User talk:L235/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17


I saw your comment about having to be an autoconfirmed user when I tried to add the new entry to the enforcement action request. The problem is that my user account was banned (incorrectly) by Neutrality for being a "suspected" sockpuppet, and Neutrality is the same person who is working together with Snooganssnoogans to slant the biographies. Is there some way that this complaint of violating the previous sanction can be added for me? (talk) 23:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Of whom did Neutrality accuse you of being a sockpuppet? Kevin (alt of L235 · t · c) 05:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
He accused me of being Whey77, CaveWriting, and other IP addresses. This was based only on the observation that various users were concerned about the same content. Anyone who wanted to bring NPOV was automatically clumped into the same sockpuppet group, I couldn't believe it. (talk) 05:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


Hello, I got a Sock Puppet Ban and I don't understand why ( Stephkapfunde (talk) 07:28, 23 September 2020 (UTC) ).

@Stephkapfunde: I blocked your account "Enthuse Afrika" because you are not allowed to use multiple accounts in the same topic area except under very limited circumstances which include public disclosure. Please do not create or use any other accounts other than Stephkapfunde. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Article deletion

Just wanted to double check with you, I have Ansger Otto, Reginaldo Antonio da Silva and Ivan Xavier de Santana on my watchlist which you just deleted, did I prod those at all?? Govvy (talk) 22:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Yep, you did. Those were all created by a sockpuppet; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/依頼人. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
k, I leave them on my watchlist incase another account recreates them then, cheers. Govvy (talk) 22:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)


Hi Kevin,

About the RfC you re-closed on the MEK talk page, I don't quite understand your re-closing comments.

We currently have several paragraphs in the article consisting of a list of people basically calling the MEK a cult in a section title that misleadingly says "Designation as a cult" (when there isn't a single source to support that the MEK was ever designated a cult).

There was a majority vote in that RfC that agreed we didn't need to have this long list of people calling the MEK a cult, the majority basically saying that a couple of lines was enough.

I thought your initial suggestion of coming to an agreement about the final wording was a good idea since we could look at the sources and determine proportion according to sources, etc. So I don't understand why this was overturned to "no consensus"?

