Jump to content

User talk:L235

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user helped get "Blueford v. Arkansas" listed at Did You Know on the main page on 3 March 2018.
This user helped get "Lafler v. Cooper" listed at Did You Know on the main page on 12 April 2018.
This user helped get "Napue v. Illinois" listed at Did You Know on the main page on 4 September 2018.
This user helped get "Regents of University of California v. United States Department of Homeland Security" listed at Did You Know on the main page on 2 February 2018.
This user helped get "Sessions v. Dimaya" listed at Did You Know on the main page on 8 May 2018.
This user helped get "United States v. Forty-Three Gallons of Whiskey" listed at Did You Know on the main page on 1 April 2018.
This user wrote "Lafler v. Cooper" which became a good article on 3 July 2018.
This user is a member of the Arbitration Committee on the English Wikipedia.
This user has CheckUser privileges on the English Wikipedia.
This user has oversight privileges on the English Wikipedia.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Xaosflux (talk | contribs) at 23:21, 20 July 2018 (→‎That thing you asked about: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Upcoming changes to wikitext parsing

Hello,

There will be some changes to the way wikitext is parsed during the next few weeks. It will affect all namespaces. You can see a list of pages that may display incorrectly at Special:LintErrors. Since most of the easy problems have already been solved at the English Wikipedia, I am specifically contacting tech-savvy editors such as yourself with this one-time message, in the hope that you will be able to investigate the remaining high-priority pages during the next month.

There are approximately 10,000 articles (and many more non-article pages) with high-priority errors. The most important ones are the articles with misnested tags and table problems. Some of these involve templates, such as infoboxes, or the way the template is used in the article. In some cases, the "error" is a minor, unimportant difference in the visual appearance. In other cases, the results are undesirable. You can see a before-and-after comparison of any article by adding ?action=parsermigration-edit to the end of a link, like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Foss?action=parsermigration-edit (which shows a difference in how {{infobox ship}} is parsed).

If you are interested in helping with this project, please see Wikipedia:Linter. There are also some basic instructions (and links to even more information) at https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-ambassadors/2018-April/001836.html You can also leave a note at WT:Linter if you have questions.

Thank you for all the good things you do for the English Wikipedia. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No longer need rollback

Please remove rollback from my account. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cheers! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 April 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom

I'm at a loss to know what you think I should do. A statement such as X has a long history of Y can never be proved by a diff or two. That's why I referred Arbcom to previous cases that provide a great deal of documentation, far more than any editor could present in a single comment. My introduction explicitly and categorically establishes that this is not a personal comment about Anythingyouwant, with whom I interact perfectly well. Neither of us has ever even insulted, let alone attacked the other as far as I can recall. I'd also point out that you have left undisturbed a posting from Template:U: who refers to the same evidence as I but includes the links instead of just stating the locations of the corroborating evidence without hyperlinks. You've also left a variety of personal remarks by other editors that in some cases are unsupported or in some cases are corroborated by a single instance linked but in no way corroborated as to the conclusions stated in the posts. If you're telling me that I need to furnish hyperlinks to the previous AE threads and Arbcom decisions relating to Anythingyouwant, I can do that. Of course you or one of your fellow clerks could also have done that without nearly the effort that's been expended on this matter so far. I'm not going to try to re-write the post and again be accused of violating site policy without knowing exactly what you think is required. Needless to say, I consider your action petty bullying and note again for your consideration that non of the dozens of Admins who have read my similar messages about Anythingyouwant has ever misinterpreted them as Personal Attacks. I don't do personal attacks, and in my opinion it is you who are engaged in disparagement and undue application of your clerk's role without any benefit to this case or any of its participants.

