Wikiconference USA - May 30 to June 1, 2014

wllm · Unread post by **wllm** » Thu Jun 12, 2014 8:02 pm

Peter Damian wrote:
wllm wrote:edward, please consider removing that quote from Obi-wan. I don't believe s/he needs to apologize, but s/he has apologized to me personally and now WO on my talk page. It appears s/he preemptively reverted the comment that was quoted. Sometimes we could all use an undo.
I don't think this is possible given that you have already quoted it, and removing it would mean removing other things that were said. In any case, I don't think it should be removed, as it is part of the story that we need to understand. Wikipedians often distort history by removing chunks of things, why should we? Of course Obi removed it from your talk page, but that is because he no longer wants to say it to you. That doesn't mean we should obliterate the fact that he said it. We can note that he said it, and then that he retracted it. How is that?

Well, that's your call. I already removed it from my post. I can see your point, but I'm concerned that Obi-wan doesn't want to be quoted here. That said, I have never and will never call for censorship. I can only tell you why I think it should be removed and let you decide from there.

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Thu Jun 12, 2014 8:19 pm

wllm wrote:I don't think that this kind of behavior typifies the vast majority of Wikipedians.

Well possibly not, and I am sure that the handful of people who banned me did not typify the 'vast majority of Wikipedians'.

wllm wrote:I'm concerned that Obi-wan doesn't want to be quoted here.

I'm sure he doesn't.

Ah crap, I guess they saw my post. I reverted that since it wasn't well thought through, and I should not have implied that there was a legal threat of blackmail or extortion there - I intended "blackmail" in the colloquial "Do this or else" sense, not in the "so and so is making a threat that can be legally called blackmail" but it didn't come off that way and on consideration I just decided to delete it. Please apologize on my behalf if I caused any offense, I'm not a lawyer and should not have used that word. I've just finished reading through your introductory thread on the mailing list - sheesh! I'm going to cease future unsolicited advice giving as I clearly don't have anything new to offer, you've heard it all before... Best regards and good luck here, and I'm always willing to help if you need anything.--Obi-Wan Kenobi 19:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Thu Jun 12, 2014 8:21 pm

Hex wrote:
Midsize Jake wrote: In your case, however, there's no clear trajectory at all, is there? You just sort of plopped down on them out of the sky like an alien spacecraft or something, and to make things worse from their perspective, you revel in your own unpredictability. So it's understandable that they'd be a bit stressed by this, even if you didn't register here at Wikipediocracy.
Unpredictability is Kryptonite to autists, and Wil is busying himself demonstrating the Emperor's lack of clothes. If he wasn't the partner of the ED, he'd be seven shades of banned from everything and everywhere Communitah-related by now.

He'd certainly have had his first tongue-lashing at AN/I, at a minimum, which is the first step in the banning process.

RfB

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Thu Jun 12, 2014 8:24 pm

Hang on a second... Kevin Gorman says:

more than a couple people in NYC... were pretty explicitly and pretty publicly asking why Lila hadn't either dumped you or banished you from the Wikimedia world yet.

Assuming these "people in NYC" were attendees of WikiConUSA, wouldn't their public speculation into the personal lives of two heterosexual people not present at the meeting constitute "unwelcome sexual attention" or maybe "offensive verbal comments related to gender expression", and thus be a violation of the Friendly Space policy?

Oh, wait... because Wil and Lila were not in attendance, these sorts of comments are permissible, because Friendly Space only applies to (and protects) "conference participants". So, it's all good. The talking behind Wil and Lila's back was completely within the ground rules.

Kevin Gorman should be so proud, aligning himself with such an upstanding crowd of supportive people.

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Thu Jun 12, 2014 8:27 pm

thekohser wrote:Hang on a second... Kevin Gorman says:

more than a couple people in NYC... were pretty explicitly and pretty publicly asking why Lila hadn't either dumped you or banished you from the Wikimedia world yet.
Assuming these "people in NYC" were attendees of WikiConUSA, wouldn't their public speculation into the personal lives of two heterosexual people not present at the meeting constitute "unwelcome sexual attention" or maybe "offensive verbal comments related to gender expression", and thus be a violation of the Friendly Space policy?

