This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I'm sure it's probably an oversight by the poster that they didn't see the sign saying not to post, but could you remove this, added today by a non-party to earlier party comments. Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 13:57, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@SchroCat: ((done)). Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:03, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I was recently warned "Discretionary Sanctions" I might be subject to. The user who warned me confessed he have not reviewed yet, but decided to warn us both about tendentious editing. I am very sure I have not made anything wrong. I went the appropiate noticeboards to find resolution. Always pinged the other editor involved. After the outcome I have edited the conflicting information accordingly, this time removing the sensitive unsourced information. After two months, the other editor returned with rage and mentioned me. I expressed my surprise of being again mentioned about a closed topic and recalled the noticeboards that have helped to resolve the matter. After that, the user warned me. And yet have not review the case.

This warning in my talk can be misleading. Any casual read can form itself the idea of conflicting edits, and this is not the case. I would like him to remove the warning and apologize. It is possible to ask him to do so? --Osplace 15:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Osplace: Hi, sorry for the lateness in getting back to you. ((Ds/alert)) is supposed to be a neutral alert and can't actually be rescinded. I don't have the time at the moment to review your current case in depth, but if you'd like, I will try to on Monday. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@L235: Yes, thanks, is ok, I can wait. --Osplace 02:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@Osplace: Hi, sorry for the delay. I just had a quick look at this. DS alerts honestly aren't predicated on misconduct – any editor can leave them, they can't be rescinded (even by the editor who leaves them), and they don't restrict you in any way by themselves. They only have effect if an administrator later goes and follows the procedure at WP:AC/DS to apply sanctions against you. I wouldn't worry about it – as long as you follow all relevant policies and adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia (etc.), you'll be fine. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@L235: When is the right moment to leave that tag? When you want to scare someone up if you do not have time to check if someone is behaving according the Wikipedia policies, as I am? No. This is not ok. Thanks anyway. --Osplace 21:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi L235--how is it going? Hey, I was wondering if you knew Freeda Brook from Luther College in Decorah, Iowa? She is teaching a Library Juice Academy class on Wikipedia: http://libraryjuiceacademy.com/115-wikipedia.php Also, I met someone at a Library Technology conference last week from South Dakota who would like to get Wikipedia started there. It made me think about upper Midwest / Great Plains remote collaboration, for how those Wikipedians who may be "isolated" may be able to work together remotely. Let me know if you are interested in exploring that. RachelWex (talk)

@RachelWex: That's so great, I'm very interested! I'm going to try to reach out to Freeda Brook – this all sounds very exciting!! Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, L235. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/United States v. Forty-Three Gallons of Whiskey.
Message added 01:21, 24 March 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

The C of E has made some edits to the article, and he's requesting a comment for you regarding this. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:21, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

		Please join us as Women in Red and Art+Feminism continue our collaboration in April 2018. Continue the work you've done in March and pledge to help close the gender gap in April! All you need to do is sign up on the Meet-Up page below and list any articles you create in the month of April. April+Further with Art+Feminism
		To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list or Women in Red/international list. To unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list. Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred

On 1 April 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article United States v. Forty-Three Gallons of Whiskey, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the United States once sued 43 gallons of whiskey? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/United States v. Forty-Three Gallons of Whiskey. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 12:03, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

It seems motion 1 is going to pass as it has reached required support of 6. What is next? Will you close or ping Arbcom members who are yet to vote? — MapSGV (talk) 12:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@MapSGV: I've inquired about this, but the Committee has asked us to hold off on enacting the motion for just a little bit. We're going to enact the motion as soon as the Committee gives us the go-ahead. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 12:53, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Kevin. Re: indicating "coeducational" in the lead of McGill University and responding to you: We have had more than enough discussion (see entire edit history) so we would like to go to requests for comment, third opinions to obtain consensus. Since I need to present the points I raised and have never gone for any consensus/third opinion before, please create proper venue and advise on how to proceed. Thanks, Kevin. Jacknpoy (talk) 02:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

On 12 April 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lafler v. Cooper, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that when dissenting from the US Supreme Court decision in Lafler v. Cooper, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the Court had elevated "plea bargaining from a necessary evil to a constitutional entitlement"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lafler v. Cooper. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Vanamonde (talk) 00:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello,

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

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

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

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

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the ((admin help)) template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

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

Done. Cheers! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Just noting that I've seen this and am typing a response. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: First, thanks for your message. I know you're frustrated, and that's totally understandable. I'm certain you've been acting entirely in good faith on this. It's always a difficult decision when we intrude into editors' statements – we don't want to censor, and we prefer rants at/about ArbCom than at/about anything else. Ultimately, most clerk decisions that receive any attention are unpopular – that's the nature of the job, of moderating dispute resolution at this level. The Committee expects high standards of behavior on arbitration pages and requires that "[a]ccusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all)." The Committee also often reminds clerks to vigorously enforce those standards. You're right, though, that we should communicate better and help editors instead of jumping to refactoring/removal and sanction.

