Misplaced Pages

User talk:Kevin Gorman: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:32, 12 March 2014 view sourceIhardlythinkso (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers75,120 edits For the record contrary to what you wrote: ce← Previous edit Revision as of 08:36, 12 March 2014 view source Ihardlythinkso (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers75,120 editsm For the record contrary to what you wrote: ce, word choiceNext edit →
Line 238: Line 238:
You wrote re Kaldari: {{tq|multiple sitting arbs, multiple past arbs, and essentially everyone else who commented - ''including Eric'' - felt should not be blocked in the first place anyway.}} You wrote re Kaldari: {{tq|multiple sitting arbs, multiple past arbs, and essentially everyone else who commented - ''including Eric'' - felt should not be blocked in the first place anyway.}}


Um, Eric distinctly told Drmies that he felt Kaldari should have been blocked. What Eric said was that he ''recognized there was no consensus'' at the ANI for a block. That's importantly different. Your "Eric felt should not be blocked" isn't accurate, it's misleading. (By intent? Or are you just a sloppy reporter? Sloppy reader? Sloppy writer?) ] (]) 08:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC) Um, Eric distinctly told Drmies that he felt Kaldari should have been blocked. What Eric said was that he ''conceded there was no consensus'' at the ANI for a block. That's importantly different. Your "Eric felt should not be blocked" isn't accurate, it's misleading. (By intent? Or are you just a sloppy reporter? Sloppy reader? Sloppy writer?) ] (]) 08:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:36, 12 March 2014


Archives

1, 2



This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

This Month in Education: January 2014



This Month in Education – Volume 3, Issue 1, January 2014

Headlines


To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

If this message is not on your home wiki's talk page, update your subscription.

Elisabeth Camp

Probably I'm missing something, but she seems to have significantly less of a publishing record than most academics who would pass WP:PROF. Based on AfDs, Associate Professors even at places like Berkeley are often not accepted here , & I usually avoid working on their articles unless there is something special. DGG ( talk ) 00:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Hi DGG: it's one of my pieces that is still in progress; I have a good number of severely paywalled RS'es talking about her. Once some of the current situation calms down a little bit, I'll update the article and drop you a note to see what you think about it. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi DGG: just to ensure you I haven't forgotten, this is still on my radar. Unfortunately, some of the sources I need to write the article a bit more I'll only be able to access on Monday. To give you some idea of why I wrote an article about her on the first place: Quite a bit has been written about Camp's work, definitely more than enough to pass WP:AUTHOR. Brian Leiter, who runs a very well respected philosophy blog (not dissimilar in stature to Groklaw or The Volokh Conspiracy,) singled out her move to Rutgers as solidifying Rutgers' standing as the #2 philosophy department in the US. Her organizational work has also been written about quite a bit.
All in all, I wrote about her because I think she's an interesting person who definitely meets WP:AUTHOR, I would strongly argue meets WP:ACADEMIC, and certainly meets the GNG - she certainly stands out over most academics. (It's also worth noting that Rutgers has a much stronger philosophy department than we do at Berkeley - Rutgers is typically ranked #2 in the US by the Philosophical Gourmet Report, which is the most widely accepted ranking of philo departments in the English speaking world, whereas Berkeley is normally ranked around #17. That said, I'll add in more sources as I can (and once I've finished my first round of making bios that are close to being stubs, I intend to go over them again, and add significantly more information about their work.) I'm also hoping to get some USEP classes involved in the near future to help build out some of the conceptual articles that will allow for the bios I'm writing to more easily explain the work of the philosophers I'm writing about (right now, we're missing almost all conceptual articles in the fields a lot of the people I am writing about are active in.) Best, Kevin Gorman (talk)

This Month in Education: February 2014



This Month in Education – Volume 3, Issue 2, February 2014

Headlines


To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

If this message is not on your home wiki's talk page, update your subscription.

