Wikiconference USA - May 30 to June 1, 2014

[Randy from Boise]

<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.

I'd come down if it's in Northern California. Maybe Greg would give us a "home town discount" on his Aquatic Speaking Fee and we could have a dunk tank and make some bank off the WMF staffers from The City.

tim

[Abd]

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'd be opposed to removal. Word spoken, action done. However, that is a mod decision. I'm not sure I've seen the actual quote. If you put it up, Wllm, a mod might respect your wish to take it down. However, anyone else might then replace it, if they can access a copy. Basically, a piece of my own educational project here is to point out that what we write on the internet and on Wikipedia comes back, it can come back, years later, to haunt us. So maybe we need to be a bit more careful.

On Wikipedia, at one point, I mentioned that, even though there was no case at the time, I was writing as if ArbCom was looking over my shoulder. That was considered, somehow, to be "grandstanding." No, it was *under*standing that the future is looking over our shoulder, always, and we cannot hide. Trying to hide makes it worse. If he really apologizes, let him apologise! We are not recommending that anyone be taken out and shot.

Greg, you were right in putting quotes around "community." I don't think that this kind of behavior typifies the vast majority of Wikipedians. There are some that seem to be so caught up in the politics that they have lost sight that they are talking about real people. Communities are made up of people; forget the people, and you might as well forget the community.

Wllm, I'd like for you to consider the concept of collective responsibility, i.e, that the entire community is responsible for what is collectively done -- or not done. In that sense, of course, we here are all responsible for what everyone writes here, i.e., if we let it stand without ameliorating harm.

The more common concept of responsibility that limits it to what we have personally done is disempowering. Until *we* take responsibility for *our* behavior on this planet, we are *all* in danger.

Don't confuse responsibility with blame. Blame is often a dysfunctional response generated to avoid responsibility.

[Sparky]

<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.

Some of the less local WO crew may be willing to skype in 5 minute breakout topics.

[wllm]

I'd be opposed to removal. Word spoken, action done. However, that is a mod decision. I'm not sure I've seen the actual quote. If you put it up, Wllm, a mod might respect your wish to take it down. However, anyone else might then replace it, if they can access a copy. Basically, a piece of my own educational project here is to point out that what we write on the internet and on Wikipedia comes back, it can come back, years later, to haunt us. So maybe we need to be a bit more careful.

Yeah, that's not how I roll. Edward has a right to post it. I asked him to remove it, because I felt Obi-wan wanted a do-over on that one. Edward decided not to. Matter settled with no hard feelings.

I wouldn't appeal to anyone else to remove it. In fact, if a mod were to remove it against Edward's wishes, I'd ask them to restore it. Edward and I disagree on this one. Whatev's. It'll stay up, I guess.

The quote wasn't anything bad to begin with. I think that Obi-wan just didn't want us to give him a once-over here. IMO it's a little sad that Obi-wan doesn't come over to participate; maybe he doesn't want the abuse. Too bad, I've had some really great conversations with him on-site. I think there are very interesting people here that he won't be able to talk to unless he hops over for a bit. I'm sure there's history here, but if he does, can everyone exercise their right to be dicks a little less?

[Kelly Martin]

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.

I don't get much opportunity to travel, but anyone who finds themselves in the Chicago area is welcome to drop me a line. There's lots of fun places to eat, drink, and be merry in the Windy City.

[tarantino]

I think that Obi-wan just didn't want us to give him a once-over here.

Did you know Obi-wan is an employee of the Rockefeller Foundation? He hasn't disclosed his affiliation with them when editing related articles, which is a big wiki no-no.

[cyofee]

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!

Kevin Gorman is lucky it's just his Internet access - other Wikipedians hit by the WO spotlight generally have their loved ones become gravely ill until things quiet down.

[Kiefer.Wolfowitz]

the keynote speech of Sumana Harihareswarac [...] 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
[Another outcome of this conference] will be the Orwellian PC "Friendly Space Policy."
RfB

Tim is correct that the WMF and Wikipedia are similar to the Soviet Union of Stalin.

Rather than address the problems of Wikipedia, Wikipediots believe that (sometimes unconscious?) sabotage is to blame. Because not all editors took classes as the gender-studies department at Berkeley, other editors bring with them patriarchal and elitist and often European-imperalist behaviors, which drive away politically correct editors.

If enough enemies are found and ("regretably") purged, then Wikipedia will triumph and advance human civilization!

C.f. the discussions of endless enemies and endless purges in Timothy Snyder's Bloodlands and Anne Applebaum's Iron Curtain.

[Kiefer.Wolfowitz]

I think that Obi-wan just didn't want us to give him a once-over here.

Did you know Obi-wan is an employee of the Rockefeller Foundation? He hasn't disclosed his affiliation with them when editing related articles, which is a big wiki no-no.

