User talk:L235/Archive 7

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Irreligion in Bangladesh. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello L235. Recently you posted this update. Can you state what you believe was the result of the clarification request? All I can tell from your announcement is that a request was archived. The requester, User:Nyttend, asked for more clear wording of what was intended by the original decision, as to conditions under which User:Kww could regain the edit filter right. Was this request for more clear wording granted, or denied? Perhaps the absence of a motion (with a recorded vote) should tell us that no decision was made. Some arbitrators hinted they would entertain a motion, though none was offered. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:07, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi EdJohnston, there was no formal motion proposed/passed, so the wording has not been formally changed. (An arbitrator told us on clerks-l to archive as stale.) However, a quick personal (non-Committee-authorized) summary of the discussion by arbitrators is this: Kww may apply by ARCA for reinstatement of the EFM bit/permission to apply via community processes after one year (i.e. 3 August 2016), but some Committee members also advised that they would not support such as request, preferring that Kww apply by RfA before any grant of EFM. In my personal capacity, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 04:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Unless something truly surprising happens, I doubt that I will do either. Unsurprisingly, I'm feeling a tad unappreciated, and don't see any particular reason to believe that Wikipedia will take its own sourcing policies seriously enough for me to put forth any effort on its behalf.—Kww(talk) 04:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

(Sorry Kww, actually deciding is far above my pay grade.) L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 10:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello. As you are the Clerk in charge, I'd like to request the partial or complete refactoring of this comment by NE Ent at the page Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests which contains templates regarding acceptance of the case and a closure of discussion. This could well be confusing to casual readers. I put the request on the page in question, but did not include it in the edit summary, so I thought it best to drop you this note. Thanks. Jusdafax 21:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• I now see the case has been accepted by someone neither an ArbCom member nor a Clerk? I must vigorously protest. Jusdafax 22:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  • That edit closing the Case request was reverted by an ArbCom member, but my original request to delete the template from the Talk page stands. Thanks again. Jusdafax 23:07, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi L235. Since you've edited one or more of List of current members of the British Privy Council, British Government frontbench and Official Opposition frontbench in the last six months, I'd like to invite you to a discussion about the use of honorifics in those lists. The discussion is happening here, and I look forward to a helpful and robust discussion. DBD 20:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I think Drmies inadvertently put this comment in the section above him rather than his own. Some confusing stuff going on there, so it's understandable. I thought about moving it, but better if I don't. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Thanks for pointing that out. JustBerry, we usually prefer clerks do this kind of thing, so that people have someone to complain to if anything goes wrong. Thanks for helping though. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to this. Thanks for letting me know, will note for the future. However, just so you know, I have notified Drmies (talk) on their talk page. --JustBerry (talk) 01:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: The reason why I had noticed the misplaced comment was that the comment was directed at me. Will leave it for the clerks in the future; once again, thanks for letting me know. --JustBerry (talk) 01:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

As per our conversation from yesterday, what would be the appropriate method to request additional words to my request case statement? This is for a different case; I made a non-party statement for the case titled "Spinningspark". The reason for providing more words is a potentially undue analysis of the situation; I have observed true understanding and enforcement of Wikipedia policies from the user's contributions upon digging, and would like to make the statement more representative of my findings. --JustBerry (talk) 20:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: Please ping me upon reply. --JustBerry (talk) 21:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@JustBerry: Make the request in your statement. If there's no response in a day, ping an arb or something. An FYI, extensions at this stage are exceedingly rare (I've only formally seen it happen once in my time as a clerk, and that was only to 650 words) so be sure to state compelling reasons. Thanks, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

All right. It looks like I'm currently 85 words under the limit; it shouldn't be necessary to exceed the limit. However, I just wanted to know in case there is ever a need for that in the future. Thanks for the information. --JustBerry (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

How if at all would I ask that Vani Hari and similar pages mentioned at ANI and maybe elsewhere which some of the individuals involved in the current GMO dispute, just as @JzG: and others, might be covered by some sort of short term sanctions to both prevent problematic editing to those pages and maybe give some of the individuals involved in that discussion, who may or may not be parties to the case, more time to devote to the case? John Carter (talk) 21:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like you're looking for a temporary injunction, which expires at the end of a case. You can ask the Committee to consider one at this section of the workshop. Thanks! In my personal capacity, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. Guy (Help!) 23:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Given the GMO case is open, there's really no benefit to keeping Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms/Evidence#Preliminary_statement_by_NE_Ent around, may I remove it? NE Ent 01:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@NE Ent: Yeah, you're free to remove your own statement. (Hmm, I have got to make that template more clear.) L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 02:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

