Cla68 wrote:Who is this guy?
Alison: you know that suggesting that removing an item in a list potentially this long that is currently only supported by one sentence in a RS represents censorship is hyperbole, which isn't something terribly useful here. [[User:Kevin Gorman|Kevin Gorman]] ([[User talk:Kevin Gorman|talk]]) 22:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Pale horn of gloryCla68 wrote:Who is this guy?
If you're asking who Kevin Gorman is, he's a member here, and was discussed in this topic (where he joined in): linkCla68 wrote:Who is this guy?
Revision as of 16:55, June 6, 2014 (edit)
GormansPlungingTongue (talk | contribs)
(Eat unicorn shit, Kevin!!!!)
Latest revision as of 16:56, June 6, 2014 (edit) (undo) (thank)
Tarc (talk | contribs)
m (Reverted edits by GormansPlungingTongue (talk) to last version by Ian.thomson)
Allie,
Zoloft wrote: We're sure seeing some inappropriate use of the word 'unicorn' lately.
Ask and you shall receiveZoloft wrote:It would make me chortle if the edit war over including this incident made it to AN/I.
This has been their plan all along - one week of page protection will become two, then a month, then six months, then it'll be permanent. The permanent page protection of "List of Wikipedia controversies" will quickly become a Wikipedia controversy in itself, but nobody will be able to add it to the list because of the page protection, which will only perpetuate the controversy, creating an endless "causality loop" similar to roughly half the plot devices used in episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation.Vigilant wrote:And look at the little shit doing things over here too!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... 7Cviews.29
Does anyone know how someone gets a mini bio at the top of their Special:Contributions page, like Kevin Gorman has?Zoloft wrote:If you're asking who Kevin Gorman is, he's a member here, and was discussed in this topic (where he joined in): linkCla68 wrote:Who is this guy?
Yeah, I'd say that was about the most efficient $150 you guys ever spent in lulz per $. You ought to think of another one.Vigilant wrote:Ask and you shall receiveZoloft wrote:It would make me chortle if the edit war over including this incident made it to AN/I.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... o_back_off
It appears to be the work of this Mediawiki extension. It looks like they put names of "ambassadors" in a database table somewhere along with the courses they're involved with, and the extension auto-generates pages like this and also the little mini-bio thingies, among other features.tarantino wrote:Does anyone know how someone gets a mini bio at the top of their Special:Contributions page, like Kevin Gorman has?
I wonder how Wil found out about the list. Maybe he edited it after he read my suggestion If it is the case newyorkbrad will accuse me in damaging wikipediaVigilant wrote:Ask and you shall receiveZoloft wrote:It would make me chortle if the edit war over including this incident made it to AN/I.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... o_back_off
User Preferences > Appearance > Show a link to your courses at the top of every page.tarantino wrote:Does anyone know how someone gets a mini bio at the top of their Special:Contributions page, like Kevin Gorman has?Zoloft wrote:If you're asking who Kevin Gorman is, he's a member here, and was discussed in this topic (where he joined in): linkCla68 wrote:Who is this guy?
All wiki stuff aside, how's the concussion?Vinegar Monk wrote:Well Viggie, I have to admit that 'unicorn shit' made me giggle. Anyway, hi all. Been busy enough irl that I haven't been active much on-wiki or stopped by here in a month or two.
There's so much obvious stuff to give me shit for that I'm a bit disappointed that you and Kohs have stuck to me getting a concussion. Is a random fairly old head injury really that funny a thing? Though my flight back from the conference did make me wonder if Kohs is somehow prophetic. Right as I fell asleep, a flight attendant dropped a damn thirty pound box of pretzels on my head. No damage, but still a weird way to wake up.Vigilant wrote:All wiki stuff aside, how's the concussion?Vinegar Monk wrote:Well Viggie, I have to admit that 'unicorn shit' made me giggle. Anyway, hi all. Been busy enough irl that I haven't been active much on-wiki or stopped by here in a month or two.