Ayup

I have been told by a little bird that <redacted for now> is a certain identifiable academic who has a RW dispute with <redacted for now>, and therefore should not be editing that article <redacted for now>. Do you know anything of this, please? You can email if you prefer to keep real names off teh wikipediaz. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 22:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Guy, I'll drop you an email when I can, I'm currently finishing up an email to all parties involved. I am aware of the situation, and think that it will be resolved amicably on both sides. I hope you don't mind, but I redacted the names of both parties as well as some information that would make them identifiable on this talk page for now in hopes that the issue can be resolved quickly. Once I've finished up the email to them, I'll drop you an email with more details. I'd discuss it directly on wiki, but believe that the best chance of not escalating the dispute is to handle it off-wiki. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for this. Best of luck dealing with prickly academic temperaments. Guy (Help!) 00:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive edits and edit-war by user Kwamikagami

We have a problem with the user:Kwamikagami, again.

Voting was ended by another administrator:BDD (The result of the proposal was: no consensus). User:Kwamikagami immediately began a new voting (introducing own notes near some options). I add note to some other because other options also have disadvantages. User:Kwamikagami reverted it. I restored it . User:Kwamikagami make second revert: . Also, a moment later user:Kwamikagami reverted edit by user:IJzeren Jan . Page was marked "Discretionary sanctions, one revert restriction" (info at the top of page: "Warning: this article is subject to a 1RR limitation"). User:Kwamikagami reverted my edit twice time (broke the rule) and also reverted edit by user:IJzeren Jan. His behavior is very disruptive. Franek K. (talk) 10:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

It's disruptive of you to fill the spaces where others are expected to vote with your personal opinions. If we all did that, the poll would quickly become illegible. *All* options are controversial, not just the ones you don't like: That's why we're having a poll! Just vote, or add comments below. You imply that "my notes" are opinions I'm pushing, but they're not: One is an MOS objection raised by an admin elsewhere (against a name I voted for, I might add), while the other is the name we use for Lower Silesian, in case consistency is desired by voters. Also, the talk page is not the article. — kwami (talk) 10:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
If it is the voting, not there should be notes. Information is available above voting, in the discussion. You say: "not just the ones you don't like"? really? I add the same note also to "dialect" and "language" . Franek K. (talk) 10:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, "Kwamikagami moved page Upper Silesian to Upper Silesian (disamiguation)" and interceded template of speedy delection to Upper Silesian for without consensus change the name of the article from Silesian language to Upper Silesian. Administrator Nyttend reverted it, user:Kwamikagami reverted edit by administrator. Happily, other administrator WilyD reverted it again. Kwamikagami's behavior is unacceptable. Franek K. (talk) 10:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

  • I would interpret Kwami's actions as having turned Upper Silesian in to a dab page in case the title Upper Silesia was chosen in a future move discussion, and the dab page he created looks reasonable as it stands (though I would suggest his moves may have been a bit pre-mature.) That said, ranked choice voting isn't really an appropriate mechanism to decide how Misplaced Pages articles are named. I've outlined some alternatives ont he discussion page of the Silesian language talk page, and also moveprotected a few involved pages. As a last note before I plunge back in to bed for a bit, the 1rr restriction only applies to the article itself, not the talk page. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Education Program technical update, February 2014

We've started working on "editor campaigns", a system that we expect will eventually be able to replace our current Education Program extension (and be useful for many other purposes as well). The early work with that project will focus on a system for signup up new editors for editing campaigns (such as courses, but also edit-a-thons, Wiki Loves Monuments, etc.). Because of that, progress will be slow on the current course page system. However, we have several improvements that should be available within the next few weeks.

Anyone can edit the main text of course pages

As part of the effort to make course pages behave more like regular wiki pages, we've enabled editing of course pages by anyone. Users who currently have the right to edit courses will have access to all the fields (so that they can change the start/end dates, and change the enrollment token). Users who currently cannot edit courses will be able to edit only the "page text" portion. This change should take effect on 2014-02-27.

Simplified course editing interface

We've considerably simplified the interface for editing course pages, removing the options to rename courses. Changing the title of a course would also move the course page, creating confusion and leading to a number of bugs. Several other parts of the course editing interface were not very useful, so we've removed them to make it easier on newcomers. This change should take effect on 2014-02-27.

