Jump to content

User talk:Kevin Gorman/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Welcome to my talk

Hi all - welcome to my talk. I just performed a large manual archive, partly because I had a good number of undated sections. If you feel I manually archived any sections that hadn't been resolved yet, please feel free to unarchive them, or to start a new section on the same issue. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Belated thanks

I know this is very late but I wanted to take a moment to thank you for your participation at my RfA. I was very inspired by the many that supported me and it’s that feeling of friendship and camaraderie that keeps me coming back to the project. So, thank you for your support and for your continued sense of fairness and compassion in all areas of WP. I look forward to the opportunity to work together in the days to come. Best wishes, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

More belated thanks

Thank you that the German Wikipedia received an article because of you! It's on their Main page today and tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Editing lead in Diabetes

Hi Kevin, I'm editing the diabetes page and it appears to be a locked/protected page, so I don't think I can currently edit the lead. If this is true, is there a way to override this? Thanks so much for any help. UCSFrb1983 (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi @UCSFrb1983:: academic student workers represented by the union are in the middle of a two day strike across many UC campuses as a result of intimidation by UC administrators. Among other things, UCSC administrators have threatened to fire anyone who participated in a legal strike, UC Berkeley administrators have illegally filmed lawful union activity, and UCLA administrators have threatened to attempt to revoke the student visas of international students participating in lawful union activity. So far, more than 25 students across the UC system have been arrested while participating in legal pickets today and yesterday. I'm not represented by the UAW local, but have been honoring the strike by cancelling my Wikipedia-related duties on campus. However, my actions at UCSF are as a volunteer rather than an employee, so I'm going to go ahead and fix this for you - but I'd encourage you to read up about the UAW's grievances.
Some pages are "semi-protected," which normally means your account must have existed for 4 days/10 edits before you can edit a page - diabetes is one of these pages. Semi-protection is usually put in place either on pages with unusually high levels of vandalism, or pages where vandalism has the ability to be particularly harmful. I have manually flagged your account as confirmed, which should mean that you are now able to edit the article without any further difficulties. Please let me know if something went wrong somewhere along the way, or if you have any further questions. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Look forward to see you at Berkeley today!

Hi there. Thanks for signing up for the WikiWomen's Edit-a-Thon at Berkeley that is happening today. I look forward to seeing you! We have changed the on-campus venue due to the response we've had, via Wikipedia and Facebook. Please take a look at the event page. If you get this message too late, we'll have a sign on the door of the former location directing you to the new one, which is only a short walk. See you then! SarahStierch (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

This Month in Education: April 2014



Headlines

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Anna Koval (WMF) (talk) 21:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

If this message is not on your home wiki's talk page, update your subscription.

Women philosophers

Hi Kevin! I'm working hard on getting my credibility up by editing. There is a lot of mess to clean up! It is time-consuming, but I figure if I chip away at it, it will help. Thanks for all you are doing. Shaslang (talk) 00:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Shaslang: - there really is a lot of mess to clean up. I think the winner for a whopper of a statement I've seen in my time at Wikipedia was something like 'all feminist organizations use the spectre of domestic violence to repress men.' I'm also a bit in shock that we literally have no article about reproductive ethics, or so many other important concepts and people. I'm hopeful that time will effect change - it's just likely going to be quite a bit of time! Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
@Kevin Gorman: - Yes! I'm working with my new friend Girona7 and over the summer we may do a WIkipedia training and then have an edit-a-thon to clean up some of the mess. I'm kinda excited about it. Shaslang (talk) 00:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi @Shaslang: - I doubt she remembers me, but I think I've actually met Girona before. Her profile notes that she attended AdaCamp in DC a couple years back. Unfortunately I didn't make it out for that AdaCamp (funding issues,) but I did attend Wikimania DC which was held immediately afterwards, and I think she did too - I vaguely remember bumping in to her at one of the bias oriented sessions. I'm glad you've connected with a talented Wikimedian physically near you :) She co-organizes the New England Wikimedians group with @Ktr101: Kevin Rutherford, another friend of mine. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks For The Delete
Thanks For Deleting The CopyRight Material.

I was in a bit of doubt myself that the file might not be free, as from the source I got it, also I was a bit hesitant. However, I thought it would be good to get the file. Later on I checked, and found that it was up for purchases, and not a free sourced material. Apologies for the incorrect upload.

Danke

Vishal 'Harry Browne' Bakhai Vishal Bakhai 07:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the award, and one time isn't a big deal, but please be more careful about copyrighted uploads in the future... the inside cover of the book did explicitly mention 'all rights reserved.' That's a pretty big red flag - we only accept content fhat is under a free license. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Online Ambassador

Hi Kevin Gorman, since your active in the education program, I thought I'd ask you for some feedback. I was thinking of applying for the role of an Online Ambassador. I'd like to know your feedback in this regard, and also your suggestions, if any. Thanks for taking out your time. :) --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Hi Rsrikanth05 - I may need to run in the middle of this post, so apologies if I leave it halfcompleted and answer the rest later on. I'm going to be pretty blunt. The education program doesn't have the structure that it needs yet - I'm hoping WEF's recent 1.4m from Stanton will help fix that. Stuff is largely unorganized. If you sign up to be an OA, there's a non-trivial chance that unless you directly connect with someone, you won't actually be doing much. If you do connect with a class, a lot of the time, you'll be helping out newbies. Some of these newbies and some of these classes will be awesome; some of them won't. You'll get students super enthusiastic about the project but who can't understand how to format a page. You'll get students (especially in classes that only use one deadline) that just dump all of their work in to the encyclopedia at the end of the term. You'll get students who are, bluntly, shitty writers. You'll also get good students: you'll get students who will put tons of time in to their projects, and may have issues with formatting, but will end up creating articles that look amazing in the end - Nuclear energy policy of the United States was written by someone who was a student at the time, for instance. Sometimes students will proactively reach out to you, most of the time you'll have to proactively reach out to them. Depending on the level of the support the class is receiving, they may not know what a talk page or user talk page is, and may miss your efforts to help them. Hopefully, they'll have email enabled, and if they do and missed your onwiki outreach attempts, they'll usually be quite happy to get an email about it.
At most universities, some students are excellent, many are good, some are okay, and a few are just horrible. You can expect the same curve to apply to an education class, pretty much. The last group of students are the hardest to get over, because some of them are irredeemable, and if you take a proactive role, you'll end up having to say "No, your content just doesn't improve the encyclopedia, it can't stay." A lot of people have trouble doing that, especially because they know that doing so can effect a student's grade. I generally don't have a problem myself doing something that will effect a student's grade unless it's obviously the fault of their professor - i.e., their professor told them to go post essays on Wikipedia - and in those cases I try to take higher level action (like talking with the professor, or taking action at a higher level than that even. That type of case usually ends up at ENB or ENI.) You'll end up getting a few plagiarists. I don't think you'll end up getting more than you would dealing with any other cohort of newbies (and I've been using a modified version of turnitin to check on that assumption) except in cases like the IEP, but it is something that will happen.
If you like helping newbies and have the patience to do so, it can be significantly rewarding. A lot of classes work in areas that Wikipedia doesn't cover very well currently - some of my students this semester will be writing the article about climate resilience, which is a hugely important topic in environmental science, but one that somehow we don't currently have. All of the stuff on this page was written by students and is pretty high quality content - and barely any of that material would have been created if it hadn't been for campus and online ambassadors. Mu wave for instance was written by a student with some assistance from other Wikipedians, and it's a GA that didn't exist before the student started working on it. I think that being an OA or CA can be a fabulous way to expand Wikipedia in a way bigger than one could do by yourself. It can also be quite frustrating at times, and at least occasionally other Wikipedians will treat you different simply because you are involved in the education program. But, as long as you have the patience to deal with at least some annoyance, I'd highly encourage you to at least try it out - you can always resign ;) Need to run though, Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Heh, a bit ironic that the example I used actually is a blue link, since it redirects to the general page about resilience in ecology.. but that page barely touches on climate resilience, which has hundreds of books and journal articles written about it specifically. And soon, Wikipedia will know about climate resilience :) Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very very much for the advice. I'll keep it in mind and decide. Right now, I'm very inclined to apply. But I think I'll wait, go thru the ambassador training pages again, and then come back. :) Once again, thank you! --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Education Program technical update, April 2014

Since the last update, development of the editor campaigns project has been continuing, and it's almost at the point that it will be useful to users running edit-a-thons and other non-course outreach events. (If you are planning such an event soon and would like to beta test it for tracking the contributions of newcomers, get it touch.) In the meantime, we've made a few small improvements and bug fixes to the Education Program extension:

Default course end date

The default end date for courses is now approximately six months in the future, instead of immediately. This will prevent the common problem where a user creates a new course page but does change the default dates, resulting in a course that is immediately considered "ended" and thus cannot be enrolled in.

Notifications when you get added to a course

Whenever a user gets added to a course by someone else, they will now receive a Notification.

Disabling individual student profiles

The student profile special page (Special:Student/Username, not to be confused with Special:Students) is a page that lists the courses a student editor is enrolled in, and is also supposed to list the articles that user is working on. However, the list of articles can include incorrect data in cases where an instructor or volunteer assigned the articles to the student editor. These profiles are being removed from the extension altogether. This change should go into effect Thursday, May 1. (Logs are still available to find out which courses a user is enrolled in.)

Article edit notifications for students coming soon

A nearly complete patch from Facebook Open Academy student Jeff Lloyd will add a new type of Notification: students will be alerted to edits made by others to the article(s) they are assigned (as well as the corresponding talk pages). Expect to see this feature within the next several weeks.

Duplicate courses and API deletion

Bugs in the course page creation process (now fixed) led in some cases to duplicate listings for the same course at Special:Courses. This happens when the same course page had two (or more) different course ID numbers. It is possible to clean up such duplicate entries using by making calls to the API. I've documented this process and written a Python script for it.

If you have feedback about these changes, or other questions or ideas related to course pages, please let Anna Koval or me know!--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 19:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Subscribe or unsubscribe from future Wikipedia Education Program technical updates.

Protect

Thank you for your user page protection! See? (image taken on another stroll) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For your edits on Gender related articles, most recently Men's rights movement Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

PWCT Talk page

Thanks for speedy deleting and salting PWCT (programming language). Talk:PWCT (programming language) also needs to go. Msnicki (talk) 21:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ms - thanks for pointing out that I had missed it, it's gone now. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Water resource management

I realise now that I rather brusquely reverted a large chunk of text added to Water resource management without knowing (or checking) that it was a student contributor. Apologies for that. I wouldn't want to deter students from getting involved and I should, perhaps, have been a little more helpful (if a little less prescient!) in my edit summary. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   19:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Hi Velella - please don't worry about it in the least. The difference between the tone of an essay and Wikipedia is something we've talked about quite a bit, and although I haven't had the time unfortunately to stalk everyone's contributions in depth, students have been reminded of it multiple times and have probably twenty hours a week of office hours where they can come seek more assistance if they need it. The assignment isn't due for a bit still; getting reverted by members of the community just hopefully reminds them "no, really" :). I'll reach out to the relevant students by email about their tone issues. I would appreciate it if you pinged me if you end up reverting the contribution of people in the class just so I can speak with them in person, but other than that, please feel free to treat them as you would any other new contributor. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Women philosophers

Hi Kevin, I've just stumbled on User:Kevin Gorman/philosophers. (Don't ask me how, I just followed various links that I can't remember now :-). It looks like a great project and I'd like to help - I did an MA in Philosophy and have read a good bit, but it always seems to be the men who get the top billing. Anyway, I'm keen to help redress the balance - hopefully in the next few weeks I'll have time to start making some articles. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Hi Boing! any help would be greatly appreciated :) I've ameliorated some of the worst gaps (how did we not have an article about Alison Jaggar?!?,) but there are still.. well.. tons of gaps. I should probably repopulate the list of people in need of articles soon - there are still quite a few remarkable philosophers we lack articles on. (And keep in mind.. none of those blue links were blue when I started.) Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I've just found this which has a tiny bit more about Alison Jaggar. Trouble is, I don't know if enotes is a reliable source (proper editorial control and all that) - any idea? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Enotes generally isn't a source I would cite from, but I'm not too familiar with their background. Weirdly enough that looks well written, and knowing a significant bit more about Alison Jaggar than I have put in her article so far (I'm stub-fiending lately,) I don't see anything in the enotes article that is actually wrong... Their page about their editorial process is extremely generic, but the style of writing about Jaggar makes me think that they reprinted it from somewhere else, although I don't recognize from where offhand (though it does mention Salem Press.) Do you have access to an academic library's eresources? If not and you'd like to write about someone (or more about someone,) tell me who and I can forward you a bunch of stuff. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, though online, also has quite a bit about the work of some of the more prominent women philosophers as well. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Yeah, the Enotes editorial description is a bit weak, but at least it's better than anything crowd-sourced. I don't have any academic access these days, so I'll take you up on the offer of sources when I have the time and I've decided what to start with. I have used Stanford before, but it seemed a bit weak on biographies outside the best-known folk. Anyway, I'm tied up with other things right now, but I'll get back to you when I have some sort of plan. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Boing! said Zebedee: - as a heads up, starting about a week from now I'll be able to send you as much academic source material as you desire about whoever you desire. Unfortunately philosophy is a bit weak in general about bios of people who aren't dead already, so a lot of source material talks about a person's work rather than the person themselves, but it's often the case that using a publicly posted cv/other biographical tidbits as they arise + papers talking about a philosopher's work can be enough to write a pretty good article about them. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

That's great, thanks Kevin - it'll be about a week or so before I'm ready, so the timing is just right! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Misconfiguration of archival bot

You currently have your archive bot set up to archive to User talk:Kevin Gorman/Archive2. Your archive box at the top of the page is auto set up to only work with archives in the format of User talk:Kevin Gorman/Archive #. So I would suggest that you change the bot config to User talk:Kevin Gorman/Archive 2, but first move the existing Archive2 to Archive 2. Just wanted to give you a heads up, as a lot of people can't see Archive2 unless you rename it to Archive 2. 123chess456 (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

This Month in Education: May 2014



Headlines

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

If this message is not on your home wiki's talk page, update your subscription.

Desirable outcomes

Based on your ANI comment, "because I prefer to use the least punitive measures possible that successfully protects the encyclopedia", I thought you might be interested in this. I wrote an essay WP:ANI Advice which I've mentioned on ANI a few times. But recently I added a new section about what "desirable outcomes" are. I think you might like it.--v/r - TP 22:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Hi @TParis:, thanks for the link. Overall it looks like a pretty damn good essay, and mostly matches up with the principles I try to follow (though I certainly don't always succeed in doing so. I think it might be a good idea to tone down #18 slightly, because I feel there are some instances when making accusations of bullying if they're either backed up by diffs or prima facie obvious by looking at someone's editing history can be worthwhile. Especially in light of our editor retention problem, I think we should encourage people to come forward regarding *actual* severe bullying behavior so we can deal with it - a hostile editing environment can drive a lot of people off, especially in situations where someone finds their editing experience a net negative because of the unreasonable behavior of someone else. I do agree that *most* accusations of bullying aren't worth making though - when my head is working a little better, I'll try to come up with wording that I think may improve it.
Similarly, with #19, I feel like it would be good to loosen it up a bit. Someone, especially a new editor, who has just experienced something that does amount to transphobia or homophobia etc may not necessarily be inclined to go diff digging - they may just feel like we're putting the entire burden of evidence collecting on the victim of the behavior in a way to avoid dealing with it ourselves. Diffs are obviously preferable (and I wouldn't expect any longterm editor to make such accusations without them,) but I feel like it may be good to soften language there too to encourage new editors to stick around. Most of the time it takes less than five minutes to figure out what comments the person has a problem with even if they don't provide diffs, and from there we can either take action on them (if they really are transphobic, etc,) or explain to a relatively inexperienced editor why we don't view those comments as actionably phobic, and hopefully leave the person satisfied. Generally seaking, I'd rather spend five minutes diff digging to either uncover an actionable problem (because if it's there, we should action it,) or five minutes diff digging and some extra time explaining to the OP why what they felt was actionably phobic wasn't. I feel like it'll likely both increase the number of real cases of transphobia etc that we find and deal with, and encourage the retention of new editors who come across something that they had a problem with - both of which are good things (especially given that some fraction of accusations are true, and a new editor might rather leave the project - and thus let the problem continue - than compile an intimidating set of diffs to take to an intimidating board. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
You're probably right, but I also don't want to mis-advise someone on policy and practice only to have someone throw the book on WP:NPA at them. If you can think of a way to word it while also cautioning someone on our explicit policy against such things w/o diffs, I'm certainly open to changes. Anyway, I was more pointing you toward the bottom of the essay - the part on desirable outcomes. The last line in particular - the least sanctions necessary.--v/r - TP 23:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/DeCSS haiku

Kevin, you mentioned that you'd be looking for sources to better support the ALT1 hook, which you preferred. The problem here is that there is nothing that directly supports ALT1, and I don't see that hook passing unless something is presented that supports that the haiku's author had those intentions in writing it. Are you still planning to come up with these sources and add them to the article? If not, then I think we'd better proceed without, which means something like an ALT2 hook or a different one entirely. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Hi @BlueMoonset: - unfortunately this hit at a super rushed time for me, so I haven't had time to do so yet. I'll dig through my DeCSS related materials this afternoon (oddly enough, I do have a giant archive of DeCSS related stuff,) and see if I can find anything. I'll poke back if I can't (which is sadly not unlikely.) Sorry for the delayed reply, the last two weeks have been.. just... boom. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Protection of Russell Targ

Russell Targ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is full protection needed? The edit warring is mainly done by anons, and SPAs. Could you consider semi-protection instead? Thanks. Cwobeel (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Hi @Cwobeel: - the FP wasn't actually originally done by me, but by Tparis, though I extended it. There were some autoconfirmed accounts involved in the ruckus, however, and I'd rather temporarily FP a page than block extra people. Once stuff is apparently calmer, I'll drop it down to semi, almost certainly before the three days have elapsed. In the larger scope of things, even if it does last the whole three days (which it almost certainly won't,) having minor errors in an encyclopedia article for a few days isn't a huge deal. I'm currently intending to leave the article semied for at least a week or two beyond when FP elapses because the offsite canvassing looks decently substantial. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Makes sense, thank you. Cwobeel (talk) 22:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

You probably ought to unblock Torgownik. I don't think he understood why his canvassing would be a problem, he is basically a newbie and we should also remember that he's past the first flush of youth. We need to apply a light touch in damping the issue down, and use initially short blocks but potentially escalating. In particular I think we should not block for anything where he has not been unambiguously warned, ideally with a full account of why something is wrong, rather than a short template. It' s very important not only to be fair, but also to be seen to be fair. He is part of a community some of whose members are given to paranoid conspiracist ravings, and we don't want to fuel their paranoia any more than we must. Guy (Help!) 11:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Hi @JzG:, you're probably right. I try to provide personalized detailed block messages for every not completely obvious block I made, but I failed to do so in this case. I also wouldn't hand out a week for canvassing of this sort alone, even if it was annoying - he was also socking (by editing through an IP and his main account at the same time,) editwarring, making a legal threat (which he claims wasn't one, but sure reads like one,) and disruptively editing his own page. I'll unblock him shortly, with a more full explanation of why I initially blocked him, and an explanation of steps he can take to avoid getting reblocked. Kevin Gorman (talk)

Best wishes

Hey Kevin, I just saw your message at ENI. I'm so sorry to hear that you are under the weather, and I wish you a rapid and happy recovery. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Trypto. Concussion six days ago, and I've slowly been returning to normal/being able to act like a real person again. Hopefully the trend continues. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from User:Ms.Murphy Brown/sandbox. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 123chess456 (talk) 23:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Could you link me to the relevant project page? 123chess456 (talk) 23:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
@123chess456: - You can see what courses any editor is enrolled in by looking at their contributions - it's listed at the top. In the meanwhile, don't revert edits that I've made to the sandboxes of students enrolled in courses that I am a part of. It's disruptive, especially in the time period leading up to the point where students are expected to begin submitting their work. If you're curious: I removed the sandbox template because it contains a big green tempting button to submit the sandbox to AfC, which is not the process we want students using. Since you're active on MRM issues, it would probably be less weird looking for all involved if you didn't follow my contributions to non-MRM related areas. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I didn't know you could check using contributions, and I thought the removing of the sandbox tags was some sort of mistake. 123chess456 (talk) 23:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi - @123chess456: - It's actually something I'm hoping to implement on a broader scale in the future, probably by replacing the standard sandbox template with a student-specific sandbox template. Student projects pretty much categorically don't end up going through AfC because the process is heavily backlogged, doesn't need the extra work, and can't guarantee a review by the time students approach their deadlines anyway. For the class in question in this instances, we had students working in both individual sandboxes on their parts of articles (where their contributions didn't look anything at all like an article,) as well as communal sandboxes. Unfortunately, enough people found the green button in the standard sandbox template inviting enough to push that we had more than a couple students push it - which confused both the students in question and the AfC reviewers. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lynne Tirrell may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • that its power to license socially damaging inferences is more significant and more insidious) than the performative action of hurling it.<ref name=apacsw/> Tirrell uses the tools of

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of Harvard University people may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


Survey for editors who mentor newcomer

Dear Wikipedia Ambassador,

I am seeking input on your experience as a mentor to new Wikipedians. This survey is designed to provide insight for the development of a new mentorship support tool on Wikipedia. If you have a moment, please take this survey, it should not take more than 10 minutes of your time to complete.

https://syracuseuniversity.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_4V2SSrhU2NFOVAV

Also, if you are able to, I would greatly appreciate it if you would send the following survey to the mentee you worked with:

https://syracuseuniversity.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_4V1quUdMZ1By3Ah

Thank you in advance for your participation, Gabriel Mugar 13:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

A suggestion

Don't go to ANI with this. It's a bit annoying, but will only bring more drama and likely result in.. nothing. I've seen much worse, that was completely ignored (or, rather, that had no beneficial result). Argue content, argue policy, but it's probably not worth arguing behavior there anymore (mea culpa, yadayada, but I'm trying to move on).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, it'll be rather annoying, and will definitely bring more drama to it... but given past experiences I'm fairly certain it'll also result in action being taken. I don't really want to go to ANI with anything ever - but Alf's behavior has essentially disrupted the page in question to the point where no useful discussion can occur. I don't view it as an awesome situation when one editor blocks all useful content and policy discussion from occuring on a page. A funny sidenote: I literally don't care what state the page got protected in, and was almost tempted to inappropriately edit through protection to restore the state I don't like just to put that complaint to rest. I think you're going quite the right way with trying to enumerate the inclusion criteria for the list and then decide from there, I'm just a bit tired with Alf lying. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
to be fair I think in one diff you did threaten to get alf blocked. Anyway your choice, we'll do a post mortem afterwards to see if you were right or I was. I am unlikely to participate... --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I didn't threaten to get him blocked for starting a new section as he stated, I suggested that someone block him if he continued to be horrendously disruptive to the talk page. There's a biiiiiiig difference between starting a new topical section and starting a new silly nine section faux-RfC or making another half dozen pointy edit requests :) Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Mate ... Wikisource!

Ten hail Marys or whatever you do to recompense your sins. Sumanah's talk is perfect fodder for Wikisource as it fits within the scope, and it can have both the audio and video linked easily. Never forget your sister site(s). Oh, now, forgiven on this occasion, just be rebuked, no need for further flagellation. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Billinghurst: - It'll be there soon :) unfortunately I've had very limited internet access since the conference (I didn't actually even see the signpost piece post-copyediting before it went up, haha. Thanks for the suggestion. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I did it, then had an unfortunate and unexpected separation from internet, and a string of other pieces of my normality. I hate it when life hiccups. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

University photo use

Please see Talk:St._Mary's_College_of_Maryland#Pix_size after viewing the article first. I was trying to find them a good example of using photo in an HE article. couldn't do it Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

  • @Smallbones: - I'd never actualy thought very much about pic placement in university articles before, but you're right, a lot of them are less than awesome. Oxford University strikes as being one of the better ones I've stumbled across so far. I have a feeling this is one of the areas where we'll suddenly see a drastic improvement if/when a version of visual editor that can handle complicated WYSIWYG pic stuff without glitching too much is made the default editor. University articles usually seem to be written by passers-by with some connection to the university (though in my experience, rarely directly by their communications people, even though that is frequently suggested,) with relatively knowledge of wikicode... and the way we handle photo placement is even less intuitive than the rest of Mediawiki. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

This Month in Education: June 2014



Headlines
Highlights  · Single page edition

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

If this message is not on your home wiki's talk page, please update your subscription.

Famous

And your picture in the paper and everything. My, my.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

You mean "Providing content not yet found on Wikipedia, in areas that suffer due to our systemic biases, is vital work"? Agree, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Heh, thanks for the note. I wonder how long stuff related to my Berkeley edu work will keep popping up - the groundwork for the LA Times article was done in early April. I'm starting to get excited for the next semester.. it's going to involve more classes, but significantly smaller ones, mostly graduate STEM classes focusing on improving or creating socially significant content that intersects with the areas they are focusing their doctoral work on. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Online Ambassador Question

Hi there I have applied for the Online Ambassador position and user right. After I get 2 endorsements from the education community what is the next step? About how long does it take to receive endorsements? I appreciate your help. AkifumiiTalk 17:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Hi @Akifumii: - it's worth keeping in mind that most education program classes are currently out of session, so most things are running a little bit slower than they typically would. In the past we've had a formal system for pairing up OA's with individual students or particular classes, but we currently don't. Essentially, there's very little that formally being an OA lets you do that you can't do as a simple editor - it's basically just volunteering your time to make sure that the online component of education program classes runs smoothly. It's likely that as the next semester approaches, there will be a number of posts from campus ambassadors or instructors at WP:ENB requesting help - you can always offer assistance there, or find a class in need of help through a different manner (from randomly stumbling in to one to just surfing the courses list for people who don't currently have help) and offering your help. Endorsements take a kind of random period of time, but if you don't get two relatively shortly, I'll just look back through your editing history and grant you the userright myself. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • @Kevin Gorman: Thanks. I appreciate your help. Hope to see you around the Education program soon! AkifumiiTalk 15:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • @Kevin Gorman: Hi again. I recently looked at the Wikipedia:Education noticeboard and it seems like my request has been removed from the page. Can you explain what happened by any chance? Thanks. AkifumiiTalk 15:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Hi @Akifumii: - the page is set up to automatically archive any section that hasn't been commented on in a certain number of days, so your section ended up getting archived. I went ahead and flipped the userright on your account to set you as an online volunteer, which will allow you to enroll as an online volunteer in a course etc, though, really, you can pretty much act as an ambassador even without the userright. You're probably already familiar with most stuff covered, but it would be worth taking a look at this when you get the chance. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi there. Thanks so much for your help. Now that I am working with the Education Program, I would like to request the account creator right if possible. I see many other OA's have this and may find it useful to create acounts with no restriction in the future. AkifumiiTalk 22:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi Aki - it's actually not generally a very useful userright for people doing online outreach/support. Most people who have it either have it because of their involvement in the request an account process or because they are involved in doing physical outreach - usually if people involved in online outreach/support end up needing to create more than six accounts per IP per day they can find an admin or account creator to help pretty much instantly if needed. It's mostly useful for in-person outreach events (editathons, in-person assistance to classes, etc,) where people may end up needing to create a bunch of accounts at once. +Accountcreator has significantly more potential for abuse than most other non-admin userrights on ENWP, since it also grants you the ability to override the title blacklist and the ability to override the normal antispoof limits on usernames. Because it comes bundled with those two rights, it's usually handed out fairly conservatively. Since you aren't currently involved in physical outreach and currently have a relatively short editing history, I'm hesitant to grant it to you currently - but if you ever end up needing to create more accounts than normally possible, please feel free to ping me/use the RAC process/pop in to IRC and ask for someone to help you out with it. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @Akifumii: To put a finer point on it, don't be a hat collector. I see from your user page that you're proud of our current hats and that's fine, but this isn't a game. User rights are given when needed, not for self-aggrandizement. You have less than a thousand edits and the edits you have aren't impressive. Only days after registering your account you asked for mass-message sender which doesn't look reasonable to me. You quit your Counter-Vandalism training so that doesn't bode well, either. Participate in the WikiProjects you've already joined, create content, and earn barnstars. When there's a need for you to have a user right then it'll be addressed. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • @Chris troutman: Hi there. I see your perspective. In my opinion, I am not hat collecting, in fact I have no intention of gathering multiple user rights. I am a user who is very enthusiastic about Wikipedia and wanted to dive right in. I got started on some WikiProjects as soon as I joined. I joined WP:Galicia and found that it was inactive and thought that it would be great to have former members join on the project again. I wanted to use the MassMessage tool to send out newsletters etc. to promote this project in particular. I also somewhat regret quitting CVUA and am considering rejoining in the future. My Counter Vandalism skills can always be polished by someone who is more experienced than me. AkifumiiTalk 04:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
@Akifumii: You might consider contacting Jianhui67. He started out like you and has since become an impressive editor. He and I both are graduates of CVUA so we can both vouch for that program. Also, if you would like to be adopted there are mentors that can provide guidance, me included. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
@Chris troutman: I don't know if I have time. I have been considerably busy during these days. Jianhui67 T★C 05:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kevin. I came across your user page, which says that you are interested in helping disclosed paid editors. I have a long track-record for creating GA company/BLP pages on behalf of the article-subject and thought I might take you up on your offer at some point if you're interested. However, I also thought you might have some interest in this project or in helping with Request Edits as it's currently backlogged by six months. CorporateM (Talk) 12:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Oof.. that backlog makes me cringe. I'm sadly still with limited internet access (back in the bay, but Comcast is really Comcasting it up,) but will take a crack at dealing with some of them once I have full internet access again. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
If you and yours really want to eliminate paid COI editing from Wikipedia, six months backlog needs to become six hours, among other things. Not saying it can't be done; realistically, it's going to take WMF's own crew of paid content editors to work on corporate-related stuff that volunteers have no taste for. One of the secrets about paid editing is that topics like those have to be paid, because they tend to be very, very, very boring. best, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
@Carrite: - now where have I ever said I want to eliminate paid COI editing? :) I pretty much agree with most of your post. Large chunks of corporate editing involve boring stuff few volunteers want to touch, but that is significant to the corporations they are about, and potentially significant to our readers. I seriously doubt we'll get good coverage of a lot of this stuff at any point in the near future, and thus I explicitly support disclosed paid editing. For that matter, I support it being done in a more aggressive style than Jimbo/Bill Beutler/CorporateM/most other disclosed paid editors floating around - I don't think we have the volunteer bandwidth to make the brightline rule anything near enforceable, and since we have the ability to both block and embarrass the hell out of paid editors/PR groups that step over the line, I don't have an issue with disclosed paid editors making direct edits to article space. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Well... I think spending a few hours managing Request Edits can provide a lot of perspective. Each situation is different and I think needs to be handled individually. COI participation is discouraged because the editor is not likely to be neutral (whether they are ethical or not they are still unlikely to be neutral), but it is not forbidden because sometimes there are errors, the company is treated unfairly, or they are neutral-enough to be productive. Each situation needs to be handled responsibly and individually. CorporateM (Talk) 19:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I've helped more than a few COI editors, just not through that board :). I actually disagree with the statement that COI editors are unlikely to be neutral - in my experience, many COI editors do a better job of being relatively neutral than many ordinary newcomers. Neutrality being far more of a process than an outcome, they certainly need a counterweight in the form of other eyes on articles they touch, but pretty much everyone needs that, even those aren't being paid to edit (with the possible slight exception of someone who takes it upon themselves to do something like catalog every species in the genus Clavaria - all inherently notable and pretty much none are controversial, so the possibility of lack of neutrality is minimized (except in terms of the language literature they are using - often, different language papers on the same species describe different ranges, etc.)
Stephen Hauser (where I still need to do some cleanup) is an example of an article written primarily by someone with a COI and good intentions - she wrote it after he was appointed to a presidential commission so that people googling for him could get some info about him, since UCSF didn't have a working faculty bio page at that time. I full-heartedly believe that most CoI editors are well meaning, and that most who are aware we strive for neutrality strive for neutrality as well - and as a whole, do a better job than an average cohort of new editors at it. I'd much rather work on cleaning up minor issues in a thousand articles like Hauser than the type of issues that typically show up in 1000 BLPs created by new users.
The actions of a small number of well motivated COI editors who actively want to game Wikipedia can cause a hell of a lot of damage, but on average I don't think that COI editors are especially worse than most other cohorts of editors we have, and think that except at the extreme of the tail, the work of COI editors - even bad ones - can be dealt with relatively effectively through our normal editing processes (as long as they are working in an area that has other working in it.) I've definitely seen plenty of corporate articles whitewashed by people with COI's, but we also have plenty of problems with nonpaid advocates (often, even on the same pages.) One reason why I like the Donovan House Statement - since people are publicly committing to follow it, it raises the publicity pain of future non-compliant actions (and I would be surprised if a single signing agency wasn't already acutely aware of the publicity pain that screwing with Wikipedia can generate.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting me at Waggener. Sometimes I am like a mother-hen protecting my GA articles from.... everybody with a twitchy finger on the revert button. I have to apologize that this is the first time I am noticing your lengthy note above. I think neither of us is necessarily incorrect, but rather it is the balance of different viewpoints, created from different experiences, that create a positive middle-ground. I am exposed to a lot of covert paid editing practices that gives me a jaded point-of-view. + I spend quite a bit of time cleaning up promotion, which makes me frustrated with those it originates from. To be honest however, editors insisting on adding unfair negative material tend to be more persistent than paid editors. CorporateM (Talk) 03:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

@CorporateM:... Heh, trust me... I've dealt with a pretty ridiculous number of shitty covert paid editors. Although a lot of it was handled through email, I think I'm responsible for north of 400 blocks of paid editing accounts either directly or indirectly, including a lot that were not related to Wiki-PR. One day I need to finish up and publish somewhere off-wiki the infographic of PR agencies directly tied to lame paid editing practices that I have somewhere, just haven't had time yet... I think the last time I poked at it I was tracking forty or fifty. I've just also run in to a ton of paid editors of one sort or another who didn't engage in lame practices - like the person who wrote the article I linked above. I don't actually even remember why Waggener was on my watchlist originally, but took out that line because for a firm of that size that has generated that much coverage in various places over the years it seemed to be quite a bit of undue weight to mention that in the lede. I find the number of times I end up removing negative information about companies I'm not necessarily especially find of kind of comical sometimes. It's being worked on by someone from Bechtel in conjunction with other volunteers at this point, but for one of the most amazing examples of a corporate hit job I've come across, take a look at what the article about Bechtel used to look like. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I have a COI with another construction company Fluor Corporation, which is currently waiting for a GA reviewer, so I won't get involved in the article about their competitor. However, I will make a general point that I think that article represents in a slight way. Promotional articles become magnets for excessive controversies to "balance" the page and overly-critical articles become magnets for poor COI editing. The result is that we have a lot of articles that are half-promotion and half-attack content. Like this one I came across at ANI. In some cases, a very negative or very positive article is actually justified and the page needs to be protected in that state, but in most cases, the harder one side pushes, the harder the other side pushes back. Therefore, it is not a good strategic decision for marketers to push, unless you are confident the article will not attract anyone to push back.
For the sake of conversation though, is it accurate to say you are assuming bad faith regarding that particular article? I am curious, because it looks like about average for a COI editor to me... CorporateM (Talk) 04:43, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Do you mean w/r/t the Bechtel article in the version that I linked? There was certainly bad faith involved with the diff that I linked. It was a 40kb long article, and about 39kb of the article was dedicated to portraying the company in about the most negative light possible. A company like Bechtel certainly deserves a pretty hefty criticism section, but there's rarely a good reason for a company with a more than hundred year history to have an article where literally 97% of it is negative. I hate to Godwin myself, but the Bechtel article in the state I linked quite literally had a larger portion of the article dedicated to making Bechtel look bad than the articles about any dictator or oppressive regime I can think of offhand spend on criticism of their respective subjects. That diff probably comes close to being the most one sided page I've come across on Wikipedia - if it was a BLP and that was the only version of it around it would've been G12 worthy. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Hey, I'm glad to see people using the COI EditNotice template I made a long time ago; that's really picking up. I'm not really comfortable continuing to talk about a clients' competitor's article, but I think maybe you provided me the wrong link? This is the one you sent me. CorporateM (Talk) 05:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
The first few paragraphs look reasonable, and a little bit towards the end of the article looks promotional, but, though 97% might be a bit on the high side... look at the middle of the article. The 1940's section basically describes Bechtel as wartime profiteers more destructive to the American war effort than any act of sabotage, the next 40s/50s section isn't actually too bad, the 60s/70s section focuses significantly on installing a nuclear reactor vessel backwards (which I must admit is a rather funny though rather serious error) as well as some other not total flamebait stuff, and the next *fourteen* consecutive sections focus solely on allegations of misconduct by Bechtel. There really aren't too many other articles I can think of where something like 17 out of 25 content sections (and 17 out of 22 sections with actual substantial non-list content in them) are significantly negative. If you ever end up with a client with a similarly bad article, drop me a link to it and I'll be more than happy to kill most of the article until it can be rebuilt to a reasonable state, especially if it's a BLP. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
This is along those lines. A substantial portion of the entire article use to be like that (filled with primary sources, blogs and op-eds to make it a slam piece). However, I think this is the last remaining section from the old "Criticisms" section that's still like that. I have a COI. CorporateM (Talk) 20:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Without looking back in the history of the McKinsey article, I do agree with you that the section you've highlighted has some problems. At the same time, McKinsey has a long enough corporate history, that quite a bit of criticism should be included in to their final article - it just shouldn't be *that* kind of criticism. McKinsey has certainly experienced it's fair share of criticism in well-regarded outlets such as the NYT, etc - and that's the kind of stuff that belongs in the article. If you'd like, I'd be quite happy to integrate well-sourced and balanced criticism in to the article about McKinsey, either after it goes live, or while it's even still in your draft space. One of the interesting things to me is that many large corporations *realize* that have done stuff wrong, and don't want those things suppressed or hidden - they just want to their Wikipedia articles to present an adequate evaluation of what actually happened (which many of them currently don't) - and that's the kind of text I'm good at writing. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, if you scroll down on the link I provided, there is an alternate version I offered that is more balanced and uses proper sources. I would say there are a lot of "controversies" rather than "criticisms". They are involved in some pretty heavy topics, such as international environmental policies, which leads to a lot of debate about their methodologies, etc.. They also have a very complex reputation regarding their corporate culture (scroll up to see that). CorporateM (Talk) 15:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

generally...