You're also right that I didn't consider the full context of the ARCA request when deciding to leave you a note. That's something I should have done first, and I apologize. We got an email from a user pointing us to your statement and requesting action. I had gotten back from a long trip just hours ago and no other member of our perpetually short-staffed office had responded, so I took a look. There's a substantial amount of judgement required, balancing formal rules with trying to alleviate controversy with what editors are fairly entitled to and have requested and so forth. I left a note and didn't modify your statement; after awhile with no response, another clerk (Mdann52 removed the statement. We should have made more of an attempt to discuss and to make clear what we were going for.

On others' statements: Per the above, I personally haven't been looking at statements on this ARCA request. When we review statements, it's not our job to evaluate evidence for convincingness; that's for the arbs to do. If you want to say that someone has a pattern of behavior based on two diffs spaced six years apart, I don't think the clerks would remove it – but good luck convincing the committee.

The big problem with supporting statements using general references to discussion threads is that usually the contention (diehard anti-abortion activists such as Anythingyouwant ... his many and persistent misdeeds on American Politics ... Anythingyouwant is a poster child for NOTHERE editing. He is a relentless POV-pushing wikilawyer, skirting penumbra of policy and the limit of the law on WP. His lack of contributions outside his narrow area of interest and his years-long disruption argue for a simple ban from WP. and so on) do not actually follow from the formal discussion. Can you link to the actual section of the discussion that would indicate that the user is a "diehard anti-abortion activist[]" or "is a poster child for NOTHERE editing"? Is there some analysis you would like to share?

I've been speaking in general terms, so to answer your specific question: I can't guarantee that the clerks will not refactor/remove your statement if you reinstate it with only general links to the discussion threads. However, if you do link to specific portions of those discussions to support each contention, or to enough diffs that could reasonably establish a pattern, I doubt a clerk would take further action (unless otherwise directed by higher-ups). I might be overruled by my colleagues on that one, though – no guarantees.

I know arbitration is a frustrating and time-consuming process, and I'm certain it must seem like the clerks and these requirements are a contributing factor to that. Thanks for sharing your concerns, and let me know if there's anything else I can do to try to help out here. (This message got more rambly the further down it is – I'm headed somewhere soon.) Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

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

@Bishonen: Done now – the arbs are discussing potential case scope before opening. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:02, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Bishonen: fix ping Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, sure, I figured they were. It was just the "7" starting to itch me. Thanks. Bishonen | talk 21:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC).

• If I may trouble you again, have you seen User:Prüm's new comment, which is an intemperate attack on K.e.coffman?[1] I've advised them to remove it before a clerk does, but I don't really know what clerk practice is with regard to incivility on the RFAR page. Bishonen | talk 11:05, 3 May 2018 (UTC).
  • @Bishonen: I've removed both statements (in different sections) the user has made in accordance with your finding of ban evasion. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I wrote to MDann52 also, when I realized belatedly that your timezone isn't ideal for me, and he removed the worst of it. Bishonen | talk 18:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC).

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

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

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

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

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

@Bishonen: Yup, the notice will stop showing up after 2018-09-10 (which I assume is the correct behavior because the sanction itself will expire by then too). Certainly revert if you don't want that to happen. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:56, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

No, no, that's fine. I was just wondering, since the expiry date doesn't do anything that shows on the page. Bishonen | talk 21:21, 10 May 2018 (UTC).

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

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

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

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

(talk page stalker) I think so too, especially since he obviously only put it on the talkpage because of the word limits (which many people ignored). I wrote privately to an arb on 11 June to suggest it be moved to the main page, but didn't get much of a response. Maybe you could raise it more formally, L235. Bishonen | talk 04:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC).

