Archives

1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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

• I definitely don't support FPTP or instant run-off, I just dislike the fact that with our normal relatively low turnouts and with opposes counting so much more significantly than neutrals, it's relatively easy in theory for a pretty small bloc to mass-oppose candidates that they disliked in a way that would shift the balance of the election in a way that I don't think accurately represents the wishes of the electorate. These are using way bigger turnouts than we actually have, but, for instance, a candidate with 150,000 support votes and 150,001 negative votes would not be elected, whereas a candidate with 2 support votes and 0 negative votes would be elected. I think there are situations where a candidate, though falling short of the 50% minimum, certainly is supported by enough of the electorate that they should reasonably win a seat over a candidate with far less support but also far less opposition. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) I'm not Kevin, but I can answer for why I certainly don't consider the existing setup best practice; it institutionalises a tyranny-of-the-majority setup on what should be an inclusive project. As a hypothetical, assume that kittens are the current burning issue on Wikipedia; further, assume that 55% of voters are strongly in favor of more coverage of kittens, while 25% of voters hate kittens and the remaining 20% don't care. Since that 55% is dominant, it means that pro-kitten candidates will sweep the board and take every seat, rather than a more equitable distribution of eight pro-kitten, four anti-kitten and three kitten-neutral candidates. Since it's well, well documented that voters in any kind of election have a subconscious tendency to support candidates they perceive as similar to themselves, this has serious implications in a project with well-documented race, age and gender gaps and where the US is so disproportionately represented among the editor base. (Black arbs: 0; female arbs: 2; arbs outside the North America/UK wiki-heartland: 0.) A few years ago I proposed having 'constituencies' for arbcom slots, based on geographic location and/or particular fields on Wikipedia (roughly the same setup trade union councils use, with delegates from both geographical areas and specific areas of work), but nobody seemed very interested in the proposal and it would probably have been unworkably complicated on a project with such a cult of anonymity. ‑ iridescent 00:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you @Iridescent: for your much more detailed explanation that I agree with 100%. I had ongoing conversations in half a dozen windows up at once, so my answer here wa subpar, but you pretty much nailed it. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Heh heh! Am delighted to find other people who take voting systems seriously. There is definitely a problem with the threshold being unspecified; if this were scaled up to handle municipal elections, for instance, it would be important for the sanity of the outcome to have a system where, for an example mechanism, there was a minimum number of support-votes needed to qualify as a candidate, say 10% of the legit voters who actually voted in the election in question... but alternatively or additionally, I think that "neutral" should count slightly negative aka instead of plusOne minusZero minusOne for the support/neutral/oppose bangvotes, it makes sense to have pluOne minusOneTenth minusOne ... thataway, relatively unknown candidates like the hypothetical 2-support-1-oppose-999-neutral person, would not get elected. Of course, it would be harder than ever to achieve the 50% approval cutoff, were 'neutral' to be redefined as 'leaning one-tenth towards negative', so it might be necessary to adjust the cutoff-threshold downward to 40%.

  As for the tyranny of the majority, all systems which are fundamentally democratic have that risk, as Aristotle first noticed if memory serves... though of course, since arbcom does not actually write the wiki-laws, but is merely supposed to interpret them like SCOTUS, kinda sorta anyways, there is somewhat less of a worry. There most definitely is a worry about tyranny of the factional majority in terms of *writing* the PAG themselves... one need not be elected to arbcom, in order to rewrite WP:N for instance!  :-)     I will have to think more deeply on the question of whether the 50% cutoff leads to systemic bias, however. I'm generally against proportional systems in all their stripes, because they strongly encourage both divisiveness and simultaneously factional loyalties, almost as much as FPTP does. However, the main proportional-system disadvantage, however you set the proportions (geographical is typical in the off-wiki world as opposed to demographical or "wikiproject-membership-o-graphical"), is that with FPTP there are mathematically only going to ever be two major parties (with rare exceptions at the saddle points), who both compete to satisfy intra-party coalitions large enough to win out against the other major party... and thus have some advantages versus proportional, in avoiding the tyranny of the majority problem. I have never heard of approval voting having the tyranny of the majority problem (my admiration of it is because it solves the independence of clones issue with maximum simplicity), but will look into it more, thanks much for the elbow-joggle, to make me think harder.