You should not empty categories that are under discussion, but should feel free to add additional elements to the category. The scope of the VAM category, like the VAW category, is for adults and children. see [1] for a state department brief on trafficking of men; in some countries, such as Sri Lanka, boys are actually more likely to be trafficked into prostitution that girls. In this domain it is best to not make assumptions, the world is a complex place... I think once this discussion is over, we should have a broader discussion about the use of both the VAM and VAW categories, and come up with inclusion criteria for both that are fair and balanced. The current status quo is, if a woman is killed, it can be placed in "violence against women", but if a man is killed, people get twisted in knots screaming "it's not gender-based violence" blah blah blah. My point is, we need to be consistent. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

There's absolutely no reason why categories that are under discussion should not have items removed from them. It's bordering on preposterous to suggest that it's okay to add items, but not to delete items - especially when the deletion of items is in line with the consensus of the last CfD. We don't need to operate on some sort of artificial equivalency, we need to operate on the basis of what reliable sources say (as is supported by every single content policy we have.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion which says "Unless the change is non-controversial (such as vandalism or a duplicate), please do not remove the category from pages before the community has made a decision." I'm not arguing for artificial equivalency, I'm arguing that we should apply inclusion criteria in a similar fashion, which isn't the case now.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
(cont'd)You even have some people arguing that there's no such thing as violence committed against men because they are men (even though plenty of literature says exactly that). My point is, we need to be consistent, and the hysteria this category is caused is completely undue.
You may be interested in this recent report, which looks at the scale of sexual violence against men and boys globally: [2] [3] - it found in some refugee populations in DRC, 1 out of 3 men had experienced sexual violence. This is not some historical oddity from a million years ago, this is today, this report was released last MONTH. One of their recommendations is "We recommend changes that move beyond regressive gender assumptions, which can harm both women and men" - and these same gender assumptions we see played out in the category discussion, where people dismiss violence against men as propaganda, etc.
As further evidence of the problems of POV in this space, there are a number of editors who take delight in removing items from the Violence against men and Misandry categories, but who pay no heed whatsoever to the Violence against women and Misogyny categories, each of which has 10x-100x the contents, many of them equally dubious. If those editors were truly editing from a neutral POV ,they would apply the same criteria and empty those categories as well, but they don't. I actually do, I have both added things, and deleted things, from VAW, and it bugs the hell out of them, that someone might be removing something from VAW, but they have no qualms about removing everything they can from VAM and arguing about it for months. You may not see the double standard at play because you are somewhat bought into a particular POV, but it's there and I can see it quite clearly. I'm appealing to your intelligence here, to recognize what is going on is a smear campaign against me (a number of those !voting are those I have recently had disputes with about this category, so they aren't coming to this from a neutral POV, they are emotional), that is unjust and improper and NOT improving the encyclopedia; deleting a whole space of human experience - that has a lot of potential to expand, by the way - because of some nitpicks over a few contents we disagree on, or because some random editor who has never met me or interacted with me besmirches me and accuses me of MRA propaganda pushing is the height of idiocy, and I wish you'd see through it and come around to support keeping the category with a broad consensus discussion AFTERWARDS (not in that snake pit) around inclusion criteria. Thanks for listening,--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi @Obiwankenobi: I don't need links to refs to know that violence against men and boys exists - I know it does. I own and have read almost every book published in the last thirty years about domestic violence as well as men's movement and the construction of masculinities. I've also own and have read huge swathes of material about essentially every postcolonial conflict to have occurred in the modern time period, and many others besides. Besides that, although I obviously can't use my personal word as a source on Wikipedia, I've personally experienced gendered violence, more than once. I'll fix this myself eventually, once I'm sure you've had time to see this and once I figure out where best to insert it - but I find it pretty sad that throughout our entire article tree and cat tree related to the use of child soldiers there is no cat related to violence against children attached anywhere.
That said, the fact that someone chooses to work on one cat tree or article group and not another isn't evidence of any sort of bias - if you look at my work on articles about fungus, you would notice that I work primarily on articles about macrofungus. In fact, I'm not sure I've ever even edited an article about a microfungus on Wikipedia. That's not evidence that I hate microfungus - I just find articles about macrofungus more interesting and rewarding to work on. Similarly, I've worked on many more articles about women philosophers than male philosophers - that's again not because I hate men who do philosophy, but because I find articles about women philosophers more rewarding to work on (primarily because they are so poorly covered.)
Your assertion that people voting to get rid of the category are not coming from a neutral point of view doesn't mean much - Wikipedia editors are not required to come from a neutral point of view, rather they are expected to edit towards a neutral point of view - and that's using Wikipedia's definition of NPOV, which differs so significantly from the common understanding of a neutral point of view that it's almost funny. You also really hurt your case when you do stuff like accuse people you disagree with of disagreeing with you because they are simply excessively emotional. That's an allegation that has, for many years, been levied almost exclusively towards women in order to silence them. Whether or not that is how you intend to use it, that is how it will come off to a large number of people who read what you write - and it will undermine significantly any valid point you are trying to make.
Some of your recent edits also look really silly to outside observers. The article about forced prostitution talks about the forced prostitution of adult women, and the forced prostitution of children (of both genders.) The one major group it doesn't talk about: forced prostitution of adult men. Are some adult men forced in to prostitution? Yes, of course - but it's both an absolutely tiny minority of those who are forced in to prostitution overall, and the forced prostitution of adult men is literally mentioned nowhere in the article. Removing the violence against women cat and replacing it with gender-based violence and child sexual abuse as cats as you did here absolutely looks like an attempt to minimize violence against women. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Kevin, I was the one who added it to vAW in the first place so relax please. The VAW and VAM cat was added because we do not have a VAChildren AND because the scope of VAM includes VABoys who are definitely included in the article. In any case we categorize articles based on their topic not purely on their content - thus an article about a female novelist that doesn't mention she's a noted woman novelist can still be added to that category. In the same way, even if the forced prostitution article doesn't directly mention the specifically the prostitution of boys, it is indeed part of the topic of forced prostitution thus that category belongs. Finally you should absolutely not remove an article from a category up for deletion, esp if you have been reverted. You keep forgetting that vAm isn't just for violence against adult males, in this case there is a clear and obvious gender aspect to this particular form of violence and removing it from the VAM category is directly suggesting to boys who are prostituted that they don't matter. Categories aren't about majority rule, and VAM does not diminish VAW. Anyway we can continue that discussion at the relevant talk page im re-adding it in the meantime since the edit remained uncontested and thus has silent consensus. As for your point about fungus, you're missing the point Kevin. There's a dual standard at work here. If an editor is neutral they will apply the same criteria across either category. If for example satire is not allowed in VAM category then it should not be allowed in the VAW category. But there are editors whose only purpose is seemingly to minimize violence against men by trying to empty the category or delete the whole thing and that is the very essence of POV editing. If I attempt to make edits to the VAW category applying similar criteria I am accused of misogyny. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
This is only a partial response because I don't have time to type up a full one right now but wanted to respond to two things. First, your edits to the article have silent consensus? That's bullshit and you know it. "Consensus" doesn't exist when the only two editors talking about something are taking opposing viewpoints. You should literally be embarrassed for restoring an edit on the grounds that it represents the "consensus version" when you're one of two editors who have commented and the other one disagreed with you. Second: yes, you were originally the person who added VAM and VAW to the article to replace GBV. You also removed VAW, and replaced it with the generic GBV again after I left it catted as violence against women and as child sexual abuse, which is what is talked about in the article. That absolutely looks like you were upset the article wasn't catted as VAM, and decided to make a WP:POINTy edit to remove the VAW cat from a page that you admit you explicitly believe should have the VAW cat on it. Given your pattern of behavior ("the people who disagree with me are overly emotional, I better make sure forced prostitution isn't described as violence against women,") you should not be surprised that some people think you are acting in a misogynist fashion. (N.b. doing something that is misogynist is not necessarily the same thing as being a misogynist.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
no Kevin, my goal was to just go back to the status quo before I started messing with it pending further discussion. And yes silent consensus is consensus, especially after a month on a reasonably well watched article. Let me ask you this - how many articles have you added to the violence against men category? Zero? Exactly. How many articles have you removed from the VAW category? Also zero? that's the def of POV editing - you're trying to gut it. If you applied a similar gutting to the VAW category at least it would be consistent but you didn't so it's not. You had a big issue with inconsistency but still haven't dealt with the fact that the exact same inconsistency applies to male-centered articles under the VAW category! I've both added and removed things from both categories, and done so in a neutral fashion, some of my additions were disputed but that's life. If a category exists we should find relevant things and add to it. There are I would guess several hundred articles that are only in the VAW category, but people have a crisis if there are a few that are in both categories. It's not NPOV... There is an explicit effort here to limit coverage of violence against men and any trick in the book is fair including topic banning a good faith editor (I do appreciate your vote of support btw). All that said if the category is kept the next step will be to have a larger conversation perhaps at the gender board on inclusion criteria for both and then we should be able to reach a good consensus.-Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
nevermind that. BUT - I didn't call people who disagree with me emotional. I meant the people lining up at ANI to put fuel on my bonfire and doing their best to kill the VAM category were to a large extent people who I've recently been in disputes with so they are clearly emotionally involved and not judging me from a detached POV because they want revenge or their pound of flesh (you're not in that box btw). I've never seen a valid and totally reasonable category deleted because x had a dispute with Y over inclusion of one or two things within. I really wish you'd reconsider your vote and then work with me to build up these categories rather than destroy them. I've been gathering sources on VAM and plan to draft an article your assistance would be welcome.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
This is again only a partial response because I'm primarily doing other things currently. Please don't take this as me suggesting I found this to be the only thing you said worth responding to - I really am going to come back at some point later tonight or tomorrow and respond to the rest of your points. I'm going to go ahead and quote the portion of your comment that you removed while I was typing a response, since a lot of my response was specifically related to that comment. I'll use a blockquote etc so people won't mistake it for an active comment from you. And naturally, all rights to the comment go to User:Obiwankenobi, with the required link for attribution to fulfill the terms of cc-by-sa here.

and seriously drop the misogynist language. Did I call you a misandrist because you removed rape from Violence against men? No. I don't think that is a misandrist edit. I just think you don't understand how the category structure is set up.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, Obi, you are using textbook examples of misogynistic language. I mean that you are literally using language that is nearly universally considered to have strongly misogynistic connotations. If I felt like taking the time to dig through Google Books or my closet, I could completely literally find a textbook describing some of the language you use as misogynistic. That doesn't mean I think you're a misogynist - I don't. If I did, I wouldn't bother engaging with you at length, and would not have voted against topic banning you. But all else aside, there is value in you being aware of the fact that you are using language pretty much universally considered to have misogynistic implications if you are currently unaware of that fact. To use a ridiculously hyperbolic example, if I still lived in Virginia and one of my Sámi friends with no prior exposure to American culture was preparing his Halloween costume and wanted to be a ghost, I'd strongly advise him against dressing up in a sheet and a pointy white hat.
And by the way... I've only removed the cat VAM from two articles and three cats. Ever. In a total of less than fifteen minutes of editing. If you want to argue a pattern, you're going to have to find a stronger one than that. As a comparison, I've spent several dozen hours cleaning up articles about Scientologists to be compliant with WP:BLP, and I don't even like Scientology. And yes, silent consensus is bullshit. That's not a terribly well watched article and your change had not been in place for very long. When you make a change, someone disagrees with it, and no one else comments, you can't claim that there's some silent consensus supporting you. Even if you could presume your change had consensus before anyone challenged it, WP:CCC would still apply, and as soon as someone challenged it, you would no longer have consensus. It would be a different situation if there had been a dozen previous long discussions about the change that all agreed with you, but 'silent consensus' disappears the second someone steps up to say they don't agree with you. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
in which diff did I say something that is textbook misogynistic - what words specifically? In any case I removed that quote on purpose. Misogynist seems to be thrown around here with abandon at anyone who doesn't conform to their particular view of feminism or who disagrees with X about topic Y re:women. For example if you have the temerity to suggest that Hillary Clinton's article should be titled 'Hillary Clinton' you will be called a misogynist. Or, as you stated above, if you classify (actually, re-classify) an article that has been categorized as gender-based violence for years and stick it back in that category pending discussion you also are told you're being a misogynist. I diffused an article about rape from VAW to the subcategory Rape - the sort of standard diffusion we do all the time - a diffusion which editors at a categorization board agreed with - and I was called a misogynist for that. It's completely undue: misogyny is hatred of women. I actually think feminists have made a huge fuckup by expanding misogyny away from hated of women and into 'anything you say about women that I disagree with' or 'any sort of discrimination however slight against women' - it has actually weakened the power of the term and doesn't allow us to distinguish between a misogynist rant by Elliot Rodgers and a wikipedian tweaking categories. If we're both in the same box then wtf? As to silent consensus I didn't explain myself so allow me - what I meant was, my edit had silent consensus. You came along a fair time later and disputed it. In that case IMHO the edit should stay pending discussion - so I didn't mean I still had consensus, I meant per BRD the old consensus was established and pending a new one it should stay.Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Swazi

Hi Kevin,

Could you take a look here?

Thanks — kwami (talk) 01:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Hi @Kwamikagami: - between Wikiconference USA and some issues that required me to return to San Diego for a while, I've both been without internet for a while, and not been in Berkeley for a while. Once I get back in a week or so, I'll look in to finding it for you. Since if it's only a physical holding I'll be limited in what I can practically copy to pass on, can you shoot me a list of the parts of greatest interest to you? Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
A list of all consonants, maybe with sample words, would be my first priority. Vowels and tone would also be nice.
Thanks! No rush; I'm busy with other things right now too. — kwami (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I should be able to get the relevant parts to you within the next couple weeks. There may be a nominal cost associated with it, but it should be small enough that I can just eat it. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Even just taking manual notes for the consonants would be a help. — kwami (talk) 03:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi @Kwamikagami: - I should be able to actually (for real) this time get them to you within the next several weeks. Berkeley has awkward issues involving status and access to research resources, and my fairly rapid transition from student to contract to staff confused the hell out of their system, but should be resolved forreal soon. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

war warning - Androside

You are at war on Androcide - warning

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Androcide&action=history

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as an edit-warring violation. Mosfetfaser (talk) 06:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Congratulations @Mosfetfaser:, on having the worst understanding of 3rr or gaming the system/editwarring that anyone has presented on my page in quite some time :) Four reverts in 48 hours with active talk page engagement is not much a sign of anything other than more talk page engagement being a good idea. Also, you may want to install spell check in your browser. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
You are at war there - removal removal removal and removal - Mosfetfaser (talk) 06:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
There's a pretty good reason why you aren't in a position to enforce our editwarring policies, luckily. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Article has been protected - for warring https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Androcide&diff=prev&oldid=616491144 something you have been a major player in Mosfetfaser (talk) 07:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar of support

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Although it seems clear to me that others, including many administrators, do not appreciate your toil in cleaning up some of the mess related to MRM advocacy, I have to say that there are those of us who do notice and appreciate it. jps (talk) 12:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I will concur. Kevin, you know as well as I do that there was no other way to close that mess. Our job is to determine consensus and there was most certainly no consensus to indef yet. I have already warned them for their behaviour post-closing, and will block myself if they continue. My close also reinforced the restrictions on the article, and they need to stay. I know you're pissed at the bullshit, but stomping away in a huff, undoing restrictions, and stuff like that is merely WP:DIVA-ish, and will lead to the community being less-responsive next time. Take the high road :-) You're doing good work protecting the crap from the crap the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
@EatsShootsAndLeaves: - if I can be accused of stomping away in a huff, I certainly can't be accused of stomping away in an unwarranted one. I am one of the last long-term good faith editors to leave the area or nearly do so. Take a look at the editing patterns of every editor who pays attention to our content and behavioral policies on that page, and you'll notice something: almost all of them have significantly reduced or stopped editing the general content area. Why? Because putting up with endless amounts of shit in hopes of getting an article that is only mediocre instead of god-awful is only worth it for so long. That period of time has obviously varied for all editors involved, but seeing those empowered to take action against disruptive SPA trolls refuse to do so pretty much did it for me. I may return to it eventually, if the community ever starts taking reasonable action in the area - but that's not something I see happening.
And yeah, there were two perfectly valid ways to handle ending the thread that would've resulted in something productive coming from it. You could have done the (rather painful, I readily admit) work of evaluating each !vote and the context it was made in, while disregarding !votes coming in from obviously non-policy based reasons or motivations, and paying attention to the context each editor was coming from. Closing that mess which was close to a 2/3 vote in favor of tbanning even before discounting votes with shitty rationales or that came from people with 200 votes - which doesn't appear to be what you did. Every uninvolved administrator familiar with the topic area voted in favor of a tban, and an overwhelming majority of !votes that carried any sort of detailed rationales that displayed familiarity with the situation voted in favor of a tban. In that situation, closing the thread by enacting some sort of tban is not a supervote. You could have also ended the thread with a 'holy shit this is messy but something is obviously wrong here' note, and used the discretionary abilities already explicitly authorized by the community to take action short of a full tban to address the situation (and no, warning someone with that many sanctions already in place is not action.)
The article sanctions serve literally no purpose. The last meaningful action taken under them was *last year* in a topic area that sees violations on at least a bi-weekly basis. With multiple previous requests for uninvolved admins to pay attention to the area having failed to produce any benefit, it's clear that they are pointless. Pointless bureaucracy is bad and should be avoided.
The community can't be meaningfully less responsive the next time MRM related shit comes up. It's already been so unresponsive as to either greatly limit the editing of good faith editors in the entire field, and have more than a couple leave it completely. The world doesn't deserve to have to read the shitty articles that Wikipedia's failure to produce a remotely tolerable editing environment will result in, but the fact that it's going to happen was a predictable and avoidable occurrence that any uninvolved administrator was fully capable of preventing. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for your efforts to prevent inappropriate promotion of men's rights agenda on Wikipedia. I've personally seen this occur on multiple articles and witnessed the resulting disruption. I agree this drives away editors and reduces article quality. Your efforts to bring attention to this problem are appreciated. Thanks:) --BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)|}

Nosepea68

Hey Kevin, don't want to step on your toes, but I've extended the block on this WP:SPA user to indef. We have to put the kibosh on these continued BLP vios and edit warring on that particular article/subject. Dreadstar ☥ 21:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Hi @Dreadstar: - no worries whatsoever, I almost did so myself, and would've if there wasn't an active discussion about the user. I think there's pretty much no chance that Wikipedia will be worse off for the change. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

This Month in Education: July 2014



To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed in the archives.

14:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

If this message is not on your home wiki's talk page, update your subscription.

Media Viewer RfC case opened

You were recently recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 26, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Before adding evidence please review the scope of the case. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Hi Kevin,

I'm a very, very new to wikipedia user (I'm still not quite sure how to use it and am frankly not terribly interested in learning -- super luddite here).

I just want to thank you for your commitment to improving the representation of women philosophers on wikipedia. I was appalled to learn that Susanna Siegel didn't have an entry (i'm a phd student in philosophy myself, and my work concerns Siegel's work).

If you are looking for other prominent women philosophers to make entries for, I could certainly give you some suggestions, though I'm guessing you already have plenty in that way.

thanks again, Plnjne

Plnjne (talk) 21:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC draft principles & findings

Hello. This is a courtesy note that the draft findings and principles in the Media Viewer RfC case have now been posted. The drafters of the proposed decision anticipate a final version of the PD will be posted after 11 August. You are welcome to give feedback on the workshop page. For the Committee, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:JSTOR access

Hello, WP:The Wikipedia Library has record of you being approved for access to JSTOR through the TWL partnership described at WP:JSTOR . You should have recieved a Wikipedia email User:The Interior or User:Ocaasi sent several weeks ago with instructions for access, including a link to a form collecting information relevant to that access. Please find that email, and follow those instructions. If you were not approved, did not recieve the email, or are having some other concern or question, please respond to this message at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved. Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Note: You are recieving this message from an semi-automatically generated list. If you think you were incorrectly contacted, make sure to note that at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved.

Media Viewer RfC arbitration case - extension of closure dates

Hello, you are receiving this message because you have commented on the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case. This is a courtesy message to inform you that the closure date for the submission of evidence has been extended to 17 August 2014 and the closure date for workshop proposals has been extended to 22 August 2014, as has the expected date of the proposed decision being posted. The closure dates have been changed to allow for recent developments to be included in the case. If you wish to comment, please review the evidence guidance. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

This Month in Education: August 2014

Updates, reports, news, and stories about how Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects are used in education around the world.

Media Viewer RfC arbitration case - motion to suspend case

You are receiving this message as you have either commented on a case page or are named as a party to the case. A motion has been proposed to suspend the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case for a maximum of 60 days due to recent developments. If you wish to comment regarding the motion there is a section on the proposed decision talk page for this. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 02:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm baaaack!

Hey all - after a prolonged absence (in large part due to a five week long stay at the Mayo Clinic, heh, I should be back and editing again within the next several days. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 12:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

That's great to hear, Kevin! Looking forward to seeing you pop up on my watchlist again. Re Ihardlythinkso, I suppose it could be because people might have been wondering why he rather suddenly stopped editing often. But then again, maybe we're supposed to lose all human empathy when editing here. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Ding ding ding, Ed wins the prize. IHTS, why do you even have my userpage watchlisted? All you do is try to troll, to the point that an arb previously said they'd flat out block you if you posted on my talk page within a certain timeframe (which has now, sadly, expired.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

This Month in Education: September 2014

Updates, reports, news, and stories about how Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects are used in education around the world.

You're invited! Litquake Edit-a-thon in San Francisco

You are invited! → Litquake Edit-a-thon → See you there!
  In the area? You're invited to
   San Francisco Meetup # 22
  Date: October 11, 2014
  Time: 1-5 pm
  Place: 149 New Montgomery Street, 6th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105
  prev: Meetup 21 - next: Meetup 23 | All SF meetups & events

The Edit-a-thon will occur in parallel with Litquake, the San Francisco Bay Area's annual literature festival. Writers from all over the Bay Area and the world will be in town during the nine day festival, so the timing is just right for us to meetup and create/translate/expand/improve articles about literature and writers. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome. This event will include new editor training. RSVP →here←. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Teacher in Sweden needs help

Hello, Kevin! I see that you are active with the campus ambassadors program. I'm wondering if you can help a user named User:Karin Steen, a teacher in Sweden, who has been trying to set up something to use Wikipedia in her classes. I encountered her when she launched this into mainspace as an article. It was obviously not an article and got moved to a draft. But apparently what she had in mind was some kind of overall structure to which her students could link while working in their sandboxes. She then asked me on my talk page for help, but I haven't a clue. Do you want to work with her? If you don't have time or inclination, just let me know and I will ask someone else. Thanks! --MelanieN (talk) 14:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually I see that you have not been highly active at Wikipedia lately, so I will ask someone else. Thanks anyhow! --MelanieN (talk) 18:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Kayak.com

Hi, what's the reason for the COI tag on Kayak.com? Thanks. Evan

  • The article has in the past been puffed up by Wiki-PR (Priceline admitted it.) A number of months ago (I missed it at the time,) another single purpose account showed up to puff up the article. The company has been involved in at least one major controversy that currently is only covered in a positive light in the article, and it looks like there are a few other controversies not mentioned. With its past confirmed paid advocacy and present apparent suspected paid advocacy, the tag seemed appropriate. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Franek K. AE

Since you're the one who placed the discretionary sanction notification on this user's page and imposed some kind of a 1RR restriction on articles relating to Silesian language/dialect [4].  Volunteer Marek  21:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Hi VM - thanks for the note. I originally put the sanctions in place under one of the arbcom EE cases after consulting with another administrator hoping to avoid just this sort of thing. Unfortunately, looking at the outcome, I'm forced to agree with Sandstein's choice. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Blue Morpho

Hi Kevin, please cleanup this article. You seem to be a frequent editor of this page. The link to the company website should be listed at that, not the SEO text that is in it now. SEO anchor text I am talking about: "Ayahuasca shamanism and spiritual healing center in the heart of the Peruvian Amazon" Please also add some other citations that demonstrate notability. Otherwise I think this entry is headed back to AfD.

Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Hi @Jtbobwaysf:, you can send it back to AfD if you want to, but it will not be deleted. We do not delete articles that are clearly notable simply because they have not been expanded. The Blue Morpho page currently has seven (!!!) separate reliable sources listed in it that talk about its notability in detail, and the vast majority - if not all - of text in the article can be cited to one of the reliable sources included in the page. Being a stub, lacking inline citations, and even originally having been created by an account with a rather obvious conflict interest are not reasons for deletion under policy. It's certainly on my to-expand list - but so is an awful lot of other stuff that I probably consider more important. I just see no reason to delete a policy compliant article about a notable topic simply because it lacks in-line cites. Please follow talk page conventions and add any further sections to the bottom of talk pages rather than the top. I find it a bit... odd... that you explicitly label yourself an inclusionist but seem to actively want to delete a page on a topic that has been profiled in that many major media outlets. You're right that the link text should be changed to be merely descriptive, but that doesn't have a huge effect on SEO as ENWP links are no-followed, and you could certainly make that shift yourself easier than posting here. The amount of RS coverage in one or two of those links alone is more than enough to get it kept if you re-AFD it. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
OH, i see. The citations are in the sources at the bottom and not inline. I will change the link text. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Yep. Sorry for leaving it in a kind of messy state; I just came across it AfD and found enough coverage that I couldn't really want to delete it (since it is notable and verifiable,) but at the same time didn't really care enough about it to hugely improve it. Sorry about the mess :) Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Kevin Gorman. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source

}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Busse

The name was an honest mistake, sorry. Can I email you about a related thing? No point if you are only going to be on en-WP intermittently but if you're likely to be showing up here a few times a week then it might be of use. - Sitush (talk) 07:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Feel free. I should be back to being on ENWP regularly for the forseeable future, with the exception of perhaps a week sometimes in December. I figured the name was just a mistake; with the amount of crap IAC has flung at ENWP it's hard to justify holding anyone to the letter of WP:OUTING (hell, during the whole Wiki-PR thing I deliberately broke WP:OUTING multiple times myself, including on arbcom pages.) It's hard to worry too much about the privacy rights of people who have both not been too cautious about concealing their identity in the past and who have socked this much. Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

UCLA

Hi, Kevin! Just wanted to follow up on Chris Troutman's virtual intro. Would love to talk with you about your experience at Cal as Wikipedian in residence. Nafpaktitism (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

YGM

I have read Wikipedia for years. I know that if it looks like you are sticking up for a bad user, you can be accused of being a sock. You blocked Eating Glass. It looks like he is American. I am from and edit in another country.

I looked at that user. He was blocked and his block ended. Since then he said sorry and edited reasonably. Therefore, your block will probably cause harm to Wikipedia because it is mean and punitive. There is no evidence of harm done since his block epired two days ago. I urge you to unblock because it is tge right thing.

Think of if you were fined paid the bill then jailed fr the same charge. WackyPancakesDie (talk) 02:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


I've sent you a mail. Do check when you have some time to spare. Thanks! - NQ (talk) 18:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Smart, perky and on top of the issues, just like you! Yay!!

Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Wow

Removing rollback rights of a 10 year editor because someone is using a primary source and won't let a clearly biased editor censor that sources information? Maybe you should ban that guy for redacting information in a primary source without discussion huh? Terrible admin. Xander756 (talk) 08:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

You used your rollback rights inappropriately to twice restore without discussion negative claims made about two separate living people without an appropriate source (GLV doesn't cut it.) You are presumably aware of the requirements of rollback, since you previously ran in to the same issue. It would seriously be a good idea to read WP:BOOMERANG. Kevin Gorman (talk) 08:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Nope. They were used properly. You can't redact information from a primary source without discussion. Doing so is vandalism and rollback is used to revert multiple edits of vandalism. You also replied without looking into the case at all considering how quickly you intervened after my post on the incident board, it is quite obvious you did not like at his or my posting history. He is an anti-gamergate troll. I am a long-time editor of wikipedia without a single edit on another gamergate. He is biased. I am not. Try again. Xander756 (talk) 09:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Rollback should never be used without explanation to gain the upperhand in a content dispute, let alone one where you posted negative accusations against two living people sourced to a non-RS third party website. Kevin Gorman (talk) 09:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Feminism

I am currently talking to a news site that is working on a piece about your behavior tonight which may be sent to Jimmy Wales. Looking through your bio and edits, it seems that you are a feminist. Is this the case? Please let me know so it can be accurate. Xander756 (talk) 09:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

  • If I may, Kevin: Xander756, you say "you are a feminist" like it's a dirty word. But even if you're not, can I just suggest to you that "feminist" is not some sort of singular label like "squirrel" or "slightly balding", and that the question "are you a feminist?" is not a simple yes or no question. Unless you want a basic definition: Feminism is the crazy notion that women are humans too. Drmies (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Your bet

I'd like to take you up on your wager, $20 wasn't it? I don't know if it's allowed to post links to your mailing list, so I won't, but I'm certain you know what I'm referring to regardless. Eric Corbett 19:55, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Change the four months to six months (and a couple other bits) and you've got yourself a deal. Assuming there is no arbcom case stemming from the GGTF where you are a named party (and I promise I won't name you myself,) and you are either not at all blocked for incivility or your first block sticks, I'll either Paypal you $20 or find you a way to get you something decent from your local bottleshop. I assume you'd trust @Drmies: to facilitate that if necessary, since I doubt you'd want me having easy personal on you (though I'd never do anything with it.) If I welch, unless it is because of a major health crisis (@Keilana: has enough contact with me irl that she'll judge that part,) that means I am not capable of arranging such a thing, I invite any bureaucrat to desysop me for welching (I wish there was a way to guarantee that, but sadly I don't think I can.) Assuming you welch on the $20 or the bottle and there is an arbcom case, you agree to a one month long block with autoblock turned on, TPA revoked, and all the normal penalties for block evasion (though feel free to name someone who would know if you were severely ill just in case.) Of course, if either of us were that regularly making major Wikipedia edits would demonstrate we weren't ill enough to be unable to follow through. Agreeable. Are you up for a general role in moderating a rather interesting contest, Dr? Best Kevin Gorman (talk) 13:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
    I don't understand the need for all these elaborate penalties for welching, why would either of us do that? Otherwise your terms seem agreeable to me. Eric Corbett 14:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
    Although it's unlikely to ever recur, I spent sixty days as an outpatient at the Mayo Clinic this year (which, at Mayo, means eleven hours of doctors appointments a day) and didn't have remotely consistent internet access. I'd hate to have something like that happen and have you think it was intentional. Otherwise, I'm actually pretty interested in how this ends up turning out, and you stopping by my talk page has given me a tiny bit of faith that this whole thing won't actually explode twice as dramatically as it already has. Kevin Gorman (talk) 14:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
    (watching): Old German joke: Says the aunt "If you don't use that dirty word again, I give you 10 Pfennig." Reply: "I also a know a word for 50 Pfennig." - Kevin, sorry to hear about the clinic, best wishes for your health. Did you ever take the healthy stroll? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
    Non-sarcastically, I always enjoy your posts, Gerda. I'm going to need to borrow that line one day :). Kevin Gorman (talk) 09:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
    If Drmies was agreeable I'd be happy for him to hold my stake money so there could be no welching on my part. Eric Corbett 14:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Eh...what are we contesting? Eric goes without a civility block for six months? Eric, do you know that I've met Kevin in real life and he's alright with me? Kevin, do you know that I've stood Eric a drink (in real life) and he's alright with me? But I'm straying. First confirm what we're talking about, please. Drmies (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
    Perhaps Kevin will provide you with the relevant link to his gender gap mailing list. Eric Corbett 23:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
    I don't think there is a problem with linking to a Wikimedia mailing list: The Gendergap Archives. The post in question is here. Re the issue, anyone wanting to see why some arbs would ban CMDC can examine my comment here (I also noted that Eric needs a kick). It's true that repeated bad words can drive away some editors, but much more damage is done by people who are unwilling to engage with underlying issues and learn from them. Johnuniq (talk) 01:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
    Agreed. The sooner Eric Corbett can find sufficient maturity within himself to move beyond the sorts of behaviour that have been noted as problematic in the arbcom case, the sooner we can all consider such arbcom cases and any other related complaints, to be unnecessary and a thing of the past. I look forward to those days, and my understanding is that Eric Corbett has made a commitment in that direction as well. We live in hope. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
    You may want to reconsider that word "maturity", which I find to be quite insulting as I'm not some snotty-nosed kid. Eric Corbett 02:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
    I think we've discussed this before. I'm quite patient with all manner of kids, including middle-aged ones, pretend ones, snotty-nosed ones, and even the few real chronological ones that turn up here. (Some Americans consider a 25-year-old a "kid", in some circumstances.) And I treat you all the same. Act like one, you get treated like one. Act like an adult, Eric, and you will get treated like an adult. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC) (Quick hint - the "I am more special than anyone else!" behaviour does not fall on the adult side of the behaviour spectrum. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC) )
    Demiurge1000, one can use "kids" in some kinds of ways, not all kinds of ways, and I find it inappropriate and condescending here--and sorry, but I don't quite understand what you're doing here; your opinions are well known and appreciated, of course, but I doubt they'll further anything in this conversation. Sorry Demiurge, I call 'em as I see 'em. Drmies (talk) 17:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
    Eric introduced the word, not I. As for what I'm doing here, I'm sure Kevin will ask me to leave his talk page (or this part of it) alone if I'm causing disruption to the wonderfully constructive direction the conversation is presumably destined to proceed in. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
    I introduced the word, really? What word are you talking about? Maturity? It seems as clear as day that it was introduced rather prominently and unnecessarily by you just a few postings above. Eric Corbett 19:36, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
    The word Drmies put in quotes, which is the one he objects to in his comment. As for your maturity, or lack thereof, I too "call 'em as I see 'em". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:51, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
    Then we clearly see different things. But I believe we can both agree that continuing with this discussion is unlikely to prove fruitful. Eric Corbett 19:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
    Consensus is achieved! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • @Drmies:: the link John posted got the gist of it. I think arbcom should generally aim to slice the gordian knot, and don't think they've done so here. I'll be ecstatic if I'm wrong, but I don't see the decision as currently proposed as avoiding further arbcom involvement w/r/t Eric and civility, or with Eric not getting blocks under the remedy. Kevin Gorman (talk) 09:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, that was exciting. So, "Wikipedia" has an email listserv too? Do I have to keep up with that as well, besides Jimbo's and Ryulong's tweets, and Wikipediocracy, and the Wikipedia Review, and the Village Pump? There aren't enough hours in the day. Kevin, this is not that simple. If Eric gets civility-blocked for the wrong reason and it gets undone, were you right? What if he gets blocked for calling someone a sycophant? or for calling someone's edits "sycophantic edits"? or "the kind of edits typically made by sycophants"? No, this is too variable, sorry. Also, about that email...never mind. :) Drmies (talk) 01:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "Keeping up" with Wikipedia Review is far from time-consuming. I sign into my admin account there (or maybe it's someone else's admin account, I lost track) about once a year, and each year I find that (1) admins can't do anything there, and (2) admins can't see anything of interest there. So I assume it's dead, but maybe there's some beyond-admin action that is full of busy busy? As for tweets, I'd heard of that Jimbo guy, not so sure about Ryulong. The latter seems to be at ANI more often than the former. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Xander sanctions