[Midsize Jake]

Did you know Obi-wan is an employee of the Rockefeller Foundation? He hasn't disclosed his affiliation with them when editing related articles, which is a big wiki no-no.

To be fair though, he's not doing a particularly good job of it - the Rockefeller Foundation (T-H-L) article has plenty of material on their support of eugenics in Nazi Germany, and there's even an article on the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics (T-H-L) that makes no attempt to soft-pedal the fact that the whole thing was practically their baby. There's even a photo of Josef Mengele.

Wait a minute, did I just do a Godwin's Law dumpies on this thread? Dang.

[Zoloft]

Did you know Obi-wan is an employee of the Rockefeller Foundation? He hasn't disclosed his affiliation with them when editing related articles, which is a big wiki no-no.

To be fair though, he's not doing a particularly good job of it - the Rockefeller Foundation (T-H-L) article has plenty of material on their support of eugenics in Nazi Germany, and there's even an article on the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics (T-H-L) that makes no attempt to soft-pedal the fact that the whole thing was practically their baby. There's even a photo of Josef Mengele.

Wait a minute, did I just do a Godwin's Law dumpies on this thread? Dang.

Godwin has no power here, so be not afeared.

[SB_Johnny]

A bloody mess, indeed. And it would tear a family apart, leaving a child without a father at home....

This is why you should be extra-careful, though. Quite of few of them over there would see that as a "win."

If any partner of mine were to be influenced by any community in to making a decision like this, so would I. One only has so many years to live, and I wouldn't waste that much time with anyone but a true friend.

I'm glad you're able to brush it off, but that doesn't make Kevin and whoever he's claiming to represent here any less of an asshole.

[Hex]

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?

It seems to have stuck, so I think the question now is, how long will it stay on Wales's talk page with him ignoring it before a bot sweeps it away?

C'mon, Jimmy, prove me wrong.

[Triptych]

Did you know Obi-wan is an employee of the Rockefeller Foundation? He hasn't disclosed his affiliation with them when editing related articles, which is a big wiki no-no.

To be fair though, he's not doing a particularly good job of it - the Rockefeller Foundation (T-H-L) article has plenty of material on their support of eugenics in Nazi Germany, and there's even an article on the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics (T-H-L) that makes no attempt to soft-pedal the fact that the whole thing was practically their baby. There's even a photo of Josef Mengele.

Wait a minute, did I just do a Godwin's Law dumpies on this thread? Dang.

Godwin has no power here, so be not afeared.

Godwin's Law is about constructing analogies and similes and metaphors in a debate that liken your opponent or your opponent's arguments to Nazis, Nazism, Nazi actions, or Nazi stuff. When a firearms personal ownership advocate for example comes back at a firearms-control advocate with "the Nazis took firearms away from the Jews, and look what happened to them" that's an illustration of Godwin's Law.

It's not about actually talking about historical matters such as whatever financial contributions Rockefeller Foundation made to German eugenics research in the 1920s and 1930s or whatever. That's a non-analogous matter that doesn't invoke Godwin's Law.

I've seen other stuff (the sarcastic and gratuitously insulting FBI letter) from Mr. Godwin that made me think less of him, but I always was impressed by Godwin's Law, which he stated was intended as a "counter-meme." He recognized the meme of "your argument is just like what Hitler did" and set out to inhibit it with a counter-meme. And the prominence of Godwin's Law today is testament to the power of that particular bit of reasoning and creation that he did, back in 1990 or whenever.

[eagle]

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?

I go out of my way to be nice and charitable, and I gave the conference organizers every chance to explain themselves (or to admit a hasty mistake). But their silence means that the banning of Kohs (and subsequent flubs) was just another application of the on-wiki-pecking-order preserving gamesmanship. The intended benefit of bricks-and-mortar meetups and conferences is the hope that if you get to know people face-to-face you are more apt to treat them as human beings. Conferences are supposed to offer an exchange of views, not just an echo chamber. I would argue that WMF should not fund future WikiConference USAs, unless Greg's ban is resolved in a reasonable, straight-forward way. Perhaps we should print up bumper stickers "#WIKICONUSA one and done."

[Triptych]

#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."

Ms. Harihareswara is the WMF's "Senior Technical Writer." Her keynote address at Wikiconference USA was mainly about her experiences at some New York City place called "Hacker School" which by her speech is some free-wheeling 90 day course with "no set curriculum" and offering diversity grants for women to cover living expenses. Her speech seemed a little "report on what I did over summer vacation" to me, but fair enough she's saying Wikimedia could learn a lot from Hacker School.