Additional Notifications

Two students participating in the Facebook Open Academy mentorship program are currently working on additional Notifications for course pages. For the first of these, users will be notified whenever someone else adds them to a course.

Once again, if you have feedback about these new features, or other questions or ideas related to course pages, please let me know!--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Subscribe or unsubscribe from future Misplaced Pages Education Program technical updates.

Polomas, Chihuahua, Mexico school children

Hi Kevin -

I don't know if this recent update on the Palomas, Chihuahua, Mexico school children fits into your upcoming course, but it might interest some of your students and weave its way into the infrastructure issue of the Colonias on both sides of the border. These children are U.S. Citizens that live with their parents, that are not U.S. Citizens. The children were born in the U.S. because the hospital in Palomas had been not as safe for births as the one in Deming, New Mexico, USA. Anderson, Lindsey. New technology bridges US-Mexico border at Columbus school. Las Cruces Sun-News. 21 February 2014. Accessed 22 February 2014.

Best regards,

--Joe (talk) 22:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to a stroll

Rauenthal, Rheingau

On a hike around here, it crossed my mind to invite you to a stroll of my 2013 talk, looking at the (not many) contributions by MF and Eric, including discussion of the name change. I will not judge, look yourself, - of course every guest is "tamed" by my edit notice (not by me) "Every editor is a human being", to something like "OK, later. Have to warn you though that I'm not really a Wikipedian, have never been a Wikipedian, and I scare away women, children and new editors. Allegedly. But I'll try and be gentle." I miss him, not only as a content editor but as a person, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

When you return, think of improving the Ethics, in prep here, looks like for tomorrow, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Actually not gone - just ridiculously busy, the joys of a 60 hour week. I'll try to improve her article before it goes live, and do have all the necessary materials around. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Good! It's now in Prep 1, the temporary prep was deleted, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
ps: I still recommend the stroll. I translated yesterday's TFA, at least a subset, to German and learned a lot, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Boo. I didn't have time to expand it before it went live. I really had intended to, but my dayjob decided to start doing comms outreach over the last two weeks, which has meant that most of my life has involved talking to journalists lately, and has sucked up my free time. I wish I'd managed to expand it before it went up, but will certainly do so in the future once stuf calms down for me irl. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Feedback for Lawson Adit Article

Kevin Gorman

I really enjoyed reading the article you wrote on Lawson Adit. I really think it was a good idea to include the history behind the Lawson Adit and its location. I personally had never heard about such a mine and found it quite interesting with the information provided. Being that the mine is no longer in use today and there is not more information to include about today's usage, I believe it would be interesting for users to have/see more pictures available for viewing. Great work! Trinityo12 (talk) 04:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

feedback

Kevin Gorman

I have notice that your contribution to Misplaced Pages are mainly biography's of people that have been published or have done some king of articles or research a particular topic, this kind of information is really helpful and adds an important contributions to Misplaced Pages articles, which i found interesting and educative, also all the information provided by you is well organized, and possess proper citations that helps your article's credibility.
--Xaleman87 (talk) 05:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments on Lead Contamination in Oakland article

Hello Kevin,

You have a large variety of articles created, I read some of those, and I think that Lead contamination in Oakland is a great article, it contains good sections and very good information. Military bases are major polluters because those uses several toxic substances or chemical that cause health problems to the population including cancer, reproductive disorders, birth defects, etc.--Hectorm07 (talk) 15:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Gratz

on the WIR thing. Rock on. - Dank (push to talk) 14:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks :) it's created an interestingly busy week. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Ewa Ziarek

Updated DYK queryOn 8 March 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ewa Ziarek, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in 2001, Ewa Ziarek wrote the book An Ethics of Dissensus? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ewa Ziarek. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), 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.

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Finish our discussion

Kumioko, I did say I'd block you if you used the same IPs you used on my talk elsewhere.

