User talk:Kevin Gorman

[20] Or any other definition of the idiom I could find on the Web, all suggest taking joy or celebration over the fact of someone's death. You seem to be well educated, probably more than me, but even I can see the faultiness of accusing Eric Corbett what you accused him. (Eric was making a point, a point to the discussion that he felt was absent and was important to make; his point is best left to him to define -- I won't attempt to paraphrase. His point was conceptual however, and about what is or isn't valid or sensible or fair presumed expectations and responsibilities of Wikipedia editors when online at WP. One thing I'm sure, very sure, he did not do or suggest or emote, was to take any kind or degree of delight, celebration, joy, etc., in the young man's suicide. And to suggest such a thing, to accuse Eric of same, which you did twice [21] [22], is really a kind of careless maliciousness on your part. You should apologize to him for that accusation -- it wasn't right, and it wasn't fair. I personally forgive you in your rush to keep things ideal for the parents of the young man on Jimbo's Talk, since in your rush you made that oversight. But what an oversight to make. [If anyone accused me unfairly, untruely, of taking joy and celebrating someone else's death, when I never did or thought any such thing, I would take that as a cruel and malicious and willful misinterpretation of what I said and meant. And I'd be downright upset about it.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC) p.s. If you can find any definition on the web which does not include celebrating a death, please link it here for my education. Otherwise, I don't think you're so powerful that you can make up your own meanings to language idioms for your own purposes. Words have meanings, even modern idioms.[reply]

