User talk:Kevin Gorman

If you are an IP or a not yet autoconfirmed user, you can post any comments directed at me here as this page is currently semiprotected. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Your evidence submission

In relation to your evidence submissions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman/Evidence#Statement by Kevin Gorman, please be aware that the Arbitration Committee does not take evidence on subpages into account. Please remove the link to all such subpages from the Evidence page, and transfer what material you want to submit for consideration to your own section (within the confines of the word limit). Thank you, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Kevin, you can just cut that "single diff", and paste it into the Analysis of Evidence section of the Workshop page. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• Hi @Kharkiv07: - that is not a link to a subpage. It's a link to a single diff, of an edit that consists of material since removed from the page in question. Since I now do have a link to a subpage in my own signature containing much of the same content and since it's material I had originally submitted in to evidence, I can see how confusion might arise, or how I might even been accused of manipulating the word limit by submitting a diff the contained of material that I had originally submitted in to evidence as one of my 100 allowable diffs, but it is still quite clearly a diff and not a subpage. Since completely inexplicably it's not actually mentioned anywhere in arbitration policy that the evidence and workshop phases run concurrently and I'd never seen a party edit both at the same time previously, unless my subsqequent additions to the workshop are clerked out, it's likely that my finalized evidence statement will not include the diff I posted. If my workshop edits are clerked out, then I'll likely end up with an evidence statement that includes a link to the diff I posted as one of my 100 allowable diffs. User:Kevin Gorman | ^{talk page} Statement in current arbcom case

Kevin, I know for a fact that I have multiple times edited Workshop pages while the Evidence page was still open. I don't know whether it says that someplace, but it is definitely OK. --Tryptofish (talk) 03:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Kevin, your wikilawyering. I'll step up as an Arb and say that this is in violation of the spirit of the arbitration policy, and is not permitted. It can be removed at the clerks' discretion forthwith. (@Kharkiv07: FYI) -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

@DeltaQuad: - you are absolutely right that I was wikilawyering. Someone brought a case against me at a time of year when no normal person would have time to respond to most phases of the case without cutting in to other prearranged plans. Tryptofish's point that the workshop phase *is* currently open, which is documented nowhere in arb policy that I can find, is not noted on the page, is not a detail that is obvious to anyone like myself who rarely appears before arbcom for any purpose completely avoids the need for me to wikilawyer just in order to have a reasonable chance to respond to serious accusations made against me. If you had looked at my recent contribs, you would've noticed that I had already started making the transition. If it had been documented or pointed it out to me at an earlier point, I wouldn't have pulled the bullshit trick to begin with. But there's no conceivable way to respond to the number of diffs used here in the word limit. User:Kevin Gorman | ^{talk page} Statement in current arbcom case 06:35, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I have replied to the talkpage concerns on the talkpage. Your right it should be documented somewhere, I will ask @Kharkiv07: to bring it up on the clerk list and we'll look at getting that changed. I don't think you personally need to respond to every single diff brought against you. Arbs do have the ability to read, but your mileage may vary, so I won't hassle over that if you have a different opinion. I also understand your making the transition, but it was not allowed originally. So hence the forthwith. I'm not sure if anyone has told you yet anywhere, but if not, @Courcelles: has approved an extension to 1750 words in evidence. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I have clerked out the links to diffs to further statements and subpages on the evidence page. Please be advised that the re-addition of such information may lead to sanctions. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 15:21, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Kevin, I know you have already self-reverted your evidence on this point, so this is not an admonishment. Just a reminder that the scope of the case is limited to your own use of the administrative tools, and not the actions of other individuals. It would be of great assistance if you could try and continue to keep your comments in the case on that topic, and not stray into unrelated areas. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC).

@Lankiveil: - it's been a while since I've been heavily involved in an arbcom case, but isn't one of the main points that arbcom looks in to the actions of all parties in a dispute? It seems pretty directly relevant if someone giving evidence has been, say, trolling my page using undeclared sockpuppets and is using their evidence section to attack me. User:Kevin Gorman | ^{talk page} 15:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Giano is not a party to this case. One of the drafting arbs has already stated what the scope of this case is limited to. You should keep your posts on the "official" case pages within this scope. If someone is trolling your talk page then that is a matter for either ANI or the case clerks, not something you need to address in your Evidence. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC).

