| Revision as of 21:19, 4 March 2013 editKevin (talk | contribs)17,588 edits →Comment: rp← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:30, 4 March 2013 edit undoFluffernutter (talk | contribs)Administrators41,664 edits →Comment: if Kevin knew the private evidence that cause the block, we have another set of problemsNext edit → | ||
| Line 83: | Line 83: | ||
| :::::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.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 21:09, 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.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 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. ] (]) 21:19, 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. ] (]) 21:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::{{ec}} (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.<p>(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. ] (]) 21:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:30, 4 March 2013
Please note that if you post something for me here, I'll respond to it here.
If I posted on your talk page, I have it watched so you can reply there. It just makes for easier reading. Thanks.
 Archives | |||||||
|
|||||||
|
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!
Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)
Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Misplaced Pages editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Misplaced Pages editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:
- Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM
It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.
At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).
Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.
If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi 17:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Marc Sinden page
Hi there, many thanks for the revert this morning, however I would have thought that the Daily Mail, Esquire magazine and BBC Radio 4 fit into the parameter of good sources, would you not agree? If you are OK with them I shall put the para back. Manxwoman (talk) 10:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- If I was OK with them I would not have removed it. The Daily Mail piece supports nothing of that paragraph, and the BBC Radio piece even less. The rest are gossip rags. Much better sourcing will be needed to replace the material. Kevin (talk) 22:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- Understood. I'm not that bothered, but the main jist of it IS from the article in Esquire, which is properly sourced and certainly seems very extensively researched and not what I would call "a gossip rag"! Last appeal to replace...? Manxwoman (talk) 00:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- You could ask at WP:BLPN. Kevin (talk) 00:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Life's too short!!!! Cheers! Manxwoman (talk) 01:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- You could ask at WP:BLPN. Kevin (talk) 00:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Understood. I'm not that bothered, but the main jist of it IS from the article in Esquire, which is properly sourced and certainly seems very extensively researched and not what I would call "a gossip rag"! Last appeal to replace...? Manxwoman (talk) 00:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Sam Holbrook
Just a heads up: When you semi-protected the page a short while back, no icon was put up on the page to reflect it's protection. AutomaticStrikeout 00:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, I find people tend to find out when they try to edit. Kevin (talk) 04:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Please contact the Arbitration Committee
Hello, Kevin. Please contact the Arbitration Committee by email at arbcom-l
lists.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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Er. Could you explain why? Ironholds (talk) 20:46, 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)
- (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.
- 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)
- 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)