I wasn't fucking with you about the concussion.Vinegar Monk wrote:There's so much obvious stuff to give me shit for that I'm a bit disappointed that you and Kohs have stuck to me getting a concussion. Is a random fairly old head injury really that funny a thing? Though my flight back from the conference did make me wonder if Kohs is somehow prophetic. Right as I fell asleep, a flight attendant dropped a damn thirty pound box of pretzels on my head. No damage, but still a weird way to wake up.Vigilant wrote:All wiki stuff aside, how's the concussion?Vinegar Monk wrote:Well Viggie, I have to admit that 'unicorn shit' made me giggle. Anyway, hi all. Been busy enough irl that I haven't been active much on-wiki or stopped by here in a month or two.
The Pretzel God is sending you a message.Right as I fell asleep, a flight attendant dropped a damn thirty pound box of pretzels on my head.
Assuming good faith for a moment, my most sincere apologies dear Viggie, it's sometimes hard to differentiate between the well-meaning WO folks, and those who tweet "shouldn't be tweeting with an obvious head injury" at you in the middle of a conference. In answer to questions that have been posed at various points in this thread: yes, WMDC/WMNYC paid for my flight to the conference, via a scholarship program open to all applicants. The basic finances of the conference have been available for months for anyone with access to Google. I didn't actually miss my 8 am flight; Delta cancelled it due to technical difficulties, and rescheduled me on a later one. I would've missed my 8 am flight if it hadn't been cancelled for the same reason I look like someone who hasn't slept in the recent past in the random photos people have been popping out of me - because I was out until five in the morning several nights of the conference. Yes, some Wikipedians are fun to go out with.Vigilant wrote:I wasn't fucking with you about the concussion.Vinegar Monk wrote:There's so much obvious stuff to give me shit for that I'm a bit disappointed that you and Kohs have stuck to me getting a concussion. Is a random fairly old head injury really that funny a thing? Though my flight back from the conference did make me wonder if Kohs is somehow prophetic. Right as I fell asleep, a flight attendant dropped a damn thirty pound box of pretzels on my head. No damage, but still a weird way to wake up.Vigilant wrote:All wiki stuff aside, how's the concussion?Vinegar Monk wrote:Well Viggie, I have to admit that 'unicorn shit' made me giggle. Anyway, hi all. Been busy enough irl that I haven't been active much on-wiki or stopped by here in a month or two.
I was seriously and kindly asking after your health.
I'm not a one dimensional super villain every day of the week.
Has anyone here ever suggested that we should make an episode of South Park?Vinegar Monk wrote:Kohs (author of previous tweet) - it's hilariously creepy that you started tweeting random conference attendees demanding a $5 refund for your cancellation fee. If Wikipediocracy somehow ever makes an episode of South Park, I have a feeling you're going to wind up cast as the loch ness monster.
I am all for equal representation and whatnot here, but what concerns me is that we're reporting on something that goes with the event's Friendly space policy. There was a legitimate reason to remove Greg from the conference (people were not going to go if he was there), and there is nothing controversial about it if you go along those lines. He was not removed for his paid editing work, and would have been accepted if he wasn't banned for the above reason. Each organization has a right to implement a Friendly space policy and enforce it as they see fit. If you are banned for a legitimate concern, then that is not so much a scandal as the active attempt at including people who would not feel comfortable with that person around. [[User:Ktr101|Kevin Rutherford]] ([[User talk:Ktr101|talk]]) 22:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Accoding to his user page, "I'm Kevin Gorman. I'm a recent graduate of the University of California, Berkeley with a degree in geography. I'm a Wikipedian (and as of late, somehow also an administrator.) I don't like systemic bias." So obviously he's going to remove biases like attempts to put things like that in the article!Cla68 wrote:Who is this guy?
I'm pretty sure someone has suggested it here previously. In fact, I think you quoted the post where they did so.Midsize Jake wrote:Has anyone here ever suggested that we should make an episode of South Park?Vinegar Monk wrote:Kohs (author of previous tweet) - it's hilariously creepy that you started tweeting random conference attendees demanding a $5 refund for your cancellation fee. If Wikipediocracy somehow ever makes an episode of South Park, I have a feeling you're going to wind up cast as the loch ness monster.