• Eric transformed a memorial post to a valued member of our community in to a shitfest, and he did so in a forum where the victim's family is likely to read it. When confronted on it, he continued his behavior and started throwing in a borderline hilarious number of comments that would get anyone who isn't Eric blocked under WP:NPA at me on his talk page. So no, I'm not apologizing to Eric. His behavior was malicious, had the potential to cause real harm, and would have resulted in almost any other editor than Eric receiving a lengthy, uncontroversial block. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  You're off the mark, Kevin. Accusing Eric of *gravedancing* when that wasn't present even in the slightest, crosses an ethical line and was carelessly malicious on your part and you s/ apologize to him for it, regardless what else you object to re NPA etc. (You're becoming an obvious hypocrite here, accusing Eric of not showing "common decency", yet at same time accusing Eric of something totally evil without any basis for doing.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion was utterly baffling. Who is the late editor that was its subject? — Scott • talk 20:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Scott - it was about User:Jackson_Peebles. He wasn't explicitly named, but enough detail was given that anyone who knew him instantly recognized it, and anyone who didn't could figure it out in about two minutes. I feel bad for effectively streisanding the thing, but didn't feel comfortable letting the thread continue to degrade as it looked to be doing. That thread as it was already was causing emotional harm to his friends, and if his family had stumbled across it - especially if it had degraded further - it would have been way not okay in my book. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't able to figure it out at all, hence my asking. Thanks. — Scott • talk 20:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Scott - the combination of details given in the original post made it recognizable to those who knew him, and easy to dig up for those who didn't, since we maintain a list of deceased Wikipedians. (Specifically the fact that it was apparently a recent passing, combined with the mention of the template, and the mention of the vandalism - easier if you recognized the early posters as well.) I handled it in the best way I could think of at the time to avoid it blowing up, which appears to have backfired. I still believe I handled it in a more than policy compliant way, but wish I had sleepily come up with a way to hande it that wouldn't have resulted in a blowup the next day. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have no objection to your handling of the matter! I was just asking who it was, for myself. — Scott • talk 20:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I supported your RfA last month, I didn't think you would be coming on board to threaten one of our best content contributors with a ban for some meaningless and twee nonsense at our co-founder's talk page. More fool him for getting into that debate, and more fool you for behaving like that. You didn't say at your RfA you were going to do stuff like that; I suggest a period of reflection ensue. We do not always need to wave a big stick. There are better ways of doing business than that. That was not a BLP violation. --John (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John - there's a pretty significant difference from banning someone from a specific thread and banning someone. Malleus's ability to comment on one particular thread on Jimmy's talk page has absolutely no effect on his ability to create content. His comments on that thread were clearly covered by WP:BLP/WP:BDP, and had the potential to cause harm to numerous living people. Anyone but Malleus would have simply backed off when requested; he required a bigger stick. If you look at how I've handled every content dispute, blp violation, edit war, etc that I've so far handled, you would note that I have generally been far less aggressive in terms of handing out blocks/other actions than the vast majority of our admins are. You're free to feel disappointed in me, but as long as I am able to take small actions to make Wikipedia a safer space than it currently is, I'm going to do so. That thread started off as a memorial to a valued contributor who has passed away and once Eric popped in turned in to a mess that was offensive to his friends, and would be quite offensive to his family if they happened to stumble across it. Do you value his ability to comment on a single thread on Jimmy's talk more than you value the emotions of a dead editor's friends and family? Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might consider that you caused far more drama on that page than Eric. J3Mrs (talk) 20:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly true that my handling of the situation resulted in more drama than was initially present (which is why I've commented elsewhere that I wish I had sleepily come up with a better solution - one that had avoided the harm the thread caused, without streisanding the issue. I'll be starting a thread later today with a full explanation of why I did what I did (and why I think it is fully within policy.) I certainly regret streisanding it, but I wasn't expecting a streisand of this magnitude when I did it. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't expect Streisand effect from threatening Eric with a block based on a non-issue? Please, I know you're new to the job but that is something I would expect all admins to know. Also, three administrators have told you that you are in the wrong, I'd expect you to at least take a step back for reflection. It doesn't help that you have repeatedly attempt to contact me off-wiki despite my requests not to do so. I see some serious problems here if this is the approach you're gonna take in using your administrative toolset. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 21:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would first disagree that it's a non-issue, and secondly point out that I have not repeatedly attempted to contact you off-wiki after requests not to do so. You made one request for me to not contact you off-wiki; I replied to that email with an explanation of why I had originally contacted you off-wiki, and stating that I would be starting an on-wiki discussion as soon as possible (which is imminent, now that I've arrived at my destination.) Please correct your mischaracterization. Thanks, Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you thought it wise to say "I will be monitoring this thread for violations of Wikipedia policies, including those that deal with the recently deceased, and will be acting with a heavy degree of WP:IAR. I will be actioning any exceptionally offensive comments in the rest of this thread, regardless of who they originate from." ?? You have lost your damn mind. Sadly, I cast an easy support vote for you at RfA and am now concerned for how the tools have gone to your head. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chris: Please explain what exactly is offensive about stating that I'll take action against exceptionally offensive comments. Exceptionally offensive comments, especially those that are offensive BLP wise, should absolutely be actioned. That's a non-trivial part of what admins do. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevin Gorman: First, WP:BATTLEGROUND. Second, despite the fact that Eric/Malleus is a bomb-thrower whom I dislike, I agree with him on this point. The IP started a thread seemingly meant to provoke hand-wringing about Wikipedians with personal problems. I found the whole display untoward, misplaced, and foolish. I have no sympathy for those that commit suicide. Obviously you've taken offense to Eric/Malleus's comments, which smacks of WP:INVOLVED. I don't think WP:BDP and WP:IAR give you license to take charge of the thread as if you're the arbiter of public decency. I agree with TheEd17 that the discussion needed to be cut off (when it started) but the comments of yours I quoted read like an over-reaction. I've dealt with you in the past in nothing but a positive fashion which is why this recent turn of yours is disappointing.

I agree that exchanges like this hurt editor retention and I support strengthening policy to allow admins to ban trolls and other ne'er do-wells on the spot with no warning or discussion. As it is now, policy requires a lot more bureaucratic tape and I lose respect for anyone that acts otherwise. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris - there's a significant difference between what is normally referred to as battleground behavior and an admin stepping in to moderate a discussion that is going the wrong way. This is my first interaction with Eric (yes, really,) and entering the thread I had no strong opinion regarding him. Administrators (or anyone for that matter) trying to ensure that the families and friends of deceased Wikipedians are not unnecessarily harmed isn't battleground behavior; it's exactly what everyone should be doing, and Wikipedia would be a better place if more people did so in discussions that were likely to cause unnecessary harm to people more often. I'm disappointed that you don't see why harder-than-normal wording is warranted to avoid unnecessary harm occurring to those parties, and hope that you rethink the issue and change your mind. And as I said on your talk page, I invite you to examine my past tool usage. It's significantly less heavy-handed than many admins (as, for that matter, has been explicitly pointed out by other admins on my talk or talk archives,) and tends towards warnings and guidance and not blocks and bans. And as it is now, when it has to deal with harm to living people, current policy doesn't require a bunch of bureaucratic red tape, c.f. arbcom discretionary sanctions w/r/t BLP that allow any admin to take action to prevent harm to living people without jumping through a bunch of hoops (and while acting perfectly within policy.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Belittling the suicide of a Wikipedian isn't a "non-issue". It's pretty damn offensive. Kaldari (talk) 22:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So who did that then? Eric Corbett 22:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You did, Eric: "When did WP become a psychiatric hospice? People commit suicide every day… If you have mental health problems go see a doctor, don't plaster a template on your talk page." Kaldari (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So when did WP become a psychiatric hospice? Eric Corbett 23:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To start off with: I have had no prior contact with any of the editors involved in this situation, so no WP:INVOLVED issues.