• @Lankiveil: -- He may not be a party to the case, but my behavior w/r/t him has been brought up in another person's evidence and thus I have addressed it in my analysis of evidence on the workshop page. He also keeps popping in to insult me, which is something I would imagine is in your remit to deal with. If you want to actually limit the scope of the case to my "administrative tool use" then tbh you have an awful lot of clerking to do, because literally a majority of the case is not about that right now. User:Kevin Gorman | ^{talk page} 23:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Alas, not as far as the past several groups appear to think :(. One arbitrator thinks so highly of any "electronic paper trail" as to have all of their talk page archives officially deleted. May you have peace and joy this holiday season, and in the year to come. Collect (talk) 15:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Collect:: has that action been formally challenged before, and could you link me to who it is? One of the accusations against me is that I inappropriately deleted a conversation from my talk for a very brief period of time. Talkpage archives are pretty much the same thing as a talkpage, especially depending on how you archive (e.g., some people simply move their entire talk page to create an archive) and it would be interesting to know if one of the actions I'm being railroaded about had also been committed by a standing arb. User:Kevin Gorman | ^{talk page} 15:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you look at the "user logs" for some arbs who may no longer be active as such. I do not know how many admins have acted in a similar manner, however, so am loath to name anyone in particular. Collect (talk) 16:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Much as I love a good conspiracy theory, when you see a batch of talk archives being deleted there's almost always less to it than meets the eye; it generally means the user in question has decided a dozen long archives are easier to navigate than a hundred long ones, and has consolidated their talk archives and then deleted the old archives to avoid duplication. Occasionally, it can also stem from a username change, where Mediawiki automatically creates redirects for every page in the user in question's userspace which then need tidying-up. ‑ Iridescent 17:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

In the case at hand - that simple explanation fails, alas. Archives were deleted with no evidence of anything other than deletion occurring, and catenation into fewer archives did not appear to occur. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

As a kibitzer but an experienced one in this context, may I opine for the benefit of any interested arbitrators, clerks, parties and passersby that this case has featured far too much focus on the nuances of arbitration procedures, word limits and the like. Those things exist as aids to a fair, well-informed, and reasonably expeditious determination of a case, not as ends in themselves.

I respectfully counsel Kevin Gorman that he should be posting far less of his personal medical information on this website. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed on both those fronts. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• @Newyorkbrad:, on the particular motion I suggested, I'm relatively certain the general arb response would've been "Why is this different from your earlier request?" I guess I could've always informed them by email, but I'm not particularly comfortable with emails sent to the arbcom list since more often than not there is no acknowedgement of receipt, and I've had emails lost in the queue before. If you're speaking in general terms, I disagree. When I randomly take an eight month break, I thinkI should be able to explain that it was because I experienced septic shock with some lasting side effects. When I found out it was due to CVID, I think I should be able to post that, since adequately treated CVID makes recurrences of sepsis far less likely (which are otherwise quite likely within twelve months of undergoing sepsis). Similarly, I think I should be able to post that I have narcolepsy as an explanation for why I'm suddenly far more active. In broader terms, I think I should be able to disclose that I have a connective tissue disorder, because it's pretty prominently shaped my life.