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

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

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

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

supreme court

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

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

@Gerda Arendt: Thank you! It means a lot to me. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

That's nice of you to tell a member of the cabal of the outcasts who has dangerous thoughts about WP's supreme court ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm personally not proud of how I handled that. The Committee certainly makes mistakes, and it's important that we recognize them when we make them. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

spirale of justice

Well, sorry, I didn't mean you personally, but the waste of time I experienced every time when I met arbitration. I hope you had time for the whole thread, with design borrowed from one of its victims ;) - Thank goodness my last encounter with AE was in 2015, and I hope it will stay that way. The 2018 committee: I asked all candidates if they could agree with Opabina regalis, most said more or less yes, came the first case and they had forgotten ;) - Did you know that I made several related DYK? And like the pictured one best? With that in mind, you'll do your work best, and I hope for all of us that you won't have much clerk work and can enjoy free editing! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

		An exciting new month for Women in Red! August 2018 worldwide online editathons: New: Indigenous women Women of marginalized populations Women writers Geofocus: Bottom 10 Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative Notable women, broadly-construed! For the first time, this month we are trying out our Monthly achievement initiative All creators of new biographies can keep track of their progress and earn virtual awards. It can be used in conjunction with the above editathons or for any women's biography created in August. Try it out when you create your first biography of the month.
		Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): Call for members for the Gender Diversity Visibility Community User Group (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

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

Email not needed, if someone wants to chase under this its not that beany. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:21, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Great nom. Thank you. ―Buster7 ☎ 04:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Always my pleasure Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

For full disclosure - MelanieN asked me about nominating and I turned her down. I'll have a think about what I wrote at the RfA but I think you'll probably pass anyway so I wouldn't worry about it. I will say that I don't know why people can churn out good content like yourself and then get excited about stuff like SPI, but guess I have odd opinions at times. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:35, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Thank you – that was very gracious of you. I will be sure to keep your remarks in mind Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

	Good luck with your Request for Abuse Adminship
	I'm sure you're going to do fine :-) Don't spend the week constantly watching the RfA.. - TNT 💖 19:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, TNT! That is one cute cat. I just look forward to the RfA being done, either way. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

There'sNoTime actually wanted you to tell him that his emoji signature was cute, but I suspect he also likes the cat. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

More luck

It's my first time participating in a vote for someone's adminship. I never had any contact with you before but after looking at your edits, I know that you will might as well be an administrator. Good luck out there mate. CommanderOzEvolved (talk) (contribs) 06:36, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I hoped I would be speaking on behalf of the Counter-Vandalism Unit in regards to your nomination too. CommanderOzEvolved (talk) (contribs) 06:39, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

You're going to break records. Have a bunny! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:22, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey, good to see your RfA's running smoothly, congrats on the WP:200 and an early congrats on your successful RfA, I'm glad to have you on the team. But, I was wondering what the SPI protocol is when one sockmaster is determined to be a sock itself (assuming both have an SPI already). Are we supposed to merge the SPIs, leave them separate, or does it not matter? Swarm ♠ 02:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@Swarm: Thank you! We usually merge the SPIs – in fact, we often do a full histmerge too. Just set the SPI case status to "clerk" and ask for the case to be merged into another – an adminclerk will take care of it Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! Swarm ♠ 02:31, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Just wanted to be among THE FIRST to say it. ^{Call it intuition or a gut feeling - I just knew. Ok, so now that you're loaded for bear, whenever you see [FBDB] after one of my comments, that means whatever I may have said is not a blockable offense. 😂} 😉 ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC) ^{strike & add-on dated 22:29, 3 September 2018 (UTC)}

Well, I wouldn't want to jinx it. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Unless about 120 opposes were to appear out of the woodworks in the next 14 hours, I think you're a shoo-in. Congratulations, although I have no idea why anyone would be so masochistic as to want to be an admin on Wikipedia! All the best. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Congrats from a fellow Iowan. You may find this useful. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Atsme was much more confident than I - I reckoned 1 hour was a legitimate time frame to think you couldn't be beaten ;) Nosebagbear (talk)

Your RFA has less than one hour left, and unless 33% of your supporters (.33 * 244 ≈ 86 people) move to oppose you in the next 60 minutes, I'll congratulate you now and welcome you into the admin corps :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

If Oshwah is gonna rain on my parade, he should change my nine years (now eleven) to his two. ;-) Katie^talk 14:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

