User:Kevin Gorman/sandboxawapj


 * As a more thought out statement: everyone makes mistakes. WTT acknowledges and is well aware of this.  In fact, during one of the highest viewcount periods for ACE guides, he falsely (but accidentally) accused me of previously hiding behind my health status to escape an outright ban, as well as a number of other things. That's a brutally offensive statement to anyone who is disabled (and yes, I am,) but I'm more than willing to AGF about it. However, I feel if this case is accepted, his behavior should also be examined. Although I don't have formally posted guidelines for recall, as I outlined in my ACE Q&A, I am open to recall.


 * As far as I can tell, this request concerns a number of things. In one of them, Jehochman deleted an entire thread from my page under a creative exercise of WP:DENY.  WTT resurrected part of the thread that I don't think reflected very well on any of its partipants (myself and WTT included.)  SB_Johnny stumbled by and suggested that he RD the whole thread, though he ended up just deleting it instead.  I went ahead and RD'ed the thread until WTT pointed out that RD1 doesn't apply to usertalk, at which point I undid it within twenty minutes - about the fastest I could get to a laptop.  No harm was done by my actions, and they were an honest mistake.


 * I made an unblock of accounts that had been blocked by Mike V and tagged by SPI clerk and admin Vanja. Vanja made an explicit statement here that they were not considered ordinary CU blocks, and that I should feel free to unblock if I thought it was appropriate.  There is a class currently active at the university in question that advertises that they will be editing Wikipedia, and after a review of their contributions and editing patterns, I'm almost certain that blocked editors represented the class in question.  I left a thread about the potential unblock up overnight (but failed to ping Mike to it as I should've.) I have not been active at SPI since with Wiki-PR with rare exceptions, had no reason to doubt a fellow admin's word, especially an SPI clerk, and went ahead and unblocked them - I assumed that a policy had shifted.  This could've benefitted from further process, but the result was right, and that's what should matter in the end.  I made an obvious mistake in not reviewing the relevant policy.  I won't make the same mistake again, and will certainly talk to the blocking CU before considering a mass unblock of SPI cu blocks (or any other CU block.) I did leave comments on both the SPI and the instructor's talk page overnight that I suspected with 99% certainty that the blocks represented a class, since the uni involved is currently advertising a class that involves Wikipedia editing.  I reviewed the edits of all unblockees without seeing any of the normal tipoffs of something like a group of paid editors - they looked like students who needed more guidance.  Mike: I apologize for not discussing this with you explicitly ahead of time, and it certainly won't happen again.


 * I readily admit to, in the distant past, outing Wiki-PR. I believe such action was necessary to preserve the integrity of the encyclopedia, and this outing is preserved intact in a number of places across the encyclopedia and beyond, including a C&D WMF had Cooley send Wiki-PR. My outing also had the support of the community, as demonstrated by the strength of consensus in favor of the community ban I suggested which in its text outed the founder's of Wiki-PR. This also led to a major changes in the term of the use and had broad general support. I believe that undisclosed paid editing poses a major threat to the encyclopedia, so I have a hard time doing saying mea culpa regarding this. As Kaldari outlines below,  my "opposition research" is in fact just good admin practice (it's also an exception written in to WP:OUTING.)  I stand by both of these actions, and both are also quite stale.


 * I recently linked a gallery on commons that happened to share the same name as a prominent Wikipedian that was not said-Wikipedian. The link was up for 15-20 minutes at most, and I don't think it could've damaged the reputation of the Wikipedian or the other figure involved in that timeframe.  Again, I made an obvious error in not explicitly confirming the linked gallery was in fact that of the Wikipedian - but this was the same week I had been dealing with a number of privacy isues related to WikiConf USA on Commons, so although unfortunate I think it falls under the 'non-malicious' standard of WP:OUTING.


 * I think that anyone who has watched my actions change and develop over the last few years would agree that I've become more deliberative, and less trigger happy. As recent examples, I'd point to the AN section about what to do with JtV's work, as well as seeking Wikiproject Med feedback before moving immunoglobulin therapy live. Several of my recent actions violate a number of our policies, but none of them have actually cause harm to the encyclopedia, and I will actively seek to avoid making such mistakes in the future. My most recent serious error (failing to ping  a CU before undoing a CU block) was unfortunate, but didn't result in harm to the encyclopedia.  As time has progressed, I think it's pretty clear that I've acted with more caution and deliberation than I did when I was first sysopped, a trend I expect to continue.


 * I absolutely take responsibility for my own tool use. I fucked up in several rather dumb ways.  I relied on the comments of others to take action in situations where instead I really should have simply refreshed myself on the policies. I should've reread policy regarding SPI CU blocks to ensure Vanja's statement was correct before taking action, but failed to do so, and assumed an SPI clerk would be more up to date on policy than I was.  Similarly, I should have reread the RD criteria instead of riffing off of SBJ's suggestion that the thread was RDable.  Since both of them have more expertise with SPI/RD than I do, it didn't seem unreasonable to assume they were correct at the time.  I certainly should have pinged the blocking admin even if he wasn't a CU as a matter of best practice. I'll certainly be more careful in reversing blocks in the future, both in terms of ensuring the blocking admin is aware of unblock discussions, and ensuring I don't undo CU blocks without CU consent.  There's a huge difference between denying that I did anything wrong, and admitting that I accidentally and non-maliciously violated several policies, stating that it won't happen again, and explaining how it happened in the first place. This warrants a wagging finger, not a case. I don't think that this collection of actions (one of which is two years stale) warrants a desysop or anything more than the admonishment that the RFAR itself represents.


 * This rfar in addition to the private feedback I've received will have a much more effect than any motion of warning or admonishment. I'm not a new admin, but I am effectively a returning admin, and behaving more like a new admin than I should've at times. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Iri, you're right, I was confusing phases, though it does note named parties tend to be cut slack. My statement will be much closer to 500 by tonight, if not below it. I don't appear before arbcom all too often. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Viriditas: you may be more familiar with initial word limits than I am, but at least I'm both familiar with WP:NDP and have the common sense not to do shit like this. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)