User talk:L235/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 17

Administrators' newsletter – April 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.

Technical news


  • Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold a 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.


  • The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Re: Eloise in Christmastime

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)

I agree with you that the plot is excessive. Saying something is vandalism, however, requires a showing of bad faith and an intent to damage the encyclopedia. Again, I didn't decide the request and I'm quite new to the protection area in general so I will defer to any other admin in this area. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes I do agree that the "persistent vandalism" rationale was a little excessive, but the edits were disruptive nonetheless. The edits contravened policy, yet the user in question still insisted on it hence the disruption which imo is a little borderline. Blake Gripling (talk) 06:18, 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)

Somalia Wikipedia page


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. -,37.2306352,5z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x181d2ea7ecd15b83:0x9e393ace5ce9e5be!8m2!3d5.152149!4d46.199616

      • Sorry for the long message.

Stay safe and healthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:480:4000:A190:AC16:FB56:A9FD:6BF2 (talk) 03:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

IP, as I already made clear to you on the Somalia article talk page, this is something you would need to get consensus for, rather than trying to circumvent that with administrative intervention. I can't speak for L235, but I suspect they would be of a similar mind. El_C 03:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
I see this has been unproductive and useless. What are editors for if they cannot assist readers requesting to correct an error? I've already contacted consensus about this matter. Thanks anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:480:4000:A190:AC16:FB56:A9FD:6BF2 (talk) 06:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
You gotta at least try to learn the basics in the meantime, IP. Then I think you'll find that matters become clear much more quickly. Sorry, Kevin, that this spilled over to your talk page. Sorta happened randomly, but still, I don't like to impose. El_C 06:15, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Re Timeline of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic from November 2019 to January 2020

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)

@MarioGom: Done. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Closing ‎Mottainai

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? -- GreenC 16:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@GreenC: The procedures state that case requests are eligible to close when (inter alia) 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)
Oh I see there are 11 active I though it was 14. I'm OK with whatever the decision was just confused by the math. Now makes sense, thanks!

Removal of Declined Case

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)

Weird. Okay as to removing Mottainai. There is something wrong with the display of the case requests, but maybe it is in some sort of transition. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: Seems that I forgot to delete the case request from the T:AC display; that should be fixed now. Kevin (alt of L235 · t · c) 20:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Ok. Maybe the Chris Sherlock case should be removed soon also. It looks like a more obvious case of being declined by what looks like an absolute majority, but maybe there is some sort of math that either was invented after 1966 or that I learned after 1966 (and I have forgotten the math that I learned in college). Robert McClenon (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Harvard Extension School‎ vandal not blocked

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)

Yeah, shoot. I've partial-blocked the new range and semiprotected for a bit. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2020

Thank you for granting my request

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 - Paradoxsociety 05:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Very glad to hear – let me know if you need anything! Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Rashid Buttar

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)

@MamaKitti: I'm not overly familiar with that article specifically, but a few pointers: using primary sources (such as documents from a government agency) in a biography of a living person, especially in a negative light, is typically discouraged; we typically use reliable secondary sources for contentious material (see e.g. WP:BLPPRIMARY, WP:NOR, WP:V). If you have a particular edit that you'd like made to the page, you can submit an edit request using the link that pops up when trying to edit the page. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:37, 30 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)

My pending changes request is still outstanding but you processed all the others. Did you miss me out for any particular reason? (not that I'm pushy or paranoid or anything) Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
@Rodney Baggins: I've actioned this request – the delay was my weighing a temporary vs indefinite grant of the permission. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for choosing the indefinite grant option. I promise I will tread carefully. Rodney Baggins (talk) 16:55, 1 May 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)

@Theroadislong: Yeah, thanks, done. Please email these requests either to me directly or to the oversight queue ( in the future. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello, again. I would like to point out that I can see most all things about me, so be wary about what you say around me. Thanks!
User:Shadowblade08 (talk) 19:30, 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 (talkcontribs) 19:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@DaniHart08: Edits which reveal any personal information about you will be suppressed. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello, DaniHart!
User:Shadowblade08 (talk) 19:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).