Oh, wait... because Wil and Lila were not in attendance, these sorts of comments are permissible, because Friendly Space only applies to (and protects) "conference participants". So, it's all good. The talking behind Wil and Lila's back was completely within the ground rules.

Kevin Gorman should be so proud, aligning himself with such an upstanding crowd of supportive people.

Let's have a bit more of that.

… more than a couple people in NYC, including in positions where this would normally get them in shit in any organization other than the Wikimedia movement - were pretty explicitly and pretty publicly asking why Lila hadn't either dumped you or banished you from the Wikimedia world yet.

What were these positions?

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Thu Jun 12, 2014 8:36 pm

I missed seeing this when Wil posted it.

wllm wrote: If Kevin apologizes for sending me unsolicited mails with advice like "back the fuck off" in them, then I would consider reverting my own comment on the List of Wikipedia Controversies talk page. In fact, he didn't even apologize when I asked him politely not to butt in to my private life. Here's a little more unsolicited information:

"
Given how cautious people have asked me to be in speaking to you I would
normally hesitate to share this - but given the sheer number of people who
were reiterating the sentiment in NYC, I don't think it has implications for
anyone's anonymity - more than a couple people in NYC, including in
positions where this would normally get them in shit in any organization
other than the Wikimedia movement - were pretty explicitly and pretty
publicly asking why Lila hadn't either dumped you or banished you from the
Wikimedia world yet. That's not something I want to happen - least of all
because it would be a bloody mess - but that's something that multiple
influential people are already explicitly bringing up in semi-public
settings. (This is pretty certainly on the list of issues people would
rather I don't discuss with you... but I can't even think of every person at
the conference who brought it up with me.)
"

That's nauseating. Out-and-out nauseating.

Kevin, if you weren't a cowardly shit, you would have told them loudly how inappropriate their comments were. But that's exactly what you are.

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Thu Jun 12, 2014 8:40 pm

Hex wrote: Kevin, if you weren't a cowardly shit, you would have told them loudly how inappropriate their comments were. But that's exactly what you are.

But its the culture. Remember FT2, remember Gerard, remember why Elen gave up? Its what they do.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Thu Jun 12, 2014 8:41 pm

Five years ago I'd be ecstatic at seeing this, replete with Wikipedians openly attacking important people.

Now, after all the research and analysis of Wikipedia I and PD have done, it's just "another day at the office".

Cowardly backstabbery is Wikipedia's primary hobby. And they are so incredibly bad at it.....

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Thu Jun 12, 2014 8:42 pm

I've uploaded the Friendly Space Policy to Archive.org.

link

RfB

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Thu Jun 12, 2014 8:43 pm

lilburne wrote:
Hex wrote: Kevin, if you weren't a cowardly shit, you would have told them loudly how inappropriate their comments were. But that's exactly what you are.
But its the culture. Remember FT2, remember Gerard, remember why Elen gave up? Its what they do.

Now get busy. When the deadline is over, if all terms are not fully complied with then the gloves come off without warning, and your family etc, get to know what's up.

You have no opening for significant negotiation.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz · Unread post by **Kiefer.Wolfowitz** » Thu Jun 12, 2014 8:44 pm

wllm wrote:If Kevin apologizes for sending me unsolicited mails with advice like "back the fuck off" in them, then I would consider reverting my own comment on the List of Wikipedia Controversies talk page. In fact, he didn't even apologize when I asked him politely not to butt in to my private life. Here's a little more unsolicited information:

"
Given how cautious people have asked me to be in speaking to you I would
normally hesitate to share this - but given the sheer number of people who
were reiterating the sentiment in NYC, I don't think it has implications for
anyone's anonymity - more than a couple people in NYC, including in
positions where this would normally get them in shit in any organization
other than the Wikimedia movement - were pretty explicitly and pretty
publicly asking why Lila hadn't either dumped you or banished you from the
Wikimedia world yet. That's not something I want to happen - least of all
because it would be a bloody mess - but that's something that multiple
influential people are already explicitly bringing up in semi-public
settings. (This is pretty certainly on the list of issues people would
rather I don't discuss with you... but I can't even think of every person at
the conference who brought it up with me.)
"

Dumped me, huh? A bloody mess, indeed. And it would tear a family apart, leaving a child without a father at home. But, yeah, I guess it would also affect the community.

