Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kevin Gorman

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Kevin Gorman

Final (88/2/2); Closed as successful by Writ Keeper ⚇♔ at 20:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Nomination

Kevin Gorman (talk · contribs) – Nomination by Keilana

Here for your consideration is Kevin Gorman. I first became acquainted with Kevin through his work with GLAM institutions and the Education Program. His role as an Ambassador in the Education Program alone is a compelling reason to give him the admin tools. Kevin is very engaged in making sure that classes on Wikipedia contribute good content and often has to wait for administrators to finish cleaning up when students create problematic content. Allowing him to clean up himself would free up time from other admins. He is regularly found at WP:ENI helping clear up problems from student editors but would be able to do a lot more given access to the tools. Kevin has also written a large amount of content on women philosophers and worked on developing best practices for combating systemic bias. In his content work, he has displayed remarkable resilience and calm under pressure, especially in the case of men's rights movement. He dealt with with trolls on and off-wiki who made disturbing threats against his education and his person, including threatening to hold "Castrate Kevin Gorman Day" at Berkeley; Kevin handled all of this with aplomb, showing that he clearly has the temperament to be a fine administrator. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Kevin Gorman (talk · contribs) – Nomination by Ed

What can I say about Kevin Gorman? Or rather, what can I not say? One of the few students from the Education Program to continue editing after their class ended, Kevin now has a significant amount of experience both on Wikipedia and on the Meta side of things, where he has been a Wikipedian-in-Residence for several institutions and an intern with the Wikimedia Foundation. He's worked to alleviate systemic bias both in these roles and directly. Kevin shouldered a large burden in helping uncover Wiki-PR's activities on the English Wikipedia. Along with several other editors, Kevin found that Wiki-PR's paid advocacy in up to 12,000 articles broke several policies, drove several users off the site, and led to much negative press coverage for the Wikimedia movement. As you can see, Kevin clearly has experience; when combined with his attitude and temperament, I firmly believe Kevin is ideally suited to be an administrator on this project. I have no qualms about giving him my full and unqualified endorsement. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for putting my name forth Keilana & Ed, I accept the nomination and hope that I have the chance to serve the project as well as I can. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I’ve been taking part in education and GLAM-based outreach for the last couple years. Many of these projects have resulted in solid articles that we wouldn’t otherwise have had, but all have required some admin assistance/cleanup. A few similar projects have placed a significant burden on the normal editing community. I believe that the net burden on the normal editing community of GLAM and education projects should be minimal. It can never be zero, but we should do all we can to drive it in that direction. I’ve been a Regional Ambassador in the USEP for the last couple years, and I have recently been appointed Wikipedian in Residence at the University of California, Berkeley. As part of my WiR work, I’ll be supervising several classes at Berkeley far more closely than is customary. I would like to be able to handle all the cleanup work the classes generate myself and not have to rely on finding an admin when I need to delete a page that wasn’t supposed to have been created, suppress a redirect, do a histmerge, etc. In any content area that I’ve previously made significant edits to or where there is any question of propriety, I’ll back off and let other admins handle the situation. Basically, I’d like to be able to mop up any mess my students create.

Besides for issues directly related to the education program, I’ve found that I’m pretty good at rooting out sock farms, even without the tools - and a variety of the tools are certainly quite helpful in that regard (especially the ability to view deleted revisions.) I have done quite a lot of BLP work in the past where it would have been quite convenient to *instantly* delete or protect a page that had egregious BLP violations on it, instead of waiting for a patrolling admin to handle it. I’ve also done a lot of work with CSD in the past, although a lot of that was, before I realized there was a CSD logging function I could turn on. I have enjoy clearing backlogs of any sort, like determining consensus in contentious discussions, and expect to be active in closing both AfD’s and RfC’s. (I’m aware that NAC’s of both of these are possible but have generally avoided them, as they are usually contentious.)

