Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:12, 6 March 2013

If I posted on your talk page, I have it watched so you can reply there. It just makes for easier reading. Thanks.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Are you certain?

http://meta.wikimedia.org/Steward_requests/Permissions#Kevin.40enwiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avraham (talk • contribs)

John Avlon marketing his book.

Hi,

So I noticed a sentence in the "radical center" wiki with no citation.

The definitive history of "Centrism" in America, and probably the best-selling radical centrist book to date, is John Avlon's Independent Nation (2004, pbk. 2005).

I was unaware that sales figures were kept for "radical centrist" publications, so I did some searching for a top 10 list of radical centrists books by various years (2009, 2008, 2007 etc..). Unfortunately, I was unable to find such a list.

So, I removed the sentence. Then I went to John Avlon's wiki to remove the following sentence, which cites as its source the sentence in the "radical center" wiki that has no citation!

Independent Nation has been called, "the definitive history of 'Centrism' in America, and probably the best-selling radical centrist book to date."

Unfortunately, I'm a newbie so I can't change the page. I imagine there were some "angry" edits made in the past few months which is why the page is protected. Nevertheless, the above sentence strikes me as pure unsupported marketing which shouldn't have a place on a factual bio page.

Cheers!

Please contact the Arbitration Committee

Hello, Kevin. Please contact the Arbitration Committee by email at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org or Special:Emailuser/Arbitration Committee at your earliest convenience; I will be sending you an email shortly with more information. Hersfold non-admin 16:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment

It was a fairly bad idea to unblock Cla68 and ignoring the private evidence and concerns regarding outing, and for making it so that nobody, not even an oversighter who has access to the evidence, can reblock under penalty of desysopping, as that would be wheel warring. --Rschen7754 19:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Anyone can re-block should Cla68 repost the offending material. If he doesn't then he equally doesn't need to be blocked. Kevin (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Kevin, could you please clear something up for me? The blocking admin posted in his edit summary "please do not unblock without consulting the oversight team". Did you have any contact with the oversighters before unblocking? Prioryman (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes I saw that, and no I didn't. Kevin (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Er. Could you explain why? Ironholds (talk) 20:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, maybe because Cla68 stated that he had no intention of repeating the sort of actions that prompted the block. Just a thought.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

That's not really an explanation for 'An ArbCom-appointed functionary told us explicitly not to do what I just did'. It's an explanation for why Kevin might've thought talking to the OSers was a good idea. Ironholds (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe the point of the blocking admin's statement was that the decision on unblocking was supposed to be made by the oversight team, not J. Random Administrator. Kevin isn't an oversighter or an arbitrator so hasn't been party to the discussions that have being going on behind the scenes. I don't think anyone will be reblocking, but it's also fairly obvious that Kevin has trodden rather heavily on the toes of the Arbcom and the oversighters - not the kind of thing they appreciate. Herfold's message in the section above is unlikely to be an enquiry about what Kevin had for breakfast today. Prioryman (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't aware the Beebs had the authority to force all the lesser admins to abide by his decrees. Oh wait, he doesn't. Kevin obviously knew the basis of the block and, given Cla68's pledge, lifted it on the basis that such a decision was within reason under the circumstances.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

DA has covered it, so I won;t repeat that. In addition, the concept of sticking an editor in the corner with a gag, whilst holding discussion about his fate seems to me to be entirely unfair. There would have to be extreme circumstances to do such a thing, i.e. that the revealing of private information was a certaintly to recurr. Kevin (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (in reply to TDA:) If Kevin knew the content of the basis for the block from private communication with Cla68, I'd say that demonstrated that Cla didn't understand that continued outing wasn't acceptable and that Kevin shouldn't have unblocked someone who didn't understand that. If he knew it from some other method, he was making a decision based on possibly-faulty information from a third party. If he didn't know it at all, then he was taking an administrator action in a situation where he wasn't able to adequately review the evidence. There's pretty much no explanation for this unblock in which Kevin made an informed decision based on familiarity with the evidence of the case. That is what Beeblebrox's "do not unblock without consulting" restriction was supposed to account for - no non-oversighter can adequately review the basis for the block or the prognosis for an unblock without access, either directly or through a consultation with an OSer, to what went on to cause the block.