Sorry to change on you again and bring this here but it seems another admin removed talk page access. It really is a trivial thing to get another account and or IP. Anyway, in regards to the ban, that was a dozen users, most of whom wanted me gone long ago and it was closed far too soon. I received many emails fro users saying they never had a chance to vote (some were oppose and some were support). Several also told me that they feared reprisal if they voted so they stayed away. When you have users afraid to vote for fear of being blocked by Arbcom or some admins for supporting a user who is critical of them, that is a major problem IMO. You yourself have seen how petty and frankly stupid they can be. I also understand there is no bad blood between us and you are just, excuse the comment, blindly following policy and blocking a sockmaster. For what its worth, more than half of the socks (about 60 of the 100+) that are accused of being me are not. They are just evidence of how shitty the checkuser tool is. Anyway, feel free to block this IP or whatever, I can get another one. Its amazing but there are literally millions of IP's available for use. 172.56.3.236 (talk) 21:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

BTW, if I wanted to hide I could or I could do harm. I have been intentionally obvious with my editing. If I wanted to harm the project I would just create a few hundred socks and then put a million articles in the watchlist of each one. That would crush the server and its outside blockable items for admins or even functionaries. 172.56.3.236 (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Wow, that was incredibly fast. I think Leaky caldron must have a Kumioko sensor on his butt to get me that quick..Lol. 172.56.3.236 (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well I don't think that is acceptable. He has exactly at the time of writing 101 socks and you want to give him succour by letting him come here? No way. Off to ANI if that's your way of undermining policy. Leaky Caldron 21:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Leaky: do you believe that there is any way to effectively stop Kumioko from posting here if he wants to? Furthermore, which do you suppose is a better option, trying to engage with him and convince him to change his ways so that we don't have to waste time blocking hundreds of socks, or spending a hell of a lot of time blocking tons of socks? You may not have realized it, but in administrative actions I tend to take the lightest route possible in hope it works, and then go on to stronger meaures as necessary. I'll block Kumioko myself if he edits anywhere but my talk page, but for now I'm more than happy to have him edit my talk page (and unless my talk page is semiprotected - which it's not going to be - even blocking this one IP wouldn't stop him from coming here.) If you want to go ANI me, I'm a bit confused, but certainly can't stop you from doing so. Nothing productive would come out of that though. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
As I mentioned before about 60 of those aren't mine. Now granted that's still 40+ but its also a testament to how untrustworthy the checkuser tool is. Its fine Kevin, don't go out on a limb for me, as I said, I can just create another one if that's what they want me to do. 172.56.3.236 (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Regarding your second post: that wouldn't bring down our servers, though I suppose it might slow them momentarily while WMF addressed the issue. I have at least half a dozen people on speed dial who could fix you doing that in ten minutes. I would also suggest that you doing that would potentially result in serious, real-world implications for you. In a nutshell: don't do it.
You are right that I have seen problems with the way Misplaced Pages handles many situations. The RFaR involving me was an exercise in Vaudeville, and I said as much at the time. Problems don't just involve arbcom; they involve a large number of other editors and administrators as well. During the RFaR about me, I received literally dozens of messages of support from people who stated that they were uncomfortable posting on-wiki because they were worried they'd be subject to personal attacks by people related to the other side of the RFaR. Just like the fact that some people are uncomfortable speaking up because they are worried of repercussions from contradicting arbs isn't okay, a situation where someone's afraid to post their real thoughts because they are worried they'll get doggy-piled by a bunch of editors also isn't okay. I hope that we find a remedy to both of these situations eventually.
However: even though I think we need to fix both of those problems eventually, the way you're approaching trying to do so is extremely unproductive. It's not going to bear any meaningful fruit - it will just result in more drama, you getting blocked a lot, and every side digging their trenches even deeper. Both problems need to be fixed, but at the same time, we're here to build an encyclopedia in the end, and we're here to do that even when other problems also exist. Because I don't think your approach to dealing with arbcom issues is likely to result in anything but drama, and because you are not of late active in actually building the encyclopedia, I'll probably keep blocking your accounts as I see them (although, as a point, I didn't actually initially block you for being Kumioko, I blocked you for obviously not being here to build an encyclopedia.)
I'd strongly suggest you go do something else for the next six months and then try to take the WP:SO. You'll come back refreshed, less embittered, and more likely to be able to engage with Misplaced Pages in a positive way again. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
He's been running multiple, simultaneous socks for months. This week 60 were created in 3 days. Do you seriously expect that he will keep his efforts to a single channel? You are giving him the oxygen of a host page while he goes off and creates more socks. Leaky Caldron 21:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
He certainly will keep his efforts on this IP to this page. If he doesn't, I'll block him. I can't help what he does with the ridiculous quantity of IP addresses he may be using in the rest of the encyclopedia. Am I confident that talking to Kumioko will benefit from this conversation? No, I'm not at all sure of that. Given that I've talked someone down from a serious legal threat that they were serious about to the point of having retained legal counsel within the last two weeks, I also see no harm in trying. If you're going to ANI me, go ahead and ANI me. A limited discussion on one user talk page with a banned user isn't necessarily typical, but it's certainly within my discretion to allow. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Although I appreciate the sentiment you and I both know the Standard offer is basically BS as can be seen even in as recently as right now with the Will Beback case. So wether I waited 6 months or 10 years, it wouldn't matter. When a ban is enacted it is forever and even those who abide by it are given no more comment than an F off from Arbcom. Also in regards to the suggestion I had about the watchlists, that is only one of many things. If I really wanted to do harm, I wouldn't be doing it from my home/work computer and I wouldn't use my phone. There are a lot of open IP's around and I travel a fair amount. So all I would need do is wait till my next trip to San Fran and do it from the Starbucks down the street from the WMF (Yes I have been to their office a couple times). I also wanted to point out that I have tried every method of bringing Arbcom and abusive admins to task over the years. I started extremely nicely, then I went to being kirt, then rude and now borderline abusive. Nothing works because those in power do not care. They want to stay in power and they will do anything and use any justification to do so.

