this date yet, but I will let you soon. We have created a meta page with basic information. Please take a look at the meta page and sign up your name under the appropriate section.
Thank you for your time.-- BAnand (WMF) 15:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
... but do you have any idea when we can expect some action at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moksha88, now that all responses are in? The disruption has continued at the RFD, and they've started to use the SPI as a venue to accuse me of offenses ranging from using SPI to win disputes, all the way to racism. If there's technical/procedural stuff happening that I can't know about, of course I understand, but just thought I'd make sure this hasn't fallen off of your radar. All the best. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 16:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
;-)
As to SPI disruption, it's fine for now. They're just trying to bait me into saying something stupid, and I have no intention to respond further to them. --
Tamzin (she/they) |
o toki tawa mi. 18:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)FYI - I've just reverted the IP editor on User:L235/Our biggest challenge, they seemed lost but haven't edited since. Leijurv ( talk) 05:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Dear Kevin, Please reconsider your decisions about my topic bans imposed in March 2020. First, I was topic banned from editing any pages that have to do with the COVID-19 topic area, and that decision was justified, due to my hasty editions concerning this important topic. The edits were based on discussions with experts but were not properly supported by publications at that time. I'm a biologist and Honorary Life Member of the European Association of Science Editors (EASE, https://ease.org.uk/about-us/honorary-life-members/) and since then, I've published many articles about COVID-19 in various medical and science journals. I promise to support my future edits in Wikipedia with reliable publications. My second topic ban, imposed soon after the first one, concerned Complementary and Alternative Medicine. It was partly unjustified in my opinion, as my reverted edit about stinging nettle ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Urtica_dioica&type=revision&diff=948781751&oldid=947955751) was based mostly on a well-documented secondary source. I mentioned also a Polish textbook about medicinal plants and a promising primary source, which should give an incentive to further research because of its importance and easy access to this valuable medicinal herb. Please let me know if you need any additional information. Sylwia Ufnalska ( talk) 21:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Moreover, inhibition of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus replication by stinging nettle lectin, Urtica dioica agglutinin was observed in a lethal SARS-CoV BALB/c mouse model.What was it sourced to? A primary source. Was that OK under MEDRS? No. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2021).
You announce that "solid diffs" are needed in a new section at 23:23, 28 June 2021. The SPI had confirmed the claim ten days ago. There were diffs, but before anyone could provide the diffs you closed the investigation at 2021-06-28T23:23:59 and then archived it. I don't see what the rush to close it was. Mind reopening it and unarchiving it? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 00:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Seeking your input on a particular article that I feel does not meet the notability requirements for podcasts. I have watched and attempted to tag this article numerous times for notability, conflict of interest, advertising, etc. Since I know the individuals who run this podcast, another editor feels I have some sort of vendetta against them. I personally feel the value of the article is weak at best for the Wiki. Would you mind taking a glance and letting me know your thoughts? I appreciate your time and guidance. Steve Lux, Jr. ( talk) 19:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2021).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
Hi Kevin,
I blocked the above user. My rationale was WP:UPE and "probable sock" (in the block log only). If you read the post-block discussion on James's Talk page, it should give you a pretty good idea of what was going through my mind, as well as why I unblocked him. However, I now have misgivings about unblocking him. He has an Anglo name and says he's a student in Virginia. I'm assuming that he's probably a native English speaker. I noticed that the English in his initial comments post-block was not great, but at that point I put that down to the low level of English skills these days, even with certain college students. In retrospect, I think that was wrong. But also the substance of what he said made sense to me. However, after I unblocked him and read his additional comments, I am struck by the following points:
I am now thinking that my original instincts were correct. I noticed you acted a couple of times at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vivek.k.Verma/Archive, which is why I picked you to talk to. The Vivek Verma article has a rather chaotic history, having been created by socks, as well as by UPEs who are not necessarily socks. There's also a history of creating it with different names to bypass the full protection on creation. I'm not sure, particularly if there's no record of the UAs used by the blocked accounts (for example, at CU wiki), how much a check would help, but (1) it would help verify the veracity of some of his location claims, depending on when he left Virginia to go to New Delhi; and (2) you could also give me a second opinion on what you think I should do at this point. I'm willing to reblock, but not without technical or behavioral corroboration.
