User talk:Kevin

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.

Are you certain?

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/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!

Consider another unblock?

Hi Kevin. I watched the events unfold since you unblocked Cla68. I think that generally any admin should be able to unblock an oversight admin block to the extent he can tell what happened and ascertain policy-violating edits are unlikely to reoccur. Otherwise it's just an ego thing. "Do not diminish the size of my ego by daring to undo my block." And I think this is proved by the reblock as "don't unblock without ArbCom permission." In other words it's now demonstrably about hierarchy and not any supposed heinousness that's only viewable via oversight. Anyhow, since you've demonstrated guts by your handling of the response, and now I note unchastened because you're pushing even now for Cla68's block to be lifted, maybe you'll have a look at my case.

I was no-warn no-discussion blocked by Timotheus Canens for sockpuppetry last May. It's simply not true. I cleanstarted once because of harassment, never went back. I've always been straight-up about it, even from edit #1[1]. My defenses were never replied to, and my appeals were declined for non-policy (don't talk back to an admin, failed to accept BWilkins' offer to accept the divulging of your previous account) as well as counter-policy (must give up your previous account to ArbCom) reasons. If you look over my situation, you'll perhaps think "oh there must be something he's not telling me here" why would ArbCom reject this, but really they never gave any responsive answer to me, no evidence, no nothing, just this laughable without explanation "carefully considered, declined to unblock." For the first appeal I was told though it would be denied because Timotheus Canens had not responded to its query. By the time of the second, he was an arb and chose not to recuse. Forgive me, it's cartoon-like.

Anyhow, should you undertake to help me out somehow, all I can say is I'll play it straight with you. Not knowing what else to do, I did resort to clearly-disclosed block evasion. In other words, IP edits that I sign my ID to. Other than the fact they're evades, I've conformed to policy, I think. There was one where I was mistaken about jargon, and my aggravation was apparent in another, but overall I've tried to live up to the project's spirit. Here's some examples [2][3][4]. You do have to entertain the proposition that block evasion can possibly be justifiable. Consider the article of a young actress said without attribution (and maybe with) to have contracted herpes. The blocked editor is still supposed to take it out. WP:BLP trumps WP:EVADE. Justifiable block evasion. I'm not that noble in my situation don't get me wrong, but I say that in the absence of any evidence or explanation to support my block (and this there has never been) it is justifiable block evasion. Thanks. This is Colton Cosmic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.1.120.50 (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Well I've had a look. I see your latest block is by one of our esteemed Arbitrators, which rules out me taking any part. I was willing to give up my sysop bit for Cla68, but I won't for you. Kevin (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't fault you for that. You looked, which is more than most bother to do. I think you read the block log incorrectly, what SilkTork did there was to stuff my talkpage under an "extended" label that must be clicked on to see the entirety. He didn't block me though. I was only blocked by "Timotheus Canens" who called me sockpuppet, and by UltraexactZZ who faulted me for not accepting Bwilkins'[5] supposed privacy-preserving offer to examine my previous account in exchange for his forbearance not to immediately cut me off from my talkpage. I was confused myself though, so I asked an arb whether ArbCom's declining of my block appeal transformed it into an "ArbCom block," to which he said "no, we have no monopoly on appeals." By "esteemed" I can't tell if you're being ironic, but I can say that SilkTork informed me in the sixth or so day of my appeal that it would be declined if Timotheus failed to respond to ArbCom's query about it. Which makes makes me tend to unesteem SilkTork. But, Kevin, by my thinking, one in a position of authority can't just go by those he esteems, he has has to examine the facts and the rules, and there I can again assure you that those don't support my block, and that anyone who says I've socked or been dishonest in any way... well the strongest I can respond to that out-person is it's just not so. This is Colton Cosmic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.6.135 (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Give him ALL the barnstars

For taking the correct action in a situation where others either didn't have the nerve to, didn't feel the need to, or didn't want to. Ryan Vesey 03:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Bravo. — Hex (❝?!❞) 10:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, this was the correct decision. It is a shame that on Wikipedia, what is obviously correct to any normal human being is a hotly debated topic and a motion to ban the person who pointed out the situation gets about 50/50 support. --B (talk) 12:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

A few centuries ago, it would have been "obviously correct" to ban someone for being an atheist. So, the only way to really tell if something is correct is to have a rational debate about it. Count Iblis (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Because clearly there's no difference between being an atheist and hosting a child pornography website. Being an atheist impacts only your own soul (or, I suppose, the atheist would argue, nothing whatsoever), whereas child pornography necessarily requires the exploitation and abuse of children. If your argument is that cultural mores are evolving and therefore should not exist, even to the point of accepting child abuse, then I strongly disagree with your assertion. It would be nice if Wikipedia didn't feel the need to go out of its way to demonstrate a reprobate moral conscience. --B (talk) 18:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