@Leaky caldron:. Bullshit, I did it for the last couple weeks to prove a point and as I have stated before a lot of those that got blocked weren't even me. They were just innocent editors caught up in the drag net. 172.56.3.236 (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I do want to clarify a couple exceptions. The Reguyla account was the account I used for Wikia interactions. I never used it in discussions, votes or anything else. The history of the contribs will show that. I also used a couple IP's from time to time from my home or work. Mostly just out of laziness of logging in when I was in a hurry. Again not in votes or to gain the upper hand in discussions. But I am fully capable of playing games as I have shown. If Leaky wants to continue to act like a child, I can continue as well. 172.56.3.236 (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

@Kumioko - effective change is possible. In the time I've been around Wikimedia projects, we were able to enact significant changes to how images of living people are treated on the Wikimedia Commons. Someone still has to bring up each image, and there's still always debate about it, but it's gone from "we should totally keep these pictures of topless sunbathing women that were taken with a 50x optical zoom through a fence" to "we can't label this lady who is standing in a street known for prostitution as a prostitute without some form of evidence that she is." Effective change will eventually happen on ENWP. It'll be slow, and for the most part it won't involve intentional disruption, but it will happen. The SO sometimes works, and sometimes doesn't. If you don't sock for the next six months, and return in a way that focuses primarily on building encyclopedic content - something you are quite good at, I will vigorously support your return, and would be surprised if it wasn't allowed. And then eventually, in the slow semi-bureaucratic way that Misplaced Pages tends to work, a lot of the problems you see with arbcom that also appear with other groups will begin to be addressed. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