That was the great bulk of her speech, but yes at the end she goes into this bit about the importance of excluding people. And that was curious to me because it wasn't really set up by the stuff about Hacker School. Yes, Hacker School has a set of four civility-oriented or feelings-oriented social rules, and she talked about those. But this "us versus them" and "othering" argument she brings up at the end is coming from a different place, and yeah she seems to me to be supporting the blocking proclivities of Wikipedia's administrative class, and I don't think it's a stretch to suppose the unstated parts are the exclusion from the conference of Greg Kohs and even the "get rid of him" gossipy rumblings about Wil Sinclair. We know now that both of these things were hot subjects at Wikiconference USA.

Kohs we know was a hot subject because how could it not be with the organizers' last minute rescheduling and banning of him and the discussion about it at Wikipedia and here at Wikipediocracy. Sinclair we know it because Kevin Gorman kindly emphasized it to him in an horrendous email, which he was appalled enough to publicly quote in part.

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.)

May we infer from that that Ms. Harihareswara was among those "in positions where this would normally get them in shit in any organization other than the Wikimedia movement" that saw fit to make cruel gossip that Wil should be banished and dumped (for whatever the heck he's actually done, which I guess is ask probing questions about WMF's stance on children protection, and caveated praise of Greg Kohs). Well, I don't know. From what I've read, there was a very small number of actual WMF personnel (vice volunteers and whomever showed up) at the conference, but Gorman is emphasizing that virtually everybody was saying it ("multiple influential people, I can't even think of every person who brought it up with me").



Perhaps Ms. Harihareswara even alluded to herself as one of those we've been hearing about, for example from Kevin Rutherfurd, that wouldn't have come if Kohs were let in. She said "if we exclude no one explicitly, we are just excluding a lot of people implicitly. Including people like me." For those of us who've been following this stuff, it's not a stretch. We're just having to fill in some blanks from hints and peripheral statements because the organizers refuse to be open about the rationale for banning Mr. Kohs.

[eagle]

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!

In fairness, the Wikimania events have charged a registration fee in the past. It takes a lot of money to produce such a conference, and the registration fee does not reflect the actual cost per participant. In the past, the registration fee covered some food costs.

WikiConference USA was intended to maximize outreach and attendance. It was supposed to draw people from outside "the movement" as well as the usual round of insiders. (Hence, no registration fee.) That is what makes the Kohs ban so counterproductive.

I would invite the WikiConference USA to publish a final report, including how many people registered to attend and how many of them were from outside "the movement." The WMF needs objective data to determine whether WikiConference USA is a worthwhile investment in the future.

[Randy from Boise]

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!

In fairness, the Wikimania events have charged a registration fee in the past. It takes a lot of money to produce such a conference, and the registration fee does not reflect the actual cost per participant. In the past, the registration fee covered some food costs.

WikiConference USA was intended to maximize outreach and attendance. It was supposed to draw people from outside "the movement" as well as the usual round of insiders. (Hence, no registration fee.) That is what makes the Kohs ban so counterproductive.

I would invite the WikiConference USA to publish a final report, including how many people registered to attend and how many of them were from outside "the movement." The WMF needs objective data to determine whether WikiConference USA is a worthwhile investment in the future.

It would be interesting how many dollars were spent on travel grants and such. I've heard the number "several thousand dollars" in reference to the event's cost, which strikes me as being very low for getting 125 or so people together at a conference in NYC. At $3000 for 125 (my estimate) that would be $24 per participant...

RfB

[thekohser]

Why are we assuming that the Wikimedia Foundation (the organization in San Francisco) paid for any of WikiConference USA 2014 in Tribeca? I thought that the costs of the event were paid for by Wikimedia DC and Wikimedia NYC.

Or, are we saying that the WMF is implicitly funding, because they fund Wikimedia DC and NYC? (I honestly don't know.)

[Vigilant]

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

[Vigilant]

After having read through the last two pages...

Kevin Gorman, you're a cunt.

You have the unmitigated gall to try to interfere with someone's domestic life over a website.
You couch it in Grima Wormtongue's language, "All these other people are conspiring against you, m'lord".
You hide behind your flimsy shield of peripheral participation when you should have been first and foremost in denouncing ANYONE who would promulgate these vile mutterings.
You refuse to allow the emails to be shown
You refuse to directly apologize.


You are the worst kind of coward.

So take your [head], hide it under an extra large pillow and cry for what you've done.

Edit:

If, as appears, tasteless remarks were made, I am not sure that one helps alleviate the tastelessness by publicizing them extensively. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Ira, you're just as bad, you smug fuck.
I can just imagine you taking tea with your beringed pinky poking out from your pudgy mitt, all the while implicitly condoning the hushing up this shitstorm. Fuck. You.




[ Post slightly censored in response to a complaint - SBJ ]

[Kumioko]

My impression of Brad!
Community member: "Something has happened that is wrong and needs to be addressed."

Brad: "We must silience criticism immediately. Quickly someone close this discussion before it can allow any changes to be made."

