Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates/Kevin Gorman/Questions

Individual questions
Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

Questions from Antony–22

 * That talk is actually what inspired me to ask this very question! Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 07:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Haha, that's a bit funny. Sumana, though sadly no longer with the Foundation, worked for the WMF both times I was there, and we had quite a few conversations in person about issues of civility and harrassment.  She's one of the Foundation (now ex) people I have the most respect for, especially with regards to her ability to pick up subtle nuance where others don't. Using the framework she put foward in her keynote, I certainly thing the pendulum has swung too far one way currently - but I'm also not the civility police as I'm occasionally accused of being. (I certainly have a lot of respect for Sue, Zack Exley, and a number of other WMFers past and present besides Sumana. Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC))
 * Haha, that's a bit funny. Sumana, though sadly no longer with the Foundation, worked for the WMF both times I was there, and we had quite a few conversations in person about issues of civility and harrassment.  She's one of the Foundation (now ex) people I have the most respect for, especially with regards to her ability to pick up subtle nuance where others don't. Using the framework she put foward in her keynote, I certainly thing the pendulum has swung too far one way currently - but I'm also not the civility police as I'm occasionally accused of being. (I certainly have a lot of respect for Sue, Zack Exley, and a number of other WMFers past and present besides Sumana. Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC))



Questions from Collect




Questions from Gerda Arendt
Thank you for stepping forward!

Questions from Guerillero
Thank you for running for the hardest and most thankless job on the project. Many of these questions are sourced from actual cases, discussions, and problems over the past year. Enjoy!

Question from User:Ritchie333

 * , this is totally not my place to speak and if you want to delete this pronto or move it elsewhere I'm fine with that, but this is a rather public forum., it's a fair question, but I have also been involved with this particular case, from the beginning (it started on my talk page...), and have deleted hundreds of sexist/fetishistic redirects that made my skin crawl and that made me completely embarrassed: I had a hard time telling Mrs. Drmies what the (male) internet had been up to. I may have done a slightly better job than Kevin biting my tongue, but I had to bite it a lot--a lot. Drmies (talk) 18:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , this is totally not my place to speak and if you want to delete this pronto or move it elsewhere I'm fine with that, but this is a rather public forum., it's a fair question, but I have also been involved with this particular case, from the beginning (it started on my talk page...), and have deleted hundreds of sexist/fetishistic redirects that made my skin crawl and that made me completely embarrassed: I had a hard time telling Mrs. Drmies what the (male) internet had been up to. I may have done a slightly better job than Kevin biting my tongue, but I had to bite it a lot--a lot. Drmies (talk) 18:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Questions from GrammarFascist



 * Thanks for responding, . (I know someone offline who has Marfan Syndrome; good to hear that your heart is healthy!) — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 01:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding, . (I know someone offline who has Marfan Syndrome; good to hear that your heart is healthy!) — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 01:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Question from Brustopher
Hi, and thank you for running for Arbcom. These questions focus on WP:OUTING. For the purposes of these questions please assume the editors' usernames are far more distinct and unique than the ones I have given.

Questions from Ryk72
Thank you for stepping forward; your commitment to serving the community is greatly appreciated.

Please accept my apologies for the lateness of these questions.

Many thanks in advance for any answers. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 15:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Question from EvergreenFir
Thank you for your time!  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 22:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Question from Roger Davies
Hi Kevin: Both these questions flow directly from your reply to Harry Mitchell above.