If I see another red box Ping from you on my talk page from this IP I will ask Kevin or seek another Admin. to block you. Leaky Caldron 22:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Kumioko: I agree that this request is reasonable. Please do not ping Leaky. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I won't but for what its worth I am going to lose this IP soon. I am using the internet on my phone and I need to make some calls so once I unplug, the IP will change.
I also wished I shared your view that change occurs. I have seen changes such as removing the tools from admins after a year of absence (I think it should be 6 months). I also saw the breaking off of some useful tools for the sysop bit (rollback, Filemover, Template editor) but that only occurred and became necessary because there is no trust inthe community. But there are far more issues that remain to be fixed and too many trying to hamstring the project. A few admins have manipulated the community into thinking the admin tools are for gods alone, so now the RFA process is so painful few wish to endure it and even fewer pass it. I do not think that I will be allowed to come back and frankly as long as the project is controlled by a dozen abusive admins and a bunch of Arbs that would rather deliberate than act I don't know if I want too. This project is a complete joke anymore and the environment is toxic. Like you, I used to strongly advocate for the project. I spoke often with people at the National Archives, Smithsonian, DOD, and others in the DC area. I have given all of them better alternatives in the last year than Misplaced Pages. Flikr just got a mound of images from DOD because I suggested it would be better than commons. It took very little effort to persuade them away. I simply can no longer advocate for this project with the culture the way it is. Unless it changes significantly. 172.56.3.236 (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Admittedly the example of change I gave was from Commons rather than here, but I think it represents a pretty significant change. Commons used to regularly keep images related to nudity, sexuality, and crime even when there was no evidence of the consent of the subject - now they don't. I think that was one of Commons biggest moral failings, and the needle has moved significantly from unethical to ethical (even if it's not necessarily there yet.) The RfA pass rate is actually better this year than it has been in past years, and went I went through my own RfA in the recent past, to my surprise, it wasn't a painful process. Cultural change in Misplaced Pages (and our sister sites) is slow, but it occurs. If you stop socking and disrupting the project, I have little doubt that we'd be able to get you reaccepted as a community member six months from now. If you keep doing the same stuff.. well.. you'll become a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's worth noting that I had no idea you were Kumioko when I blocked you, I just blocked you because your posts were obviously not leading anywhere productive. Chillax for six months, come back, start working on content (which you aren't bad at,) and then slowly start moving in to administrative areas again. If you take a different path, it'll just be creating a lot of (fairly easy) work for the admins you hold such disdain for, which will both mean time taken away from us writing Misplaced Pages, and fewer good feelings towards you if you do try to come back. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I have to be honest I don't really recognize the community ban. It wasn't representative of the community in respect to the numbers of people who voted or the time it was held. Especially given the fact they kept reopening new ban discussions until they got what the wanted. It was a joke and a sham. Arbcom is allowed to consider secret evidence in their deliberations, I should be able to count the votes of those that sent me emails too right? I have no interest in spending the next several years building my Wiki career back up when I see abusive admins and editors running all over this site. If they want me to pick a username and stick to that then that's fine I will do that and agree not to create any more accounts or intentionally edit as an IP. But I am not going to let Arbcom or a few abusive admins scare me off of duly criticizing them and their bad decisions. I also freely admit that I am but an insignificnt little flea in this project. But its surprising just how irritating a tiny little flea can be when it won't go away. 172.56.3.236 (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
So if you think you can get them to agree to me using one account then unlock the Reguyla one and I will stick with that from here on out. I understand you don't have the power to override a community ban, such as it is, but I figure its a reasonable compromise. 23:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.3.236 (talk)
I'm pretty much positive I can get one of you accounts unblocked six months from now with a few strictures placed on it if you stop socking. Other than it's dubious. Unfortunately in some situations you cannot count votes emailed to you: otherwise my recent RFaR would've had a far different outcome. Additionally unfortunately, it's not that hard to swat a flea. This is probably the longest dialogue anyone has had with you for a whle, and keep in mind that at least one editor rejected the validity of me even allowing you to post here. Take six months off Misplaced Pages without socking, come back and present an unban proposal, and it'll likely be accepted - I'll certainly vigorously argue in it's favor. Then what you get back, spend some time dealing with content issues, the stuff you actually liked, before getting dragged in to drama. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Im glad your positive but I have been on this project since 2007 and I have seen very few allowed to come back. Most of those who did come back had so many stalkers they were setup for failure. They couldn't make an edit without someone complaining about something. I'm sorry but I cannot allow a few admins to be abusive or continue to allow arbcom to pass changes in secret that allow them and a few admins increased power to eliminate editors they don't like easier. I appreciate taking the time to chat but I cannot accept this request anymore than you could accept mine. Cheers and Happy editing. 172.56.3.125 (talk) 15:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Also, for what its worth even if I did wait 6 months I am going to get blamed for editing anyway. The checkuser tool is pretty much crap and is prone to false positives and if an IP or new editor edits any of the pages I tend to edit they are going to get blamed for being me. I have seen it a couple dozen times in just the last couple weeks. As I mentioned, about half the accounts that are listed as being me aren't, so that is evidence in itself. 172.56.3.58 (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Is it an absolute guarantee? Well, no. But it's better than the odds you've got currently. Without meaning any of this in a perjorative sense, if you continue down the road you're on, you'll end up blocking the efforts of those who would like to see reform, while serving as a sort of useful idiot for those who are perfectly happy with Misplaced Pages as it is today and don't desire reform. You can continue to minorly disrupt things here and there if you feel like it, but what good does that do anyone? It wastes your time and ours, and makes meaningful reform of some of Misplaced Pages's serious issues less likely to happen. I would strongly suggest that you pick up a different hobby for the next six months, and then come back and see what happens. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom Notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Ihardlythinkso and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, Northern Antarctica (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Paid editors