Administrator changes

removed GnangarraKaisershatnerMalcolmxl5

CheckUser changes

readded Callanecc

Oversight changes

readded HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news

Technical news


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Collapsing adjacent edits in history by same user

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 (utc) 09:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@Amorymeltzer: Wow, I'll have to try that! @Enterprisey: This can probably be taken off the wishlist for now Face-wink.svg Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Carmaker1 Case

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)

Thanks, done. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

ARBPIA editnotice

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. Zerotalk 02:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Please note that I have amended the notice accordingly. El_C 06:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
@Zero0000 and El C: Thanks, both of you! Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Someone once said this to me...

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)

Ha! I'm quite proud of our tree. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 15:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

today's FA is getting beaten by an ip

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:

  • Don't remove sections
  • Don't leave contributions unsigned: if the IP has an editor login currently, at least that name should appear after the contributions.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 18:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: Which section has disappeared for you? I just went back and checked, and it seems like the edit that you made actually duplicated a section byte-for-byte that was already on the page. And as for your second point, I'm sorry – I was hoping it would be clear but looking back I was wrong. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
No, only one section about the naming issue when I look at the page. Some sort of technical glitch when looking at the page in admin mode, perhaps? --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
@Francis Schonken: Sorry, that's now after I actually did remove the section you added Face-smile.svg. The "Year and article title" section was duplicated. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, probably resulting from having an edit conflict with a page version that no longer "existed" at the time I had the conflict. Anyhow, all sorted now. I suppose. I hope. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, sorry for the hassle! Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Renew rollback

Can you please bring back rollback? I was kind of surprised when suddenly I couldn't rollback anymore. 🐔Chicdat ChickenDatabase 10:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Email to ARBCOM

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)

@Sir Joseph: If you emailed arbcom-en, unfortunately clerks do not have access to that list. If it's been more than a few days and hasn't been acknowledged, perhaps you could bring the matter up with a sitting arbitrator. Best, Kevin (alt of L235 · t · c) 05:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)


Just dropping a note that I hard-blocked the TFA vandal on Marko Elsner. --qedk (t c) 15:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Didn't know that was SOP, will do from now on. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 15:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Strange concept

Umm, "legitimate damage", new concept or misphrased? Cabayi (talk) 08:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Cabayi: My bad, I meant something closer to "serious" or "actual" damage. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 15:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Rollback renewal

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)

@TheImaCow: Just wanted to confirm that I've received this and am reviewing it. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice


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)

The Signpost: 31 May 2020

Administrators' newsletter – June 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2020).


Administrator changes

added CaptainEekCreffettCwmhiraeth
removed Anna FrodesiakBuckshot06RonhjonesSQL

CheckUser changes

removed SQL

Guideline and policy news


  • A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Same UA?

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)

(talk page stalker) Deepfriedokra, UA refers to User agent, which is a string that your browser sends as part of its request. The exact content can vary, but the fingerprinting parts will be the browser name and version and the OS details. For example, my UA is "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:76.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/76.0", and the relevant parts there are that I'm editing from Windows 10 and using Firefox 76. As a side note: if you Google "what is my user agent" Google itself will display your UA. creffett (talk) 19:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
And to actually answer your question: it means same browser/browser version and same OS, but exactly how meaningful that is can vary widely - someone editing from Windows + Chrome is probably a lot more common than "Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 7.0; Tesla_SP6.3) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/80.0.3987.162 Mobile Safari/537.36" (yes, that's the user agent string from a Tesla's in-car computer). I discovered this database while looking for a suitably obscure UA string, it's fun reading...for me at least. creffett (talk) 19:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
@Deepfriedokra: Creffett was right-on – if you want me to email you with a few brief (but BEANSy) observations on what we mean when we say "same UA" let me know. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes please. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 23:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Sent, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 02:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Can you review

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)

Thanks, I've answered there. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, L235. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.SMB99thx Email! 08:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Regranting Pending Changes Reviewer Right

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)

@Happily888: Sure, I've granted the tool for three months. One quick thing: while reviewing your edits, I noticed that you often make a lot of small edits in a row to one page, and you often use non-descriptive edit summaries such as "Updated." Both of these patterns make it difficult to look over what your edits were, so if possible, I would suggest using more descriptive edit summaries and trying to cut down on the number of successive revisions. Thanks! Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Mick Jagger

