Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by John (talk | contribs) at 19:41, 9 February 2014 (→You made me regret supporting you: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

RFA successful

Hey, Kevin! I've just closed your RfA as successful, and as such, have granted your account the adminsitrator bit. Congratulations, and welcome to hell. ;) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Please don't break the wiki... ;) Keilana| 21:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

!Thanks. I'll try to do my best not to blow anything up. And to everyone who voted in support of my nom: thanks also for your confidence in me. Quite a while ago I made an active decision to involve myself in controversial issues on ENWP where I thought that their outcome was important, and for quite some time I had honestly been operating under the assumption that that choice would likely to kill my chances at RfA. I'll do my best to show that said confidence was well-placed (and I promise I have a solid understanding of wp:involved :p) Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• Congrats on the new tools! Just noticed that you have an extra permission lying around, though (the account creator permission is part of the admin flag—though you can take it off yourself). Good luck! Epicgenius (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I'll strip it off myself; I hadn't reviewed my privs yet. I had originally had the flag so that I could do outreach work without hitting the six a day limit. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• Congrats! ///EuroCarGT 00:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'm shocked that you haven't yet received your t-shirt. :o Congratulations on your successful request! :) Acalamari 19:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
• Just want to offer my congratulations on your new role! Cindy(talk) 07:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Congratulations to both new administrators, Kevin and Cindamuse. I remember meeting both of you in Boston, and I want to thank you both for the excellent work you do to improve the encyclopedia. Cullen Let's discuss it 08:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
• Late congrats here, glad to see you made it. Let me know if you have any admin questions I can help with. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Egi

Re Egi, look at the details on Willy Satia and/or Talk:Willy Satia (can't remember now, it was on one of them) for an explanation of the user's hoaxing. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Jackmcbarn - I actually went ahead and just A7'ed it before digging in to those pages, since it was A7able as well. Having looked at that talk page I see it as a hoax now, and will also go ahead and take a poke at the user who created the articles about that... Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Looks like someone beat me to blocking the creator and put a three day vandalism block on him. I've watchlisted his talk page, let me know if there are any further problems when he returns and if so I'll indef him as a vandalism only account. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Franek K.

I have asked two linguist for help. Should be Franeks last reverts not be reverted? (he broke the 3rr on his last edits)--Sobiepan (talk) 01:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Or should he self-revert his violation?--Sobiepan (talk) 01:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Ideally he would self-revert his violation (which I have asked him to do.) However, in the broader scale of things, does it really matter if a Misplaced Pages article contains a potentially minor error for a few days? Start discussions on the talk pages of the relevant articles to try to resolve the dispute, or at a broader forum if there's an appropriate one. Given the number of pages that both of you have editwarred over, I would advise strongly against making *any* edit that continues the war before substantial discussion has occurred on a talk page. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Could you please warn Franek not to change, edit, or remove my comments on discussion pages. Please see: Thx--Sobiepan (talk) 11:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

You pasted to discuss the big picture. Pasting images in this discussion is unnecessary and inappropriate, and makes it difficult to discuss. If any such change makes it difficult to discuss, clutters the discussion or spamming, other user have a right to such a change. Your image is not removed from the discussion, your picture exist in discussion as wikilink, problem does not exist. Franek K. (talk) 12:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Kevin, I want to thank you for handling this with warnings and discussion (at WT:POLAND and elsewhere). Handling such situation with non-blocks is rare enough that I wanted to express it here. (Perhaps in my ten years I just got used to seeing "blocks solve everything" solution way too much...). Thanks again, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I figured blocking them both wouldn't be very likely to result in a productive outcome. I'm not too sure that not blocking them will result in a productive outcome either, but I figure it's at least worth a try. Been out of it for most of the day, but going to check up on the situation now. Thanks for the thanks :) Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

IP 58 image posted to WP:ANI

What was that, anyway, that you redacted? Was it meant to be pornographic? Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that it was meant to be a version of goatse.cx... but to be honest after seeing enough to know it was clearly not something that belonged there I just nuked it. Think that was my first time using revdel... glad I didn't break anything. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I had never seen it before, but I thought that it was meant to be pornographic or something. Weird. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

New features for course pages

Several noticeable improvements to the EducationProgram extension (in addition to some small bug fixes) will go live on or around 2014-01-23:

Notifications

All participants in a course (students, instructors, volunteers) will receive Notifications whenever their course talk page is edited. Thus, editors can use course talk pages to send messages they want the whole class to be aware of, and the class participants are likely to see them.