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I think my best contributions to Wikipedia are probably primarily contributions that will not have my name associated with them. I do a lot of outreach work, and most of this work won’t bear fruits that have my name directly attached to them. I’m starting as WiR at UCB this term – by the end of the term, more than sixty high quality articles (I’ll be vetting each article individually) about subjects that Wikipedia’s content is currently quite lacking in (primarily stuff related to environmental justice and prisons within the United States) will have been produced

Other than indirect contributions, I think that the series of biographies of women philosophers I’ve written recently are quite valuable. None of them are GA or FA level content, but none of these women were represented on Wikipedia before, even though many of them are the preeminent scholars in their fields and had little coherent Google presence beforehand – I view this as a pretty big deal. If we’re talking in sheer amount of useful content added, I think that Psilocybe cyanescens probably wins that for me, although the prose on that article makes me cringe a bit. I think death during consensual sex deserves a mention, mostly because we wrote it while we were literally inside of a government building guarded by secret service agents.

Oh. And I’m quite proud of significantly slowing down Wiki-PR’s business.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I have been involved in a significant number of conflicts with other users in the past; I think I have done a good job in these situations of remaining civil while still attempting to uphold our three core content policies – WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV, and I think the encyclopedia has benefitted from my involvement in these areas. The Men's rights movement, Steve Pieczenik, and AONN Records all come to mind as examples of these. The whole AONN debacle occurred almost as soon as I had started to edit Wikipedia, and I think the relatively calm way I handled it demonstrates that I’m able to handle situations that are both tense and frankly, really really weird without losing it. (To those admins viewing this: look at the deleted AONN records talk page and try to through half of what the guy posted with a straight face.)

Going forward, I intend to handle conflicts much the same way I have in the past: by attempting to calmly, rationally explain my viewpoint, if necessary by citing encyclopedic policies, and trying to compromise with the other parties involved. In situations where this fails, I will not talk administrative action against people I am in a content dispute with (of course,) but won’t hesitate to take issues that require administrative action to the appropriate places

Additional optional question from Mkdw

4. Have you ever edited Wikipedia using another user name? If so, what name or names did you edit under?

A: I've edited under a couple of other accounts. I used the account User:Kevin (WMF) when I was interning in the communications department of the WMF, and later when I had a contract with the grants program. I created an account in 2005, User:Czaemon, that I made a couple dozen of edits with - when I created my current account, I had forgotten I had previously created an account. My current account was originally named kgorman-ucb because I started editing under it as part of an education program class, but I had it renamed later on to avoid any confusion over my institional affiliation since I had none at the time. I haven't edited on my (WMF) account since my (WMF) affiliation edited, and I haven't edited as Czaemon since 2006 (and even then barely edited.) I also edited as an IP occasionally over the years, but I couldn't tell you which ones - been too long to remember. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Additional question from Leaky caldron

5. During the course of your WiR activity you identify vandalism performed by one of your students. Detail your actions, non-Admin as well as Admin.

A: Honestly, I would be fairly surprised if I came across outright vandalism performed by one of my students. Vandalism isn't something I've covered in past lectures, but I've focused quite a bit on plagiarism, since education programs have seen a lot of plagiarism issues in other classes.) I work exclusively with professors who agree upfront that there will be strong penalties if (intentional) plagiarism is brought to their attention - this has ranged from failing the assignment to failing to course to being sent to our office of student conduct. I focus enough on 'if you plagiarize, your professor is going to kill you, your plagiarism will be immortalized on the internet, and your week will generally suck,' that I would be surprised if outright vandalism occurs (and if it does, I'm sure it will be taken seriously by the faculty involved in the courses.)