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)

Done – I protected the page mostly as a stopgap, and now extended it to one year. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

New sockpuppet of User:Jesien1 is back

Hi, Kevin (L235) a new sockpuppet have emerged. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jesien1. Thank you. ~ Amkgp 💬 20:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

(responded there) Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

thank you in advance for your time- would like to fix mistake

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: (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 Kizemet, no problem – I wasn't trying to block you for breaking any rules with your edits! The problem was indeed the VPN. We have a policy of not allowing people to edit through VPNs because it's a commonly used way for vandals, spammers, and other abusive users to hide their tracks and avoid detection. Sorry about the inconvenience caused you here; as long as you don't use the VPN to edit Wikipedia, you'll be fine. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:51, 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)

@Kizemet: If you can edit this page, then you're not blocked and you're free to edit as normal. Best, Kevin (alt of L235 · t · c) 01:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Possible WP:CANVAS

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)

@Amkgp: Sorry, I don't have the capacity to get involved in that right now. Writing up the overturning of the AfD discussions has already taken me far too long (hours that I did not have). If you still need administrator help hopefully someone else can help (any talk page stalkers around?). Best, Kevin (alt of L235 · t · c) 01:28, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 June 2020


Per this, I have come back here for renewal. Thanks. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 11:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Done. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 19:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2020).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Balloons-aj.svg Hey, Kevin. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day! Please forgive my use of Comic Sans in this message, and have a great day! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 00:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC) Face-smile.svg
@CAPTAIN RAJU and Sdkb: Thank you both Face-smile.svg Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I goofed up

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)

@Field Marshal Aryan: Could you just tag it {{db-self}}? Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:57, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: <3 Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:52, 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)

@Giraffer: My apologies, I should've made that more clear. When the tool expires (or a couple days before), you can leave me a message on my talk page asking me to review the record for a renewal (or, if you prefer, you can ask again at WP:PERM). Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:55, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for clarifying. Regards, Giraffer (stay home) 17:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Tidying up

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)

Thanks BlackcurrantTea, done. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Re to email

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)

Lightbreather close

"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)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: That motion was unsuccessful and was archived to the case talk page like every other successful and unsuccessful subsequent proceeding about a case. The amendments that are successful are prominently displayed on the main case page – you can see an example of that on the main case page, which shows a January 2019 amendment. Hope this helps, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Right, I was reading the quote as a "close" comment. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Help regarding a SPI case

Hi, L235 (Kevin) I would like to request help regarding Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DineshRedbull. Thank you ~ Amkgp 💬 18:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll be sure to take a look if I can, but no promises – I have quite little capacity to help by request right now. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:17, 24 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)

(talk page watcher) Giraffer, nobody is going to penalize you for being cautious about your use of rollback, especially since you've acknowledged why you haven't used it much. GeneralNotability (talk) 12:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Perfect, I've extended the tool for a month – give me a ping when you complete CVUA Face-smile.svg Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:15, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
@L235 and Giraffer: Hi I confirmed Giraffer is one of my CVUA trainees and they just started the program a week ago and would be sometimes before they would complete the assignment and final exam. All my trainees would apply rollback when they have completed and passed the final exam. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia(talk) 07:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020).


Administrator changes

added Red Phoenix
readded EuryalusSQL
removed JujutacularMonty845RettetastMadchester

Oversight changes

readded GB fan
removed KeeganOpabinia regalisPremeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 August 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)

Additionally, could I bother you to take a look at my latest comment in this section? Is this a problem? If so, would it be appropriate to use a bot to ensure editnotices exist on articles tagged with 1RR restriction notices? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
The GMO concern seems correct to me. The DS templates could all generally use big updates but I don't personally have the time at the moment to pursue this. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:57, 3 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. Friend505 15:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Friend505, I have no relation to Kevin. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Oh, OK, thanks, L235. I am sorry for bothering you and thanks for the speedy response. Friend505 18:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Lightbreather ban appeal

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)