While I agree that Xander's actions were in violation of policy, there are issues with your actions regarding him. Being a feminist does not make someone involved, but you have been highly active and very much involved regarding articles covering feminism and men's rights. Sarkeesian is a feminist critic and her vlog is called "Feminist Frequency" so you are involved regarding her bio. You also did make a few opinionated comments regarding the Christina Sommers BLP as well on Jimbo's talk and Sommers is a prominent GamerGate figure. There is also a procedural issue regarding your use of the general sanctions as Xander had only just been notified of the sanctions. He stopped making objectionable BLP claims soon after that. A block and removal of rollback rights was probably appropriate, though I do not believe you are the one who should have made that call. The topic ban, however, appears to be inappropriate on procedural grounds.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 20:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that this is the first time I have ever heard someone argue that having edited articles somewhere in a topic area makes an administrator involved in all biographies relating to that topic area. Do you realize how patently absurd that sounds, TDA? This is precisely what I mean by GamerGate editors hounding every single administrator who enforces the sanctions against them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Gorman has not merely made edits regarding the topic, but has been deeply involved in various content disputes regarding the subject of feminism and men's rights. I am looking to get Gorman's response here, not yours.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm sure you won't settle for my comments either, The Devil's Advocate, but here they are anyway. The removal of rollback (in edits like this) is of course perfectly warranted (this addressed more to Xander756 than anyone else). It may be that block and/or topic ban were issued too quickly; I have not looked into it and have no opinion on it, but in the meantime I have faith in Kevin's judgment. As for Kevin's supposed involvement, he may or may not have opinions, strong or otherwise, of the feminist or whatever variety, but those three comments you linked to in no way prove that he should be disqualified or called INVOLVED. They are run-of-the-mill comments on editing BLPs other articles, and really mean nothing. Sorry, TDA, but you'll have to make a better case than that. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 23:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Those comments were only mentioned because they directly pertain to GamerGate. His characterization of her as an "MRA" appears to be unsubstantiated and thus a BLP issue as well. Perusing Gorman's history makes it very clear that he is deeply involved on issues regarding feminism so taking harsh action against an editor regarding a prominent feminist critic would seem to be exactly what the policy is meant to stop. Xander's edits were not vandalism and while his comments violated BLP, they did not seem to do so to the extent warranting such action, especially since they ceased almost immediately after he was notified of general sanctions. At any rate, there appear to be more pressing concerns so I have dispensed with the idea of discussing this with Gorman. He should still comment, certainly, but there seems to have been a very serious abuse that needs to be discussed.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:43, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I don't think Kevin's block was unwarranted. Does he have a certain bias? That may very well be. Does that mean he's never allowed to issue any judgments that may clash with said bias? No, no it doesn't. m.o.p 00:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • WP:INVOLVED actually specifically states "have strong feelings about". However, "involved" probably might not be the best word to describe what TDA seems to be suggesting. This is about having previous interactions and editing in the topic area. Topic bans are given this way; you don't have to be involved specificially with some article, instead you're "involved" with the topic. Years ago, there was a clear-cut division between pro-Russian and anti-Russian nationalist admins in some Eastern European history disputes - the admins were never involved in the articles directly but you knew who you would ask for assistance if you had the right POV. But anyway, I assume good faith with Kevin Gorman and trust his admin actions, that wasn't the point of my comment. The point is, there are cliques. --Pudeo' 04:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I had to Google what Gamergate was. I know who Christina Hoff Sommers is because I own her books, not because of anything to do with Gamergate. Trying to argue that I am categorically involved with apparently all feminists (and I wonder, all women and men and people of other genders too?) over the block and tban of a user who clearly came back to Wikipedia to push a POV on a particular topic who had a COI, was being quite vulgar offsite about the BLP involved, and was organizing a brigade offsite makes you look like you're mostly just trying to find an issue with my actions rather than caring about the encyclopedia. The comment you thought was outing was not outing as it involved information self-disclosed by the user. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Just a heads up, the User:Dwavenhobble, one with relatively few edits, restored the previously redacted material [5]--60.242.159.224 (talk) 03:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

TDA redacted your statements this time around.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding why it's outing

In case you don't know, Sitush was nearly blocked for outing Carolmooredc despite Carol editing under her real name. The only saving grace was that it was demonstratable that Carol actually posted the link to her website on an article about herself that was never redacted. Editing under a professional name or even linking to some real life identity material is not good enough. Specifically, "The fact that a person either has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse for 'opposition research'" is the applicable line. If they posted their twitter handle, then it's fair game. But if they have not, then that information is still protected and being able to get there through a few clicks isn't an excuse.--v/r - TP 02:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

  • When someone directly discloses their professional identity on-wiki, including what column he wrote on what website, talking about things discussed on that column or directly linked from that column (like his twitter account,) it's not OUTING. If you honestly think any of my posts were outing, why didn't you email Oversight to eliminate the material I linked from public view? Not taking action to effectively hide material that you think is in violation of WP:OUTING makes it seem a lot more like trying to make a point because you disagreed with what apparently almost happened to Sitush (I wasn't following the case closely enough to notice the incident in question,) and not because you're worried about the material subtance of WP:OUTING. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
    • The policy is explicit. Just because you think it's redundant doesn't mean you don't have to follow it. I quoted you the part that explicitly defines what you are doing as outing. If you want to risk the block, be my guest. But no amount of "it shouldn't be that way" makes it not that way.--v/r - TP 03:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
      • The policy is hardly explicit. Using basic facts about someone's IRL identity when they've publically disclosed that identity on-wiki has been accepted practice for years. The fact that you're explicitly framing this in the context of an arb decision from a couple weeks ago and not taking any of the actions that WP:OUTING calls for like revdel or emailing OS (for that matter, even ignoring the 'attempted outing' wording, and framing at least a couple posts to make it sound like you agree with the link,) makes it seem an awful lot like you're just trying to be pointy about a decision you disagree with. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
        • I speak as someone who discloses their real world identity openly here, as well as my home town, and the names of my wife and one of my sons (both Wikipedia editors though much less active than I). I have actually disclosed my full legal name, including my middle name, plus the suffix after my name. Feel free to research me online as you see fit, but please don't hack my bank accounts. Thank you. My website is TopRepair.com, which I state for purposes of disclosure, not self promotion. Bottom line - when CMDC or any other editor discloses their website on Wikipedia, then "outing" them then becomes literally impossible. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
          Pretty sure it's about the twitter handle. Arkon (talk) 04:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Tom, I have a hard time believing this is outing here, because I follow Jimbo's tweets on Twitter and have seen this Xander character Tweet to Jimbo, linking his RL name, Wiki name and Twitter handle. So does outing say we must ignore that too? This guy is just trolling for attention. Imo, no way is it outing. Also, his complete lack of understanding of BLP guidelines is more than troublesome. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 15:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

This Month in Education: October 2014

Updates, reports, news, and stories about how Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects are used in education around the world.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

This Month in Education: November 2014

Updates, reports, news, and stories about how Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects are used in education around the world.

Contact:

Hi Kevin, can I email you or is there a way to communicate with you in private? I'll explain myself there. I wish you well. ~A friendly fellow Bear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.152.126.178 (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

  • If you create a Wikipedia email account with an email address and log in to it, you should be able to email me directly. Sorry for any delay, I've been inside a hospital for a good chunk of recent time. Otherwise, first my first initial and last name work for both gmail and berkeley.edu. Kevin Gorman (talk) 14:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Gender Gap mailing list and moderation

Hi Kevin. I'm continuing here with the points raised at the talk page of the arbitration noticeboard (e.g. here). I'll number them to make this easier.

  • (1) You missed the point I was making about the legal repercussions post (made on 25 November). Discussing such things in the abstract can have a chilling effect, even if unintended. I would be wary of interacting on-wiki with someone who says they "have a lawyer on standby". I've seen too many overly litigious people use that tactic to disrupt ordinary discussions and attempts at dispute resolution. You see what is said there as purely about reacting to online harassment, but take a closer look at the first part of that message. Putting both those chains of thought in the same posting was unfortunate. It was also unfortunate that an arbitration request was made about that editor (on 3 December). Now ask yourself, if you were an arbitrator, how would you have reacted given the context there, that the same editor had asked ('in the abstract') on a mailing list "how things like Arbcom stand up in the court of law"? It may have been an unintended side-by-side posting of a query about ArbCom with a description of how that editor handles online harassment, but the overall effect is easily miscontrued. When you engage in dispute resolution processes like ArbCom, it is awkward if you have made public pronouncements about how you are all lawyered-up.
  • (2) The doxxing/opposition matter was, as you said, spoken up against on the list.
  • (3) The proposed recruiting at editathons for voters is unlikely, as you say, so that isn't really something worth following up. You probably do need to work out why the editor who posted that is complaining about being outed by an arbitrator. They seem to be under the impression that the gendergap mailing list is a private e-mail list. Are they aware that the archives of the mailing list are public and display both the name they post under and their e-mail address? There are two accounts on-wiki that people could reasonably associate with those postings. I'll leave you to work out whether the ambiguity there is a good thing or not.

One other quick point: you mention yourself and Leigh. Are Sue Gardner and lkent (mentioned here) active moderators as well? I'll watch here for a reply, so no need to ping me. Carcharoth (talk) 12:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Hi Carch - discussions about legal consequences for harrassment issues are common enough, and although I can see how it could have a slight chilling effect on arbcom and other on-wiki interactions, but I don't think the downside involved is more significant than the downside of not allowing open discussion of how to handle harassment issues that can be incredibly serious. As far as shit arbcom has to put up with, I don't think an established community member mentioning that they have retained a lawyer to deal with harassment issues ranks very high - handling ordinary admin work I regularly run in to worse, and I know arbcom is aware of situations where other Wikimedians have retained lawyers to deal with harassment issues even at the same time they were in front of arbcom on conduct issues (on actual accepted cases.) I certainly hope arbcom didn't let the fact that said Wikimedians had retained counsel to deal with other Wikimedia related issues effect their judgment when Sarah was involved in an RFAR or when other Wikimedians were involved in actual arb cases. As an aside, given that the RFAR pertained to an issue almost a year old that could have been brought up at any previous point, I'd put it in about the same level as the SPI someone once filed against me in terms of seriousnesss.
The other two issues, as you agree, were more or less handled appropriately by other list members in the absence of moderator intervention. I assume that the confusion involved was just someone thinking we didn't have public archives; I'll send out an announcement in the near future reminding people that we do have public archives. Sue has never been an active moderator, although she has been listed as a figurehead since the list was created (which was years before she left WMF - there's no way the ED would have time to actively moderate a community list.) Liz has been inactive for some time, and I've just left her with access to the admin interface on the offchance she finds she has enough time to actively contribute again in the future. I'd love more mods, but because of the amount of bullshit involved with being a gendergap mod (which has generally been significantly more than being even an active admin working in controversial areas on ENWP) has meant that the burnout rate is incredibly, incredibly high. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. On something completely unrelated, I just subscribed to wikimedia-l (gender gap-l will have to wait!) in order to reply to an existing thread, but realised that I have no way of replying to the thread in question unless someone else sends a new post. Is there a way as a new subscriber to respond to a very recent older posting in the past couple of days? (Technically this may also apply to the mailing list you moderate when I get round to subscribing there). Carcharoth (talk) 02:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Not really an easy way although I wish there was. If you copy the thread title and use it as the title of your email there's a good chance Mailman will route the message to the same thread, but in my past experience it only works some of the time. That said, if you make your title the same and copy/paste the post you're replying to from any of the list archives, it should be obvious enough to other people what you're replying to. I do hope that you eventually subscribe to gendergap, it has had plenty of its issues over the years but is one of relatively few places that ever has open discussion of gender issues on the Wikimedia projects, and has a number of people with experience dealing with significant gender issues in other settings, some that are comparable in many ways to the Wikimedia projects - I suspect the more community members involved the higher the quality of discussion will be and the more likely it'll generate useful solutions. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Your warning

And I can't help but notice how absurd it was that you're claiming to be willing to reduce the gender gap on your user page while supporting this weird gang-rape-type thingy (which you called good faith criticism) on the education incidents board. The absurd statement that I was not allowed to review articles for GA was certainly to a large extent also based on gender.--Melody Lavender 13:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Melody Lavender: I find it laughable that you would throw around a term like "gang-rape-type thingy" so freely. It's an earmark of rape culture to equate a disparagement of your work product with such a horrific crime. There's a terrible insensitivity indicated by using terms like rape and genocide when talking about altogether different matters. I can understand you're hurt by the condemnation but criticism is allowed here.
So you know, I think your GA review was legit, if notably weaker than other reviews I've seen. If you followed the criteria then you need not worry about what anyone says about your review. I honestly have to believe you're trolling if you really think Kevin's comments (or anyone else's comments) had anything at all to do with gender. Please stay retired. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
So you're now denying that I retired because I was not allowed to review articles. Delisting an article giving the reason "I don't like the reviewer" is disgusting, and you know perfectly well that that is what happened. Not only was nobody defending me, you're seriously even attacking me with warnings. Your out of place "remark" here shows that I was right, this was sexist, and for me it was good riddance. I've never heard of this rape culture thing, but yes, that's exactly it. And you don't even seem to belong to the Medicine Project, it must be more pervasive, the quota of women editing wikipedia is low and we now know why that is. Sorry about the projects that have better manners. But then you're active there as well, probably trying to convince them "to lay in the trenches" (copyright jytdog) with you. I will stay away from all projects then. --Melody Lavender 20:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Melody: though I never want my actions to cause someone else to retire, people are understandably frustrated about some aspects of the education program. The people who criticized your GAR criticized the content of your review (and honestly it's weird to me to see something pass GA when it has a citation needed tag, although I haven't looked at your review indepth.) Instead of responding to the criticism of your review, you accused another editor of being obsessive, insane, and psychotic (and FWIW Sandy is a woman.) I agree with Chris that throwing around that description is problematic and think that it is not conducive to creating a welcoming editing environment for women, or really anyone. I hope you return to editing at some point, but if you continue behaving as you have you will pull blocks for personal attacks. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Not only is Sandy a woman, she's a woman who thinks this Gender Gapism is bullroar. I have many times had men tell me in the midst of heated discussion or a misunderstanding to "get bent" or some version thereof. Big deal. Usually resolved, move on. On the other hand, I have many times had women go below the belt and say things like "obsessive, insane and psychotic" and not even be able to address the actual arguments. Most of the "us vs us" [6]problem that I have experienced in here has been from women, behaving like petulant children on a sustained basis, not men, blowing off in a heated moment.

    For Melody to be completely unable to address the substance of the problem with her review, and resort to personal attacks and GenderGapism as a stretch of an excuse to wave off a legitimate warning for an attack which would have gotten someone without a PrettyPinkUsername blocked, demeans the work of all women in here.

    Further, the notion that women are underrepresented in Wikipedia is an overplayed argument IMO; for years, women ran WP:FAC (and quite well).

    Next, it is not lost on me that a lot of the GenderGapism promotion occurred by some of the same editors and WMF folk who promoted the Education Program. They would have done well to have listened to Jbmurray rather than Awadewit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I actually don't usually block people for first offense personal attacks of that magnitude unless they are entirely troll accounts, since in my past experience a lot of the time telling someone I'm going to block them if they keep it up is as effective as actually blocking them, and being blocked throws a lot more editors off enough to retire than the threat of a block does. Until someone demonstrates that the problem is not going to go away, I tend to be relatively light on blocks vs warnings a lot of the time. Hell, from memory there's at least a couple of people who I blocked multiple times for 10 or 15 reverts in 24 hours who ended up after calm non-templated explanations of the issue becoming productive editors with no further issues. I certainly don't endorse the attack, and if Melody hadn't indicated that she didn't intend to stick around would've reconsidered my decision to not block her given this thread. If Melody returns in the future and acts in a similar way while I'm still around to notice, the attacks against you and, er, how she chose to describe the criticism of her GAR will certainly factor in to my thought process. Kevin Gorman (talk) 12:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I know, and agree (I am not criticizing that you did not block, rather pointing out that PrettyPinkUsernames are less likely to be blocked, and I hate reverse discrimination). On the GenderGapClaptrap, if I had made a post like that, I'd be blocked. That Melody was lucky to get off without a block is apparently lost on her; she comes over here and claims people were mean to her, when in fact, she got a break. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom evidence

I presented evidence against you at the ArbCom case, in case you wish to respond.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

  • I'll reply there later, but I'm honestly confused as to what your aim in life is. Pretty much everyone but you agreed that the punishment was apt and obvious (in which case I could have generally imposed it even if I had been involved,) but taking admin action on an article I've never edited and have no personal interest in against an editor I've never encountered before is hardly a sin. The fact that I've edited articles related to the men's rights movement and to academics active in feminist philosophy doesn't mean I'm automatically involved in all situations related to feminism any more than editing an article about a woman academic philosopher means I'm automatically involve in all articles about women, academics, or philosophers. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Kevin could you please add some evidence to the accusations you've made against TDA in your second last paragraph please ("TDA has a long history..."). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

suggestion

Email sent. Act on it. Pedro :  Chat  22:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

This Month in Education: December 2014

Updates, reports, news, and stories about how Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects are used in education around the world.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Reverts on Israel article

You seem to be someone knowledgeable on Wikipedia, perhaps I could ask your advice. Today, it appears to me that User:Ashurbanippal has made seven reverts to the Israel article, an article with a one revert rule. None of the reverts had consensus on the talk page, and all the reverts dealt with contentious issues under discussion on the talk page. Two of his reverts are to remove POV tags, which I think four different editors have tried to add, and which have always been reverted solely by User:Ashurbanippal. It seems to me his edits always push an anti-Arab POV, and move the article to a less NPOV. Do you have any advice for dealing with this? Thanks, Gouncbeatduke (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Get better, punk

Kevin,

I saw your post on the unnameable social media site. We've had our disagreements in the past, but they truly are trivial fodder when compared to real health issues.

I just stopped by to wish you a speedy and full recovery.

Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vigilant (talk • contribs)

Putting this back in (no offense, Mr. Troutman), because I know the well wishes will be appreciated in exactly the manner in which they were intended.

I hope your recovery is a speedy one, Kevin. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 00:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Best wishes for a speedy recovery from me as well. 28bytes (talk) 02:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

This Month in Education: [January 2015]

Updates, reports, news, and stories about how Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects are used in education around the world.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

If this message is not on your home wiki's talk page, update your subscription.

welcome to Southern California

Hi, Kevin! Just wanted to say welcome to the area and to extend an open invitation to get involved however you like with things Wikipedia at UCLA. I work in the Library and have organized a couple of edit-a-thons and am, in general, very interested in the connection between libraries/education/wikipedia. Nafpaktitism (talk) 01:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

LA edit-a-thons on February 14, 17, and 21

Redondo Loves Wikipedia (2/14), Wik-Ed Women (2/17), and Unforgetting LA at the Getty (2/21)!

Dear fellow Wikipedian,

The LA Wikipedia community has three events in mid-February -- please consider attending!

First, we have a Valentine's Day edit-a-thon appropriately named Redondo Loves Wikipedia, which will take place at the Redondo Beach Public Library from 10am to 1pm on Saturday, February 14. Join library staff, the Redondo Beach Historical Society, and others to help improve Wikipedia's coverage of Redondo Beach!

Second, we have a Wik-Ed Women editing session on Tuesday, February 17 from 6pm to 10pm at the Los Angeles Contemporary Archive downtown. This series of informal get-togethers is designed to encourage Los Angeles women-in-the-arts (though all are welcome!) to contribute their expertise to Wikipedia, specifically expanding content about women artists.

Third, we have an Unforgetting LA event put on by East of Borneo in collaboration with the Getty Research Institute. Come help improve Wikipedia's coverage of LA design and architecture, and have an awesome free day at the museum -- parking will be validated for edit-a-thon participants! If you'd like to use particular books from GRI's great collection, be sure to email before 2/13 (instructions at event page).

And be sure to check out our main meetup page, because we already have three SoCal events scheduled for early March!

I hope to see you there! Calliopejen1 (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Join our Facebook group here! To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

I've taken the liberty of adding you to the LA spam list, feel free to opt out! Welcome to SoCal! Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

SF edit-a-thons on March 7 and 8

ArtAndFeminism (3/7) and International Women's Day (3/8)!

Dear fellow Wikipedian,

In celebration of WikiWomen's History Month, the SF Bay Area Wikipedia community has two events in early March -- please consider attending!

First, we have an ArtAndFeminism edit-a-thon, which will take place at the Kadist Art Foundation from 12 noon to 6pm on Saturday, March 7. We'll be one of many sites worldwide participating in this edit-a-thon on March 7th. So join us as we help improve Wikipedia's coverage of women artists and their works!

Second, we will be celebrating International Women's Day with the International Women's Day edit-a-thon on Sunday, March 8 from 1pm to 5pm at the Wikimedia Foundation. Our editing focus will be on women, of course!

I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of future mailings about SF meetups, please remove your name from this list.

This Month in Education: [February 201

Updates, reports, news, and stories about how Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects are used in education around the world.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Glad to see you're doing better.

In a strange and ironic twist of fate, I am currently inpatient getting treated for sepsis right now. Some ugly strain of S. Aurelias that requires 8 bags of vanco to treat. PIV in my right hand makes typing tedious. White count hit 20 before things got under control and they were underdosing me and not pulling vanc troughs often enough.

Unpleasant, but I think I'll get out WITHOUT a PICC line or sub-clavian and home IV treatment. I suspect your 'adventure' with our little germic friends eclipses my own and has been vastly more unpleasant.

Best wishes on a speedy and full recovery, Vigilant — Preceding unsigned comment added by SepsisBuddies (talk • contribs) 17:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

  • .... Whoa. Not the talk page post I was expecting, hahaha. I had a mess of complications after - I never knew how much shit sepsis can fuck up and it was probably caused by an undiagnosed genetic immune weirdness in the first place - but managed to make it out only on oral abx - took me like 12 days to get discharged, which isn't too bad for the immediate course of sepsis. The day before I went in I had felt a little bit ill, woke up that morning with a fever of 101 that literally spiked to 106.5 in a forty minute period - the next thing I remember after the ambulance was waking up six hours later with a CVC in my jugular and four peripheral IV's. Getting the subclavian out was one of the freakier things I'e witnessed - for it to be sitting in your vena cava with that insertion point means it's an incredibly long thing for anyone to pull out of your body. Apparently my blood pressure was under 50/30 when the vasopressors finally decided to work. Never figured out what bug did it - they had hit me with six separate antibiotics and two antifungals before they even got around to trying to culture.
Best of luck.... definitely not a fun thing. At least if they've fixed your vanco trough and you've stabilized it's unlikely to go too far south. Probably worth knowing in advance that often even uncomplicated sepsis results in weird shit after. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I had a small bump like a banged forearm around 2PM. I write code and sit at a desk at work. I didn't think much of it.
No end organ profusion issues, creatinine and BUN stayed in the happy zone. Liver numbers never really went south.
By 8PM my left elbow was swollen like a grapefruit and extremely painful. I got morphine, dilaudid and finally percocet to knock down the pain to where I could reliably talk. Most unpleasant. Still, a 4 day in patient stay over something I originally dismissed... At least the hospital has a fat internet pipe... Fuckers block bittorrent though...
Regards,
Vigilant


Hi Kevin Gorman


I have just added a Wikipedia page. It "strongly suggested" I add a photograph. Can you tell me how I do that?

I also was wondering when the template with all those "issues" will be removed?

Thanks,

David — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwetzel30 (talk • contribs) 04:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


Also once an article is on Wikipedia, can the subject ask that it be deleted?

Dwetzel30 (talk) 04:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

LA edit-a-thons on March 18 (tomorrow!) and 28

Wadewitz memorial edit-a-thon (3/18), Redondo Loves Wikipedia (3/28)

Dear fellow Wikipedian,

The LA Wikipedia community has two events in this second half of March -- please consider attending!

First, there is a memorial edit-a-thon in honor of the prolific LA Wikipedian Adrianne Wadewitz, which is being held downtown on March 18 (tomorrow!) from noon to 8pm as a part of the American Society for Eighteenth-Century Studies' annual conference. Please drop by to contribute your own work or teach other users how to write for Wikipedia.

Second, there will be an event at the Redondo Beach Public Library (following up on last month's session), in collaboration with the Redondo Beach Historical Society. Please join us from 10am to noon on Saturday, March 28 at the main branch of the Redondo Beach Public Library!

I hope to see you there! Calliopejen1 (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Join our Facebook group here! To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

This Month in Education: March 2015

Updates, reports, news, and stories about how Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects are used in education around the world.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

If this message is not on your home wiki's talk page, update your subscription.

Electronic Cigarette

Hello there, I was wondering if you might re-consider your decision to reduce the expiry date on full-protection of the Electronic Cigarette article from 18 June to 30 March? I don't know if you've noticed but I and another editor voiced opposition to this after your decision. Also, QuackGuru the editor that requested (not for the first time recently) that page protection be removed is once again clearly preparing to dump large-scale changes into the article from their sandbox. Over the past week they have transferred the entire article to their sandbox and have made well over 100 edits to it since, even preparing talk page sections with titles such as Page protection over - NPOVing resumes, whatever that may really mean. I understand that page protection is not designed for disruption caused by single editors but there are other long-standing problems between editors at the article. Consequently proposed discretionary sanctions are currently being discussed at ANI and with the possibility of ArbCom cases looming if these fail to pass, I do feel that it would be best to keep the article fully protected for the time being.Levelledout (talk) 13:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I read on the article talk page that you have been in poor health, sorry to have bothered you with this issue that is trivial in comparison. All the best Levelledout (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, my health problems have really gone up in recent weeks giving me less time for wikipedia. I'll spend the next bit of time reviewing the situation as it stands. I would also invite any admin who disagrees with me to revert my action, provided she is not involved and has a rationale. 00:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

General Sanctions: Electronic Cigarettes.

Please read this notification carefully:
A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to electronic cigarettes.
The details of these sanctions are described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

SPACKlick (talk) 12:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Apologies Kevin. I've seen sanctions fail before because editors claimed not to have been notifed so I took a no judgement approach to notifying by simply automating a list of not officially notified editors active at all on the page. Is there a more appropriate way that you would suggest of applying notification? SPACKlick (talk) 23:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
@SPACKlick: I'd say either reserve the templates for people who are actually being disruptive, or leave the templating to someone else. This is the second time I've seen you template an uninvolved admin who is aware of the sanctions and trying to keep some sort of order. You're lucky Mr Stradavarius and Keving Gorman aren't the prickly type. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

SPAC: Adjwilley's advice is pretty spot on. It doesn't cause a huge amount of harm or anything, but there are some people who take offense from it. Generally it's a good idea to only notify relatively new editors, disruptive editors, or editors likely to become disruptive. Editors who are heavily involved (like, say, people who wrote the sanctions or regularly take action under them themselves) generally don't really need to be notified (and will be sanctioned if they need to be, even without an explicit notification.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Weird at Talk:e-cig

Hey Kevin I did see your comment there about a weird comment ("luck will break") that you removed, and it does appear it was left under your account here, I was going through diffs to make sure some random IP or whatever didn't leave a comment and sign your name to it. Zad68 02:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I noted that myself. I'm hoping it's someone with access to my box just screwing with me, because otherwise I've completely lost my mind. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sockpuppet investigation block opened

You were recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sockpuppet investigation block. Given the legal, privacy and BLP implications of holding the case in public the Committee has decided to run the case completely in camera, to that effect there will be no public evidence submission or workshop. Editors with direct knowledge of the events and related evidence are requested to email their to arbcom-en-b@lists.wikimedia.org by May 7, 2015 which is when evidence submission will close. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

This Month in Education: April 2015

Updates, reports, news, and stories about how Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects are used in education around the world.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Bfpage

Thanks for making that block. Her behavior was disruptive in a particularly ugly way, and without careful attention could have easily been allowed to continue. So thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks, Jyt. I almost blocked BFP the last time it came up, but figured if I made it crystal clear I'd block him if he came up again it might change his behavior. Unfortunately it didn't. I wish I had been around more lately so I could've blocked him sooner, before Flyer had to be exposed to everything in the ANI report. Kevin Gorman (talk) 14:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

JackTheVicar

Hey Kevin; I wanted to let you know that JTV reached out to me off-wiki, via email, to try and get me to intercede in the ANI thread. Obviously not posting it on-wiki, but given that some of the diffs presented suggested that JTV has a pattern of off-wiki contact and attempted shepherding, thought I'd let you know. Happy to forward the email to you or any other administrator, as the relevant page suggests, if you need to evaluate it. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 13:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi Ironholds... please do. If you don't have my email already, it's first letter last name at gmail. I'm usually willing to work with people on blocks who recognize that they've done wrong and come up with a plan to avoid it in the future, but don't look kindly at this. Thank you for notifying me. Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Kevin: I'm not doubting your awareness, but just in case you might have forgotten: JTV didn't claim he had contacted only 1 other editor, he claimed to have 10 editors he had contacted that agreed to help him at AN/I and come out against me in the face of any complaint I would file against him. Considering not all editors he contacted would have/could have replied or did agree to help him, claiming to have 10 in the bag means he probably contacted more than 10. Even if his claim of 10 was a lie, that he would say such a thing shows he was knowingly telling the lie to scare me into not reporting him. That kind of threatening coercion is certainly against some form of policy. And if that scenario is true, it also causes me to wonder what he was so afraid of should a report occur (if he was as innocent as he has claimed). Again, not doubting your ability to make good decisions or see clearly what's happening, just bringing up points to consider. Thanks,-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I referenced it in my AN/I report [7], the exact wording and diffs are: [8] "I appeared hear to ask Bbb23 to intervene because of his familiarity with your AN 3RR issue, and I value Bbb23's fairness and approach (although we've never interacted, I've observed Bbb23's input on other matters). If you want to bring a report, go right ahead, I've already talked to 10 other users who are ready to discuss your disruptive and unproductive behavior, most you've crossed during the last few days. There are a lot of people who like me. Again, I advise you to heed WP:BOOMERANG." Also here [9] "If you want to file a report go ahead, just be prepared for WP:BOOMERANG since (a) you're a difficult editor to deal with (b) you don't have clean hands and (c) you're not liked by several of the editors on the pages I've run into you on who also have had difficulty with you." The bolding was added by me. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry Wink, I accidentally missed that, and just blocked him over the outrageous NPA type stuff in the middle. I am not happy about this, I can't believe anyone would think that was acceptable. I've posted on his page asking why he thought it was reasonable, and without a reasonable explanation... Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Not only that, but he posted it on the talk page of an administrator. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Please note that JTV has added an addendum [10] to his original response to you at his talk page. He originally wrote: "Having edited other pages or areas with many editors, I engage with a lot of editors offsite". Then, as an afterthought, he later added: "It was probably bluster, hoping he'd quit wasting his time and mine. I was sick of his crusade and my state of mind in extreme frustration with him was "let's nip this in the bud". Bad idea. HOWEVER:". I call BS. He doesn't know if it's "bluster" or not but probably was? Talk about weasel wording. Considering the afterthoughr he added (shown above, and reads totally like a CYA), I think he really did contact editors he believes would come out against me and support a boomerang (as he promised would happen). Note that no one posted anything at the AN/I supporting him and denouncing me. My belief is it happened that way because JTV outed his canvassing and the editors he contacted weren't stupid enough to post at the AN/I lest they also be outed as off-Wiki collaborators in such a scheme. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Because of his original post - and he responded to my post on his talk page, I extended his block. If I ever see him post something like that again, I'm blocking him for at least six months. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Hopefully, his return will demonstrate an end to all of the behavior he was blocked for. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, I thought your originally two-week block was overkill already, but tacking on another block for actions he was already blocked for is absurd. I intend on taking this to ANI if you don't at least undo the extension. Calidum T|C 19:56, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I would be inclined to reduce his block length if he indicated he understood why what he did was wrong. Every time he posts he minimizes his own actions, and stresses, to paraphrase, 'other bad people made me do it.' Blocks are preventative; unless he understands why what he did was (severely) wrong, he'll likely repeat it, unless he has the stick of a threatened block. At this time I am not modifying his block. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
My guess is because Calidum recently brought me to AN3 (and the report went nowhere), he is more than likely one of the editors contacted by JTV. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't or I would have said something sooner. Calidum T|C 20:02, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I think at this point, considering how this whole thing has gone so far, that no one who has had issues with me previously is going to admit they were contacted by and responded to JTV off-Wiki in favor of his "campaign". -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:05, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Wink, although I appreciate you pointing out that the canvassing involved ten people (!!), I'm not sure it'll be productive for you to further post in this thread. Calidum, if you aren't confident in the open block review on Jack's page, you are welcome to reflex it to ANI. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
    FWIW, Kevin, I fully endorse your actions; I had pretty much the same reaction and justification - I don't see any kind of "okay, I acted inappropriately, I should...not do that in the future", I see "I acted inappropriately but look at the bad man". Ironholds (talk) 21:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
    And: I don't have your email address (at least, not in that account). Mind dropping me a note? Ironholds (talk) 21:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

This Month in Education: May 2015

Updates, reports, news, and stories about how Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects are used in education around the world.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

If this message is not on your home wiki's talk page, update your subscription.

ANI

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Unblock of JackTheVicar. Thank you. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Complying with the conditions of restricted interaction with other editors

It is my sincere desire to adhere to the conditions put upon me in response to the two ANIs that you presided over in response to accusations of me harassing another editor. I only need a bit more information so that I can do my best to comply. I don't want to create an uncomfortable or potential situation that would place the other editor in a place where they feel trapped, co-erced, incited or any other negative place. If you would be so kind to let me know if the other editors involved have restrictions placed on them and what they are. I am not going to their user pages or their talk pages to look for that information. But if you have laid out conditions for them I would like to know so that I can contact you if these conditions are not being met. Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  13:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi BFP: due to circumstances beyond my control, I am not able to effectively intervene in your situation at present even when necessary (my account was compromised the same day I had some major medical issues that meant I couldn't instantly resecure it., etc) I would encourage you to try to by the spirit behind the the general guidelines we had outlined. Ideally (athough certainly not doable to full effec)t, for the time period that would probably involving ignoring the others as much as possible, and acting much pretend like the oher editors don't exist. Try to avoid further conflict with any of them as possible, to the extent ptake steps back to ensure situations don't get overly heated, etc. I'll try to clarify further when the situation below has been resolved. Until the material below is resolved, the agreement between the of us isn't something that is enforceable, although other admins are likely to take it, past situations between all y'all, and so forth in deciding whether or not to intervene in any situation that involves all yall.
In the meantime if a problem does appear that requires higher action, you can take it to ANI or another appropriate forum. I'm sorry that my hands are a bit more tied than they should be here at present. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Note

The recent block and removal of permissions is in response to a private request from Kevin Gorman. To my knowledge, no compromised actions have been made from this account. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Sorry all, this wouldn't have taken as long to ensure I was fixed if I hadn't had a major contemporaneous health issue. I've contacted Gorilla and Keilana to confirm it's me and eventually get privs restored, etc. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Kevin, you should see your extra buttons again. I didn't put back your other userrights because I wasn't sure they were still necessary, however you should feel free to re-add them yourself or let me know and I can flip those too. Thanks for your patience, –xenotalk 14:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

5th Annual Wiknic

5th Annual Wiknic (Saturday, July 11, 2015, ~9:30am-4pm)

Dear fellow Wikipedian,

You are cordinally invited to the fifth annual Los Angeles Wiknic!

The Wiknic is a part of the nationwide Great American Wiknic. We'll be grilling, getting to know each other better, and building the L.A. Wikipedia community! The event is tentatively planned for Pan-Pacific Park (map) and will be held on Saturday, July 11, 2014 from 9:30am to 4pm or so. Please RSVP and volunteer to bring food or drinks if possible!

I hope to see you there! Howcheng (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC) Join our Facebook group here! To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

I done wrote an essay

I wrote an essay about my feeling about socialization between Wikipedians, although admittedly it's only really a draft currently. You can find it here. Comments welcome. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

👍 Like and welcome back.
  Bfpage |leave a message  19:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks :) Sorry for not getting back to my conversations with you, I've had somewhat limited time and simply haven't remembered to pick back up everything I probably should. Is there anything you would like me to poke at or talk about? Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but it can wait. Take time to catch up on all your other stuff. I'll get back to you in about a week. Best Regards,
  Bfpage |leave a message  20:10, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Feel free to poke me whenever you'd like, particularly if you feel like you're likely to intentionally or unintentionally violate the general sense of the guideline draft. It's worth noting: I do have serious health problems from time to time, so if I'm particularly MIA I'd be inclined to accept the decision of any admin wandering by my page, although I'd prefer @Keilana: judge in circumstances where I am unable to. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Unintended edit to Sexual intercourse

I have unintentionally messed up on one of my guidelines and made an edit to the Sexual intercourse article. I forgot to review the article editing history before I made the edit. The edit consisted of updating a reference that was outdated issued by the World Health Organization. I assure you, it was an error and I will be more diligent in the future.

  Bfpage |leave a message  14:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Going by the User talk:Bfpage/guidelines, I don't see where Bfpage violated anything in this regard. After all, one of the "guideline" points states, "If BF notices that Flyer has edited an article, BF wil[l] refrain from editing that article for at least a week." It's been a week since I edited the Sexual intercourse article. So unless Bfpage means that spotting me there again first happened hours ago, what violation is there? Bfpage is not restricted from editing that article. The only article Bfpage has added a restriction on is the Sexism article, and I don't care much about that article; I only care about it giving appropriate WP:Due weight when it comes to which sex receives the most sexism. Flyer22 (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Flyer, thanks for commenting here while I was MIA and giving your opinion of no vio. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Just a note to archive the fact that I am adding myself as a party to an arbcom case

Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Good; it saves me the trouble when proposals are made during the case in respect of your conduct and interactions as an administrator as far as this dispute is concerned. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @Ncmvocalist: - I don't think I've even used my admin tools in this case, and I don't think my conduct here has been worse than that of large numbers of those involved. Out of curiousity, would you mind describing what you see as my misbehavior? I won't take offense Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry

Re your edit summary at Special:Diff/669103567, my apologies. I just copy-pasted the comment to your section. For the future, any particular preference? L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

  • No worries about it L235. I just felt that both the rearrangement of comments - taking them from directly from the motion to putting them in the section in that way pretty much made them make no sense. Additionally, as seen in the section above, my section is currently already overlength, with the discussion of the deletion of fifty words - and those fifty words would likely literaly be my recognition of Adjwiley for having for the fortitude to attempt to close the AN section in the first place, so I'd rather not have my section even further made over-length currently when that's apparently a problem (for some reason I always thought named parties got 1000 words, not just 500.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Please trim your statement at arbitration case requests

Hi, Kevin Gorman. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#AE closes, timelines, and independent admin actions. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; and concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.