And a rational debate a few centuries ago would likely see the atheist banned. So I'm not sure what your point is. We are all living today, by the laws and social conventions of today. Where pedophilia is universally reviled. And before you leap in with a semantic argument, by pedophile I mean anyone who sexually molests children, traffics or watches kiddy porn, talks about their desire for pubescent kids, or invites minors into their house and gives them porn. None of them have a place here. Kevin (talk) 21:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The mere act of having a rational debate would itself have been seen as heresy. It was precisely a more rational attitude that led to the Age of Enlightenment. Thing is, we keep nasty things like child porn out of here by focussing on building the encyclopedia using the policies we have. With that focus, we can leave it to law enforcement to act against pedophiles if that's necessary. We don't have to ban people simply because they may be criminals, we should leave that to the police, prosecutor, judge and jury. Count Iblis (talk) 22:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Your argument to let pedophiles freely interact with children here might be more effective if you made it at the policy page. Kevin (talk) 23:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

"we keep nasty things like child porn out of here by focussing on building the encyclopedia using the policies we have" You mean like the policy that says editors who identify themselves as pedophiles will be blocked indefinitely. — Hex (❝?!❞) 10:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I started an RFC about this policy, the issue being that someone can have identified themselves only off-Wiki as a pedophile, which in practice is still grounds for being blocked here. I did not weigh in with my opinion yet there. There are a number of reasons why I think this is a bad idea. If we first focus purely on protecting children here, then one needs to scrutinize innapropriate behavior right here, someone having declared themselves as being sexually attracted to children does not by itself make that person a threat (I know that this is a huge taboo like subject, but research does point to about 1% or so of the population having such sexual feelings to some degree, obviously they are not all dangerous pedophiles. The Devils's Advocate also made that point on AN/I or on Jimbo's talk page). Obviously, it doesn't make much sense for someone with criminal intentions to mark themselves in a way that would lead to greater scrutiny. Another thing is that when it comes to grooming children, there are people involved with this who are not themselves pedophiles, they make and sell child porn pictures for money alone. So, my point is then that we're going about dealing with this problem in the wrong way.

Then when it comes to Wikipedia itself, when we allow arguments like "editors X' opnion on matter Y outed on website Z is not consistent with our social norms", then sooner or later the domain of Y and Z tend to increase in size. So, while today Y is mainly about pedophiles, tomorrow it will also include alleged terrorists, or people seen to be sympathetic to certain groups that many disapprove of, and then some time later you'll end up banning the advocates these people who themselves don't believe in their causes. Also, we can't then argue that other Wikipedia's can't do the same w.r.t. issues they feel strongly about but with which we strongly disagree about. Count Iblis (talk) 12:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The person in question did say on Wikipedia that he ran a child pornography FTP server in the 1990s. It's not really outing to say that. --B (talk) 22:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

POINTy behaviour

This is getting very close to the line of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Please don't do that, especially given that you're an admin. Prioryman (talk) 23:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

THIS is "Pointy"? Now, if someone tried to run a gazillion "Wikipedia controversy" DYKs on the front page over a prolonged period of time, which may or may not be related to private commercial interests to the extent that THAT would be pointy. You've got it flipped.Volunteer Marek 23:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's pointy. Trying to run a DYK that is blatantly noncompliant with WP:BLP, as you yourself have pointed out, is very bad form. Prioryman (talk) 23:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Is there some part of it that is untrue? Kevin (talk) 00:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The subject of the DYK hook is not a public figure and does not use that name on the English Wikipedia. If even Volunteer Marek can see the problems with it, you should be able to as well, and frankly I would expect you to given that you hold a sysop bit. Prioryman (talk) 00:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

If even Volunteer Marek can see the problems with it - Prioryman, cut out the personal attacks. I'm pretty sure I have a much better grasp of WP:BLP than you.Volunteer Marek 00:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The article is in compliance with WP:BLP, which you are probably well aware of. It was the original proposed hook which ran afoul of WP:BLP. I fixed that. You could have, but didn't.Volunteer Marek 00:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Who is this Prioryman and why is he so frenetically whinging? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

https://www.google.com/search?q=Prioryman may explain a little. — Hex (❝?!❞) 12:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

My user page says everything you need to know, and is certainly a lot more useful than the maunderings of off-wiki nutters. Prioryman (talk) 19:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. There's some interesting stuff there on Google. I do think that if one obsesses over off-wiki nutters then some of the nuttery does tend to rub off. Kevin (talk) 22:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, quite. <looks meaningfully at Kevin's off-wiki forum membership> Prioryman (talk) 22:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)