KrakatoaKatie - Ahhhh! I thought it only said "a long, sordid, I-really-should-have-found-a-better-hobby years ago" - I missed the nine part apparently.... lol ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:24, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• Congrats! Well deserved. ―Buster7 ☎ 14:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Congrats, L235 - what an impressive turnout! So glad to have you join the admin team `GAB^gab 15:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Congratulations on your successful RfA & and good luck with your new tools! Maxim_(talk) 15:42, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Felicitations on your successful RfA. Please a take a minute and savor your triumph... Done? Good. The CSD backlog is this way. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Congrats! Hope you didn't get too shocked by the new interface. -★- PlyrStar93 _{→Message me. ←} 15:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Well done! Keep up the good work :) Orphan Wiki 15:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Congratulations L235, I'm so pleased for you :), Happy blocking :) –Davey2010^Talk 16:39, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you all! I appreciate everyone's time at the RfA. Thanks to supporters for your kind words; to those whose support I haven't earned, thank you for your advice and cautions, and I hope I won't let you down. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Congrats on your first block [2] . Kpgjhpjm 17:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Seriously, congrats. A major benefit to the project! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Congratulations for adminship !! CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:18, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• Bit late to the party, but just wanted to congratulate you on your successful RfA. If you ever have any questions, please feel free to reach out to myself or any other admin. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:24, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Congratulations! You definitely earned it. EclipseDude (talk) 17:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Well done and do have a read and smile at Wikipedia:What you won't learn in new admin school - it's oh so true at times... Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Congrats! ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Congratulations! I’m very happy that this passed. Mz7 (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Chiming in to add my congrats L235. Well deserved. MarnetteD|Talk 21:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Congratulations! I have been noticing you ever since I registered because of you username and now you're an admin! L293D (☎ • ✎) 22:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• Congratulations and best of luck, Kevin!! Linguist^unEins^uno (Linguist111) 23:45, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• You worked hard to earn this. Congrats! Sro23 (talk) 00:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• Congratulations! Enterprisey (talk!) 04:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• Well done. Congratulations on the well-deserved RFA! The editor whose username is Z0 09:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• Real photo finish there. Mkdw ^talk 14:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• Ah, forget the mop, run for Checkuser! I'm serious, I would love to work with a CU who get DYKs popping up on their talk page. Quick, there's only a week left to apply! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
• Slightly late congratulations and best of luck. Donner60 (talk) 07:52, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
• And a very belated congratulations from me. I look forward to all the good work you'll do with the tools. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:34, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
• Darn it, I’m late. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 14:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
• Darn, I'm even later! Congratulations, Kevin/L235, you'll be a great admin! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:39, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Congratulations on your successful RfA! We all knew you deserved the mop! SemiHypercube ✎ 15:46, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to start two sections in a row, but–User:Maxim added the edit filter manager user right to you when making you a sysop. Did you also ask for that? If not, do you want it? I'm a bit confused by now, it could have been an error. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 15:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Just a tech note, you can self-toggle this off if you won't be working on "changing" filters; admin already include all the view-private your prior EFH access had. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 16:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I think it should be fine – the bit will be on if I need to make changes/improvements and won't hurt if I don't. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

This came in the mail for you. I don't know if you want to keep it pristine in the box or display it in the corner. ((Administrator topicon)) Natureium (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

On 4 September 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Napue v. Illinois, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 1959, the US Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional for a prosecutor to knowingly use false testimony, even if the testimony does not directly relate to the defendant's guilt? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Napue v. Illinois. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, would you mind setting up the shortcut to the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort case? --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:06, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: Done. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

What did they expect to achieve? Doug Weller talk 12:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Good riddance. Thanks. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 15:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Regarding comments left on Brenae Wafto's talk: I did just watch ELon Musk state that his description on Wikipedia should be changed from "magnate" to "magnet" on Joe Rogan's podcast. An edit to Elon Musk stating that he is a self-described or self-professed 'business magnet' would seem to be appropriate, and punishing Brenae Wafto may be inappropriate. DanD (talk) 05:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer in the edit summary. Will remove the previous tag and replace with something more appropriate. Somehow didn't register with me that an attack page and being completely made up are mutually exclusive. ((u|zchrykng)) {T|C} 23:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

@Zchrykng: Well, I didn't decline the G10 because it was completely made up – in fact, it's entirely possible the article is substantially true. I just don't think the article is an attack page because it isn't intended to harass or intimidate, or even negative in tone. I deleted it initially as G10, but after looking at it again I just couldn't justify it to myself. I actually wavered on whether restoring the blanked content was OK, considering it was entirely unsourced BLP info; I would probably delete it myself as A7/A11, except that I pledged during my RfA not to do potentially-controversial deletion stuff (I came across your G10 tag only through the admin dashboard). So I messed up at least a couple times when dealing with this myself. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:11, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Totally fair, I was probably misreading it, but is seemed to be implying that the subject was "retarded" or autistic, and since the subject (if they exist) is a minor, it seemed over the line. ((u|zchrykng)) {T|C} 23:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I read it the same way initially; it seems like it's saying he's an advocate for mental health, which is a completely different tone. You were certainly right to tag it Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:26, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello Kevin, firstly, belated congratulations on your RfA. I hope your tenure provides you satisfying and knowledgeable experiences and you have fun administrating.