Last night, a thread was started on Jimmy's talkpage concerning an editor who recently committed suicide. You can view the (now archived) thread here. Direct reference to the editor's name was not made, but enough details were given that anyone who knew the editor knew who it was, and anyone who didn't know who the editor was would be able to find out in five minutes or less from the details given in the original post. The first half of the thread essentially served as a memorial to the valued, deceased editor.

Part of the way through the thread, User:Eric Corbett arrived and began to make comments likely to offend friends of the deceased editor, and even more likely to offend the family of the editor, should they happen to ever find the thread. I viewed this as a significant WP:BLP concern - to excerpt a quote from the policy, "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment" - that's from a section of BLP pertaining to articles, but I think it sums up the spirit of WP:BLP very nicely. Wikipedia has a duty to not cause unnecessary harm to living people. Seeing the BLP problems as an administrative issue to be dealt with, I began to intervene, asking people to stay on topic, hatting irrelevant material, etc. This was not effective; Eric undid my hatting, etc. I used heavier wording in my initial posts in the thread than I normally would because of the significant potential for emotional harm both to Wikipedia editors and family members of the deceased.

After having a conversation with a number of other admins about how to deal with the issue, I went ahead and decided to use the arbcom remedy dealing with biographies of living people to try to ensure the thread did not detiorate further. I placed a notification on Eric's page, instructing him to stop posting in that one particular thread on Jimmy's talkpage, using the BLP discretionary sanctions (which include enforcing the 'spirit' of BLP, as well as the letter of it,) as justification. I did so because I believed there was a significant risk of emotional harm if Eric continued posting in that thread. I stated that if he did not comply I would enforce the thread-ban through other means, but unlike what has been suggested elsewhere, I did not threaten to outright block or ban him. (Eric responded with a string of profanity and misunderstood policy that would have pulled anyone else a block.)

Eric stopped posting in the thread, and after further discussion with User:The_ed17 (one of the admins I had spoken with before applying the discretionary sanctions,) Ed archived the thread, and after further discussion with him, I went ahead and collapsed it.

I expected that my actions would result in some degree of Streisand effect, but not to the extent it has. If I could redo the situation, I would attempt to find an alternate solution that would minimize the potential harm of hijacking while also minimizing the resultant Streisand effect. However, I believe the actions I took were 100% within policy, were appropriate, and were the best course of action to take barring an alternative method that would have minimized the resultant Streisand effect. Eric's actions were inappropriate, both on Jimmy's talk page and on his own talk page. When I initially posted a warning to stay off the thread citing the BLP sanctions, his first response was, quoting, "What are you, an idiot? How can I be under a BLP sanction for commenting on someone who's dead?" - demonstrating both a poor understanding of our civility policies and a poor understanding of WP:BLP (of which WP:BDP is a subsection.) At various other points, he's also referred to me as a fucking idiot, told me to shut the fuck up, and slung various other personal attacks.

I would like to note that I'm typically very light on tool use; if you look through recent posts, you'll note that I lean far more towards guidance and try to avoid blocks. My harsh approach in this situation was because I perceived significant potential for emotional harm both to Wikipedians and to the family of the deceased. No benefit would be had from allowing the thread to be hijacked, and significant harm would come from allowing it to be hijacked from being essentially a memorial to being a combative thread that would cause emotional harm to both close friends of the deceased and to the family of the deceased if they happened across it.

If I am presented with a similar situation in the future where the only alternative to allowing Wikipedia editors and potentially someone's family from experiencing potentially significant emotional harm, I would not hesitate to make use of the BLP discretionary sanctions in a similar way. I believe that my actions were fully policy compliant, and I stand by them. I believe that Wikipedia has a duty to avoid harming living people whenever possible, and this was one of those situations. Realistically, if this situation involved anyone other than Malleus, his personal attacks alone would have resulted in an uncontroversial block, rather than hordes of upset people on our talk pages.

