User talk:Dormabald

Blocked as a sockpuppet
I am blocking this account as a clear behavioral violation of our sockpuppetry policy. You may appeal this block through the procedure described in WP:GAB. Best, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 02:50, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Kevin you didn't leave a formal block notice so I can't appeal this properly, but how is this not a use of WP:VALIDALT? I'm afraid of all the anger around this and haven't commented on this anywhere. But I felt the question I asked is important and hasn't been raised anywhere that I have seen.  So I did this and was honest about it.  Would you please unblock me and please restore my edit?  Thank you. Dormabald (talk) 10:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:ILLEGIT's second bullet point states: "Editing project space: Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project." You are free to appeal through the procedure described in WP:GAB. If that is unclear, a copy of the block template is below. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 17:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Kevin thanks for leaving the block notice. Thank you for pointing to that bullet and I understand your action; I had taken that bullet to mean advocating for policy changes in a deceptive way with socking; my intention is just to ask this question and not to advocate for any answer to it. Dormabald (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


 * User:Dlohcierekim Thanks for the review. I wasn't complaining about the WMF. I asked a question, and I imagine that people will have different answers to it but I think the conversation should happen.  I was upfront about what I was doing. I am not trying to fool anybody.  I don't want to become the target of people who are so angry, and I find the people focused on the unreviewability of office actions to be the most high-handed and scary.  But I will stop trying to post the question myself (I have emailed a few people and if they find the idea compelling they will post the question or not.  These people were Carrite, Risker, Dennis Brown, and Megalibrarygirl), and won't log into this account again. Thank you again for your time. Dormabald (talk) 19:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Since you've mentioned me by name here, as well as emailing me, I will answer your question here. The WMF and its actions, whether or not we as a community agree with them, are outside of the ability of the Arbitration Committee to revert, change or modify. At the very most, the local community can do its best to influence the WMF decision/action. As such I would not see any advantage whatsoever in changing arbcom policy to reflect this "new" WMF activity.  The WMF staff commenters have made it explicitly clear to this community and to Arbcom itself that they have no interest in having their decision reviewed by either group, that there is nothing that either group can do to change this outcome, and...well, I'll leave it there. There is no technical or social "penalty" that can be applied to the WMF for blocking users on this project. Not even blocking their account here will work - they have the ability to lift blocks on their own account.  And of course, they could just permaban the targeted user because the community responded so poorly. I've heard that some WMF staff, having seen the community reaction, have come to the conclusion they should have just permabanned Fram; that's not really the lesson that we want them to learn from this episode.  Long and short: changing arbcom policy will have zero effect on what the WMF does, since they're responsible to their employer over and above any responsibility they have to any community. And creating an alternate account in order to comment on controversial areas in Wikipedia space has been a violation of the socking policy for a very, very long time. Feel free to comment using your own account, but don't use a sock. To any reviewing administrator: I'm not taking any position on this block. Risker (talk) 20:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)