Regards. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: Thanks for reaching out. You are correct that, on the substance, my close did not interpret consensus all that differently. My new closure says that if participants reach a consensus about the appropriate distribution and length of the section, consistent with UNDUE, then that should be implemented, and that there is general agreement to reduce in length if possible – which is not all that different from my original closure.
  1. The appropriate length of a section is, for the most part, an editorial decision (unless the new section length would make the section so disproportionately larger or smaller than other sections compared with their significance, counted by reliable secondary sources, that it is UNDUE). Therefore, it is essentially controlled by a rough consensus of people, counted for the most part numerically.
  2. However, WP:UNDUE requires that appropriate weight be given to viewpoints in proportion to their coverage in reliable secondary sources. I write about this quite extensively in my third and fourth paragraphs, but to summarize: if the vast majority of reliable secondary sources call MEK a cult, and the editorial decision is made to reduce the size to e.g. three sentences, then all three sentences should probably describe sources calling MEK a cult. However, if the size of the section is e.g. 15 sentences, it may be OK to spend one or two of them discussing reliable secondary sources which call MEK not a cult. Similarly, if the split of sources is closer to 70%/30%, then if the editorial decision is made to reduce the size to three sentences, perhaps two of those sentences should describe sources that call MEK a cult and one should describe sources that call MEK not a cult.
  3. This is why I was so alarmed in this case. In the article as it stood before the RfC, the most prominent "not a cult" sentence was a complete unverifiable misquote (in that it could not be found anywhere in the cited source) and misrepresentation of the authors (it was not a report "by" the European Parliament, but rather by "Friends of a Free Iran", which is a group of MEPs) and misrepresented even what the source claimed (not that the report found "cult" claims unfounded but rather that claims that "the members are forcibly prevented from leaving the group, involuntarily separated from spouses or children, physically abused or the like" are unfounded). A sentence relying on this misquote was 20 of the 37 words (54%) of the RfC-proposed text, and Idealigic's post-RfC proposal offers it similar prominence (19/45 words, 42%).
  4. That alone is enough to render the RfC effectively invalid. The broader issues that this represents, of course, is that you're going to need much better sourcing overall than you've presented if you want to call the cult allegations "false" or "falsified information" (very few of them outright say it). Instead of trying to insert information saying that MEK is not a cult or has improperly been considered a cult, you may be better off (though I'm not familiar with the sources) by inserting information supported by reliable secondary sources: (a) specifically refuting particular elements (e.g. "the members are forcibly prevented from leaving the group, involuntarily separated from spouses or children, physically abused or the like"); or (b) discussing sources regarding how the government of Iran has attempted to cause others to believe MEK is a cult. However, be careful not to juxtapose those sentences with "is a cult" claims in a way that implies that sentences supporting (a) or (b) are also arguing that MEK is not a cult, unless the reliable secondary sources specifically state that MEK is not a cult.
Hope this provides a good overview of my thinking, but I wrote this while rushed so please let me know if you have further questions. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanations Kevin. I think the proposal was far way different of from the DUE representation of content found in the reliable sources. Not only because of a forged claim which could not be found nowhere in the sources, but mainly because of the vast amount of sources deeply dealing with the cultish aspects of the group from scientific, historic and journalistic viewpoints. Also, I have a question Kevin; What do you mean by "counted for the most part numerically". Am I right thinking that "Polling is not a substitute for discussion" and that "polls are generally not used for article development?" --Mhhossein talk 07:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
@Mhhossein: I'm not going to wade into the content dispute in a situation where I'm acting as an uninvolved administrator, but regarding your question: we don't vote, and unexplained votes are discounted. However, the length of a section is almost entirely an editorial decision. As a closer, after discarding arguments "that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue" (WP:NHC), in an area like this where there are no controlling policies (that is, ones that determine a single appropriate outcome), the determination of consensus is made based on numerical support. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Kevin. The NHC explanation is quite fascinating but, could I have your elaboration? I mean, I thought DUE could be a core policy playing the main role in that RFC. Please tell me if I'm missing something. --Mhhossein talk 12:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Both your side and the opposing side have explanations and opinions about why DUE requires such and such length for the section. In the absence of clearly convincing evidence that one side's arguments are fallacious, unfounded, or self-contradictory, or why the other side's arguments are the only proper applications of policy, a closer can't disregard either based only on their personal preferences. In this case my RfC re-closure reflected that the failure of one side to provide sources for the content they argued for rendered their arguments difficult to credit. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:02, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2020

The Signpost: 27 September 2020

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

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


Administrator changes

added AjpolinoLuK3
readded Jackmcbarn
removed Ad OrientemHarejLidLomnMentoz86Oliver PereiraXJaM
renamed There'sNoTimeTheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

Technical news



Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Cup-o-coffee-simple.svg Great idea and proposal at the RfC for disclosure of paid editors. Yes of course, let's make progress. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry: Thanks, Lane, I appreciate it Face-smile.svg Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, L235. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 09:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC). 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.

Mdann52 (talk) 09:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

This is ridiculous

They shut down my arbitration request and wrote it's "Cadenza related"... it's not! I gave a whole list of articles proving I'm being stalked, and they just shut it down saying it's boomerang from out Cadenza argument, it's not! Maxim.il89 (talk) 23:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

This case was not declined because it's centered on Cadenza-related articles; it's declined because it's clearly premature. Please see the message on your talk page for more details about dispute resolution prior to the Arbitration Committee. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Request an indefinite block

For Kevin Funcle (talk · contribs). This is not merely edit warring over content, it's a racist/white supremicist agenda to remove sourced content they don't like. I'm happy to go to ANI with the request, but wanted to contact you first. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2020

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news



Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2020

Radical RFC close

Since when are we so prescriptive with the MOS, especially when there's such a clear contingent that want both ways to be available? This was a bad close, and Beland is just plowing ahead with these completely unnecessary changes. I know very few people care about this, but it's such BS for someone who does. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@Deacon Vorbis: You have a policy-based reason for me to discard or lend less weight to the views of the supporters of the proposal? Kevin (alt of L235 · t · c) 00:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
WP:NOTAVOTE? WP:CREEP? MOS:STYLERET? And there's a longstanding principle that the MOS should be no more prescriptive than it really needs to be. And the one person who thinks a change like means there's a mandate that it must be done is just bulldozing ahead without knowing what he's doing and is just making everything worse. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:12, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate your note and I have given it consideration but I stand by my assessment that my closure at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics § Radical RFC comments accurately reflects consensus. Further review should be at AN. Best, Kevin (alt of L235 · t · c) 00:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