With that said, my first step would be to revert the vandalism, as I would with vandalism coming from any other source. If the vandalism was an ongoing issue and the student was not immediately responsive, I would block their account until I was able to get in to touch with them and receive reassurances that it would not occur (unless I was WP:INVOLVED in a non-administrative capacity in which case I'd send it to AIV.) I'd contact the student off-wiki (I'll have off-wiki contact information for all students) explaining the problem and asking for an explanation and a guarantee it wouldn't happen again. If their explanation was reasonable and I trusted their guarantee, I would then unblock them. If that wasn't the case, I would get in to contact with either the graduate student instructors or the professor of the course (course sizes vary greatly, so who I would contact first will also vary) explaining what had happened and why it wasn't okay. I can't say what the GSI/professor's reaction would be, except that I can guarantee it would be an issue taken seriously. If the GSI/prof reached an agreement with the student about the issue (I'm guessing this would involve 'You can have another chance, but if you do it again you'll be sent to our conduct people' or something like that,) I would then unblock them. If an agremeent wasn't reached, the student would serve out the course of their block, whether or not it effected their ability to complete their assignment.

I would be more quick to block a Berkeley student involved in vandalism than an average new editor, because every Berkeley student editing will have received multiple hours of instruction on Wikipedia's cultural norms and policies (along with its history and the mechanics of editing.) By the time they begin to actually edit Wikipedia, they'll be well aware vandalism isn't okay. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Additional questions from Trevj

6. As editors, administrators can be expected to legitimately dispute content (in the normal manner) with other editors. Under what circumstances (if any) might it be justifiable for administrative action (e.g. blocking or deleting pages) to be taken against an editor with whom the admin has had any level of dispute regarding such content? -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 12:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

A: I would only ever take administrative action against someone I was in an active or recently active content dispute if I thought it was absolutely necessary for the good of the project. For instance, if someone I was in an active content dispute created a page that was a massive BLP violation and I was the first to notice it, I'd feel comfortable deleting it. If they continued to do so and no other admins appeared to be around for whatever reason, I'd go ahead and block them. I would be slightly more lax about taking administrative action against people I had had disputes with in the decent past, and my actions would depend on the recentness of the dispute, the severity of the dispute, and whether or not I believed I had amicably resolved the dispute, hinging my decision on whether or not I thought I could act as an impartial decisionmaker in the situation, and on whether or not I would be perceived as one. In any questionable cases where I made an emergency block, I'd take myself to AN immediately thereafter so that other uninvolved admins could review my actions.

7. Regarding an article mentioned in the answer to q2, on first inspection it appears that Death during consensual sex#Notable or unusual deaths reportedly from consensual sex could be classified as a trivia section which would benefit from being reworded (and perhaps being pared-down) in a more encyclopedic manner. How was the structure of the article decided? Thanks. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 12:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

A: The article was created by the participants of GLAM Camp 2013 while at the National Archives. Keilana, The Interior, James Hare, Lane Raspberry, Sadads, and myself all helped out with portions of it, either directly adding content, helping find sources, or by having conversations about things like how to frame the scope of the article. We based the list portion of the article on WP:NLIST, which suggests that the content of lists embedded within broader articles is governed by verifiability and importance of the content. If the list got much bigger I think it would need to be truncated, but as it currently stands, even though it's certainly a highly unusual piece of content, I think it's kosher. Every death included on the list is covered by reliable sources (some are covered by dozens or more,) and I think the items present an interesting cross-section of examples of ways you can die while having consensual sex. I think the information presented in the list is of significant interest to many readers, and would say it falls under the type of list the MOS talks about when it says "However, a selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information." Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Additional question from Snowolf

8. What do you personally consider to be the administrator's role on the English Wikipedia?

A:I consider the role of an administrator to be essentially janitorial 90% of the time. Sysops get a few extra buttons that allow them to do things that could, in the hands of an untrusted (or simply unwise or unskilled) user cause damage. The few extra buttons they receive doesn't endow admins with a special status that puts them above regular editors; except in situations where those extra buttons are needed to technically complete a task, an experiened non-sysop can do everything a sysop can. Admins are the most common closers of things like AfDs and RfCs but I view this primarily as a byproduct of two facts: users with enough experience to be good judges of consensus are very commonly admins, and the outcomes of AfDs and RfCs very frequently need the extra buttons that admins have to execute the technical close. The viewpoint of an administrator in a discussion should not generally be taken with more seriousness than the viewpoint of an experienced editor with a similar level of reasoning and community trust is in the same discussion.