I've always been aware of the possibility people will use the information I post to mock me or undermine positions I take, but bluntly, I think anyone who does should be sitebanned promptly. These are all issues that have prominently shaped the person I am today, and I don't think people with disabilities, medical or otherwise, should be encouraged to not reveal that information. It's played a prominent role in shaping the person I am today, and in many cases has effected the point of view I'm likely to take on particular issues. It has certainly shaped my life as much as a choice of profession has shaped most people's, if not more. I don't think the fact that it has the potential to be misused should be a deterrent (because appropriate administrative action can and should be taken against people who do so on WMF websites, and fuck what outside websites say - many of them have plenty of inappropriate things to say about me without knowing that I'm disabled.) I think Wikipedia should be a safe place to disclose information that has significantly shaped your life and point of view and that such disclosure should in fact be encouraged - whether that is the fact that you're a Mormon, the fact that you're a human rights lawyer, or the fact that you are deaf, have sickle cell anemia, cancer, CVID, are a cancer survivor or anything else that has significantly shaped the person that you are today. User:Kevin Gorman | ^{talk page} 19:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• Kevin! You can revert me for trolling or whatever. But I would be failing in my duty as an older person (I suspect) than you, if I didn't tell you that the Internet will never be a safe place to divulge personal information and medical details and history. In 20 years time, we shall all be different people (or dead of old age), do we really want this stuff in the public domain to haunt us? I suggest and I don't think anyone will object, that you ask to have all this medical stuff oversighted. I seriously ask you to do this for you're own good. Giano (talk) 20:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think the fact that trolls and idiots exist on the internet is sufficient reason to discourage disclosure of details that significant shape your life and point of view. The fact that Is suffer from significant disability is not going to disappear, and not going to not-be-obvious to future potential employers, since I'll have a rather wide gap on my resume in need of explanaton. I would ask you what drives your odd fascination with me (and my arbcom case,) but I don't really want to encourage you to post here again. It is rather interesting to compare the number of times you (or your undeclared sockpuppet - the fact that it's widely known to be you doesn't negate our sockpuppetry policy) hvae posted on my talk page with the number of times I've posted on yours. User:Kevin Gorman | ^{talk page} 20:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• OK Kevin, that's fine. In answer to your question, I only note your Arbcom case because you seem to feel the need to mention me so often - perhaps you see me as a role model. If that is the case, please allow me to advise you that other people's aches, pains and ailments are deathly dull to most people. So if you won't stop banging on about your health for your own sake (eg: [1]), I beg you to do so for that of others. We all have our crosses to bear! Now, there's no need to reply because I'm done with your page, and so long as you don't mention me - your Arbcom case too. I wish you a happy and healthy Christmas! Giano (talk) 16:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• @Giano: - my arbcom case only mentions you often when people either ask me questions about situatins that involve you, or when you troll the evidence page. If you stop trolling it, I'll only mention you if someone brings up a situation that involves you. I'm glad you find my arbcom case dull, perhaps it'll discourage your presence :). You spend an awful lot of time paying attention to it for someone who accuses other people of being obsessed. To borrow a page from your playbook, I have no public opinion about your intellect or whether or not you're actually some sort of giant cavetroll. That said, I really do wish you a happy, healthy Christmas - I wouldn't wish ill health on many people short of literal genocidal dictators, etc. User:Kevin Gorman | ^{talk page} 23:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

This case shall be suspended from December 22nd, 2015 to January 2nd, 2016.

For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 20:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Motion

Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

You are receiving this message because you are a party or offered a preliminary statement and/or evidence in the Arbitration enforcement 2 case. This is a one-time message.

The Arbitration enforcement 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) has been closed, and the following remedies have been enacted:

1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.

3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.

6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

You've got mail!

Hello, Kevin Gorman. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 15:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

-- Amanda (aka DQ) 15:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

	Happy New Year!
	Best wishes for a wonderful 2016!---- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

2016

	Happy New Year 2016!
	Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary blisters.    – Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:48, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

