This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
current talk page.
17:33:14, 6 August 2015 review of submission by GeorgiaMay32
Hi there, I am confused to why my article has been declined. I have added references and tried to make it more verifiable.
Please help. Thank You
Georgia, (GeorgiaMay32) 06.08.15
GeorgiaMay32 (
talk)
17:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Hey GorillaWarfare! Thanks for reviewing my article, I appreciate the fast turn around. I would love to improve the quality of my writing for wikipedia, however I am not sure what next steps to take. I took effort to remove promotional language and added some links to internal wikipedia pages as well as articles from external notable publishers. Do you have any further suggestions on how to improve this article for next submission?
On
10 August 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tuba Azmudeh, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Tuba Azmudeh established the first Iranian school for girls in Iran? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at
Template:Did you know nominations/Tuba Azmudeh. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (
here's how,
live views,
daily totals), and it may be added to
the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the
Did you know talk page.
World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Leadership Dates: 7 to 20 September 2015
The Virtual Edit-a-thon, hosted by Women in Red, will allow all those keen to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Women in Leadership to participate. As it is a two-week event, inexperienced participants will be able to draw on the assistance of more experienced editors while creating, translating or improving articles on women who are (or have been) prominent in leadership. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome. RSVP and find more details
→here←--
Ipigott (
talk)
09:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)reply
You're invited! Smithsonian APA Center & Women in Red virtual edit-a-thon on APA women
"The Smithsonian APA Center invites you to attend the 2nd annual Wikipedia
APA an editathon for cultural presence, which will be held during the month of September 2015. We are thrilled to invite you to Wikipedia APA, an editing event for improving and increasing the presence of cultural, historic, and artistic information on Wikipedia pertaining to Asian Pacific American ("APA") experiences. The second Wikipedia editathon dedicated to APA content, this project will occur as physical events during September 2015... as well as remotely, with participants taking part from all throughout the world."
Did you Know that 15% of the biographies on Wikipedia are about women? Not impressed? WiR focuses on "content gender gap". If you'd like to help contribute articles on women and women's works, we warmly welcome you! WiR will be hosting one of this world virtual edit-a-thon. The 3-day event will focus on improving Wikipedia's coverage of Asian Pacific American women and their works (books, paintings, and so on).
Hello, GorillaWarfare. 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
First, on behalf of
WikiProject X, thank you for trying out the WikiProject X pilot projects. I would like to get some anonymous feedback from you on your experience using the new WikiProject layout and tools. This way, we will know what we did right, and if we did something horribly wrong, we can try to fix it. This feedback won't be associated with your username, so please be completely honest. We are determined to improve the experience of Wikipedians, and your feedback helps us with that. (You are also welcome to leave non-anonymous feedback at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject X.)
Please complete the survey here. The survey has two parts: the first part asks for your username, while the second part contains the survey questions. These two parts are stored separately, so your username will not be associated with your feedback. There are only nine questions and it should not take very long to complete. Once you complete the survey I will leave a handwritten note on your talk page as a token of my appreciation.
Hello! Just sending a reminder to complete the survey linked above. (This is the only reminder I'll send, I promise.) Let me know on my
talk page if you have any questions. Thank you!!!
Harej (
talk)
22:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Invitation to subscribe to the edit filter mailing list
Hi, as a user in the edit filter manager user group we wanted to let you know about the new
wikipedia-en-editfilters mailing list. As part of our recent efforts to improve the use of edit filters on the English Wikipedia it has been established as a venue for internal discussion by edit filter managers regarding private filters (those only viewable by administrators and edit filter managers) and also as a means by which non-admins can ask questions about hidden filters that
wouldn't be appropriate to discuss on-wiki. As an edit filter manager we encourage you to subscribe; the more users we have in the mailing list the more useful it will be to the community. If you subscribe we will send a short email to you through Wikipedia to confirm your subscription, but let us know if you'd prefer another method of verification. I'd also like to take the opportunity to invite you to contribute to the proposed guideline for edit filter use at
WP:Edit filter/Draft and the associated talk page. Thank you!