I realize that as Wikipedia has aged as a project the role of administrators has more frequently been perceived as something beyond the merely janitorial, but I believe pretty firmly that it would be good if the project got back to the idea that the tools are 'just a mop' and that there's nothing particularly special about being an administrator except for a couple extra technical abilities. There are a couple of situations I see where administrators' extra buttons do allow them to do things that are not purely technical that are difficult for ordinary users - the biggest one I see off the top of my head is that the ability to view deleted revisions makes it far easier to link together multiple accounts ran by the same sockmaster than it otherwise is. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Additional question from Iselilja

9. Do you agree that BLP contested material shall stay out of an article untill consensus for inclusion is reached? And if so, how should this affect the work of administrators when they intervene to stop edit warring through blocks and/or locks of articles? Could you give some thoughts on how an administrator can assess whether there claimed BLP concerns are valid enough to merit special treatment and in which cases an administrator should simply overlook that one party has a BLP concern?

A: I believe that reasonably contested BLP material must stay out of an article until consensus for its inclusion is reached. If I'm not mistaken, I think I even got sent to ANI once for trying to enforce that belief. Although I know it's pretty typical for sysops to be accused of protecting "m:The Wrong Version," I feel that BLP issues are one instance where it's critical that sysops protect the 'right version.' If I saw something I thought was a clear BLP violation on a page that was headed towards full protection, I would see no issue with redacting what I saw as the BLP violation before protecting the page. I know that taking protection actions on pages where you've edited content is generally frowned upon, but I think that the harm of leaving a severe BLP violation in is infinitely greater than the harm of leaving something out that is eventually agreed not to be a BLP violation for a few hours or days while consensus is reached on the talk page to that effect. Tl;dr version, I would definitely be an admin who takes BLP issues very, very seriously. I talk about my thoughts re: BLP a bit more on my userpage. I'm sorry if this doesn't exactly answer your question, please let me know if you'd like me to elaborate.

Additional question from Guerillero

10. Do you now or have you ever edited for pay or other consideration without directly disclosing it to the community? If you engage in editing for income in the future, will you proactively disclose that?