Thanks. Sorry this is so long.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 22:12, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Simply say in all unblocks "you are still subject to all of our policies, this is not permission to ignore policy". Slatersteven ( talk) 20:32, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello L235:
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long
Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.
Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 3200 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.
Hi, I am totally puzzled. This article is tagged as needing extra citations. There is only one sentence that lacks a citation and several have multiple citations. There is an article on him in today's Irish Times. AnomieBot has put several tags in June re citations required. Am I free to remove the tag? Aineireland ( talk) 17:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Than you. I did not think you added tag. AnomieBot did. I was seeking advice given your expertise as administrator. Is it that the citations are not acceptable because of the sources? I thought it might be out of order to contradict a Bot. Aineireland ( talk) 12:50, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
I edit conflicted with you when trying to clean-up 1fluidphysics. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Three years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Interesting read, our exchange back then. It could still get better ... - Next question to arb candidates will be if they would have listened to SlimVirgin. That would be the first question without mentioning infoboxes, - an improvement ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I've nominated you for a T-Shirt over at meta:Merchandise giveaways/Nominations/L235. Happy editing, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 08:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi Kevin, it was me that reached out to Jackson on Twitter to write this article [10]. I did tell him to reach out to the Arbitration Committee for comment and I very much agree with your comments, which are very pertinent to my current situation. I did also tell him to reach out to our colleagues Alexbrn and RandomCanadian who have been very much against us having the COVID-19 lab leak page, but they didn’t offer any comments. Now I am facing some very serious charges in an AE [11] and I am getting mixed messages from admins about the due date for my statement, so I would very much appreciate it if you or any other member of ArbCom could make a clarifying statement in this regard. I am also very much concerned about the integrity of the process and I am especially concerned that the proposed closer seems to have already ruled out a WP:BOOMERANG [12], even though a number of editors have pointed out that the OP made the same apparent mistake I did. Can you advise how I can make this a full ArbCom case to assure I have a fair hearing? CutePeach ( talk) 04:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
exceedingly rare, so I have resigned myself to my fate. I am a 36 year old primigravida and this isn’t good for my health. I will post my statement to my sandbox later, but I will not dignify the AE with my presence. Most of the admins there are either involved in the topic or canvassed by editors. ToBeFree - who ignored my original complaint [13] - made a presumption of guilt from the start, and raised the word limit from 500 to 1500 to accommodate for Shibbolethink’s spaghetti flinging - and he is using nearly 1200 words himself! I knew it was over when I saw HighInBC’s first comment [14], and here he says again that I am highly likely to be banned [15], before even hearing my statement. I think they just want my statement to give the appearance of due process and fairness. My hopes went up when I saw CaptainEek join without making judgment, but then he called me out for canvassing two editors who also suffered WP:CRYNPA from Shibbolethink, and he didn’t say anything about Shibbolethink canvassing PaleoNeonate on my own wall [16], with support from ToBeFree [17]. Then El_C, who has called me a sock [18] joins in, followed by Bishonen, who has referred to me as bastard [19], and semi active Hut 8.5 who made this statement [20]. Finally, semi-active Johnuniq joins in too, reminding me of this statement they made [21]. I wonder if they have their own Twitch channel. CutePeach ( talk) 23:41, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
We exaggeratedly underestimate the value of future gains and losses. Thus the satisfaction of finishing a project (a future reward) stands no chance against the fun of playing hooky for a day.Here, however, CutePeach may not foresee any real
rewardheading her way -- just more challenges and unanticipated or shifting deadlines.