Cla, I can never tell if you're trolling or if you've forgotten the way we handle sourcing since you stopped being a prolific writer of content. If this ends up getting mentioned in more than an bit of O'Dwyers nonsense and an offhanded comment in the NYM, I'll be happy to add Kohs back to the list myself. Taking him out now isn't malice, it's common sense. (And before you doubt that I'd readd Kohs - I've previously edited Glenn Beck's article to make him look better and remove non-neutral wording from it, and, as the understatement of the year, I definitely like Kohs more than I like Glenn Beck.)Poetlister wrote:Accoding to his user page, "I'm Kevin Gorman. I'm a recent graduate of the University of California, Berkeley with a degree in geography. I'm a Wikipedian (and as of late, somehow also an administrator.) I don't like systemic bias." So obviously he's going to remove biases like attempts to put things like that in the article!Cla68 wrote:Who is this guy?
Sweet Revenge wrote:In any case, one good thing that's come out of this is an actual explanation for why Greg was banned. Here it is, extracted from the wall of text on the talk page, for anyone who's interested:I am all for equal representation and whatnot here, but what concerns me is that we're reporting on something that goes with the event's Friendly space policy. There was a legitimate reason to remove Greg from the conference (people were not going to go if he was there), and there is nothing controversial about it if you go along those lines. He was not removed for his paid editing work, and would have been accepted if he wasn't banned for the above reason. Each organization has a right to implement a Friendly space policy and enforce it as they see fit. If you are banned for a legitimate concern, then that is not so much a scandal as the active attempt at including people who would not feel comfortable with that person around. [[User:Ktr101|Kevin Rutherford]] ([[User talk:Ktr101|talk]]) 22:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
New York Law School was perfectly happy to have us have a friendly space policy in place. They're also one of fancy places with things like security guards and controlled entrance gates to get through; it would've been a bit funny to see Kohs try to sneak in. Ktr btw isn't a WMF regional ambassador; if anything he'd by a WEF one, but the whole program is basically in flux and the title is meaningless. I laugh every time someone tries to imply the title means anything serious (I'm one, too.) There were legitimate reasons to exclude Kohs in that it was established before the conference that his actions were likely to disrupt the conference. I'm not going to get in to the reasons that don't directly involve me (and I lol at the reasons involving me because I am used to e-trolls,) but if nothing else, under WMNYC's written friendly space policy, Kohs calling me various nasty names on Twitter during the event would've been sufficient grounds to exclude him had they made me uncomfortable (and plenty of his other behavior did make people significantly uncomfortable; and no, I'm not revealing what, because I don't what Kohs to know when he's actually successfully trolled someone.) Most WM affiliate safe space policies are based on adaptations of the Ada Iniatives model policy, and are designed to promote an environment of open discussion that's basically a 180 turn from how on-wiki discussions normally work. If you watch Sumana's keynote (writeup in the upcoming signpost, video and transcript already available,) you may have a better understanding of why WM affiliates to tend to use stronger in-person friendly space policies than any of our line sites do.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 just love how you keep repeating the Orwellian mantra "Friendly Space Policy."Vinegar Monk wrote:New York Law School was perfectly happy to have us have a friendly space policy in place. They're also one of fancy places with things like security guards and controlled entrance gates to get through; it would've been a bit funny to see Kohs try to sneak in. Ktr btw isn't a WMF regional ambassador; if anything he'd by a WEF one, but the whole program is basically in flux and the title is meaningless. I laugh every time someone tries to imply the title means anything serious (I'm one, too.) There were legitimate reasons to exclude Kohs in that it was established before the conference that his actions were likely to disrupt the conference. I'm not going to get in to the reasons that don't directly involve me (and I lol at the reasons involving me because I am used to e-trolls,) but if nothing else, under WMNYC's written friendly space policy, Kohs calling me various nasty names on Twitter during the event would've been sufficient grounds to exclude him had they made me uncomfortable (and plenty of his other behavior did make people significantly uncomfortable; and no, I'm not revealing what, because I don't what Kohs to know when he's actually successfully trolled someone.) Most WM affiliate safe space policies are based on adaptations of the Ada Iniatives model policy, and are designed to promote an environment of open discussion that's basically a 180 turn from how on-wiki discussions normally work. If you watch Sumana's keynote (writeup in the upcoming signpost, video and transcript already available,) you may have a better understanding of why WM affiliates to tend to use stronger in-person friendly space policies than any of our line sites do.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.