Cannot his parents or guardians hire somebody to deprogram Kevin Gorman from the "Wikipedia movement" cult?

In the 1930s, Kevin Gorman (T-C-L) would have been advising the wife of John Dewey to drop him, because of his "obsession" with the Moscow Show Trials.

In the 1990s, Gorman would have castrated himself, the better to be beamed aboard the Hale-Bopp UFO. Wait, wasn't Gorman living in California in the 1990s?

Speaking of California and Gorman, I wonder whether Gorman's repeated and unwanted emails and public criticism constitute harassment, according to the University of California's policies. Was he writing from WMF or Berkley systems or did he include such institutions in his e-mail signature?

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Thu Jun 12, 2014 8:45 pm

Hex wrote:I missed seeing this when Wil posted it.

Kevin Gorman wrote: more than a couple people in NYC, including in
positions where this would normally get them in shit in any organization
other than the Wikimedia movement - were pretty explicitly and pretty
publicly asking why Lila hadn't either dumped you or banished you from the
Wikimedia world yet.
That's nauseating. Out-and-out nauseating.

Kevin, if you weren't a cowardly shit, you would have told them loudly how inappropriate their comments were. But that's exactly what you are.

Hex, while I agree that it is nauseating, and I suspect that Kevin Gorman is a cowardly shit, we do not have solid evidence that Gorman did NOT loudly tell those people how inappropriate their comments were. That may be exactly what he did, but he just neglected to relay that information to Wil. So, we cannot with 100% certainty declare Kevin Gorman "exactly" a cowardly shit. Quite yet.

Also, keep in mind that Kevin was still reeling from his recent head injury, which left him dazed by New York's subway signage, and had him seeing multiple ("ridiculous") numbers of NYPD officers, so maybe it didn't sink in immediately at the conference how nauseating his fellow attendees were being.

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Thu Jun 12, 2014 8:47 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:I've uploaded the Friendly Space Policy to Archive.org.

link
RfB

The policy promises a "harassment-free event experience for everyone"

Not exactly everyone.

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Thu Jun 12, 2014 8:48 pm

thekohser wrote:So, we cannot with 100% certainty declare Kevin Gorman "exactly" a cowardly shit. Quite yet.

We could settle on 'shit' though.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz · Unread post by **Kiefer.Wolfowitz** » Thu Jun 12, 2014 8:49 pm

Midsize Jake wrote:Well, to be fair, "blackmail" is one of those words that Wikipedians have redefined and twisted over the years to mean just about anything they want it to mean at any given time.

In the real world, if you tell someone you'll do something that might embarrass them if they don't do the right thing, it may be a threat, but it's a threat of shaming, not "blackmail." Traditionally, blackmail usually involves some sort of substantive (if not tangible) quid pro quo that benefits the blackmailer.

I apologize for being a traditionalist in this regard, but the fact remains, it would be better if Mr. Brad were to do the right thing in this case.

Don't waste your time with idiots like Obiwan. Just revert their edits on your talk page, and ignore them elsewhere.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Thu Jun 12, 2014 8:50 pm

EricBarbour wrote:Five years ago I'd be ecstatic at seeing this, replete with Wikipedians openly attacking important people.

Now, after all the research and analysis of Wikipedia I and PD have done, it's just "another day at the office".

Cowardly backstabbery is Wikipedia's primary hobby. And they are so incredibly bad at it.....

Cult? No.

Clique of mean girls in Jr. High School? Yes.

RfB

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Thu Jun 12, 2014 8:57 pm

thekohser wrote: Hex, while I agree that it is nauseating, and I suspect that Kevin Gorman is a cowardly shit, we do not have solid evidence that Gorman did NOT loudly tell those people how inappropriate their comments were. That may be exactly what he did, but he just neglected to relay that information to Wil. So, we cannot with 100% certainty declare Kevin Gorman "exactly" a cowardly shit. Quite yet.