A: I have never engaged in what has been termed of late 'paid advocacy editing,' and I do not intend to do so in the future. If I do so in the future, I will proactively disclose that fact, but I really doubt it'll ever happen. There have been a number of instances in which things I have done could be viewed as paid editing, but these have all been of the type that the enjoys widespread community acceptance. I am currently the Wikipedian in Residence for UC Berkeley, a position which I am receiving compensation for. I am in discussions with the Internet Archive about becoming their Wikipedian in Residence, a position which I would receive compensation for. I have previously had a compensated contract with the WMF that involved me writing and editing a document posted on meta. In all of these positions, I have retained full editorial control of my edits, and I believe that my editing has been in the best interests of the encyclopedia. I will proactively disclose my conflicts of interest to the community, and I will accept no role where I believe compensation will interfere with my ability to edit neutrally. If I'm put in a position between extra cash and acting in the best interest of the encyclopedia, I'll go for the latter. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for Kevin Gorman: Kevin Gorman (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Kevin Gorman can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Support as nom. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 21:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
2. Support per noms and intentions to help with fighting socking. INeverCry 21:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
3. Needed in the fight against paid advocacy, or whatever we're calling it nowadays. Rschen7754 21:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
4. Support - seems to have a good reason for wanting the tools, convincing nomination statement, evidence of content creation is nice. You've got my support! :) Acather96 (click here to contact me) 21:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
5. Support DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
6. Support as nominated. Some might find fault in a relatively low edit count, but the actual work done per edit is a better measuring stick and on that basis, I think he is a strong candidate. I am One of Many (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
7. Support, based on my direct interactions with him via the Education Noticeboard. I look for candidates whom I can trust, and I know from experience that he has the good judgment that I can trust him with the tools. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
8. Support WiR and other significant off-wiki commitments to the project means the candidate can probably be trusted with a few extra buttons. benmoore 21:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
9. Support - Although user has a low edit count, he does a great job with the education program as well as expanding articles which gives me good support. Also over 1000 good edits towards the Wikipedia namespace is one great candidate for successful adminship. ///EuroCarGT 22:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
10. Support — ΛΧΣ^{21 Call me Hahc21} 22:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
11. Support - Thoughtful answers to the questions given by Kevin who has clearly demonstrated a well needed requirement for the admin tools. Keilana and The ed17 have excellently explained all about the candidate. A trusted and well qualified person, no concerns at all. ~TheGeneralUser (talk) 22:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
12. Support - Clean record, strong contributor in a variety of areas, whose impact on the project is much greater than his edit count reflects. Willing to tackle difficult situations and keep his cool. I'm sure he can be trusted with the tools, and Wikipedia will benefit from his having them. --MelanieN (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
13. Support - Kevin's involvement with GLAM, Wiki Education project and uncovering COI edits just add even more to the fact that he's a prolific contributor on-wiki, off-wiki, IRL, ambassadorially, communications-wise and in academia. In an era of declining editor participation, it's refreshing to see not only a very active editor, but one intensely involved with adding more participation to the ranks. Having admin tools make it easier to be on the front lines of training and engagement, especially in his new Wikipedian-in-residence role. Enthusiastically support. -- Fuzheado | Talk 23:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
14. Support Great candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
15. Support per noms. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
16. Support Chris Troutman (talk) 00:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
17. Support Looks fine to me. Widr (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
18. Support Is 8000 posts not a pretty high number? Anyway, I was a little concerned reading back on the number of controversial situations he's had some involvement in, but reading deeper he's been a voice of reason in those situations and the project has been better off for his involvement. Looks good to me. Chuy1530 (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
19. Support Man, lots of fantastic admin candidates lately. Good way to start the year! Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
20. I should probably remember to support the person I'm nominating. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
21. Support Well qualified, committed to Wikipedia's core principles and policies, and dedicated to recruiting and assisting new editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
22. Support An incredibly well-qualified candidate, and I look forward to working with him as an administrator someday. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
23. Support, seems solid and ready to help with administrative tasks, and not likely to break the wiki. I'm especially convinced by the thing about him needing the tools to clean up after misguided student efforts: if he's an admin, it will make less work for the rest of us. By the way, Mkdw, I can see two other accounts: User:Kevin (WMF) for his work as an intern, and User:Kgorman-ucb, which was simply an old username that was changed to the current one on 19 April 2012. Nyttend (talk) 03:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
24. Support (edit conflict) I am so impressed with the RFA candidates as of late. Your work at WiR is significant qualification and your answers to the questions were thoughtful. I appreciated that you were willing to answer my optional question. I could have seen the possibly of having another account and when you started your WiK with students that you would perhaps want to keep it anonymous. If you did that is your right but I thought I'd ask as it may have been important in the consideration of becoming a sysop. Mkdw^talk 03:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
25. Support per INC. Legoktm (talk) 04:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
26. Support No concerns, he's done great work. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
27. Support. Good editor. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
28. Support: Good contributor, uses edit summary most of the times, but one thing I'd like to see more from you (this isn't any spoiler) that you could try your hand out in more editing in the article space. Ethically ^(Yours) 07:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
29. support (all the good rationales are already taken, so "per above") Dlohcierekim 10:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
30. Support another outstanding candidate. --Stfg (talk) 10:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
31. Support Solomon7968 14:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
32. Support - overall, seems like a sound candidate. GiantSnowman 15:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
33. Support Kraxler (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
34. Support Excellent communications skills, essential in an admin. Clean block log. Will make a fine admin. Miniapolis 16:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
35. Support – Good luck! Epicgenius (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