Hi! I'm Dswitz10734, an extended confirmed editor. I was just looking at the candidate statements and writing down who I will oppose, support, and no opinion. I initially put you down as neutral, but as I read your user page I have had a change of heart. What is your vision for Wikipedia? I recently got the EC (extended confirmed) title, but was AC (autoconfirmed) for a while. Do you hope to give more rights to AC users? We have plenty of those and there's a big step between AC and EC. Thank you and I hope to hear from you soon! Dswitz10734 (talk) 13:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Dswitz10734: Thank you for your question and for your contributions. I think it's important to first note that ArbCom doesn't set Wikipedia policy and isn't able to decide things like what actions should be restricted to autoconfirmed users and so forth. That said, personally my vision for Wikipedia is a place where everyone who wishes can contribute to the sum of all free knowledge. I think we do a pretty good job of allowing autoconfirmed editors to edit; compared with any other major website, in fact, we're extremely open as is. Is there anything in particular that autoconfirmed users don't currently do that you think they should be able to? Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:40, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for your response. I think that autoconfimed editors aren't respected as much as they should be sometimes because the minimum bar is very low. You could be one edit away from EC and still be respected as much as someone who was 5 days here and 10 edits (or what the qualifications are). I think that there should be a level in between, especially because EC is grouped with the Admin level. Perhaps a level called Standard Confirmed. Not an admin, but not a beginner. Thank you! Dswitz10734 (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I think Star Gold should also be protected for the same UPE reasons as you applied on Star Gold 2. I noticed the same users that edited the latter also edited the former. Jalen Folf (talk) 22:43, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


I hope everyone who takes the time to read this will vote for Barkeep49 and Bradv. They're terrific editors that I look up to, and any day that I can be half as empathetic and thoughtful as Barkeep and Brad I regard as a win. Good luck to all the candidates and thank you for standing. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Well now we can't elect all three of you because ArbCom will be a bunch of nice, friendly people instead of scary people. Natureium (talk) 01:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Scale of justice 2.svgHello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom election

Good luck in the election. I feel you should get in, and that would be very healthy for the Committee as you would bring a lot of experience and insight of clerking cases. I also like your intention to look into reforming DS. SilkTork (talk) 14:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi SilkTork – thanks for the message! It means a lot to me coming from you. Similarly to Barkeep49, would you mind posting to the discussion page? Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing

Just wanted to say that I really appreciated your response to the ACE question regarding Wikipedia's biggest problem. I've had an account for 15 years but only started doing regular editing this year. I'd say in my experience the hurdle to editing content is pretty minor, but the hurdle(s) to actually getting involved beyond that really do constitute, as you say, an existential crisis. As I've gotten involved this year I couldn't possibly count the number of hours I've spent reading policy, reading essays, reading old AfD/RfC/ANI/etc content and generally familiarizing myself with the culture and processes here. And after all that I still feel barely empowered to take part. I never would have guessed that I'd have to become familiar with FRAMGATE and German War Effort and dozens of WP:***** acronyms and who knows what else to feel like I could even keep up with conversations around here. Retswerb (talk) 09:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@Retswerb: I appreciate the note! If you're interested, I'd love to chat and get your perspective on Wikipedia issues – only if you feel comfortable of course. Let me know if you're interested by emailing me. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:08, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Sounds great - I'll get in touch. Retswerb (talk) 00:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2020