I'm going to go on probability.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Thu Jun 12, 2014 8:58 pm

Triptych wrote:

Un-American jerkwad, in this country we let people participate and speak even if they are unpopular. And your Wikiconference USA host New York Law School said the same thing.

I've just been informed (bless them, only 5 days after being alerted to the problem) by the English Wikipedia Oversight team that they agreed that Ktr101 had defamed me with an "inappropriate" edit summary, and so it has been revision deleted.

Remember, the other Kevin (that would be Gorman, with the opposite hair of Rutherford) had said of this now rev-del'd edit summary: "it's hardly an egregious BLP violation".

Looks like both Kevins were wrong in one day.

wllm · Unread post by **wllm** » Thu Jun 12, 2014 9:01 pm

"
I don't think it has implications for
anyone's anonymity - more than a couple people in NYC, including in
positions where this would normally get them in shit in any organization
other than the Wikimedia movement - were pretty explicitly and pretty
publicly asking why Lila hadn't either dumped you or banished you from the
Wikimedia world yet.
"

One thing in particular that blew me away was Kevin's candor about the fact that this kind of behavior is tolerated in the Wikimedia movement. It doesn't sound like one person's one-time slipup, like the one documented in that NYMag article, but a refrain from many participants there. And "pretty publicly"? Did no one intervene and remind everyone that they were talking about a family?

This is like the whole wikimedia-l ugliness all over again. Un. be. lievable.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Thu Jun 12, 2014 9:02 pm

wllm wrote:...ugliness all over again. Un. be. lievable.

Good luck, Lila, huh?

Did anyone at the WMF inform her during the interviewing process about how reprehensible Wikipedians can be?

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Thu Jun 12, 2014 9:07 pm

wllm wrote: This is like the whole wikimedia-l ugliness all over again. Un. be. lievable.

Yep.

How long do we think this will last before someone that isn't Jimbo decides to hide it? Any bets on what the rationale will be?

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Thu Jun 12, 2014 9:13 pm

Hex wrote:
wllm wrote: This is like the whole wikimedia-l ugliness all over again. Un. be. lievable.
Yep.

How long do we think this will last before someone that isn't Jimbo decides to hide it? Any bets on what the rationale will be?

'Rm trolling', I expect.

I hope those attendees of the recent Wikiconference USA in New York who were discussing LilaTretikov and Wllm behind their backs, suggesting that the WMF's new ED should dump her partner, or banish him from the WMF world, are proud of themselves. "Multiple influential people", says Kevin Gorman. If any of them are reading this, I'll eat my hat if they have the spine to identify themselves in public and stand behind their grotesquely inappropriate comments. — Scott • talk 20:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Sweet Revenge · Unread post by **Sweet Revenge** » Thu Jun 12, 2014 9:15 pm

thekohser wrote: I've just been informed (bless them, only 5 days after being alerted to the problem) by the English Wikipedia Oversight team that they agreed that Ktr101 had defamed me with an "inappropriate" edit summary, and so it has been revision deleted.

Remember, the other Kevin (that would be Gorman, with the opposite hair of Rutherford) had said of this now rev-del'd edit summary: "it's hardly an egregious BLP violation".

Looks like both Kevins were wrong in one day.

I see that they didn't drop a template on Rutherford's talk page, although I guess maybe they warned him privately or something. Like, as a courtesy of the sort he doesn't extend to others?

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Thu Jun 12, 2014 9:26 pm

Hex wrote:
wllm wrote: This is like the whole wikimedia-l ugliness all over again. Un. be. lievable.
Yep.

How long do we think this will last before someone that isn't Jimbo decides to hide it? Any bets on what the rationale will be?

Rationale is easy: Trolling. Also, you are violating the Friendly Space Policy of Conference participants by exercising too much "liberty." It makes them feel unwelcome. Please stop that or I will be forced to call the police and have you removed.

How long? Let's say 3 hours.