36. Support - No brainer - experienced, helpful user who will make good use of the tools. SmartSE (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
37. Support The user has the skills and temperament and is prepared to help out in some undermanned areas. Another great candidate. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
38. Support - Seems to have good judgement and calm demeanor. - MrX 17:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
39. Support-Good candidate. I don't see any concerns, on the contrary. (Littleolive oil (talk) 17:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC))
40. Support - every interaction with Kevin on-wiki has been responsible and well within our community standards. Off-wiki he is an excellent advocate for the community, and would not violate the community's intentions for the tools, Sadads (talk) 18:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
41. Support Having looked at Nsk92's link below (and having got bored stiff with it), I've decided to support on the grounds that we're not voting for a new doormat. Personally, I don't go for philosophy, but do respect people who can express themselves in an articulate manner. Added to which, the candidate seems to be doing a good job in the education field, and I can see how the tools would help there. I've not come across any problems with this user, and there are those above whose opinions I respect who obviously know him better than I do. Peridon (talk) 19:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
42. Support --JamesMoose (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
43. I like candidates who aren't afraid to edit in the trenches in controversial areas. I'm comfortable that Kevin will make a good admin, based on the judgement and responsibility he's shown thus far. MastCell ^Talk 19:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
44. Secret ^account 21:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
45. Support Per the noms. Wifione ^Message 22:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
46. Support - Everything looks good to me, and the answers to the questions are sufficient. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
47. Yes, Kevin will do a good job as an administrator. Kurtis ^(talk) 06:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
48. Support Happy to support Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 09:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
49. Support --Andreas JN466 10:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
50. Support Per the noms. Acer (talk) 14:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
51. Support Someone who is willing to tackle the controversial topics is a rare gem indeed. Alanl (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
52. Support per noms and per answers. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 21:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
53. Support -His WP:ENI experience gives him a unique insight dealing with new editors. ```Buster Seven Talk 22:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
54. Support, with pleasure. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
55. Support per noms and per answer to Q1. Given he wants to do the dirty work in areas that desperately need it, I say give him the tools he needs to get the job done. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
56. Support His work on women philosophers and combating systemic bias is very impressive and important. Neljack (talk) 09:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
57. Support --Rzuwig^► 12:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
58. Support. Knowledgeable contributor. Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 14:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
59. Support - user appears to have sufficient experience and acceptable temperament. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
60. Support and congrats on the WiR. Set phasers to "patience and calm". ;) –Quiddity (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
61. Support Seems like a sensible editor and a cool head. We need more of that around here.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
62. Support As being likely to actually believe in and enforce WP:BLP. Collect (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
63. support His work so far gives every reason to think he will make an excellent administrator. DGG ( talk ) 00:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
64. Support one of the best candidates of the past few months. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
65. Support After several completely uncontentious RFAs recently, it appears that the process may be losing its reputation as a crack-fuelled version of a hazing ritual. However, Kevin does seem to be an outstanding candidate for adminship, and after looking at the oppose and neutral votes, I don't see any grounds for reservation. We need many more people to hold the mops, and its great to find such a well-qualified candidate. I just hope that Kevin's impressive candidacy doesn't lead to any raising of the bar for others. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
66. Support It's all been said. Solid and competent editor. And then somebody who cleans up after his students? A no-brainer :-) --Randykitty (talk) 10:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
67. Support. Seems like a sensible choice for the mop. Good luck! — sparklism ^hey! 13:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
68. Support. I have absolutely no qualms about supporting Kevin. I think he'll be an excellent administrator. Best regards, Cindy(talk) 17:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
69. Support Seems fine. --John (talk) 18:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
70. Stephen 22:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
71. Support No issues. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
72. Support Experienced and responsible candidate. I don't find any compelling reasons to oppose, and would expect a great job to be done. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 05:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
73. Support Good contributor. Good expertise. No concerns. Donner60 (talk) 07:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
74. NativeForeigner ^Talk 08:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
75. Support. Can't see any problems - should do just fine with the mop. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
76. Support. Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 13:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
77. Support per noms. Nev1 (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
78. Support Seems to be a well qualified candidate with good communication skills, good temperament and desirable level of maturity. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
79. Support Why not? buffbills7701 23:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
80. Support A model candidate. — Scott • talk 16:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
81. Support No reason to think they'll misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
82. Support Helpful. Clueful. Willing. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
83. Clearly here for the right reasons, intelligent, reasonable and articulate. A serious Wikipedian. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
84. Support Iselilja (talk) 12:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
85. Support It's all been said! Johnbod (talk) 13:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
86. Support Trust the Judgement of Keilana and the project gains with the user having tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
87. Disappointed he withdrew from the Arbcom elections, so at least he's getting the mop instead. Wizardman 16:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
88. Support - The very first oppose's discussion is the very reason why I must support the editor. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, per this dramafest: User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 144#Systemic bias, particularly the opening salvo "Given that we're the #1 source of information in the world, how is it morally conscionable that because of our systemic biases we are missing articles about people like Alison Jaggar?" that the candidate then doggedly stuck to. Nsk92 (talk) 12:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