question

I have some things to say to you Kevin. Some of it is my thoughts personally. Would you rather I post here on your talk .. at the AC ... or in email? — Ched :  ?  04:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• Hi Ched - It's mostly up to you. There's an open AC case, so I can't really say 'don't post there' if someone feels it's necessary to. I also don't have a problem answering questions on my talk page... and unlike some Wikipedians don't have an aversion to project-related email. If it's private I generally prefer to handle it by email, but if it's not I'm not terribly picky. (I suspect one reason why people sometimes talk about my email-usage is because historically a ton of what I do is either related to paid editing groups (which frequently requires the use of email or IM coordination to track down without shattering outing in to a million little pieces, education stuff where most of the people you're dealing, especially to begin with or to get a non-compliant course on track don't respond to anything but email, or metapedian stuff, where a lot of coordination channels are explicitly set up through email.) If it's about Floquenbeam's new idea, I actually think it's a decent idea in principle in some extreme circumstances... but I don't really like the idea of being the test case for a remedy invented in the middle of a case about me that has surprisingly little meat (in all seriousness, even in shooting gallery cases, I have problems remembering one with this few bad calls involved - I mean, one of the things cited in WTT's opening evidence is a decision I made that was literally later endorsed 12-0 by arbcom,) especially when I've been inactive for such a chunk of the past that it would likely, as drm puts it, be a distinction without a difference. There are admins who have been AFK for five years that get their tools back more or less on request once it's verified they control their accounts... many of them would not pass a prompt re-RFA, yet none of them are subjected to one. With a year primarily away from Wikipedia... there's significant doubt I would pass an RfA at the moment, yet very few significant errors in judgement being brought against me, and little doubt that in the past I've done a hell of a lot of good with my toolset.... or that most of the good I will potentially do Wikipedia in the future involves having access to the toolset.

In the past I've supported single purpose admins, but the longer I've been around, the less I've supported the idea.. other significantly important uses of the toolset just creep in over time. If I ran as a single-purpose-education admin, what should my reaction be when someone managed to change 1.5 million protected transclusions on ENWP to, say, some of the less elegant photographs on commons and I was the first person to figure out what the root transclusion was? I could repair it, but that would be violating my own toolset restrictions. Or, for a real example: a user who was blocked with autoblock enabled on ENWP attended wikiconf USA this year. He triggered his autoblock by (I know this is weird, but I watched it happen) using Mediaviewer on ENWP which autoblocked everyone editing from wikiconf USA/the national archives who wasn't an admin or +IPBE. (That's the first rights changed you linked me performing on my own account; at first I thought the problem was a buggy private filter.) Shortly after that (with at least 4 CU's trying to figure out what triggered the autoblock) I guessed what blocked user happened to be present. I could've spent five minutes with a few hundred people autoblocked until I found an admin I knew (or if it had been Wikimania, depending on the year, a couple thousand...) or, if I had ran as an edu-specific admin, I could've undone it myself but broken the restrictions I placed on my own toolset, again. In both instances, if I hadn't been standing right next to an admin I knew, I would've found just breaking self-placed restrictions preferable.

I'll comment on the AC page tomorrow... but unless someone comes up with a serious error in judgement that everyone has missed so far, arbcom should file this under the "not all arbcom cases need end in sanctions" metric they asked about in the SP poll this ACE cycle. User:Kevin Gorman | ^{talk page} 05:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• Alright then - here it is: You may be a vanguard for a very honorable cause. But because you seem to refuse to dig your arrogant self-righteous head out of your ass - you're doing more harm than good to that cause. You have no regrets in calling for the most stringent recourse for others - yet you feel you are above it all. That is bullshit Kevin. The case at AC is about how you act - and as much as you might try to spin it into some sort of discrimination or harassment ... it is about YOUR behavior. Nobody (other than Jimbo) is above the rest. (or at least they shouldn't be). I think you need to think about the common people Kevin. — Ched :  ?  06:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

It's pretty rare for me to call for other people's heads. I call out bad calls and expect them not to be repeated, and have no problem with the same being done to me. I made a couple of bad calls; they were pointed out, they won't be repeated. Of the last three remotely comparable things I can think of, I called for BK not to be admonished because I think it's an utterly silly remedy, I called for Ritchie to consult with the blocking admins or AN before he unblocks, and I called for you to avoid making cowboy WP:INVOLVED blocks in the middle of discussions. Calling for the most stringent recourse would be calling for you to be blocked for violating NPA, or calling or you to be desysopped for making a bad block, etc. User:Kevin Gorman | ^{talk page} 06:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)