For the Arbitration Committee, Liz Read! Talk! 21:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, the "rule of thumb" is to ask for 500 words or less but accept anything under 600 words. Over that length, you need to request permission from the arbitration committee. Since it looks like this case will open tomorrow, that would be an appropriate time to make this request on the talk page if you can't trim 50 words off your statement tonight. Remember, you'll be able to present additional information in the evidence phase. Liz Read! Talk! 21:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I asked Roger about it and he explicitly threw the ball to the clerks. For the record, if I need to trim 50 words off, they're unfortunately likely be me recognizing Adj's fortitude in being willing to attempt to close the AN thread. Kevin Gorman (talk)

@Kevin Gorman: I received word via the clerks list that you are not to worry about the extra 50 words. Don't worry about it. Liz Read! Talk! 22:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Thank you. It would be a shame for it to be otherwise in this case, since the most likely 49 words to go really would be recognizing an admin for taking on a really unenviable job. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration enforcement

By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

  1. The case is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
  2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
  3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

  • I understand it was sent via mass message, but this really is a bit of a funny post on this page. Half the named parties I'd be desysopped ordinarily for taking action on, and most of the rest of the announcement is just that a couple dozen admins can't take action against me for an odd reason Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Full protection needed at 2 articles

Please full protect Târgu Mureș and University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Târgu Mureș for edit warring. An editor is trying to unilaterally add biased information without any prior discussion on the talk page. 213.229.69.46 (talk) 16:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Please file this request at WP:RFPP. I'm hesitant to take admin action when directly approached by an IP on my that I am unfamiliar with, and there is a well establshed page to request protection Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Please check the edit histories of the articles, protection is clearly needed. 213.229.69.46 (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Please file this request at request for page protection, the page set up for this kind of stuff. Even if you request it again here, I wil not be filling your request here. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement arbitration case opened

By motion, the committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

  1. The [Arbitration enforcement] case [request] is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
  2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
  3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

Therefore, you were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 13, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I compiled the list of statement-adders, Amortias listed those restricted in part 2. Hope that answers your question, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 16:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @L235:, @Amortias: I really do admire the effort that went in this. Although I don't agree with the motions themselves, the job of implementing them is not paticularly enviable - lots of work, little recognition. Kudos, and thanks to both of you for your efforts. You serve an important but often underrecognized role on ENWP. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Hey Kevin, FYI, using the {{reply to}} template, or any redirect to including {{ping}}, you can ping multiple people at once; for example, {{ping|L235|Amortias}} produces @L235 and Amortias:. Hope that saves you a bit of time in the future, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 16:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again. I actually knew that ping accepted multiple users as parameters, but had totally forgotten that fact soehow. Damn, you really are giving me a lot of useful advice lately. Thanks again, Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I'd say I'm only doing what I'm getting paid for but if that was the case I'd have to stop editing about 13 months ago. Just trying to be useful will have to suffice I guess. Amortias (T)(C) 19:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Protection

Hi, Kevin. Are you sure protecting your userspace essay is a good idea? I done written me some userspace essays too, and other odds and ends, and it never occurred to me to protect any of them. Clearly you don't want to have to edit war against some idiot who insists on changing it — I don't either, and I might protect if that happened, but it hasn't yet. What's happened is that a few people have made rather nice suggestions, which I've sometimes let stand, sometimes not, compare the history here. Including playing good-natured games with me, as here. I find keeping them in userspace acts as protection in itself. I've sometimes regretted moving mine into Wikipedia space (once, frustrated, I AfD'd one that people thought was a good idea to change to mean the opposite, and it was indeed deleted), and nowadays I rarely do. Really, I'd advise you to think hard before you do that.

(If a non-admin user asked for preemptive full protection of their userspace essay before anything had happened to it, would you oblige?) Bishonen | talk 09:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC).

I probably wouldn't, just because then they'd be unable to edit their owne essa whch woud be a bit odd. I'd certainly grant semi if asked, though I have had some problems with not at all protected essays in the past and no constructive changes from IPs and nonautoconfirmed users, but can see your point regarding semi vs full here, and will drop down to semi. I do agree with you that moving essays in to mainspace is risky business, and don't intend to for this one, especially because it's from a personal point of view. Thanks - and I do genuinely meant - for your suggestion. I feel like sarcasm is sometimes assumed on behalf of those who occasionally disagree (not that I like the trend,) but wanted to make clear that I really am grateful. I'd also be grateful for your general thoughts on the essay - either here or on talk there - as you have the time, since I know we don't always see eye to eye, but I have significant respect for your viewpointss. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I think what you say in the essay makes a lot of sense, Kevin. But my feeling is it would be sexier, and might invite more discussion (which is always useful), if you pared it down a bit. I'm a fan of mean and lean, indeed I probably go too far in the opposite direction from you. And how about a nutshell and maybe a catchy WP:XX shortcut? (Yes, that would be a cross-namespace redirect, but lots of user essays have them, see e. g. WP:CGTW, often used, I believe. I think anybody who tried to enforce deleting those would have a meaningless bureacratic wrangle on their hands.) Bishonen | talk 19:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC).
It's a pretty literal first draft - I posted it from word. Over the next coming days, barring exigent circumstances, I'm likely to pare it down quite a bit, and enhance the prose. I'm a little bit nervous about giving it a general shortcut, because unlike a lot of essays it does include explicitly only-happened-to-me events in it. I was thinking about writing a companion essay based on it intended for the ain space though. Anyway, thanks for your comments. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

This Month in Education: June 2015

Updates, reports, news, and stories about how Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects are used in education around the world.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Bias affects all of us, even you, Kevin

I don't appreciate your hair-trigger assumptions of bad faith. You may think you're doing Wikipedia a service by slapping warnings on the pages of anyone who comments on the opposite side of a debate to your own, but I think you're doing quite the opposite. If I'm wrong, and you warn people on both sides of gender-related issues approximately equally, then I've misjudged you and I apologize. If I'm right in suspecting that you primarily warn people on a single side, I suggest you take a deep introspection and see whether some of the bias you're seeing is your own. JudahH (talk) 04:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  • I primarily warn people on a single side of gender related issues, because a vast overwhelming majority of offsite brigading organized to disrupt Wikipedia has come from a particular viewpoint, at least w/r/t gender related issues. However, I have warned quite a few people from all sides whose edits have made it look likely that their future edits will be problematic, including feminist grad students, etc. If I was really biased, I wouldn't slap an alert on your page after you made a gross misstatement of Binkster's opinion. I would've waited for you to do something blockable, and then just gotten you blocked. I certainly have my own personal biases; there is no such thing as a person without them. I recognize them where I can, although I certainly don't always recognize them. But a new account showing up, making a misstatement about a significant issue related to gender studies, and then going on to be problematic enough that they are eventually banned is a common enough pattern for me to alert early and often. In alerting users who appear to fit such a general pattern, I aim to avoid them eventually being blocked or banned. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, I apologize for my angry tone, in any case. I resented being accused (as it felt) of acting in bad faith when I'd been making every effort to constructively engage with the other editors, but I should have cooled down before reacting. I'm sure that you're not trying to censor the viewpoints of people who disagree with you, and I suppose you had fair reasons from your pov to rush to conclusions about the goodness of my faith, even if from my pov I didn't feel they were justified. I don't think that my characterization of Binkster's opinion was a 'gross misstatement', but maybe I didn't phrase it well enough; either way, I've already elaborated on that page.
Have a good night. JudahH (talk) 04:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, we're often swarmed by editors that do fit the pattern I described. Sometimes literally dozens in an hour. Unfortunately, this often means that to maintain the quality of certain areas of the encyclopedia, warnings are placed before strictly necessary. If we changed our policies (i.e., banned violators more easily, not using the alert system in this area, required some verification to edit or something,) this wouldn't be the case, but unfortunately it currently isn't. I felt that you mischaracterized Binkster's opinion in a significant way - and still feel so - but you'll generally find that if you are here in good faith, good faith is reciprocated. That said, I am afraid that you might have some fundamental misunderstandings of the very nature of the project - see my latest post on ANI re: that. However, having read your most recent post on antifeminism's talk page, I actually mostly agree with you about what the issues are there. Unfortunately a lot of the question as to whether or not the sourcing exists - something I don't know offhand (most of my personal collection deals with MRM and men's movement issues, but not explicitly the idea of antifeminism.) I'll take a look tomorrow, respond in greater depth, and possibly dig up some useful stuff re your points Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I believe you about the swarms of editors, and even about the warnings being necessary to maintain the overall quality of the encylopedia, but I possibly take a more sympathetic view than you of their motives (if nothing else because I'm more sympathetic to their politics). I think that many of these editors probably are acting in good faith, albeit unconstructively: they're trying to correct what they see as wrongs in the encyclopedia. The problem is that when one (political) viewpoint is dominant in a particular forum, people holding a different view often feel like they have to shout to be heard. To an extent, it's a vicious cycle, as the more strident they get, the more extremist they're held to be, the more extremist they're held to be, the less seriously they're taken, and the less seriously they're taken, the more strident they get. I feel like that's somewhat the position that feminism was in in its earliest years, and now that feminism has made its way into the mainstream, it's the position that men's rights activists are in.
With that said, the surprising but really nice thing I've found at Wikipedia is that good faith is reciprocated, as you say, so that with effort, even people who vehemently disagree over an issue can usually find common ground. I rarely venture into editing controversial topics because it takes so much effort (on both sides) just to bridge the initial gap, but those rare times I do, it's always nice to be reminded that even viewpoints I may see as unreasonable are usually held by reasonable people. It's even a little inspiring. JudahH (talk) 05:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
PS: And thank you for the offer to dig up some useful sources if you can. I appreciate it. Re the question of whether any sourcing exists at all, it seems to me that a lot of the examples already in the article make good sources for how the specific ideologies that have been called antifeminist have varied from each other. Also, this is an area where we may still disagree, but IMO, an article like this, about people's political views is a place where primary sources would be reasonable and valid: i.e., a group's direct characterization of its own views is as important in its way as an academic's assessment of it. I don't have all of Wiki's guidelines at my fingertips as a lot of editors seem to, but I definitely recall reading that primary sources are valid—it's drawing inferences that go beyond what they say directly that is problematic. JudahH (talk) 05:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
@JudahH: - I think I probably have a more optimistic view of their motivations than you think I do. Otherwise, I don't think I'd bother engaging in questions like this. I can see why you would believe and could reasonably argue that in an article like this a group's own views deserve as much creedence as those of academics, but that was a question Wikipedia's community debated as a whole long ago - before I joined, at least this time around - and decided wasn't the case. We don't, except in extreme circumstances, make exceptions to such global content policies. Primary sources are valid, and can primary sources about groups, movements, etc, can and are used legitimately on Wikipedia - but secondary sources are generally given preference, and especially in articles that are (as you have rightly pointed out) about terms that have been used to cover fairly diverse ideologies and movements, are generally hard to approprately give much weight. And yeah, I'm sure sourcing exists - I really meant "quality sourcing that could be used to be write about how antifeminism has been used to describe different ideologies and different movements at diferent times." I expect such surcing exists, and think it's probably sitting in a box in my garage (I recently moved.) Sorry for not digging it up yet, I'm intending to either today or tomorrow. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
No worries. If you get to it sometime, that'll be great; if not, it's not the end of the world. Good luck with the case and good night. JudahH (talk) 03:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Change from announced time table for the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case

You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Just as a formality...

I have moved your proposed FoF to a (new) section under Proposals by Kevin Gorman as a formality issue (you placed your proposal under Monty845's section). - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 05:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

You're also missing your signatures in various locations on the proposals you made. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 07:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Fixing them as I can. Wow. I'm really acting like a noob. Thank you Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Appreciate

My watchlist is long, therefore I saw your nice note of appreciation (Talk AC) only now, thank you ;) - The discussion is closed where you answered the question about the stroll, but not yet "the best way to avoid drama would be to not even let reports get to AE". I worded a few thoughts regarding that in the workshop, what do you think? - The recommended book will be TFA on 19 July. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for you comment, and yes, I am a woman ;) - Completely different topic: I found a rumor on the talk of a BLP where I think it doesn't belong. I reverted once and talked to the user. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Motion passed in AE arbitration case granting amnesty and rescinding previous temporary injunction

This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.

On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:

  1. Paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Arbitration Committee's motion of 29 June 2015 about the injunction and reporting breaches of it are hereby rescinded.
  2. The Arbitration Committee hereby declares an amnesty covering:
    1. the original comment made by Eric Corbett on 25 June 2015 and any subsequent related comments made by him up until the enactment of this current motion; and
    2. the subsequent actions related to that comment taken by Black Kite, GorillaWarfare, Reaper Eternal, Kevin Gorman, GregJackP and RGloucester before this case was opened on 29 June 2015.

AE etc.

Just checking ... you said " lots of admins will make occasional bad faith closes" did you mean "good faith"? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC).

Oh shit, thank you for catching that. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikinic rescheduled

5th Annual Wiknic rescheduled to Saturday, July 25, 2015, ~9:30am-4pm

Due to a conflict with the Redondo Loves Wikipedia edit-a-thon, the fifth annual Los Angeles Wiknic has been rescheduled. As before, the location will be at Pan-Pacific Park (map) and will be held on Saturday, July 25, 2015 from 9:30am to 4pm or so. Please RSVP and volunteer to bring food or drinks if possible!

I hope to see you there! —howcheng {chat} - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC) Join our Facebook group here! To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

  • Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
  • Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
  • Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
  • Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
  • Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
  • Research coordinators: run reference services



Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Coca-Cola treatment of phytobezoars

nuff said.

  Bfpage |leave a message  03:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Listen, I dare you to come up with better citations than I have! "Do you really think that you can improve this article?", she asked arrogantly.
  Bfpage |leave a message  00:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm sure the medrs people might find a nit to pick somewhere (not that that's necessarily a bad thing - I think MEDRS is definitely for the good overall,) but I'd have trouble finding one :) I'm really kind of amazed that someone could put together such a seemingly solid article on something that seems like a larff at first, but then upon further examination looks like it could actually be a reasonably important article :) I'm afraid that this is officially not my year healthwise, but I shall shoot to write a similarly comprehensive article on a topic that is 'wtf' to begin with, but after closer examination is in fact about something important within the next 45 days or so. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk)

This Month in Education: July 2015

Updates, reports, news, and stories about how Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects are used in education around the world.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/List of human diseases associated with infectious pathogens (2nd nomination)

Would you mind closing this discussion and moving the article in question to my draft space?

  Bfpage |leave a message  23:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you so much. I am glad that you could see that the discussion was over and at the same time allow me the opportunity to create something of worth. Best Regards,
  Bfpage |leave a message  23:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi BFP: I did implement the close you suggested here because, well, it was reasonable. I would ask that you generally don't directly approach me to ask me to close an AfD one way or another, as some people get weird about WP:CANVASS. Oddly enough, I'm pretty sure if the article had been deleted and then you had asked me to userfy it you wouldn't have potentially run afoul of any policy. /sigh. Sometimes our hodgepodge of policies results in really weird stuff. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Kevin, thank you for defining 'canvassing' for me. It never has been crystal clear to me. I (mistakenly) thought that asking for administrative attention wasn't part of the process. I have really learned a lot from you and your patient guidance through all mistakes and misunderstanding.
  Bfpage |leave a message  07:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
It's not really a crystal clear policy. Plenty of people complain about it at one point or another, but I'd almost guarantee I could find an example of almost anyone violating it's letter if I looked close enough. Anyway, people would be likely to perceive this as the 'bad' type of canvassing because you were approaching a specific administrator with whom you had had previously friendly interactions with asking for a specific close - it might at least give the impression that I was favoring you instead of just assessing consensus. It doesn't really matter in this case though because it was an obvious close and 'userfy' requests are granted 99% of the time unless there is something slanderous or something. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Jessica Wilson for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jessica Wilson is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Wilson until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Msnicki (talk) 13:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Because you were the blocking admin

As a follow-up from this giant hullabaloo a couple of months ago that started here, Jack the Vicar is back to beating a dead horse and showing he won't accept his three-week block was a result of his own actions and no one else's. If you recall, JtV was initially blocked not only for incivility but for canvassing off Wikipedia, collecting a group of editors he said were on his side, and using that as a threat to keep me from filing an AN/I on him (the AN/I can be seen here.

Fast forward to present day. Please see here for how today's incident started and has progressed. After promising to no longer interact with me (see here [11], he not only continued to comment negatively about me, but he has continued to interact in a back-door manner with/against me at Liz's talk page. He even recognized (today) that his comments on her talk page equate interaction. For example, he wrote the following: "I'll no longer be commenting or replying here lest it be seen as interaction (as I haven't since that ANI).". He then almost immediately continued to back-door interact with this morphing: "I'll no longer be commenting or replying here lest it be seen as interaction (as I haven't been near him since that ANI).". And then added even more a while later: "I'll no longer be commenting or replying here lest it be seen as interaction (as I haven't been near him since that ANI) or give into his baiting.". He said he would no longer be commenting, yet he has continued doing do by amending his original comments and adding more poke-like wording. Once again, it seems as if JtV just won't accept or take accountability for his behavior and continues to do exactly what he said he wouldn't. I think he's not only broken his promise, but he's once again being disruptive to make a point and to exact some form of revenge. I'm asking you review what's happening to see what you think. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Not going to block him for what he's done so far, but I agree with you that he has exercised exceedingly poor judgement for editing his comment to make it more pointy after he already had recognized a need to disengage. I'm not on-wiki as often as I'd like these days until HyQvia takes full effect, but please bring any further issues to my attention. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Will do. Thanks for looking into it, Kevin. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedy have been enacted:

  1. The Arbitration Committee delegates the drafters of this case to amend and clarify the text of the policy at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions and the text on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement to bring them in line with the clarifications contained in this decision.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement closed

Outing

You might want to check out the latest stunt pulled by JtV: outing the person who forwarded the email he received from JtV to you: [12]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Never mind. My error - I didn't realize Ironholds had already revealed his RL identity. My apologies for bothering you further. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I mean the funny thing is, I did get one from ironholds, but not only from him. Unfortunately, fatigue from remaining medical conditions means I'm going to have to call it a night. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Take care of yourself, Kevin. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

This Month in Education: August 2015

Updates, reports, news, and stories about how Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects are used in education around the world.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Back at it

Jack the Vicar is back at it again in his attempts to sully and poison the well with more personal attacks against me. Kevin, at JtV's talk page on May 30, 2015, you stated: "Follow NPA/Harrassment/etc in the future, or you will be blocked for a longer period of time" (comment is found here). How long must one put up with his personal attacks and negative comments because he won't drop the stick? In my opinion, he won't stop unless something impresses him that he must. I left this on his talk page in regard to this and this. Per your instructions on your user page, I am pinging Keilana as you seem to have been gone for a few weeks. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Oh, for the love of... incoming. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Jack's comments were no worse than anything WV said here. Further, you claim there was an interaction ban. There wasn't. JTV agreed to ignore the other user in question as a condition to an unsuccessful unblock request. The community did not impose an IBan (see here). I will be taking this to ANI (at least) if you don't reconsider. Calidum 02:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Jack's comments were completely unnecessary trolling about someone whom he had agreed to an iban with - they were not comments that were in any way solicited. I would say that "It seems the repeating pattern is he obsesses over things in the news, celebrities, dead people, and then edit wars with similarly curious people over those current events" as an unsolicited comment about a user he had agreed to not interact with or comment about (something that was demonstratably his understanding as well given his recent comment on Liz's talk page) is disruptive enough to warrant some time off. JTV has a cycle of realizing he shouldn't interact with WV, pulling back from interacting wih WV, and then making random unsolicited disruptive comments about WV. That's a cycle that needs to break. Making repeated unsolicited insulting comments in random forums about a user who you've already agreed to ignore is... not an awesome thing. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I feel like I've gotten you into a horrible mess. My only reason for coming to you was because you were the blocking admin previously and because you knew the situation (and the depth of it) completely. If anything drastic in regard to your status here comes of this, I will not be able to apologize enough. I'm already sick about how it has blown up and seems to be progressing. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Oh, don't worry about it, it's not your fault. That unblock request may be the most inappropriate unblock request ever to have been accepted. Most of the people supporting the unblock are people who are pissed off that I blocked someone else a few months ago, and are just taking it as a chance to leap on me. With any luck at all, reasonableness will prevail and Ritchie will get his hand smacked for accepting an unblock request that contained a blockable personal attack in it. It's not abnormal for people to go to the original blocking admin in situations like this, and many particular areas, disputes, sanctions, etc, rare typically just handled by the same person or people even over time. Nothing will happen to me; I've done nothing that would put my admin status in jeopardy. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Still, I am sick at heart about it all. I don't like seeing people such as yourself being sullied and dragged around by those with nefarious agendas. You would think by now I wouldn't, but I still get surprised when I see vulture-like behavior from Wikipedia editors. It's times like this that I wish the internet had never been created as its presence has created a whole new brand of ugliness in the way of human behavior that reveals very dark hearts and minds. Also, please know you have my support with this, but I am staying away because I think it would likely not help you if I showed up there. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
It's not remotely your fault. I blocked Eric Corbett a while ago with a flawed rationale that was still in the interests of the encyclopedia. Since that point, whenever I block anyone who creates content - no matter how severe their violation is - a certain group of people jump on me. It's funny that I've conducted around 100 blocks myself, fed around 400 accounts to be blocked in the Wiki-PR case, only ever had Eric's block overturned before this, and have never seen anyone accept a block appeal so far off from what an acceptable block appeal is. Yet one bad block and one block of someone who violated clear policy but who people happen to like and suddenly I'm an incompetent admin :) Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. But how else could you describe blocking an editor using a "flawed rationale"? Eric Corbett 21:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Eric - I've said in multiple forums that I recognize that my block of you was a bad block. However, with a hundred blocks performed and another 400 or so spoonfed before I had a bit, a 1% error rate (2% if you count this bizarre situation) is hardly indicative of me being incompetent. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
But my block stands in the record, along with other bad blocks, whereas your misjudgement doesn't. Therein lies the difference. Eric Corbett 21:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I'm pretty sure more people remember my misjudgement in blocking you (take a look at the current ani thread...) than actually care about what your block log says. I'd still point out that a 1% rate of bad blocks, not counting the current bullshit, is not exactly horrible. 21:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I do have some sympathy with you in regards to people's attitude to your not exactly horrible blocking record. Your treatment reminds me of the way people treat Mike Tyson. He was the undisputed heavyweight champion of the world and holds the record as the youngest boxer to win the WBC, WBA and IBF heavyweight titles, but people always bring up that one time when he bit Evander Holyfield. His rate of bad biting was even lower than your record of bad blocks if you measure the bite-rate as bites per round boxed. Just remember what Manny Pacquiao said: "Boxing is not about your feelings. It's about performance." and apply it to Wikipedia. Best wishes! Uncle uncle uncle 22:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Funny and offtopic - but right now my kids are watching "Phineas and Ferb" cartoon reruns [13] and Evander Holyfield showed up to give training advice to one of the characters. My son said "Hey! He's missing half his ear" and I told my son that it was bitten off by Mike Tyson; my son thought I was joking. Best wishes! Uncle uncle uncle 04:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
"His rate of bad biting". Don't know that I would describe as "bad", since it was in response to Holyfield repetitively head-butting him, and after failed pleas by Tyson to the referee to have it stopped. IHTS (talk) 13:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm currently having a flare up of multiple immune disorders at once which is why I'm only looking at my talk page notes, and then belatedly... but really, IHTS? I was old enough when it happened to rememeber the brouhaha but not old enough to understand any subtleties involved. As a serious question, was your post describing tyson's bite as not necessarily bad serious? Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Serious. (I taped the fight & watched it several times. Tyson was head-butted numerous times, registering complaints with the referee more than once. But it continued. [The ref gave verbal warnings but took no actions.] Tyson's bite came out of pure desperation/self-preservation, as it was clear by then the ref wasn't going to do anything to stop it. IMO the missing piece of ear seems a logical & ethical outcome.) IHTS (talk) 05:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks, IHTS, I actually find that really interesting. I'm going to familarize myself with the rules he was fighting over, and spend some time watching the fight. I don't think many people many people my age had ever heard hat as anything but foul play from Tyson, who at the time was the heayweight champion of the world. I'm curious if you have my page on your watchlist - what do you think about the recent Floydmayweather vs Manny fight? Would a few years either have changed anything especially since iirc many is older?
  • Holyfield was ear-bitten while yet again trying to head-butt Tyson, after Tyson had exhausted everything he could do to stop it. The fact that Holyfield cheated & fought dirty like that, while touting his Christian faith in interview before the fight, made it additionally sickening. I haven't followed boxing much after Tyson, so am unfamiliar w/ the bout you named. Ok, IHTS (talk) 18:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Competence is about judgement over multiple situations, not just blocking. Blocking can't be judged in percentages, as I explained earlier, as you aren't counting any block that made an editor just leave an not come back, which may not have happened for all I know, but it wouldn't be counted in this artificial and useless percentage stat. Using unblock as a measure of performance is fatally flawed and shouldn't be considered at all. How one handles a "bad block" once the community has decided it is a bad block, that speaks both to the character and competence of the admin. Again, Arbcom is littered with the spent admin bits of those that were too proud to admit they were wrong, and that has been the leading cause of desysopping for years: pride. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Dennis, you don't seem to realize that I read and understood your comments at the ANI section. I brought up percentages only because you implied that I regularly had my blocks overturned, when in fact it's happened twice. You were the person who brought up the frequency of blocks being overturned. One I admit was a good unblock, and one I think someone (and I'm not talking about me's) tools should be at risk over. I do not believe, at least the last time I looked, that a high enough portion of the community had read and understood the background to the block to judge its merits. Just as RFA's etc aren't simply vote counts, neither is a community judgement of a block. When several respectable admins (ex, DES) support my original block, and a bunch of people who are for the most part the same lot oppose my block without giving a reason - that cannot necessarily interpreted as a bad block. I stand by my block and would dare anyone to ever find an unblock request of that nature accepted elsewhere. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited An act to amend Section 1714.22 of the Civil Code, relating to drug overdose treatment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Plan B. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk before you block

I called it a night expecting you to apologize to JackTheVicar but see it didn't happen.

You commented on my ideas to run a few steps of caution before reporting someone to AE. How about the same for blocks:

  • An edit offends you, but is it important for Wikipedia? Only if yes,
  • Talk to experienced admins if they feel the same. Only if yes,
  • Talk to the user who offended, tell the user how you feel about it, trying to achieve modification or revert. Only if no,
  • Consider a block. If the user is a content editor, think once more if the loss of content during the block time is worth it. Only you think yes,
  • Look if you blocked the same editor before. If yes, absolutely find someone else to do it.

The image on my user page is a constant reminder of the message for which it was designed: "ps Every day, we lose what the wrongly blocked would have given that day. And a little bit of our souls." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Of course I'm not apologizing to JtV. He still denies the validity of his first block, and his unblock was a screed that should've been automatically rejected. He has been talked to several times since his last block - including by people other than me - about staying away from WV, and civility and NPA issues. As with his first block, if he had acknowledged that breaking a self-imposed iban (which regardless of what he says now, his recent comment on Liz's page recognizes he believes he was under) in an uncivil attacky fashion was not the right away to go about doing things and had committed to not doing so in the future, I would've shortened his block to one day, just as I would've in the first place. I also categorically reject the idea that editors are exempt from NPA if they would've produced content during the block. And it's pretty par for the course for the same admin to block the same user multiple times. I respect you Gerda, but the block was warranted and Ritchie's departure from the conduct expected of an admin was severe enough that I was considering escalating it. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
You did not read what I wrote. I was not talking (other than in the very first sentence), about JTV, but very generally about my severe doubts that any block of a content editor will improve Wikipedia. I believe that other means - less of power, more of respectful talk among human beings on equal level - should be pursued, while blocks are good for vandals and trolls. (To call a block good or bad seems overly simplistic.) - I have no more time for this, health issues, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I did read what you wrote, although I didn't fully respond to this. I will when I can. Ironically - health issues. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm with Gerda, Kevin. I'm sorry to see you drifting into the civility nightmare that someone of your experience should know is just a waste of time. Indeed, even if the civility police got their way, it would likely at least be a waste. This project is about improvement of knowledge using the collective capabilities of those who choose to participate but "any fule no" that participation and ability are disparate concepts. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater because, frankly, most of those who are repeatedly inserting themselves into the pro-civility camp do not in fact contribute to improvement of content, although they may like to combat vandals in obvious cases and to report rude usernames etc. Or, at least, so it seems to me ... but in any event it is so subjective as to be pointless. Hence the waste of time.
And you can add me to the list of people with health issues that affect their participation here - no offence intended to anyone but that might be as fruitful an area as any other for the WMF to commission a study! Correlation/causation etc regarding both ability and desire to participate, and whether those issues are exacerbated or benign as a consequence. As a random example, does WP attract people with Aspergers etc and what impact, if any, does participation have on their condition and on those with whom they participate in the context of the purpose of the project. - Sitush (talk) 23:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Sitush, although I find your post productive enough to leave here, due to your last interactions with me please do not post again on my talk page unless it's a required notice (e.g., an ANI one). Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • When I saw I'm going to respond to Gerda, I mean it, so go away archivebots. Probably not today though, because someone pointed out a major piece of California legislation we are missing. Kevin Gorman (talk) 11:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  • If nothing else can be said about me, I at least usually remember to reply when I say I will. I agree with you, Gerda, that every day a content creator is blocked, Wikipedia loses something irrevocably. However, I also have a broader definition of content converter- or at least those who we can likely turn in to content converters. Many of the horde would describe me not as a content converter (which is a bit funny, when you look at what I've created) - but just the other day I came across a really significant California state bill, so I created a stub for it.
If I had been blocked because doing so would've pleased Eric (who indubitably creates way more content than I do - and before he chimes in Eric, I know AFAIK you've never asked for me to be blocked) then that article would've not been created, at least for a while. Yet, I wasn't blocked. Most Wikipedians exist on continuum from Eric or DrBlofeld to... well, I don't think I can fill in the end without it being offensive. Blocking obviously stops a content creator from creating content for the duration of the block - where at the other end, some creators won't create unless certain other content creators are blocked - those that consistently violate NPA, etc. Here we had a situation where a content creator was violating NPA against someone who he had already recognized he shouldn't be interacting with. So, I felt that tipping the cosmic scales involved putting a block in place - ideally one that wouldn've been removed within hours if the Blockrequest hadn't entired Bizarreoland and Ritchie done one of the least appropriate uses of admin tools that has personally involved me on my history on Wikipdia. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Kevin, thanks for trying, but after more than a week in hospital I almost forgot what we were talking about, nor can I find it really important. I remember that I tried to get two points across and don't find an answer to that yet:
  • Better talk to a user before you block the user (even if other admins do it), - there may be just misunderstandings which can be cleared in person-to-person-talk.
  • Better don't block the same user twice (even if other admins do it), - there are so many other admins to do the second one if necessary, - you can avoid looking like someone acting motivated by personal dislikes. I like JackTheVicar who has done great things (example pictured), so liked to see him unblocked (twice).
Wikipedia resembles Bizarroland any time, no need to make it worse ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
ps: I thought about it a bit more and arrived at the idea that it's mostly a waste of YOUR time to block people who are good for Wikipedia, having to defend your blocks and all other time-consuming consequences (and how would you successfully defend a block based on an iban that doesn't even exist?). I saw yesterday that TfD is in great need of capable admins, with Drmies brave enough to help, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
It's not bravery, Gerda--I just have someone who tells me what to do, and then I do it. As for this "talk before you block": that is, of course, excellent advice. Kevin, if you got nothing better to do, look at my block and its circumstances. You can't help but fail to notice that a. it was a very shitty rationale in the first place, and there was no "personal attack"; b. I wasn't even around when I was blocked and then unblocked; c. had the admin talked to me before they so eagerly pushed the button they wouldn't have looked like a complete and utter dick. Or at least like a bad admin. I forgot the particulars of the block you and Gerda are talking about, and I'm about to take a walk with the dogs and the kids, but I just want to state for the record that talking is always better than blocking. So many of Eric's blocks, for instance, were done too eagerly (I think you blocked him too, right? I'm not saying anything specifically about that block right now). And what is the damage done by those blocks? Can you say User:Malik Shabazz? Maybe Malik's block was justified, but an emergency desysop? In many cases, blocks of established editors, whether you like them or not, fail to consider that there is no imminent danger to the project. Talk. Wait. Don't expect a response in five minutes. Let the other party cool down--chances are they walked away from the keyboard and aren't deleting the front page. Imagine how you'd feel if you got blocked, and what terrible things you might say immediately afterward. I'm frequently seen as soft or enabling, I think--but there's blocks and blocks, and our "real" editors aren't simple vandals or POV warriors or racists that need to be shut up ASAP. Boy that's a lot of words--take it easy, Kevin. Hope to see you again in real life somewhere. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Article about you

I have created an article about you at Kevin Gorman (Wikipedian). Best, Everymorning (talk) 02:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Uh oh, you just became one of those unfortunate living people with biographies on Wikipedia :-0 ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
at least you dont have a wikipedia article about your wikipedia article...yet. (ie no "controversy")Mercurywoodrose (talk) 09:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Heh, I am flattered @Everymorning:. I must admit that I was hoping the creation of an article about me would only happen many years in to the future, if at all. It's weird to think that the coverage of that position when combined with previous coverage of myself means I probably pass the GNG (although I do have to wonder if I wouldn't be a case of BLP1E, since most of the coverage of that position applies to my appointment itself, and not the work I did while there - and most of the other mentions of me in the news are me commenting about things, and not about me myself.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I took the liberty of adding a link to the WP:BLP1E in your comment above for the benefit of inquisitive readers like myself. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
No worries, thank you. I'm almost tempted to prod myself under BLP 1E, since it seems like having an AfD about yourself would be awkward, yet I think I currently probably fall under BLP 1e (that 1e being 'being appointed,') and although am flattered that Everymorning took the time to write about me, both am not sure I meet our inclusion standards... and kind of dread what could eventually result :P Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree about BLP1E, and can WP:PROD it if you want (I say "if you want", because if you think it should stay it should probably go to AFD). As it stands, this article is just "man was hired to do a job", and it would be A7'd without blinking were it on any topic other than Wikipedia. ‑ iridescent 17:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Honestly I think it should probably be prodded. I'd rather avoid an AfD about myself. I previously asked someone to review it for A7, but they pointed out (and I think they were probably correct) that "first person hired as a WiR by a University in the US" is a claim to importance, which is the standard for A7, rather than actual notability. But as it stands unless there's media coverage about myself that I'm not thinking of, I'm pretty much BLP1E - even Dominic doesn't have an article, and he among other things is the full time permanent WiR at NARA. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
(e/c) I asked Everymorning if he'd be OK with a G7 CSD; that's better than a PROD and *much* better than an AFD. Kevin, if I've misunderstood and you oppose the deletion, I'll remove the request at EM's talk. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
No objections to a G7, either, and thank you. Though I do appreciate that he took the time to write the article, I don't think I rightfully meet our bar for notability yet. Almost all of the coverage of my position at Berkeley was just about being appointed, and not what I did there (which I haven't even had time/energy to write up internally yet - my position didn't terminate because of any problems with the direction things were headed, but because I fell in to severe septic shock, almost died, still have only half-recovered, and figured out I had CVID along the way.) I've definitely commented in the media about Wikipedia, but those comments were just by me and not about me - and thus don't count. I guess if someone tried hard enough they might be able to find additional coverage of me somewhere, but it'd make for a pretty incoherent article at absolute best. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
And this may be stating the obvious, but I can think of at least two precedents (Floq, I know you're aware of them too; those without OS access will need to take my word for it) for "creating an article on another Wikipedia editor" automatically being treated as harassment regardless of the intent of the creator. The more I think about this, the more I think this should be deleted before it has a chance to set a precedent for this kind of thing ever being acceptable. ‑ iridescent 17:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
EveryMorning has declined to use G7. I'm sorely tempted to just delete it, and direct EM to WP:DRV. I don't doubt his intent, but per Iri, this is a pretty bad precedent to set. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Scratch that, my powers of persuasion worked. Deleted per G7. Thank you, User:EveryMorning. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Rats. bad ping. Thank you User:Everymorning. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I can think of (I'm pretty sure) both precedents you are thinking of Iri, and do think this article is a slightly different case. I appreciate that EM took the time to write it and don't think I've interacted with him before, I just don't think I meet our notability standards (and bluntly don't terribly want an article about myself.) Some Wikipedians are genuinely notable and plenty of Wikipedians do have articles about themselves. I haven't interacted with EM before AFAIK, and don't think he meant any harm by it - and even if someone dug really hard they couldn't make it in to a hitpiece without resorting to unreliable sources (I am aware of most of the RS coverage of myself, although not all - and I haven't read all the non-english stuff.) This was a longer comment, but I frankly can't believe the number of times I've editconflicted on my own page in a row, and I cut a lot of it out. Thank you Everymorning, Iri, and Floquenbeam. Kevin Gorman (talk)

And still doing the same kind of garbage

User Jack the Vicar is still doing the same crap - referencing me negatively and extremely, but this time as part of a list of what Administrator- hopefuls shouldn't be. He refuses to drop the stick. It's a personal attack and an extreme form of polemic. He really crossed the line this time, in my opinion. See here (point #4). Last time around with JTV you stated on his talk page: "I've decided to just set a pattern. Don't talk about WV. Especially don't make comments about WV that violate NPA or civil. The first time you do, I'm going to block you for two weeks (which I'll be putting in to place momentarily.) Any future blocks by me for anything involving you and WV will be twice the length of the previous block." (link here). It appears to me he is testing daring you, as well as the community, by blatantly ignoring your warning last time around. When is it going to stop? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Because I don't know when you will be around, I'm asking some other admins I trust to be notified of this, as well: Drmies, NeilN, Bbb23. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I removed that portion and warned Jack the Vicar. Digging up the ANI thread [14] I see there's some question about the iBan and the last block seemed to be deemed questionable. Drmies, your opinion on this new incident? --NeilN talk to me 17:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, that's another fine mess we got into. Thanks Neil. I reread the ANI and the close and was struck by the beautiful language of the closer. I wish I could write that well. With "question about the iBan" (I'm glad to see someone taking over my spelling of that word), do you mean the proposal by Georgewilliamherbert? Yes, that last block was questionable; I already said "sorry Kevin" so I don't have to do that again. Winkelvi, I doubt that Kevin would make a similar block again. If this needs to be escalated it should be done on ANI, but the result will be predictable: no one will be happy.