Community: "But we need to address this problem"

Brad: "This is Wikipedia, we ignore or problems. Just ignore them and they will go away"

[Peter Damian]

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!

Well, more of this later but I have already registered at the early mover discount rate (£45 as it happens). There is a field to put your Wikipedia user name (which I did), so someone will eventually realise.

I haven't heard anything back yet, but as I said more later, separate thread, there is more to tell.

[Abd]

After having read through the last two pages...

[name elided], you're a cunt.

You have the unmitigated gall to try to interfere with someone's domestic life over a website.
You couch it in Grima Wormtongue's language, "All these other people are conspiring against you, m'lord".
You hide behind your flimsy shield of peripheral participation when you should have been first and foremost in denouncing ANYONE who would promulgate these vile mutterings.
You refuse to allow the emails to be shown
You refuse to directly apologize.

You are the worst kind of coward.

So take your [head], hide it under an extra large pillow and cry for what you've done.

Edit:

If, as appears, tasteless remarks were made, I am not sure that one helps alleviate the tastelessness by publicizing them extensively. [name elided] (talk) 23:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

[name elided], you're just as bad, you smug fuck.
I can just imagine you taking tea with your beringed pinky poking out from your pudgy mitt, all the while implicitly condoning the hushing up this shitstorm. Fuck. You.

I'm echoing this to make a point, and for the point, I don't need the names. This style of comment, which I would call "frank and honest expressed personal reaction" is properly prohibited on-wiki, or at least it is supposed to be (there are cabalistas who have, in fact, quite gotten away with it, and we can see in this immediate affair how grossly uncivil comment is tolerated from insiders or those seen as supporting insiders), but it is important to know how our actions land with others, and what [name elided] explicitly stated, and with variations, many think.

If there is any possibility of recovery from the ingrown mess, it will take developing a truly open system, with facilitated discussion that does tolerate open expression and potentially constructive criticism, while discouraging mere venting. That takes intelligent administration, much more sophisticated than simply warning/blocking or not blocking. It takes administration that provides actual guidance, not merely punishment.

[Zoloft]

I'm at work, on break, using my 'allowable personal use' access, so I'm not going to be moderating right now.

Vigilant's post has been reported, and I read the report. My advice to mods is to remove the over-the-top physical descriptions and leave the useful content.

It's only advice, however.

[Midsize Jake]

It's only advice, however.

I'm still concerned about this idea that Mr. Brad has been wearing a pinkie ring this whole time, and we never noticed it. How could this happen?

[Abd]

It's only advice, however.

I'm still concerned about this idea that Mr. [name elided] has been wearing a pinkie ring this whole time, and we never noticed it. How could this happen?

Simple. On a wiki, reality is buried and becomes invisible in the vast flow of diffs.

[wllm]

For now it seems like this is the apology that I'll be getting from Kevin:

Wil: I've sincerely apologized to Lila, multiple times, over situations related to our interactions. When you expressed concern that I was trying to interfere with your personal life, I emphatically stressed that I had absolutely no desire to interfere in your personal life. (And, except for introducing myself, I have not sent you a single unsolicited email. If you took offense at me relaying how people viewed your behavior: I'm sorry, but sincerely hope you reread that whole line of emails to find and consider the point I made within them. I doubt leaking every email I've sent you would hurt my reputation to a greater degree than the initial offensive nugget you posted - but it would hurt likely hurt both your standing and Lila's, so I hope you have the sense not to.

There are multiple things in that apology that simply aren't true. I'm still mulling over whether to just publish the mails he sent me so the rest of world can compare notes between what Kevin says now and what he said before. I, on the other hand, have no problem publishing my mails:

Hi Kevin, thanks for the advice. Sorry I couldn't get back to you on
other mails; I've been pretty busy. I'll go back to them now to see if
there's still relevant stuff to respond to.

I hope you realize that my position on exclusion at WikiConference
wasn't about Greg himself. You say that you can't trust me with the
information that would show that Greg is a threat. That's fine. But I
always look for secondary sources, both on WP and WO. I wouldn't make
any decision on your word or anyone else's word alone.

I take your advice very seriously, but it's not the road I'm going
down. If my actions make the WMF lose trust with Lila, then I believe
the problem may lie with the WMF.

Again, Kevin, you have great points. I don't understand why you pepper
them with statements like "back the fuck off". I don't take offense,
because you don't really know me- nor I, you- or understand why I'm
doing what I'm doing. But I'm sure that you are aware that many people
would have a hard time looking past "back the fuck off" to the sound
reasoning behind it.

Best! Hope it's sunny over there in Berkeley.

OK, I don't think that most of this is new advice. I'm asking you
politely to stay out of my private life and my relationship with my
partner.

If the logo is a problem, I'll make another one. Whatev's.