There are just a number of stubborn people, and that's nothing unusual at WPbut more importantly, reliable sources that contradict the conclusions that the editor attempted to make articles express repeatedly, which seemed to be a main issue. In any case, the AE report is out there... — Paleo Neonate – 07:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
stubborn peoplewould surely paint him WP:INVOLVED for serving his WaPo side dish, so it doesn’t actually matter if he participates further or not. CutePeach ( talk) 18:55, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2021).
|
|
Hi Kevin, I wanted to reply to
your comment but didn't have the space (and regardless it is a philosophical point unrelated to the request at hand). I wanted to focus specifically on ArbCom is not an investigative body. Our job is to decide disputes, not to go looking for them
and the impact that sentiment can have on reporting abuse.
To start, most of the links I provided in my original statement were taken from the block log. I believe it is more than reasonable to expect arbitrators to have seen that, and I believe it is reasonable to expect them to look at links other administrators thought important to include in that block log. In my opinion this is fundamental due diligence for any administrator responding to reports of harassment, and I do not believe the arbitration committee should be given a lighter burden of due diligence than any given responding administrator. I understand that ArbCom is not in the business of investigations, certainly I do not expect you to have gone digging for the additional context I provided, but that simply cannot be an excuse to avoid looking beyond the original complaint.
Harassment is not restricted to editors who understand the preferred styling of arbitrators, and expecting everyone initiating a request have sufficient embodied cultural capital to meet an undocumented procedural burden, frankly, protects abusers. Other editors facing harassment see the arbitration proceedings, and their decision to report hinges on whether they believe you will take it seriously or not. The committee is tasked with deciding disputes, and part of that task is responding to allegations of harassment. The consequence is that individual members need to consider whether they are creating an environment that encourages victims to report. Declining without comment does not do that, declining for procedural deficiencies does not do that, and declining based on the statement with no mention of the six-year-long block log does not do that. It creates an environment and perception where victims would rather leave our project or seek action from outside the community instead of opening themselves to further harassment in front of a committee that will give more than a cursory glance if they aren't perfect.
To be clear, I am pointing out the consequences if your statement were taken to its conclusion and the perceptions that reasonable outsiders would have about the committee. I know it is not your intention and that you care as much as I do about countering systemic bias on Wikipedia. It is quite possible that you looked deeply into this matter before I commented, but that is not apparent. Countering an institutional culture that protects abusers means we need to be aware of how our expectations and biases contribute to a culture that makes victims feel like their reports will not be worth the time or risk. I understand that we have a rapport and that you were making reference to previous statements I have made on this topic, but not everyone is aware of that context or be as sympathetic a reader as I am. I'm sorry for this being so long and confrontational, but if nothing else I hope it prompts you to think critically about how our received knowledge contributes to the reproduction of systemic barriers. — Wug· a·po·des 03:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Just noticed the essay in the main part of your userpage and read User:L235/Our biggest challenge and wanted to say I think they're really well written and contain lots for us all to think about. — Bilorv ( talk) 21:04, 21 August 2021 (UTC) |
Universal Code of Conduct News
Issue 3, August 2021
Read the full newsletter
Welcome to the third issue of Universal Code of Conduct News! This newsletter will help Wikimedians stay involved with the development of the new code and will distribute relevant news, research, and upcoming events related to the UCoC.
If you haven’t already, please remember to subscribe here if you would like to be notified about future editions of the newsletter, and also leave your username here if you’d like to be contacted to help with translations in the future.
MNadzikiewicz (WMF) ( talk) 22:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Can I ask, should there not be a section here Biographies on dealing with possible issues with people born in Jerusalem etc. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem only valid for three years? Does that need updating or not? I came to these pages simply because of the conversation started at WT:Football#Jerusalem. Regards. Govvy ( talk) 09:51, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
I was stalking your talkpage, Kevin, when I came across Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem. That looks like a successful arbcom mandated resolution to a difficult content dispute. I wonder if there are lessons we can apply from it towards Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian politics/Workshop. VR talk 23:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2021).