    Having said that, JackTheVicar, that note in your RfA guidelines was not acceptable. We have an acronym somewhere that basically says "please don't write bad shit about other editors in your user space unless you are using it to prepare for an RfC/U", and that was clearly a violation thereof. Also, we don't have RfC/U anymore. I just worked with you, very pleasantly, on a GA (ha, I couldn't recall why your name was so familiar...the blessings of old age). You are clearly a valid content contributor. For his part, the same goes for Winkelvi. You may only see the stuff that gets him in hot water, but he frequently sticks his nose in what's already a hot mess, and frequently he's right. It is best for y'all to avoid each other, clearly. Actually, what's better is learning to work together (on article content) but that's probably too much to ask right now. So, Jack, I'll ask again--please take it easy. Winkelvi was justified in taking some offense to that comment, and I think you know that. My dear Winkelvi, try to keep some distance; I think you know that's best.

    I know I'm giving no one exactly what they want; I suppose I'm an equal-opportunity enabler. But this has the potential of getting real unfriendly, and no one is going to like admins swinging their big sticks around during a shit storm. It splatters. All the best to both of you and, Kevin, to you too. Drmies (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in, Drmies (and thanks for you thoughts, too, NeilN). As far as what I want, that's something you can't provide in this case, Drmies. Only JTV can make it happen: stop poking, stop baiting, stop being disruptive, stop dwelling on the past, stop being uncivil, stop mentioning me. All of that is up to him. What admins or other editors choose to do or say to him in regard to such behavior is not my concern. I'm not interested in seeing editors blocked. I'm interested in shit not being stirred and disruption not happening. That's it. But, as long as he continues behaving in such a manner, I will continue to take notice and let others know as appropriate. Thanks again, and have a good weekend. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Glad to read the Solomonic analysis by Drmies. The criteria has been edited, I think, appropriately to avoid the reference. I recognize he had a right to be offended, yet amid the histrionics of his protesting (oh, convertere ad Dominum tuum), I get the strange hairs-on-the-back-of-my-neck feeling he stalks my contributions. Methinks he should be more focused on the three matters currently at WP:AN with his name on it than what I think in weighing the suitability of potential RfA candidates. JackTheVicar (talk) 18:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't give a flying fuck about your contributions and editing. Really, I don't. I only care when you make comments like you did that are direct attacks against me and any other editor. Three matters at AN? I think not. But, tell me, with that comment, who's hounding whom? Actually, never mind. It doesn't matter to me. Just cut the shit, stay away from me, stop talking about me, and we will be fine. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Doing this from my mobile: the last block was overturned out of process by someone unfamiliar with the situation, as demonstrated by him making numerous factually inaccurate comments. The overturning of it was upheld by people who didn't read the diffs or who had other motivations for wanting to reverse any block I place. As I will argue again later (but see last ani for diffs, and note desiegel agreed,) I don't think there's a real iban question, although it should be formalized. Jtv offered up - without a caveat - a voluntary iban, and confirmed in a diff months later that he was operating under an iban. It was voluntary, but done under a significant shadow. Just like the bit given up under a cloud voluntarily cannot be restored just by asking for it back, I don't think an iban offered under a cloud can be unilaterally removed. At a minimum, there are long term harassment issues with Jtv going after WV, that have violated a host of other policies in the process. I doubt I'll have time to write a detailed AN while I'm at wikiconf, so @JackTheVicar:, take this as one last opportunity to stop. You may view this as an empty threat, but the next time you pull shit like this, I'm putting together an AN formalizing the iban and depending on what you did, getting a community endorsed long block on the spot. You were lucky last round, but should keep in mind that I am primarily responsible for getting passed two of the broadest sanctions and bans ENWP has ever seen. The next time you cross the line, I'll take the time to write up a sufficient and supported summary that I have very little doubt it will pass. Take this as a stroke of luck that I'd rather fully attend wikiconf then do so now, and stop crossing the line with WV.
Thank you drm/Neil for handling the immediate. Unfortunately this is a forest of nastiness that has gone on for too long, but requires full diff digging through an awful lot of pages to comprehend the scope of. Kevin Gorman (talk) 10:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia_likes_Galactic_Exploration_for_Posterity

Hello Kevin Gorman, I left a response to your suggestion at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:IEG/Wikipedia_likes_Galactic_Exploration_for_Posterity_2015#LOL

My best regards, Geraldshields11 (talk) 01:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

This Thursday: Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Getty Center

You are invited to join the Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Getty Center in LA on October 15! (drop-in any time, 10am-4pm)--Pharos (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Your statement at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Your statement seems to contradict itself:

  • "I seriously doubt he consulted anyone prior to blocking Eric"
  • "I'm sure Kirill also spoke to a large part of the uninvolved admin corps about whether or not they would be willing to possibly action Eric"

Maybe you can edit your statement to clarify. And, rather than guess whether Kirill consulted or spoke with anyone about this action prior to taking it, why don't you just ask him? I'm assuming that you've met him at conferences, so you know each other. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

FYI, Statement by Kirill Lokshin: "For the record, I had no communication with anyone regarding this block prior to having placed it." – Wbm1058 (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
"My conclusion is based primarily on the individual testimony of numerous administrators, who have personally told me on various occasions (the earliest being sometime in 2010, as I can recall) that they deliberately avoid intervening in incidents involving Eric for fear of harassment." OK, I get it now. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi @Wbm1058: - although I'll take another look at my statement when I'm less tired, and would welcome any suggested ways to clarify it, you did get the point. You are correct that I know Kirill - and have had discussions with him about the reluctance of any uninvolved admin, to take action against Eric (I would be involved enough that even enforcing an arb remedy I would be questioned.) I also know he's had discussions with plenty of other admins about the same fact - his statement explicitly says that the earliest such discussions he can remember date back to 2010 (which is shortly before I started editing on this account, although I have maybe 100 edits on another account from 2005.) However, even though I know he's had those discussions, I'd be shocked if he directly consulted anyone about the action he took against Eric. He certainly didn't consult with me or anyone else that I'm aware of about it, and in my past experiences with Kirill, I would be surprised if he consulted with anyone at all. Instead he identified an issue (correctly, imho,) identified a way in which he could make positive change on that issue (AE is not required to enforce an arb remedy, and as an ex-arb who knows policy front to back, Kirill would certainly be aware of that,) and then went ahead and took action that he knew was within policy to try to create positive change.
It's unfortunate that an administrator who declared her retirement half a year ago chose to jump on what was clearly marked as an automatic-desysop grenade in defense of Kirill's accurate interpretation of an arbcom remedy against Eric and subsequent block of him. Especially with the template Kirill used, there's no way that Yngva did that not knowing it would lead to at least an instant desysop and potentially a block or ban (arbcom generally frowns on administrators explicitly trying to circumvent multiple remedies from multiple past cases.)

Edit - oh, and as you pointed out, my statement was really just backing up Kirill's own statement based on my own experience with the situation. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Balvenie

I've had a few of the Balvenies, but I really enjoyed the Balvenie 17 yr Madeira cask. I just bought the Ardbeg Uigeadail and, so far, am not disappointed. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Kansas Bear: - Ooh, I don't think I've actually had the Madeira cask yet. If you're liking the Uigeadail, if you happen to be in the right part of the country/world to pick one up, you would probably be pretty satisfied with a bottle of Don Cuco sotol too. I know it's odd to think that a Mexican spirit vaguely related to tequilla and mezcal could compare to a good peaty single malt, but I have yet to find someone disappointed in it who likes Uigeadail or, say, Laphraoigh quarter-cask. (To be clear, there are other good sotols too, there are just some pretty bad ones as well.) It seems an odd enough comparison, but if you like Uigeadail and ever get a chance to go for a bottle (or glass) of Don Cuco (especially one of the aged ones,) it's well worth it, surprisingly. I have some carribbean cask downstairs I suddenly have an urge to go pour myself a double of.. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration statement

Hi, Kevin Gorman. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; and concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.

Exemptions to the word count can be requested either on the page itself or to the Arbitration Committee mailing list.

For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 17:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi @Amortias: - Thanks for dropping by. I was making an effort to keep my statement length down (including by removing a response to IHTS, which ironically he has since complained about,) but didn't run a word count on it last night. I'll see what I can do to pare it down further in the immediate future - I have a feeling that what bumped me above the word limit drastically was my last point on legal issues, which I'll probably request an exemption for if that is the case, since I've had (unrelated) meetings with multiple sets of California lawyers (which is the jurisdiction any claims would likely be adjucated in,) that dealt with the legal claims being repeated in multiple other editors' statements that simply categorically do not apply to California law, US law, or both. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Hi @Amortias: - I've cut down my section significantly, but it still exceeds 500 words. It would not to do except for my last point, which I view as a rather significant one since it comes out of advice given very recently in two sets of unrelated matters by attorneys in California, and directly deals with a lot of legal claims made by other participants that are not correct in any of the likely jurisdictions where any libel or similar claim would be adjucated. I'd rather keep everything on wiki but don't actually see a section of the page to request word limit increases - can you point me to it? As a note, it's not substantially over 500 - less than 100 words over that. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
If you make a request in your statement on the page one of the clerks should pick it up and bring it to the arbs attention for discussion. Amortias (T)(C) 17:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks muchly. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Enfranchising voters in arbcom elections

I'm pinging the only three candidates currently volunteering to be arbcom election commissioners to this page, on the grounds that in all likelihood they will become election commissioners, though I welcome comments from others. @Mdann52, Mike V, and Guy Macon:

  • So.. the basic problem: arbcom elections get a pitiful turnout (we had an arb last cycle elected with 273 supports and fewer than 600 total votes of any sort.) Yet the basic requirements for voting in an arbcom election are very easy to meet, and a substantial portion of the electorate is completely unaware they are ableto vote. Looking at our current stats, we have close to 3,400 'very active editors', and a large host that occasionally participate (i.e., by running subject specific editathons) that both mostly meet the requirements to vote, and are significantly effected by decisions that arbcom makes.
We do use banners about upcoming elections/votes, but they are both ambiguous to anyone not well-versed in the admin side of wikiness (even though many of those people will be effected by arbcom decisions in a significant way nonetheless,) and miss those who contribute only occasionally (but through editathons or whatever other means, have more than reached the requirement to vote in elections.) Today I encountered a content creator with almost 57k ENWP edits, primarily to mainspace, who had no idea they could actually vote in arbcom elections.
It's standard practice in most elections to notify in a clear way to eligible voters that they can, well, vote. If in one day in one thread someone came along with 57k edits and had no idea they could vote - imagine how many more eligible voters are unaware they can vote? I don't think it's a good idea for arb elections to be decided by a small fraction of our very active editors, who in turn comprise a small fraction of eligible voters or people who will be effected by arb decisions in the future.
We run banners about them, after thinking/looking at them myself, and talking with a couple other people, could as well be written in Arabic as far as a majority of the electorate is concerned. What are your thoughts on directly notifying eligible voters with a brief, neutral paragraph that they are eligible to vote? If we don't mind a small rate of hitting ineligible voters (which could be helped by clarifying that those blocked, etc, can't vote in the text we send out,) a tool like massmessage could be pretty easily used to notify eligible voters that they can vote.
It pretty severely disturbs me that arbcom turnout is so poor and falling, and that among other things, I stumbled across a content creator with 57k (!!) edits who had no idea they could vote. It's pretty standard practice among other organizations to find ways to notify eligible voters that they are eligible to vote for something like arbcom, or a board of directors, etc. Arbcom's makeup shouldn't be decided by less than 20% of highly active editors and by my guesstimation less than 3% of non-stale editors who meet the requirements. Thoughts? Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
For those following along at home, the discussion concerns Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Electoral Commission.
From The above and from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012#Statement by User:Tznkai we find
"The mandate of the Electoral Commission is to deal with any unforeseen problems that may arise in the 2015 Arbitration Committee election process, and to adjudicate any disputes during the election."
While I personally agree that turnout is indeed too low and that Something Must Be Done about it, It is outside of the mandate of the Electoral Commission to determine whether turnout is too low or what to do about it. I see our role as standing be doing nothing until something unexpected like the 2011 issue of how many seats would be available comes up, study the comments by all who express an opinion on the matter, confer amongst ourselves, make ether a 2:1 or 3:0 decision, and announce it.
Feel free to post a proposal to address this issue yourself, but in my personal opinion the Electoral Commission should stay neutral and uninvolved. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Guy on both counts: that the turnout is far, far too low, and also that it is not within the scope of the electoral commission to inform editors that they are eligible to vote. That of course does not mean that others should not do it, I just don't think it's something for which the electoral commission should be responsible. GorillaWarfare (talk) 08:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Guy and GW in that this is not something the electoral commission should be involved in. I'm not entirely convinced that turnout is actually too low; 600 participants is actually extraordinarily high by the standards of most Wikipedia internal administrative affairs, especially when one takes into account that making an informed decision in an Arbcom election is a tedious and time-consuming activity involving reading lengthy swathes of text. I think you (Kevin) are hugely overestimating the significance of Arbcom—the reason most Wikipedia editors don't care about it isn't that they're uninformed, but that it has little relevance to most peoples' lives. You seem to be under the impression that it's some kind of governing council, but it really isn't. ‑ iridescent 08:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Kevin, when you wrote a "substantial portion of the electorate is completely unaware they are unable to vote", did you mean "... able to vote"? Arbcom governs my editing every day, so I care, but why should others? I found the greatest wisdom about arbcom in a nutshell here, only too late ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Just to throw my hat into the ring here, I feel that the electons are quite well advertised, but to be perfectly blunt, there is a large proportion of the community who stay out of these areas and couldn't care less what ArbCom does, yet alone who's on it. While I feel high participation is good, this is naturally going to suffer from the bias of people not caring enough to vote. Therefore, it doesn't seem like an issue for the EC to address, unless participation drops off dramatically. Mdann52 (talk) 12:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Whoops, apologies for literally failing to read the pretty obvious mandate of the commissioners. As a point @Mdann52: - participation actually already has dropped off dramatically. 2014 saw just 61% of the ballots cast that 2013 did - and even though editorship overall declined during that period, it certainly didn't decline 39%. Gerda: thanks for the correction, and that is precisely what I meant. Iridescent: I'm fully aware of what arbcom does and does not do, and given the rippling effects of arbcom decisions, I strongly disagree with you there. First, the user with 57k edits wasn't a hypothetical user, but someone I actually encountered yesterday - and beyond just the edit count they have created >2400 articles, most of which are well-sourced and not at all stubs. That is an absolute ton of content (they've also been around longer than I have, by quite a bit.) They were also literally unaware that they could vote in arbcom elections. (I dislike naming specific editors without their consent when I'm using them as examples, but will ping them towards this section, and anyone who knows how to look through contribs could figure it out anyway.)
If a user who has created that much content has one of their major collaborators banned by an arbcom decision - certainly you see why it's a bad situation for the user who has created that much content and the encyclopedia as a whole, right? And since the encyclopedia is literally created by people like that, they should have a voice in governance. Yet, I'm not kidding in suggesting they were unaware they could vote. That user clearly has an interest in knowing they are eligible to vote. And face it, it's true that both plenty of people ignore banners without thinking (thanks banner ads on other sites and the yearly fundraiser here,) and that the banner text never makes it clear who is eligible to vote. (And, imho, it's a reasonable interpretation by the average non-admin that it may not include them - especially someone who (and this is a theoretical example, though I know such people exist) has, say 1,000 edits and regularly runs editathons. They qualify to vote, and have a direct interest in governance. We shouldn't be comparing ourselves to ourselves - we're awful at an awful lot of things. Especially for things like turnout in elections we should be looking to the practices of comparable organizations, not looking (or at least not entirely looking) at what we've done ourselves in the past - particularly in an area where we are (a) failing and (b) failure is likely to negatively impact the encyclopedia as a whole, as well as the movement's strategic goals (which were created in a community driven process with an awful lot of participants (to use a pointy metric, more than twice the voters in 2014...)
I am in no way suggesting we try to require users to vote, simply that eligible voters are informed that thehy are eligible. I'm actively thinking about it and poking a few people for ideas, but without tech support from WMF (which is unlikely to be forthcoming,) the best mechanism I can think of off the top of my head would be a neutral mass message targetted at all editors who have edited in the last six months and otherwise meet the criteria (I don't think such a list could be generated using existing dumps WMF provides, but it's trivial enough that a supported request for such a dump for a massmessage sent out by a functionary would likely receive WMF assistance and approval.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Kevin, I strongly support this idea, I think it is appropriate, reasonable and rational, and agree with your parameters for use of the mass-message. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 22:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I am the editor with the 57K edits who didn't know about the upcoming ArbComm election (until Kevin mentioned it elsewhere). I see there is a mention of banner messages; I don't recall seeing any such banner message. I find it very strange that I am eligible to vote in an election without having been informed of it. When I have to vote here in Australia, I get a etter in the post or an email telling me about the election and the arrangements for voting. This is true for governments, shareholders in companies, and members of societies. I find it very remiss that electors aren't kept informed that an election is upcoming and what they should do to nominate or vote etc. Given that WMF has the Quarry tool, I would have thought it easy enough to generate a list of eligible voters for the various WMF elections and mass message the voters (or email them if they have enabled email). Kerry (talk) 01:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
The banner messages have not started this year, as nominations have not yet opened, and I don't think that mass messaging would be appropriate before then. Email certainly wouldn't be appropriate before voting begins. Increasing the awareness of potential voters is certainly a good thing, but if you do it too early you are just spamming people for no useful reason. As for nominations, only self-nominations are accepted and I do not think that someone who is not aware of the nominations from watchlist notices and similar would be aware enough of the current issues to be a viable candidate. Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi @Thryduulf: - I agree with you. To be honest, the idea of mass-messaging didn't occur to me until Kerry brought it up. My thoughts on when to send it out would be either shortly before the end of the nomination period or at its end. Any before that and people interested in voting may not realize that it's not until close to the end of the nomination period that many candidates declare. And obviously, any mass message need to be short, accurate, and neutral. In terms of candidate recruitment, I do disagree a bit, which is why I will probably continue speaking with individual people about the idea of them running. I'm also not certain that we can say with any surety who is a viable candidate or not at this point. Last year, for the first time, we had a non-admin come closer to hitting the minimum threshold of support than ever before, didn't we? Despite having 60% of the voters of 2013... I'm not sure the behavior of an additional influx of voters would be predictable, especially if a significant number of them take the time to review the candidates. I know I can think of at least a couple of people who would be unlikely to reach the threshold of support last year who could very easily do so if the voting pool increased significantly this year - and both the people I'm thinking of are pretty well aware of current issues despite the fact that I'm not sure they would have been viable at all last year. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

As I read the answers above, they say that the electoral committee should stay completely out of it, but others can do what they want. So I'll suggest that Kevin ask the WMF to set up a notification system. I suspect they may not be able to do this so quickly, but ... well there's no rule against it and it would promote the common good. Also, any editor could set up their own notification system, if users asked them to be reminded. Sure it would be difficult for one editor to remind more than a hundred or so potential voters, but 100 voters could decide the election. I emphasize that the potential voters would have to ask to be reminded, otherwise somebody is sure to cry "canvassing". Does that pass muster with everyone? Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Notifying many people is trivial (I think any admin can use special:massmessage), the tricky bit is generating the list of people to send it to. I don't think many people would object to the sending of a single message to everyone eligible (assuming we can get that list) with instructions that if they want to receive future messages they must sign up (simple as adding your name to a specified page), but you might want to run that past somewhere higher profile first (AN perhaps? I'm not sure). Thryduulf (talk) 17:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I've been told that making the list is certainly doable. I would definitely intend to run it past somewhere higher profile first - this section was intended just to generate ideas. If I massmessaged all eligible voters who have edited in the last three months, I'm pretty sure a few people would be calling for my head on a platter, heh. Small: since I (and all other admins as well as a few other users) have the ability to use Special:MassMessage, WMF intervention wouldn't be needed, and a neutral massmessage sent to all active eligible voters doesn't fit the definition of canvassing. I'm sure someone will scream canvassing anyway, but that happens in almost every situation anyway. I'm not talking about sending out a candidate slate or something and suggesting people vote for them - just sending out a brief, factually accurate description of what arbcom is and the fact that the user is eligible to vote in deciding the composition of arbcom (unless they have already voted, or are evading a block or ban,) with pointers to the candidate and voting pages. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
That sounds perfect to me (except for people calling for your head). Do you want to run it by AN? Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm willing to help with this if need-be (unless anything feels I now count as involved so would be unsuitable... :P ) Mdann52 (talk) 08:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @Mdann52: - I don't at all think you're too involved, and in fact your early public support of the idea would make it more likely to pass than just something proposed by me - I'd certainly be accused of promoting an agenda, when really my primary concern is just the huge drop from 2013 to 2014, and the tiny fraction of the electorate that is able to vote that does. I'm going to be slightly distracted for the next few days, but lets work up a decent, neutral paragraph and then run it by AN starting on maybe the 29th for a one week review? If it turns out it doesn't attract any additional voters - c'est la vie - but the electorate should at least be directly notified they are able to vote, coupled with pointers towards candidate statements, a brief description of arbcom's abilties (which *do* effect almost everyone who edits - even if you aren't directly involved in drama, you're likely to be indirectly effected by their decisions. Past arbcoms have banned a lot of people involved in collaborative content creation, to give one example of a large group that primarily doesn't vote currently, but is eligible.)
I don't want to wake the dead, so beyond the basic reqs to vote, I was thinking of either anyone active in either the last three or six months who meets the requirements. Thoughts? Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I'd go for something like "Hi Mdann52, Please note you are eligible to vote in the current ArbCom elections. You can review the candidates statements and vote here if you wish to and haven't done so already. <sig here>. What do you think? Mdann52 (talk) 16:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi @Mdann52: - I would at least be personally inclined to make a slightly longer statement, since not all eligible voters will be aware of what arbcom is or why voter turnout is important. So that the message itself would not be perceived as biased, I'm also inclined to create a (declared) sock with a neutral name, and just grant them massmessage rights and confirmed rights to send it out. Something like 'Hi Mdann52, Please note you are eligible to vote in the current ArbCom elections as long as you have not already voted in them on a different account and are not evading a block or ban. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve, including the ability to impose bans, topic bans, civility restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. You can review the candidates statements and vote here if you wish to and haven't done so already. <sig here>' Most of the additional text I stole directly from arbcom's main page, with a few words added (I intend also to pepper the text with appropriate wikilinks. Thoughts? If you (and preferably some other people) agree that the statement is reasonable, I'm likely to take it to AN later today. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Looks ok to me! Mdann52 (talk) 18:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I used to vote in Arb elections. But ever since it was changed to make it more difficult to cast your vote, I gave up. I'm not going to give out any information on myself, in order to cast a vote. GoodDay (talk) 20:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi @GoodDay: - though I understand your position, it's worth noting that besides your username etc, all private information (like IP, useragent string, etc,) is information that could already be retrieved about you by stewards (non-ENWP stewards are the election scrutineers) if they had any desire to do so. Looking at the current iteration of Securepoll (which we'll be using in this election cycle,) it shouldn't ask for any private details you don't reveal merely by editing. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm not remembering it all correctly. But, I do know it's more difficult to cast your vote now, then it was a few years ago. Back then, you merely poked in your 'support', 'oppose'. GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
The main goal in switching from the old style to SecurePoll was actually to protect your privacy - arbcom originally used non-anonymous voting, whereas with securepoll no arb candidate will know whether you voted for or against them. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok, but it should be adjusted to make it easier for one to vote, while hiding one's wiki-identity. GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree that privacy should be protected to the greatest amount possible while allowing voting to be as easy as possible, but keep in mind this is a change from everyone being able to see your name to only stewards (who are the highest level of global volunteer functionary) being able to see your name. I'd love securepoll to undergo future innovation, and given it's importance I imagine it eventually will.. but it would take a miracle to convince WMF tech to work on it right now given their technical debt. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Latest emails

Kevin, have you gotten any of my latest emails? It's past stuff now. I mean, your opinion is still welcomed, but I'm not as concerned about the matters anymore. Still, I want to make sure that you've received the emails. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
For your proposal Enfranchising voters in arbcom elections.

It has only potential upside.

It's free.

It increases democratic participation in elections.

It comes at a time when voter turnout has been decreasing.

It's an easy solution.

This is a brilliant idea.

Thank you ! — Cirt (talk) 03:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Vested contributors retitled Arbitration enforcement 2

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. For this case, there will be no Workshop phase. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz Read! Talk! 13:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Vested contributors arbitration case opened

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Carrite did call it an "attack", which was improper terminology, since you gave diffs, making what you said an allegation-backed-by-diffs. Still, Carrite was correct in asking for complete redaction/removal of your allegations-backed-by-diffs concerning Giano (not merely the factual update[15] you made). Salvio is trying to keep any allegations whatsoever about *any* non-party, completely off the table. This includes Giano, as well as any other usernames which may start with G. See the big orange box at the top of the casepages: "Important notes for all contributors to this case... remov[e] any inappropriate comments... any allegation (whether supported or unsupported) against non-parties." See also , http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/VestedContributor , which is how the case was named presumably, and why only the parties named are so named. Everybody People paying extremely careful attention understands the context already. p.s. I have pinged no one here, despite my usual habit to ping all usernames mentioned; if you would prefer Carrite/Salvio/Giano/etc mentioned herein be pinged, feel free to do so. But part of the reason to strictly limit evidence to only and solely the four parties named, is an attempt to limit collateral drama, broadly construed... and on that basis, I elided the echo notifications. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 05:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi 75.108 - to be clear, unless arbitrators or clerks remove my diffs of other statements involved completely, I intend to not only retain the diffs I've included so far (which do mostly pertain to one person,) but to expand them with other diffs of parties involved in the case who are not named parties. It's standard practice in arbcom cases to evaluate the behavior of all parties involved regardless of whether or not they are named, as well as the context that the incident is occuring in. I don't believe that it's possible to understand the context of the case without including a smattering of extremely inappropriate diffs from other users (including, but certainly not limited to Giano.) Although most arbs probably understand a lot of the context of the case, the fact that there has been going significant ongoing inappropriate behavior by closely associated users (including people, and to be clear I don't mean Giano - and intend to add diffs to my statement in support of this tomorrow) engaging in grossly sexist attacks against, among other people, the single out woman arb (I wouldn't pretend to know the gender identitities of all of our arbs,) as well as grossly sexist attacks against a woman arb clerk. Although I intend to keep to my word limit - and arb can certainly remove the diffs if they feel it necessary without policy - I don't believe that all arbitrators, let alone most passers-by will fully understand the context the case occurs in without such diffs.
Unfortunately, this is a case where collateral damage is inevitable. If some of the diffs I end up presenting don't make it on-wiki, they'll certainly eventually be portrayed in the media (even though I have no intention of talking to the media about the case.) Sunlight is one hell of a disinfectant, and hiding grossly inappropriate comments inextricably linked to the case will only make ENWP look worse when someone outside of our community eventually digs them up - crisis comms 101. At this point (and it's rather late here, so my edits won't likely occur to night) my purpose in that section isn't to make supported accusations against other editors, but to provide information that will help arbs or passersby (including those outside of our community) appropriately contextualize the case. (As a note, the reason for my minor snipe against Carrite coupled with the beginning of me revamping my statement is because it's probably the fourth time this week Carrite has inaccurately accused me of attacking someone, or orchestrating malicious WP-policy violating plots etc this week alone.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe there are scenarios where collateral damage is inevitable; but I do think that question *is* the central hub of this arb-case. Your point that not 'everybody' (as I originally mis-spoke) will understand the broader context is, of course, entirely correct. I've replaced my mistake with some weasel words, to make it closer to true.  ;-)     And given the broader context, it is probably silly of me to hope that limiting collateral drama would be feasible. Sigh. In any case, none of that stuff is your fault, obviously. On the question of allegations-concerning-non-party-folks, I will await the decision of the clerks-n-arbs over the next few days, and see how serious they are about the orange box instructions. p.s. Appreciate the userpage offer, as I too am a vested contributorTM ...I will think the proposal over, and let you know, but for the moment I have some AfD distractions. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi @75.108.94.227: - unfortunately, I see a hard time out of this situation that doesn't involve some amount of collateral damage. Cases can't be divorced from the context they occur in, and significant to the context of this case are situations like Gorilla has described happening to herself, or things like the women arb-clerks being asked to recuse from the case entirely because they are women who have expressed opinions about gender (even though arb clerks themselves don't have that much discretion, and primarily implement either decisions made by the broader lists or pretty clear-cut decisions that stem from standard orders from the committee. (Okay, that's a pretty bad article to link, but we don't have one that really covers standing orders in different settings.) When people talk about vested contributors they normally mean people like Eric - basically, community members so entrenched that taking action however minor against them causes severe drama. Taking a quick gander at your userpage, I'm guessing you mean closer to a paid editor (or at least one with a strong COI) - which makes a userpage with appropriate disclosure an even better idea, since undisclosed paid editing can result in a block or ban, and often does eventually (especially after the ToU updates.) From memory, I'm pretty sure we've interacted before, and although I don't remember what context it was in, remember it being positive. Since your IP is relatively static, I'd have no problem creating a page for you now, and recreating or moving as appropriate whenever your IP changes. (As a note: I spent a good part of my day giving myself an immunoglobulin infusion, so am likely to be relatively inactive today, even on.) Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
You came by one of my old IPs once; somebody had already made me a userpage for that one, if memory serves.  :-)     But yeah, we get along. I am currently neck-deep in the orangemoody-fallout, under my current IP, as you have noted. Personally, though, I don't have any COI, which is to say, I'm a pure-as-driven-snow volunteer here, and always have been. So I don't need a userpage for that; my question is whether, philosophically, I'm against not just userboxes but also userpages, that I will have to cogitate more deeply, before answering. Obviously of course, I have financial dealings out in the real world, of various types, but I keep all that strictly separate from my wiki-efforts; I don't edit for pay, and I don't edit anywheres where anybody compensates me tangibly nor intangibly (unless wikiLuv counts), and I don't edit employer/employee/investment/biography/etc pages either (if they even exist). That said, I'm not morally against paid-editing, if they will stay honest and disclose what is happening and follow the bright line rule by sticking to the talkpages. I see that as companies paying to improve wikipedia, in an earmark-fashion that is probably more directly useful than donating to the WMF (which mostly squanders the donation-bucks from what I've seen). Talk about your not-quite-appropriate wikilinks!  ;-)
  Pretty much every beginner I run across nowadays, though, is COI-encumbered in one way or another: presidential candidate, videogame author, small business CEO, works for some bitcoin firm, or professor wanting an autobiography/theoriography. I don't think this is happenstance; I think the horrible state of the wiki-culture we've created, literally drives almost everybody away who isn't being paid (tangibly or intangibly) to be here, to retreat in horror/disgust/anger. A few years ago, I often met people in the AfC queue or in IRC-helpchat who were genuinely interested in becoming volunteer-contributors to the libre encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit. You don't see that much nowadays. Anyways, I know the traditional meaning of vested-contrib, which is drama-inducing. I'm purposely "mis-using" it to describe most of the people involved in the arb-case, myself and yourself included, because I think it is a pretty good description of all us folks that have memorized the PAG, and mastered the intricacies of the wiki-bureaucracy, and yet have not left. Maybe drama-resistant, is closer to what I'm intending by the vested-contrib label? If we could not stand the wiki-drama, we would have been long gone by now, so we must be genetically pre-disposed to be drama-resistant wikipedians.
  p.s. Sorry about the infusion thing; hope everything goes as well as can be expected... personally I am a complete sissy around needles, so you get mucho bravery-points, in my book.  :-)     p.p.s. That {{ping}} thing only works for registered folks, us poor anons can only accept {{talkback}} to joggle our elbows, should we forget to swing back by the discussion-thread later on. I'm pretty good about remembering, so you can just use the shorthand, but if I don't reply promptly feel free to leave me a note or a template or somesuch. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 03:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi 75.108 - I actually agree with you most of what you've said, and have assisted a number of COI editors succeed in what they were trying to do in roughly-the-right-way (as well as talked to PR firms in person a number of times.) I'm hopeful that a way will be found to better encourage contributors from groups other than our typical base, and a way to make our current editors less prickly than we are right now. Even in 2011 (when I started substantively editing,) our climate wasn't quite what it is now. I received substantial advice early on from a number of editors, including more than one who has been driven away by climate issues in the years since. Even though ping is a relatively new feature, I've gotten so used to it that leaving talkbacks anywhere now totally slips my mind ;) Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that...