Administrators' newsletter – December 2020

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


Administrator changes

removed AndrwscAnetodeGoldenRingJzGLinguistAtLargeNehrams2020

Interface administrator changes

added Izno

Guideline and policy news

Technical news


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


Thanks for your comment on the RFC. I was not aware of WP:CENT, I thought WP:RFC was the appropriate method for attracting broader attention. This was my first real RFC as you can tell, but I would have expected the RFC to actually generate at least a few comments. I'd like to list at CENT, but why do I need to restart the discussion in a new section? I would reuse the same reasoning text, so I am unclear as to why it needs to be repeated in a new section. Thanks, Mdewman6 (talk) 21:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mdewman6: Hey, I understand. Basically, I'd suggest opening a new RfC because people don't like to comment at old ones – they assume it's inactive and is going to be administratively closed without further action. It's usually a good idea to list at CENT any proposal for new sitewide process, like this proposal would be. Before submitting another RfC, for the best chances of success, I would suggest that you think up more details and answers to any common objections that you might expect. (For example: Should there be a notice on the proposed redirect destination? After all, when people !vote at AfD to redirect to another page, there isn't a notice on the proposed destination because no content there will be affected. Does such a discussion constitute a deletion discussion for WP:G4 purposes? After all, it's a decision not to have a page at a title. Etc etc.) These should be questions that you work out with highly experienced editors before you submit your RfC for the best chances of success. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


Hey, thanks for looking into Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NPOV-Fixer. I don't remember ever filing an SPI before and was kind of intimidated by the whole process. Thanks for addressing it! Marquardtika (talk) 14:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@Marquardtika: Glad I could help! KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you!

Just wanted to say thanks for this. I had a funny feeling they were all someone's sock but I'm not familiar with the articles they were editing so I didn't know of this SPI. I've added Ralph Breaks The Internet to my watchlist now so hopefully that'll help with catching them in the future. Thanks again!-- 5 albert square (talk) 17:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks 5 albert square! In the future if you see more socks be sure to request a lock at meta as well; these socks routinely cause a mess at other wikis as well. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Rollback rights

You granted me rollback before ( and I haven't had any complaints. You granted it "limited just for a routine review either here or on my talk page before making permanent".

For a while I was a bit less active, but now I am doing a bit more again and I miss rollback. [2] [3] [4] for example would have been more convenient with rollback. (unsourced fair use image uploaded by blocked user) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:22, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh no.. there's more.. I really need rollback before files get deleted. This is a pain with undo. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: Done. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)


Hamdikhalid43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Done. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom candidate questions

Robert McClenon and I recently added questions for you at:

I welcome your responses.

You may find my comments here relevant: Too many questions (permalink)

--David Tornheim (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: Thanks, I'm in the strategy global conversations for most of the day today but I'll try to get to those ASAP. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:02, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I wanted to thank you a second time for answering my questions. I read them before I voted, and you got my vote of support. If I had had more time, I would have mentioned all of this in a voter guide or elsewhere in the WP:ACE2020 voting.
I appreciate the seriousness of your answers. Of every candidate I asked question about the Britannica viz-a-viz Wikipedia article (in both 2018 and 2020 elections), your answer stand outs. I was particularly impressed with this analysis:
One thing I did notice at a glance is this sentence in the lede: The conclusions of trials and systematic reviews of acupuncture are inconsistent, which suggests that it is not effective. This sentence is cited to two seemingly-high-quality reviews and one editorial (which is not considered reliable for MEDRS purposes). The two reviews seem to support the first half of the sentence without reaching the dependent clause, while the editorial is not reliable. Perhaps I'm missing something – I've only looked at this a little bit – but without further sourcing, the presence of the dependent clause in Wikipedia's voice looks to me like it could be inappropriate SYNTH.
This is the kind of careful reading I would love to see from ALL of the Arbs (and admins). This is the approach I take when I read a sourced sentence. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


Specifically, I once lobbied for a small content addition to a controversial page. I got the impression that most other editors were content to talk past me. Some attempted to prod me into breaking a rule and getting in trouble with discretionary sanctions. Instead I stayed the course and a version of my addition was accepted nearly a year later. The alarming thing to me that I picked up from that experience is that the structure of Wikipedia favors polarization instead of pluralization of one's thought patterns.

Cynefin is more simplified, so here is an explanation of it: Hard science-minded people tend to think in the "Complicated" category, and social-sciences people tend to think in the "Complex" category. For reference: File:Cynefin_framework_by_Edwin_Stoop.jpg.

Another division; liberals tend to think in the Complex category and certain conservatives in the Complicated category. When faced with the opposing thought pattern, they may refuse to engage other than label the other party in a dismissive manner--which is the "Simple" category. When this goes on long enough it may turn into a behavior issue, which is the "Chaos" category.