Special:Contributions student notice

For users enrolled as students in courses that are active, a notice will appear at the top of Special:Contributions noting which course(s) they are enrolled in. This will make it easy for users who come across the work of student editors to find out that they are part of a course and identify other class participants.

Adding articles

Course instructors and volunteers will be able to assign articles to student editors, instead of all articles needing to be added by the student editors themselves.

Adding students

Instructors and volunteers will be able to add users as students in courses, instead of all student editors needing to enroll for themselves. This makes it easier to maintain complete lists of students, and also makes the extension more suitable for tracking participation in edit-a-thons, workshops and other collaborative projects beyond the Misplaced Pages Education Program.

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) 18:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Problems with user Sobiepan, again

First I, later user JorisvS, later I again, reduced the size of the graphic by Sobiepan. "Editing comments" is one but Sobiepan have no right to destroy the layout of page, too large graphics and separating lines are unacceptable. Size of Sobiepan's graphics have been reduced (graphics are not removed), separating lines can not exist because it is written posts directly to that text. We both (I and JorisvS) thoroughly explained what was going on. Sobiepan can not be subordinate, makes it difficult to discuss. Sobiepan did it, mass introduces templates POV to articles Lechitic languages, Slavic languages, West Slavic languages, Silesian language... We with him can not cooperate, his behavior more and more like trolling, making confusion. I can not cope. I want to constructively discuss, Sobiepan just bothers and exacerbate the matter. Franek K. (talk) 12:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

... and again, again again . Franek K. (talk) 12:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with you that inserting graphics like that is inappropriate, and I have removed them and warned Sobie. I'll be around later today to review any other behavioral issues. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Gorman, but Franks K edits of my comments were provocative. After he already broke the 3RR few days ago, you should warn him, instead of supporting his behavior... --Sobiepan (talk) 14:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no words, Sobiepan doing wrong but I'm guilty. Three users (I - Franek, JorisvS and Kevin) said you are doing wrong, But you do not want to improve your behavior :( Franek K. (talk) 15:11, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bechtel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Department of Energy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for considering my request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection. Please reconsider this one, it is semi-protected, but this protection expires after two days. Please make it indefinite too. Thanking you in advance! Faizan 09:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I'm tired and just chose the wrong dropdown box. Fixed it for you now. Kevin Gorman (talk) 09:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Grateful to you Kevin. Faizan 09:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Franek K. ongoing reverts

Franek K. did not self-revert his reverts until today (break of the 3RR rule), morover he reverted now on Slavic language , ,

Could you please do something?--Sobiepan (talk) 14:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Sobiepan, why are you doing controversial changes with Silesian despite waged discussion? Besides, Florian also reverted your edit in Lechitic languages . Could you finally stop make the controversial edits? Franek K. (talk) 15:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

He overlooked the discussion on talk:Silesian language, thats why he removed the tag. Stop to manipulate people--Sobiepan (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

You doing controversial changes with Silesian despite waged discussion (ignoring the ongoing discussion on Talk:Silesian language, discussion is still in progress) and introduces errors to article (Ref label|Silesian|a to Old Polish?, this ref is about Silesian). I revert your controversies. Franek K. (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

You are manipulating again. See the old version of Slavic language (17:35, 15 December 2013‎) it was changed by JorisvS ] on 22 January 2014 (shortly after the discussion on Talk:Silesian language started). Before that I never edited this article. I have only restored the old version and tagged it as disputed. BTW: There was already an edit war on Slavic language in which you participated in the past , --Sobiepan (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