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2021).
|
Interface administrator changes
|
Hello, I've noticed you're the guy that blocked 2600:387:8:7:0:0:0:70 in 2018 for 31 hours. It seems that, since then, they have continued their vandalising. They're currently aiming for plantation-related articles (see his recent contributions) and removing large amount of notable content. It seems like nothing would stop him. @ Uranium Site: has did a great job in reverting his edits, but since he's not a mod (I think), he can't really block the IP. I was wondering if you could block the IP indefinitely? I know it's harsh since it's an IP user, but I think it's only being used by one person, as all of his edits seem to be bad faith. Thanks! Aequilaterum ( talk) 07:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, Primefac and Wugapodes.
The following had consensus support of participating editors:
The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors:
Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1.
There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Best, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello Kevin,
I noticed that you were involved in closing a RFC about the People’s Mujahedin of Iran and you also participated in the recent ArbCom case about Iranian politics. I have been reading through some of the new guidelines, but some things are not clear to me. I have a couple of questions and don’t know who to ask. May I ask you? Ypatch ( talk) 06:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Universal Code of Conduct News
Issue 4, October 2021
Read the full newsletter
Welcome to the fourth issue of Universal Code of Conduct News! This newsletter will help Wikimedians stay involved with the development of the new code and will distribute relevant news, research, and upcoming events related to the UCoC.
If you haven’t already, please remember to subscribe here if you would like to be notified about future editions of the newsletter, and also leave your username here if you’d like to be contacted to help with translations in the future.
MNadzikiewicz (WMF) ( talk) 20:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for creating
Wikipedia:2021 Movement Charter Drafting Committee Election
You are so cool, you have done so much in the past, and now you do this. Now that this page is set up it seems so obvious and necessary, but no one recognized that until you made it. 💙💙💙💙💙 🐹🐹🐹🐹🐹🐹 ☕️☕️☕️☕️☕️☕️ Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC) |
Following a 2 week brainstorming period and a 1 week proposal period, the 30 day discussion of changes to our Request for Adminship process has begun. Following feedback on Phase 1, in order to ensure that the largest number of people possible can see all proposals, new proposals will only be accepted for the for the first 7 days of Phase 2. The 30 day discussion is scheduled to last until November 30. Please join the discussion or even submit your own proposal.
There is 1 future mailing planned with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
16:13, 31 October 2021 (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 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 19 |
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2021).
delete-redirect
userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello, L235. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Perry Township Police Department, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 04:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I'll send you an email shortly... and now sent. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Would you mind taking a look at something? I came across an IP user who can be disruptive, but also very confrontational with even a passing interaction. They post very lengthy comments, but also looong edit summaries. Currently posting from 103.163.124.95 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), but also [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. They post on Al Jazeera related pages. Wasn't sure what to do until I noticed identical behavior from indef'd user Mohd.maaz864 ( talk). For example, pointing out the perceived advantage that registered users have because of the their "WP:UAL"; [8] & [9]. Anyway, the user was blocked after this ANI you posted. Between your experience with this user and your knowledge of SPI (which I have little of), I thought I would ask you to take a look. Thanks - wolf 05:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello, L235. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " Perry Township Police Department".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 03:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2021).
Interface administrator changes
oversight
will be renamed to suppress
. This is for
technical reasons. You can comment at
T112147 if you have objections.Dear Kevin, I have definite topic bans for edits concerning COVID-19 and Complementary and Alternative Medicine, imposed about a year ago. In the meantime, I have published several articles about COVID-19, including an editorial in a prestigious Springer journal: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10311-021-01249-0. Could I apply to the Abritration Committee to resonsider my bans? I have never done it so far, as the procedure seems very complicated. Sylwia Ufnalska ( talk) 22:16, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Dear L235,
Thank you for participating in the recent
discretionary sanctions community consultation. We are truly appreciative of the range of feedback we received and the high quality discussion which occurred during the process. We have now posted a
summary of the feedback we've received and also a preview of some of what we expect to happen next. We hope that the second phase, a presentation of draft recommendations, will proceed on time in June or early July. You will be notified when this phase begins, unless you choose to to opt-out of future mailings by removing your name
here.