What I would like to see someday is that some method of navigating different thought patterns be incorporated into general practice on Wikipedia. Ideally both the person who is subject to a disciplinary procedure & his or her accusers will become acquainted with any applicable types of thought patterns involved in the dispute.

The two I mentioned have been around for awhile in organizational philosophy literature, but there are people approaching similar problems from other angles in the fields of collective epistemology, transfer in behaviorism, and interference in meta-cognition. I think any of them would be preferable to doing nothing.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Epiphyllumlover: Thank you for your message. Since you link to it from ArbCom I'm going to pin it up for the duration of the election so it is not archived. I'm sorry to hear about your experience where people talked past you rather than with you. While there are structures (e.g. DRV, 3O, or content RfCs) that allow for content disputes like the one you reference to be productively settled, and where this kind of talking-past-one-another becomes less tenable, they do take a lot of time and many new users are unfamiliar with how to navigate them. It may be worthwhile to develop our internal Wikipedia literature (essays and info pages) on polarization of thought patterns, but that falls outside of ArbCom's scope and has to be a community activity. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
The curious thing about many of Wikipedia's homegrown guidelines and policies is that there is so much nuance within them that they cover a variety of thought patterns. Within ArbCom's scope would be an identification of thought pattern differences during the proceedings. Over time, members of ArbCom and followers could see if such identifications end up becoming predictable or not. (Yes, I have never initiated any of the three things you mentioned.) You've answered my question, so thank you.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

IPv6 /64

I noticed your enthusiastic support for my proposal in the 'Discussion' phase of the Community Wishlist. Voting is now open should you be interested. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: I'll be sure to vote for it! I'm going to make a list of all the proposals I'm supporting before I formally cast my vote though, so it might be another day or two. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


Beeches, Ehrenbach.jpg

Thank you for being ready to serve on arbcom, - good luck! - I still have yesterday's good top story to offer, - and a little below is my vision for 2020. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Today's DYK: to be sung "happily" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

In case you want to look at a an article related to "my question": L'ange de Nisida, - mentioned under #Donizetti on my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

That one resolved, what do you think of Hippolyte et Aricie? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:27, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: My apologies; I didn't realize this was an ACE-related question. I hope you felt confident in your vote for the people you supported. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
I am confident that you will be elected, Kevin. Last year I didn't vote for Newyorkbrad because he could do without my vote ;) This year, I found all candidates precious, and all replied more or less the same (that there is no flaming infobox war obvious), AND I was told that discussing an answer wasn't allowed this year, but I still wanted to vote only for 7, so here I came. - As soon as we all had agreed (no wars obvious), there was this little episode of disagreement, and - vote or not - I'd like your opinion, both the fact and how it became fact. I also asked two who arbitrators in teh case, btw. One of them asked if I mean the opera or the article, but I mean what sits in the upper right corner. It's a new design, probably meant as good compromise, and before running an RfC - which would be my first - or a discussion on project opera, I'm testing the waters. I hate users' time being wasted and don't want to be the culprit, - did you see my #vision 2020? - Ignore this if you think its a waste of your time. - My focus is on writing articles. 2 DYK yesterday (Klaus Bernbacher, Magnificat (Penderecki), 2 today (David Cordier, Marjon Lambriks, - will decorate, twice), looking forward especially to the next set with two women pictured, and the article (not by me) rescued from a deletion proposal. That's what I love here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi Gerda, sorry for the delay. I personally really don't have much of an opinion, other than I find infoboxes generally useful. When I browse Wikipedia on my own time I do so out of personal interest (rather than for serious research) and side navboxes do a good job of directing me to other articles that I tend to also find interesting. But I am also often convinced by the argument that they cause more problems than they're worth, as there is seldom a great way of determining which specific side navbar for which particular group of articles ought to receive top placement in an article, and their placement cannot be qualified and is an expression of Wikipedia's voice. I recently closed an RfC on this issue – it wasn't particularly close so I didn't spend time in the closing statement weighing the arguments but I recognize that this is necessarily an issue of some nuance. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Google Global

Could Google Global (talk · contribs) who you blocked today be King Aaron Daniel Kaatz (talk · contribs), blocked in January?