Hi Kevin. I'd be interested to know whether you think I've been a good detective or am just paranoid here... Some obvious paid editors IMO and I keep on finding more, but as with Morning277 it's difficult to know how they're linked. What do you reckon should be done about this stale edit by a new editor removing a PROD from an article written by an elancer? SmartSE (talk) 20:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi SmartSE - There's certainly a connection between the editor who removed the prod and the one who created the article. There's more or less three possibilities: the prod remover is the subject of the article (or has a direct connection to the subject,) the prod remover is the initial paid editor, or the prod remover is a second paid editor hired to correct the mistakes of the first. Although it's an old edit, CU logs are retained for 90 days, so it's not stale in terms of CU yet. I would AfD the article as you have, and then add the prod remover to the SPI you opened. My opinion of what warrants a CU doesn't always match up with checkusers opinions of what warrants a CU, but from past experience, if one is run, there's a good chance it will turn up other results. If the remover is related to the subject of the article it may be useless, but in both cases #2 and #3 it would provide a reasonable (though not guaranteed) shot at turning up other undeclared accounts of the same paid editor, and would thus give us a reason to block them (since covert paid editing isn't blockable at the moment but socking is.) Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I'd bet #2, but regardless it shows something dodgy going on. 90 days ey? I must need to go and read a policy somewhere but neither WP:SOCK or WP:CHECKUSER mention the limit. Can you point me to something before I list it? Cheers SmartSE (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi Smartse - that would be my initial guess too, and is the most common outcome in my experience. The duration that CU information is held for is mentioned on meta and is consistent between wikis. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Strange that it's not mentioned here though. SmartSE (talk) 22:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I know I've seen it mentioned on ENWP previously, but for some reason you are right - it doesn't seem to be mentioned on any of the relevant policy pages. That's probably an oversight worth addressing at some point, but after the last few weeks I'm staying away from trying to shape policy pages for a bit, heh. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

policy against trolling

Yes since you asked - I do know the policy against trolling (at least on Meta Wiki).

It is located here:

"Trolls in the internet sense of the word are not to be confused with large warty monsters thought to dwell under bridges, in caves, etc. There are many types of disruptive users that are not trolls. Reversion warriors, POV warriors, cranks, impolite users, and vocal critics of Misplaced Pages structures and processes are not necessarily trolls. Deliberate misuse of processes is a favourite troll game. Examples include continual nomination of articles for w:Misplaced Pages::Miscellany for deletion, nomination of stubs for w:Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates, baseless listing of users at w:Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment"

Uncle uncle uncle 02:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

For the record contrary to what you wrote

You wrote re Kaldari: multiple sitting arbs, multiple past arbs, and essentially everyone else who commented - including Eric - felt should not be blocked in the first place anyway.

Um, Eric distinctly told Drmies that he felt Kaldari should have been blocked. What Eric said was that he conceded there was no consensus at the ANI for a block. That's importantly different. Your "Eric felt should not be blocked" isn't accurate, it's misleading. (By intent? Or are you just a sloppy reporter? Sloppy reader? Sloppy writer?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)