User talk:Kevehs

I've begun archiving my talk page, because I'm a jerk who doesn't want people to see all the nasty things that have been said about me. Actually, that was a joke, I'm not a jerk, and now I'm a little hurt and insulted that I would have said such a thing about myself. All I wanted was for people who leave new messages not to have to wade through all the old ones. Why can't I just trust in my good intentions without always assuming the worst!

User talk:Kevehs/Archive Mar 04 - July 05

Anarchism compromise

The compromise as you describe it on my talk page sounds pretty reasonable. Your suggested, "Maybe two sentences for what it is, one sentence from prominent folks, one sentence explaining why it isn't discussed in this article and a link to both the anarcho-capitalism article and whatever debate articles ACs want linked" is actually more than what I had been putting in the article a couple months ago. I do think a more disambiguate-y rather than list-y anarchism (disambiguation) page is desireable (possibly merged with some other pages, like anarcho-, anti-statism, etc.). However, in fact I've been less and less involved in the anarchism page lately. I agree that a compromise might work, but it will probably require some outside editors to show up, as you suggest. When that happens, I'll be more likely to help draft a long-term compromise, but, in the meantime, I want to concentrate on other things for a while. (Writing new articles is more fun than arguing over old ones. You should consider writing one laying out the differences between "possession" as you guys use it vs. "property" as you guys use it; or other subjects, etc.) - Nat Kraus e 05:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hogeye (again)

Hogeye continues to break the 3RR [1]. He has now grown more sophisticated in his gaming of the system, he is using multiple IPs, as well as continuing to refuse to label his reverts, making reverts with superficial changes, and shuffling them around to make it difficult to collect evidence. I provided all of the evidence for this on the 3RR page, except for the url for the IP tracking service that reveals both anon IPs to be of the same origin. I didn't want to give him further tools to mask his behavior. Is this the proper approach? Should I have made a separate section for the 3RR page, or should I include the url for the IP trackers? Kev 20:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I noticed that too. He first tried using two sockpuppets, and gave up when it was pointed out to him how transparently obvious that was. Then he just came back to his old habits.

I don't think it's best to use a IP location service; he will just use some really lame excuse (I saw that in a recent ArbCom case). Instead, show they are the same based on the behaviour.

For instance, here's the proof that 70.178.26.242 (talk · contribs) and Hogeye (talk · contribs) are the same: this revert was made on 04:54, 8 June 2005 (UTC), with the very interesting edit summary of "Neutral disambiguation page. rv3 - since it's 24 hrs after 23:42, 6 Jun 2005 rv". Look 24 hours back and you find this revert. This not only shows both are the same, but also shows the timezone offset he's using. With this proof, you can treat both as one for the purposes of a 3RR report (since the 3RR is per person, not per account).[reply]

Even if a revert is mixed with a superficial change, it's still a revert; even if a revert is partial, it's still a revert; and even if the revert is to a version from three years ago, it's still a revert. Get as much reverts you can before your eyes start to glaze over, and add a new section to WP:AN/3RR documenting it (since it's a different 3RR violation than the previous one); you can copy the one you added in the wrong place (which was erased just after for being in the wrong place). Also be sure to leave a message to Hadal — I'm sure he will love to hear about it.

