User talk:Kevin Gorman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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)

question[edit]

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)
I never meant to violate NPA ... but done. — Ched :  ?  07:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC
Face-sad.svg WormTT(talk) 07:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Ched, give me a break. I pointed out that you said "you seem to refuse to dig your arrogant self-righteous head out of your ass" - which violates most people's readins of NPA - and pointed out that I didn't have a problem with it as a way of refuting your claim that I call for the 'most stringent recourse' against others, and you decided to turn that in to an unnecessarily melodramatic desysop request for yourself? There's no point I even suggested such a thing, so you can't really attribute it to me calling for the 'most strigent recourse' against other admins - in fact the opposite. I pointed out you broke NPA and didn't even care enough to redact it. User:Kevin Gorman | talk page 19:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me commenting Kevin, I know I've got under your skin and have tried my best to keep my involvement in the arbcom case to an absolute minimum in deference to that fact. I don't think I'd use quite such colourful language as Ched, but I do agree with his sentiment. You made 3 errors breaking some of the most basic administrator rules in 2 weeks. The first two were undone quickly at my intervention. The third lead me to start a case to review your actions, which went on to highlight the more pressing issue - how you present yourself. Ched isn't the first person to comment that you seem to believe yourself above the rules. With the "above the rules" comment in mind, could you explain this? I can tell you how it looks, but I'd like to hear your thoughts. WormTT(talk) 07:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Systematically looking through the list of which userrights grant what privileges and figuring out what subset I'd like to keep if the arbcom case ends in a desysop. If I was a 'crat, you'd see me turning my admin flag on and off half a dozen times around that period of time as well, but I'm not and asking a crat to turn my admin flag off once didn't seem like a great idea at the time. If I end up getting desysopped, that's certainly not even the set of rights I'd leave myself with, not to mention what others may do - namely because some of them just aren't very useful for the type of work I do - but luckily desysop motions are not instant and you generally get a feeling as to whether or not they are going to pass, so I will have plenty of time to strip half of those off if a desysop motion looks likely to pass, I just haven't bothered yet - I have pretty much no use for template editor (I can't remember the last time I edited a sensitive template, but it was pre-LuA,) PC, ACC, RB, FM, MMS, and potentially CC (because we still have a handful of courses where it's relevant.) I certainly don't need to be an EFM - I turned that down while trying to hunt down what was preventing most Wikiconf 2015 attendees from being able to edit, and just haven't turned it off since since reviewing existing private filters is not a bad way to review regular expressions. I get more or less what part of Ched's message you agree with, but you may want to reread his message - I call for the "most stringent actions" against other admins? If that were the case, I would've called for Ched, Ritchie, and BK to be desysopped - yet I haven't called for any of them to be desysopped. Also, WTT, you realize part of the evidence you posted against me referred to an admin call that arbcom had already endorsed 12-0, right? User:Kevin Gorman | talk page 19:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Kevin, you have a lot of energy, your heart is in the right place, and you do a lot of good things for the Wikipedia community. However, being an administrator requires a certain level of care, restraint, and temperament that might not be ideally suited to your situation. This is a team effort and it takes all types. There's definitely a place for you here, but I am not sure adminship is well-suited to your passions. If given the choice to pursue your passions, or to be an admin, maybe you'd happier not being an admin. Jehochman Talk 14:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yet, most of the things I do for Wikipedia's community cannot reasonably be accomplished without an administrative toolset, only the tiniest fraction of my admin calls are questioned, and those are pretty much acknowledged to not hurt Wikipedia - just to violate procedure and annoy the people who point them out. User:Kevin Gorman | talk page 19:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more with the above. Kevin, you keep bringing up this "I called for Ritchie to consult with the blocking admins or AN before he unblocks", but as the diffs show you went much further and flatly stated you strongly felt I should be handed a community sanction to restrict my tool use. Do you still feel the same? Yet in the reverse situation I still believe it would be unhelpful calling for the resignation of your tools even at this stage. I feel sad about this whole incident, most obviously that an an editor with 6 FAs under their belt has left the project, which was my primary focus to avoid. Ched may have used language my mother would be upset about, but the message is correct, your attitude just isn't what we need right now for adminship. I'm writing here not because I want to "stick it to Kevin" but rather I'm desperate you'll see what we're getting at and avoid Arbcom coming down on you like a ton of bricks. Sorry. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Ritchie - whether you start consulting blocking admins as a restriction on your toolset or of your own accord, I don't really care. But between both your voiced opinions and your actual unblocks it looked like there was a pattern of you not consulting blocking admins in situations where you should. At this point, whether or not I feel a sanction to make you do so is necessary mostly depends on your future unblocks - if you accept another unblock like the JtV one (you have to admit that was at the far end of what either of us have seen in terms of unblocks without consulting the blocking admin,) I'd certainly call for you to be placed under a community sanction requiring you to consult the blocking admin. On the other hand if you develop reasonable discretion about when to act without consulting the blocking admin or AN and when to act only after consulting the blocking admin or AN, I'd see no such need. Keep in mind I never called for resignation of your toolset - just it's more careful application in situations involving unblocks. (And before someone asks, yeah, if I developed a habit of accepting bad unblocks without consulting the blocking admin, I'd be perfectly fine with the same restriction being put on my tool use.)
  • If you look at this page before ACE2015 - and really, before WTT brought a case to arbcom - you'll see significant amounts of productive work going on. Right now it's pretty much gridlocked by the AC case, which is being dominated by people who I've previously called on on tool misuse - but never called to resign. The AC case and two bad calls (one brief, one accepted as the correct end result by the involved checkuser) using the admin toolset, and one brief violation of other important policy (that nonetheless pretty clearly fails the "malicious and intentional" standard normally required for sanction under it) has stopped both my ability to create content, and my ability to function as a reasonably productive administrator (which, if you look through some of my TPA's, it becomes obvious that by and large I was.)