You've got another one coming but without the gargantuan section header this time. 😊 Atsme📞📧 02:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Caution is needed

Don't you think you probably should have talked with Mike V or those at ArbCom before making such a public declaration like this? Pretty much what you've now said - in my estimation - is that MikeV and others looking at the situation from a completely different perspective than is available to you are full of shit. That's how I see it, anyway. I know you aren't saying that intentionally, because I don't think you are that kind of person. But, declaring someone absolutely isn't who a CU has determined them to be without talking to the CU first is risky, don't you think? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Checkuser data doesn't go back far enough to conclusively technically link the two accounts, and cannot really do that to begin with, anyway. I have no doubt that Mike was presented with pretty convincing evidence that JtV=CH, but other evidence can and does come out at different points. This isn't something that will be settled in a flash, but disagreeing with a functionary doesn't mean that I view their perspective as 'full of shit.' Luckily, most of our functionaries are able to separate the chaff from the wheat and recognize the difference between "I don't think you're correct" and "I hate you and you're a sociocommunoanarchoterrorist." Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The details of this are not really something I want to talk about on-wiki very much. In the end, you're going to have to trust the judgment of the CU who unblocks him if he's unblocked, and the interim pretty much just accept that JtV currently has three GA's (which are not G5able, and which no one has been able to find deliberately falsified content in,) and one other article (that was not G5able and was kept at AfD.) I spent a non-trivial amount of time looking over one of the GA's for any deliberate falsification with another experienced Wikipedian, another one of the GA's was looked over in detail by at least two experienced Wikipedians, and the third passed GA and I'm sure has received additional scrutiny since. If you find any deliberate falsification in these articles, please let me know. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Except, that detail, as you put it, is a key part of his story, and if it falls apart, so does his entire house of cards, as well as any legitimate reason for unblocking. Viriditas (talk) 06:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  • You know anyone who isn't a functionary who unblocks him is at the very least likely to be considered for a level ii desysop, right? Like I said... In the end, you're going to have to trust the judgment of the CU who unblocks him if he's unblocked, and the interim pretty much just accept that JtV currently has three GA's (which are not G5able, and which no one has been able to find deliberately falsified content in,) and one other article (that was not G5able and was kept at AfD.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I really suggest you get with Mike V here because you have no idea what kind of person you are dealing with. This is pretty serious business, which is why I don't think he will be unblocked. Like you, I was concerned that an innocent person was blocked, and in the past, I've helped several people get unblocked because they were mistakenly fingered as socks. However, this is not one of those times. If you can't get your hands on the obituary Jack claims, then I suggest you consider dropping this entirely, because it doesn't sound like you know the full story of ColonelHenry. If you did, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Viriditas (talk) 06:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Viriditas: drop the stick. I am fully aware of the situation, can't say anything on-wiki about it, and you know that full well. Anyone else: please feel free to revert any of Viriditas's further posts in this section off my talk page. Since this needs to be handled off-wiki, they do no good. Kevin Gorman (talk)

Trout

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

More to come. Check my (un)deletion log. — Earwig talk 02:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Though I didn't realize I was breaking a GA, the idea that we should sort through 80k articles where almost all of them are crap is silly - nuke all of them, restore as needed. Most of his disambigs break policy, and a huge number of his species articles are factually inaccurate. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  1. You need to read Author citation (botany).
  2. There are sources.
  3. This does not fall under the deletion policy at all.
— Earwig talk 03:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
You cannot author a species. Species are things that exist that we describe. The only way you could possibly author a species is to create one. Yes, you can be the first person to publish or describe a species. Yes, it's customary to cite the authority who first described a species. That doesn't change the fact that you cannot author a species. I'm quite familiar with the international code of nomenclature and its conventions. It certainly falls under our deletion policy, if nothing else because IAR is still a fundamental principle and we have a nuke button for a reason - when someone has made 80k articles that are primarily crap, selective restoration infinitely beats selective deletion. Are you willing to go check every source he used? His script fucked up a DB pull, and more than one of his species articles is wrong in more significant ways than just the fact that you cannot author a species. I'll let you figure out which ones if you literally support the idea of source checking 80k redirects and articles. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. I came here to avoid the endless edit conflicts at ANI and I see the species article issue has already been raised. So, by "factually inaccurate" and "against policy" you actually mean "in need of copyediting"?
Selective restoration doesn't make sense; if many of the articles do need review, you're just drastically reducing the number of people who can see them to do the reviewing. More to the point, the issue that actually needs ANI attention is the offensive or immature redirects, not the incidental discovery that the same author produced some clumsily written plant articles. Using the former as justification to delete the latter isn't reasonable considering that it's not difficult to separate the two. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
No, I don't mean they're clumsily written. I mean they contain significant factual errors, such as erroneous authors, dates, and descriptions. If you want to mass create species articles, go to BAG, produce a working bot, get it approved (yes, we have a bot policy,) and create accurate articles. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry for assuming ignorance on your part, and I do agree that "described" sounds more appropriate in this context, but this is interesting to me, so I'll explore it for a bit. I note some sources with similar usage: "Type specimens of names of species authored by Pourret", "the genus Ficus authored by Linnaeus", "Usage of pre-1758 binomina as available names authored by Linnaeus". I plead layman ignorance, but it seems it's used more to refer the species as terms rather than actual organisms (a use–mention distinction)? We have quite a few (very) old articles with this structure as well (Robert Brown, Joseph Maiden, Ferdinand von Mueller, George Don). But let's put that aside for now. I get IAR, but there needs to be clearer evidence that these articles are poor quality en masse for that to be justified. I have not seen said evidence presented (such as specific examples of what else was wrong with that article, or the others I restored – note I did not restore everything), or at least borderline enough that it's worth discussing more calmly and slowly before taking admin action like that. We have deletion processes with waiting periods for a reason. Hope this clarifies things. — Earwig talk 04:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
It's significantly out of line with current ICN conventions in English in almost all situations - it's not something that is common or accepted practice. Of the 500 articles that Nuke was able to reach, something like 5 or 6 of them were worth restoring (some of which I've restored myself.) The articles were created at such a rapid pace that he was clearly using an unauthorized bot - it would really not be hard to go through BAG and follow WP:Bot Policy if you wanted to mass create species articles - and a decently written bot would be able to pull much more and more accurate information in to articles so as to actually create value. The specific article here really just has the issue that it's poorly written and has no valuable information in it - it's a substub that googling would produce way more value on, but having a substub here has the potential to reduce the googleability of it, since google previews preferentially pull from Wikipedia articles over other sources in most situations. My complaint with the synonyms is that some of them (I haven't looked at which particular ones you restored) were literally incorrect - as in they attributed the wrong authority to the synonym or mispelled them. The huge batch of redirects and disambigs I nuked that were of the "Genusinitial. speciesname" variety are extremely unlikely search terms (because no one searches with a period after the genus name and if they do our search is good enough to pull up the write article in the top hits anyway,) or were bad disambigs because a disambig shouldn't just disambig between two things - in that situation a hatnote is appropriate, not a disambig, unless there's very clearly not a primary topic - and in most of these cases there is (and even then hatnotes are preferential, although a disambig is a harmless waste of space.) If I had been able to nuke a greater number of articles I absolutely would have - there's very little point in engaging in selective case by case deletion rather than selective case by case restoration when even when other admins had taken care of most of the cruder redirs, only five or six out of all nukeable articles were of value, and only one was of significant value (I accidentally broke a GA since I didn't recognize it to deselect in the initial nuke.)
Which is easier: having individual deletion debates about 80,000 creates where less than 800 end with 'don't delete', or mass-deleting and simply restoring the less than 800 that have value? Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
So, there are several points here. And I appreciate your detailed response.
  • The community has generally rejected the idea of mass stub-sub creation of species by bots (see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/anybot and Lsjbot for some background, but there's a lot more). In my experience as a BAG member, this does not look like the work of a bot, just someone with a lot of time. I actually don't see very many species articles being created, but I could just be missing them given the sheer number of creations to look through.
  • At any rate, a broader discussion should perhaps take place on the idea of species stub-stubs. We have very many of them created by many other users. You raise valid points, and I might support a well-thought-out proposal to delete or merge them, but IAR is probably a bad idea when there is a fair bit of prior history on the topic. It just creates extra controversy.
  • I only restored three synonyms, I think. I checked for each one and saw valid mentions in online databases. If I was wrong, no complaints against deletion again.
  • Agree on the "Genusinitial. speciesname" forms; I have no plans to restore those. (However, I do notice there's a whole category of them at Category:Species Latin name abbreviation disambiguation pages. Perhaps a mass-AfD?)
  • The "bad disambigs" are more complicated. Rather than mass-deleting, which breaks a ton of existing hatnotes and history, you should have checked backlinks beforehand and undid the relevant hatnote modifications, etc. There is no urgency there. Some of them were definitely fine upon review, or at least defensible such that unilateral action is not appropriate.
  • "Which is easier: having individual deletion debates about 80,000 creates where less than 800 end with 'don't delete', or mass-deleting and simply restoring the less than 800 that have value?" Again, I see no evidence of these numbers being accurate. The problem is that there are so many things being conflated by one deletion job (tons of useless redirects [likely mostly worth deleting], linked disambiguation pages [need individual review], templates [I haven't seen any worth deleting yet some, e.g. I don't like {{Kaempferia}} but it's complicated, and leaving it as a redlink in articles is bad nonetheless], even a user talk page) that lumping them all together is bound to be problematic. We don't need 80,000 discussions. We need to analyze the pages more carefully and group them together into batches that should all be treated in a similar way.
Above all, I'm just encouraging caution. This is a complicated issue. Fighting boldness with boldness just results in chaos. — Earwig talk 05:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Earwig, on the species names, see also this TfD and this follow-up discussion, the overall issue as yet unresolved. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Earwig: have you ever seen any editor creating that many pages that quickly, let alone ones that are obvious DB pulls that wasn't automated or semiautomated? Moreover with the number of pages involved, WP:MEATBOT - it doesn't really matter whether or not we can prove he actually used a bot. No one creates that much shit by hand that rapidly, even if a lot of it consisted of nonsensical redirects. FWIW: I actually don't have a problem with templates use Genusinitial. speciesname as a format for a navbox although I don't prefer them - they're just wildly improbable search terms that our search engine handles adequately on the offchance someone searches for them in the first place. If I had the technical ability (without going through BAG, lol,) to do so, I would've nuked far harder than special:massdelete let me. I'd be perfectly comfortable deleting every redirect he ever created and every 2dab, reverting his hatnote additions, and nuking substubs. FWIW: it is perfectly possible to put together a bot that could pull from enough sources that it would at least create a decent stub species article, rather than one that is literally completely valueless and actually decreases the ability to google info about the species. The 80k estimate is drawing off of Iridescent's guess, since every tool I use to try to count up his total creations literally crashes. I've restored a couple of the pages I nuked myself (and individually declined to nuke pages instantly obvious as relevant) and others have done others - frankly, nuking every page he ever created and then admins browsing through the list for potentially useful pages and then selectively restoring them, combined with anyone who doesn't have the ability to view deleted revisions pointing broken shit out to one of us would be infinitely faster and more effective in dealing with the mess than anything else. With anywhere near the number of creates Neelix for whatever reason did, individually reviewing them within the normal standards of deletion policy would create more of a workload than our normal deletion processes for all users do for multiple weeks, even if we batched them. All of his dabs need individual review to see if they add value - but the effort involved in individually reviewing them outweighs their freakin' potential value in the first place. Most 2dabs should go, quite a few of his 3dabs should go, and he even has 1dabs. An overwhelming majority of his dabs are things perfectly adequately resolved by our normal search engine, and though none are as inappropriate as his redirects, some do need to be deleted as inappropriate.
I don't know of a single previous situation where someone has used special:massdelete on an experienced user and admin before, but I also don't know of a case of an experienced user and admin engaging in mass page creation against bot policy that is bluntly so ridiculously stupid as to defy reason. He had over eighty inappropriate redirects to breast reconstruction alone. Kevin Gorman (talk) 08:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Re the 80,000 figure, according to this (let it run) as I write this there are 78,276 non-deleted pages which show Neelix as the creator. Taking into account there have been 2000–3000 deleted in the last few hours, and that somewhere between 1000–10,000 will have been either dab pages or genuine article creations, I think 70–80,000 redirects will be about the right figure. ‑ iridescent 09:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
I just wanted to clarify one point: when I said I saw no evidence of the numbers being accurate, I meant the <1% figure, not the total number. That seems a good rough estimate, and now we have this monster list by Anomie of ~50,000 pages. I'm gonna start trying to work on it. — Earwig talk 00:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Query

What was wrong with L. rubricaulis that you deleted? --Dweller (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi Dweller - it was part of a series of batch deletes of Neelix's redirects, many of which ranged from puerile to out of policy to just unnneeded. In this particular case I saw deletion as appropriate because the redirect added no value - "L. rubricalis" is an uncommon search term to begin with, and our internal search engine is smart enough to have as its first hit Leucopogon rubricaulis even if someone does search "L. rubricalis." `Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration evidence

Hi

For future reference explicit permission (ie by clerks or arbitrators on-wiki or via mailing list where the request can be seen by those involved) should be sought before clerk actions are undone. I can see no issue with the addition of the evidence but I would run it past the arbs mailing list to be on the safe side. Amortias (T)(C) 22:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the note @Amortias:, and I'll do so in the future (unfortunately I'm mobile most of today, so any detailed comment or email will be difficult until tomorrow..) The reason I felt relatively safe readding what I did on my own was because it was originally removed as pertaining to a non-party, but Giano is now an explicitly named party. If you do see a problem with it, please reremove it or I'd be happy to do so myself - I intended it as a goodfaith addition about someone who is now an explicit party to the case. 166.171.248.140 (talk) 22:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
FGS User:Amortias! The Arbs have asked him to post it! Are you the only person on Wikipedia ignorant of that fact? Giano (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
If you can find me a diff then I would be very grateful as I have seen nothing either on wiki or through the mailing list. Please post at my talk page as I'd rather keep things there than clutter Kevins talkpage. Amortias (T)(C) 22:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I can personally confirm I've had no contact with ac as a whole or any individual arb regarding this addition. I'm sure AC would confirm. I'd actively invite anyone to revert any future comments by Giano here unless they are a policy-mandated notification. 166.171.248.140 (talk) 22:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  • @Giano: Add me to that list of Wikipedians ignorant of that "fact". For the future, I would advise you to be careful with using loaded language, and especially, though this one was not, on arbitration case pages. Thanks, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 23:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Arbcom query

Hi Kevin; I closed your Arbcom election proposal at WP:AN as passed, with some comments. Just to let you know! --Errant (chat!) 12:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks Errant, I've mostly been AFK for the last week but will be home again starting tomorrow, and much more active. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • @ErrantX: - thanks for your extremely detailed close, I really do appreciate it. I've been working on implementation details with others over the last few days. We'll definitely try to avoid those who have indicated they don't desire spam, although following all applicable opt-out procedures may be hard (although I am hopeful that we'll be able to follow nobots completely through the use of a few WP:Bot Policy tools that don't need prior approval to be used. Hopefully, we'll be to follow at least nobots well. I've been working on implementation details with a few other people, and we will certainly try to follow the guidelines set forth in your close, which I agree with pretty strongly. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Posted on a closed thread

The thread was closed, so here's your content. You may be able to use it elsewhere. Please be mindful that when you are running for office, you have to be careful to avoid the appearance of campaigning on boards meant for Wikipedia operations, other than the actual WP:ACE2015 pages themselves where campaigning is welcome. Good luck with the election. It's quite an experience. Jehochman Talk 08:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

  • It's not exactly uncommon for people to post addendums to threads which have already been closed, especially particularly relevant comments. There's at least one other thread at AN as it is, and there's usually more than that. I suspect it's of far concern to far more Wikipedians looking at potential arbcom candidates to think that one of them is intending to use his admin toolset to massmessage eligible voters a message encouraging them to vote in the election than it is for an arbcom candidate to post at the end of the same thread clarifying that they will not be the person sending out such a message. I suppose I could have not mentioned in my addendum that I had decided to run some time after I made the original proposal, but the rest of it is pretty boilerplate. I'd already thanked Errant elsewhere for his close, and it seems like rather pertininent information to add to a proposal closed as successful that the message being sent out by a member of the EC (which was something multiple people requested during the discussion.) I don't think it's out of line for someone who started a thread that was reviewing a proposed use of his admin tools to make a note after another editor has found consensus that such a use is appropriate that as he has become more involved than he had intended to be in the actual elections he was stepping back and letting an EC who had been involved in early discussions about the idea implement it instead. Except for the mention of why I was stepping back (which given the situation is a bit unavoidable) the whole message was pretty standard and I don't think crossed the line in to inappropriate campaigning. If I linked my candidacy in my sig I could see your point, or if I started mentioning it in random AfDs... but I think the message was pretty appropriate as it stood. That said, I don't care strongly enough about it to editwar over you about it. Kevin Gorman (talk) 09:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Thank you for that. And thank you for encouraging greater participation in the elections. Your proposal received strong support. Most proposals around here fail. You can be proud of what you accomplished. Jehochman Talk 09:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • As one last note: when I put this forward, I wasn't considering running, but just got forth my candidacy after talking to a bunch of people about the idea. @Mdann52:, election commissioner and someone who was involved early in the development of this idea, more or less offered to take over the implementation of this several days ago in the first place (particularly since several people noted they'd rather have the message come out from an EC.) I will help Mdann with any of the technical implementation bits I can, but figured that with the combination of earlier suggestions it should come from an EC instead of me, and the fact that I've declared myself a candidate, this was the best path forward. I also just wanted to thank Errant for the very detailed, thoughtful close, and those who participated on both sides of the discussion. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I lost my...

Dear Kevin Gorman, just checking in. I can't seem to locate the page created that contain the guidelines regarding my block a few month ago. I have begun to edit medical articles and noticed that there may be some interaction between myself and another editor for whom I do not wish to cause discomfort or distress. Also, when I am looking at the page that tracks the number of edits and article creations that I have, it states that I had a six month block when it really was only a few days. Can you fix that, too? Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  18:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
@Bfpage: - they're, um, *magic*, here. Your block log reflects the initial block and then an almost immediate unblock. Anyone looking at it will realize that the initial block length wasn't for an eternal sin or I wouldn't have rapidly unblocked you. I have the technical capability to mess around with your block logs further, but policy prevents me from doing so - partly with the idea that they speak as much to my judgement as an admin as your judgement as an editor. I will admit I do tend to use eyecatchingly long blocks longer than many other admins in some situations to gain... but I think that in doing so several of the people I've blocked in the past have been able to see the issue, get rapidly unblocked, and come back to beneficially contributing in situations that would've otherwise escalated in to a series of escalating blocks. (Heck, I've indefinitely blocked students before - both mine and others - without any intention of it being an infinite block, more of a "you need to address this before you proceed" block. I may be the only person to have blocked someone with the edit summary "indef block until student attends my office hours," heh.)
Actually.. looking at them now, the guidelines were set to expire in a month or so to begin with which is when the block would've expired, and were additionally interupted in the process of forming them. The whole thing can be summed up as "Don't unnecessarily interact with or antagonize Flyer or Jytdog," which will be good advice even after the next month. I wouldn't worry about things like awarding barnstars to people who have interacted with them, as long as it's not done so in order to intentionally antagonize Flyer or Jytdog. You seem to have done remarkably well at not antagonizing them even in a year where I've mostly been absent, so, going forward, since the agreement between us is so close to it's enddate anyway, I think if you just continue to avoid monitoring their talk pages, don't engage in intentionally antagonistic behavior towards them, and recognize when you need to back away from Wikipedia/a particular discussion for a little bit, you'll be fine. Honestly most of the time I ask someone to abide by conditions much looser than that (if you'll remember, a lot of those you set yourself,) by the time the agreement is up, I'll have blocked them at least a couple times for drastically violating them, whereas you haven't really seen a single issue. In other word's, congratulations BFP ;) Especially since I've missed such a significant chunk of the last year for most practical purposes to begin with, you not running in to any issues has pretty much been a result of you realizing what is okay and what isn't okay/knowing when you may need to back off/etc. If you continue behaving the same way in the future I doubt you'll have any problems at all. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I am going to honor the guidelines for another month, that's for sure. Thanks for answering my questions. I have been gathering references and content to improve some articles related to human development including the physical changes that occur during certain stages in life. I have noticed that the editor whom I have been keeping my distance has also heavily edited in this area. I am letting you know this ahead of time, the encyclopedia will be improved and I have no intention of antagonizing anyone. If you get a request to block me again, I am asking that you please review the circumstances thoroughly. The Very Best of Regards,  Bfpage |leave a message  15:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Addendum - since I still don't intend to follow the edits of the editors mentioned above, I won't know if they have had any negative or contentions interactions with other editors. I may unintentionally acknowledge the positive work of another editor with barnstars or notes of encouragement without even considering what kind of interactions that the editors mentioned above have had with the editor with whom I encourage. I still suspect that the editors mentioned above may continue to follow my edits and may act in a contentious manner. What do you recommend if this happens? Shall I communicate directly with them asking for more congeniality, leave you a note...?   Bfpage |leave a message  15:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Assuming I'm around, the least drama provoking way is likely to drop a note on my talk page about whatever situation you're concerned with. I never was really concerned about barnstars etc unless they were directly provocative (as an example, barnstarring me for blocking someone you don't like) - that was one of the rules you added to prove that yes, you really did take this seriously. Honestly, given the circumstances of the original block and my frequent MIAness during the enforcement period, you've pretty thoroughly impressed me. When I was considering a block originally I was basically considering either a really long block as an incentive to come to a play-nice agreement, or a still quite long block (maybe 6 or 8 weeks) or something just on the behavior alone (this is all going from memory.)
Even without me being around frequently to act as an interloper - I'm right in thinking you haven't been brought to the dramaboards at all in the last six months, right? And in a couple cases I can think of where I wasn't around, and you brought borderline cases to me, Flyer22 et al actually spoke up to say they had no problem with the cases you had brought up. I'd like to think I review all block requests brought to me thoroughly, but in reality, that's probably not the case. I don't expect you are likely to be blocked my me - or anyone else - at any point in the near future. I hope you don't mind the six month block immediately followed by an unblock days later, and I'll probably change my approach to all such cases in the future - and make it an initial one week block that I keep extending if we haven't settled on an agreement or something like that - but, in all seriousness, congratulations @Bfpage:, I think you've shown that you are legitimately here to improve the encyclopedia even in issues that involve your own ego.
Fairly frequently I see someone getting escalating blocks (until they are indeffed) without necessarily anyone ever having spent the time to explain to them what exactly is up with their behavior that is a problem. You've been kind of the exact opposite of that. Oh, btw, I just gave rollback/autopatrolled/etc to your alt account. I hope to see your name not come up in a negative way too much on this page or elsewhere, although since you have at least some sandboxed stuff about troponin leaks, we may need to do some content collaboration sometimes :) Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi @Bfpage: - I'll be back at home from a week of dealing with lawyers soon, and will attempt to answer your points within the next 48 hours. Unfortunately, I can't expunge your block record - partly because it's not just intended to reflect on you, but to reflect on my judgement as an admin. One thing I *can* put a 0 second block on your account, noting that your behavior has been commendable after the initial issue was resolved, and that the period I set as the initial time shouldn't be held against you. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi @Bfpage: - as of yesterday, I'm back at home, so please expect answers from me on the relevant page within the next couple days. Kevin Gorman (talk) 09:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

re

There are various revdel posts, and off-wiki items which you may not be aware of. Even without those, there are plenty of on-wiki items with multiple editors which show disruptive editing. The fact that I have warned RO in the past is not a valid "involved" argument. I stand by my block. — Ched :  ?  18:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

  • @Ched: - it's generally bad form to block an editor during the course of an ongoing discussion when they are not causing active problems unless consensus has developed to do so, since it prevents them from defending themselves. That holds doubly truly when we didn't block a male admin who created a much bigger clusterfuck than this could possibly be literally like three days ago under the mantra 'preventatitive, not punitive.' Is there an ongoing situation where blocking RO rather than letting her participate in the ANI thread causes damage? If not, your block is just making those who rightly or wrongly paint our administrative processes as biased look more legitimate. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Kevin, I have no idea how "gender" comes into play here. I blocked for habitual disruptive editing. There are multiple threads showing disruption with editors who have declared both male and female genders. I blocked to PREVENT further disruption to this project. My understanding when I came to this project was that it was about providing knowledge, not a platform for some sort of agenda for race, creed, gender, or anything else. I have no idea if RO is male or female, and frankly, I. DON'T. CARE. I blocked because there is a constant disruption to the project. — Ched :  ?  20:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
It comes in to play because the last few weeks have seen multiple male editors not blocked (and certainly not blocked until consensus was established at ANI) for far more disruptive behavior than any diff I've seen from RO. I can see revdeled posts btw, and unless they've already hit oversight I see nothing in your history or RO's in the recent past, let alone that would justify an indef in the middle of an ANI thread depriving the user the right to defend their own actions and shortcircuiting consensus. As a general rule it's never a good idea to indefinitely block a user with an active ANI thread about their behavior unless it's necessary to protect the current integrity of the project - not for some future possible disruption. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for an answer: Why are you bringing gender into this? CassiantoTalk 21:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Because we're regularly getting public flak for treating users who aren't men differently than users who are men, and unilaterally indeffing someone in the middle of an ANI thread about their behavior where the norm is to wait for consensus to develop before taking such drastic action is the norm? Someone dropped me an email shifting my opinion of indeffing the user in general, but I think the fashion it was carried out in still warrants a mid-sized trout. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
So because a few people claim that sexism goes on around here, and because RO is female, that automatically means that Ched has a sexist motive? That, is complete bullshit. Maybe then you can further explain why Lynn felt in necessary to bring up Eric seeing as the discussion had shifted to gender? CassiantoTalk 08:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I'll paypal you $20 if you can point to a single diff where I accused Ched of having a sexist motive. I would've objected to indef blocking someone in the middle of ANI thread about their behavior unless there was a compelling, preventative reason why such a block was necessary regardless of the presented gender of the editor in question. It's not good administrative practice to indef someone in the middle of an ANI thread about their behavior in any situation unless ongoing disruption is going on, a practice that has been established for good reason (barring circumstances where consensus has formed or it's an obvious sock, etc.) This is true regardless of the presented gender of the editor in question. The flak that Wikimedia is getting flak in the media for enforcing a dual standard depending on what gender an editor presents as is just another reason why Ched's block was bad. I was damn near indeffing Neelix in the middle of the thread about his ridiculous situation last week, but as @Drmies: and others pointed out, indeffing him in the middle of an ongoing discussion about his behavior was a bad idea, and thus I didn't. I'm not Lynn, and as much as I try - maybe you should go ask her? Although since your question serves very little productive purpose, I'd encourage her to ignore it and rollback your edit in the same way I just did Giano's.
I do find it quite curious that you and another editor are persisting in derailing the thread with discussion about gender to the point that it's literally quite impossible for other editors to have a reasonable discussion about RationalObserver's behavior - which, once the bad block was dealt with should have been the purpose of the thread. Kevin Gorman (talk) 10:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
It wasn't me who brought up gender, it was you and your pal Lynn. I was trying to keep the thread on subject; hence why I asked you what gender had to do with it. CassiantoTalk 12:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Kevin, it is true that I didn't want Neelix indef-blocked while we were dealing with the situation. I guess that was in part because we were dealing with the situation and I wasn't fully aware of the full scope; even after I was, I wouldn't support an indefinite block because I figured that, since they had stopped, and since they were going to be scrutinized like few others (haha, including me and Eric!), there wasn't any risk of much further disruption. I don't like punitive blocks though I am sure they feel really good. This case, though, is different, but I don't really want to elaborate on that much more right now. I haven't even had a second cup of coffee. BTW, Cassianto and others were getting a bit excited and I must admit I didn't read the entire thread very carefully, but I did note that "the gender card" was being played, though I'm not going to point fingers. I really think we could do with less essentializing. Oh, I am glad to see you are doing better, and I wish you the best of health. Take care, and good luck with your ArbCom run! Drmies (talk) 16:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh, I'll lose, but losing to a good slate of candidates is no shame. I agree with you that this case is different, although I still view an unexplained block in the middle of the ANI thread as inappropriate, but, unfortunately, the continued hijacking of the thread by Cassianto&co prevented discussion about the actual issues (and I suspect we're talking about the same issues.) As I've said elsewhere I was giving more than brief consideration to dropping a block on the basis of evidence received through private emails or having someone do an OS block, etc. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Howdy Kevin. If I may clarify things. Cassianto & co, did not insert gender in the ANI discussion about RO's behaviour/conduct. More importantly, the gender issue should be avoided at that discussion, IMHO :) GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

  • I realize they didn't - I was talking more about their continued behavior (as under the arbitration subheading, etc.) And from some of the emails I've received, I agree with you on the latter point as well. I still disagree with a mid-ANI thread block when there's not ongoing disruption, but as I've stated in a couple other forums I'm considering taking action myself on the basis of information I can't divulge on-wiki but would forward to AC if the discussion on-wiki results in no substantive action. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I believe mentorship for RO, would be best at this time, if the indef block isn't restored. GoodDay (talk) 21:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:RFPP

Please clear the list. Some reports are still there. I filed few pages yesterday which were being vandalized. --Galaxy Kid (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

  • I knocked a few out of the way - though I declined a number of them for insufficient levels of activity - one of the accounts you mentioned being an issue at Prom is one edit away from being autoconfirmed, so a semi there wouldn't have done anything anyway. Just AIV him if he keeps being an issue and it'll get taken care of, and the level of general disruptive editing there was honestly lower than I expected :p Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Email

I've sent you a inquiry for the Signpost's coverage of the election, via Meta. Tony (talk) 04:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

There's a new cool pageview API

Just pointing this out to any TPS who aren't on wiki-research - there's a new, quite cool pageview API out now supported by WMF - you can find it here, along with a demo of one of the kinds of things that can be done with it here. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

STOPzilla

Think I put on the protection you intended to. [16] --NeilN talk to me 19:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Though it's technically out of scope for a TE to uncreate protect a page, I look at it as the same kind of de minimis out of scope involved in someone with +acc using it to create an editnotice. That said, I don't mind your change, since it's not like it's very likely to be unsalted for a bloody long time. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Hasn't been repeatedly recreated for seven years, other than a one-off housekeeping action in 2010. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Heh, you're right - I hadn't noticed the dates, just the length of the log. That said, given that it just got killed at AFD again, my inclination is to leave the salt on - someone interested in creating an article about it can always request the salt be lifted. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Fine by me. Some apparent admin-shopping going on here - I was asked to salt this too but declined due to age of earlier deletes. But in the list of things to worry about, this ranks fairly low. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I picked it up off RFPP rather than a direct request, though I'm damned if I can remember the name of the user. Either way, even on the list of things for us to worry about just this week, this probably ranks pretty low, heh. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Totally not my place

[17] Best, Drmies (talk) 18:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Totally your place, and I thank you for the comment. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
    • I had an even harder time explaining those redirects to my daughters. Ritchie333, sorry--you know I rarely disagree with you. The point in general about Arbs and decent language is valid, I think (you know I'm raked over the coals for it, and that probably got me slammed as a misogynist by the GGTF voter guide writers), but the Neelix case is just so overwhelmingly WHAT THE FUCK WAS HE THINKING? that I cannot find fault with someone over a couple of f-bombs. Drmies (talk) 23:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Totally your place, making a comment is fine. I cleaned up some redirects myself and some of the ones Drmies deleted were awful. However, I just think Kevin went a bit too far and took it personally - at least that's how I interpreted "I'm emailing Arbcom, Jimbo, all admins, Obama, your mother etc etc" and it seemed like over-harsh bullying. Sorry. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Keep in mind, I also am the person who got him to step down voluntarily under a cloud, and close the existing arbcom case. My private emails also started the arbcom motion, which also would've involved significantly less drama than an ANI fest or a full arbcom case. I may have cursed a few times in the process, but my actions overall minimized the drama of the situation. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

signpost survey on approval voting

Hello again, I'm reading over the signpost, and am finding that some of the questions I thought were obvious agree-answers sometimes result in disagree-answers. Of course, the numeric answer just leads to more questions, about the reason behind the numeral. So here I am. Can you fill me in on why you are "[un]satisfied with the ternary [oppose–neutral–support] voting system for [the annual] ArbCom elections" which was question#T. Or if you have you posted something about it elsewhere, feel free to direct me thither. I always thought the approval-voting scheme used by arbcom was pretty decent, better than instant run-off voting (used e.g. in Oakland and SFO elections), and better than first past the post (used in USA federal elections) by far. SecurePoll bangvoting is one of the few places where wikipedia is permitted to act as a leading indicator following best practices, rather than a trailing indicator which reflects the nominally reliable sources, as we do in mainspace. This is not a high-priority question, clearly, since probably I'm the only wikipedian curious enough to ask about the underlying rationale here, but when you have a spare moment, I'm definitely curious. Thanks, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

  • I definitely don't support FPTP or instant run-off, I just dislike the fact that with our normal relatively low turnouts and with opposes counting so much more significantly than neutrals, it's relatively easy in theory for a pretty small bloc to mass-oppose candidates that they disliked in a way that would shift the balance of the election in a way that I don't think accurately represents the wishes of the electorate. These are using way bigger turnouts than we actually have, but, for instance, a candidate with 150,000 support votes and 150,001 negative votes would not be elected, whereas a candidate with 2 support votes and 0 negative votes would be elected. I think there are situations where a candidate, though falling short of the 50% minimum, certainly is supported by enough of the electorate that they should reasonably win a seat over a candidate with far less support but also far less opposition. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I'm not Kevin, but I can answer for why I certainly don't consider the existing setup best practice; it institutionalises a tyranny-of-the-majority setup on what should be an inclusive project. As a hypothetical, assume that kittens are the current burning issue on Wikipedia; further, assume that 55% of voters are strongly in favor of more coverage of kittens, while 25% of voters hate kittens and the remaining 20% don't care. Since that 55% is dominant, it means that pro-kitten candidates will sweep the board and take every seat, rather than a more equitable distribution of eight pro-kitten, four anti-kitten and three kitten-neutral candidates. Since it's well, well documented that voters in any kind of election have a subconscious tendency to support candidates they perceive as similar to themselves, this has serious implications in a project with well-documented race, age and gender gaps and where the US is so disproportionately represented among the editor base. (Black arbs: 0; female arbs: 2; arbs outside the North America/UK wiki-heartland: 0.) A few years ago I proposed having 'constituencies' for arbcom slots, based on geographic location and/or particular fields on Wikipedia (roughly the same setup trade union councils use, with delegates from both geographical areas and specific areas of work), but nobody seemed very interested in the proposal and it would probably have been unworkably complicated on a project with such a cult of anonymity. ‑ iridescent 00:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Heh heh! Am delighted to find other people who take voting systems seriously. There is definitely a problem with the threshold being unspecified; if this were scaled up to handle municipal elections, for instance, it would be important for the sanity of the outcome to have a system where, for an example mechanism, there was a minimum number of support-votes needed to qualify as a candidate, say 10% of the legit voters who actually voted in the election in question... but alternatively or additionally, I think that "neutral" should count slightly negative aka instead of plusOne minusZero minusOne for the support/neutral/oppose bangvotes, it makes sense to have pluOne minusOneTenth minusOne ... thataway, relatively unknown candidates like the hypothetical 2-support-1-oppose-999-neutral person, would not get elected. Of course, it would be harder than ever to achieve the 50% approval cutoff, were 'neutral' to be redefined as 'leaning one-tenth towards negative', so it might be necessary to adjust the cutoff-threshold downward to 40%.
  As for the tyranny of the majority, all systems which are fundamentally democratic have that risk, as Aristotle first noticed if memory serves... though of course, since arbcom does not actually write the wiki-laws, but is merely supposed to interpret them like SCOTUS, kinda sorta anyways, there is somewhat less of a worry. There most definitely is a worry about tyranny of the factional majority in terms of *writing* the PAG themselves... one need not be elected to arbcom, in order to rewrite WP:N for instance!  :-)     I will have to think more deeply on the question of whether the 50% cutoff leads to systemic bias, however. I'm generally against proportional systems in all their stripes, because they strongly encourage both divisiveness and simultaneously factional loyalties, almost as much as FPTP does. However, the main proportional-system disadvantage, however you set the proportions (geographical is typical in the off-wiki world as opposed to demographical or "wikiproject-membership-o-graphical"), is that with FPTP there are mathematically only going to ever be two major parties (with rare exceptions at the saddle points), who both compete to satisfy intra-party coalitions large enough to win out against the other major party... and thus have some advantages versus proportional, in avoiding the tyranny of the majority problem. I have never heard of approval voting having the tyranny of the majority problem (my admiration of it is because it solves the independence of clones issue with maximum simplicity), but will look into it more, thanks much for the elbow-joggle, to make me think harder.
  p.s. One parting food-for-thought, which might satisfy both the problem of 1000 yea + 1001 nay bangvotes mentioned by Kevin, and the problem of systematic bias mentioned by Iridescent, would be some sort of scheme where instead of electing 9 equally-weighted-members out of 21 actively-standing-candidates, we instead gave ALL of the 21 candidates a percentage of the 9-equally-weighted-votes on the arbcom. If candidate X were to receive 1000 supports in the election, and all the other candidates received 100 supports each, then the distribution could be something like 9*1000/3000 == three arbcom bangvotes for candidate X, and 9*100/3000 == three-tenths-of-a-bangvote for each of the other twenty candidates. Guaranteed election to serve, in other words, but variable amount of power. Using or ignoring the oppose bangvotes durin the arb-election, left as an exercise for the reader.  ;-)     75.108.94.227 (talk) 02:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

So my idea picking 3 individuals one loves, 3 individuals one doesn't love, and 3 individuals in the middle to vote for ain't so bad! (Hope ya don't mind a bit of drive-by talking!) --MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 04:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

(snorts derisively at with FPTP there are mathematically only going to ever be two major parties, from the perspective of a country whose FPTP electoral map looks like this.) ‑ iridescent 10:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
(spit take) Ha! I never said it would actually work!!! --MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 19:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
@75.108, a simple solution which preserves the positives of the existing system would be to keep the setup exactly as is, but only allow three "support" and three "oppose" votes per voter. That way, the obvious bozos would still have no chance of slipping through, but it would prevent the scenario of fifteen people who appear to a particular group of 51% of voters but are despised by the remaining 49% from making a clean sweep of every election. ‑ iridescent 00:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • 75 - arbcom cases involve too much private evidence to want to expand the committee that significantly, especially since with two tranches we'd likely end up with like 42 freakin' arbs. I actually kind of like what Iridescent just suggested, or at least something going off of it... Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Allie X

You full-protected this page without an AFD notice, and there is an AFD currently running at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allie X (2nd nomination). (There was also a duplicate 3rd nom, but I closed that one.) Could an AFD notice be re-added to the page? Thanks, shoy (reactions) 18:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

ARBCOM question

Just an FYI but this Q & A was removed. I haven't even read it but there may be some drama with that so either way you feel like handling it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I see from the talk page there that you don't need anything more about this. Either way, good luck with your candidacy. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

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) 14:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Turnout

Wow, voter turnout is amazing this year. Great idea about the talk page notifications. I'm really curious to see how this will affect the outcome. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I really am pleased with how it is looking so far. Who knows how it will effect the elections - one thing a lot of people missed is that I didn't want more votes because I thought they'd support candidates I liked, I wanted more votes because 600-something people choosing a body as significant as arbcom when the declared electorate is so much bigger is kind of disturbing (as far as I can tell, at least half of the world is technically under active arbcom sanctions.) We have another two weeks of voting, and we've already just about hit last year's total turnout already! Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, it's amazing to me how few people bother to vote (on Wikipedia but in real life too). I hope we'll be able to get a better idea of where most of the community stands on the issues, since the loudest voices aren't always the majority. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Excuse the interruption, but where can I find voter turnout? --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
You can see a list here. In comparison, last year we had 593 votes total... which is about what we have right now already. I'm really curious to see how this ends up effecting the composition of arbcom. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • @SB Johnny: is there a really good way to get exact counts including dups at particular times in the election? I've mostly been just setting to view 100 and eyeballing it, but such a tool would be potentially useful to see what effect the massmessaging is having on voterturnout, since it's being batched and we could look at the hours immediately following a batch vs the hours immediately preceding one. Between the general quality of the candidate pool and the greatly increased voter turnout... to be honest I'd have trouble not being happy with the results of this election, regardless of if I am elected, since a lot of editors I quite respect are almost certain to be + well, the whole voter turnout thing. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • That's pretty much what I do. You can change the url where it says "100" to, say, "760" if you suspect it's not much more than that and then just count as a shortcut. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 01:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm bad at remembering server time is in UTC :) we have actually surpassed total participation last year at this point though, which is still pretty bloody impressive. I'm quite curious what high turnout does to the elections. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Is this a stupid question: Is this election a good way to fish for socks? I mean, if somehow there were a bot that could go through the list of voters, perhaps look for consecutive ips or whatever is that is done to find socks and flag suspicious votes? For example, you might expect socks to have an identical voting algorithm. Isn't one of the reasons editors are so tempted to become socks is that they want to influence 'voting'? Best Regards,
  Bfpage |leave a message  15:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
If people wanted to sock previous arbcom elections, they've been frankly terribly about it - socking is more often than not to create a false impression of consensus on individual talk pages, rather than bigger elections like these. Without getting too WP:BEANSy, there's both quite a lot done to eliminate duplicate votes from arbcom elections, and probably plenty of countermeasures people could take to try to escalate a socking war in an arbcom election - but as far as I know, most arbcom election socking has been trivial. Recently, few people have just cared enough to vote at all. Despite being quite a powerful body, people have been elected arbitrators who would not have been made administrator with the same vote tallies. We're trying some broader outreach strategies (like massmessaging every eligible voter this time) try to decrease turnout from the dismal 593 voters the last election saw - we already have a higher number, and voting has hardly started. I would encourage you to take a look at the candidates and their statements and guides, and take some time to cast votes as you think best (note that oppose hurts a lot more than a neutral does, and that no one from ENWP, myself included, will be able to see how you voted - so you could oppose me and I'd have no idea.)Part of the reason that I mention that I'll have NO idea how you vote is I'm intending to finish up commenting on your page later today. Jytdog is banned for now, which will simplify some things, and I think Flyer would mostly prefer to defer to my judgement rather than directly interact. Hopefully we can get a much shorter set of guidelines you can easily work within finalized within the next few sets of days. I can't come close to making you follow any set of guidelines at this point, but think most of the problems with your editing disappeeared while you were following them, and think that it's pretty awesome as a measure of good faith (we can probably even explicitly frame it as that, rather than anything remotely puunitive) that you're intending to follow a continue, far cut down, set of guidelines. You were legitimately close to a long block ahead of time, and I'm glad this turned out this way. Would you like me to annotate your block log to reflect thaat you did not at all serve a six month block but served far lesser, and behaved exemplarily?Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Help me to support the female candidates

Hello!