@ResultingConstant: The text 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)
I have added a note at the top to clarify. Hope this helps. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
I see, thank you. Its quite confusing as it appears very similar to an RFC close summary. I would suggest using a note like what you have just added in general. 18:20, 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)

@TribunalMan: Would've been happy to take a look but next time please don't send talk page messages to a bunch of admins at once about the same thing. (Ref @NinjaRobotPirate, Acroterion, and ST47: This has already been actioned by another admin.) Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:51, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Sorry about that, thanks for your understanding! TribunalMan (talk) 03:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer

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)

@17jiangz1: No problem, and welcome back! I've extended it for three months – if you find yourself using the tool more I will have a better record to look at an indefinite renewal. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Hey Buddy

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)

@Uamaol: Great to hear from you! I'm managing through everything Face-smile.svg Hope you're also doing well! Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)



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)

Hi Giraffer, I'm glad to hear from you. I'd like to see a period of consistent activity after successful completion of CVUA before a permanent grant of rollback. I'm going to extend rollback for another month, but I expect that of course if Cassiopeia asks you not to use rollback or certain tools that you respect that. Give me a ping when you've completed CVUA Face-smile.svg Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Of course! Thank you again. Regards, Giraffer (munch) 17:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi L235 Thank you for the ping. Hi Giraffer, I would suggest you not to use the rollback until you have finished the CVUA program. Thank you. Cassiopeia(talk) 09:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Can a user be unbanned but the account is still blocked?

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)

I am an idiot. The decision was not to unban, wasn't it. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
You are correct! And it is absolutely confusing; you're not the first one to ask me about this Face-smile.svg Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2020

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).


Administrator changes

added Eddie891
removed AngelaJcw69Just ChillingPhilg88Viajero

CheckUser changes

readded SQL

Guideline and policy news


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Sexual assault allegations

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, petrarchan47คุ 06:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Petrarchan47: Thank you for writing; it's important that members of the community have confidence in my closing statements. As I understand it, you have two main questions for me: (1) why I did not discount some "oppose" arguments on the basis that they are inconsistent with policy (and specifically because 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.
Regarding question (1), I discussed some of the arguments that the opposes made in my close and did not find that it was appropriate to substantially disregard them. To the extent that participants argued that only substantiated allegations can be included in a section header, which would probably contradict policy to some extent, I disregarded them; instead, 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 also cannot "determine[ consensus] by the closer's own views about what is the most appropriate policy".
I hope this helps, but if you have more questions I will do my best to answer them. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Happy Adminship from the Birthday Committee
Wikipedia Administrator.svg

Wishing L235 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!

-- ~SS49~ {talk} 08:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@SS49: Thanks very much! Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 08:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


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)

Liz, it's a class project according to the edit summary when the talk page was created, but ad hoc so the instructor might not know about the EDU resources or processes to follow. Pinging @Ian (Wiki Ed): to take a look, the instructor may need assistance setting up the course page. Schazjmd (talk) 14:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
@Liz: Pretty much what Schazjmd said! Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Diff in closure

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)

These days who knows? Thanks for pointing it out, fixed Face-smile.svg Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:19, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

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)

Thanks Face-smile.svg Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I upgraded the block to indef based on the username and revdel'd. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I used "undo" to revert the edit so should my revert be oversighted as well to bury the username which is in my edit summary? 2605:A000:1327:6313:4DE1:63B7:A890:CA48 (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
{{done}} OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:31, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


  • Kevin, zzuuzz, you ran CU on the range under this one a few days ago. This is the same person as User:Plumber Plumbing Plumber. A hardblock on the range is probably too much, but maybe you two have any ideas, possibly in relation to the IP/range where they create their accounts. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm aware of some available range blocks, but don't have anything to add. I think in the lingo they call that an IP hopper. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I have no better info here. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:48, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Closure elaboration

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)