Thanks.
,Wil

I don't cringe at your emails. And I won't be telling Lila that you've
mailed me, even if you asked me to, because I don't talk to her about
Wikipedia.

I've had to say this many times in the past month; my motivations are
not easily grokked. Those who speculate fall pretty far off the mark.
Please give it some more time, everyone will understand me, my
motives, and my methods better soon enough. In the meantime, there's
nothing to fear from me but more openness, honesty, and empathy.

Best.
,Wil

[everyking]

Wil, your ability to stay so calm and polite when dealing with these vicious people, while continuing to attempt to engage them in reasonable discussion, is truly impressive, and I respect you tremendously for it. Meanwhile, the fact that a few individuals have reacted to your overtures with such hostility and contempt speaks volumes about them, and about the power structure that enables them. I hope some eyes are being opened by this whole series of events.

[wllm]

Good to see you back, Vigilant! I guess you decided to make up for all my lost Vigilantisms yesterday with your last post.

Same thing as always, I'm not going to call for censorship, but I will appeal to your better side to remove the pejorative characterizations, the comments involving appearances, and the imperatives. If there's anything left after that, it doesn't bother me in the slightest.

In any case, he did apologize on Jimmy's page. I'm not going to say it was the best apology I've ever accepted, but it's not easy for some people to apologize. Remember that Pete Forsyth didn't apologize at all after his slip up on wikimedia-l.

[Anthonyhcole]

There's a lot to like about Wil, but top of my list is superb grammar.

[neved]

No, thank you, Wllm; I would not ask that of people I trust at WO, and I'm certainly not going to ask it of you. (Yes, you can assume that you have not earned my trust.) I don't actually care about the motives of the cow in the china shop; motive is not particularly relevant when they're busy smashing the plates and knocking over the pottery and leaving their patties on the floor. I disagree with you about wikimedia-L being truly "off-wiki" which is a term generally used to mean "fora not related to Wikimedia". If it's an official WMF mailing list, it counts as on-wiki. Yes, there is some occasional nastiness around the project, which is no surprise when there are 30K people posting on English Wikipedia every month. I have no interest in joining Wikipediocracy, any more than I had for its predecessor site. Even if it was the most civil site on the web, I'd be no more likely to join WO than I would Facebook or Twitter. Risker (talk) 01:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I hope I eventually can earn your trust. Best. ,Wil (talk) 01:44, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Wil, I wish you to never earn Risker's trust because in order to earnin her trust you would have to betray your own principales and yourself.

[Midsize Jake]

Speaking of good grammar, I can't see why anyone would care much about earning the trust of someone whose writing skills are so bad that her attempt to type "under the direct administrative and ownership control of" comes out as "related to."

But hey, maybe that really was just a typo.

[Peter Damian]

For now it seems like this is the apology that I'll be getting from Kevin:

Wil: I've sincerely apologized to Lila, multiple times, over situations related to our interactions. When you expressed concern that I was trying to interfere with your personal life, I emphatically stressed that I had absolutely no desire to interfere in your personal life. (And, except for introducing myself, I have not sent you a single unsolicited email. If you took offense at me relaying how people viewed your behavior: I'm sorry, but sincerely hope you reread that whole line of emails to find and consider the point I made within them. I doubt leaking every email I've sent you would hurt my reputation to a greater degree than the initial offensive nugget you posted - but it would hurt likely hurt both your standing and Lila's, so I hope you have the sense not to.

There are multiple things in that apology that simply aren't true. [...]

Which things aren't true?

I've had to say this many times in the past month; my motivations are
not easily grokked. Those who speculate fall pretty far off the mark.
Please give it some more time, everyone will understand me, my
motives, and my methods better soon enough. In the meantime, there's
nothing to fear from me but more openness, honesty, and empathy.

The first part rather contradicts the second. In the first, you are saying that you have motives or intentions that people don't know about or grasp. In the second, you are saying that you are open and honest etc.

Why can't you explain your motives and intentions? Is it that you don't really understand them yourself? Is it that you do understand, but they are complex and difficult to explain, and so people don't understand? This sounds a bit like Jesus. Or is it that you haven't said what they are yet, although you have alluded to their existence many times?

[Hex]

I'm still mulling over whether to just publish the mails he sent me so the rest of world can compare notes between what Kevin says now and what he said before.

You absolutely should. Gorman and other similar types use out of public view methods to facilitate bullying. Take away that cover.

[eagle]

I am very confused. Kevin Gorman works (worked?) for UC Berkley as a Wikipedian in Residence in part to reduce the tension between academics and students on the one hand and the Wikimob and Wikipolicies on the other. Presumably he received WMF finding to travel to WikiConference USA to share his experiences and to learn how to do that better.