RfB

wllm · Unread post by **wllm** » Thu Jun 12, 2014 9:50 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:
Hex wrote:
wllm wrote: This is like the whole wikimedia-l ugliness all over again. Un. be. lievable.
Yep.

How long do we think this will last before someone that isn't Jimbo decides to hide it? Any bets on what the rationale will be?
Rationale is easy: Trolling. Also, you are violating the Friendly Space Policy of Conference participants by exercising too much "liberty." It makes them feel unwelcome. Please stop that or I will be forced to call the police and have you removed.

How long? Let's say 3 hours.

RfB

Kevin replied to that thread with 2 paragraphs. Neither of them contained an apology. This is the whole wikimedia-l ugliness all over again.

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Thu Jun 12, 2014 10:06 pm

wllm wrote: This is like the whole wikimedia-l ugliness all over again. Un. be. lievable.

OTOH is it realistically conceivable that any one of influence, let alone several, would ever tell a 'Kevin' anything of significance?
fixed video link

wllm · Unread post by **wllm** » Thu Jun 12, 2014 10:16 pm

BTW, someone suggested in that thread that Wikipediocracy and my blog might have the same malware on them: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =612686072. I use pure Automattic stuff on my blog with no ads served. I don't remember having ever seen an ad here, either, but someone might want to reply to him on Jimmy's page.

EDIT: On further thought, maybe s/he just needs help to figure out how that kinda stuff works. S/he sounds kinda inexperienced.

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Thu Jun 12, 2014 10:22 pm

wllm wrote:BTW, someone suggested in that thread that Wikipediocracy and my blog might have the same malware on them: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =612686072. I use pure Automattic stuff on my blog with no ads served. I don't remember having ever seen an ad here, either, but someone might want to reply to him on Jimmy's page.

He'll have installed some freeware thing. The couple of times I've had that sort of thing are when I've installed some legit software and not noticed that its from a 3rd party site.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Thu Jun 12, 2014 10:23 pm

Kevin Gorman sure does make it known, far and wide, that he's been having trouble with his Internet access since returning to Berkeley from the sinister WikiConUSA. He's also made it known that his troublesome connection is provided by Comcast (my employer, though I'm in the Comcast Business business). I'll bet Kevin supposes that this is just a general service problem that's affecting his whole neighborhood.

Amazing, ain't it, that Kevin hasn't yet figured out that I AM BLOCKING HIS INTERNET, thanks to my operatives from O'Dwyer PR dropping a tracking chip under the handle of his walking crutch?!?!? I've got you now, Kev! Muuuah-hah-hah-HAAAAAAH!

eagle · Unread post by **eagle** » Thu Jun 12, 2014 10:29 pm

thekohser wrote:I've got you now, Kev! Muuuah-hah-hah-HAAAAAAH!

Given that Greg's sense of humor has been misinterpreted in the past, how many people are going to bet that the above comment will be taken literally and misreported without the "sarcasm" disclaimer on-wiki? An admitted cyber-attack by a known and self-confessed cyber-bully confirming the need to ban him from WikiConference USA.

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Thu Jun 12, 2014 10:54 pm

Peter Damian wrote:
… more than a couple people in NYC, including in positions where this would normally get them in shit in any organization other than the Wikimedia movement - were pretty explicitly and pretty publicly asking... <snip>
What were these positions?

If it would "get them in shit," it has to be Greek-style, doesn't it?

wllm · Unread post by **wllm** » Thu Jun 12, 2014 11:04 pm

Midsize Jake wrote:
Peter Damian wrote:
… more than a couple people in NYC, including in positions where this would normally get them in shit in any organization other than the Wikimedia movement - were pretty explicitly and pretty publicly asking... <snip>
What were these positions?
If it would "get them in shit," it has to be Greek-style, doesn't it?

How bout we avoid giving them something else to talk about besides the gross misconduct at WikiConference USA? I strongly suggest we stay on topic right now.

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Thu Jun 12, 2014 11:07 pm

wllm wrote:I strongly suggest we stay on topic right now.

There's a topic?

Oh well... sure, whatever, but if I don't jump on the straight-lines at every possible opportunity, people are going to start thinking I've lost a step.

