User talk:Kenneth Kho

Hello, Sir Kenneth Kho!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

• Editing
• Referencing
• Images
• Tables
• Policies and guidelines
• Talk pages
• Navigating
• Manual of Style

---

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

---

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

• Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
• It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
• If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
• Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
• When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
• If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
• Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome! Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 15:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Hi Sir Kenneth Kho! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Selfstudier (talk) 08:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't edit policy and guideline pages until you have more tenure on the project, and no project pages should be moved without consensus at WP:RM.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not violate WP:ECR as you did here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:55, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, I thought that did not apply as I avoided content. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 13:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It applies to everything except constructive edit requests on article talk pages. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for WP:ECR violations, you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes"). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Kenneth Kho (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I made an ECR violation as my edit stands at 485, that is sufficient ground for a block. However, I made the violation under the false impression that I was already an EC editor, I had received a congratulations two hours ago, that I was able to access the Wikipedia Library as I made 500 edits, but apparently that includes non en-wiki edits. As blocks are intended to be preventative, I don't think this block is needed anymore. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 23:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

This is reasonable. Remember to to wait until you reach extended-confirmed on en.wiki. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) You missed a trick here, SKK: you should've made 16 edits making and polishing your unblock request :D SerialNumber54129 21:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129 Admins Hate Them! See how they escaped EC restrictions using this one weird trick! Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 21:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is inconsistent with the policy on civility to call a fellow Wikipedian a sovereign citizen poisoning the well, as you did at WP:ARC. I have accordingly removed the comment that contains this remark.

I understand that subjective norms of what is and is not appropriate can be murky, but I wanted to let you know personally that this crosses a line. You can state that what the user did or did not do was correct or incorrect without using those unnecessarily-inflammatory words. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@L235 Thank you for pointing it out, I was about to ask whether the rpa was due to that phrase, on the one hand I felt the phrase was descriptive enough to use, on the other hand the phrase did not quite fit the bill, as here the grounds are "fairness" instead of "jurisdiction". I realized too that it could start an unnecessary back and forth, and I will not use the phrase again. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 19:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You offered a statement in an arbitration enforcement referral. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 23:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC), which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 06:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kenneth. I've seen you around in the Arb space a lot recently. I appreciate that you enjoy helping out in the back end of Wikipedia. However, a comment like Special:Diff/1261471342 does not come off super well. I know you're eager to help out. But your tone, and telling him what to do, was not helpful in this tender situation. I was trying to talk the guy off the ledge. This isn't the first rodeo; it's his seventh time at ARCA on this issue, and the history is extremely complicated. Sometimes it's better to say nothing, or to wait until others have spoken first, before saying something.

I'm going to give you a piece of advice I received early on in my editing career: focus on the content. Working on topics you like and creating WP:GA or WP:FA content or the like will be key to your enjoyment and longevity in editing. If you'd ever like help getting an article to GA/FA, let me know, and I can help you or find you someone who can :) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, I should have been more sensitive, I removed the unpersuasive parts. I did see what you are doing for them, and I tend to wait for what more people say before chiming in, but I was trying to get them to alter their request early so that they can turn frustration into hope. I looked into their history at ARCA, and it still looks likely that they can get positive results. As for content vs process, I tend to naturally contribute to things I come across. Kenneth Kho (talk) 09:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message because you are on the update list for Palestine-Israel articles 5. The drafters note that the scope of the case was somewhat unclear, and clarify that the scope is The interaction of named parties in the WP:PIA topic area and examination of the WP:AE process that led to two referrals to WP:ARCA. Because this was unclear, two changes are being made:

First, the Committee will accept submissions for new parties for the next three days, until 23:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC). Anyone who wishes to suggest a party to the case may do so by creating a new section on the evidence talk page, providing a reason with WP:DIFFS as to why the user should be added, and notifying the user. After the three-day period ends, no further submission of parties will be considered except in exceptional circumstances. Because the Committee only hears disputes that have failed to be resolved by the usual means, proposed parties should have been recently taken to AE/AN/ANI, and either not sanctioned, or incompletely sanctioned. If a proposed party has not been taken to AE/AN/ANI, evidence is needed as to why such an attempt would have been ineffective.

Second, the evidence phase has been extended by a week, and will now close at 23:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC). For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! In an edit summary you made the claim that "Replaced "a businessman" with "an American business magnate" per long-standing talk page consensus and consistency with other pages such as Jeff Bezos, do not revert without obtaining new talk page consensus" but consensus is actually not to use magnate and Jeff Bezos shouldn't be using it either. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed last year's consensus for business magnate, the result was no consensus as the !votes were 4-4. I actually agree with you that business magnate should not be included, as I reviewed other pages than Jeff Bezos did not include it. I reviewed this month's consensus for American, the result was consensus to use it, which I agree with as it is also used in Sergey Brin's page, therefore I am restoring this bit. Kenneth Kho (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I belive that there was a wider discussion that took place which ended with consensus against using magnate, oligarch, etc in the opening of the lead but I don't have a link for you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where do I find the talk page discussion about the ‘consensus’ that Elon Musk is only to be introduced as American? I don’t see this anywhere (easily accessible?? there. This seems exceedingly strange: he is literally South African-Canadian-American and that tracks with his life. Across the board Wikipedia uses ‘ABC is an Xan-Yan blah’ for people born in X, living in Y, with both citizenships, and similar examples. What can be the cause for exception here? Harsimaja (talk) 03:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Harsimaja The latest consensus can be found this month at Talk:Elon Musk/Archive 21#Born in South Africa, participants informally agreed that he is obviously American. The reason is that we don't use race or national origin in the lede, for example we do not say Barack Obama is an African American politician or a Kenyan American politician, and we do not call Sergey Brin a Russian American businessman. Kenneth Kho (talk) 05:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a recent exchange between two people where one just informs the other that this is the consensus. Do you know where the actual larger discussion where this original consensus was formed might be?

Given all the controversy over Musk’s status, his background and family, and how he appears to be more frequently described as South African than American in American outlets, this seems a gap.

Brin is Russian-American, too - but he moved at 5 years old, not after his formative years. Most of Musk’s education and even his accent were South African, and he only arrived in the US as an adult. It is strange to bring up Obama and it might be telling that you think this is comparable… the man only has US citizenship and lived in the US from birth. This ISN’T about ethnic background. Harsimaja (talk) 20:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By status, I refer to the question of whether he overstayed his visa (as an adult). Mainstream outlets and even his brother have raised this point in different ways, which adds to making simply ‘American’ even more questionable. Harsimaja (talk) 20:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]