--
Barkeep49 &
KevinL (aka L235) 21:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Kevin, regarding recent actions taken by an sysop revoking all of my Permissions because he did not like my answers and I made a few mistakes I just wanted to know which would be the right formal way to let this check and being revoked. I checked already DR but this is not the right place, looks more like an Arbcom issue??! CommanderWaterford ( talk) 07:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi.
Thanks for checking the user's relationship. :)
Sorry, but the En wiki is not my usual one, so it's just for makingnsure I don't misunderstand.
I'm guessing the no comments about the IPs means that they don't get to be veryified not having been... endorsed or not having local reasons? Or is it something else? Thanks for your time. --
Lost in subtitles (
talk) 23:49, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Greetings,
I'm letting you know in advance about a meeting I'd like to invite you to regarding the Universal Code of Conduct and the community's ownership of its future enforcement. I'm still in the process of putting together the details, but I wanted to share the date with you: 27 June, 2021. I do not have a time on this date yet, but I will let you soon. We have created a meta page with basic information. Please take a look at the meta page and sign up your name under the appropriate section.
Thank you for your time.-- BAnand (WMF) 15:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
... but do you have any idea when we can expect some action at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moksha88, now that all responses are in? The disruption has continued at the RFD, and they've started to use the SPI as a venue to accuse me of offenses ranging from using SPI to win disputes, all the way to racism. If there's technical/procedural stuff happening that I can't know about, of course I understand, but just thought I'd make sure this hasn't fallen off of your radar. All the best. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 16:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
;-)
As to SPI disruption, it's fine for now. They're just trying to bait me into saying something stupid, and I have no intention to respond further to them. --
Tamzin (she/they) |
o toki tawa mi. 18:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)FYI - I've just reverted the IP editor on User:L235/Our biggest challenge, they seemed lost but haven't edited since. Leijurv ( talk) 05:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Dear Kevin, Please reconsider your decisions about my topic bans imposed in March 2020. First, I was topic banned from editing any pages that have to do with the COVID-19 topic area, and that decision was justified, due to my hasty editions concerning this important topic. The edits were based on discussions with experts but were not properly supported by publications at that time. I'm a biologist and Honorary Life Member of the European Association of Science Editors (EASE, https://ease.org.uk/about-us/honorary-life-members/) and since then, I've published many articles about COVID-19 in various medical and science journals. I promise to support my future edits in Wikipedia with reliable publications. My second topic ban, imposed soon after the first one, concerned Complementary and Alternative Medicine. It was partly unjustified in my opinion, as my reverted edit about stinging nettle ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Urtica_dioica&type=revision&diff=948781751&oldid=947955751) was based mostly on a well-documented secondary source. I mentioned also a Polish textbook about medicinal plants and a promising primary source, which should give an incentive to further research because of its importance and easy access to this valuable medicinal herb. Please let me know if you need any additional information. Sylwia Ufnalska ( talk) 21:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Moreover, inhibition of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus replication by stinging nettle lectin, Urtica dioica agglutinin was observed in a lethal SARS-CoV BALB/c mouse model.What was it sourced to? A primary source. Was that OK under MEDRS? No. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2021).