First, old version of Slavic language (17:35, 15 December 2013‎) and your version are different, eg. ref/tag is incorrect . Second: I knew you'd give some old links from months. This is pathetic, man. In this way behave users in a losing position. I can thoroughly analyze your edits, surely there will be other your edit-wars but I do not want trolling as you and I want to constructively discuss and edit Misplaced Pages, not as you. Sorry, I do not want to go down to such a low level of behavior. You will never improve your behavior. Franek K. (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments relating to unblock requests

Hello, Kevin. I've just been looking at User talk:Sobiepan, where there's an unblock request in relation to a block you placed. You have done a much better job of explaining to the editor why you blocked him or her than many admins would. I appreciate the fact that you took some trouble to explain the situation, rather than just throwing a block template containing a one sentence statement of the block reason. I also appreciate your taking the trouble to point to relevant further information for any reviewing admin: far too often, I find myself spending ages searching through editing history, only to eventually find information which I could have found immediately if someone who already knew where it was had just said so. We could do with more admins who take a little trouble over things like that. However, I see that you declined an earlier unblock request. Although you made it clear that you regarded that as a purely procedural decline, you really should not decline any unblock request for a block of your own. There are several reasons for that. For one thing, a reviewing admin should take into account all relevant circumstances, not just what is said in the unblock request. It follows that the reviewing admin may look at the background, and decide that the block was wrong in the first place, irrespective of the merits or lack of merits of the unblock request. None of this is intended to suggest that I think there was anything wrong with the block in this case, and I am 100% sure that any admin would have declined the unblock request, but I am just trying to explain that I think there are good reasons for treating "don't decline unblock requests on your own blocks" as a totally rigid rule, not making exceptions even when you think it's a purely procedural decline. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• Hi JamesBWatson - thanks for the note, it's not something I'll do again. Slightly awkwardly, I've only had the bit for a week or so and was acting on my interpretation of WP:INVOLVED combined with my past experience that type of block request would literally never be accepted. I was actually kind of hoping that in declining the first unblock request, it would encourage Sobiepan to formulate a second unblock request that would be more likely to be successful if warranted. (I declined to block Sobie on an ANEW report a couple days ago and tried to calm down the dispute they were involved in, hoping that that would be sufficient by itself. With the continued editwarring and battleground-y behavior, I decided a slightly more forceful approach might help more.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

REports multiple abuses on User:BladesMulti

User:BLadesMulti is engaging in extremely biased edit wars.

1. On Persecution of Hindus, he is unediting references to Simon Digby as a historian, and says Cambridge Jouirnal material is "unreliable". 2. On Death by burning, he is REMOVING material from the same scholarly source, that goes against his own personal biases.

3. On Talk: Voltaire, he is refusing to accept testimony from both original work and that of historians like Bernard Lewis and Gilles Veinstein

He must be told, in clear, uncertain terms, that his editing behaviour is completely unacceptable.Arildnordby (talk) 18:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that this user has to do nothing with the page of Persecution of Hindus which is being discussed at RSN right now. This user is calling my edits a "vandalism" again, as per seen on Death by burning, and removing the reliable references. What should be done? Bladesmulti (talk) 18:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

@Arildnordby:: Arild - it is worth being cautious about what you describe as vandalism, as policy defines it quite narrowly (wp:vandalism) and in severe cases labeling something as vandalism when it's just a content dispute can be consider a personal attack. That said, thank you for bringing this up instead of getting in to an editwar, and thank you for pulling back and self-reverting your last edit at Death by burning. I agree with you that Bladesmulti has been engaging in behavior aptly described as editwarring and will be talking with Blades on their talk page momentarily. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Please have a look at Death by burning (more specifically here). I've just spotted this user misrepresenting sources and spreading misinformation. He clearly has a problem with Muslims' history in India and fantasy's about "foreign rapists". He deserves to be indefinitely blocked for the bullshit he's claiming sources say (they don't in fact say anything of the sort as to what he's written on Misplaced Pages). We cannot assume good faith with this user Bladesmulti. StuffandTruth (talk) 20:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Newly discovered false reference on potentially inflammatory topic by BladesMulti