  p.s. One parting food-for-thought, which might satisfy both the problem of 1000 yea + 1001 nay bangvotes mentioned by Kevin, and the problem of systematic bias mentioned by Iridescent, would be some sort of scheme where instead of electing 9 equally-weighted-members out of 21 actively-standing-candidates, we instead gave ALL of the 21 candidates a percentage of the 9-equally-weighted-votes on the arbcom. If candidate X were to receive 1000 supports in the election, and all the other candidates received 100 supports each, then the distribution could be something like 9*1000/3000 == three arbcom bangvotes for candidate X, and 9*100/3000 == three-tenths-of-a-bangvote for each of the other twenty candidates. Guaranteed election to serve, in other words, but variable amount of power. Using or ignoring the oppose bangvotes durin the arb-election, left as an exercise for the reader.  ;-)     75.108.94.227 (talk) 02:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

(snorts derisively at with FPTP there are mathematically only going to ever be two major parties, from the perspective of a country whose FPTP electoral map looks like this.) ‑ iridescent 10:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(spit take) Ha! I never said it would actually work!!! --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 19:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@75.108, a simple solution which preserves the positives of the existing system would be to keep the setup exactly as is, but only allow three "support" and three "oppose" votes per voter. That way, the obvious bozos would still have no chance of slipping through, but it would prevent the scenario of fifteen people who appear to a particular group of 51% of voters but are despised by the remaining 49% from making a clean sweep of every election. ‑ iridescent 00:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 75 - arbcom cases involve too much private evidence to want to expand the committee that significantly, especially since with two tranches we'd likely end up with like 42 freakin' arbs. I actually kind of like what Iridescent just suggested, or at least something going off of it... Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Thank you for the heads up about it, I hadn't noticed myself initially. It's pretty much just Giano being Giano, and will settle down. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