So, will adding hyperlinks of the AE and Arbcom threads satisfy your requirement? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 18:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that I've seen this and am typing a response. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SPECIFICO: First, thanks for your message. I know you're frustrated, and that's totally understandable. I'm certain you've been acting entirely in good faith on this. It's always a difficult decision when we intrude into editors' statements – we don't want to censor, and we prefer rants at/about ArbCom than at/about anything else. Ultimately, most clerk decisions that receive any attention are unpopular – that's the nature of the job, of moderating dispute resolution at this level. The Committee expects high standards of behavior on arbitration pages and requires that "[a]ccusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all)." The Committee also often reminds clerks to vigorously enforce those standards. You're right, though, that we should communicate better and help editors instead of jumping to refactoring/removal and sanction.
You're also right that I didn't consider the full context of the ARCA request when deciding to leave you a note. That's something I should have done first, and I apologize. We got an email from a user pointing us to your statement and requesting action. I had gotten back from a long trip just hours ago and no other member of our perpetually short-staffed office had responded, so I took a look. There's a substantial amount of judgement required, balancing formal rules with trying to alleviate controversy with what editors are fairly entitled to and have requested and so forth. I left a note and didn't modify your statement; after awhile with no response, another clerk (Mdann52 removed the statement. We should have made more of an attempt to discuss and to make clear what we were going for.
On others' statements: Per the above, I personally haven't been looking at statements on this ARCA request. When we review statements, it's not our job to evaluate evidence for convincingness; that's for the arbs to do. If you want to say that someone has a pattern of behavior based on two diffs spaced six years apart, I don't think the clerks would remove it – but good luck convincing the committee.
The big problem with supporting statements using general references to discussion threads is that usually the contention (diehard anti-abortion activists such as Anythingyouwant ... his many and persistent misdeeds on American Politics ... Anythingyouwant is a poster child for NOTHERE editing. He is a relentless POV-pushing wikilawyer, skirting penumbra of policy and the limit of the law on WP. His lack of contributions outside his narrow area of interest and his years-long disruption argue for a simple ban from WP. and so on) do not actually follow from the formal discussion. Can you link to the actual section of the discussion that would indicate that the user is a "diehard anti-abortion activist[]" or "is a poster child for NOTHERE editing"? Is there some analysis you would like to share?
I've been speaking in general terms, so to answer your specific question: I can't guarantee that the clerks will not refactor/remove your statement if you reinstate it with only general links to the discussion threads. However, if you do link to specific portions of those discussions to support each contention, or to enough diffs that could reasonably establish a pattern, I doubt a clerk would take further action (unless otherwise directed by higher-ups). I might be overruled by my colleagues on that one, though – no guarantees.
I know arbitration is a frustrating and time-consuming process, and I'm certain it must seem like the clerks and these requirements are a contributing factor to that. Thanks for sharing your concerns, and let me know if there's anything else I can do to try to help out here. (This message got more rambly the further down it is – I'm headed somewhere soon.) Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

German war effort

Hey, Kevin. About the German war effort RFAR? Opabinia Regalis made it 8 accept yesterday, but the "opinion on hearing this matter" thing still says 7. Thought I'd mention it. All active arbs except Brad have accepted. Bishonen | talk 20:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: Done now – the arbs are discussing potential case scope before opening. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:02, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sure, I figured they were. It was just the "7" starting to itch me. Thanks. Bishonen | talk 21:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

DYK for Sessions v. Dimaya

On 8 May 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sessions v. Dimaya, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in Sessions v. Dimaya, Trump-appointed US Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch joined a 5–4 vote against the Trump administration? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sessions v. Dimaya. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Sessions v. Dimaya), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 12:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving arca

Discussion was still ongoing at the ARCA you recently archived. Please revert so discussion can continue. user:Laser brain had just brought up some interesting points. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr Ernie: I'm sorry, the timing of the enactment of the motion was also specifically directed by the Committee. I can't override the Committee's decision, but I have alerted the Committee to this request and you are also more than free to ask that the Committee reconsider. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But what does it all mean? Why are we here?

Thanks, but what does the expiration date mean? I mean, what does it do? Will the template disappear in a puff of smoke on 10 September? (BTW I see NeilN already put an expiry date on the template in the edit notice.) Bishonen | talk 20:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: Yup, the notice will stop showing up after 2018-09-10 (which I assume is the correct behavior because the sanction itself will expire by then too). Certainly revert if you don't want that to happen. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:56, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, that's fine. I was just wondering, since the expiry date doesn't do anything that shows on the page. Bishonen | talk 21:21, 10 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you

Thank you Kevin. That was a complete surprise and something that really made my day. I didn't really think anyone noticed but it makes me want to do more. I took quite a few weeks off from doing maintenance tasks, at least on enwiki, and even longer on writing articles. Your nomination makes me want to dive right back into all that. I think I'll take this upcoming long weekend to finally finish my draft that has been sitting in unfinished purgatory for months now. Gotta live up to the nomination . Thank you again! --Majora (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Majora: I'm so glad I could help – let me know if there's ever anything else I can do Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 May 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Newsletter No.11 25 May 2018

Hello L235, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
Notability
General notability guideline
Subject-specific guidelines
See also

ACTRIAL:

  • WP:ACREQ has been implemented. The flow at the feed has dropped back to the levels during the trial. However, the backlog is on the rise again so please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day; a backlog approaching 5,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Deletion tags

  • Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders. They require your further verification.

Backlog drive:

  • A backlog drive will take place from 10 through 20 June. Check out our talk page at WT:NPR for more details. NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

Editathons

  • There will be a large increase in the number of editathons in June. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

Paid editing - new policy

  • Now that ACTRIAL is ACREQ, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. There is a new global WMF policy that requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

  • The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
  • Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies.

Not English

  • A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, tag as required, then move to draft if they do have potential.