You announce that "solid diffs" are needed in a new section at 23:23, 28 June 2021. The SPI had confirmed the claim ten days ago. There were diffs, but before anyone could provide the diffs you closed the investigation at 2021-06-28T23:23:59 and then archived it. I don't see what the rush to close it was. Mind reopening it and unarchiving it? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 00:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Seeking your input on a particular article that I feel does not meet the notability requirements for podcasts. I have watched and attempted to tag this article numerous times for notability, conflict of interest, advertising, etc. Since I know the individuals who run this podcast, another editor feels I have some sort of vendetta against them. I personally feel the value of the article is weak at best for the Wiki. Would you mind taking a glance and letting me know your thoughts? I appreciate your time and guidance. Steve Lux, Jr. ( talk) 19:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2021).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
Hi Kevin,
I blocked the above user. My rationale was WP:UPE and "probable sock" (in the block log only). If you read the post-block discussion on James's Talk page, it should give you a pretty good idea of what was going through my mind, as well as why I unblocked him. However, I now have misgivings about unblocking him. He has an Anglo name and says he's a student in Virginia. I'm assuming that he's probably a native English speaker. I noticed that the English in his initial comments post-block was not great, but at that point I put that down to the low level of English skills these days, even with certain college students. In retrospect, I think that was wrong. But also the substance of what he said made sense to me. However, after I unblocked him and read his additional comments, I am struck by the following points:
I am now thinking that my original instincts were correct. I noticed you acted a couple of times at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vivek.k.Verma/Archive, which is why I picked you to talk to. The Vivek Verma article has a rather chaotic history, having been created by socks, as well as by UPEs who are not necessarily socks. There's also a history of creating it with different names to bypass the full protection on creation. I'm not sure, particularly if there's no record of the UAs used by the blocked accounts (for example, at CU wiki), how much a check would help, but (1) it would help verify the veracity of some of his location claims, depending on when he left Virginia to go to New Delhi; and (2) you could also give me a second opinion on what you think I should do at this point. I'm willing to reblock, but not without technical or behavioral corroboration.
Thanks. Sorry this is so long.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 22:12, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Simply say in all unblocks "you are still subject to all of our policies, this is not permission to ignore policy". Slatersteven ( talk) 20:32, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello L235:
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long
Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.
Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 3200 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.
Hi, I am totally puzzled. This article is tagged as needing extra citations. There is only one sentence that lacks a citation and several have multiple citations. There is an article on him in today's Irish Times. AnomieBot has put several tags in June re citations required. Am I free to remove the tag? Aineireland ( talk) 17:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Than you. I did not think you added tag. AnomieBot did. I was seeking advice given your expertise as administrator. Is it that the citations are not acceptable because of the sources? I thought it might be out of order to contradict a Bot. Aineireland ( talk) 12:50, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
I edit conflicted with you when trying to clean-up 1fluidphysics. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Three years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Interesting read, our exchange back then. It could still get better ... - Next question to arb candidates will be if they would have listened to SlimVirgin. That would be the first question without mentioning infoboxes, - an improvement ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I've nominated you for a T-Shirt over at meta:Merchandise giveaways/Nominations/L235. Happy editing, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 08:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi Kevin, it was me that reached out to Jackson on Twitter to write this article [10]. I did tell him to reach out to the Arbitration Committee for comment and I very much agree with your comments, which are very pertinent to my current situation. I did also tell him to reach out to our colleagues Alexbrn and RandomCanadian who have been very much against us having the COVID-19 lab leak page, but they didn’t offer any comments. Now I am facing some very serious charges in an AE [11] and I am getting mixed messages from admins about the due date for my statement, so I would very much appreciate it if you or any other member of ArbCom could make a clarifying statement in this regard. I am also very much concerned about the integrity of the process and I am especially concerned that the proposed closer seems to have already ruled out a WP:BOOMERANG [12], even though a number of editors have pointed out that the OP made the same apparent mistake I did. Can you advise how I can make this a full ArbCom case to assure I have a fair hearing? CutePeach ( talk) 04:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