I must sadly report to you from User:StuffandTruth that User:Bladesmulti inserted a FALSE reference to back up his claim that Hindu women committe sati after having been systematically raped by Muslim invaders. See last section on Talk:Death by burning. I had not thought BladesMulti was guilty of anything else than dogged refusals to acknowledge other points of views (bad enough), but he has been actively engaged in providing FALSE references for his own views as well.Arildnordby (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

It turns out all three references did not state any such thing as was claimed. I've deleted it. None of them were verifiable except one of the three and even then what was in it was nothing related to the subject of women burning themselves after rape or conquering militaries. Please indefinite block that user please. StuffandTruth (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Recent Multiple Blocks

Hi Kevin, since you're the admin who blocked the two users in an edit war I was watching, I was wondering if you could clarify a couple of things. I'm not trying to second guess your decision, I believe it was broadly fair; I'm just trying to understand a somewhat complex situation. 1) In this situation, BM and Stuff both edit-warred, that's quite clear, ergo they both deserved some kind of sanction/block. But their behaviour was not symmetrically disruptive, so why is the sanction identical? 2) Even if edit warring merited identical blocks, what of BM's other policy violations? Do they become moot points once the user has been blocked? They definitely misrepresented sources, was incredibly obtuse on the TP, reverted RS, etc.

Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Partly: I'm actually really busy today, and can't fully evaluate all of their alleged misconduct (which is why I invited other admins at ANI to up the block if they felt it necessary.) Partly: generally speaking, I believe in giving people enough rope with which to hang themselves. A well-meaning editor who went too far (and they both went quite a bit overboard) will eat a 36 hour block, which isn't really a big deal - plenty of productive editors, including more than a few admins - have done the same. If BM comes back and continues to violate policies, every block they get will be longer and longer. The same is true of Stuff. Now that I'm actively watching both of them, they're both going to have less room to edit in disruptive ways in the future without pulling long or indefinite blocks. Basically: giving them both short blocks means that if they decide to be productive editors in the future they get to stick around, and if they don't, then they'll end up gone. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I guess the moral of the story is to drag somebody to ANI instead of fighting it out. Thanks a lot, Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd usually suggest WP:ANEW to report editwarring in progress, and both actively asking the person to desist and trying to bring outside editors in for additional opinions from places like WP:RSN or WP:NPOV. Oftentimes, having uninvolved editors come in can stop something before it starts. Things at ANI often turn in to unnecessary drama that consumes a ton of time for all involved, so it's usually worth avoiding when possible. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to generic bad behaviour, not just edit-warring, but I will keep that in mind. Again, thanks. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, I misrepresented no sources. Find me one? If the user is uncapable to search the book(I doubt), it doesn't means so. And only 1 source is unavailable to most. Not other 2, that he accused. Or just you believe anything which is said in your favor? Remember, not everything that looks yellow, would be gold.

This is not the place for an argument with me. Go look at your talk page. Yes, you did misrepresent sources. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Bladesmulti: it would be a really, really good idea for you to leave the past in the past. If someone has accused you of misrepresenting sources, go to the relevant article talk pages, and make a coherent explanation as to why you think you are representing them correctly. Don't get bogged down worrying about past accusations. If you didn't misrepresent sources, past accusations don't matter. If it turns out you did, and you continue to do so, you will be indefinitely blocked in the near future. And again, that's a prediction, not a threat. One thing that may help: when you are engaging with other editors on the relevant talk pages, try to literally forget who you are talking to. Reply to what they say without considering who they are. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, Kevin, it was impressive of you that you wouldn't get inspired from these complaint. But as you see, right after the block, StuffandTruth had removed/disturbed 3 edits of mine, 2 of them being days and months old. And other being few hours old. In short he was uninvolved in basically these 3 pages of all these times. Is it Misplaced Pages:Harassment? Since he made no improvement, but only removed the sourced material, that he certainly claimed to be "inserted by banned user". Bladesmulti (talk) 09:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