--cesarb 23:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've rescued your report on WP:AN/3RR. --cesarb 23:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for saving my report, it took some time to put together. Sorry for putting it in the wrong place. Thought you might like to know that Hadal blocked another of his sockpuppets [2]. Crazily enough he has continued, now making this revert using an anonymizing proxy service called "kaxy.com". I suppose there is nothing to be done if he jumps from IP to IP, but at least its a recognized problem now. Kev 05:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked two of the three IPs he used infinitely after finding proof both were anonymizers (one of them had already been blocked by Hadal). The third one will stay with Hadal's block, since I for now didn't find proof of it being an open proxy. If you can find a proof, tell me and I will also block it indefinitely. --cesarb 14:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note: I've blocked 70.178.26.242 (talk · contribs) for 27 days, since it appears to be a static IP with entirely anarchism-related edits, probably all by Hogeye. Both blocks will expire together, and can be extended indefinitely following an agreeable ArbCom ruling. Please feel free to report any further Hogeye sockpuppets (or problems in general) I've missed. Cheers, -- Hadal 03:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the delay: Per your convincing evidence, I've blocked 67.15.54.56 (talk · contribs) for 48 hours. I would have made it 25 days, but I'm uncertain the IP is static. I'll have to remember to check back after the block expires. Thanks for your vigilance! -- Hadal 02:22, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hogeye continues to violate his ban by using alternate IPs. Hadal is doing a great job of looking out for new IPs and blocking them as they come up, but Hogeye is being very persistant and doing a lot of reverts during the time Hadal isn't on. For example, in the last day alone he has reverted the anarchism page 7 times from 04:15, 17 to 03:39, 18. I've already informed Hadal of this. I think Hadal already banned this IP once already as a sockpuppet of Hogeye after this edit, but if so it must have been a 24 hour thing since he is back at it now. Would it be possible for you to keep an eye on this, to help take some of the burden off Hadal? Kev 03:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I cannot help right now. As you can probably notice by looking at my contributions, I am temporarily away from Wikipedia. You can ask for more help, if needed, at WP:AN/I. --cesarb 17:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ack; meatspace issues have eaten up most of my time. I apologise for not being on to respond; I've re-blocked 209.67.214.170 (talk · contribs) for 23 days to coincide with Hogeye's block. I suspect 205.234.161.227 (talk · contribs) may also be Hogeye, as the IP looks like an anonymous proxy (as evidenced by this URL he apparently pasted into his summary box by mistake: [3]). Frankly, I think his blatant disrespect for the one-month block is reason enough to extend it by at least one more. I'm hesitant to block indefinitely, since (a) that won't stop him from coming back via proxies, and (b) he wasn't a simple vandal until he became unhinged, so someone else might challenge me. I realise there's already an RfC against him; perhaps it's time to request an ArbCom hearing, which would allow an uncontestable indefinite block to be set. In any event, all suspected sockpuppets can be unceremoniously blocked and their edits reverted. -- Hadal 05:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

food not bombs.

hey, i deleted that section because it was a repeat of the prior section, someone must have posted it twice or something? Marxxxx 03:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hey, no worries. peace! (A)+(E) Marxxxx 03:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

question not dealing with wikipedia

I just found this randomly. [4] Is it yours, or is it a different Kevehs? Either way the responses are stereotypical. millerc 03:10, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I reread the responses. Its interesting how you note that they see property as a litteral extension of themselves, and that they validate your claim with their responses. There don't seem to be any refutations of your arguments that don't rely on a confusion of "property" with their own personhood. They also seem to be unskeptical about notions of the Truth when dealing with moral questions. Personally, I feel like you're just preaching to a bunch of religious nuts.

One thing that jumps out at me is how disrespectful some of these people act. I wonder if its a biproduct their ideology, or if their ideology is a biproduct of their assumptions about "human nature" to which they adhere? millerc 03:07, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchism

I've talked to RJII. I'm not sure a compromise is possible, but it might be a good idea for you to take steps towards reconciliation by adding a disambig at the top that points to anarcho-capitalism and a section cut from the highlights of anarchism and capitalism with a discussion of anarcho-capitalism. The disambig could read something like "This article deals primaritly with socialist variants of anarchism. For more detailed discussion of capitalist variants, see Anarcho-capitalism."

Hope this helps, Dave (talk) 14:52, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Hey, sorry about the delay in replying. I had a major project due today. I'm sorry attempts at compromise didn't work. From what I can tell, Tothebarricades.tk is as partisan as RJII. I'll see if there's anything else I can do, but if I can't, I hope you won't hold it against the libertarianism article. Even if you do, I don't think it will do much good; RJII seems to care more about Anarchism than Libertarianism, so libertarianism isn't a very good "hostage." Dave (talk) 17:10, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

In light of the above discussion, I have removed the POV banner from libertarianism. The article can't be held responsible for what RJII and Hogeye do elsewhere. Dave (talk) 15:24, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Putting the tag there isn't going to solve anything, as it won't deter RJII (or especially hogeye) from screwing with Anarchism. If you want, I'll help you watch Anarchism for RJII's edits or support you in an RFC against RJII if you take down the banner. What you're currently doing, putting the NPOV tag on an article unrelated to your dispute with RJII is disrupting wikipedia to make a point, and I intend to file an RFC on the subject myself if you don't back down.

Here are the parts of WP:POINT that I think are relevant:

In the past, many contributors have found their Wikistress levels rising, particularly when an issue important to them has been handled in a way they consider unfair. The contributor may point out inconsistencies, perhaps citing other cases that have been handled differently. And the contributor may postulate: "What if everyone did that?" - a common rhetorical technique. These devices may not persuade for the reasons cited above.

In this situation, it may be tempting to illustrate the point using either parody or some form of breaching experiment. For example, the contributor may apply the decision to other issues in a way that mirrors the policy the contributor objects to. These activities are generally disruptive: i.e., they require the vast majority of nonpartisan editors to clean up after the "proof". Many consider such "point-proving" acts to be vandalism.