I really am pleased with how it is looking so far. Who knows how it will effect the elections - one thing a lot of people missed is that I didn't want more votes because I thought they'd support candidates I liked, I wanted more votes because 600-something people choosing a body as significant as arbcom when the declared electorate is so much bigger is kind of disturbing (as far as I can tell, at least half of the world is technically under active arbcom sanctions.) We have another two weeks of voting, and we've already just about hit last year's total turnout already! Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's amazing to me how few people bother to vote (on Wikipedia but in real life too). I hope we'll be able to get a better idea of where most of the community stands on the issues, since the loudest voices aren't always the majority. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse the interruption, but where can I find voter turnout? --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can see a list here. In comparison, last year we had 593 votes total... which is about what we have right now already. I'm really curious to see how this ends up effecting the composition of arbcom. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Whether it has anything to do with the talk page notifications or not, we've exceeded 600 votes in less than a day - more than the total participation in the election last year. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 571 (including dups) at 0:00 UTC, but close enough ;-). --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 03:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @SB Johnny: is there a really good way to get exact counts including dups at particular times in the election? I've mostly been just setting to view 100 and eyeballing it, but such a tool would be potentially useful to see what effect the massmessaging is having on voterturnout, since it's being batched and we could look at the hours immediately following a batch vs the hours immediately preceding one. Between the general quality of the candidate pool and the greatly increased voter turnout... to be honest I'd have trouble not being happy with the results of this election, regardless of if I am elected, since a lot of editors I quite respect are almost certain to be + well, the whole voter turnout thing. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That's pretty much what I do. You can change the url where it says "100" to, say, "760" if you suspect it's not much more than that and then just count as a shortcut. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 01:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm bad at remembering server time is in UTC :) we have actually surpassed total participation last year at this point though, which is still pretty bloody impressive. I'm quite curious what high turnout does to the elections. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a stupid question: Is this election a good way to fish for socks? I mean, if somehow there were a bot that could go through the list of voters, perhaps look for consecutive ips or whatever is that is done to find socks and flag suspicious votes? For example, you might expect socks to have an identical voting algorithm. Isn't one of the reasons editors are so tempted to become socks is that they want to influence 'voting'? Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  15:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If people wanted to sock previous arbcom elections, they've been frankly terribly about it - socking is more often than not to create a false impression of consensus on individual talk pages, rather than bigger elections like these. Without getting too WP:BEANSy, there's both quite a lot done to eliminate duplicate votes from arbcom elections, and probably plenty of countermeasures people could take to try to escalate a socking war in an arbcom election - but as far as I know, most arbcom election socking has been trivial. Recently, few people have just cared enough to vote at all. Despite being quite a powerful body, people have been elected arbitrators who would not have been made administrator with the same vote tallies. We're trying some broader outreach strategies (like massmessaging every eligible voter this time) try to decrease turnout from the dismal 593 voters the last election saw - we already have a higher number, and voting has hardly started. I would encourage you to take a look at the candidates and their statements and guides, and take some time to cast votes as you think best (note that oppose hurts a lot more than a neutral does, and that no one from ENWP, myself included, will be able to see how you voted - so you could oppose me and I'd have no idea.)Part of the reason that I mention that I'll have NO idea how you vote is I'm intending to finish up commenting on your page later today. Jytdog is banned for now, which will simplify some things, and I think Flyer would mostly prefer to defer to my judgement rather than directly interact. Hopefully we can get a much shorter set of guidelines you can easily work within finalized within the next few sets of days. I can't come close to making you follow any set of guidelines at this point, but think most of the problems with your editing disappeeared while you were following them, and think that it's pretty awesome as a measure of good faith (we can probably even explicitly frame it as that, rather than anything remotely puunitive) that you're intending to follow a continue, far cut down, set of guidelines. You were legitimately close to a long block ahead of time, and I'm glad this turned out this way. Would you like me to annotate your block log to reflect thaat you did not at all serve a six month block but served far lesser, and behaved exemplarily?Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uncle uncle uncle 15:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Editing as a logged out user is generally permissible as long as you're not either doing so for deceptive purposes (i.e., trying to create a false consensus on a talkpage,) or intentionally trying to avoid scrutiny. It's also explicitly permitted to edit anonymously (or from a sock account) in areas where editing under someone's real name would be likely to have a significant negative effect on their real-life identity. I edit logged out not infrequently just because I don't always remember my password on my phone, though never try to disguise it.The user in question does appear to have noted that he is currently editing logged out. Is there evidence that he's editing in a way intended to deceive or preserve his normal account's reputation? I haven't read the thread precisely enough to tell (and am not familiar with the logged in user's normal editing patterns.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He said on his talk page that he was going to edit logged out. He's been editing for 15 days as an IP in an aggressive and combative manner. And unapologetically so. In the past, he's tried to bait and troll me, and essentially the same behavior has been occurring at the Umpqua Community College shooting article for quite some time. He revealed who he really is by accident today, after being asked how he could have taken part in RfCs (as he claimed while the IP) over three years' time when he had only been editing for 15 days. I don't know -- it just smells like trying to avoid scrutiny while being as much of a WP:JERK as possible (which is what I would characterize his behavior the last several days) and revelling in being able to avoid that scrutiny. After all, once he is done being aggressive and personally attacking (I've put at least one NPA warning on his talk page recently), he can go back to his named account and no one would have been the wiser -- if he had not accidentally posted comments under his named account. I guess I can see how intentionally editing logged out would be acceptable if the IP wasn't being so intentionally combative, edit warring, and taking personal attack potshots. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a closer look at it tomorrow or the day after - as today is family holiday stuff for me (and tomorrow will likely be tomorrow also.) If you link me any specifically blockable diffs, I'll block for them in the interim, but examining the pattern as a whole will take more time than I have tonight. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While he hasn't edited further using the IP, his inappropriate behavior and personal attacks are escalating. Please see this and this. Are editors just allowed to continue in the same vein or what? I understand that he's an experienced editor who is liked by other editors, but, come on. That's just extraneous and unnecessary. My take on his behavior is that he's still pissed off about having been blocked for edit warring - the first block in his Mandruss editing history. I've known Mandruss previously to be snarky and sarcastic, but never blatantly abusive or to personally attack other editors. Editing as the IP, he was free to do exactly that, as can be seen at the Umpqua Community College talk page. Hence, the personal attack warning I placed on his talk page a few days ago. Now that he's "come out" as the IP (although unintentionally doing so), he's commenting as pissed off Mandruss using his Mandruss account (the link I included to his talk page above). If something isn't done, he's going to continue to spiral out of control, in my opinion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WV, you may want to read WP:DTTR, as it does tend to unnecessarily escalate things. I do see a violation of NPA in that attack, but hesitate to block for it without further background investigation, and am headed to catch a train (I know, how quaint.) Kelapstick is active on that page, perhaps ask him to look in to it, or another admin somewhere if needed before I get back? Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DTTR is an essay, however, he's escalating all on his own regardless of being templated. Please see the comments above that I added (there was an edit conflict between you and I). kelapstick, whomever, it matters not to me. But something needs to happen to impress on him that what he's doing isn't okay. Enjoy your trip - travelling by train sounds relaxing. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