exceedingly rare, so I have resigned myself to my fate. I am a 36 year old primigravida and this isn’t good for my health. I will post my statement to my sandbox later, but I will not dignify the AE with my presence. Most of the admins there are either involved in the topic or canvassed by editors. ToBeFree - who ignored my original complaint [13] - made a presumption of guilt from the start, and raised the word limit from 500 to 1500 to accommodate for Shibbolethink’s spaghetti flinging - and he is using nearly 1200 words himself! I knew it was over when I saw HighInBC’s first comment [14], and here he says again that I am highly likely to be banned [15], before even hearing my statement. I think they just want my statement to give the appearance of due process and fairness. My hopes went up when I saw CaptainEek join without making judgment, but then he called me out for canvassing two editors who also suffered WP:CRYNPA from Shibbolethink, and he didn’t say anything about Shibbolethink canvassing PaleoNeonate on my own wall [16], with support from ToBeFree [17]. Then El_C, who has called me a sock [18] joins in, followed by Bishonen, who has referred to me as bastard [19], and semi active Hut 8.5 who made this statement [20]. Finally, semi-active Johnuniq joins in too, reminding me of this statement they made [21]. I wonder if they have their own Twitch channel. CutePeach ( talk) 23:41, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
We exaggeratedly underestimate the value of future gains and losses. Thus the satisfaction of finishing a project (a future reward) stands no chance against the fun of playing hooky for a day.Here, however, CutePeach may not foresee any real
rewardheading her way -- just more challenges and unanticipated or shifting deadlines.
There are just a number of stubborn people, and that's nothing unusual at WPbut more importantly, reliable sources that contradict the conclusions that the editor attempted to make articles express repeatedly, which seemed to be a main issue. In any case, the AE report is out there... — Paleo Neonate – 07:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
stubborn peoplewould surely paint him WP:INVOLVED for serving his WaPo side dish, so it doesn’t actually matter if he participates further or not. CutePeach ( talk) 18:55, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2021).
|
|
Hi Kevin, I wanted to reply to
your comment but didn't have the space (and regardless it is a philosophical point unrelated to the request at hand). I wanted to focus specifically on ArbCom is not an investigative body. Our job is to decide disputes, not to go looking for them
and the impact that sentiment can have on reporting abuse.
To start, most of the links I provided in my original statement were taken from the block log. I believe it is more than reasonable to expect arbitrators to have seen that, and I believe it is reasonable to expect them to look at links other administrators thought important to include in that block log. In my opinion this is fundamental due diligence for any administrator responding to reports of harassment, and I do not believe the arbitration committee should be given a lighter burden of due diligence than any given responding administrator. I understand that ArbCom is not in the business of investigations, certainly I do not expect you to have gone digging for the additional context I provided, but that simply cannot be an excuse to avoid looking beyond the original complaint.
Harassment is not restricted to editors who understand the preferred styling of arbitrators, and expecting everyone initiating a request have sufficient embodied cultural capital to meet an undocumented procedural burden, frankly, protects abusers. Other editors facing harassment see the arbitration proceedings, and their decision to report hinges on whether they believe you will take it seriously or not. The committee is tasked with deciding disputes, and part of that task is responding to allegations of harassment. The consequence is that individual members need to consider whether they are creating an environment that encourages victims to report. Declining without comment does not do that, declining for procedural deficiencies does not do that, and declining based on the statement with no mention of the six-year-long block log does not do that. It creates an environment and perception where victims would rather leave our project or seek action from outside the community instead of opening themselves to further harassment in front of a committee that will give more than a cursory glance if they aren't perfect.