Sam Walton (
talk) and MusikAnimaltalk18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)reply
As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new
"Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are beginning the transition to the new policy.
An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the
required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.
The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this email because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy.
Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. The general confidentiality agreement is now ready, and the OTRS agreement will be ready after 22 September 2015. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement:
Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign
If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please
visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.
Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (
User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation
I will happily stop informing other women that Wikipedia is not a safe place for them once it stops being unsafe. Until then, I will not in good faith encourage other women to participate unless they are fully aware of what can come with it.. What if we had told all the women who flew the 1000s of new
Spitfires,
Wellingtons, and
Hurricanes from the aircraft factories to the air bases; the women who 'manned' the
Chain Home stations, the women who decoded at at
Bletchley Park, and the women who worked in the munitions factories not to do it because the war is not a safe place? --
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (
talk)
14:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Let us not forget
Lydia Litvyak, who not only faced the danger of air combat, but also endured the boorish behavior of the male pilots with whom she shared her aircraft, who would throw away the flowers with which she used to adorn the cockpit.
Arthur goes shopping (
talk)
15:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Kudpung, I think you're minimizing the end of the quote: "...unless they are fully aware of what can come with it." The women you mention did what they did after being informed of the risks. They effected change because they were willing to do the work anyway. It's not that we shouldn't encourage women to edit. It's that we shouldn't encourage women to edit without telling them what they're getting in to, so they can make an informed decision. And I wish you'd come up with a different example; using WWII imagery comes with the unspoken implication that explaining the downside of Wikipedia editing is somehow "unpatriotic"; an implication I'm sure you didn't intend, but is certainly there. --
Floquenbeam (
talk)
15:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)reply
(more) Indeed, I don't encourage men or women I know to edit WP without telling them that it's anarchic and filled with obnoxious people. Most people I know think I'm nuts to spend time here. They're not wrong. --
Floquenbeam (
talk)
15:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Hello, I would like to be acknowledged as an involved party in
this arbcom case. I say this for a few reasons. Firstly, three other users, Beyond My Ken, AlbinoFerret, and Ivanvector, all named me in their preliminary statements as being an involved party, due to several unresolved AN/I cases involving me
[1][2]. Secondly, Guerillero accepted this case partly because of "the urging of Floq and Dennis". However, Dennis Brown only listed one AN/I case in his preliminary statement, and it involved me and Hijiri88, not Catflap08. In fact, Dennis Brown has stated that he will not discuss the issues between Hijiri88 and myself any longer, precisely because of the fact that he basically
considers it the job of Arbcom now.
CurtisNaito (
talk)
17:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Not knowing the current rules for who can and cannot be included in the proposed decisions, there might be a few other people involved who aren't yet listed as parties who might be found to perhaps merit having their behavior addressed. It used to be, at least as I remember, the committee could issue rulings on "all those involved" or similar phrasing. I don't know if that is still the case, but if it isn't, there might be cause to add a few others as possible parties as well.
John Carter (
talk)
18:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)reply
FWIW, it looks like you are going to be the sole drafting arb in this case. My apologies in advance for a lot of what you might see here, both in terms of prior history and conduct in the pages themselves.
John Carter (
talk)
19:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)reply
I have unfortunately been deeply connected to this case. Beyond My Ken, AlbinoFerret, Ivanvector, and Blackmane all referred to me as an involved party. I was part of a recent
AN/I case which was closed bascially on the grounds that Arbcom should deal with it.
TH1980 (
talk)
23:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)reply
OK, daughter, you've made your point. We have pretty well exhausted the remedies within the organization and online. It is time to take this situation offline and into the real world of adults. I live in DC and will do what I can to advocate for you. It will not be easy or produce immediate results, but it will be a step in the direction we need to go.