That said, let me also take this opportunity to communicate my apologies to what happened in your RfA due to me. As I wrote recently in one of my emails to a few editors, the community is absolutely right in complaining about the posting that I did; and it's a wonder I did not get sanctioned immediately, or thereafter, given that the post went primly against our outing policy. I would not be wrong in thanking you for literally saving my you-know-what, by giving supportive statements through the RfA, and now I'm told, in private too. I've made a few mistakes in my editing tenure – this is absolutely at the top of the chart amongst those, and the reason I'm here to offer my apologies.

If there's anything I can do to cut this chapter to a quick close (beer, a pro-bono song performance to add...) just name it :) I'm sure we'll interact in the future, and I look forward to enjoying working with you. Most warmly, Lourdes 16:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

[3] EEng 01:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For doing such a spectacular job dealing with the vast quanity of users who come across AIV and SPI - I'm so happy to say I supported you for adminship! Also a very, very late congrats on your RfA. SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 20:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, there! I’ve seen you block User:Poop dodo for a period of 31 hours. Good effort on your part, but I really think that user has violated the username policy as an impersonation of and attack against User:Gogo Dodo and should be indef’d. My report at WP:UAA was unsuccessful and removed right away. StormContent 19:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi StormContent, if you disagree with an administrator's decision at UAA, you should discuss with that administrator directly. I don't have any experience in the area, so I don't think I'll be overruling the considered decision of another admin. As for the length of the vandalism block, I felt that 31 hours was appropriate and proportionate, but if the user vandalizes after the block, I'll be more than happy to reblock indefinitely. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:07, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@StormContent: I was on my phone when I saw this, so didn't check the actual UAA history – I didn't realize the bot had removed the report, instead of an admin. I'm going to give the user a NOTHERE block. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:41, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Kevin,

Could you do me a favour? Would you take a look at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy, as I have just noticed that it is malformed; the incorrectly done formatting (such as failing to specify parameters in ((Casenav))) in other pages of this case are rather unimportant, but the statements from the community ([4]) was not copied by Kharkiv07, as they only copied the statements from involved parties I suppose. Was this done correctly? If not, how was this not noticed at the time? I have doubts because the very next case was opened in the format that I understand to be correct. This probably should be corrected as issues from this case have been re-surfacing recently for the past few months, and right now the point of reference is rather incomplete. If you have time to address this, that would be amazing. Or if this old case page do need to be cleaned up, maybe Cameron11598 can take a shot at it to see if there are any other missing parts? Cheers, Alex Shih (talk) 09:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey Alex – we were testing procedural changes and so the non-party statements ended up at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy/Evidence. I'll keep this on my to-do list to clean up, but in the meantime, if there's anyone wondering where the statements went, please point them to that link Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. Alex Shih (talk) 07:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	In response to my reblock comment, thanks. Much appreciated. :) StormContent 15:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Please join us in downtown San Francisco!

Hey, folks.​ Reminder:​ Wednesday evening ​at 6 ​is the Bay Area WikiSalon series​.​

---

Details and RSVP here (note: we are meeting at the new WMF HQ at 120 Kearny Street!)

---

See you soon! Avik (User:Quantumavik), Lodewijk (User:Effeietsanders), Ben Creasy (User:Ben Creasy), Stephen (User:Slaporte), and Wayne (User:Checkingfax)
(Subscribe/Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here) | MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2018).

Administrator changes

Justlettersandnumbers • L235

Bgwhite • HorsePunchKid • J Greb • KillerChihuahua • Rami R • Winhunter

Interface administrator changes

Cyberpower678 • Deryck Chan • Oshwah • Pharos • Ragesoss • Ritchie333

Oversight changes

Guerillero • NativeForeigner • Snowolf • Xeno

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the process for appointing interface administrators has been established. Currently only existing admins can request these rights, while a new RfC has begun on whether it should be available to non-admins.
• There is an open request for comment on Meta regarding the creation a new user group for global edit filter management.