In general, such illustrative edits are not well-received and are hardly ever effective tools of persuasion. They simply come off as spiteful or vengeful, because, between the moment you edit the page and the moment someone notices you did there might exist a large window in which readers will be reading your point instead of the article. Wikipedians on the whole are not especially prone to hebetude or cluelessness, and do not need to have arguments illustrated ad absurdum in order to understand them. Points are best expressed directly, without irony or indirection. That is the best way to garner respect, agreement and support.

...

If you must [disrupt Wikipedia]...

Stop your campaign once your point is made. Don't engage in an edit war to save content you added for rhetorical reasons. People can still see what you did in the page history, and you can link to an old version of the page if you wish to draw attention to it from a talk page.
Clean up after yourself, reverting content and listing pages for deletion as necessary once you're done making your point. Like leaving a restaurant without tipping in societies where tipping is customary, failure to clean up often makes it clear that you're a boor.

Please consider my offer to help you keep the Anarchism page clean. I'd rather help you file an RFC against RJII than file one against you. Alternatively, you could add a subsection to the terminology section for libertarian socialism, briefly summarizing that philosophy, which is analogous to what RJII is doing on Anarchism. Dave (talk) 15:55, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I'll add Anarchism to my watchlist and try to help out. I don't claim to be an expert on anarchism, so I may be more hesitant in reverting than you would be. If you want to pursue an RFC on RJII or on the entire anarchism/libertarianism situation, I think that could be fruitful and I'll join you. Feel free to expound upon libertarian socialism in the libertarianism article, especially in the criticism and terminology sections. I hope this is sufficient for you to consider taking down the POV banner on libertarianism, as the banner is days (hours?) away from causing the page's demotion from featured article status. Thanks for understanding, Dave (talk) 18:48, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I've made my first reversion of RJII's edits. He argues that there are uncontroversial elements to what he's doing that are being reverted simply because he's the one writing them, which seems plausible. I asked him to write his controversial edits in a separate diff from his uncontroversial ones. In exchange, we should allow him to make good contributions and only revert his bad ones, which I think is fair. Unfortunately, it'll take a bit more time in the short run, but if it prevents edit wars, it could be worth it. Dave (talk) 19:09, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Again, I don't consider myself qualified to discuss the finer points of anarchism, but I'll do my best. Hopefully both you and RJII will provide lots of sources so I can try to make good decisions when editing. Let me know if you want me to deal with anything specific. Dave (talk) 03:31, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

sorry for the delay in responding. I just got home late last night. Do what you can, and tell RJII that you'll revert anything done by Hogeye, so he may not want to build off of his edits. Also, I think it would be a good idea to get an admin to watch the anarchism page so s/he can block Hogeye as he shifts IP addresses. My first suggestion would be one of the Arbcom people responsible for blocking him in the first place, but I can think of a few others that might be willing to help out. I'll do what I can to revert him as well. Dave (talk) 20:26, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

~~It looks like things have calmed down on Anarchism in the past 24 hours. Is there anything else you'd like me to look into? Dave (talk) 19:25, August 10, 2005 (UTC)~~ Scratch that. Looks like things are about to get bad again. I'll see what I can do. Dave (talk) 19:28, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Chart

Since the charts on the libertarianism page and the one that got placed on the anarchism page by Hogeye have caused trouble, I figured it might just be better for the libertarian socialism page to do without one.

IMO the charts make too many assumptions about abstract concepts, that newcommers might not fully appreciate. The Nolan chart, for instance, seems to assume that "political freedom" is freedom from coercion by political institutions, while "economic freedom" is about allowing economic institutions to "freely" act regardless of if such action coerces others (the distinction between economic/private and political/public institutions in my understanding is a false dicotomy).

These charts never really helped me when I was developing my understanding of (right wing) libertarianism, socialism, or libertarian socialism. I just don't see how they help others. But I'm ok if you disagree, and I won't try to revert if you reinsert it.

As for the other political charts; I prefer cooperation over edit wars (big suprise), and removing them from those pages would probably cause an edit war so I just steer clear of that conflict. The first major encounter I had with RJII I tried to be resonable, but the only response I got was something about "you people". Odd that someone who professes such strong emotional attachment to "individualism" would respond to me as if I were nothing more than a member of a group. millerc 02:08, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where U?

You are cordially invited to join continuing hostilities on the Anarchism and associated articles. A ride to the front is available:

213.55.24.171 18:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

oi!

WE WON! maxrspct ping me 21:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:AIIS political ref.PNG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:AIIS political ref.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 17:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been active at the article or talk page, so here's a note about Anarcho-capitalism

I have nominated Anarcho-capitalism for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Binksternet (talk) 18:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]