This should be a dead issue. Appropriate action was taken to avoid harming living people for no purpose, and it worked. The thread in question is now archived, Eric heeded the warning to not participate in it further, and emotional harm to Wikipedians has been minimized and emotional harm to the family of the deceased has been avoided. Wikipedia is often cited as having a toxic environment, and this is a perfect example of that. Reactions like this significantly harm editor retention and related issues.

I'm happy to answer any questions about the situation. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide is an extremely touchy subject. Unsurprisingly, that's occasionally reflected in editors' actions on Wikipedia. While I sympathize with Eric's position that distressed individuals should seek medical attention, denigrating them is an appalling reaction, one I hope his parents never read. There was no reason Eric needed to vocalize his feelings in such a public forum, and I believe that Kevin was correct to attempt to cut it off. Could he have done it better? With the benefit of hindsight, sure. But did some sort of action need to happen? Yes. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your diff leads to your own edit of the closure of the discussion, rather than Eric's alleged comment, could you possibly correct it and point out the comments you find problematic. Thanks in advance. Nick (talk) 23:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You flatter yourself Kevin, I'd simply said all that needed to be said. And yes, I do mean needed to be said. WP isn't a refuge for the mentally unstable, in fact it's probably one of the the last places anyone with mental health issues should be. Eric Corbett 23:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A little friendly advice: hatting that part of the discussion wasn't a bad idea, but putting yourself in charge of the "follow-up" probably was. Admins get in the most trouble when they try to "OWN" their admin and/or moderator actions. Particularly on Jimmy's or Eric's pages, there are plenty of eyes and no pressure to act right away. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 23:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie was also actively involved in the follow-up to it; I was not the only admin acting. (And although only two of us were acting, more of us were in a discussion about the appropriate path to take, which we reached agreement on. In the future I'll have a different admin take the next step.) In retrospect: yes, I could have handled the situation in a way less likely to lead to an explosion, and will endeavor to do so in the future. That said, given that it was a situation involving significant potential for mental/emotional harm both for Wikipedians and for the family of the deceased, I still feel like although not ideal my response was still well within policy. I understand you're offering friendly advice and am sorry if this comes off sounding defensive or hostile: it's been a long day, with half a dozen emails in my inbox demanding my resignation, etc. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, though you might be missing my message. Worrying too much over tempests in teapots generally leads to burnout. I speak from experience ;-). --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 23:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll disclose a potential conflict of interest issue here - I was one of the administrators who dealt with the necessary work after the death of the Wikipedian in question was made known to the administrators at the time. I made one logged action, to protect their editor review.

I would disagree that any of the thread served in any way as a memorial to the editor in question, it was certainly glowing in the way it described the editor but in no way was it ever intended to be a memorial thread, and it was certainly not in the correct place for such a memorial thread, so closure was absolutely correct and appropriate. The decision to collapse it down and hide it was a very good decision given the number of passing users who might have been a bit confused by it all, but that was all the administrative action needed.

Now, as an administrator involved in page protection of the deceased editor, it was not readily apparent to me who was being referred to and frankly for the vast majority of those who read the thread, I don't think it was readily apparent who was being referred to or whether it was a purely hypothetical situation. I've been asked today who the thread was about, so any contention it was thinly veiled or would only take any other editor a five minutes or less to find out who it was all about I think really falls down and is a poor argument. You need to realise not everybody pays as much attention to the behind the scenes stuff. If you're going to be cryptic this is the sort of shambles that results. Always.

So, we have a thread where the intention was to obscure or hide who the subject of it was - there's surprisingly, nothing in the BLP policy about a situation like that, so we have to do what is sensible and prudent in this situation, breaking out the tactical nuclear weapon of Arbitration Enforcement isn't ever the option to try first when there's no policy to back up what your doing, and where there's absolutely no need to escalate a situation you don't even know Eric or other contributors knew existed, that they were discussing a real person who had died only a few weeks previously. Your first action should have been to inform Eric and other participants that they were in fact discussing a real person, not a hypothetical situation and that the person they're discussing could possibly be identified, so they might like to consider their choice of words cautiously. I would certainly consider long and hard whether or not Eric's comments made before you warned him could be considered as falling under the BLP policy.