@Davidwr: Yeah, most likely. If you want to make a lock request you probably could KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Being a "one-wiki vandal" account, it doesn't seem to qualify. I'll hold off unless it bothers another Wiki. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 20:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey buddy

Hey buddy, can I email you? UaMaol (talk) 05:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Sure!KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 05:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Arbitration Committee

Congratulations on your success in the election and welcome to the 2021 Arbitration Committee. This is the first part of your induction onto the Arbitration Committee.

Please use the EmailUser function to indicate:

  • the email address you'd like to use for ArbCom and functionary business, and
  • if you wish to assigned CheckUser and/or Oversight for your term.

Before you can be subscribed to any mailing lists or assigned CheckUser or Oversight permissions, you must sign the Wikimedia Foundation's confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information (L37) and the OTRS users confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information (L45), and your name must be listed on the Access to nonpublic personal data policy/Noticeboard. If you haven't signed the agreements, please do this promptly. Instructions for signing can be found here. Again, if you want CheckUser or Oversight permissions during your term, you must sign both agreements listed in the instructions. If you have signed but your username is not listed on the noticeboard, please let me know.

Over the coming days, you will receive a small number of emails as part of the induction process. Please carefully read them. If they are registration emails, please follow any instructions in them to finalise registration. You can contact me or any other arbitrator directly if you have difficulty with the induction process.

Thank you for volunteering to serve on the committee. We very much look forward to introducing ourselves to you on the mailing list and to working with you this term.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katietalk 20:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


"If you look to your right you will see... swamp." (Tour guide Kevin, all aboard!)

I find myself in the awkward position of having gone on record as saying that I thought that nobody could be better suited to Arbcomming than BK49, so I guess anything I say to you is going to come off as second best. Well, sorry for that - you have my full and sincere confidence, I know you will do a great job - congrats on a successful and well deserved election. GirthSummit (blether) 20:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Thanks for your note!! It means a lot coming from you Face-smile.svg KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Congratulations, Kevin! Goodness knows, you know most of the Arbitration Committee processes inside and out! Liz Read! Talk! 22:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Liz!! KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Congratulations; I' m glad you will be there to replace us who are leaving (and that goes for the other new people also). We may overlap on one case-- and if there's one thing I like, it's giving advice, not that you'll need us. Especially when I'm safely out of the war zone. DGG ( talk ) 06:46, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
    Thanks DGG – it's been a delight to work with you over the last few years and I gladly welcome any advice you have for me. We'll miss you! Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 07:23, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations, well deserved. I hope it's all you hope it will be and that you continue to do a superb job of remaining calm and collected in the face of all things evil (TM). Well done. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, TRM. I appreciate your words and your support. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 08:46, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Down with insiders! Drain the swamp! Wait, it's Kevin? Okay, we're good, then! :) El_C 16:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Congrats, Kev!!! You were a shoo-in in my book. There is light at the end of the tunnel after all. Stay true to yourself and all will be just fine. Atsme 💬 📧 19:14, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Merry Christmas & Let's See Out the Year!

Wikipedia Happy New Year.png Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! In this toughest of years, thank you for continuing to care about others - both in your editing, your words, and just in your being. Roll on 2021 and I'll see you there!
Nosebagbear (talk) 14:37, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

The Signpost: 28 December 2020

Happy New Year!

Snowman icon.png

Happy New Year!

Hello L235: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a great New Year! Cheers, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year snowman}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Happy New Year, L235! =

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Horn of Africa needs a shortcut

What would you say to creating WP:ARBHORN -> Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Horn of Africa? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, done Face-smile.svg KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2021

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy 20th anniversary!

Wikipedia 20 text.svg Celebration~!
Wikipedia will only ever turn 20 once! Hope you are doing well and have a prosperous onwiki experience in the future.
Face-grin.svgMJLTalk 02:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


Hello L235. I understand the reason for this edit though others might not. My question is about the fact that this thread User_talk:Flyer22_Frozen#Flyer22_and_WanderingWanda_arbitration_case_opened is still on her page. New readers might think that case is still open. One option is to remove that thread as well. Another would be to restore the closing of the case thread immediately below the case open thread. There might be other options as well. I don't know if it is worth discussing anywhere or not I just thought it worth sharing these ideas with you. Regards. MarnetteD|Talk 19:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

One other possibility is to put the two threads together in her talk page archive so they aren't intruding on the condolences messages. MarnetteD|Talk 20:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I've just gone ahead and removed it. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. MarnetteD|Talk 20:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry Kevin!