L235, I'm not sure who's clerking this case request, but the arbitrator count has not been updated and I believe it has an absolute majority to archive as declined. Should be 0/8/0/0. Not that it bothers me of course to see my name in lights on the big ArbCom marquis, but ... --Bbb23 (talk) 12:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Yup, there's already a clerks-l thread on it. Thanks, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 12:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Paid-contribution disclosure. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey there! Remember way back in May when you supported Gene93k to be Editor of the Week? He was finally presented with the award this week. It looks as if Buster tried to ping those of us who nominated or supported him, but the ping didn't work (at least in my case). You may want to go to Gene's talk page and congratulate him. MelanieN (talk) 16:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks MelanieN, done. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 19:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The CheckUser and Oversight arbitration clarificaton request, which you were listed as a party to, has been archived to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, Jim Carter 09:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks! BTW three "thanks" for that edit is more than enough! :p Jim Carter 12:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@L235: OK, pity, can I make a general statement on the evidence page? I have diffs for a couple of points, but not everything, however, having edited relevant pages, I do think there are things that should be highlighted (nothing to do with specific editors). Semitransgenic _talk. 11:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Hallo L235,

User MarshalN20 (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine_History) was "banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the history of Latin America, broadly construed across all namespaces ...etc" in June 2013 because he "has engaged in tendentious editing and battleground conduct". His ban was released on 1 September 2015 (diff) whereat he vowed "to assure the arbitration committee that I do not plan to edit any article related to the War of the Pacific any time soon." (diff)

Six weeks later he edited War of the Pacific's talk page and wrote (diff)

1. I am more interested in dealing with other projects in WP than butting heads with a user that doesn't want to drop down the axe
2. This article needs to be heavily reviewed and fixed by an editor other than Keysanger.

And in editor Neil P. Quinn talk page (diff) he continues:

1. Keysanger has been "working" on this article for several years now, and there has been no progress toward it reaching the standards for GA (much less FA).
2. The root of the problem here is Keysanger.
3. [Keysanger] he writes a soup of words that are more confusing than clear.
4. What Keysanger is doing in this case would be like ...
5. If an editor can't contribute positively to an article, either because he doesn't have the appropriate language skills nor has non-partisan intentions, then that editor should not be allowed to continue making a mess of the article.

I see there a blatant violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and, indeed, the rules of the release and IMHO the community should resolve the case again. My question is: should I fill a Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement request?. Which is the correct way to follow?. Thanks in advance. --Keysanger (talk) 17:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi L235,

I posted the case to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#''The root of the problem here is Keysanger''. Thanks, anyway. --Keysanger (talk) 10:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Presumably 550 some arbs were not just spontaneously elected to the committee and !voted to accept the case :) Gaijin42 (talk) 20:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I think you intended to change 5 to 6 but mangled that a bit--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Oops!  Self-trout. I'm on a phone right now; apologies for that. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi L235! I'm guessing the mass message case announcements aren't supposed to link to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Example? ;-) Kirill Lokshin (talk) 01:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh crap... Let me see what to do... L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Someone needs to {{trout}} (or {{whale}}) me. Does anyone have a suggestion on what to do? (ping) L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Modifying each of the messages by hand is an option, but a tedious one. I'm sure there's a way to do it quickly with one of the semi-automated editing tools (such as AutoWikiBrowser), but I'm not terribly familiar with them, so I can't really help with the specifics. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 01:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Rewrite and send again? I came here for the same purpose. We'd all figure it out, but just send the proper text and note in the section title it's a correction.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: Afraid that'll anger quite a few folks. Primefac is on it using AWB. (Seriously, someone trout me.) Thanks, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

{{done}}. Primefac (talk) 01:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Primefac: Thanks for how quickly you responded on IRC! L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Personally I found the wikilink in the section title [1] made it pretty clear what was meant. NE Ent 11:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The Special Barnstar