The comments Eric made don't violate the BLP policy anyway, so even if it had been known at the start of the discussion, there's nothing immediately problematic. The thread was discussing an event, not a user, and Eric's comments are generic, not directed at the deceased discussed in that thread and cannot be considered to fall foul of any part of the BLP policy as it is currently written.

Anyone born within the past 115 years is covered by this policy unless a reliable source has confirmed their death. Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death - six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime. In the absence of confirmation of death, anyone born more than 115 years ago is presumed dead unless listed at oldest people.

You might not particularly like what Eric wrote, and it's not the sort of material one would expect to find in a memorial or in a eulogy about the editor, but it's absolutely the sort of material one would expect to find in a discussion about the mental health of Wikipedians in general and how we react to those who might be suicidal, which is all the discussion concerns. I've spoken to a number of fellow Wikipedians at length about this and the comment that resonated with me the most was that if there's any BLP implications, they're for Eric himself, as a result of his own posts. I'm therefore entirely satisfied that in no way could Eric's edits be considered violations of the generic, current BLP policy.

The arbitration enforcement you mention comes from a 2008 Arbitration case, which specifically states

Special enforcement on biographies of living persons - Administrators are authorized to use any and all means at their disposal to ensure that every Wikipedia article is in full compliance with the letter and spirit of the biographies of living persons policy. Administrators may use the page protection and deletion tools as they believe to be reasonably necessary to effect compliance.

If you want those specific Arbitration Enforcement sanctions to extend to talk pages of editors, that needs clarification from the Arbitration Committee as it's clearly not what is specifically stated in those sanctions. You would probably need to ask the 2008 committee what they intended, but your proposed sanction, as I have repeatedly stated, would have been out of process and inappropriate.

All in all, threatening sanctions under the auspices of Arbitration Enforcement (out of process) for comments which wouldn't breach the BLP policy if they discussed a specific named person, but in this case refer to a pseudonym offering increased anonymity is problematic.

You were told all of this, I explained in length via e-mail why you were wrong but accepted it was a good faith attempt to stop a situation you thought might deteriorate from doing so. I expected a bit of discussion, maybe a thank you, maybe not, and that would have been the end of it. I tend to think Eric was due an apology for the suggestion he's grave dancing (if I wanted to be really arseholish, I'd say that's the most serious BLP violation on that page and a block worthy) but as he was quite unpleasant towards you, I'd be happier if you both dropped it at that point. Anyway, that's how I expected it to go, harmony and understanding would break out.

But I'm still writing. Not good. I've been here a stupidly long time now doing all of this, and I've never, in all my years of editing and administrating, been told when letting someone know I think they're wrong (even if I'm mistaken) been told "If you're right (and you aren't,)" in an e-mail, nor have I ever, ever been told in any sort of communication, when raising concerns about administrator behaviour and conduct "I would suggest that instead of starting a thread regarding me, you focus on building the encyclopedia." when I suggested one of us starts a discussion to decide whether Kevin's threat of Arbitration Enforcement against Eric was out of process for the many reasons I've listed above.

I can accept Kevin is a new administrator and I genuinely thought it would be good for them to get a bit of feedback about their behaviour over the situation. No calling for heads on sticks or anything. Nah, the attitude I've had to endure whilst trying to get Kevin to ask for feedback is one of complete intransigence, refusal to start any sort of review about their administrative action on Eric's talk page. Not good, not good at all.

The final straw came when I looked to see if Kevin was still active/online-ish and saw their contributions to an RfC the were intending to help close. His comments there are so wildly inappropriate [23] [24] and [25] together with accusing Snowolf of making a false statement [26] and [27], other talk pages [28]. There's dozens of diffs at Eric's talkpage and above here, in particular [29] is most worrying but there's also [30] which is still threatening Eric out of process.

I think the only option is for resignation. The loss of support from those who supported his RfA and the huge number of problematic edits today leaves me in little doubt that Kevin should not have access to the administrator toolkit at this time. I doubt he will willingly give them up, but I really hope he seeks some significant administrator mentoring away from Ed and the other group who he has been consulting so far. Nick (talk) 01:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not going to bother responding to all of your post, because a lot of it is either confusing or seemingly pulled out of the ether. I will go ahead and say that when I accused Snowolf of making a false statement, I earnestly believed he had - he pointed out afterwards that he had made a request for me to not communicate with him via email on page I don't watch. That changes his statement from 'false' to simply 'misleading' - he implied quite clearly that I had purposefully ignored multiple requests to not email him, when in fact the one request I received I responded to with an explanation of why I had emailed him and saying that I would have a complete onwiki statement in the imminent future.