News

  • Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.
  • The next issue of The Signpost has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Hello L235, you might be interested in the issue I am reporting as you have already been involved in it previously. It is about a bunch of IPs which are very likely (99%) related to an old acquaintance of en.wikipedia: a sock-puppet abuser who created about 50 socks to disrupt IPA transcriptions, obsessed especially with Italian names and words. The investigation I am referring to is the following: 84101e40247. The new IPs from which similar or identical edits have been done recently are the following: 95.235.116.126 (see: Loayur, Duelai, Ddgfs), 87.17.102.163 (see: Sasalikasty), 193.204.194.210 (see: Dyukpore), 79.30.8.179 (see: Vufroled), 5.90.255.50 (see: Ksyru), 79.49.65.250 (see: Fruial, Kilorty); it is also possible that there are some more, but for the moment these are enough to care about, right? I hope that you or someone else will take appropriate measures against this recidivous vandal! Thank you for reading :-) 198.46.84.16 (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom German war effort case - Sturmvogel's evidence

G'day L235. I reckon Sturmvogel_66's post on the evidence talk page should have been on the evidence page? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I think so too, especially since he obviously only put it on the talkpage because of the word limits (which many people ignored). I wrote privately to an arb on 11 June to suggest it be moved to the main page, but didn't get much of a response. Maybe you could raise it more formally, L235. Bishonen | talk 04:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]
I think it's probably fine to stay there – I certainly don't recommend posting evidence on the evidence talk to get around word limits, because fewer arbs will see it and it may have less weight, but that's Sturmvogel_66's choice. Regarding word limits in general – I dislike intrusively enforcing them (by, say, cutting evidence off) and expending community time on a relatively minor issue, but I also really dislike giving people an unfair advantage for breaking rules. Arbitrators decide how much evidence to read and how much weight to give to that evidence with word limits (and any granted extensions) in mind, and I think that's a good enough incentive not to try to cheat the system – exceeding the word limit is a punishment in itself. Thus, my personal practice is to generally not take action on word limits until I have the agreement of at least one other clerk or arbitrator that enforcing the limits would be justified notwithstanding any possible disruption. If you want me to bring the evidence up with the arbs, I can, but I wasn't planning on it. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

You asked me to message you on the IRC chat... so here I am. ⇒ Lucie Person (talk|contribs) 00:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPP Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello L235, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.

Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!

  • As a final push, we have decided to run a backlog elimination drive from the 20th to the 30th of June.
  • Reviewers who review at least 50 articles or redirects will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar: Special Edition New Page Patroller's Barnstar. Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: 100 review coin, 250 review coin, 500 review coin, 1000 review certificate.
  • Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Lafler v. Cooper

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Lafler v. Cooper you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Barkeep49 -- Barkeep49 (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 June 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Lafler v. Cooper

The article Lafler v. Cooper you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Lafler v. Cooper for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Barkeep49 -- Barkeep49 (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day

Happy First Edit Day, L235, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! ‐‐1997kB (talk) 12:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

supreme court

Thank you for quality articles around legal cases, such as Lafler v. Cooper, Blueford v. Arkansas and United States v. Forty-Three Gallons of Whiskey, for reviewing articles for creation, arbcom clerk services and kittens, for "I'm so glad I could help", - Kevin, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Thank you! It means a lot to me. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice of you to tell a member of the cabal of the outcasts who has dangerous thoughts about WP's supreme court ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm personally not proud of how I handled that. The Committee certainly makes mistakes, and it's important that we recognize them when we make them. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
spirale of justice
Well, sorry, I didn't mean you personally, but the waste of time I experienced every time when I met arbitration. I hope you had time for the whole thread, with design borrowed from one of its victims ;) - Thank goodness my last encounter with AE was in 2015, and I hope it will stay that way. The 2018 committee: I asked all candidates if they could agree with Opabina regalis, most said more or less yes, came the first case and they had forgotten ;) - Did you know that I made several related DYK? And like the pictured one best? With that in mind, you'll do your work best, and I hope for all of us that you won't have much clerk work and can enjoy free editing! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August and New Achievements at Women in Red

Meetups #87, #88, #89, #90

An exciting new month for Women in Red!


August 2018 worldwide online editathons:
New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/87|Indigenous women]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/88|Women of marginalized populations]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/89|Women writers]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/90|Geofocus: Bottom 10]]
Continuing: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00/2018|#1day1woman Global Initiative
Notable women, broadly-construed!]]


For the first time, this month we are trying out our Monthly achievement initiative

  • All creators of new biographies can keep track of their progress and earn virtual awards.
  • It can be used in conjunction with the above editathons or for any women's biography created in August.
  • Try it out when you create your first biography of the month.

Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!):

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)


--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

That thing you asked about

OK, so looks like the thanks-notification action is not subject to wgRateLimits; we can resolve this with a configuration request similar to what plwiki did in phab:T169268 - and I think this may be better for this abuse case.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:L235&oldid=851232102"