You know what the weirdest thing about the entire conference was? New York Brad, despite having an ultra-dry personality on-wiki, is funny as hell in real life.
It's absolutely amazing that you reached that conclusion given that you have absolutely no idea what Greg's actions would have been had he been at the conference. Did you use a Ouija board to gather evidence?Vinegar Monk wrote:There were legitimate reasons to exclude Kohs in that it was established before the conference that his actions were likely to disrupt the conference.
I'd make an informed guess (mind you, still a guess,) that my rather low edit count by Wikipedia standards (somewhere in the range of 8-11k, been a while since I've checked) put me in the top 5% of active Wikipedians at the conference. Large numbers of attendees were GLAM affiliates or people just dipping their feet in to the waters of the wiki world, and the overall demographics of attendees made me smile compared to most wiki-anythings I've attended. Surely you can understand why it's desirable to provide an open conference with a lot of new people attending an atmosphere that isn't actively hostile? If not, I'd suggest poking around teh googs about conference friendly space/anti-harassment policies.I just love how you keep repeating the Orwellian mantra "Friendly Space Policy."
Keep talking, it is wonderful publicity for those of us trying to show ordinary Wikipedians what the cabal really is..
No, we used his behavior in the days leading up to the conference. I shouldn't even say "we" in this instance, since I wasn't an organizer and wasn't involved in the initial decision to kick him out, though I agree with it. Ignoring all of his other behavior that lead to the decision because I'm uncomfortable talking about things that don't pertain directly to me in these circumstances, certainly you can see how one conference attendee tweeting at another "you shouldn't tweet with an obvious head injury" could be offputting to anyone not used to dealing with the cesspool?Kelly Martin wrote:It's absolutely amazing that you reached that conclusion given that you have absolutely no idea what Greg's actions would have been had he been at the conference. Did you use a Ouija board to gather evidence?Vinegar Monk wrote:There were legitimate reasons to exclude Kohs in that it was established before the conference that his actions were likely to disrupt the conference.
Greg would have given a speech that contradicted the given dogma. That cannot be allowed.Kelly Martin wrote:It's absolutely amazing that you reached that conclusion given that you have absolutely no idea what Greg's actions would have been had he been at the conference. Did you use a Ouija board to gather evidence?Vinegar Monk wrote:There were legitimate reasons to exclude Kohs in that it was established before the conference that his actions were likely to disrupt the conference.
He says he is one front and center on his userpage. Kohser's "actions were likely to disrupt the conference?" I don't have to doublecheck to know the "friendly spaces policy" makes no reference to future crime. Besides that is not what Ktr-whatever said.Vinegar Monk wrote:Ktr btw isn't a WMF regional ambassador; if anything he'd by a WEF one, but the whole program is basically in flux and the title is meaningless. I laugh every time someone tries to imply the title means anything serious (I'm one, too.) There were legitimate reasons to exclude Kohs in that it was established before the conference that his actions were likely to disrupt the conference.