I have quite literally no idea why you are concerned at the fact that I started a section on Eric's talk with a link to my statement here, given that multiple people involved in the discussion on Eric's talk had explicitly asked me to write a statement. At that point Eric hadn't even asked me to avoid his talk page, and many people active on his page had asked me to present a full on-wiki statement, which is precisely what that section was trying to do.

You have also very significantly misrepresented our email communication, and have indicated that you had communicated several statements in this post to me previously, when they're close to the opposite of what you said via email. Some of the points you make here actually make sense, and things would have been a lot simpler if you had included them in your emails, although I'm going to go ahead and suggest that it would be an awfully good idea to harmonize the actual arbcom case with the policy instructions for administrators as found here one way or the other. I was operating off of instructions found on a policy page rather than reading arbcom cases from 2008. Personally, I'd suggest arbcom update the ruling to reflect a project-wide mandate, since that's how all other BLP policies apply, but that's not up to me. You may be right about the wording of the arbcom case, but acting off a policy page that misrepresents an arbcom case is hardly a mortal sin.

Most of the diffs you have presented are either misrepresented or out of context. The diff on Chris's page was a post I made after he (who I consider a friend and correspond regularly with) expressed disappointment in my heavy handed use of the tools. I see no reason why asking him to review my tool use and observe that it is generally lighter than many admins is problematic. I'm also quite confused about how you find my statements to Eric suggesting that if he violates policy he should expect to be sanctioned problematic. Are you suggesting that high volume content contributors are literally immune from our behavioral policies?

The fact that you consider accusing someone of grave-dancing a more serious BLP violation than being called a fucking idiot, being told to shut the fuck up, etc, seems to indicate that you have a very unusual value scale. Please do not contact me via email at any point in the future; I'm uncomfortable communicating via email with someone who has so significantly misrepresented the contents of our past communication.

I have no intention of resigning over an action that while flawed (as I have already admitted) was within the letter and spirit of policy. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't contact you via e-mail - you e-mailed me and I replied. I'd very much like permission to post the entire e-mail conversation within a sub-page in either your or my userspace on-wiki please and we will take it from there. Nick (talk) 02:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, seriously, both of you. Things went wrong here and everybody's upset, but there's really no reason to perpetuate a who-said-what drama. You're angry at each other. You each think the other has done this exactly wrong. Neither of you is listening to the other. This is really not a good time to start calling for resignations/blood/apologies/fact-finding missions. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are not perfect, and we all make mistakes. But what is important is the ability to grasp them when pointed out to oneself and learn from them. From the statement here, it is clear Kevin Gorman has sadly learned nothing and still clings to the notion that there was a BLP violation here, even sanctionable with a block. Nick has summed up the situation rather well, and I fully endorse his comments and view. To that I however would like to add that I'm a bit concerned by the persistent use of off-wiki communication to coordinate administrative actions and the discussion thereof, regardless of everything, and I'd like to hear a bit more about this, specifically I'd like to know where did this matter get discussed between Kevin and the other 4 administrators (email, IRC, private mailing list, instant messaging, in person, etc.). I second Nick's wise words suggesting that you take a step back from adminship, as you have been wielding it like a cleaver rather than like a mop. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 02:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• So... I had a full, reasonable reply typed up to you when someone forwarded me something interesting. Snowolf, can you please explain why you are raising complaints about me asking other administrators for advice off-wiki at the very same time that you are coordinating your responses to me with Nick in an IRC channel? Nick, I'm curious to hear your take on that too. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not co-ordinating anything with Snowolf, I didn't ask for their comments and have had no interaction at all in what they wrote in response to you. I'd guess that was the same with you, Ed and the other administrators you spoke to - you spoke but you didn't write or co-ordinate each others actions. Nick (talk) 02:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I guess it depends a lot on your definition of coordination, but it's fucking hilarious for Snowolf to complain about me talking to other admins off-wiki at the same time the two of you are discussing me in IRC. Nick: I've answered your reasonable points, and ignored some of your unreasonable ones. Most of the diffs you complained about make zero sense. I've admitted that my actions were less than perfect, and have stated that I will not take the same course in the future.

I highly recommend that somebody goes ahead and makes the BLP policy page I linked earlier sync up with the actual arbcom case - I'm not going to do it myself because I imagine someone would complain about it.