We have yet to hear what substance he contributed to WikiConference USA, but we know that he stayed up clubbing until 5 a.m.; displayed zero understanding of freedom of inquiry and academic freedom; hung out with a bunch of people who he reports gossiped about whether Willm and Lila should break up; posted messages that implied he knew the transgressions that got Greg banned; and generally showed immaturity on his Twitter feed.

Has not Mr. Gorman demonstrated that he is the antithesis of what a Wikipedian in Residence is supposed to be?

[SB_Johnny]

I am very confused. Kevin Gorman works (worked?) for UC Berkley as a Wikipedian in Residence in part to reduce the tension between academics and students on the one hand and the Wikimob and Wikipolicies on the other. Presumably he received WMF finding to travel to WikiConference USA to share his experiences and to learn how to do that better.

We have yet to hear what substance he contributed to WikiConference USA, but we know that he stayed up clubbing until 5 a.m.; displayed zero understanding of freedom of inquiry and academic freedom; hung out with a bunch of people who he reports gossiped about whether Willm and Lila should break up; posted messages that implied he knew the transgressions that got Greg banned; and generally showed immaturity on his Twitter feed.

Has not Mr. Gorman demonstrated that he is the antithesis of what a Wikipedian in Residence is supposed to be?

You'd think so, but there doesn't seem to be much in the way of management for the WiR program. He's certainly not helping "the movement", but there might not even be a way to terminate him.

Of course at this point he's put Lila in the position of "WP:INVOLVED", similar to a few WP participants I can think of that managed to individually ruffle the feathers of most arbcom members.

[SB_Johnny]

I'm still mulling over whether to just publish the mails he sent me so the rest of world can compare notes between what Kevin says now and what he said before.

You absolutely should. Gorman and other similar types use out of public view methods to facilitate bullying. Take away that cover.

[Kiefer.Wolfowitz]

I think that Obi-wan just didn't want us to give him a once-over here.

Did you know Obi-wan is an employee of the Rockefeller Foundation? He hasn't disclosed his affiliation with them when editing related articles, which is a big wiki no-no.

Knock out!

[wllm]

For now it seems like this is the apology that I'll be getting from Kevin:

Wil: I've sincerely apologized to Lila, multiple times, over situations related to our interactions. When you expressed concern that I was trying to interfere with your personal life, I emphatically stressed that I had absolutely no desire to interfere in your personal life. (And, except for introducing myself, I have not sent you a single unsolicited email. If you took offense at me relaying how people viewed your behavior: I'm sorry, but sincerely hope you reread that whole line of emails to find and consider the point I made within them. I doubt leaking every email I've sent you would hurt my reputation to a greater degree than the initial offensive nugget you posted - but it would hurt likely hurt both your standing and Lila's, so I hope you have the sense not to.

There are multiple things in that apology that simply aren't true. [...]

Which things aren't true?

I've had to say this many times in the past month; my motivations are
not easily grokked. Those who speculate fall pretty far off the mark.
Please give it some more time, everyone will understand me, my
motives, and my methods better soon enough. In the meantime, there's
nothing to fear from me but more openness, honesty, and empathy.

The first part rather contradicts the second. In the first, you are saying that you have motives or intentions that people don't know about or grasp. In the second, you are saying that you are open and honest etc.

Why can't you explain your motives and intentions? Is it that you don't really understand them yourself? Is it that you do understand, but they are complex and difficult to explain, and so people don't understand? This sounds a bit like Jesus. Or is it that you haven't said what they are yet, although you have alluded to their existence many times?

Give me a bit more time to mull over releasing those mails. Let me just bring to your attention that when he says posting them wouldn't hurt his reputation more, it doesn't quite jive with his strong objections to my actually doing so.

Everyone has lots of motives for doing everything they do. I always make sure I'm doing the right thing, which is something I never compromise on. But that's not very useful for defining strategy and tactics for getting there in the long term. So, I have other motives that are in strict alignment which I use for this purpose. I occasionally allude to these, but, yes, people do have a hard time understanding them because most people are concentrating on what's happening right now and right in front of them; in particular, people in the Wikipedia community seem to be completely blind to them no matter how many times I explain, tho some are probably blinded by anger right now. People seem to understand them a bit better here, but, again, far from fully.