Besides, you never admitted that you didn't notice the word "velociraptor" on that guy's t-shirt. Don't think I've forgotten that.

wllm · Unread post by **wllm** » Thu Jun 12, 2014 11:10 pm

Midsize Jake wrote:
wllm wrote:I strongly suggest we stay on topic right now.
There's a topic?

Oh well... sure, whatever, but if I don't jump on the straight-lines at every possible opportunity, people are going to start thinking I've lost a step.

Besides, you never admitted that you didn't notice the word "velociraptor" on that guy's t-shirt. Don't think I've forgotten that.

, but

.

eagle · Unread post by **eagle** » Thu Jun 12, 2014 11:37 pm

Here is a way to tie the above subtopics together. Kevin Gorman has posted a summary of the keynote address for Wikipedia Signpost. link If this was the keynote, I am glad that I did not travel to NYC for the WikiConference USA. It seems as though Gorman is sympathetic to the message about hospitality (e.g., make Wikipedia a less toxic editing environment.) Of course, he then demonstrates the opposite in his exchanges with and about Greg Kohs. As for the speaker herself, Sumana Harihareswara, it sounds as though she is sounding notes of feminist-entitlement rather than calling for genuine reform. How was she selected and how much did she receive for this speaking engagement? I believe that WikiConference USA could have found a bigger "name" with more extra-WP insight rather than recycling the Ada Initiative/WMF stuff we have heard in prior keynotes. Has anyone asked Sumana Harihareswara what she thinks of the banning of Greg Kohs?

Here is Mr. Gorman's dance around this issue:

The difference between an environment where social norms are enforced to some extent (including through exclusion in extreme cases) and an environment where complete liberty is allowed (or to paraphrase Sumana paraphrasing of John Scalzi, "the ability to be a dick in every possible circumstance") is often perceived as a difference between an environment that excludes, and one that doesn't—but that's not the case. Quoting Sumana: "If we exclude no one explicitly, we are just excluding a lot of people implicitly."

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Thu Jun 12, 2014 11:43 pm

wllm wrote: How bout we avoid giving them something else to talk about besides the gross misconduct at WikiConference USA? I strongly suggest we stay on topic right now.

"Them" are snotty little twerps if not this then something else. Net curtain twitchers, and grocery line gossips.

wllm · Unread post by **wllm** » Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:20 am

I think all of the topics come together neatly under the title of this thread. I'm sure there was some great stuff at that conference; I didn't attend myself. But it will now be remembered for 3 things:

1) Claiming it was "open" to skepticism, then banning a prominent critic at the last moment without citing a reason. As the pressure increased on the organizers to tell the community why they had banned Greg Kohs, they began to insinuate that he had engaged in some misconduct but fail to present any evidence or even name the misconduct itself.

2) An article that made one Wikipedian look like a chauvinistic nerd who spent more time trying to convince the reporter how "cool" he was than talking about the project. She was not convinced.

3) Another Wikipedian admitting that at least 3 other Wikipedians at the conference had "pretty publicly" wondered why the Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation hadn't broken up her family because her partner did and said things that they didn't approve of. As of now, we don't know whether someone chimed in on any of these conversations to point out how inappropriate they were.

I think that's the full list for now. And here's why making others aware of these issues is constructive: if people are embarrassed by their own bad behavior, they are far less likely to do it again. It is no secret that Wikipedia has gotten a reputation in the press as a hot mess. There is far too little coverage on the good things that the community is doing, and far too much on the kind of BS we see above. If we don't start owning these mistakes, we will make them again. The project can't afford these buffoonish missteps. For one, people will start wondering why they should donate their hard earned money to fund gatherings like this.

Take another look at the list above. All of these things could have been prevented by keeping one thing in mind: we should try to be nice to each other. How bout we shoot for that at the next conference, Wikipedia?

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:50 am

wllm wrote:But it will now be remembered for 3 things:

1) Claiming it was "open" to skepticism, then banning a prominent critic ...

2) An article that made one Wikipedian look like a chauvinistic nerd ...