Something I hope you get a kick out of... I've been using your account for testing while developing my labs tools. Why? Because you don't have a crazy high number of edits, and also have used lots of different semi-automated tools. That sounds like a bad thing, but what I think it really means is that you're a multi-faceted editor without editcountitis That's a really good thing! Anyway I thought given I've ran queries against your account so many times, you deserved a barnstar, so here it is. See, you were helping out in areas of the project you didn't even know about! Thanks for all you do — MusikAnimal talk 00:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: This has to top the list of interesting barnstars I've seen . Thanks for the barnstar, and for the work that you've been doing with your tools! L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 02:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

(Though I was looking at Special:Diff/688610360 and thinking "nice save" :P ) L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 02:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello my friend. Hope all is well. I know you must be extremely busy with all the behind-the-scenes work that you so graciously do. Can you do me and WER a great favor and keep your eyes peeled for potential "Editors of the Week". Ive always thought that with your role as a clerk, you have a unique inside view of editors at work (so to speak). Some of your previous candidates (you have nominated 10) have achieved great things here at WP. I just want to be sure we don't run out of accepted candidates in a few weeks...which could happen. I also invite any of your friendly stalkers to consider a "pat on the back" for any editors they might know about. Thanks. Buster Seven Talk 16:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll try to keep an eye on that. Thanks! L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 16:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Where did the non-party statements made during the request phase end up? NE Ent 01:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@NE Ent: Most ended up at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Evidence. Authors may have deleted their individual statements, so if you can't find one, try Special:Permalink/683202859#GMO_articles. (I know this isn't optimal, and was the result of a procedure change a few months ago; we've mainly switched back to the old system of putting on the case talk page, going forward.) Thanks, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

L235,

I recieved your message, I won't revert you, I mean I did say it was a bold action, and bold actions can and are reverted, so no foul there. :) However, one of the things you wrote:
In addition, I notice that you've participated and expressed your opinion on this topic, making it more difficult to maintain the status of uninvolved editor needed for you to hat a discussion.
Left me scratching my head as I hadn't participated in that discussion except to hat it, so as far as I know, I am indeed uninvolved in that particular discussion. Yes, I agree my wording on the hat notice was a bit abrupt, though. As far as signing the hat note, it's not really necessary, the history log shows who signed it,everyone has access to that log, so it's not like I was hiding my action or anything, that said, I will sign in the future. Thanks! KoshVorlon 15:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you are signed up as a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. We have a number of pending requests which need a volunteer to address them. Unless you are an inexperienced volunteer who is currently just watching DRN to learn our processes, please take a case. If you do not see yourself taking cases in the foreseeable future, please remove yourself from the volunteer list so that we can have a better idea of the size of our pool of volunteers; if you do see yourself taking cases, please watchlist the DRN page and keep an eye out to see if there are cases which are ready for a volunteer. We have recently had to refuse a number of cases because they were listed for days with no volunteer willing to take them, despite there being almost 150 volunteers listed on the volunteer page. Regards, TransporterMan (talk · contribs) (Current DRN coordinator) (Not watching this page) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for applying to become an SPI Clerk. At this time we have decided to take you on to the December 2015 training. Please watchlist the page and keep updated with it as time goes on. Thanks, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Revdel. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Revdel redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello. You have put a line in the support section of Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/BethNaught. I suspect that the Cyberpower678/RfX Report doesn't take your support into account, since the magic word support is missing. Best regards. Pldx1 (talk) 15:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I wanted somewhere to post an explanation of what I'm doing right now: I'm expanding my archive size to a reasonable length to make them reasonably searchable. This might be messy for a bit, and let me know if I break anything. I'll be copy-pasting from page to page quite a bit (perhaps on User:L236 since this really has nothing to do with the 'pedia. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235  · t  · c  · ping in reply) 06:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Could an admin delete User talk:L235/Archive 8, ../Archive 9, and so on, all the way until ../Archive 22? I've condensed the content over down to archives 1-7 for easier readability, and there is no actual history on those pages; the actual history (of messages) is still on this page. (I don't move talk pages to archive them; the bot simply copies material, and for that reason, they shouldn't count as "user talk pages" but rather "user subpages" under U1, but I'd also be happy to MfD them if an admin doesn't feel that this is a good place for a simple WP:IAR.) Thanks, Kevin (aka L235  · t  · c  · ping in reply) 06:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Y Will do - your point that the history is on this page, not with the archives, is correct, so I am happy to delete them as U1. It will be an hour or two before I get round to them all, though. JohnCD (talk) 20:49, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@JohnCD: Thanks! Quick reminder to finish User talk:L235/Archive 15 through User talk:L235/Archive 22, though... Kevin (aka L235  · t  · c  · ping in reply) 02:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Now all done. JohnCD (talk) 18:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much, JohnCD! Kevin (aka L235  · t  · c  · ping in reply) 18:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