   I hope another 100 candidates this passionate about starting articles, addressing systemic bias and act on it apply for adminship. Because I don't see how a spirited debate that did not violate Wikipedia policies or descend into incivility can be justification for denying adminship. This was a User talk page, which is a conversation between two people, that other people are open to observe and chime in on. There were plenty of discussants who shared the same viewpoint, and Jimmy himself said to Kevin, "I agree with you completely and your words have a great impact on me." Thoughtful discourse like this is what Wikipedia is all about. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

   I tend to agree. Why is spirited debate a bad thing? - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

2. Oppose. No CSD tagging since August 2013. This tag was inappropriate. I am also concerned by the speed of tagging during that time. It is unlikely that Kevin Gorman made an effort to check for notability of the subject and improve articles before tagging. A total of six AfD !votes since January 2013, and none since August 2013. I do not believe that Kevin Gorman should be undertaking deletion. Indeed I am unconvinced that he will even use the tools. This RfA looks more like "hat collecting" to support his WiR role. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

   Presumably you're referring specifically to tagging undertaken on 12 August; the earlier stuff appears to have had more consideration. However, it's quite OK to evaluate several articles and then tag in quick succession with no obvious pauses, as may have been the case on 12 August. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 12:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

   The tagging spree I went on on the August 12th dealt entirely with the work of Wiki-PR, the biggest COI editing group on ENWP to-date, which is why most of the tags I placed were G5's. It doesn't take very much consideration to tell whether or not a user is blocked, so I was able to tag most of the articles rapidly. Since G5's are meant to discourage banned users from editing, they can be rightfully applied even to potentially notable subjects - and I view the harm Wiki-PR does as sufficient to warrant G5'ing all of the articles they create as we find them.

   You are right that I placed the A7 in error. Behavioral evidence had led me to believe the user was a sock of Wiki-PR (and others concurred,) but the sock had been missed by the blockers. Since the notability for the guy looked pretty thin, I decided to just apply an A7 and hope the patrolling admin recognized that it was a Wiki-PR sock and deleted it on those grounds. Retrospectively, I should have applied a G5 and given an explanation of why the G5 was warranted on the talk page of the article, and that's exactly what I'll do in the future. I tend to do different types of work in spurts; if you look at my edit counter you'll note that I have a large number of deleted edits, most of which came from me doing CSD tagging before I realized I could turn on a log (and the vast majority of those CSD tags were accurate.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

   • I don't see an issue with an admin who rarely uses the +sysop toolbox. Oftentimes, there are better ways of solving an issue without blocking someone or protecting a page --Guerillero | My Talk 01:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral leaning oppose. I have a generally good impression of Kevin however I've only interacted with him a few times directly. One of those times, though, Kevin reverted unsourced content back into the lead of an article because it's removal made the lead grammatically incorrect. The correct action here was to fix the language, not restore unsourced contentious material. The age of the diff and my other impressions of Kevin prevent me from being an all out oppose, but I can't support.--v/r - TP 03:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

   That was nearly two years ago. --Stfg (talk) 10:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