As a blunt warning Bladesmulti: be careful. You now have a large number of admins who are more experienced than I watching your behavior, and a lot less latitude to do things that might not get other editors in less trouble. I would advise you to leave the past in the past, and move forward trying to forget the fact that any of the editors involved have annoyed you previously. Any further blocks you receive are likely to be longer regardless of who they are imposed by. I have looked over your contributions and seen that you have improved the encyclopedia in multiple places, so I would prefer that you don't end up outta here, but to ensure that happens, you are likely going to need to edit more calmly than you have in the past. Please take this as a friendly warning and not a threat - I legitimately do not want to see you indef blocked, but instead, want to see you able to help contribute productively. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Right now. When you review any of my case, kindly see the both sides(like you know already), now Stuff and truth allege that i WP:Canvassing yet he can't mention when i do that which is inappropriate. But Thanks a lot for the precious advise. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

"Forget who you are talking to." Yes, seems solution for everything. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Kevin Gorman/Investment Underground

Perhaps it could be moved to be a sub-page of Misplaced Pages:Long-term_abuse/Morning277? —rybec 03:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Rybec: - that actually sounds like a pretty good idea, and once I get everything set up, I'll go ahead and do so (although I may keep them in my userspace until I find enough to restore.) These are for potential use in an upcoming Signpost; do any particularly bad examples of Wiki-PR's work come to mind to you? Especially interested in any of the ones that involved vatalyst. Thanks for the suggestion, Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

On Misplaced Pages:Long-term_abuse/Morning277, in the section "Sublimeharmony sandbox topics", the table it has 75 examples that were all posted from a single account into a single page. They're linked from the "draft" links. The 22 which mention Vatalyst are listed in my post on the blacklist talk page. —rybec 05:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I do routine searches for things like the pay for play award Network Products Guide and promotional phrases like "industry-leading" for things to chop or AfD, but I've gotten us down to only 87 articles that mention industry-leading (mostly in press release cites) and two with Network Products Guide (both associated with a client of a PR firm I use to work at about 4 years ago, so I just left it alone). This is just how I occupy spare time on commercial breaks while watching TV sort of thing. I won't participate in the Wiki-PR article or hunt-down for obvious reasons (though I saw someone mentioned me on the Wiki-PR Talk page here), however if your investigation helps me find new ways to find articles that need cleanup, I'd be interested in any tips, such as pay for play awards or phrases that are predominantly only used on spammy pages or illegitimate sources not related to them specifically, but rather more broadly.

It's good for someone to maintain an actual record of actual events, even if the media is rather easily influenced by whoever they speak with. Cheers. CorporateM (Talk) 23:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Oakland Police Department draft

Sorry to bother, but I am going through all the {{draft}}s (migrating them to {{userspace draft}} or {{olddraft}} where possible) and User:Kevin Gorman/d come up. It looks like it was copied but not worked on. I'm not fussed what you do with it, but it would make me quite happy if it magically disappeared from Special:Whatlinkshere/template:draft ;-) John Vandenberg 07:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry about that, I'll kill it. I had intended to rewrite the article, but decided not to over safety concerns. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