To be clear, I am pointing out the consequences if your statement were taken to its conclusion and the perceptions that reasonable outsiders would have about the committee. I know it is not your intention and that you care as much as I do about countering systemic bias on Wikipedia. It is quite possible that you looked deeply into this matter before I commented, but that is not apparent. Countering an institutional culture that protects abusers means we need to be aware of how our expectations and biases contribute to a culture that makes victims feel like their reports will not be worth the time or risk. I understand that we have a rapport and that you were making reference to previous statements I have made on this topic, but not everyone is aware of that context or be as sympathetic a reader as I am. I'm sorry for this being so long and confrontational, but if nothing else I hope it prompts you to think critically about how our received knowledge contributes to the reproduction of systemic barriers. — Wug· a·po·des 03:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Just noticed the essay in the main part of your userpage and read User:L235/Our biggest challenge and wanted to say I think they're really well written and contain lots for us all to think about. — Bilorv ( talk) 21:04, 21 August 2021 (UTC) |
Universal Code of Conduct News
Issue 3, August 2021
Read the full newsletter
Welcome to the third issue of Universal Code of Conduct News! This newsletter will help Wikimedians stay involved with the development of the new code and will distribute relevant news, research, and upcoming events related to the UCoC.
If you haven’t already, please remember to subscribe here if you would like to be notified about future editions of the newsletter, and also leave your username here if you’d like to be contacted to help with translations in the future.
MNadzikiewicz (WMF) ( talk) 22:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Can I ask, should there not be a section here Biographies on dealing with possible issues with people born in Jerusalem etc. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem only valid for three years? Does that need updating or not? I came to these pages simply because of the conversation started at WT:Football#Jerusalem. Regards. Govvy ( talk) 09:51, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
I was stalking your talkpage, Kevin, when I came across Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem. That looks like a successful arbcom mandated resolution to a difficult content dispute. I wonder if there are lessons we can apply from it towards Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian politics/Workshop. VR talk 23:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2021).
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2021).
|
Interface administrator changes
|
Hello, I've noticed you're the guy that blocked 2600:387:8:7:0:0:0:70 in 2018 for 31 hours. It seems that, since then, they have continued their vandalising. They're currently aiming for plantation-related articles (see his recent contributions) and removing large amount of notable content. It seems like nothing would stop him. @ Uranium Site: has did a great job in reverting his edits, but since he's not a mod (I think), he can't really block the IP. I was wondering if you could block the IP indefinitely? I know it's harsh since it's an IP user, but I think it's only being used by one person, as all of his edits seem to be bad faith. Thanks! Aequilaterum ( talk) 07:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, Primefac and Wugapodes.
The following had consensus support of participating editors:
The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors:
Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1.
There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Best, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello Kevin,
I noticed that you were involved in closing a RFC about the People’s Mujahedin of Iran and you also participated in the recent ArbCom case about Iranian politics. I have been reading through some of the new guidelines, but some things are not clear to me. I have a couple of questions and don’t know who to ask. May I ask you? Ypatch ( talk) 06:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Universal Code of Conduct News
Issue 4, October 2021
Read the full newsletter
Welcome to the fourth issue of Universal Code of Conduct News! This newsletter will help Wikimedians stay involved with the development of the new code and will distribute relevant news, research, and upcoming events related to the UCoC.
If you haven’t already, please remember to subscribe here if you would like to be notified about future editions of the newsletter, and also leave your username here if you’d like to be contacted to help with translations in the future.
MNadzikiewicz (WMF) ( talk) 20:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for creating
Wikipedia:2021 Movement Charter Drafting Committee Election
You are so cool, you have done so much in the past, and now you do this. Now that this page is set up it seems so obvious and necessary, but no one recognized that until you made it. 💙💙💙💙💙 🐹🐹🐹🐹🐹🐹 ☕️☕️☕️☕️☕️☕️ Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC) |
Following a 2 week brainstorming period and a 1 week proposal period, the 30 day discussion of changes to our Request for Adminship process has begun. Following feedback on Phase 1, in order to ensure that the largest number of people possible can see all proposals, new proposals will only be accepted for the for the first 7 days of Phase 2. The 30 day discussion is scheduled to last until November 30. Please join the discussion or even submit your own proposal.
There is 1 future mailing planned with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
16:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)