Yay! I am able to vote in this election - it is the first time for me [Thanks for having the voting announcement sent to me]!

I am thinking that it might help the gender imbalance if I Support the female candidates and Oppose the male candidates. Sort of like my own personal version of Title IX. I believe that each of us should do what we can to make a difference.

Can you tell me where to find the information about the sex of each Arbcom Candidate? I don't want to have to ask each individual candidate. I suppose that if I'm unsure or a candidate's sex, I can check the "Neutral" choice for those candidates.

I believe that you are a male candidate, and perhaps it would be against your interests to help me to support the female candidates as it would mean I'd be voting against you - so I'll understand if you choose not to help me with this.

Thanks, Uncle uncle uncle 15:09, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello again! This is what I'm trying to accomplish - but on a personal level.

"Even where there is no finding of a Title IX violation, a recipient may take affirmative steps consistent with the law to overcome the effects of conditions that resulted in limited participation of persons of a particular sex in the recipient’s education program or activity."

Uncle uncle uncle 15:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
As I've said previously elsewhere, I'm not particularly concerned about being elected - just that we have enough qualified candidates. The gender presentation of most of our candidates is pretty readily apparent from their candidate statements; I'm going to avoid naming any candidates I support or opppose given the amount of attention this page has received in recent days, some of which has been from those I don't believe I have the best interests of the encyclopedia in mind. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Request

Would you mind taking a minute to help me understand how a specific situation is allowed per policy? Please take a look at this (it spells out my query and I'd rather not copy and paste). Since the editor/admin I left the message for seems to be ignoring my query, I'm bringing it here, hoping you will help out. I simply don't get why one would do what's being done and if it's even within allowable guidelines. My gut tells me there is intentional scrutiny avoidance going on. If no policy is being violated, I'm fine with that, I'd just like to know how there's no policy being violated. Thanks, -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Editing as a logged out user is generally permissible as long as you're not either doing so for deceptive purposes (i.e., trying to create a false consensus on a talkpage,) or intentionally trying to avoid scrutiny. It's also explicitly permitted to edit anonymously (or from a sock account) in areas where editing under someone's real name would be likely to have a significant negative effect on their real-life identity. I edit logged out not infrequently just because I don't always remember my password on my phone, though never try to disguise it.The user in question does appear to have noted that he is currently editing logged out. Is there evidence that he's editing in a way intended to deceive or preserve his normal account's reputation? I haven't read the thread precisely enough to tell (and am not familiar with the logged in user's normal editing patterns.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
He said on his talk page that he was going to edit logged out. He's been editing for 15 days as an IP in an aggressive and combative manner. And unapologetically so. In the past, he's tried to bait and troll me, and essentially the same behavior has been occurring at the Umpqua Community College shooting article for quite some time. He revealed who he really is by accident today, after being asked how he could have taken part in RfCs (as he claimed while the IP) over three years' time when he had only been editing for 15 days. I don't know -- it just smells like trying to avoid scrutiny while being as much of a WP:JERK as possible (which is what I would characterize his behavior the last several days) and revelling in being able to avoid that scrutiny. After all, once he is done being aggressive and personally attacking (I've put at least one NPA warning on his talk page recently), he can go back to his named account and no one would have been the wiser -- if he had not accidentally posted comments under his named account. I guess I can see how intentionally editing logged out would be acceptable if the IP wasn't being so intentionally combative, edit warring, and taking personal attack potshots. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I'll take a closer look at it tomorrow or the day after - as today is family holiday stuff for me (and tomorrow will likely be tomorrow also.) If you link me any specifically blockable diffs, I'll block for them in the interim, but examining the pattern as a whole will take more time than I have tonight. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
While he hasn't edited further using the IP, his inappropriate behavior and personal attacks are escalating. Please see this and this. Are editors just allowed to continue in the same vein or what? I understand that he's an experienced editor who is liked by other editors, but, come on. That's just extraneous and unnecessary. My take on his behavior is that he's still pissed off about having been blocked for edit warring - the first block in his Mandruss editing history. I've known Mandruss previously to be snarky and sarcastic, but never blatantly abusive or to personally attack other editors. Editing as the IP, he was free to do exactly that, as can be seen at the Umpqua Community College talk page. Hence, the personal attack warning I placed on his talk page a few days ago. Now that he's "come out" as the IP (although unintentionally doing so), he's commenting as pissed off Mandruss using his Mandruss account (the link I included to his talk page above). If something isn't done, he's going to continue to spiral out of control, in my opinion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
WV, you may want to read WP:DTTR, as it does tend to unnecessarily escalate things. I do see a violation of NPA in that attack, but hesitate to block for it without further background investigation, and am headed to catch a train (I know, how quaint.) Kelapstick is active on that page, perhaps ask him to look in to it, or another admin somewhere if needed before I get back? Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
DTTR is an essay, however, he's escalating all on his own regardless of being templated. Please see the comments above that I added (there was an edit conflict between you and I). kelapstick, whomever, it matters not to me. But something needs to happen to impress on him that what he's doing isn't okay. Enjoy your trip - travelling by train sounds relaxing. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Your ACE question

Kevin, I just answered your question--sorry I'm a day late. If this is about a case I should know about, maybe a case on which I have said something or other, please fill me in, privately if you like; it is entirely possible I have forgotten. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not something you would've been directly involved in, but I trust you enough to drop you more info about what was involved in in later today. (N.b. TPSers, this will be done with the consent of the editor involved.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
That's very trusting of you Kevin; dear Drmies probably is quite trustworthy, most doctors are, well medical ones at least - I don't know about philosophic and scientific ones because they all have beards, and I daresay one or two of them have tattoos too. I just want you to know that I do so enjoy all your cloak and dagger secrecy, so keep it up. You remind me of a young, good looking Sean Connery, you need to find a Pussy Galore, and we shall all be entertained until after the election. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 17:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
You're one of Giano's accounts, correct? I can never remember who is who, thouh I'm sure someone will be kind enough to point it out to me shortly. I do feel the need to point out that by long-standing tradition, information that implicates editor privacy cannot be posted on-wiki without that user's consent, but may be appropriately discussed between administrators in greater detail off-wiki (since we can't do so privately on-wiki.) It's not me trying to be 007, it's me avoiding a block and a desysop. @Awilley: - I can't completely remember if this account belongs to Giano, but I'm pretty sure it does - per both my memory, discussions I've had in the past, and a quick search of the ANI archives that turns up this discussion. Would you mind ensuring that he doesn't continue trying to troll my userpage using satirical undeclared sockpuppets, particularly during silly season? Even if it's not directly Giano, I find it pretty inappropriate that someone's undeclared sockpuppet is making WP:POINTy comments on talkpages during election season. Policy-compliant use of private email is something people have been sniping at me for doing for years, and for an undeclared sock to go ahead and do so on my talkpage during election season is kind of out of line. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
You're free to throw the gentle lady off your talk page if you like, but she's not an undeclared sockpuppet, per the consensus in the very thread you linked. Jonathunder (talk) 19:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Any sockpuppet you have to conduct an ANI archives search to figure out the owner of is pretty damn near undeclared. It certainly doesn't follow the sockpuppetry policy, and since Giano has been continually trolling me to the point that multiple uninvolved admins have threatened to block him for it previously in the immediate past, using a sockpuppet that doesn't follow sock policy to continue trolling my talkpage is pretty much asking for the accounts involved to be blocked. ~~
  • Allow me, Kevin. Lady C, please observe this user's request not to post here again, neither you nor your other account(s). As Ms. Bishonen has observed, user talk pages are special in that a user can't ignore them. Therefore, requests on user talk pages for peace are absolute and must be obliged. Of course you may ask questions and cite quotations and diffs on the official election pages. As far as I know there are no special restrictions in effect there.
  • Kevin, I suggest you show goodwill even though you don't feel any is deserved. I am not going to judge whether Lady C is a troll or not because it doesn't matter. A most effective way to deal with trolls is to be nice to them, and deadpan. They generally don't like that treatment at all; it bores them severely, and they go find somebody more interesting to engage. Jehochman Talk 19:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Jehochman: Giano has been trolling my page to the point that uninvolved sysops have threatened to block him for it. Using a sockpuppet that very clearly falls on the wrong side of our sockpuppet policy (which I linked above) is pretty much him asking for a block of the effected accounts. I've ignored literally hundreds of trolls in the ENWP areas I edit in. When a troll is this recurrent, an established community member, and his behavior is the subject of current arbcom case, it calls for actual enforcement of policy, however. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
      • I'm quite aware of the dynamic, and would like to short circuit all the massive time wasting at the end of that path. Much better for all concerned if the conversation ends with your last word (your page, after all), and everybody goes back to editing articles. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 19:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
        • I'm drafting half a dozen off-wiki for the point when silly season ends. That still doesn't mean that someone whose behavior is currently before arbcom and has been trolling my page on a pretty much daily basis should both escape sanction for the continued trolling, and the sockpuppetry violation. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Did you use your admin tools to delete criticism on your talk page?

I was reading a thread off wiki and someone claiming to be you said they deleted diffs off of this page that were critical of you. Other people on that thread who claimed to be Wikipedians, indeed other people claiming to be admins and former arbitrators said it was an abuse of your tools. Now I don't know if these people are who they claim to be (you included), so I thought I'd ask you. If you DID use your tools in such a manner, even if you made a mistake, could you please report yourself to the Admin board and see what your fellow admins think you should do? Even if you don't think you did anything wrong, it would be best if you got a few opinions on the matter, especially with you running for Arbcom and all. If this wasn't you, then please accept my apologies for the intrusion and have a happy day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.112.165 (talk) 14:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

As someone who can't possibly be described as any kind of ally of Kevin's, I need to come to his defense here, having used my Magic Admin Hat to see what's actually going on here. An unrelated admin offered to revdelete the thread in question; Kevin then revdeleted it himself citing WP:CSD#U1. When it was pointed out that the U1 criteria only covers userpages and subpages such as sandboxes, and specifically not talkpages, he immediately restored it himself. There's theoretically an abuse of admin tools here, but given that it was at the suggestion of another long-serving admin, it's reasonably to assume good faith on KG's part in this instance. (There's potentially a conduct issue, as KG's tone in the discussion and other related discussions was decidedly obnoxious, but nobody involved in that thread comes out of it with much credit so I wouldn't consider it fair to single him out in this particular instance.) ‑ Iridescent 16:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Yup, the thread isn't worth discussing, and probably should have been deleted by that "long-serving admin". What a slacker, that guy.

Kevin undeleted each and every revision that he had deleted, so this is well into no-harm-no-foul territory. Aside from lurid interest, there's really nothing to talk about here. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 03:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Iridescent is pretty much on point here. There was an unpleasant thread on my talk page. Another admin deleted a major portion of the thread in an exercise in WP:DENY, since there's little point in feeding block-evading trolls (and when someone has clearly linked their real name to their Wikipedia account and then gotten indefinitely blocked or banned, there aren't outing concerns.) The thread was resurrected in a way that was unpleasant and didn't really reflect well on anyone involved. Another admin offered to revdel the thread, but decided to just can it instead. I went ahead and RD'ed it without reviewing the details of the RD criteria I was using to justify the RD. Someone sent me a note while I was mobile pointing out that my RD wasn't in compliance with the criteria, and within a few minutes of receiving their email I managed to find a secure laptop, logged in, and undid all the revdels. You will not find an admin who actively uses their tools who has not occasionally made similar mistakes, and even my most severe critics would not suggest that an incorrect revdel that lasted less than 20 minutes is an issue that requires admin review.
By the way? This is not the only time I've used revdel that I have either later reversed myself, or had others reverse. When you come across information that looks likely to be oversightable, you RD it and contact the Oversight team or an individual OS'er. The majority of my oversight requests have been accepted, but some have been denied with my initial revdels subsequently reversed. Admins are not expected to be perfect, nor are arbs. Unless there is a severe misuse of the toolset that the admin defends after having it pointed out to them, or there's a pattern of either utter incompetence or using their tools in a way that violates WP:INVOLVED or something similar, it's uncommon for individual mistakes by an admin to be subject to review by the community or other admins en masse. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for standing in the election. The more choices the better. From my own experience long ago I know how hard it can be. Jehochman Talk 18:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you also for lobbying to have notices sent to eligible voters. This was an incredibly good thing and you should be proud of the result. Jehochman Talk 06:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks Jeh, and if it wasn't obvious, I'm not at all troubled if I don't end up winning. The on-wiki hostility involved in my run kind of pales in comparison to the criticism I regularly receive off-wiki by groups of non-Wikipedians, so just to be clear, I'm not particularly troubled :) Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Greetings

Hello, Kevin Gorman. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
  Bfpage |leave a message  13:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi @Bfpage: - I've put less time in the last week in to this than I had intended to because of some of the side effects of running for arb, but I'll put some time in on both sides today to try to further resolve/mediate issues related to this (especially as Jytdog is no longer blocked.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Six month guidelines for Bfpage final draft

Please take one more look-see. Since this is all about interaction bans, you probably have to be the one to contact the other editors that are mentioned on this page so that they don't have to deal with me directly. Please put a line through all the guidelines that are no longer in effect. Please bold the guidelines that will continue to apply to my editing I have agreed to and for which you have concurred. Please inform the other editors in question concerning the behavior that you expect from them and the reciprocal courtesies that I am asking for. Please weigh in on my comments on the Child grooming. This is the next step because I have reached my 'three revert' limit and the problem is still not resolved and has not progressed in the past six months. The Very Best of Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  19:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi BFP - I'll get this done by Monday morning, but may not before done due to familial obligations. As a note, Jytdog is currently banned, so you won't have to worry about interacting with him much. Thank you again for willingly committing to this for longer period than you have to just to make sure nothing goes off-kilter in the future. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) You mean Jytdog is indeffed and not banned, right, Kevin? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, yeah. For the purposes of this, it can be treated equivalently however until he returns, and we can deal with problems when he returns if/when that happens. He's indeffed by a functionary with instructions to only reverse with the consent of functionaries or arbcom. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Disruption

I'm sorry to be a nuisance, but is there anything you can do to stop WordSeventeen and Zpeopleheart from being disruptive, at least until the request for closure or a consensus is verified/reached for the ANI report? They chilled out for a little bit, but they just seem to be starting up again over at the Allie X page.Thanks. Edit: I notice that you protected it; thank you. He isn't even able to maintain civility on the Requests for Closure page.SanctuaryXStop talking in codes 21:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

  • I actually only semi'ed it, to stop the IP issues. Having reviewed the totality of the behavior of WordSeventeen and Zpeopleheart, I've blocked them for six months. They're clearly not here to contribute to the enyclopedia at the moment; one can hope six months will make a difference. An indef could've been justified, but if they're a problem again six months from now we can just revisit it then. This is not meant to supercede community discussions of topic banning them, as a topicban would last longer than six months. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Either way, thank you a lot. It is relieving for me to have finally come across someone who took it seriously. SanctuaryXStop talking in codes 22:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Kevin Gorman and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, WormTT(talk) 10:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you 2

Thank you for weighing in at the education noticeboard, and for placing such clear objections. I started this because I have seen several poor outcomes. I have no idea what if any, eventual decisions will be made, and I don't intend to argue with folk unless asked a direct question. I simply hope to get the widest discussion possible out of which I anticipate some good will come. We can always improve. My idea may be wholly incorrect. I shall not be thanking everyone, but, since you were the first to object I thought it only right to thank you. Fiddle Faddle 23:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks :) but heh, you should've seen the education program in previous years. One previous year saw so many problems crop up in mainspace that it took me quite some time to convince a number of quite prominent editors not to start an RfC that would literally have tried to categorically ban classes from using Wikipedia-based assignments. At the same time, I've assisted with (or in some cases been the lecturer for) well over a dozen classes using Wikipedia, and not one of them has ever landed at the education noticeboard with issues... and because I like to change up my methods and how I track students, some of them were run in a way where no one would've been aware that the editors were students. I've also blocked students - both others and upon occasion my own - when they deviated too far from acceptable norms. Many of the biggest education problems ENWP has seen involved professors who were literally socking because their own accounts and their students' accounts had been blocked in previous years. Students are not fundamentally different from any other Wikipedian (like a new editor who received training at an editathon, of which there are plenty,) and it's a mistake to treat them as fundamentally different.
Oh... and I started editing Wikipedia as a student in the public policy initiative - the precursor to the USEP - myself, and last year passed RfA, have been employed by a major university as Wikipedian-in-Residence, and have annoyed plenty of established community members. When it comes down to it, USEP participants are just Wikipedians. In my own experience, the less you publicly single them out as special/different than any other new community member, the more likely they are to stick around. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I had not considered the points you have made and argue so well for.
I thought for several days, way before bringing the aviation course to the noticeboard, about how things might improve. My frustration was in my inability to persuade the right folk to engage in conversation, especially the course leader who seemed both new (and inexperienced) and immune to talk page discussions. That didn't lead me to think "Let us treat them specially", rather it led to my thinking "These folk seems, often, to being taught poorly, and I would like either their standards to be raised or to protect the 'corporate myself' from them.
If my proposal fails that is fine. My objective is to get folk talking, and bringing students and lecturers/course leaders into the fold. My objective will be overtaken by the community, obviously Fiddle Faddle 23:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
In situations where there's a really problematic course and the instructor isn't in contact with WikiEd or another group and isn't responsive to attempts to communication (I do generally try identify instructors and contact them via direct email, since many aren't used to talk pages etc,) you'd be surprised at how quickly people become responsive when you block problematic instructor and student accounts. In the past people have generally been okay with doing so, and although some people feel bad blocking students, I'm unaware of any instance where student grades have suffered because of, say, a poor instructor and all their students getting blocked. Heck, read up about what happened with the Indian Education Program... we ended up blocking multiple entire universities. The quality of the education program has significantly improved since Wiki Ed was spun off from the WMF. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
We are still suffering in that geography today! Unlike you I have chosen not to be an admin. If you look at my user page there is a link to why I choose not to do it. While it would be a useful tool I fear misusing it, even by accident. Fiddle Faddle 00:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I get accused of misusing my tools from time to time, but given the off-wiki vitriole spawned by my normal editing habits, it doesn't particularly perturb me (and it's rare that I actually make huge mistakes.) I actually chose to RFA specifically so that I could use the tools w/r/t the education program, although I obviously use them more broadly than just that. I found that most admins who hadn't come up through the USEP felt bad handing out blocks or deletions etcs related to the education program - I don't have such qualms when it's necessary to make sure the education program doesn't severely damage the rest of Wikipedia. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Since the great majority of what I do at present is AFC I find there is a vast temptation to delete ordure on sight and block editors on sight. Before I worked there I felt inexperienced. Now I work there I feel it to be a positive benefit to be without the cleaning supplies. Of course, I could reduce the backlog at a stroke... Fiddle Faddle 00:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

On this topic

This may amuse you. It seems I got the attention of the prof and the course. Fiddle Faddle 19:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Haha, I told you blocking professors or students would rapidly get their attention. I'll take a look over the situation and evaluate their request for an unblock shortly, since we don't require courses to use Wiki Ed or anything (and in fact WEF only supports American and Canadian classes.) The mention of their edits looking promotional may have me initiate further discussion with the professor before doing anything of course. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I had the feeling we were looking at a c(o)urse, and mentioned this in my SPI report. Obviously CheckUser places them all at the university. Well, I have not caused the block of an entire course before. This could all have been solved with some notification on the individual student user pages. I think. Odd how time provides the most amazing serendipity, isn't it. We need to get far better at education. Fiddle Faddle 20:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
  • That we do. I was actively working on it in 2014, but had five organ systems fail at the same time in January + somehow that triggered narcolepsy both of which have only had their effects mostly resolved in the last month or two. I have some very distinct ideas (the best predictor of success of a class is whether or not an experienced Wikipedian who also has taught before is present,) and am looking around at various funding sources to try to demonstrate conclusively that that is both the case and is a worthwhile expenditure of funds. (As a fulltime thing, I could provide very substantial in and out of class support to at least seven or eight courses at once.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Ill health never arrives at a convenient time, and often at the least convenient possible. I view good profs and well encouraged students as a resource to encourage, hence my proposal at EN, which will twist and turn and probably go nowhere. It may create thought, which is probably the best I can hope for. Fiddle Faddle 20:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Immunoglobulin therapy at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 08:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Re: Unblock

Hi Kevin,

I don't believe it was the best action to unblock the accounts. As the block notice stated, it was a checkuser block and you should have discussed it with myself or another checkuser for review. In addition, I would have appreciated it if you left a message on my talk page to discuss the issue before unblocking the accounts. Our blocking policy is quite clear on the matter. As I'm sure you know, there is technical evidence at play that prevents you from having the full picture. I can't elaborate per the privacy policy, but I will say there's a possibility that what the individual is saying is not necessarily true. I'm presently reaching out to a second checkuser to get a second opinion on the matter. Mike V • Talk 23:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi Mike - the reason I felt comfortable making the unblocks was that after investigation, it sure looked like a class to me after more than a cursory investigation, coupled with the fact that the admin/SPI clerk on the sock case, @Vanjagenije: stated that they were perfectly comfortable with the class being mass unblocked, and that even though the block involved CU evidence they did not consider it a checkuser block. I do apologize for only talking about it directly with Vanjagenij first, and assuming you would notice the page as Vanjagenij had. I'm fairly familiar with the types of evidence that checkuser can produce, and I am not at all confident that a checkuser of those accounts could disprove the notion that they were editing Wikipedia as part of a class. This is particularly true since LIUC, the university in question, has an advertised course with a module that involves editing Wikipedia currently going on. Particularly with classes, I feel that it's best to extent them significant initial good faith, particularly since we've had situations where blocked classes have just turned in to sock rings before. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry to join this conversation so late, the ping didn't work. I am very sorry that my statement made so much trouble. It was my mistake. I know that checkuser block should not be canceled without consulting a checkuser. But, I simply didn't check the block log, and didn't see that those particular blocks were checkuser blocks. I saw that the checkuser found accounts to be "likely" connected (not "conformed"), and so I assumed they were blocked without "checkuser block" tag. I just didn't look, I'm very sorry. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.


To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

With one exception (you)

it was an astoundingly good result! Thanks for running. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

  • I know, I'm quite excited :) I'm not disturbed by not winning in the least. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, Kevin, thanks--you didn't get in, but I have no doubt that some of the points you raised will come up. Take care. Drmies (talk) 22:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
      • I declared fully expecting not to win, but hoping to encourage a number of other on-the-fence candidates to run (which worked :)). Unfortunately, now it looks I'll get to deal with an arb case against me instead of writing about neat immunology stuff using the new databases I have access to, since I find it hard to write with an active arb case open. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
        • Oh, yeah, I shouldn't be talking to you, should I. I do wish you good luck with it. Oh my, I'm feeling it now, the need to keep my trap shut. Take care Kevin. Drmies (talk) 23:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
          • It seems... silly... to open an arb case under one committee, and then not hear it until the next tranche has taken their seats and been organized. I have half a dozen drafts (most of them offline) related to important missing topics in immunology, but am horrid at drafting content with an open case. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
            • (ec but doesn't matter) Kevin, just keep writing about immunology, ignore arbcom if you want to something for health ;) Remind me of this if I ever get there again and try to tell arbs about the beauty of Carmen and Joseph. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
              • @Gerda Arendt: - As I more-or-less just told Euryalus, one committee accepting a case for another one to hear just seems... weird.
  • I restored several dozen previously G5'ed articles last night because I had checked their sourcing and it was solid and stuff we were unlikely to have anyone else write (one of the GA's I had earlier restored I literally went to an academic library to track down the sources it used and verified them,) but despite the act that my restorations went over without controversy last night, I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable doing the same today. Likewise, I've recently issued significant blocks to established but highly disruptive users that I doubt I'd currently feel comfortable issuing, since (particularly if they have friends,) such actions are often brought up in cases that are held in the moment, let alone two months down the road. I've been moderating disputes quietly between multiple individuals, including at times threatened or actual use of blocks to enforce basic standards, and again am not sure I'd feel comfortable doing so with a multi-month gap between acceptance and actually hearing the case - or even for that matter, comfortable getting in to content disputes, or blocking students who are being disruptive or committing plagiarism (since blocking students at all tends to make people unhappy.) The case, if heard now, would involve two issues that lasted less than twenty minutes (one at the advice of an admin,) and one set of unblocks that were at the advice of an admin/spi clerk. The case heard two months from now would involve all of that, plus any admin decisions people disagreed with in the interim (and how many blocks make people happy, even when they're genuinely necessary?,) plus any accusations of wrongdoing w/r/t content.
  • I have no desire to give up the toolset - it's too useful for both education program purposes, getting people in disputes to knock it off, dealing with certain undisclosed paid editors, resurrecting G5'ed articles that are worth saving, and a whole host of other things - but if this gets held in late January, I'll either basically be unable to do much between now and then, or it'll wind up including every trivial accusation anyone can think of tossing my way in the interim. Really, ideally, if this committee accepts the case, this committee should hear the case. Accepting cases to be heard by a subsequent committee seems... weird. I know you aren't the fondest of admins, but there are at least half a dozen people I can think of who are happily editing today, who would have ended up indeffed if I hadn't intervened in an administrative capacity to try to end serious disputes before they became really serious disputes. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, for the reply, and for restoring good sourced content! Arbcom is weird, - that was true every time I looked, but perhaps will get better now, with twice as many women as before ;) - Seriously: it will be better for your health if you don't care about arbcom. I know that it is hard to do, but I have it from an expert. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately Gerda, any unusual administrative action I take or content dispute I'm involved in will end up being brought forward as evidence before me whenever the case is heard. And although I have significantly more faith in the reasonability of the incoming tranch than the outgoing one, too much of the valuable work that I do (most of which I don't advertise) is likely enough to brought up in the eventual case that until the proverbial Sword of Damocles over my head poofs, I'm not likely to edit outside of my talk page and the arbcom case. There's something rather ironic in the fact that in the first period in a significant time where I can both generate content and do GLAM and EDU outreach in terms of my health, I can't, in fact, actually do so. Even with EDU outreach, when a Wikipedian is directly supervising one (or more classes,) if they don't have the toolset their effectiveness is lessened and the community workload in relation to the class is greatly increased. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I tell you that arbcom is weird, and you speak of "reason" ;) - I live happily without admin tools, I have friends to ask if I need something done. Create content, make friends, don't feel irreplaceable, - note to self. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Oh, so do I - but having done EDU outreach both as an admin and without being an admin, it's infinitely easier to be self-sufficient doing so as an admin. The community (understandably, given the education program's past failures) has minimal tolerance for having to clean up after education program mistakes. In an appropriate situation I can directly physically supervise six or seven classes at once - but without admin tools, that's likely to add 60 or 70 hours of workload to our existing admins, which is more than I desire to add. And although I have plenty of interest in generating content myself, I'd rather preserve my ability to act as a force multiplier in EDU and GLAM work than create content myself right now. Immunoglobulin therapy was going to be one of about half a dozen interlinked c-class articles I was going to put up this week, but I currently don't desire to do so both because any content disputes I get involved in will be brought up in the eventual case (and lessen my ability to help others create content in the feature,) and, to be honest, also just don't feel like doing lit searches to write articles at the same time I've had an arbcom case accepted against me based in part on something that happened in 2013. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Advice, for what it's worth

Kevin, I see you are having trouble editing down your statement here. So I had a go, and this is what I suggest:

"Everyone makes mistakes, but I think that anyone who has watched my actions change and develop over the last few years would agree that I've become more deliberative, and less trigger happy.
"It is true that several of my recent actions violate a number of our policies, but I will actively seek to avoid making such mistakes in the future. As time has progressed, I think it's pretty clear that I've acted with more caution and deliberation than I did when I was first sysopped, a trend I expect to continue.
"I absolutely take responsibility for my own tool use. I really should have simply refreshed myself on the policies. But there's a huge difference between denying that I did anything wrong, and admitting that I accidentally and non-maliciously violated several policies, stating that it won't happen again, and explaining how it happened in the first place. This warrants a wagging finger, not a case.
"This RFAR in addition to the private feedback I've received will have a much more effect than any motion of warning or admonishment. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)"

I then suggest you write nothing further about the case, either there or on anyone's talk pages, until the thing begins.

(And if you had written this at the start, my bet is that you would have avoided a case entirely.)

This is serious advice, for your best interests. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case request word limits

Hi, Kevin Gorman. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; and concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators. Right now, your statement is 1270 words and only 500 words (with a little cushion) is allowed for the case requests. Word limits for named parties are 1000 words on the case evidence phase.

Requests for extensions of the word limit may be made either in your statement or by email to the Committee through this link or arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org if email is not available through your account.

For the Arbitration Committee, Liz Read! Talk! 20:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

  • I suspect the energy currently being expended worrying about Kevin's statement length would be better spent on... well, pretty much anything else. The vote is 9 to 0 here; having a long statement is not some kind of unfair advantage. An under-appreciated skill in Arbs and Arb clerks is knowing when to not sweat the small stuff. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
  • It's actually already cut below 400. As you correctly pointed out, I had confused RFAR limits and evidence limits. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

elections

I found your responses to my questions (ACE2015) to be thoughtful and am surprised at the animus some seem to have about you personally, even going so far as to take pot-shots at you in the RFAR, etc. I noted there "ArbCom has a quite poor record when used as a shooting gallery, at best" which I regard as true here as ever. With warm regards ... Collect (talk) 01:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the note. I'm kind of amazed that people actually editwarred with clerks to restore direct personal attacks, and that a case was accepted based on that set of actions to begin with. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Help?

Am I missing something here? I want to collaborate, limit unpleasant interactions and improve an article. Do you have any advice? Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 01:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately Barbara, someone filed a request for arbitration against me that was subsequently accepted. Because there are enough people floating around that twist anything I say in to making it seem like I'm the devil, I've stop participating in article space discussions/discussions related to articles/discussions related to administrative matters until the arb case is resolved. I apologize for leaving you in the lurch, but my behavior has been misinterpreted in the past and present in absurd enough ways that I'm limiting even attempts to good under the assumption someone will accuse me of overstepping my mandate or somesuch. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Unsolicited advice

Kevin, I'm really sorry to see that an Arb case is about to be accepted. Some unsolicited advice: don't read the evidence page until closer to the end of the evidence phase. Then address it all in one go. Otherwise you're going to be fretting, and if the case continues at length, it will ruin the holidays for you. Also, the more you say, the greater the danger of saying the wrong thing. So: keep it succinct, apologize for any mistakes made, explain how they happened if that can be done clearly, and then just hope for the best. If I can help in any way, please let me know. SarahSV (talk) 04:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman

Hi there,


You are receiving this message as you have been involved with the Kevin Gorman Arbitration case. I just wanted to let you know that the case timetable has been changed - evidence now needs to be presented by 22 December 2015, the workshop closes 31 December 2015, and the Proposed decision is targeted to be posted 3 January 2016.

I would therefore be grateful if you could submit any additional evidence as soon as possible.