APerson (talk!) 14:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

AfC review of User:Kevin Gorman/ResortsandLodges.com

The draft has been submitted for review at Articles for creation, but as it is a fully protected page it cannot be reviewed. You need to either remove the protection or the AfC submission. It is currently the oldest unreviewed submission to AfC. BTW I'm quite curious to know why a userspace draft would need to be protected in the first place? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• hi Roger (Dodger67) - Well, that's awfully awkward. The horribly written page is a piece of work done by Wiki-PR - I undeleted it and userfied it so that I could use it as an example of Wiki-PR's quality of work, since their execs have recently claimed their main role is just dealing with legally actionable libel. The article I restored had two pending AfC templates in it originally, one at the top of the article, and one nested inside. I nuked the one at the top of the article, but I totally missed the second. I protected it to ensure that it stayed intact as an example of their work and wasn't modified by one of their socks to look better if the piece ended up getting linked somewhere. Since many of their socks are way past autoconfirmed (a year old sock was blocked yesterday,) I went ahead and did full instead of semi. Sorry to you and anyone else I confused. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for fixing it. I'm not so sure we should really be preserving any of Wiki-PR's spams, just my 2c. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The pages are already noindexed, so google won't pick them up, and at some point today I'll be adding warning banners to all of the pages to ensure that no one mistakenly believes they are articles. We already actually do preserve a lot of Wiki-PR's historical spam - see sublimeharmony's sandbox, where the revision history has copies of many Wiki-PR articles. I think that the value of preserving some of their spam in order to demonstrate to those curious the quality of their work outweighs any negatives. People are unlikely to believe they are real articles (especially once I throw up a red warning banner,) and if Wiki-PR wanted the wikitext back for some reason and didn't have a copy themselves, it's preserved in Sublime's sandbox anyway. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• The Sublimeharmony drafts can be linked to Wiki-PR because of the Scarsdale Media citations. Another that may be connected to Wiki-PR is the prior version of the SouthWest Energy article. One revision says ((quote|1=4/28: add the following information to Southwest Energy's page in a neutral and encylopedic way. Darius will bill for an additional $500 for this update.}} One of the principals of Wiki-PR is named Darius. Others that would be good choices would be the articles about clients named in the press: Priceline, Ehud Rahim, etc. Wiki-PR hired many freelancers, some of whom probably did their own original writing. For example, User:Amatulic/PR article template looks like the work of Floralfs who has a distinct writing style and might not even have been a Wiki-PR subcontractor. —rybec 02:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring by Arildnordby

Hey Kevin. I went through the edit ban history/edit warring pages. I found that you were the admin who had blocked Arildnordby, he has made 3 or more reverts in last 24 hours on Sati (practice) page. See the diffs here:-

Also the user refuses to talk about his changes, as he made 2 of these reverts before typing a one liner on talk page. His edit speaks enough too, that how much unsourced, Fringed, unwanted he has added to the page. Including WP:GEVAL(list of non-notable incidents).

I don't get why he brought incident to ANI. Instead of solving on talk page. Reply me back. Once you are there. OccultZone (talk) 18:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this in more detail when I get home later this afternoon, but 3rr only applies to more than three reverts, not exactly three. Moreover, those three reverts occurred in more than 24 hours. Taking an initial look at it, Arild's writing appears to both have plenty of sources and not be of unacceptable quality. This looks like a content dispute to me, not editwarring. You also might want to read WP:BOOMERANG.

I'll be taking some other action tonight on this suite of articles as well. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, Arid probably wants to contribute with a lot better version of Sati. I can withdraw this complaint back at this moment. OccultZone (talk) 20:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Problem with user Kwamikagami

Please see:

• Upper Silesian: , I reverted this one time, and again
• Template:Slavic languages: , I reverted this one time, and again
• Silesian German: , I reverted this one time, and again.

Why other users (ie. Sobiepan, Kwamikagami) can change articles according to own opinion, even if the topic is controversial? I can not go back it some times because you're scaring me with blockade. This can not be. Kwamikagami introduced POV to article, changing the name of the article on redirect and despite waged discussion, change on Silesian Polish. Franek K. (talk) 20:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

and this. Kwamikagami reverted my bold edit + personal attack. Next personal attack. Franek K. (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Franek, I'll be taking a look at this within the next couple hours. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I have not blocked Kwami, but have warned them, and will be keeping an eye on their behavior in the future. Trust me, you're not the only person who is at risk of getting blocked in this mess if they go way overboard :) Thank you for relatively keeping your calm in recent edits, even when provoked. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Could you at least review the situation so you know what your talking about before handing out warnings? Much of the warning you gave me is just silly. And there can't be secret discretionary sanctions: such things need to be posted on the article so people know about them. — kwami (talk) 01:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I replied to you on your page, but you seem not to have read my entire initial comment. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For your work at User:Kevin_Gorman/Wiki-PR. Bearian (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you... I hoped that resurrecting a few pieces of their past work would help counter some of Wiki-PR's recent public rhetoric. It's worth noting that I didn't pick out the worst seven pieces I could find, and also only resurrected pieces that could 100% be linked to them. I did offered to French via email that I would be happy to add any pieces of work they had done that were of substantially higher quality than the ones I had already resurrrected; he didn't reply. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for answering my "conflict of interest" question. Jessica0Peace (talk) 01:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Jessica0Peace - thanks to you for starting to edit Misplaced Pages :) please feel free to stop by my talk page if you have any followup questions about anything or need any help with anything. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Recent Edits