3) ... Wikipedians at the conference had "pretty publicly" wondered why the Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation hadn't broken up her family ...

I think that's the full list for now. ...

Well, I'd put a 1b.) in there --> Controversy erupting on the List of Wikipedia controversies (T-H-L) Talk page, debating whether the list of controversies should include this controversy.

And maybe a 3b.) --> Kevin Gorman missing his scheduled departure out of New York because he stayed up until 5:00 AM partying with Wikipedians, then bumbling on Twitter asking conference organizers if they could produce the confirmation number for his reservation (isn't it printed on your ticket, Kevin?) that they had been generous enough to pay for with donors' money, but he was irresponsible enough to deprioritize below a couple more hours of sleep.

I think that's the full list for now!

P.S. Oh darn, I just had to go and look at Jimbo's Talk page now, and I see that Gorman apparently doesn't know the difference between affecting and effecting. Berkeley graduate, too. I guess that's 3c.)

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:25 am

wllm wrote:I think all of the topics come together neatly under the title of this thread. I'm sure there was some great stuff at that conference; I didn't attend myself. But it will now be remembered for 3 things:

1) Claiming it was "open" to skepticism, then banning a prominent critic at the last moment without citing a reason. As the pressure increased on the organizers to tell the community why they had banned Greg Kohs, they began to insinuate that he had engaged in some misconduct but fail to present any evidence or even name the misconduct itself.

2) An article that made one Wikipedian look like a chauvinistic nerd who spent more time trying to convince the reporter how "cool" he was than talking about the project. She was not convinced.

3) Another Wikipedian admitting that at least 3 other Wikipedians at the conference had "pretty publicly" wondered why the Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation hadn't broken up her family because her partner did and said things that they didn't approve of. As of now, we don't know whether someone chimed in on any of these conversations to point out how inappropriate they were.

I think that's the full list for now. And here's why making others aware of these issues is constructive: if people are embarrassed by their own bad behavior, they are far less likely to do it again. It is no secret that Wikipedia has gotten a reputation in the press as a hot mess. There is far too little coverage on the good things that the community is doing, and far too much on the kind of BS we see above. If we don't start owning these mistakes, we will make them again. The project can't afford these buffoonish missteps. For one, people will start wondering why they should donate their hard earned money to fund gatherings like this.

Take another look at the list above. All of these things could have been prevented by keeping one thing in mind: we should try to be nice to each other. How bout we shoot for that at the next conference, Wikipedia?

You're too close to #3 on your list, Wil. That will vanish into the mist. #1 and 2 are right. #3 is the keynote speech of Sumana Harihareswara, which was a call to arms for those favoring a purge campaign in favor of "civility," positing a new dichotomy between "liberty" and "hospitality" and advancing the powerful slogan "If we exclude no one explicitly, we are just excluding a lot of people implicitly. Including people like me."

That resonated with the cabal.

link

#4 will be the Orwellian PC "Friendly Space Policy."

RfB

everyking · Unread post by **everyking** » Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:53 am

Randy from Boise wrote: #3 is the keynote speech of Sumana Harihareswara, which was a call to arms for those favoring a purge campaign in favor of "civility," positing a new dichotomy between "liberty" and "hospitality" and advancing the powerful slogan "If we exclude no one explicitly, we are just excluding a lot of people implicitly. Including people like me."

That resonated with the cabal.

link

This is the first I've heard about that speech, and it's disturbing. Of course some people have to be excluded, but one of the project's biggest problems is that good contributors are so often excluded for (internal) political and illegitimate reasons. One of the key tasks of the moment is to find a way to stop exiling our own volunteers. The last thing we need is a campaign for more exclusion. That would be utterly damaging.

wllm · Unread post by **wllm** » Fri Jun 13, 2014 2:45 am

OT, but did WP just go down? Try anything off of the landing page- my talk page or whatever- I'm seeing a server error.

NM: Back up now. Looked like a brief outage. At least 10 secs, maybe 1 min. But it looked to me like a full outage. Admins be scramblin right now.