@Mhhossein: Thanks for your question. I've just had a look at the discussion – first, sorry about writing a closure that is apparently so ambiguous. Here is what I meant by the closure:
  • There is rough consensus for the RfC's proposed two sentences, in large part because of the reduction in size.
  • It's possible/likely that the community can improve on those two sentences by discussion and consensus; my intent is not to foreclose further discussion. My guess is that any further changes that have consensus will also be in the neighborhood of that size (probably not multiple paragraphs).
My opinion is that multi-paragraph proposals are probably out of order for the near future, as while consensus can change, it rarely does so so quickly and this would require a shift in consensus. Hopefully this helps. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks again for the response. But honestly I think your closure fails to take some key objections raised by the users into account. Trimming such a huge amount of content in a page under consensus required restriction needs a really strong support. Just see the comments by the users saying "Yes"; "the current version is very much WP:UNDUE" (repeated 3 times without explaining why!), "We don't need to know every single quote from every single person that ever said they MEK is like a cult in the article" (which again fails to perceive that notable scholars,journalists and politicians are not just "every one") and "Alex-h pretty much said what I had in mind"!!! I ask you to review my comment where I have explained how deeply the disputed content is covered by dozens of reliable sources. I have also asked some questions (like "For instance, just imagine the OP is suggesting to remove the infamous Elizabeth Rubin's work (see how the source has been referred to across the world"). Also please re-consider the thoughtful objections raised by Ali Ahwazi[4], Seyyed and Vice regent. Regards. --Mhhossein talk 13:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Mhhossein, I have indeed carefully considered your position and that of the other opposes at the RfC. I do not agree that a "consensus required" restriction raises the level of support required to determine consensus; rather, it merely mandates that consensus by discussion be reached before making controversial edits. I also considered whether I should discount the UNDUE arguments and concluded that I cannot do so. If you are still unhappy with my closure, WP:CLOSECHALLENGE provides that the avenue for challenging it is WP:AN. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:04, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
"Consensus required" is implemented due to the challenging nature of the page which itself is indicative of building a strong consensus before making changes. Moreover, this is not a simple change...just look at the amount of the materials to be deleted. I believe "rough consensus" is a big deal for this RFC and you did not explain why the failure to reply to our objections by other users would still result to what you call "rough consensus". --Mhhossein talk 17:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Mhhossein, in the process of looking into this I have uncovered a potential verifiability problem with the RfC proposal. See my note at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:47, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Kevin. I would not discover that verifiability issue. Meanwhile, with regards to your re-closure, do you find my RFC comment to be in compliance with "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)
  • Kevin, may I ask how you determined the validity of the WP:UNDUE arguments? For example, did you feel that the material is undue because evidence of its coverage in reliable sources hasn't been provided? Thanks.VR talk 02:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
    • @Vice regent: I'm happy to answer your question, but to clarify, are you asking about my old closure or my re-closure? Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the detailed re-closure! This is refreshing having seen so many one-line closures to complex disputes. Your paragraph on your interpretation of WP:DUE is helpful and I think it can help guide future discussion.VR talk 14:42, 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, petrarchan47คุ 01:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

@Petrarchan47: Thanks for following up here. Let me respond by paragraph:
  • 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.)
  • As an editor, without my closer hat on, I fully agree that we should do our best not to, as you write, 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)
L, I'd like to express my sincere thanks for your efforts here, and for your crisp, clear, accurate reasoning. I was mistaken: the RfC did suggest specific wording. My sticking point is that any !vote that isn't aligned with PAGs should be ignored. (Forgive my sloppy summary of the situation as I see it, but...) Any suggestion that we should ultimately 'hide' content because it isn't palatable should be ignored, and the amount of editors who hold that position is irrelevant. This is my 'inner autist' way of looking at things. The only way to make a crowd-sourced project full of anonymous nobodies work, is by strict adherence to PAGs. Obviously, interpretation of them is on the fluid side.
There are indeed ways to make this section-heading issue work, but from my experience it is a loosing battle due to politics. The veneer of an unbiased, dispassionate "sum of all knowledge" is, during an election year, just that. Further good faith efforts are almost assuredly a waste of our time. So we can leave it here, with my gratitude for your diligence and kind service to the project, and with my hopes that I haven't bothered you too much, and that you'll continue to leave the door open and to show patience, as you have with me. It's refreshing, appreciated, and quite rare. petrarchan47คุ 14:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)