I agree with Fluffernutter, this entire thing has gotten ridiculous. I'm collapsing all relevant discussion sections 20 minutes from now unless Snowolf comes up with an explanation as to why they are questioning me about talking to admins off-wiki at the same time they're talking to you about me off-wiki that is intriguing enough to make this thread seem worthwhile. And Snowolf, if you're willing to collude off-wiki, I'll bet you a beer at the next Wikimania that I'm not successfully brought up at arbcom within the next six months as you are suggesting in off-wiki communication? Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin, superb, thank you very much. That's all I wanted when I commented 11 hours ago, a little reassurance you understood there was some degree of error, that you understood not everybody agreed you were right, that you accepted you might have been a little mistaken, and most importantly, that you would take on-board these concerns and do things just a little differently. Thanks, and all the best. Nick (talk) 03:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, I literally acknowledged that I had not made an ideal choice in the very first post in this section?... Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin, please don't abuse the word "literally". You're not a teen anymore. I just placed a comment on Eric's talk page, but after seeing this I realize it's mustard after the meal. For the record, two things--I didn't see a BLP violation, and I'm not sure that any good has ever come out of IRC chatter (that's a general point--I'm not saying this about anyone in particular). Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 06:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I meant it in the dictionary sense - I really did say that in my first post in the section, not in the annoying sense it is commonly used in now. That said, you're the english prof :p Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not going to handle it myself, but it's going to present a problem in the future if no one syncs the actual arbcom case with the relevant policy page that describes how to implement it. I generally agree with Fluffernutters suggestion that this has gotten comicay ridiculous, but am leaving this part open in the hopes that one of the people watching this takes care of syncing it... and hoping that @Snowolf: comes by to explain why they're criticizing me for talking to other admins off-wiki at the same time they're talking about me with other admins off-wiki. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Because they're just hounding you. Ignore it. Kaldari (talk) 03:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I note you have declined to answer my question, which is of course your privilege but only serves to further my concerns. I did not complain about you asking other administrators for opinions, I expressed my worry for your reluctance to approach the matter on-wiki when asked to, which is a very different concern. I have no issues with off-wiki communication, that is well know. I have issue with misuse of off-wiki communication, and I note your continued refusal to answer the question of how the matter was approached is concerning. It might very well have been approached correctly, but then you'd have no issues in answering questions about it. I would like to remind you that I have taken no administrative actions in this matter and never had any intentions to do so. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 05:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I have discussed the matter briefly with Kevin and I am satisfied with his assurance that the off-wiki discussion were proper. Amusingly, said discussion came off-wiki :D Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 05:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  There really is something kind of amusing about you initially raising the issue of me talking to admins off-wiki in an off-wiki channel, and then the easiest way to talk to you and point out that there was nothing improper about my previous off-wiki communications. Mediawiki is not always a very conduicive format for an actual conversation. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I just found out about this because Kevin withdrew from closing an RfC I've been watching. I think that what happened to the now deceased member of our community is incredibly sad. I think that it's appropriate for those of us still here to want to treat what happened with sensitivity and respect, as I believe Kevin thought in good faith that he was doing. But, having looked at the archived discussion, I also think that what Eric said, he had good reasons for saying, and that he, too, is entitled to some understanding. It seems to me that this dispute has rapidly escalated far beyond where it should have gone. I hope that no one will continue to be angry at Kevin, and I hope that no one will continue to be angry at Eric. Life's too short to hold grudges over this. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd like to extend a note of thanks to the several dozen people who contacted me off-wiki yesterday expressing support in one way or another. None of you thought my actions were perfect (and as I noted in my initial post, I don't think they were myself,) and some of you disagreed with them completely, but still saw the reaction here as fucked. Getting literally dozens of messages of support has made dealing with a shitty situation less shitty.