  Bfpage |leave a message  19:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi BFP - I'll get this done by Monday morning, but may not before done due to familial obligations. As a note, Jytdog is currently banned, so you won't have to worry about interacting with him much. Thank you again for willingly committing to this for longer period than you have to just to make sure nothing goes off-kilter in the future. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) You mean Jytdog is indeffed and not banned, right, Kevin? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, yeah. For the purposes of this, it can be treated equivalently however until he returns, and we can deal with problems when he returns if/when that happens. He's indeffed by a functionary with instructions to only reverse with the consent of functionaries or arbcom. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Just adding a post here both so it doesn't get archived, and to note that Jytdog is unblocked. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's not something you would've been directly involved in, but I trust you enough to drop you more info about what was involved in in later today. (N.b. TPSers, this will be done with the consent of the editor involved.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's very trusting of you Kevin; dear Drmies probably is quite trustworthy, most doctors are, well medical ones at least - I don't know about philosophic and scientific ones because they all have beards, and I daresay one or two of them have tattoos too. I just want you to know that I do so enjoy all your cloak and dagger secrecy, so keep it up. You remind me of a young, good looking Sean Connery, you need to find a Pussy Galore, and we shall all be entertained until after the election. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 17:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're one of Giano's accounts, correct? I can never remember who is who, thouh I'm sure someone will be kind enough to point it out to me shortly. I do feel the need to point out that by long-standing tradition, information that implicates editor privacy cannot be posted on-wiki without that user's consent, but may be appropriately discussed between administrators in greater detail off-wiki (since we can't do so privately on-wiki.) It's not me trying to be 007, it's me avoiding a block and a desysop. @Awilley: - I can't completely remember if this account belongs to Giano, but I'm pretty sure it does - per both my memory, discussions I've had in the past, and a quick search of the ANI archives that turns up this discussion. Would you mind ensuring that he doesn't continue trying to troll my userpage using satirical undeclared sockpuppets, particularly during silly season? Even if it's not directly Giano, I find it pretty inappropriate that someone's undeclared sockpuppet is making WP:POINTy comments on talkpages during election season. Policy-compliant use of private email is something people have been sniping at me for doing for years, and for an undeclared sock to go ahead and do so on my talkpage during election season is kind of out of line. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to throw the gentle lady off your talk page if you like, but she's not an undeclared sockpuppet, per the consensus in the very thread you linked. Jonathunder (talk) 19:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any sockpuppet you have to conduct an ANI archives search to figure out the owner of is pretty damn near undeclared. It certainly doesn't follow the sockpuppetry policy, and since Giano has been continually trolling me to the point that multiple uninvolved admins have threatened to block him for it previously in the immediate past, using a sockpuppet that doesn't follow sock policy to continue trolling my talkpage is pretty much asking for the accounts involved to be blocked. ~~