 * No,, that's not really correct. You've defended the various outings you've performed yourself, including one on the Arbitration noticeboard talk page, which you yourself described as pointy. You've also whitewashed historic ones. Even more remarkably, you'll probably go down in history as the only ArbCom candidate to have had a reply to a question suppressed for outing the person putting the question. This has nothing to do with assuming good faith but more to do with it not being a suicide pact. This is after all an ArbCom election - which will catapult you into the marble halls of unbridled power (irony) - if you prevail.  Roger Davies  talk 14:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Please provide one instance of an actual outing I've defended other than that of Wiki-PR's founder. And given the number of commons galleries I've been trying to deal with in the last weeks after wikiconf where the person didn't want the gallery up, it was hardly a stretch to Common's search your username.  I sincerely doubt that either of the two of you were harmed by the two minutes the gallery link was up. Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Funny way to phrase an apology but I guess that's the spirit, so accepted.  Roger Davies  talk 10:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd still love for you to provide examples of outings that I've committed or defended that reach the policy standard for sanction of not being "unintentional and non-malicious" with the sole exception of Wiki-PR which I admit to, and defend as necessary to protect the fundamental integrity of the encyclopedia - although even then I would argue that it met the standard of "non-malicious" (as did most of the community and WMF.) Do you think that in a week when I've been dealing with taking Commons galleries down, I linked to a Commons gallery that happened to share your name maliciously, in some attempt to maliciously accuse you of being an astronomer? Or that by accidentally calling Keilana Emily before she had disclosed her name publicly, I was trying to harrass her?  By "whitewashing historic outings" do you mean the fact that I believe in proportionality in sanctioning, and don't agree with you that a draconian indef for outing corresponds well with the monthish long block the person the indeffed user outed had himself recently received for outing is proportional or in the interests of the enyclopedia? Kevin Gorman (talk) 12:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think it was malicious, which is why I didn't push it. But it was a remarkable act for someone running for ArbCom to out someone so casually.  Roger Davies  talk 12:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * In a week where I've been dealing with significant numbers of actually problematic commons galleries stemming from wikiconf USA and was answering questions rapidly, you seriously view accidentally associating your name with that of a similarly named public figure as an un-understandable error, let alone an actual attempt to out you? It as clearly an mistake which I apologize for, but "outing" carries a malicious tone that is unsupported by the facts. BTW: please answer the rest of the question. By "whitewashing historic outings," are you referring to the fact that I think it literally approaches absurdity that two people who both clearly violated the outing policy (and I'd view Phil's violation as the less severe of the two even if Cla68 hadn't just been sanctioned for outing) saw Phil receive an indef, and Cla receive, what, a monthish long block?  Sorry Roger, but not supporting draconian sanctioning is not whitewashing, and if that's the situation you're referring to, you're not being honest in my view by painting it as such. If you meant a different situation, please clarify. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * In a week where I've been dealing with significant numbers of actually problematic commons galleries stemming from wikiconf USA and was answering questions rapidly, you seriously view accidentally associating your name with that of a similarly named public figure as an un-understandable error, let alone an actual attempt to out you? It as clearly an mistake which I apologize for, but "outing" carries a malicious tone that is unsupported by the facts. BTW: please answer the rest of the question. By "whitewashing historic outings," are you referring to the fact that I think it literally approaches absurdity that two people who both clearly violated the outing policy (and I'd view Phil's violation as the less severe of the two even if Cla68 hadn't just been sanctioned for outing) saw Phil receive an indef, and Cla receive, what, a monthish long block?  Sorry Roger, but not supporting draconian sanctioning is not whitewashing, and if that's the situation you're referring to, you're not being honest in my view by painting it as such. If you meant a different situation, please clarify. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * In this specific instance, the gender pronouns were used considerably more often than just by "two arbitrators in two places" and in fact predated the arbitrators' use. But you should really know that. More generally, you are conflating personally identifiable information and potentially personally identifiable information: they are not at all the same. You're also assuming that because some individual components may not in and of themselves be automatically oversightable, sub-sets of them aren't either. Oversight is all about common sense and discretion.  Roger Davies  talk 14:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's comical that someone who made a categorical statement that gender is not ever oversightable since it falls outside the express (but not exclusive) criteria of OS#1 is taking a public stance that OS is all about common sense and discretion. Of course it should be about common sense and discretion. Kevin Gorman (talk) 12:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, they weren't. All I've found and all the person is aware of is their gender pronouns being used by two arbs in two places.  No one on arb or OS provided a counterexample despite fairly extensive discussions.  I've received direct emails that seemed to be jointly sent by arb/os that directly state that personal information not explicitly listed in OS#1 (or another OS criterion) is not oversightable.  The English Wikipedia uses oversight requirements that run contrary to our fundamental values.  There is no reason why OS#1 should not include, upon request, the oversight of all personally identifiable information as defined by the EFF or another movement-aligned organization with more expertise than we have. Our oversight requirements are fundamentally contrary to our values as a movement, and when taken to the OS/arb team as a whole, would mean that literally most people could be effectively outed without it meeting the criteria for oversight.  This is wrong. Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Funnily enough, other gender-related stuff existed when I looked yesterday and still exist today. A more open-minded approach would be to ask for diffs ... but hey I'll leave others to form their own conclusions.  Roger Davies  talk 10:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I can't post diffs or copies of private emails involving the privacy of a particular user that occurred between the two of us, though surely you're aware of that - and presumably aware of the fact that my emails included diffs and explicitly mention that having conducted a reasonable search I found no self-disclosure by the user on-wiki, which you responded to with a categorical statement that gender is not considered personal information under ENWP's oversight policy, rather than oh - say - diffs - or even a reasonable situational argument. Kevin Gorman (talk) 12:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Still would love whatever diffs you may or may not have found. Would've loved them at the time, too. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And the EFF percentage is 87% not 96%. Not hugely different I agree but let's keep this factual.  Roger Davies  talk 10:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You're correct that I quoted a slightly high percentage; it's what I get for not looking at the tab I'm quoting. You and I both know we can't discuss the particular case I am discussing on-wiki in any speific detail, but we have had direct email conversations about this, in which you were self-admittedly unaware of the nationality of the editor I was talking about (which is remarkable because it was the second time the issue had been raised,) and then proceeded to state that even if that was their nationality it wasn't possibly a potential problem because "using the internet is legal in country X," - and I really wish I could fill in the blanks here just to illustrate to watchers how absurd your position was. I brought up two specific diffs showing the inappropriate use of gender pronouns not disclosed by the editor, along with an additional diff ilustrating why the gender pronouns were problematic enough to be oversighted.  Your response was that because gender pronouns are not explicitly considered "non-public personal information" by ENWP's oversight policy and thus could not be oversighted.  You made a broad statement that gender was not potentially oversightable information because it was not covered by ENWP's oversight policy (while in the same email pointing out that it is covered as personally identifiable information by WMF's privacy policy, which further points to your actions being contrary to the values of the Wikimedia movement) rather than making any situational argument.  Many oversighters and several arbitrators I was in communication with at the same time made situational arguments or just outright stated that they disagreed with you but that it wasn't a fight they were going to win. Besides the editor's word that their gender had not been publicly disclosed, I manually and semi-automatically searched through every edit the user had made on any talk page looking for disclosure of their gender and found absolutely nothing beyond the two diffs (and their archivebot versions) where disclosure of the editor's gender was made by people other than the editor. This is pretty much the extent of information I can divulge on-wiki.  You have my email address.  If you've somehow found other relevant diffs in the months between when you weren't sure what half of the globe the editor was from and now or if for some reason you were aware of diffs of self-disclosure at the time but decided to make an absurd categorical argument intead, you're more than welcome to send them to me - I'm sure it would please both me and the editor involved to know your logic made more sense than was apparent.  Kevin Gorman (talk) 12:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Gender by itself narrows the field down to 3.5 billion people, give or take. That is what makes it, by itself, unactionable. In a context (for example, "User:XXX is the only woman on the board of Wowco") it becomes actionable. This is not difficult to grasp.  Roger Davies  talk 12:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger, do I have your permission to directly quote one line from an email I received from you that makes it clear that this is not the position you expressed? I'd love to quote more because you and I both know we weren't talking about a random person on planet earth and the odds of identifiability were significantly less than one in 3.5 billion?  They were significantly less than 1:1000, but how much less isn't information I can disclose on-wiki but that you've been rather negligent as an arb/OS if you're unaware of the general magnitude of. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * But, Kevin, I have never expressed the belief that gender is never oversightable and have always been carefully to note that it is sometimes actionable. An example would be: User:XXX is the only woman on the board of WWWCO, where user:XXX has disclosed in general terms being on the board but not disclosed being a woman.  Roger Davies  talk 18:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * But, Kevin, I have never expressed the belief that gender is never oversightable and have always been carefully to note that it is sometimes actionable. An example would be: User:XXX is the only woman on the board of WWWCO, where user:XXX has disclosed in general terms being on the board but not disclosed being a woman.  Roger Davies  talk 18:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I do wish you'd responded to the sub-questions instead of coming back with a wall of text. It would make it much easier to see where common grounds lies, if any. You still haven't explained how gender, by itself, is personally identifiable information.  Roger Davies  talk 12:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger, you asked me a bunch of questions you knew I knew the answers to, without apparent purpose. Gender is PII because (a) especially in the case that prompted me direct earlier question it very definitely was, for reasons you should know yourself and shouldn't have made an OS call if you didn't, (b) PII leaks are unpredictable, so a single piece of PII leaked one place can be put together with other unanticipated leaks to break privacy, as the deanonymization of the Netflix Prize dataset of 500,000 users clearly shows along with dozens over other papers, (c) Because a consensus among academics exists that PII leaks should be absolutely limited because dozens of studies have shown that even very apparently anonymous datasets can be uniquely deanonymized for an overwhelming number of people involved, and consensus among academics exists that gender is PII. (e) every major movement aligned organization agrees that gender is PII (f) every well-known cyber harrassment specialist agrees that gender is PII. You have permission to reformat my answer to your silly question with line breaks if it pleases you. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I wanted to find out whether you'd thought it all through. It took four years to get the WMF to take over child protection (and a lot of that initiative was mine). Making gender automatically oversightable (which is what you have been advocating by including it explicitly in the Oversight policy and thus, by the normal creep that takes place, including it in the outing policy) is a step too far. This is not simply because people seem to assign gender online instinctively but also because for the purposes of the American 87%, gender is low-grade (two outcomes, with 160 million people in each group) compared to the birthdate (25,000 outcomes) or zipcode (44,000 outcomes). In most instances, I'd guess that individuals can be identified based on birthdate and zipcode alone (which are both usually oversighted pretty much automatically).  Roger Davies  talk 18:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I wanted to find out whether you'd thought it all through. It took four years to get the WMF to take over child protection (and a lot of that initiative was mine). Making gender automatically oversightable (which is what you have been advocating by including it explicitly in the Oversight policy and thus, by the normal creep that takes place, including it in the outing policy) is a step too far. This is not simply because people seem to assign gender online instinctively but also because for the purposes of the American 87%, gender is low-grade (two outcomes, with 160 million people in each group) compared to the birthdate (25,000 outcomes) or zipcode (44,000 outcomes). In most instances, I'd guess that individuals can be identified based on birthdate and zipcode alone (which are both usually oversighted pretty much automatically).  Roger Davies  talk 18:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)