I have to go in to my cognitive MO to explain, so read on if you're interested. These are the motivations of someone who absolutely cannot stop asking himself "what if?" in every waking moment. When I'm paying attention to something, I don't do anything without thinking through every consequence first. And I'm a true ADHDer, with all the perks and downsides, which means that I don't even notice the box everyone is told to think outside of. Everything is always on the table. So while the risks are calculated, they are rarely constrained in size or nature. For example, I wasn't sure what was going to happen when I asked about child protection policy on wikimedia-l. But I did know that there wasn't an outcome that wouldn't leave me closer to my objectives. And, while I was disappointed to see how mean some of the people were there, I'm very happy with what it left me to work with. In this case, a clear, documented example of the process by which that part of the community rejects a new member asking inconvenient questions. Moreover, the kind of insight one gets on people who are acting under stress. And because of my private life, I was unlikely to see this side of people without pressing them on something they didn't want me to talk about. If you haven't noticed, I do that here occasionally, too. But always with questions and assertions that I believe are just and aligned with my goal to always do the right thing. And these are long-term gains, while anger is a short-term fight-or-flight response that wears off quickly for most people; the reality is that I'm a nice and friendly guy who always works in good faith, and those who are worth working with will see that soon enough. As for the rest- let's just say that self-selection is a great way to navigate large communities quickly. In any case, I come out of it with what I need to get me closer to my goals in the long term, a lot of apparent damage in the immediate term, and good relationships with people working in good faith in the medium term.

That's just one example, and there were several more motivations involved that I haven't mentioned. If you're wondering exactly how this works for an ADHDer, look up "hyperfocus" along with "hypomania" and imagine if you were so obsessed with the best strategy in a complex situation that you literally stop sleeping so you can think through every single possibility that much more. It sounds crazy, and in a way, it is. Like a lot of neurodiverse people, it took me years to find out that this was not normal. At the time I hyperfocused on the structure of the brain, neurotransmission, and the relationship between the cerebrum and the mid-brain to understand how I was different. That's when I figured out that emotion was a far more interesting phenomenon than reason in social collaboration. Honestly, I feel a bit sorry for people who don't have these behaviors. It's pretty damn fun.

This is probably why people shoot so far off the mark when they speculate about my motives. On the one hand, it's apparent; I'm doing what is most just and right. On the other hand, that doesn't help much in predicting my behavior in the average mega-complex human social situation. And I realize that everyone reading this has their own cognitive differences and abilities- many of them dwarfing my own on both counts. So, I know that if I try to speculate on your motives, I'm almost surely going to be off the mark, build a faulty model to predict your behavior, and end up making poor decisions because I'm working on false assumptions. One simple question will illustrate my point about the mystery of motives: what are the motives of a good person doing bad things?

What is it with you people and Jesus? Another Wikipedian asked me if I'm the messiah. I'm not kidding. I don't think I'm the only nutcase around here.

[wllm]

I am very confused. Kevin Gorman works (worked?) for UC Berkley as a Wikipedian in Residence in part to reduce the tension between academics and students on the one hand and the Wikimob and Wikipolicies on the other. Presumably he received WMF finding to travel to WikiConference USA to share his experiences and to learn how to do that better.

We have yet to hear what substance he contributed to WikiConference USA, but we know that he stayed up clubbing until 5 a.m.; displayed zero understanding of freedom of inquiry and academic freedom; hung out with a bunch of people who he reports gossiped about whether Willm and Lila should break up; posted messages that implied he knew the transgressions that got Greg banned; and generally showed immaturity on his Twitter feed.

Has not Mr. Gorman demonstrated that he is the antithesis of what a Wikipedian in Residence is supposed to be?

Didn't he also fight that edit war that broke out on the List of Wikipedia Controversies? Is that kosher for an admin?

[Randy from Boise]

I am very confused. Kevin Gorman works (worked?) for UC Berkley as a Wikipedian in Residence in part to reduce the tension between academics and students on the one hand and the Wikimob and Wikipolicies on the other. Presumably he received WMF finding to travel to WikiConference USA to share his experiences and to learn how to do that better.

We have yet to hear what substance he contributed to WikiConference USA, but we know that he stayed up clubbing until 5 a.m.; displayed zero understanding of freedom of inquiry and academic freedom; hung out with a bunch of people who he reports gossiped about whether Willm and Lila should break up; posted messages that implied he knew the transgressions that got Greg banned; and generally showed immaturity on his Twitter feed.

Has not Mr. Gorman demonstrated that he is the antithesis of what a Wikipedian in Residence is supposed to be?

Didn't he also fight that edit war that broke out on the List of Wikipedia Controversies? Is that kosher for an admin?

Edit warring on that topic was a terrible decision for anybody. Edit warring and then running off for protection was also ungood. His edit summaries were particularly juvenile and are apt to bite him in the ass if he charges into the ArbCom abyss with a complaint. All this was about as kosher as a porkchop milkshake...

RfB

[Peter Damian]

What is it with you people and Jesus? Another Wikipedian asked me if I'm the messiah. I'm not kidding. I don't think I'm the only nutcase around here.

Well you know … there’s the idea of a design or purpose, which is secret now but will someday be revealed. The striding in from nowhere in a purposeful way, declaring a mission to save, directed towards the sinners rather than the chosen people. The suggestion of having fought with and overcome temptation. Speaking harshly of the defenders of the law. Secret conspiracy by the defenders of the law.

Not forgetting the close connection with an all powerful being.

How does this all end?