Within the next few days, I'm going to be writing an explanation of why I saw a BLP issue where I did, and why I thought AE was the best route to take. I don't expect that everyone will agree with my reasoning behind it, but I suspect that when I have fully articulated what I saw, many people shall - and those that don't will at least see where I was coming from. One of my most significant failures in handling this situation in my view was getting swamped by the number of negative comments here and taking time to respond to them, instead of taking time to fully articulate why I did what I did. Because my explanation will contain material that I do not believe should be posted publicly, I'm not going to post it here - which I'm sure will piss some people off, but I believe is for the better. Once I've finished it (I'm going to take a day or two to unwind before finishing it,) I will make a note here and send it upon request to any admin who wants it (regardless of which side they've taken in this kerfuffle,) as well as any non-admin who I deem to be trustworthy (again, regardless of which side they've taken in this kerfuffle.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So basically you're going to continue with your malicious allegations of gravedancing, but this time in private. Nice. Eric Corbett 16:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative phrasing: in other words, I will comply with standard best practices regarding the treatment of sensitive information on Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects by communicating it freely with any admin who asks and any other user who I deem trustworthy. Btw, I'm going to go ahead and revert any future posts of yours on my talk page without reading them. You are a valued content contributor; you also seem to believe you are immune to every behavioral guideline we have. That's not the case. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you are now judge and jury of who is trustworthy, your arrogance is simply astonishing. You can revert me too as you seem to want to hide away anything resembling the truth. Keep digging the hole. J3Mrs (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reread my post. As it stated, I'll happily send my statement to any admin - even to those who disagree with me - which is perfectly in line with best practices for handling sensitive info on Wikipedia. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

" as well as any non-admin who I deem to be trustworthy ", I did. J3Mrs (talk) 16:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

.. Which, again, is perfectly in line with standard Wikimedia practices for handling sensitive information. I expect you'll find that even most of the people who disagreed with my action would agree that it would be inappropriate to hand out something reasonably considered sensitive information to absolutely any user who requested it (whereas many of them would have an issue with me not sharing a statement that contains sensitive details with any admin who requests it.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only sensitive thing here seems to be your feelings. You misread a situation from your very first post on Jimbo's page. You sought affirmation from where it can't be seen and you blather about several dozen people who don't want to be identified. Wiki business should be conducted in the open, something you don't seem prepared to do. I don't understand why you need to issue statements, they don't right any wrongs you have committed. J3Mrs (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)You're joining Eric in the auto-revert without reading pile after this response, but I will reply to this. For some reason, you don't seem to understand that some administrative decisions are based in part on information about users that is simply inappropriate to share directly on-wiki. I'm talking to numerous people about my way forward regarding this, including most of the admins who have posted on this page from either side.. and so far, even people who think my action was ridiculous have agreed that posting sensitive info directly on-wiki is not an acceptable practice. I sincerely doubt seeking further advice will have anyone say differently, but if I receive significant different advice about it, I'll alter my posting of it accordingly. That said, I would be shocked if that happens. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, not all things can be considered in public. See: arbcom, legal matters, discussions involving private information, suicide threats... the list goes on. And given the vitriolic reactions here, is it any wonder why admins who agree with Kevin's interpretation would rather not speak up? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin, your editsum message to me: trust me, it wasnt thoughtless. Plenty of thought was put in to it. Question: what are you referring to with pronoun "it"? (Before replying, be reminded, I never at any time messaged you, or anyone else, on any topic other than your gravedancing accusation levied twice against Eric Corbett.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re your other editsum message to me: it's a bit hilarious that anyone thinks an apology to Eric is warranted. Again, my suggestion that you apologize was limited to your vile and untrue accusation that he gravedanced on that suicide victim. (You think that request was "hilarious"!?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if you can find a definition anywhere on the web re idiom gravedance that doesn't include celebrating or expressing joy over the death of someone, please link it here for my education. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Ihardlythinkso: the edit summary was intended to refer to my general choice to take action against Eric in this situation more than defending my specific word choice; sorry for the ambiguity, I've been responding to people hurriedly given the volume of stuff I've been replying to. Accusing Eric of gravedancing was not a wise choice on my part - because it was unnecessarily inflammatory. If I was put in the same situation again, I would've used a different, significantly less inflammatory description of his behavior, while still taking action to avoid the in-progress situation. That said, I am not going to apologize to Eric for several reasons. First off: even if it were an inappropriate description of his behavior, I find laughable the idea that anyone should apologize to Eric over a perceived personal attack. Eric violates NPA, civil, and a host of other policies far more often than any other user who has not already been banned, and does so unapologetically. Second off: I'm not going to apologize because I am far from convinced that it was not an accurate description of his behavior. I'm not going to try to find a contrary definition to satisfy you, being that it's an idiom, and not one defined many places (and yes, I did check the full OED and half a dozen dictionaries of idioms.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Administrator Kevin Gorman. Thank you. Ross HillTalk to me! 21:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the notification, Ross. Not sure why Malleus didn't go ahead and make it himself, since a request to stay away from a talk page doesn't apply to administratively mandated notices. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]