  • By the way Dennis, since I suspect you read my talk page, I just realized I have an email in my drafts folder intended for you that never sent, I'll ce it and send it later this afternoon. User:Kevin Gorman | talk page 19:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Kevin, I figured I should comment here, as someone who does not agree, since the sample pool of editors commenting has gotten a bit unbalanced. For me, here's the thing: it comes down to your style of communicating with other editors when you are being criticized. You tend to sound pissed off, and you tend consequently to piss others off. As I've looked at each of the "charges" against you in the case, I keep thinking that each one, individually, isn't that bad, but the problem that keeps happening and keeps getting good members of the community on your case is the way you present yourself in the aftermath. If you can really think about that concern, and come back with a thoughtful and sober acknowledgment of the problem and plan for addressing it, that will do you a world of good at ArbCom, and would be a good result for Wikipedia too. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • This isn't a concern that has been frequently raised outside of the strange world of Arbcom. I'm not even sure with you that they keep happening - the arbcom case primarily relates to two tool uses taken in a period of less than a week, and I think has pretty badly failed to establish a pattern of tool misuse. One of the weird things about the arbcom case? Most of the workshopped evidence was posted by me an is fairly clear analysis of what I did wrong - showing that I understand and am unlikely to repeat it. Not coming of at all defensive in an arbcom isn't exactly a simple task - particularly when the timing of the arbcom case killed or significantly delayed well over a hundred hours put in to setting up real-world outreach work, despite the fact that the main charge in the arbcom case was accepted as procedurally incorrect but arriving at the correct decision by the CU involved, and the other charge of tool misuse was suggested by another admin (though I should've obviously reread the RD criteria) and only lasted a brief amount of time. The chance of me actually repeating any of the actions involved in the arbcom case is miniscule - it would be far more concerning if I was unable to calmly analyze what I had done wrong. Most of the rest boils down to "When an unexpected and in your opinion unnecessary monkeywrench is thrown in to your gears, you sound annoyed" - which is probably true when done at the level of arbcom (though my talk page archives contain quite a bit of well-received criticism, when something rises to the level of potentially halting most of my Wikipedia activity, I think a desire to defend my actions as reasonable - though in error - is, well reasonable.) User:Kevin Gorman | talk page 19:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Sometimes, it can be difficult to discern how other people react to what one says, especially online instead of in person. So please understand that I'm saying this in a spirit of being helpful to you, much as you were recently helpful to me. As I try to analyze what you have been saying on the case pages, and what other editors have been saying about what they think about it, I can observe some things that you might not pick up on, and I hope that I can be helpful in pointing them out to you. Of course, you have a right to be annoyed. But you sound very annoyed, and it makes other people less receptive to listening to you. You feel, objectively, that your workshop analyses show that you "understand and [are] unlikely to repeat it". Actually, they come across subjectively as you saying, defensively, that you object to the accusations and do not want to understand, and that you are unlikely to repeat it because you never intended to do it rather than because you now understand. You feel that you "calmly analyze" what you have done, but instead the overly long comments make you sound to others like you are upset. And I think that you coming across in those ways, in ways that you actually do not intend, is the real thing that "keeps happening". I would love to see you find a way to demonstrate to the Arbs that you understand that. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I could've pretty easily waited for someone else to analyze the evidence in the case, or tried to spin in a way that portrayed my actions as within policy or necessary applications of IAR or something like that. Anyone who has watched a complex arb case play out has almost certainly seen someone try to spin their actions in a way that makes it sound like they were justifiable. I did neither - I pretty much went 'aw, crap, I fucked up' as soon as either instance of misuse of the toolset was brought up. The most detailed timeline of what I did wrong is something I wrote myself - that in no place denies wrongdoing where wrongdoing exists (it does wrongdoing in a couple places where it doesn't exist, like the within policy topic ban I enacted related to gamergate at one point that was itself later on explicitly endorsed 12-0 by arbcom, but I assume those aren't the areas people have problems with.) I misused RD (which is in my opinion somewhat mitigated by the brief perod of time of the misuse and the fact that it was originally suggested by another admin,) and I inappropriately undid a series of CU blocks (which I think are mitigated by the fact that the CU viewed them as good faith errors, and the correct result, just procedurally flawed.) I would fully expect to be cruisin' for a bruisin' if I repeated either behavior in the near future barring exigent circumstances (like a checkuser autoblocking Wikimania, in which case I'd expect to have the discussion after I undid the block rather than beforehand, heh.) Given that I've explicitly recognized and labelled the mistakes I made as well as acknowledged that repeating them in the near future would be tantamount to asking to be desysopped at BN, I don't quite understand the desire for punitive measures some people appear to be coming at this with. With a shrinking project where desysopping me if necessary will be just as easy in six months as it is now, going for punitive measures against an admin whose calls are solid and beneficial to the encyclopedia in an overwhelming number of instances doesn't seem like a terribly good idea. If I sound annoyed it's likely because I'm annoyed - this case has killed a lot of hours that had been spent building up another project which would've included outside the movement funding for three full time in-person Wikipedia-in-education facilitators - but that still doesn't change the fact that I've gone in to great detail about how I've erred in several places throughout this case. For that matter, I'm still a bit flummoxed that this case was accepted - arbitration is supposed to require you to have attempted other dispute avenues first, and that absolutely didn't happen in this case. User:Kevin Gorman | talk page 21:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
This was very good of you. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey[edit]