I didn't have any interest in doing this now; there was a bit of a miscommunication on my part. –MJLTalk 02:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks MJL. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


@L235: Hey! Although I'm somewhat busy IRL right now, I was trying to log into huggle and noticed my two month rollback trial has finished and I'd like to apply for an extension. I think I've got the hang of huggle and I think it will be an invaluable tool for removed vandalism onwiki in the future. Thanks! FlalfTalk 05:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Face-smile.svg KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Sock query

Hey there, since you were the last to checkuser Bothiman, do you know if there's any data that can be used to confirm recent accounts? I'm looking at one editor in particular who seems to be fluffing up Vijay and simultaneously knocking the wind out of Rajinikanth's sails. (The two are Indian Tamil-language actors, and I guess each other's competition.) Anyhow, I'm not asking you to check yet, just asking if it would be possible to locate new Bothiman socks if I were to find more behavioural evidence. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Answered via email KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Received, thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2021

Administrators' newsletter – February 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2021).



Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

CVUA & Rollback

Hello, I doubt you'll remember, but you gave me rollback last July, and extended it until September. I stopped re-requesting after I saw Cassiopeia asked me not to use it (although I confess I saw that late), and have completed the rest of CVUA using Twinkle. In my last request you told me I needed an extended period of activity after CVUA, which I haven't done, but you told me to give you a ping when I finished CVUA so I figured why not. To be honest I wasn't too pleased with my initial progress in the course, but I got 96% in the final exam which was a pleasant surprise.

Anyhow, roughly how long would you like me to RCP before you would be willing to give me another grant? Pinging my trainer Cassiopeia in case they have any input. Thanks, Giraffer (talk·contribs) 18:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi L235, Good day. I am to confirm Girafer is one of the CVUA graduate. Here is the program program and outcomes. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia(talk) 21:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Done. Good luck, Giraffer, and thanks for your work. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Oh wow, I wasn't expecting to get it now! Thanks a lot. Regards, Giraffer (talk·contribs) 07:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


Hi Kevin; I hope you're holding up well! The 6-month TPE grant you gave me expired the other day, so I wanted to reach out to request an extension as you had mentioned.

My template editing activity over the past six months has been fairly varied, so I'm not quite sure how best to summarize it. I've created templates such as {{Infobox U.S. college admissions}} (plus underlying {{Fluc}}), {{Podcast platform links}}, and {{U.S. politician abbreviation}}, added automatic short descriptions to {{Infobox song}} (discussion here), begun some discussion about how to better handle sometimes plural labels in infoboxes without having to resort to (s) (see here and associated talk), and spearheaded a redesign of {{Wikipedia languages}} (from the bottom of the main page). TPE has also been useful for the occasional editnotice. When making non-minor changes to TE-protected templates, I've posted on talk to forecast my intentions and allow for discussion when needed (recent examples: 1, 2).

Let me know if you'd like any other info, and thanks for taking a look! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 06:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sdkb: Thanks for the message and for your hard work. I've extended the permission indefinitely. Let me know if I can be of further help. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 09:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Sock query

Can you take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chutrandi given you were the last person to run checkuser wrt this SPI? Thanks. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Geonotice request x 3

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Geonotice § Wikipedia:Meetup/San Diego/February 2021. RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 03:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Consensus_required_on_COVID?. Thank you. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Rollback Lapsed

Hello Sir, Sorry to disturb you. I have previously requested for Rollback right at Request for permissions, which was approved by you for limited time. The right has now lapsed. Now I requested for Rollback right again at Request for permissions but there are many pending requests. Kindly look into this matter as I am not able to login Huggle without rollback right. I want the right to be made permanent so that I can contribute without any delay. With love from Peerzada Mohammad Iflaq (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

1-hr blocks

Understood. My misinterpretation was that a shorter block seemed less harsh and perhaps would get the editor's attention just as well, but I've since been educated. :) —valereee (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Glad to hear, Valereee – I didn't mean to make a big deal out of it, just a note :) KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Not at all, KevinL. It's a completely fair note, and you didn't make a big deal out of it at all. If I'd thought it was at all important I'd have responded at the talk. :) —valereee (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Felt I need to say this

Kevin, I saw your comment at the case and that you was considering to ban me from the english wikipedia. I just want you to get the full picture before you make your final decision.