You don't actually know what words mean, do you?Vinegar Monk wrote:I'd make an informed guess (mind you, still a guess,) that my rather low edit count by Wikipedia standards (somewhere in the range of 8-11k, been a while since I've checked) put me in the top 5% of active Wikipedians at the conference. Large numbers of attendees were GLAM affiliates or people just dipping their feet in to the waters of the wiki world, and the overall demographics of attendees made me smile compared to most wiki-anythings I've attended. Surely you can understand why it's desirable to provide an open conference with a lot of new people attending an atmosphere that isn't actively hostile? If not, I'd suggest poking around teh googs about conference friendly space/anti-harassment policies.I just love how you keep repeating the Orwellian mantra "Friendly Space Policy."
Keep talking, it is wonderful publicity for those of us trying to show ordinary Wikipedians what the cabal really is..
There wasn't much cabal-like anything going on by anyone's standards. The closest you could probably come to screaming cabal was the night I had dinner with half a dozen WMF staffers, or the night everyone active in the education program went out to dinner.
Behavior exhibited after you'd already decided not to let him attend. Once again, sounds like you're using a Ouija board to make decisions.Vinegar Monk wrote:No, we used his behavior in the days leading up to the conference.
The whole purpose of that diatribe was to hint at all the fun we're missing out on by not being Adherents to the Holy Cause. It's a common recruitment strategy by cultists: suggest that by Joining Up, you get access to Fun Stuff that is only available to Committed Members. Greg was excluded not merely because they feared him (although they do), but because it was necessary to exclude an Outsider from the benefits of being Inside, or else those benefits cease to be exclusive, and lose their recruitment value.Notvelty wrote:You don't actually know what words mean, do you?Vinegar Monk wrote:There wasn't much cabal-like anything going on by anyone's standards. The closest you could probably come to screaming cabal was the night I had dinner with half a dozen WMF staffers, or the night everyone active in the education program went out to dinner.
Nobody every accused the cabalistas of being active builders of Wikipedia, speaking as a caste, just like nobody ever accused John D. Rockefeller and his crones of being oil workers.Vinegar Monk wrote:I'd make an informed guess (mind you, still a guess,) that my rather low edit count by Wikipedia standards (somewhere in the range of 8-11k, been a while since I've checked) put me in the top 5% of active Wikipedians at the conference. Large numbers of attendees were GLAM affiliates or people just dipping their feet in to the waters of the wiki world, and the overall demographics of attendees made me smile compared to most wiki-anythings I've attended. Surely you can understand why it's desirable to provide an open conference with a lot of new people attending an atmosphere that isn't actively hostile? If not, I'd suggest poking around teh googs about conference friendly space/anti-harassment policies.I just love how you keep repeating the Orwellian mantra "Friendly Space Policy."
Keep talking, it is wonderful publicity for those of us trying to show ordinary Wikipedians what the cabal really is..
There wasn't much cabal-like anything going on by anyone's standards. The closest you could probably come to screaming cabal was the night I had dinner with half a dozen WMF staffers, or the night everyone active in the education program went out to dinner.
I corresponded with Anthony Crowell, Dean and Principal of the school, and he suggested no such thing, and seemed highly disapproving of the action to ban Kohs. Can you confirm absolutely that they understood the policy and approved the policy as understood?Vinegar Monk wrote:New York Law School was perfectly happy to have us have a friendly space policy in place. They're also one of fancy places with things like security guards and controlled entrance gates to get through; it would've been a bit funny to see Kohs try to sneak in. Ktr btw isn't a WMF regional ambassador; if anything he'd by a WEF one, but the whole program is basically in flux and the title is meaningless. I laugh every time someone tries to imply the title means anything serious (I'm one, too.) There were legitimate reasons to exclude Kohs in that it was established before the conference that his actions were likely to disrupt the conference. I'm not going to get in to the reasons that don't directly involve me (and I lol at the reasons involving me because I am used to e-trolls,) but if nothing else, under WMNYC's written friendly space policy, Kohs calling me various nasty names on Twitter during the event would've been sufficient grounds to exclude him had they made me uncomfortable (and plenty of his other behavior did make people significantly uncomfortable; and no, I'm not revealing what, because I don't what Kohs to know when he's actually successfully trolled someone.) Most WM affiliate safe space policies are based on adaptations of the Ada Iniatives model policy, and are designed to promote an environment of open discussion that's basically a 180 turn from how on-wiki discussions normally work. If you watch Sumana's keynote (writeup in the upcoming signpost, video and transcript already available,) you may have a better understanding of why WM affiliates to tend to use stronger in-person friendly space policies than any of our line sites do.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.