Jimmy knows that. It's being discussed above in User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#New_WMF_trustee_Arnnon_Geshuri, and I mentioned it in my opening comment. Would you please consider either deleting it or moving it up to the thread addressing Geshuri? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

  • I feel like it may deserve more stress than you gave it; missing something that big while doing due diligence on a board member is a really severe error, and speaks directly to why a governance review is desirable. I'll reword my comment to make the emphasis more obvious, please let me know if you still have an issue with it afterwards. Best, User:Kevin Gorman | talk page 00:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration proposed decision posted[edit]

Hi Kevin Gorman, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed relating to you in the ongoing Kevin Gorman arbitration case. Please review the remedy or finding of fact and feel free to comment at the proposed decision talk page. Thanks. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman closed[edit]

"This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above."

The following remedies have been enacted

4) For consistently poor judgment in undertaking administrative actions following a formal admonishment, Kevin Gorman is desysopped. He may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship. Passed 13 to 2 at 17:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

For the Arbitration Committee Amortias (T)(C) 18:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration_Requests_Case_Kevin_Gorman_closed
In light of this finding, I have removed your previously self-granted editfilter management flag ("required good judgement" is a standard component). If you strongly disagree, I will revert and we can discuss further elsewhere. Else, should you desire to work in this area in the future, you may request at WP:PERM. — xaosflux Talk 18:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • This is a hilarious example of what's wrong with our current dispute resolution setup. I don't believe most of the arbitrators actually read the evidence in the case. And @Roger Davies: - shame on you for ignoring multiple requests to recuse because one of the missteps directly involved you. I'm happy to provide full email copies or screenshots with headers of my emails to Roger asking him to recuse that went unanswered when I get back. It flabbergasts me that an arbitrator ignored recusal requests and did what certainly would've been a violation of WP:INVOLVED if they were an ordinary administrator... or that you found that behavior worth desysopping, when within the past while you've also privately said "Even if a woman human's rights activist in Saudi Arabia was outed, what would she have to worry about? The last time I checked, using the internet is legal in Saudi." Since I'm likely to have occasional free time on this trip, hopefully I'll be able to analyze the decision publicly within a couple of days to demonstrate how flawed it was. User:Kevin Gorman | talk page 19:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @Kevin Gorman: Thanks for the ping.
First, I've not seen any emails at all from you asking me to recuse. I would certainly have considered such a request though at the end of the day in this case, it would hve made not difference whatsoever to the outcome. For future reference, ArbPol expects requests for recusal to be made on the arbitrator's talk page. This removes any doubt about whether the request was sent/received.
Second, I have never said Even if a woman human's rights activist in Saudi Arabia was outed, what would she have to worry about? The last time I checked, using the internet is legal in Saudi or anything even remotely similar.  Roger Davies talk 01:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @Roger Davies: - would you prefer I quote directly from your email while redacting sensitive bits, or simply give you the date and time of the exchange so you can see for yourself that yeah, you said that. Even without an explicit recusal request I'm surprised you didn't recuse. Given (a) interactions at ACE and (b) the fact that a large part of the case literally involved you as the effected party, it seems like, to put it mildly, a bad call not tohave recused. User:Kevin Gorman | talk page 22:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: - no worries about EFM. I put it on myself while trying (and successfully) trying to discover the root cause of a series of autoblocks at Wikiconf USA 2015. It's a bit funny that all the functionaries sitting around couldn't figure it out, even with extensive IAR use of checkuser. User:Kevin Gorman | talk page 19:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, was hoping this wouldn't be otherwise contentious for you - arbcom cases can be draining; best wishes on moving forward with any editing areas that you are interested in. — xaosflux Talk 19:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Kevin, I'm disappointed that it ended up this way, but I want you to know that I remain very grateful for the help you have given me, and I hope that you will find some happy places to edit within Wikipedia. All the best, --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry, Kevin. I think this is the right decision. Yes, no single incident mentioned in the case would be grounds for desysopping in and of itself, but taken together they clearly show a pattern of poor judgement calls even after a previous admonishment. Nonetheless, it's not a judgement on you as an editor or as a person. You have many admirable qualities, I just don't think you should be an administrator. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • HJ: here's the thing - they don't demonstrate a pattern. My first admonishment occurred right after I was sysopped because in a situation that involved police in my office and police and paramedics combing an area looking for someone who was the reason I took an action on that conversation - as a new admin, I just pulled out the wrong tool. Since then until I returned within the last bit: the only administrative action of mine that gets reversed besides parts of Mass:Nuke on Neelix (and I was intending parts of that to be reversed, and reversed parts myself, though I was beaten to many) is a block undone by Ritchie who accepted an unblock request without looking at prior episodes of the situation that both didn't address the block rationale, and contained an explicit violation of NPA in the unblock request - with large numbers of worthwhile and correct admin actions taken in the meantime. Of the three mistakes involved in the case, two of them were at the advice of other sysops and didn't harm Wikipedia, and the other one didn't involve the admin toolset or cause any significant harm. With a fever of 107 and five organ systems failing in the middle, I do not see how anyone could reasonably link the behavior behind my first admonishment with the set of mistakes in this case. Since I only returned after both the recall problems and severe narcolepsy had been treated, there's no reason to believe the behavior would have carried on after a stern RTFM before acting, since I now more than easily remember TFM, I just hadn't finished rereading every policy when one situation came up that I was explicitly asked to look at that involved me using the toolset, and one situation came up on my page (that was very quickly reversed) where there were multiple valid reasons to delete a discussion, two separate admins had done so with one suggesting RD, and without rereading RD I went ahead and RD'ed it intending to restore it and deal with any remaining problems in the situation when I got home in 60 hours - but instead rapidly reversed it as it was pointed out.
Those are both problems, but they're problems caused by very different issues, and don't display a pattern, just two extreme circumstances two years apart filled with a lot of good in between, a reasonable expectation that the problems would not be repeated, and a reasonable expectation that I would be able to rapidly refamiliarize myself with any parts of policy that encephalopathy had interfered with my recall of. Instead, ENWP now will be missing a large number of classes in undercovered areas because the physical presence of an experienced Wikipedian with teaching experience in the classroom is the #1 predictor of edu project success - but with me gemerally having an obligation to eliminate inappropriately posted material by students, whether that be inappropriately personal (which I have a contractual obligation to do faster than I can find someone else to do it, even with the number of sysops I have contact info for,) plagiarism etc in a sandbox according to the academic code of the school I'm at at the time (which often doesn't match up with Wikipedia's definitions perfectly, and which instructors generally want me to ensure students don't have access to to try to refudge (since it's usually plagiarism from twenty sources at a time, the plagiarism itself is time intensive) unless the students had saved their work offline (they don't,) to - especially in big classes - IAR blocking my own students as a way to get their attention and force them to come see us (you'd be amazed at how many students ditch classes and do their assignments to poorly to allow, aren't responsive via email, but are very responsive when realize there's absolutely no way for them to complete their assignment without coming in.)
Were the mistakes severe? Yeah, I'd say they were, because even though they didn't cause significant direct harm to ENWP they undercut procedures we have in place for a reason. But with two different sets of extreme situations - police in my office two years ago, and returning from severe septic shock with encephalopathy and severe atypical narcolepsy - they don't demonstrate a pattern, and the chance of me making further errors - let alone ones that cause significant direct harm to Wikipedia - should've been weighed against the benefits me being a sysop provides to Wikipedia - and I believe a good chunk of the voting arbitrators both failed to review the evidence, and failed to conduct a reasonable risk vs reward balancing test. User:Kevin Gorman | talk page