For the Arbitration Committee, -- Mdann52 (talk) 09:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 28, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kevin, your request in the evidence page for an expanded wordcount has been noted by the Arbs. I notice that you have stated in an intention to make posts that you "half expect" will be clerked out. Please do not post any material that you feel will compel us clerks to remove; if in doubt whether something is appropriate please approach one of us individually and we'll be able to provide advice. While making no guarantees whatsoever that such a request will be approved, what dates would be convenient for you for the workshop and PD phases? Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC).
Kevin, I've been advised that the drafting arbs are happy for your evidence word limit to be increased to 1750 words. This means your statement is still approximately double what it should be, and it will need to be reduced. If it helps you to address the evidence against you while not going over the word limit, it is kosher to use the "Analysis of evidence" section of the workshop to go through particular pieces of evidence in detail; these do not count towards your evidence word limit (although I'd still advise brevity if possible). Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC).
With the current timeframe of the case I will literally not have access to the internet during the entire workshop phase, because I'll be in the middle of a frigging desert on a trip that has been planned for months for msot of it with a large portion of my extended family enjoying the holidays. Right now I'm feeling very little incentive to wordsmith anything - let alone in to two separate portions, one of which I won't be able to post - because I both have the feeling it would not make a damned bit of difference. You're free to remove my current statement if you feel you must. If you do, I'll likely just replace it with a link to a diff of me making the statement - since that is, after all, a diff.
I'm flabbergasted that arbcom actually accepted a case where the strongest accusation made was that I made an unblock of an Italian class on the advice of an SPI clerk after verifying they were in fact a class without first getting the consent of the involved CU. The involved CU himself accepted that the mistake was made in good faith and only felt the need to tell me to be more cautious in the future and to give a few sentences of guidance to the clerk involved, not to bring an arbcom case. This should not have been accepted as an arbcom case in the first place, and if there's a single period of time where it makes more sense to handle a case by motion rather than turning it in to a full case, it's a simple shooting gallery case accepted on December 11th of a year. User:Kevin Gorman | talk page Statement in current arbcom case 23:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Kevin, in case this helps, you are free to put stuff, including rebuttals to evidence, on the Workshop page now. You don't have to wait until the Evidence page closes. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

signpost survey on approval voting

Hello again, I'm reading over the signpost, and am finding that some of the questions I thought were obvious agree-answers sometimes result in disagree-answers. Of course, the numeric answer just leads to more questions, about the reason behind the numeral. So here I am. Can you fill me in on why you are "[un]satisfied with the ternary [oppose–neutral–support] voting system for [the annual] ArbCom elections" which was question#T. Or if you have you posted something about it elsewhere, feel free to direct me thither. I always thought the approval-voting scheme used by arbcom was pretty decent, better than instant run-off voting (used e.g. in Oakland and SFO elections), and better than first past the post (used in USA federal elections) by far. SecurePoll bangvoting is one of the few places where wikipedia is permitted to act as a leading indicator following best practices, rather than a trailing indicator which reflects the nominally reliable sources, as we do in mainspace. This is not a high-priority question, clearly, since probably I'm the only wikipedian curious enough to ask about the underlying rationale here, but when you have a spare moment, I'm definitely curious. Thanks, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

  • I definitely don't support FPTP or instant run-off, I just dislike the fact that with our normal relatively low turnouts and with opposes counting so much more significantly than neutrals, it's relatively easy in theory for a pretty small bloc to mass-oppose candidates that they disliked in a way that would shift the balance of the election in a way that I don't think accurately represents the wishes of the electorate. These are using way bigger turnouts than we actually have, but, for instance, a candidate with 150,000 support votes and 150,001 negative votes would not be elected, whereas a candidate with 2 support votes and 0 negative votes would be elected. I think there are situations where a candidate, though falling short of the 50% minimum, certainly is supported by enough of the electorate that they should reasonably win a seat over a candidate with far less support but also far less opposition. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I'm not Kevin, but I can answer for why I certainly don't consider the existing setup best practice; it institutionalises a tyranny-of-the-majority setup on what should be an inclusive project. As a hypothetical, assume that kittens are the current burning issue on Wikipedia; further, assume that 55% of voters are strongly in favor of more coverage of kittens, while 25% of voters hate kittens and the remaining 20% don't care. Since that 55% is dominant, it means that pro-kitten candidates will sweep the board and take every seat, rather than a more equitable distribution of eight pro-kitten, four anti-kitten and three kitten-neutral candidates. Since it's well, well documented that voters in any kind of election have a subconscious tendency to support candidates they perceive as similar to themselves, this has serious implications in a project with well-documented race, age and gender gaps and where the US is so disproportionately represented among the editor base. (Black arbs: 0; female arbs: 2; arbs outside the North America/UK wiki-heartland: 0.) A few years ago I proposed having 'constituencies' for arbcom slots, based on geographic location and/or particular fields on Wikipedia (roughly the same setup trade union councils use, with delegates from both geographical areas and specific areas of work), but nobody seemed very interested in the proposal and it would probably have been unworkably complicated on a project with such a cult of anonymity. ‑ iridescent 00:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Heh heh! Am delighted to find other people who take voting systems seriously. There is definitely a problem with the threshold being unspecified; if this were scaled up to handle municipal elections, for instance, it would be important for the sanity of the outcome to have a system where, for an example mechanism, there was a minimum number of support-votes needed to qualify as a candidate, say 10% of the legit voters who actually voted in the election in question... but alternatively or additionally, I think that "neutral" should count slightly negative aka instead of plusOne minusZero minusOne for the support/neutral/oppose bangvotes, it makes sense to have pluOne minusOneTenth minusOne ... thataway, relatively unknown candidates like the hypothetical 2-support-1-oppose-999-neutral person, would not get elected. Of course, it would be harder than ever to achieve the 50% approval cutoff, were 'neutral' to be redefined as 'leaning one-tenth towards negative', so it might be necessary to adjust the cutoff-threshold downward to 40%.
  As for the tyranny of the majority, all systems which are fundamentally democratic have that risk, as Aristotle first noticed if memory serves... though of course, since arbcom does not actually write the wiki-laws, but is merely supposed to interpret them like SCOTUS, kinda sorta anyways, there is somewhat less of a worry. There most definitely is a worry about tyranny of the factional majority in terms of *writing* the PAG themselves... one need not be elected to arbcom, in order to rewrite WP:N for instance!  :-)     I will have to think more deeply on the question of whether the 50% cutoff leads to systemic bias, however. I'm generally against proportional systems in all their stripes, because they strongly encourage both divisiveness and simultaneously factional loyalties, almost as much as FPTP does. However, the main proportional-system disadvantage, however you set the proportions (geographical is typical in the off-wiki world as opposed to demographical or "wikiproject-membership-o-graphical"), is that with FPTP there are mathematically only going to ever be two major parties (with rare exceptions at the saddle points), who both compete to satisfy intra-party coalitions large enough to win out against the other major party... and thus have some advantages versus proportional, in avoiding the tyranny of the majority problem. I have never heard of approval voting having the tyranny of the majority problem (my admiration of it is because it solves the independence of clones issue with maximum simplicity), but will look into it more, thanks much for the elbow-joggle, to make me think harder.
  p.s. One parting food-for-thought, which might satisfy both the problem of 1000 yea + 1001 nay bangvotes mentioned by Kevin, and the problem of systematic bias mentioned by Iridescent, would be some sort of scheme where instead of electing 9 equally-weighted-members out of 21 actively-standing-candidates, we instead gave ALL of the 21 candidates a percentage of the 9-equally-weighted-votes on the arbcom. If candidate X were to receive 1000 supports in the election, and all the other candidates received 100 supports each, then the distribution could be something like 9*1000/3000 == three arbcom bangvotes for candidate X, and 9*100/3000 == three-tenths-of-a-bangvote for each of the other twenty candidates. Guaranteed election to serve, in other words, but variable amount of power. Using or ignoring the oppose bangvotes durin the arb-election, left as an exercise for the reader.  ;-)     75.108.94.227 (talk) 02:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

So my idea picking 3 individuals one loves, 3 individuals one doesn't love, and 3 individuals in the middle to vote for ain't so bad! (Hope ya don't mind a bit of drive-by talking!) --MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 04:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

(snorts derisively at with FPTP there are mathematically only going to ever be two major parties, from the perspective of a country whose FPTP electoral map looks like this.) ‑ iridescent 10:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
(spit take) Ha! I never said it would actually work!!! --MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 19:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
@75.108, a simple solution which preserves the positives of the existing system would be to keep the setup exactly as is, but only allow three "support" and three "oppose" votes per voter. That way, the obvious bozos would still have no chance of slipping through, but it would prevent the scenario of fifteen people who appear to a particular group of 51% of voters but are despised by the remaining 49% from making a clean sweep of every election. ‑ iridescent 00:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • 75 - arbcom cases involve too much private evidence to want to expand the committee that significantly, especially since with two tranches we'd likely end up with like 42 freakin' arbs. I actually kind of like what Iridescent just suggested, or at least something going off of it... Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:26, 24 November 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

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: [20]), 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 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 remove this notice 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)

Removed comment

And this time, I agree. It's actually a perfect example of what I was trying to say just above. (And I say this even though I know that, several weeks ago, Ched told me on my talk page that he was planning to stop being an admin, which in all honesty does make me feel like the timing of today's request was a bit pointy.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • If the two of you feel it's worth removing, I won't complain. The timing to me just looked unnecessarily pointy, and a request likely made when Ched had not through the decision fully. Though the comment would've done significantly more good if I'd caught the situation before a 'crat had acted, I think it would've been good to hold off on fulfilling the request for 24 hours, or, since it had already been granted, to be more willing to instantly regrant the toolset without normal waiting periods/why he rapidly resigned then asked for reconsideration. User:Kevin Gorman | talk page 19:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
It's his thing to do whenever he wants. No need to add fuel to a fire. Sit back, sip tea, and think of better things you could do than comment on the timing of his resignation. Jehochman Talk 20:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
From a general standpoint, I'd normally comment on the resignation of any admin that I thought I had incidentally contributed to. You're right that doing so probably would/will do nothing but add fuel to a pyre, but if Ched had interpreted me pointing out that he'd violated NPA and I hadn't cared as some weird, backwards request for him to resign, I certainly wouldn't have wanted him to do so. Per Trypto's comment, it seems that he was planning to anyway, so ignoring my pyre anyway, my comment was likely irrelevant. User:Kevin Gorman | talk page 20:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Kevin, I hope I'm not belaboring this, but since you cited my comment, I feel like I should remind you that that was the minor part of the comment that I made. The major part was that you could, for example, have instead said something like Ched, I certainly did not mean that you needed to resign, and I hope that you understand my concerns. Or something more or less like that. Instead, you come across as irritable and defensive. Frankly, I don't blame you for being irritable, under the circumstances. But on-Wiki, it can be better to keep those kinds of feelings to yourself. And instead of insisting that you were right every time, or at least giving that appearance even if that isn't actually true, you could just say, sometimes, I hear you and I'll try to remember that next time. And I believe that that's exactly why other editors are finding fault with you. It's why, even though the things that you have done do not, in themselves, add up to that much, the perception is that they amount to more than just the sum of the parts. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Guys, Ched posted at BN on 04:55, 6 January 2016 and Kevin made his "NPA" post at 06:48, 6 January 2016. They are probably not causally related. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Opa: to be clear, the reason I originally assumed that was a causal connection was that Ched linked to his resignation diff in a somewhat pointy fashion (sorry, but there's not a different way to put it) in response to my comment that I hadn't called for his head for making a bad block or making personal attacks. I think it's more-or-less clear that there the two weren't connected given that he'd apparently told Trypto at an earlier point of his intentions and that this section is likely more or less obsolete. User:Kevin Gorman | talk page 21:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Obsolete, yes, agreed :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

AAAS and BMJ

Hi, Kev - please keep an eye out for email correspondence that grants access to BMJ and AAAS - I have received positive correspondence indicating the corrections. Atsme📞📧 03:23, 7 January 2016 (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)
I never meant to violate NPA ... but done. — Ched :  ?  07:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC
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.)
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

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

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

"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

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

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 [22], [23]. 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)

A beer for you!

Arbcom isn't well known for being right too often. I'm sorry to see another person be bent over by the mob. You know where I stand with your opinions but was sorry to see this happen to you at any rate. Come back refreshed and when you are ready and if that time never comes that's ok too if it's the right choice for you. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
  • @Hell in a Bucket: - I know we've disagreed on tons of content matters, but I hope it goes without saying that if I run I won't be using my tools in those areas. Frankly in the near future I wouldn't be using them except for stuff like lifting IPBE at events. It amazes me that people who voted to desysop me could've easily spent another half hour with a whole wikiconference autoblocked... it amazes me more that several of the people who thought I was not suitable to be an admin have asked my opinion directly recently regarding board and staff issues. User:Kevin Gorman | talk page 00:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Meh!

Hit with rocks, when a bag of gravel would have done the trick. Unfortunate when sense-making is not used and we have decisions like that. Best of luck with the rest of your volunteer work. <sigh> — billinghurst sDrewth 06:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Plus if you have an old book that needs reproducing WS is the place. <huge g> — billinghurst sDrewth 06:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • @Billinghurst: - a rather light bag of gravel at that, /sigh. I had expected arbcom to try to engage in at least some sort of calculus to determine if my work was detrimental or beneficial to ENWP as a whole, but they saw a handful of mistakes, in exceptional circumstances, at wide intervals and decided to just whack. I'm definitely not gone from the projects. I took some time off to xeriscape two extensive yards, but will be back here and there. Tbh, since arbcom chose to enact one of their few remedies that can be overturned by the community, I'm tempted to write up exactly why arbcom was flawed, and ask the community via RfA to undo the decision, effectively rebuking arbcom. The admonishment they cited... for the love of god, I did use the wrong tool, but it was a situation that happened when I was a brand new admin and there were cops in my office. User:Kevin Gorman | talk page 00:40, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
    That ArbCom is becoming a policy-making body, and a de facto rule-making body is becoming concerning. I would much prefer that they get back to and stick to arbitration. Patterns of behaviour and ability to change are two concepts that escape some. [We don't need rulers.] Anyway, in all these regards, I am here (WMF) to edit so those who love to cuddle sceptres of power ... woopee! — billinghurst sDrewth 10:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

This Month in Education: [March 2016]

Arab World Education Program at WISE Doha 2015

By Walaa Abdel Manaem (Wikipedia Education Program Egypt) & (Egypt Wikimedians user group)

Walaa with Mr. Rashid El Telwaty and Ms. Suad Alhalwachi
Walaa with Dr. Sherifa Atallah
Walaa with Mr. Rashid El Telwaty, Ms. Bonnie Chiu, Mr. Jake and Ms. Naadiya Moosajee.

Snippet: Education Leaders at WISE Doha 2015 introducing Wikipedia Education Program in Egypt to WISE Conference attendees, as an example of a program in the Arab World, to share their experience to inspire other universities and institutions starting new programs in the area.

WISE 2015 Sessions and Plenaries were designed around three main pillars such as the UN Sustainable Development Goals; education and the economy; fostering innovation in education systems. Each pillar examined a variety of key topics including: the linkages between education, employment, and entrepreneurship; education reform and innovation in the MENA region and Qatar; emerging models of education financing, attracting, rewarding and retaining quality teachers; and the importance of investing in early childhood development.

Representatives of Wikipedia Education Program Walaa Abdel Manaem and Reem Al-Kashif participated in WISE Doha 2015 in Qatar, the annual World Innovation Summit for Education is the premier international platform dedicated to innovation and creative action in education where top decision-makers share insights with on-the-ground practitioners and collaborate to rethink education. Also, WISE 2015 was the first global education conference following the ratification of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in September 2015. Contributions ranged from Arabic Brochure of Editing Wikipedia for students in WEP in Egypt and everybody who would like to edit Wikipedia without ‎problems, The Arabic version of Welcome to Wikipedia reference guideline, PDF of brochure handed out during Arabic Wikipedia Convening, Doha, Qatar, 2011 and Introduction to Wikipedia. These contributions are related to show a case study of Wikipedia Education program in Egypt and how it worked since February 2012 till the November 2015, as the seventh edition ended last October. All discussions were about the program's mechanism and what were the motivations keeping it going. The program helped increasing gender diversity and supported the featured content on Arabic Wikipedia. Wikipedia Education Program, like any other initiative, has achievements and dark sides, for that reason, the representatives had to locate both of them and how they influence the Arabic community and how the community interact with this phenomenon.


Read more about the Wikipedia Education Program in Egypt here.

Read more about the Wikipedia Education program in the Arab World here (in Arabic).

Wikipedia in Higher Education in Israel: A new for-credit elective course focusing on contributing to Wikipedia at Tel Aviv University

By Shani Evenstein (WMIL)

Amir explains about the new translation tool to students

Snippet: A first-of-its-kind, for-credit, elective course that focuses on contributing to Wikipedia has opened at Tel Aviv University and is now available to all B.A. students on campus

On October 19th a new for-credit elective course called "Wikipedia: Skills for producing and consuming knowledge"[1] has opened at Tel Aviv University (TAU). The semester-long course (13 weeks) is available to all B.A. students on campus and this semester about 50 students from various disciplines are taking part in this first-of-its-kind course in Israel.

Working in small groups to correct copyrights and Non-NPOV violations

The course draws from "flipped classroom" concepts and uses "blended learning" methods, which practically means combining in-class lectures, workshops and small-group activities, as well as online individual learning. Both the Moodle learning management system (LMS) and the Wikipedia Education Extension are used to monitor the students' work and progress throughout the course.

The course has 2 main assignments - expanding an existing stub, as well as writing a new article, in the hopes that the content added during the course will assist not only the students themselves, but also future generations of learners as well as the general public. Though the course focuses on adding quality content to Wikipedia, it also aims to help students sharpen their academic skills and their 21st century skills, highlighting collaborative learning, joint online research and interdisciplinary collaborations in the process of constructing knowledge.

This course was initiated and is led by Shani Evenstein, an educator, Wikimedian and member of the Wikipedia Education Collaborative, in collaboration with the Orange Institute for Internet Studies, as well as the School of Education at TAU. The syllabus for the new course builds on the success of Wiki-Med, a for-credit elective course, which was designed in 2013 and is led by Evenstein at the Sackler school of Medicine for the third consecutive year. While Wiki-med is focused on contributing medical content to Wikipedia and is only available to Medical Students on campus, the new course is designed to accommodate students from different academic disciplines and varying backgrounds.

The course was chosen to be part of TAU's cross-discipline elective courses system ("Kelim Shluvim") and was approved by the Vice-Rector, who heads the program. In that, the course marks an important precedent in the collaboration between Academia and the Wikipedia Education Program, as it is the first time a higher institution acknowledges the importance of a course focusing on Wikipedia on a university level, offering it to all students, rather than a faculty level or individual lecturers as mostly practiced. It is our hope that other higher education institutions will follow this example and offer similar courses to students both in Israel and around the world.

Read more about the Wikipedia Education Program in Israel here.

The collaborative production in open educational environments: Is Wikipedia an answer?

By Melina Masnatta, Wikimedia Argentina

Snippet: University professors become Wikipedians in an online course during just a week.

How to be a Wikipedian in a week (educactional MOOC for university professors)

Educators with different profiles and from different latin america countries, but most of them professors at the University of Buenos Aires (UBA) from different faculties, have just participated in the online training and free course "Educational scenarios with technology. Among the real and the possible" organized by the Center for Innovation in Technology and Pedagogy (CITEP) of this university.

Different educational activities were carried out simultaneously. During the week and under the topic “Open movement”, Wikimedia Argentina participated with three different proposals: starting with an interview of Patricio Lorente accompanied with a short text to know more about the movement. To make an immersive experience we designed " Knowing Wikipedia by first-hand or Wikipedia in the first person" to work directly on the platform translating articles from english to spanish from a list created especially for that purpose. Along with this specific proposal, educators participated in a videoconference with Galileo Vidoni (available in Spanish), where participants could talk and learn more about how are the first steps to become a Wikipedian and the importance of the movement at the local and regional level.

A professor´s educational experience with Wikipedia explained with a tweet. He said: "I´m translating, enjoying and learning with Wikipedia". Know more experiences on Storify.

With only seven days and without being mandatory, different educators discovered how to edit on Wikipedia, indeed many of them mentioned that they had it as a pending to learn and participate on the free encyclopedia, but never had the time or the real chance. The enthusiasm was also present on social networks, where they shared the experience with the hashtag #escenariostec.

The result

More than 100 educators got involved and exchanged their experience in an online forum with more of 280 messages that reflected their learning process while experiencing with the activity. 80 of them were new users, and they created 61 new articles in spanish. An important fact: 78 of them were women, which means that working with educators is a key issue to continue closing the digital gender gap.

Finally from CITEP, they shared the following insights regarding the question that ran through all the activities that took place during the week dedicated to the open movement. Some thoughts can be sum up as follows:

The collaborative production in open environments: chaos or construction? (...) For the teacher also means accepting new challenges: encourage students to produce knowledge in an environment of divergent nature, it requires permanent operations and convergence. In a space that fosters interventions unmarked, the teacher needs to frame depending on the purpose of education and teaching purposes. (…) Wikipedia is the best example of the challenges posed by the digital era in the educational field, it forces us to rethink the relationship between technology and the production of knowledge and allows us to confirm that the collaborative work does not lead to chaos, if not to the construction. (. ..) [Authors: Angeles Solectic and Miri Latorre]

We share some of the voices of the protagonists in social networks with storify (available in Spanish). Read more about the Wikipedia Education Program in Argentina here.

Collaboration with Masaryk University turns official

By Vojtěch Dostál (Wikimedia Czech Republic)

Masaryk University employees are being trained in using and editing Wikipedia
Marek Blahuš, Wikipedian in residence at Masaryk University

Snippet: The second largest university in the Czech Republic has employed a Wikipedian in residence, leading to a boom of Wikimedia activities in the city of Brno.

Collaboration between Wikipedia and Czech institutions has always been a priority for Wikimedia Czech Republic, but the year 2015 has taken this to another level. First, an official memorandum of collaboration with the National Heritage Institute (NPÚ) was signed in May 2015, to be followed by official collaboration with Masaryk University in Brno (the second largest city and university in the Czech Republic), which was contracted in November 2015. In fact, Wikimedia activities in Brno have been blooming for several years now, mainly as a result of the community's own development, but aided substantially by the external interest in Wikipedia by Masaryk University alumni society, demonstrated as early as March 2013.

In February 2015, the university employed one of the most experienced Czech Wikipedians – Marek Blahuš (Blahma) – who was appointed to become the university's first "Wikipedian in residence". Marek Blahuš has been in the center of the Wikimedia community in Brno for about two years, organizing regular Wikipedia meetups, the 2014 edition of the annual WikiConference (more in English here) and creating the Czech-Slovak Wikipedia translation tool, which has famously led to the creation of >9000 articles on Czech and Slovak Wikipedias (more in English here). His current work as Wikipedian in residence is funded by Masaryk University and runs under the patronage of Wikimedia Czech Republic as well as Masaryk University's rector Mikuláš Bek.

Since February, Wikipedia has taken a prominent role within Masaryk University. Marek Blahuš started a "Masaryk University Wikipedians team", gathering local Wikipedians and facilitating contacts with the university, aided by his status of a graduate and current employee in its language center. Articles about Masaryk University alumni and faculties have been identified and improved after consultations with Masaryk University archives and libraries which provided helpful resources. Wikipedia citation templates can now be directly generated from the university's on-line archive of theses. In September, a public conference called "Masaryk University Is Getting High on Wikipedia" took place on university grounds, featuring the experienced Wikipedian Jan Sokol (Sokoljan), who is a philosopher, university teacher and a former presidential candidate. The talks focused on the use of Wikipedia in university education, in line with the successful Czech "Students Write Wikipedia" program. One of the teachers, Jiří Rambousek, expressed his desire to organize a Wikipedia Club as a regular meetup where articles would be improved in a collaborative effort and new editors introduced to Wikipedia.

The program is actively preparing for 2016 when we expect Wikimedia Czech Republic to take a more active role in overseeing the initiatives as well as the creation of a position of a "Wikipedian in Brno" – person officially in charge of the wide array of Wikimedia activities happening in the city. The chapter's annual plan includes initiatives to increase the number of university courses which incorporate Wikipedia into the curriculum, public presentations of Wikipedia at various events, scanning and uploading of images from institutional and personal archives, and much more. Let's wish that our plans come true!

Read more about the Wikipedia Education Program in the Czech Republic here.

Wiki expeditions, animation clips about alebrijes and more at the Tec de Monterrey in Mexico

By Leigh Thelmadatter (Wiki Learning-Tec de Monterrey)

Group photo of Reto Wikimedia participants at Tec de Monterrey, Mexico City Campus

Snippet: Student participation is more than just text!

For the Fall 2015 Wiki Learning-Tec de Monterrey held two wiki expeditions in Mexico City and began a collaboration with the Museo de Arte Popular. We also received our first grant!

Wiki expeditions

The 32-campus Tec de Monterrey system has each semester an event called "Semana i" (i Week), when students forego normal classes for an entire week to work on challenging projects called "retos." For the Mexico City and Santa Fe campuses, one option for students was to work with Wikimedia, with the aptly named projects "Reto Wikimedia." Both campuses opted to do wiki-expeditions to different parts of Mexico City. The Mexico City campus had the larger group with almost 90 students registered, who covered the two southern boroughs of Xochimilco and Tlalpan. The Santa Fe group had 35 participants, and covered the San Ángel neighborhood found not far from this campus.

Both campus took photos of landmarks with the Mexico City campus also focusing on photos of everyday life in the south of the city. The Mexico City campus tallied 5264 photos, 8 videos and 36 articles, including articles related to the area into French, Swedish and Danish. The Santa Fe group tallied 605 photos, and ten articles in Spanish on landmarks in San Ángel.

In addition, the Mexico City campus had a special speaker the borough chronicler of Xochmilco, Sebastián Flores Farfán. A short montage video of the event is in the works.

Some student photos:

Some video clips of the event:

Animation about alebrijes

Wikiservicio, students working with Wikimedia for their community service requirement, added a new component. To attract more students and encourage more students to do all of their community service hours with Wikimedia, a collaboration was set up with the Museo de Arte Popular (MAP)... the first of many we hope! Six students from the digital art and animation major (see last newsletter) have continued working with Wikimedia, but focusing their efforts in creating short animation clips in relation to the mission of promoting and preserving Mexican folk art. One clip has been completed and can be see to the right of this text. So far, the video has subtitles in English, German, French and Punjabi. A second clip is nearing completion at the time of this writing.

Classes and Wikimetrics

Fifteen students completed work with Wikiservicio doing translations, writing new articles and doing photography projects. As of this date, 7 have indicated interest in working with Wikiservicio on campus and another six with MAP.

Five university level classes and one high school class on the Mexico City (South) campus have had projects, all in writing and translation, with some video work.

Wikimetrics for the semester are:

According to Wikimetrics tool....

  • 9,589,918 bytes to Spanish Wikipedia
  • 3,098 edits to the mainspace of Spanish Wikipedia
  • 367 pages created in the mainspace of Spanish Wikipedia

Manual count

  • 302 student and teacher participants
  • 281 Spanish Wikipedia articles created or expanded
  • 6,057 photographs
  • 10 videos
  • 9 articles in English Wikipedia
  • 2 articles in French Wikipedia
  • 1 article in Swedish Wikipedia
  • 1 article in Danish Wikipedia

First grant Wiki Learning received its first grant from the Wikimedia Foundation. The long-term goal of this grant is to establish a system for financing Wiki Learning. The grant, which totals a modest 12,500 Mexican pesos, will be used for swag, such as t shirts, stickers, buttons, etc, especially for Semana i activities and promotion of wiki activities to other campus. The money will also be used for incidental travel expenses, especially for projects needing to move expensive camera equipment.

Read more about the Wikipedia Education Program in Mexico here.

Wikimedia Argentina, about the global and local in the digital and academic communities

By Christian Cariño (Wikimedia México) and Melina Masnatta (Wikimedia Argentina)

Wikipedia Education Program in Argentina

Snippet: Aprender para Educar writes about Wikipedia Education Program in Argentina.

The digital free magazine Aprender para Educar (Learning to educate) of the National Technological University (UTN) is recognized in the community of education and technology in Argentina to write about innovation issues in Spanish, which is not common in the academic dissemination and teacher training field.

Cristina Velazquez, general editor of the magazine invited Wikimedia Argentina to write an article that generally describes their activities in the Education Program, after reading the proposal she decided to publish it as the main article of the 12th edition.

To describe the education program, WMAR wrote two notes completing one another, as doing a zoom: from the local to the global and from the global to the local, showing how a movement of this magnitude does not stand alone, it is part of a huge network.

Melina Masnatta, education manager in WMAR and Patricio Lorente, chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees wrote those two notes.The first one focuses on the Education Program, implementation, challenges and obstacles that they had at the beginning, plans to integrate it into the classrooms in Argentina and how different Wikimedia Projects are also relevant in education. The most important thing, Melina adds, is to strengthen the values that inspire them, show how the free culture give meaning to education in general and digital culture in particular.

Meanwhile in the second part, Lorente focuses on the global movement, the community pillars, the agenda of today's challenges and the effort of their volunteers as protagonists. It is not easy show the world what drives us and why we work as volunteers in different countries. In education very few people understand the value of building free knowledge. There is still a great prejudice or negative perceptions of Wikipedia in the classroom because teachers ignore how Wikipedia is built.

Everybody reads Wikipedia, but few people edit it. We can change this fact by spreading in spaces such as the Journal of the UTN and inviting more people to collaborate and be the protagonist of this huge collective work for humanity.

Read more about the Wikipedia Education Program in Argentina here.

Online ambassador played a prominent role in helping Egyptian students to nominate their excellent content

By Walaa Abdel Manaem (Wikipedia Education Program Egypt) & (Egypt Wikimedians user group)

Bassem Fleifel

Snippet: Online ambassador helped spanish students course in Cairo University to nominate their articles, scoring an exceptional record of WEP excellent content.

Bassem Fleifel, an online ambassador of Cairo university spanish course, played a prominent role to help all students to encourage them to nominate their excellent content to be a featured and good articles in Arabic Wikipedia. Those articles are History of bread (Featured article); Walt Disney; Daniel Radcliffe; Al-Andalus; Poet in New York; and Popol Vuh.

The seventh term, the program started in Cairo University with promoting posts on Wikipedia and social media websites to help new participants understand the general idea of the program as well as holding meetings with professors from the departments of History, chinese, English language and Spanish language. Walaa Abdel Manaem (program leader in Cairo University) and Bassem Fleifel (online ambassador) have held some workshops in campus and online for the whole students to teach them "How to edit Wikipedia". On the other hand, Prof. Abeer Abdel-Hafiz has exerted great efforts with her students in addition to introducing Walaa to new classes of senior students for whom she has organized general seminars about Wikipedia and the education program. At the same time Walaa was assigning her Spanish department students of the first and second year to edit Wikipedia.

This term, Prof. Abeer let the chance to her students to choose any articles they would like to translate from the Spanish Wikipedia to the Arabic Wikipedia or working on articles about history. They already have chosen some articles to translate with the target of nominating them to be a featured and good articles.

Most of students worked on articles about different topics like history, writers, actors, history of food and drink, mayan literature, islam and politics, etc. This course itself achieved an exceptional record of Wikipedia Education program excellent content and the best term ever in the history of WEP in Egypt in general and in the Faculty of Arts, Cairo University in specific. Walaa has held 2 online webinars to follow up with her students in addition to the workshops held at the campus. Regarding numbers, 38 students joined this course, of which 35 are female and 3 are male students. They worked on 1748 articles adding more than 12,282,943 million bytes to the article namespace on the Arabic Wikipedia, with the help of the online ambassador, who also participated as a student.

See the course page of this group on the Arabic Wikipedia here.

Full statistics of WEP in Egypt the first term in 2012 till the seventh term in 2015 which include numbers of created articles, featured and good articles, featured portals and lists.

Read more about the Wikipedia Education Program in Egypt here.

Norwegian Masters students in History and Archeology twists their brains on Wikipedia

By Jorid Martinsen (Wikimedia Norge)

Jorid Martinsen teaching students at the University of Oslo about Wikipedia.

Snippet: This fall masters students in History and Archeology at the University of Oslo take on the task of Wikipedia editing as one of the main parts in a subject on communication of History.

The University of Oslo is Norway’s largest higher education institution, and it is the first time Wikimedia Norway collaborates with this University in forming and using Wikipedia editing as a integrated part of higher education. The collaboration started by Wikimedia Norway contacting assistant professor John McNicol, who already had gotten some media attention on his eagerness to make students skilled in knowledge sharing.

Starting off with a two hour lecture on the secret world of Wikipedia and a two hour editing workshop in mid-September, and in October the students will evaluate the life of their articles. Has there been many additional edits on their articles? Discussions? Request to delete everything? For Wikimedia Norge it is fun to see the students both engaging in Wikipedia editing and using the ways of Wikipedia to discuss how knowledge is formed.

Read more about the Wikipedia Education Program in Norway here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC).

If this message is not on your home wiki's talk page, update your subscription.

This Month in Education: [March 2016]


We apologize for an earlier distribution that mistakenly took on the older content. We hope you enjoy the newest issue of the newsletter we are sharing now.--Sailesh Patnaik (Distribution leader) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Wik-Ed Women Session #5

Wik-Ed Women Session #5

Dear fellow Wikipedian,

I would like to personally invite you to the March edition of the Wik-Ed Women meetup, which will take place on March 15, from 6-10 in the evening. It will occur at Los Angeles Contemporary Archive, 2245 E Washington Blvd, Los Angeles, California 90021 (downtown LA -- map). The building has a pink top with old signage for American Accessories, Inc. dba Princess Accessories (Photos [PDF]). There is on-site parking in the back, which also has an entrance. If you cannot attend in person, you are more than willing to work remotely, as we appreciate all help that you can provide. Finally, here is a link to the Facebook event, in case you want to invite friends, as we are always looking for new editors to help expand coverage of women on Wikipedia!

I hope to see you there! Cosmicphantom (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Join our Facebook group here! To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

I have not been active recently

I was saddened to see the outcome of the Arb case. I hope you find the work that you do is not hampered too badly by your lack of janitorial supplies. Fiddle Faddle 20:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Been thinking about you Kevin. I'm working on a project you might love. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 02:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Greetings

Please keep an eye on me and provide suggestions to promote good faith, good will, congeniality. Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  01:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

GLAM Boot Camp announced (June 14-16 in DC)

You have expressed interest in the GLAM-Wiki US Consortium, so you may be interested in attending the GLAM Boot Camp next month in Washington, DC. This is a training designed to help Wikipedians interested in guiding museums, libraries, and other cultural institutions in wiki engagement. Travel funding available for those in North America. Since the event is coming up soon, please be sure to add your name to the page if you are interested -- and please pass this announcement along. (You may want to share on Facebook or on Twitter.) Thanks for your interest! -MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

My apologies - here is the link for the GLAM Boot Camp mentioned above: Wikipedia:GLAM/Boot Camp. -Pete (talk) 04:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to the Bay Area WikiSalon series on May 25

Please join us in downtown San Francisco!
A Wikipedia panel discussion about journalism

The last Wednesday evening of every month, wiki enthusiasts gather at Bay Area WikiSalon to collaborate, mingle, and learn about new projects and ideas.

We allow time for informal conversation and working on articles. Newcomers and experienced wiki users are encouraged to attend. We will have beverages and light snacks.

Please note: You must register here, and bring a photo ID that matches your registration name. The building policy is strict on this point.

For further details, see: Wikipedia:Bay Area WikiSalon, May 2016

See you soon! Pete F, Ben Creasy, and Checkingfax via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC) | Subscribe/Unsubscribe to the SF Meetups notice.

This Month in Education: [June 2016]



If this message is not on your home wiki's talk page, update your subscription.

We hope you enjoy the newest issue of the Education Newsletter.--Sailesh Patnaik (Distribution leader) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Requesting your comments

I am being accused of some not very nice things and would like you to become involved due to your very intimate knowledge of interactions between myself and other editors. Here Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 19:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC) also known as Bfpage

Invitation to the Bay Area WikiSalon series, Wednesday, June 29

Please join us in downtown San Francisco!
A Wikipedia panel discussion about journalism

The last Wednesday evening of every month, wiki enthusiasts gather at Bay Area WikiSalon to collaborate, mingle, and learn about new projects and ideas.

We make sure to allow time for informal conversation and working on articles. Newcomers and experienced wiki users are encouraged to attend. Free Wi-Fi is available so bring your editing devices. We will have beverages and light snacks. We will also have:

  • A brief report on Pride edit-a-thon recently held at the San Francisco Publice Library, coordinated by Merrilee:
    What topics might we cover in a follow up?
    Find out more about resources your public library provides to help with editing (hint, it's more than just books!)
    Special announcement (secret for now but come and find out more!)
  • Join in on an in person Wikidojo!
    Are you curious how your peers approach writing a Wikipedia article? This exercise, pioneered by Wikipedians Nikola Kalchev and Vassia Atanassova in 2015 and conducted in many places around the world, will help us all - from first-time wiki users to veteran Wikipedians - share ideas, while building an article together. If you have ideas (relating to Bay Area history, ideally) about a new article we could build (stubs and short existing articles are fine), please submit them ahead of time to coordinator Pete Forsyth. (User talk page or email is fine.)
    Announcements and impromptu topics are welcome, too!

Please note: You must register here, and bring a photo ID that matches your registration name. The building policy is strict.

For further details, see: Wikipedia:Bay Area WikiSalon, June 2016

See you soon! Pete F, Ben, Stephen and Checkingfax | (Subscribe or Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Bay Area WikiSalon series kickoff, April 27

Please join us in San Francisco!
A Wikipedia panel discussion about journalism
Panel discussion at a recent Wikipedia & Journalism event.

The last Wednesday evening of every month, wiki enthusiasts in the San Francisco Bay Area will gather to collaborate, mingle, and learn about new projects and ideas. We have two brief presentations lined up for our kickoff event in downtown San Francisco:

  • The Nueva Upper School recently hosted the first ever high school Wikipedia edit-a-thon. We will hear what interests them about Wikipedia, what they have learned so far, and what they hope to achieve.
  • Photojournalist Kris Schreier Lyseggen, author of The Women of San Quentin: The Soul Murder of Transgender Women in Male Prisons, will tell us about her work and how she researched the topic.

We allow time for informal conversation and working on articles. Newcomers and experienced wiki users are encouraged to attend. We will have beverages and light snacks.

Please note: You must register here, and bring a photo ID that matches your registration name. The building policy is strict on this point.

For further details, see here: Wikipedia:Bay Area WikiSalon, April 2016

We hope to see you -- and until then, happy editing! - Pete, Ben & Wayne

TWL HighBeam check-in

Hello Wikipedia Library Users,

You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

  • Make sure that you can still log in to your HighBeam account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information. When your access expires you can reapply at WP:HighBeam.
  • Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. For more information about citing this source, see Wikipedia:HighBeam/Citations
  • Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let us know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you. 20:35, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Abkhazia infobox RfC

Due to previous participation in a discussion on the subject, you are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Abkhazia#RfC on Infobox. CMD (talk) 12:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

REMINDER/invitation to the Bay Area WikiSalon series, Wednesday, June 29 at 6 p.m.

Please join us in downtown San Francisco tonight!
A Wikipedia panel discussion about journalism

If you cannot join in person or want to view portions later:

We will have:

  • Light snacks, and time to mingle
  • A brief report on the Pride edit-a-thon recently held at the San Francisco Public Library, that was coordinated by Wiki editor Merrilee
  • A special announcement (secret for now but come and find out more!)
  • Join in on a brief in person Wikidojo!
  • Announcements and impromptu topics are welcome, too!

Please register at: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1cjLRrSTlEkGOPTQ-h6A0WvSFI4ZmIUl6jEHp_RYas-E/viewform and bring a photo ID that matches your registration name. The building policy is strict.

For further details, see: Bay Area WikiSalon, June 2016

See you tonight! Pete F, Ben, Stephen and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC) | (Subscribe or Unsubscribe to this talk page notice)

Late breaking invitation to the Bay Area WikiSalon series, July 27 (Wednesday) - change of venue - tonight

Please join us in the Mission at Noisebridge (one time change of venue)!
A Wikipedia panel discussion about journalism

We hope you can join us today, Wednesday, from 6 p.m. on, at our July Bay Area WikiSalon. This month only, we are going to be at Noisebridge, a hackerspace/makerspace 1.5 blocks from the 16th & Mission BART station (see the link for directions). Some of us will be working on the Wikipedia article on basic income. All info here. Some good news - we do not have to be as strict about advance RSVP at Noisebridge, so bring spontaneous guests! (Registering ahead of time is still helpful, as always, as it will help us plan ahead.)

Come and hang out, have some light snacks. Wi-Fi is available, so please bring your editing device if you plan to edit.

Also, Pete just published a writeup of the Wikidojo exercise we did last month. Your comments welcome, if he missed anything! http://wikistrategies.net/ghost-town-royals-wikidojo

The last Wednesday evening of every month, wiki enthusiasts gather at Bay Area WikiSalon to collaborate, mingle, and learn about new projects and ideas. Mark you calendars now.

We allow time for informal conversation and working on articles. Newcomers and experienced wiki users are encouraged to attend.

See you soon! Pete F, Ben Creasy, Stephen and Wayne | (Subscribe/Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ Link to the course page at the TAU website (in Hebrew) - http://www2.tau.ac.il/yedion/syllabus.asp?course=1880180101&year=2015
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kevin_Gorman/Archive_2&oldid=1151389024"