	Greetings
	Christmas! Christmas, everywhere, on every talk page, I do dispair Seasons being greeted and Wikibreaks told, but still time for a little more editing, for being WP:BOLD! So go on, go forth and enjoy beyond concern Your Wiki will be waiting for when you return. Buster Seven Talk 14:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

This card was designed by User:Samtar

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Soap_desysopped_and_banned appears to have had a line accidentally removed in the crossposting, as the 'Opposed' section is present on the ArbCom page but not AN, just FYI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: It looks like Amanda added her vote after the announcement was made, so it wasn't copied over. I'll add it now. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

L235,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Happy New Year!

L235,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 15:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Please see this edit which deliberately reinstated the personal attack that Liz removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Statewide opinion polling for the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Levofloxacin. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Instead of ignoring questions directed at you in the future, with regard to Arbcom cases, it would benefit both you and Arbcom immeasurably if you had the courtesy to respond with facts rather than just ignore messages. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: I believe your issue was resolved (the offending paragraph of a statement removed) before I had a chance to take any action. Yes, it wasn't optimal to not respond to your message completely, but at that point you had retired. In addition, please see how much clerking I've done on this case request, or indeed, on Wikipedia as a whole; I'm not particularly active right now. Any clerking I've done on this case request in particular was by explicit direction of an arbitrator. I do recall leaving you a talk page message (which you promptly blanked) that laid out options for seeking action or review of actions; other than leaving messages on user talk pages, they also included the clerks' noticeboard and by email to arbcom-l or clerks-l.

Editors do have valid concerns, and I'd be happy to correct myself if any actions I've taken have been incorrect. Please let me know what I can do for you. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

No, my issue was not resolved in any way, shape or form. The personal attack which included suggesting I had no brain nor a sense of human decency remained there for the entire duration of the case, despite a number of other editors raising the point. It was left because Arbcom wanted it left and didn't direct either you or Liz to remove it, because it seems evident that neither of you are entitled to act on your own accord in these matters. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Laksa. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:User pages. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

We need more neutral opinions here. Please help! Thanx! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Redirect. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Drafts. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello all, my AfC has been declined three times for a lack of Notability. I have read the page on Notability, and unless I am missing the point, I understand that my AfC just doesn't warrant enough importance to enough people to meat the Notability criteria. Please do not read negativity into this thread, I do not mean to come across that way. My intent is seeking information and recommendations on how to improve the notability so I can hopefully make the criteria. Any information and assistance is greatly appreciated. Thank you very much.

Jeff — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff Jilson (talk • contribs) 19:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Jeff Jilson, there is no way to "improve the notability" of a subject. The subject is either notable or it isn't. You demonstrate notability by finding independent reliable sources that talk about the subject. Things like the Bandera County River Authority and Groundwater District's own website are PRIMARY sources, and thus don't count. I know it sounds like I'm being picky, but it's an important distinction. I'll be honest, I'm not sure any of the River Authorities should have a page (based on WP:BRANCH), so you may have an uphill battle to fight. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Your free one-year account with Newspapers.com will end on March 2 2016. Newspapers.com has offered to extend existing accounts by another year. If you wish to keep your account until March 2 2017, please add your name to the Account Renewal list here. I'll let Newspapers.com customer support know, and they will extend your subscription. If you don't want to keep your account for another year, you don't have to do anything. Your account will expire unless I hear from you that you want to keep it. HazelAB (talk) 13:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@HazelAB: Thanks for the message! I think I'm a bit inactive to warrant extension of my newspapers.com account. Thanks for the offer and the email, though! Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Republican Party presidential candidates, 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:31, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Stack Overflow. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Videos. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:IP block exemption. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Drafts. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