Hi! You recently helped edit Michele Colucci, an article I wrote, and I would appreciate if you would please consider contributing to the ongoing discussion about possible deletion of this article. Thank you. --Vindeniträden (talk) 21:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Please see

User:Smallbones/Questions on FTC rules Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the invitation Smallbones, but I'm going to hold off signing for now due to an interesting series of in-progress events. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Libyan Civil War

Hey, you protected this page as a result of IP disruption after this AN discussion; one of the IPs went back to the page after the protection ended and continued their previous crusade, and the other notified me of it on my talk page today. What do you suggest is the best course of action? Thanks, ₆ansh₆ 20:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'll reprotect it if they return again, but the edit you reverted was ~10 days old and they haven't come back yet. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Sounds good. I haven't been watching the page, and the other IP just noticed it, so we'll see if the first IP comes back and does it again. I'll let you know. Thanks, ₆ansh₆ 20:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

User talk:KajMetz

Hi, Kevin, I just unblocked KajMetz based on their unblock request. I normally don't unblock without first consulting with the blocking admin, but you said at AN3 that you were off to bed and gave permission to any admin to act as they wished. Hopefully, you had a good rest. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• No worries, looks good to me; thanks for handling it. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Objection

Or any other definition of the idiom I could find on the Web, all suggest taking joy or celebration over the fact of someone's death. You seem to be well educated, probably more than me, but even I can see the faultiness of accusing Eric Corbett what you accused him. (Eric was making a point, a point to the discussion that he felt was absent and was important to make; his point is best left to him to define -- I won't attempt to paraphrase. His point was conceptual however, and about what is or isn't valid or sensible or fair presumed expectations and responsibilities of Misplaced Pages editors when online at WP. One thing I'm sure, very sure, he did not do or suggest or emote, was to take any kind or degree of delight, celebration, joy, etc., in the young man's suicide. And to suggest such a thing, to accuse Eric of same, which you did twice , is really a kind of careless maliciousness on your part. You should apologize to him for that accusation -- it wasn't right, and it wasn't fair. I personally forgive you in your rush to keep things ideal for the parents of the young man on Jimbo's Talk, since in your rush you made that oversight. But what an oversight to make. ) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC) p.s. If you can find any definition on the web which does not include celebrating a death, please link it here for my education. Otherwise, I don't think you're so powerful that you can make up your own meanings to language idioms for your own purposes. Words have meanings, even modern idioms.

• Eric transformed a memorial post to a valued member of our community in to a shitfest, and he did so in a forum where the victim's family is likely to read it. When confronted on it, he continued his behavior and started throwing in a borderline hilarious number of comments that would get anyone who isn't Eric blocked under WP:NPA at me on his talk page. So no, I'm not apologizing to Eric. His behavior was malicious, had the potential to cause real harm, and would have resulted in almost any other editor than Eric receiving a lengthy, uncontroversial block. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Mail call

YGM. Go Phightins! 13:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Responded. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

You made me regret supporting you

When I supported your RfA last month, I didn't think you would be coming on board to threaten one of our best content contributors with a ban for some meaningless and twee nonsense at our co-founder's talk page. More fool him for getting into that debate, and more fool you for behaving like that. You didn't say at your RfA you were going to do stuff like that; I suggest a period of reflection ensue. We do not always need to wave a big stick. There are better ways of doing business than that. That was not a BLP violation. --John (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)