• Very well Kevin, I shall go away and never darken your doorstep again, lest one of your well connected friends "takes me out" (as I think is the Secret Service expression). Such a pity as I have been so glowing about you here! So I'll say Farewell and Adieu and go while I'm still alive - I remember only too well the last time I was assassinated. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 19:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow me, Kevin. Lady C, please observe this user's request not to post here again, neither you nor your other account(s). As Ms. Bishonen has observed, user talk pages are special in that a user can't ignore them. Therefore, requests on user talk pages for peace are absolute and must be obliged. Of course you may ask questions and cite quotations and diffs on the official election pages. As far as I know there are no special restrictions in effect there.
• Kevin, I suggest you show goodwill even though you don't feel any is deserved. I am not going to judge whether Lady C is a troll or not because it doesn't matter. A most effective way to deal with trolls is to be nice to them, and deadpan. They generally don't like that treatment at all; it bores them severely, and they go find somebody more interesting to engage. Jehochman ^Talk 19:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jehochman: Giano has been trolling my page to the point that uninvolved sysops have threatened to block him for it. Using a sockpuppet that very clearly falls on the wrong side of our sockpuppet policy (which I linked above) is pretty much him asking for a block of the effected accounts. I've ignored literally hundreds of trolls in the ENWP areas I edit in. When a troll is this recurrent, an established community member, and his behavior is the subject of current arbcom case, it calls for actual enforcement of policy, however. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm quite aware of the dynamic, and would like to short circuit all the massive time wasting at the end of that path. Much better for all concerned if the conversation ends with your last word (your page, after all), and everybody goes back to editing articles. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 19:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm drafting half a dozen off-wiki for the point when silly season ends. That still doesn't mean that someone whose behavior is currently before arbcom and has been trolling my page on a pretty much daily basis should both escape sanction for the continued trolling, and the sockpuppetry violation. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thank you also for lobbying to have notices sent to eligible voters. This was an incredibly good thing and you should be proud of the result. Jehochman ^Talk 06:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Jeh, and if it wasn't obvious, I'm not at all troubled if I don't end up winning. The on-wiki hostility involved in my run kind of pales in comparison to the criticism I regularly receive off-wiki by groups of non-Wikipedians, so just to be clear, I'm not particularly troubled :) Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Yup, the thread isn't worth discussing, and probably should have been deleted by that "long-serving admin". What a slacker, that guy.

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

• Iridescent is pretty much on point here. There was an unpleasant thread on my talk page. Another admin deleted a major portion of the thread in an exercise in WP:DENY, since there's little point in feeding block-evading trolls (and when someone has clearly linked their real name to their Wikipedia account and then gotten indefinitely blocked or banned, there aren't outing concerns.) The thread was resurrected in a way that was unpleasant and didn't really reflect well on anyone involved. Another admin offered to revdel the thread, but decided to just can it instead. I went ahead and RD'ed it without reviewing the details of the RD criteria I was using to justify the RD. Someone sent me a note while I was mobile pointing out that my RD wasn't in compliance with the criteria, and within a few minutes of receiving their email I managed to find a secure laptop, logged in, and undid all the revdels. You will not find an admin who actively uses their tools who has not occasionally made similar mistakes, and even my most severe critics would not suggest that an incorrect revdel that lasted less than 20 minutes is an issue that requires admin review.

By the way? This is not the only time I've used revdel that I have either later reversed myself, or had others reverse. When you come across information that looks likely to be oversightable, you RD it and contact the Oversight team or an individual OS'er. The majority of my oversight requests have been accepted, but some have been denied with my initial revdels subsequently reversed. Admins are not expected to be perfect, nor are arbs. Unless there is a severe misuse of the toolset that the admin defends after having it pointed out to them, or there's a pattern of either utter incompetence or using their tools in a way that violates WP:INVOLVED or something similar, it's uncommon for individual mistakes by an admin to be subject to review by the community or other admins en masse. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kevin Gorman. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

  Bfpage |leave a message  13:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi @Bfpage: - I've put less time in the last week in to this than I had intended to because of some of the side effects of running for arb, but I'll put some time in on both sides today to try to further resolve/mediate issues related to this (especially as Jytdog is no longer blocked.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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