(in reply to Kevin:) Kevin, you made an unblock when the person you unblocked had clearly stated that rather than acknowledging that he wouldn't continue pursuing the issue of another editor's identity, he was going to take it to public noticeboards. He told us that that's what he intended to do, in the same note where he declined Newyorkbrad's recommendation for how to be unblocked. That seems a very clear indication to me that he was going to continue his behavior, with his only concession being that he wouldn't directly say or link to the name of the person. Outing policy covers more, far more, than that - an important point that Cla68 does not yet seem to grasp or abide by, and you don't seem to have taken into consideration. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I had no private communication with Cla68, or any other user. As I've just told arbcom, my faith in Cla68's promise not to repost the name of to link to the post was not dependent on what that name was, or where the link went to. Kevin (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Kevin's unblock of User:Cla68

Kevin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has unilaterally reversed a block placed by two oversighters relating to the repeated posting of personal information. Kevin failed to obtain agreement for the unblocking from either the oversighters or the Arbitration Committee prior to doing so. Accordingly, Kevin is temporarily desysopped in accordance with Level II procedures for removing administrative tools. The unblock of Cla68 (talk · contribs) is to be reversed until Cla68's appeal is addressed by the Arbitration Committee.

• Support: Carcharoth, Coren, Courcelles, Hersfold, David Fuchs, SilkTork, Timotheus Canens
• Oppose: Newyorkbrad
• Recused: Kirill Lokshin, NuclearWarfare
• Not voting: AGK, Risker, Roger Davies, Worm That Turned
• Inactive: Salvio giuliano

For the Arbitration Committee, T. Canens (talk) 06:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this

RfA

Good afternoon, good sir. I've seen you around the Wiki and I think you'd make an excellent sysop. Have you considered running for RfA? In all seriousness, Hersfold's comments indicate that you've "lost the trust of the community" and that an RfA would be needed to get your tools back. If you need a nom, I'll be happy to jump in that drama pot and stir it vigorously until you have your tools back.--v/r - TP 17:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

He should probably wait for the shitstorm to subside before taking such a gesture, presuming it does not get resolved in the end. At this point a lot of people would oppose just because there is some public bitchfest going on right now.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

That's good advice, actually. Kevin, if you're thinking of pursuing an RfA (though you do have other options), it would be best to wait at least a couple of months until doing so. Prioryman (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I might wait for an official response from the Arbitration Committee, not just a passing comment from a couple of arbs before I make any decision. I may even have a discussion with them, although they do not seem amenable to that at the moment. Thanks so much for your advice though. Kevin (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

All I can say is its a good thing that we have more than enough Admins to perform all the necessary admin tasks these days (Sarcasm intended) because desysopping Kevin for making a call is a prime example of the general douchebaggery that goes on in WP these days. 108.28.162.125 (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

E-mails

Would you be willing to disclose the contents of the e-mail you received from AGK and the e-mail you sent? Obviously, redact information where necessary.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

AGK would obviously need to give permission for me to quote his email, but I think I can safely paraphrase without breaking any rules. Bit of background, Hersfold left the note above, and also presumably emailed me, but as my email account was out of date I never received it. When I saw the note here I sent an email saying "You called?". AGK then sent an email saying thanks for getting in touch, and asking why I had unblocked, while knowing that there were oversighted edits involved.

I sent this reply to AGK, CCd to arbcom-l

Anthony,

There are a couple of reasons. Underlying my reasons is the principle that blocks are preventative, and not punitive. Regardless of what Cla posted, his promise not to repost the material, combined with my observation of his character over the years, led me to believe that the material would not be reposted. I had no need to see the actual material to make a judgement on whether or not he would be likely to repost it.

Also, I find the concept of preventing a user from access to their talk page, whilst having strident discussions on that talk page regarding the fate of the user to be abhorrent. It goes against the principles of natural justice. Now I know that Cla posted a couple of times, and that the initial block and talk page revocation were likely justified. However once things had cooled down, the necessity for the block was gone.

Regards,

Kevin Godfrey

I later emailed Hersfold to find out what the missing email contained, but he said that his questions had been answered. Since then I've heard nothing. I guess I expected that my email was a discussion opener, not the entirety of my case. Kevin (talk) 00:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

rfar

fyi