First, are links to user pages discouraged? If so, I won't do it. Second, "Uninvolved" has been common in the past. Has the ArbCom decided that it is deprecated? If so, okay. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Robert McClenon: Links to userpages aren't discouraged per se, but it's nonstandard; I don't personally have a problem with it, but we should either do it for all or for none. (I might even look into linking to userpages for all statements.) Regarding "uninvolved", well, as one arb put it rather well last year on the clerks' list, It's gotten a bit out hand with "Statement by kind of uninvolved except the one time last year...". If they want to detail their level of involvement, they can do that in their statement.. I'll revive discussion on this so that we can put something official in the procedures. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to the attention of the arbs. It isn't important, but I think that we both would like consistency. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Why Im Getting Invovled With This Shwwwwww!.Im only Talk With User Molecule Extition.Can You Clear My Name.In Not the One who make a Invovled.WarMarine Raptor 3 (talk) 04:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Kevin. Nouman khan sherani was blocked 4 April. 168.235.197.253 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has edited since 7 April. All contribs are in articles previously edited by Nouman khan sherani. The MOS "transgressions" are similar, e.g. bold film titles instead of italics, multiple links to the same target in the same section etc. Your second opinion before filing is appreciated. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh! :) -Starke Hathaway (talk) 01:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Starke Hathaway: Yup, my bad. Hey, at least I caught it in time. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself on the list of volunteers at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering#List of the DRN volunteers.

First, assistance is needed at DRN. We have recently closed a number of cases without any services being provided for lack of a volunteer willing to take the case. There are at least three cases awaiting a volunteer at this moment. Please consider taking one.

Second, this is a volunteer roll call. If you remain interested in helping at DRN and are willing to actively do so by taking at least one case (and seeing it through) or helping with administrative matters at least once per calendar month, please add your name to this roll call list. Individuals currently on the principal volunteer list who do not add their name on the roll call list will be removed from the principal volunteer list after June 30, 2016 unless the DRN Coordinator chooses to retain their name for the best interest of DRN or the encyclopedia. Individuals whose names are removed after June 30, 2016, should feel free to re-add their names to the principal volunteer list, but are respectfully requested not to do so unless they are willing to take part at DRN at least one time per month as noted above. No one is going to be monitoring to see if you live up to that commitment, but we respectfully ask that you either live up to it or remove your name from the principal volunteer list.

Best regards, TransporterMan (talk · contribs) (Current DRN coordinator) (Not watching this page) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

There is an important discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention about possibly finding a way to salvage Single-purpose editors and transforming them into positive WP collaborators in the general mainspace. I'm sure you run in to many of them as you wander around your domain. I'm also sure that every now and then one of the SPA editors rises above the crowd and seems worthy of more of your time and effort. Your personal insight and experience would be appreciated. WP:WER has become a relative ghost town (and I may be one of the few ghosts left in town) and User:Robert's idea may be just the boost the Project needs to revitalize. It's an opportunity for the Project to actually do something beyond handing out awards. I think Dennis Brown would like it. Please comment. Buster Seven Talk 14:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Could you please update the accept/recusal count on this case? I think the count is incorrect. Sorry for asking this logged out, but I don't want any stalkers. Thanks, and let me wish you good luck in clerking this. You're gonna need it ;). 172.56.29.16 (talk) 08:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I've just double-checked and triple-checked; it looks right to me (noting the "long-windedness" and other inconvenient places for votes to be). Thanks! Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 12:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi L235, I just wanted to add my own statement to the case request, and edit-conflicted with your close. May I still add it? I had guests over the weekend, and as a member of the Signpost editorial board now feel badly for not having spoken up sooner. Andreas JN466 13:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

On reflection, never mind; I see the case is being opened, and I'll make my comments there. Sorry for bothering you. Best, Andreas JN466 13:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Independent sources. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment #Motion: Infoboxes 1 and Motion: Infoboxes 2. The {{ACMajority}} template is not set up properly. As there are only 15 arbitrators in total, there can't be "15 active arbitrators, not counting 2 who have abstained or recused, so 8 support or oppose votes are a majority". In each of the motions there are now 3 abstentions, so 7 votes are a majority and both motions are passing. It's been quite a drawn-out vote, so I don't know whether you want to wait for DGG to vote before closing, as his vote can't change the outcomes. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm recused on infoboxes. DGG ( talk ) 22:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't responded here. I've enacted the motions with correct ACMajority. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm just wondering whether Dan Murphy's rather strangish comment in the Gamaliel arb evidence page really qualifies as evidence? John Carter (talk) 17:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