Yes, I was involved in an arb case 12 years ago. But what is important to take into consideration here was that it was me vs one disruptive sockpuppeteer and his sockpuppet, it was proven after the case that the first one controlled the other, and they were both indeffed for abusing multiple accounts: [6][7], I explained this here:[8]

I realize this isn't a good accuse for my own behavior at that point of time, but what is also important here is that this was 12 years ago and I had just gotten a Wikipedia account. I did not know the rules here and did not know how things worked. I did not know what "edit warring" was or how you was supposed to behave when contributing.

I went more then 9 years without a single block until Valereee recently blocked me 2 times in 1 month over Syrian Kurdistan. One of them was for discussing a source at a talkpage and the other one for saying that a user was cherry picking sources.

I hope that to you take this into consideration before your final decision. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your note, Supreme Deliciousness. I will be sure to take it under consideration. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit conflict

I see you reverted already; thanks! GPinkerton (talk) 01:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Mergers at Afd

Hi, Kevin, I'm curious where you see the consensus at this discussion that "it is acceptable to propose mergers at AfD (without advocating deletion)". That discussion seems to only mention redirection. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Eddie891: Oh, that was a typo – I've corrected it, my bad Face-smile.svg KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Thoughtful comments

hi @L235 – I've noticed the thoughtful feedback you've had to share in the conversation happening at WT:Talk_pages_project#Experiences.

...I just wanted to drop by to say thank you! I, @Whatamidoing (WMF), and the whole Editing Team appreciate it ^ _ ^ PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 02:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@PPelberg (WMF): Thanks for the note Face-smile.svg KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
100% PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 03:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Arbitration Case Opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 13, 2021, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, SQLQuery me! 04:52, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2021

Administrators' newsletter – March 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2021).


Administrator changes

added TJMSmith
removed Boing! said ZebedeeHiberniantearsLear's FoolOnlyWGFinley

Interface administrator changes

added AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
  • When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
  • There have been a number of reported issues with Pending Changes. Most problems setting protection appear to have been resolved (phab:T273317) but other issues with autoaccepting edits persist (phab:T275322).



Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Iris cat.jpg

Thanks for your help with the GeoNotice!

Meredith.hale (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

It was my pleasure! KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 March 2021

Adding motions

Not to comment on the case at hand but rather the general procedure. Wouldn't it be within your power to add another motion? I do understand the possibility that the retirement was impulsive and they could come to regret it, but even a month would seem like a generous period to allow reconsideration. For the future, a year-long suspension could be an incentive for retirement when under a cloud. I'll just say that if I had malicious intentions (I don't, and I'm not saying they do either) I would definitely take advantage of this to delay my case as the odds of getting a favorable outcome will only increase with time.

Also noting that a longer period could be appropriate if the subject may be unable to edit wiki for reasons beyond their control (sickness etc), but that's a different situation. That's probably also more akin to the justification for inactivity rules. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's within my power to add another motion. Out of courtesy, and to keep things moving, I try not to do so unless I sense that other arbitrators share my views. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Alright, I hope they do. Also just saying, it could be worth discussing the suspension procedure in general with the other arbitrators to more carefully determine the default conditions. I'm not sure how "1 year" was determined, but I doubt it's optimal for this. There's also something that isn't clear to me: if the user who is under a cloud resumes active editing but doesn't request their case to be resumed, what happens? Does the case remain suspended? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments – we'll be sure to discuss. If the user doesn't request resumption after one year, the user remains desysopped but the case is closed. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:55, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
What I meant was: if the user unretires right after a motion to suspend has passed, what would happen? Would they simply be granted a year to decide whether they'd like to have their case resumed while they continue editing? If so, why only give this benefit to users who declare themselves retired? I think any sort of benefit for retirement tends to be a bad idea, especially when under a cloud. With a substantially shorter period, there wouldn't be much of an issue to begin with. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that's correct, and this has happened in the past. I agree that it's not good to incentivize retirement (especially retirement that avoids community or ArbCom scrutiny). This is not for me to decide alone, though. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the additional clarification. I hope the discussion on the subject will prove fruitful. Face-smile.svgAlexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 02:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)