Technical news

• Partial blocks should be available for testing in October on the Test Wikipedia and the Beta-Cluster. This new feature allows admins to block users from editing specific pages and in the near-future, namespaces and uploading files. You can expect more updates and an invitation to help with testing once it is available.
• The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team is currently looking for input on how to measure the effectiveness of blocks. This is in particular related to how they will measure the success of the aforementioned partial blocks.
• Because of a data centre test, you will be able to read but not edit the Wikimedia projects for up to an hour on 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee has, by motion, amended the procedure on functionary inactivity.
• The community consultation for 2018 CheckUser and Oversight appointments has concluded. Appointments will be made by October 11.
• Following a request for comment, the size of the Arbitration Committee will be decreased to 13 arbitrators, starting in 2019. Additionally, the minimum support percentage required to be appointed to a two-year term on ArbCom has been increased to 60%. ArbCom candidates who receive between 50% and 60% support will be appointed to one-year terms instead.
• Nominations for the 2018 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission are being accepted until 12 October. These are the editors who help run the ArbCom election smoothly. If you are interested in volunteering for this role, please consider nominating yourself.

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User wikipedia/Arbitration clerk. Hhkohh (talk) 10:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Would you have a moment to look at the edits of User talk:68.192.236.111? I see you've blocked this editor recently. Some odd template stuff going on. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 22:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: Hey, looks like TAnthony left a note. If there's active disruption, let me know if it's clear vandalism and consider another venue if it's more complicated than that. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:15, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi L235, I've just this minute CSD-tagged the RFA page although not sure if it the correct one, As far as I know we don't accept RFAs by brand new users, Anyway thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 03:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@Davey2010: Thanks, Tony took care of it. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:13, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Napue v. Illinois you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of White whirlwind -- White whirlwind (talk) 00:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Greetings,

I recall seeing you on WP:RX processing requests relating to Stanford Libraries. Does that mean you have access to [5], [6], [7] and [8]? Unfortunately Nevado Sajama has a needle-in-haystack quality that makes it nigh impossible to find decent sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Hey, I can absolutely look for those! Which pages do you need? I'm completely overloaded on other things today but I will try to find them by Friday. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, that is the problem. I don't know which pages may contain information on the volcano. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:49, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I'm afraid I don't understand Spanish, so I doubt my competence to go looking through for mentions. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

In my experience, just looking for mentions of "Sajama" would be enough. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, L235. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 09:17, 29 October 2018 (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.

——SerialNumber54129 09:17, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

		The Diligent Librarian Barnstar
		For exemplary service at the Resource Exchange, tirelessly delivering the reliable sources on which this encyclopedia depends, please accept this award. :) I appreciate you going to the trouble. ——SerialNumber54129 10:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Kevin. Thanks for nominating me on 'Editor of the Week'. You made my day bro. -Gazal world (talk) 17:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I came across the article Indian Institute of Social Welfare and Business Management and saw there was a previous editor, User:Santanu99, and a sockpuppet of theirs, User:Tata Medical Center, that were recently blocked. Another editor, User:Ajit Doval, made two edits on the 27th, [9], changing to the image uploaded by Santanu99 and using the exact same coding for the reference for the director they all added. I believe this is another sockpuppet, so I wanted to let you know and if you agreed then action can be taken. Aspects (talk) 00:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Done, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Santanu99. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2018).

Administrator changes Sir Sputnik Kudpung • Liz • Lourdes Everyking • Jackmcbarn Interface administrator changes Dinoguy1000

CheckUser changes AGK • Ivanvector • Stwalkerster • TonyBallioni Oversight changes Amorymeltzer • Oshwah • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93 Keilana

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment determined that non-administrators will not be able to request interface admin access.
• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the Mediation Committee should be closed and marked as historical.
• A village pump discussion has been ongoing about whether the proposed deletion policy (PROD) should be clarified or amended.
• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether pending changes protection should be applied automatically to today's featured article (TFA) in order to mitigate a recent trend of severe image vandalism.

Technical news

• Partial blocks is now available for testing on the Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the local talk page or on Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
• A user script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
• The 2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for admins and stewards that may be of interest.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
• The Arbitration Committee's email address has changed to arbcom-enwikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.

Hi mate just wondering how bad is vandalism on Wikipedia and also why do bots run this not actual people many thanks TJY P.S Im new to this and I don't know if this is the right area to do this TJY1 (talk) 21:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)