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Fri Jun 13, 2014 2:48 am

wllm wrote:OT, but did WP just go down? Try anything off of the landing page- my talk page or whatever- I'm seeing a server error.

Alas, but that these bright and shining moments are so fleeting.

wllm · Unread post by **wllm** » Fri Jun 13, 2014 2:59 am

Randy from Boise wrote:
wllm wrote: You're too close to #3 on your list, Wil. That will vanish into the mist. #1 and 2 are right. #3 is the keynote speech of Sumana Harihareswara, which was a call to arms for those favoring a purge campaign in favor of "civility," positing a new dichotomy between "liberty" and "hospitality" and advancing the powerful slogan "If we exclude no one explicitly, we are just excluding a lot of people implicitly. Including people like me."
RfB

I might be. But this is now the second time that the mainstream Wikipedia has shown blatant disregard for my family. I imagine it's not sitting very well with the WMF. It could be handled well, and we all move on. Or it could be handled poorly, and #3 will end up right back on the list.

I really hope I'm reading that quote wrong. I also hope the petition makes things a bit more explicit for everyone: http://www.change.org/petitions/wikiped ... -to-attend

Anybody interested in holding a Wikipediocracy conference? Should we let Greg come?

wllm · Unread post by **wllm** » Fri Jun 13, 2014 3:01 am

I wonder where Vigilant is today. I'm missing my daily dose of Vigilantisms.

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Fri Jun 13, 2014 3:05 am

wllm wrote:<snip>
Anybody interested in holding a Wikipediocracy conference? Should we let Greg come?

We've tossed the idea around.
It could happen. Some members have met informally around beer in London, I believe.

No horns or cloven feet were observed.

I'd like to help organize a California meetup some time.

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Fri Jun 13, 2014 3:06 am

Zoloft wrote:
wllm wrote:<snip>
Anybody interested in holding a Wikipediocracy conference? Should we let Greg come?
We've tossed the idea around.
It could happen. Some members have met informally around beer in London, I believe.

No horns or cloven feet were observed.

I'd like to help organize a California meetup some time.

San Luis Obispo, perhaps.

Anthonyhcole · Unread post by **Anthonyhcole** » Fri Jun 13, 2014 3:13 am

Is Greg Kohs banned from Wikimania 2014?

wllm · Unread post by **wllm** » Fri Jun 13, 2014 3:16 am

Anthonyhcole wrote:Is Greg Kohs banned from Wikimania 2014?

And. . . here we go again!

I was wondering when someone was going to get around to asking that question.

Make sure you buy cancelable tickets, Greg.

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Fri Jun 13, 2014 3:24 am

wllm wrote:And. . . here we go again!

I think they'll be smarter this time, actually. Wikimania 2014 isn't a free event - it costs, like 50 quid to go, and as the site says, "payment must be made online through either a debit card or a credit card, with American Express, Visa, and MasterCard being the accepted providers." So putting aside the fact that this effectively bans anyone with bad credit, this time around they could just program their card-processing site to check the cardholder name before accepting the registration payment, and if it comes back "GREGORY KOHS," just have it pop up a 404. No muss, no fuss! Problem solved!

wllm · Unread post by **wllm** » Fri Jun 13, 2014 3:24 am

Zoloft wrote:
Zoloft wrote:
wllm wrote:<snip>
Anybody interested in holding a Wikipediocracy conference? Should we let Greg come?
We've tossed the idea around.
It could happen. Some members have met informally around beer in London, I believe.

No horns or cloven feet were observed.

I'd like to help organize a California meetup some time.
San Luis Obispo, perhaps.

Y'all know where I am. I think we may have a cluster of Wikipediocrats in Silicon Valley. Of course, totally informal; open bar but only with warm Pabst BR so we have some free as in beer to go with our free as in speech. Presentations would have to feature a lot of colorful language. And there would be heckling. Lots of heckling.

It would also be fun to do one at the same time as Wikimania. Maybe with all the critics who banned from the main event.

Maybe reserve a venue across the street for people to stumble over to when they need some "fresh air". Besides, if they don't let Greg through the door, those of us who signed the petition are going to find ourselves with a free weekend to kill.