You know what the weirdest thing about the entire conference was? New York Brad, despite having an ultra-dry personality on-wiki, is funny as hell in real life.
As for head injuries, I'm just modeling the true professionals. My unfriendly tweet about your head, Kevin, came only after you defamed me on Twitter, unprovoked.Vinegar Monk wrote:...those who tweet "shouldn't be tweeting with an obvious head injury" at you in the middle of a conference.
...it's hilariously creepy that you started tweeting random conference attendees demanding a $5 refund for your cancellation fee.
The fact that you can't even acknowledge (or remember) how your initial tweet makes my request very much APPROPRIATE and not RANDOM, indicates to me that you may still be suffering the long-term effects of a head injury. As thick and luxurious as that 'fro of yours is, you shouldn't expect that it minimizes all damage from head trauma, no matter how long ago it happened. I would seek the aid of your primary physician, and perhaps a psychotherapist (considering this single-minded vendetta against me that you seem intent on continuing).Random plug - need money for a Wikimedia project? Apply! We <3 funding people, we welcome all apps...
Given your continuing vendetta and insinuations about me on Twitter, do you honestly believe that you are the "impartial admin" who should be making these decisions on an article where your reputation is directly impacted?Vinegar Monk wrote:If this ends up getting mentioned in more than an bit of O'Dwyers nonsense and an offhanded comment in the NYM, I'll be happy to add Kohs back to the list myself.
I'm certainly interested to hear the answer to this, but I would also like to point out that it's irrelevant whether or not NYLS was happy with it. When NYLS said that they're happy to let people with unpopular views speak, they were almost certainly referring to the Wikiconference. After all, American institutes of higher learning are expected as a duty to their students and faculty to let people speak no matter what their weirdo politics. They have security guards and controlled access because they're located in lower Manhattan, not because they want to keep unpopular people out. They want to keep homeless people out. (A tragedy in itself, but off topic here). And it's sad for Wikipedia that they have to have conference policies designed by the Ada Initiative to control herds of rapist brogrammers instead of being able to run their conferences like normal academics do, without controlling who attends.Peter Damian wrote:I corresponded with Anthony Crowell, Dean and Principal of the school, and he suggested no such thing, and seemed highly disapproving of the action to ban Kohs. Can you confirm absolutely that they understood the policy and approved the policy as understood?Vinegar Monk wrote:New York Law School was perfectly happy to have us have a friendly space policy in place. They're also one of fancy places with things like security guards and controlled entrance gates to get through ...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.
Thanks
Right, this was on 30 May, where Kevin says "Don't think anyone banned you from Amtrak. Says something that orgs reasonably found you in vio of safespace before you even came".thekohser wrote:My unfriendly tweet about your head, Kevin, came only after you defamed me on Twitter, unprovoked.
You're mistaken, Mr. Gorman, and your attempts at humor and cleverness are a complete failure.Vinegar Monk wrote:I'm pretty sure someone has suggested it here previously. In fact, I think you quoted the post where they did so.Has anyone here ever suggested that we should make an episode of South Park?
I am guessing the decision was made Thu May 29, 2014 shortly before 8 pm UTC. I emailed Brad to confirm. Brad?Peter Damian wrote:Right, this was on 30 May, where Kevin says "Don't think anyone banned you from Amtrak. Says something that orgs reasonably found you in vio of safespace before you even came".thekohser wrote:My unfriendly tweet about your head, Kevin, came only after you defamed me on Twitter, unprovoked.
At what point in time did the conference organisers decide Kohs was in violation of ‘Friendly Space’? This is crucial. The claim is that the action was in response to something Kohs did. The remark about the head came after Gorman claimed the action had already been taken, no?