FWIW[edit]

My opinion of your good answers to my ACE2015 questions is unchanged. Best wishes for sure. Collect (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Just a heads up[edit]

As you know, you are no longer an admin, so you might want to rewrite your userpage to reflect that fact. Everymorning (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I have an idea, Everymorning: How about you take your gravedancing elsewhere and let him deal with his userspace in his own way and in his own time. I'm certain he needs no reminders or a "heads up" from you or anyone on what his userspace contains. -- WV 22:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I didn't take this "heads up" as grave dancing, maybe you're being a little bit too sensitive? Just saying... JMHamo (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't think so. Obnoxious little reminders can be construed as gravedancing, especially if very obvious to the point of redundancy. Dr. K. 22:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely. -- WV 23:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker): Thanks for the concern but there's no need for this kind of reminder, especially given the public nature of proceedings to this point. The current reference to adminship is clearly not an attempt at impersonation. I'm sure it will be amended in due course but there is no particular urgency. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I was just trying to make a suggestion and give him advice, because I felt it was important people not think he's an admin when they look at his userpage if he isn't, as is now the case. I'm not trying to gravedance, contrary to Winkelvi's assumption of bad faith above. Everymorning (talk) 02:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The contention than you're not trying to gravedance is not credible, indeed, it's laughable. Kevin has explicitly stated he is not going to be available much until the 27th and will deal with issues when he has more time after that point. The rest of his user page is a little outdated which must have been obvious to you when you read it, unless you dived in with both feet without bothering to read the remainder of the page. Kevin will, I'm sure, update his user page when he has time. Nick (talk) 12:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
This is all very context sensitive, and part of the context is [1], [2]. I'm willing to extend some extra AGF to Everymorning, but I think that Everymorning need not keep defending the heads up. A better response to the pushback would have been "woops, sorry". At this point, I hope we can leave Kevin in some peace, and move on. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry. I I see how people could interpret what I wrote maliciously, especially considering that Kevin said on his userpage that he would be away from the internet for a while. This seems to have resulted largely, if not entirely, from carelessness on my part so I'll try to be more careful when discussing these sorts of issues in the future. Everymorning (talk) 02:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)