... for good news about release from arbcom restrictions. They are still here though, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)... also the amendment is not yet on the case page itself, where the last one is, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Ah, you're right. I'm so sorry. Please ping me in about 12 hours or so; I'll try to remember to, but I've been quite busy. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Good day today, Precious anniversary of GFHandel and Ncmvocalist. I archived "pride and prejudice 2" in 2015 already, and learned patience: the witch of Pungo was pardoned only after 300 years ;) - 23 April is also the birthday of my kantor who taught me "... that in the structure of Bach's St John Passion, the centre of symmetry is "Durch dein Gefängnis ...", expressing: "By your prison ... came our freedom"?". (article dedicated to GFHandel in 2014) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Done. Also, I'd already made the amendment; see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Review. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Kevin. Call me Gerda next time ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:30, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (web). Legobot (talk) 04:28, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

Sent on behalf of Buster Seven Talk for the Editor of the Week initiative by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that you seem to agree with a claim that I am a sockpuppet here. I am asking you to review this based on the comments I have added today. I am not a sockpuppet and have no reason to be. I was simply following WP:BRD until we get consensus on the talk page for a change.

If you look at the history of User:Thehistorian1984 edits they were made over a year ago. His entire editing history consists of only 4 (four) edits. I have started editing about 5 months back and already have almost 400 edits on a range of articles.User:Thehistorian1984 was the original editor who added a few lines to the article Mawlid here over a year ago. This portion of the article has remained in place for over a year until User:Mawlidman amended it with a new version. I did not agree with the new version and per WP:BRD reversed this to the consensus version added by User:Thehistorian1984 until we get agreement on the talk page for a change. I have mentioned this on the talk page on a number of occasions already (e.g. here and here) for example and also on the edit summaries (here and here). I also made clear that consensus can change (here) and that we should work together to come up with a new version that takes into consideration all reliable sources per WP:RS. Are we not meant to follow WP:BRD? If so, then obviously the text of the article reversed by me will be the same as the consensus version (in this case Thehistorian1984). Otherwise what does the 'R' stand for in WP:BRD? Thanks Saheeh Info 07:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Done and responded to at SPI. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks - the accuser has now opened a new sock puppet accusation here with exactly the same content and accusation . I'm starting to get fed up with this and consider it a type of bullying. What do I do to make a complaint? Also, can you provide some input into the new one please? Saheeh Info 08:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

can you check those two accounts.Alhanuty (talk) 03:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

can you check those two accounts.Alhanuty (talk) 20:30, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The thing I most dislike about arbitration clerks is that they sometimes view themselves as enforcers, rather than helpers. Jehochman ^Talk 13:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jehochman: (Sorry, I already started this reply; e/c with your removal.) The clerks most certainly aren't mainly enforcers. At most – and this is what we spend the most time on – we're administrative support (opening and closing cases, archiving and enacting ARCA requests and motions, fixing things for users, and so on). Absent a direct instruction by an arbitrator, when we must act to enforce order and decorum, including conformance with Committee rules (a mandate that falls onto us under the arbitration policy, and a heightened instruction this time from the Committee that we "are instructed to remove evidence which does not meet [listed] requirements"), except in the clearest cases, we will open a discussion on clerks-l and seek comment first. Now, when we're complained at for doing too little – that's a different story and not one that I think is relevant here. Thanks, though, for letting me know your thoughts. For what it's worth, I've gone inactive and removed myself as case clerk. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 13:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jehochman: Ah, I see now that you're referring to my removal from the main case page of JzG's statement. You're right, I was wrong. I should have helped him move the statement to a more appropriate place. Not doing so was an act of poor judgement (thinking to let him decide where to put it instead of me) last night. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 13:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I think we are both a little too critical. Thank you for your efforts. Jehochman ^Talk 14:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Kevin, thank you for the time you take to clerk at SPI. It's a busy but often shunned area of Wikipedia and your work there is definitely appreciated. Cheers, --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ponyo: That's really appreciated, and thank you for doing your CheckUser-ing at SPI. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)