   Perhaps you missed where I said "The age of the diff and my other impressions of Kevin prevent me from being an all out oppose". I'm well aware of the age of the diff.--v/r - TP 15:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

   The revert was three-times justified. One guideline said at that time to avoid citations in the WP:LEDE (The guideline has been edited in the meanwhile, but the spirit still is the same: If something can be easily explained in the main text, add the citation there, not in the lede). Another guideline says that common knowledge (like "The sky is blue" or "One and one makes two" or "the radical right is more conservative than the right") needs not to be sourced. And yet another common practice here is to revert something to call the attention of the previous editor to fix something he did wrong. To exclude any content, leaving the grammar broken, is not good form, TP. Cheers. Kraxler (talk) 16:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

   1) No, it says uncontentious material in the lead needs no citation, read the whole thing. 2) The sky isn't any color, let alone blue. The light from the sun reflecting off the ozone is blue. In fact, our article on the Sky says "sky appears to be blue". So no, you cannot say the sky is blue and leave it at that without supporting the material. What you consider common sense and basic facts can still be contentious when seen by different perspectives and different lights. 3) To revert unsourced content because of a grammar mistake is absurd. Especially when two separate editors have complained about sourcing. WP:V (Policy) trumps WP:MOS (Guideline). Cheers to you.--v/r - TP 21:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

   I don't think you read what Kraxler quoted: "If something can be easily explained in the main text, add the citation there, not in the lede". Quite frankly, except for certain BLP matters, that is a very poor interpretation of WP:V, right up there with requiring every sentence to be cited, even when the two sentences come from the same source. --Rschen7754 06:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

   The sentence was challenged by two users. Neither of ya'all are going to convince me from changing from a neutral position here. Grammar is a shitty reason to restore an unsourced sentence, period.--v/r - TP 13:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

   Under no circumstances would I attempt to convince anybody to change their vote at RfA. I believe that the voters are entitled to their opinion, and are able to make up their minds on their own. I'm also vehemently opposed to badgering. My first comment here referred exclusively to the mentioned controversial revert per se. Kraxler (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

   Re: TP - Have you ever thought about the possibility that there might not be any sky, but there merely appears to be a sky?

   Re Rschen7754 - As to WP:V, Jason Quinn's interpretation of this was "No citations or sources need be added, if the reader can google for it." [I quote from the pertaining talk page: The first sentence ("In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source.") does not require a that every statement actually be verified by a citation. To fulfill that first sentence, all that matters is that a reliable source EXISTS that could be used to verify it. The existence of such a reliable source renders the statement verifiable. That sentence does not say something to the effect of, "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source using a provided reference."] and he was promoted to admin on this platform with your support. So, I hope you don't mind that I'll bow out of this discussion now. Farewell. Kraxler (talk) 12:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

   The revert is also justified on the basis that TParis's edit resulted in the lead defining the "radical right" in terms of an even more contentious and dubious criterion - belief in conspiracy theories. Previously it merely stated that the radical right included conspiracy theorist movements, and the article did not contain anything supporting the statement that all of the radical right endorsed such theories - indeed that claim seems most unlikely to be true. Neljack (talk) 09:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

   @Neljack: I've moved your comment here. You placed it under the next neutral, but it seems to belong to this one. Hope that's OK. --Stfg (talk) 11:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

   Many thanks Stfg - that's where I meant to place it, but I obviously wasn't paying proper attention. Sorry about that! Neljack (talk) 11:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

   Thanks for the comments everyone, I've now watchlisted some future RFAs to oppose because ya'all believe grammar is an exemption to WP:V.--v/r - TP 22:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

   ... really, Tom? Really? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

   No, not really, but it sounds like a good empty threat, right?--v/r - TP 01:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

2. Neutral - No need for the tools has been expressed other than cleaning up after students. Watch over the students and there would be no need to clean up after them. UnbelievableError (talk) 06:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

   Just in case you're not aware, there's a long-standing refutation to this argument here. benmoore 09:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

   Watching over students is greatly assisted by the ability to clean up after them oneself. DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.