[Randy from Boise]

What is it with you people and Jesus? Another Wikipedian asked me if I'm the messiah. I'm not kidding. I don't think I'm the only nutcase around here.

Well you know … there’s the idea of a design or purpose, which is secret now but will someday be revealed. The striding in from nowhere in a purposeful way, declaring a mission to save, directed towards the sinners rather than the chosen people. The suggestion of having fought with and overcome temptation. Speaking harshly of the defenders of the law. Secret conspiracy by the defenders of the law.

Not forgetting the close connection with an all powerful being.

How does this all end?

............with Wikipedia insiders making a quick trip to the hardware store for building supplies...

RfB

[Kumioko]

Is obvious to anyone who looks that our ban from the conference was politically motivated and had nothing to do with anyone's safety or some other bullshit argument. Its just a bunch of bullies like I have been saying all along. They have their little club and they do not want non club members participating.

[Vigilant]

I am very confused. Kevin Gorman works (worked?) for UC Berkley as a Wikipedian in Residence in part to reduce the tension between academics and students on the one hand and the Wikimob and Wikipolicies on the other. Presumably he received WMF finding to travel to WikiConference USA to share his experiences and to learn how to do that better.

We have yet to hear what substance he contributed to WikiConference USA, but we know that he stayed up clubbing until 5 a.m.; displayed zero understanding of freedom of inquiry and academic freedom; hung out with a bunch of people who he reports gossiped about whether Willm and Lila should break up; posted messages that implied he knew the transgressions that got Greg banned; and generally showed immaturity on his Twitter feed.

Has not Mr. Gorman demonstrated that he is the antithesis of what a Wikipedian in Residence is supposed to be?

And yet, he is the archetype of the insider wikipedian.

He is setting the path for all future WiRs.

Well done.

[thekohser]

Give me a bit more time to mull over releasing those mails.

So, do I have this straight? It's "uncool" to publish public information about a public political figure. It's worth "mulling over" whether to publish private information from a private figure.

Do I have that right, Wil?

It sounds to me that you either have an ethical compass that points south, or you're being a bit hypocritical today.

[Kiefer.Wolfowitz]

Give me a bit more time to mull over releasing those mails.

So, do I have this straight? It's "uncool" to publish public information about a public political figure. It's worth "mulling over" whether to publish private information from a private figure.

Do I have that right, Wil?

It sounds to me that you either have an ethical compass that points south, or you're being a bit hypocritical today.

not hypocritical but priority-reversing.

[Abd]

... I don't actually care about the motives of the cow in the china shop; motive is not particularly relevant when they're busy smashing the plates and knocking over the pottery and leaving their patties on the floor. ... Risker 01:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

If ArbCom were a representative body, with a good proportional representation method, Risker might very well be on it, because her thinking is that of much of the active community. It just happens to be the thinking that led Wikipedia to fail in its mission (of being neutral).

She is making an analogy to the situation. Most likely:
Cow = Wllm
China shop = Wikipedia or the Wikipedia community.
Plates and pottery would be articles, discussions, or possibly the volunteers who would allegedly not have come to the Wikiconference had Kohs not been excluded, or who will see Wllm's arguments, and faint and become unable to do Recent Changes Patrol or something.
Patties represent's Wllm's contributions, i.e., what he inserts into the China shop and leaves there.

Notice the concept of Wikipedia as a fragility. The whole point of a wiki is that it is not, in theory, fragile. Everything can be fixed, unless the "breaking" is sustained by a large number of participants. And, in fact, that's what happened. The actual breaking of Wikipedia is not the result of a few critics or a newbie with ideas like Wllm. It comes from people like Risker. Solid citizens, it would seem.

She is being radically uncivil, but using indirection. She didn't say, "Your contributions are shit." No, she created some layers of deniability.

Risker, in the end, was utterly ineffective on ArbCom because she saw the problem as being other people. We are generally disempowered by that belief. If it's our error, we can fix it. If it is their error, and we have some power, we are reduced to trying to make them change or getting rid of them. Human beings, we fail to understand, resist being told they are wrong and must change. It can take an astonishingly rare person to say, "Wrong? Let me think! ... Wow! You are right, I had my head wedged in a dark place, like you said, I couldn't see. Thanks for letting me know."

Wllm is attempting to set an example, to encourage rather than blame. I don't know if he realizes that all this has been done before. But he's certainly welcome to try again. That it may have failed then doesn't mean it will fail again. The past does not own the future.

[wllm]

Give me a bit more time to mull over releasing those mails.

So, do I have this straight? It's "uncool" to publish public information about a public political figure. It's worth "mulling over" whether to publish private information from a private figure.

Do I have that right, Wil?

It sounds to me that you either have an ethical compass that points south, or you're being a bit hypocritical today.

Hmmm. You got me there. I think I'm done mulling. I'll keep them in my own inbox.