Djembayz (
talk)
23:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)reply
It is time to start some serious conversations here in DC about what is going on with this organization, and the risks to which its volunteers are exposed, especially the women. In other words, advocacy, preferably of the quiet but persistent variety. People of a certain age have seen all this before-- we've seen cults, we've seen dorms go co-ed with no rules, we've seen the civil rights movement, so there isn't anything particularly new going on here, though it is a bit annoying that we have to go through it all over again ... :) It is not the 1970s, and the US is not a totalitarian country, so there is every reason to believe that this situation could be greatly improved. Carry on, maintain course and speed! and best of luck. --
Djembayz (
talk)
00:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Ah, thanks for explaining. I thought you were suggesting pursuing legal action against harassers, which is unfortunately rife with its own many problems. Thanks for the support, and for your work.
GorillaWarfare(talk)01:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Your history
I was fairly surprised with that accounting of things you listed on Jimbo's page that you've went through on Wikipedia. I'm truly sorry that you've experienced this. Without wanting to lessen those things or their impact do you think it has been magnified by your status of being a woman, an administrator and Arb? Were these things happening prior to you gaining your status to this extent? Do you find it's happening more online then off or an even mix?
Hell in a Bucket (
talk)
01:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
I don't think being an administrator particularly affected things, because I was not very "out" as female when I first became an admin. The gendered harassment didn't really start until the WMF used my photo on the fundraising banners, because then there was a face attached to the name, and it was very clear that I was a woman. I do think becoming an arbitrator also increased the amount of harassment I've gotten, but not to the same degree. I do get the sort of "garden-variety" harassment that is unfortunately common for active Wikipedians, but it pales in comparison to the gendered stuff. I'm not really sure what you're referring to when you asking about online and offline harassment... I do get harassed offline by catcalls and the like, but I am rarely harassed in a face-to-face setting beyond that.
GorillaWarfare(talk)02:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Mainly the argument that people are online saying things they never would in person. It's a true scenario for the most part it's just not a world I'm familiar with. I'm trying to understand the gravity of the situation really and understanding the difference in what the idiots online say vs real life stuff. Disheartening stuff to think people go through this on a regular basis. I'm not sure how that problem can be solved through policy making that many who express desire to impose that on others. I've always believed stupidity was an asexual thing. I'm sorry my thoughts are all over the place on this subject because I'm trying to understand the magnitude and I'm having a difficult time processing it and how the solutions offered can really effect the problem. I appreciate you answering my questions and again truly sorry to hear you've experienced those things.
Hell in a Bucket (
talk)
02:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
People definitely are more courageous about what they'll say when they're masked by the internet; more so if they're behind proxies. Comments made by street harassers tend to be significantly less personal (for example, they don't tend to know my name, interests, work, etc.) and less severe—there's a lot more "hey baby, smile!" and the like, versus very extreme comments that I tend to get online. That said, that kind of IRL harassment is uniquely scary because you tend to be standing next to the harasser, whereas when I'm reading awful comments on the internet, I at least know (and very much hope) that the person can't and won't come near me IRL. Online harassment tends to come with the threat of destroying your reputation; in-person harassment tends to come with a physical threat. That's not to say that online harassment does not also sometimes physically threaten—that's part of what makes comments that mention my location or workplace so terrifying, particularly when combined with physical and sexual threats.
GorillaWarfare(talk)02:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Do you think that lowering the percentage required for female applicants as admin would invite more gendered focused harassment? My thoughts, which apparently isn't matching what the reality is suggesting, is that a qualified candidate is qualified irregardless. What do you actually think would be a feasible solution to this problem? Is it a problem because there isn't more women in power here and what would be different if there were? What subjects do you think that are neglected here by the lack of female editors? Regarding a case that I can discuss such as the GGTF was this a result of male dominated editors? What do you think would have changed if there had been a more balanced panel by gender? These are things I think about when weighing the results in this? I do not honestly think the results could have been much different but apparently there is a whole forest there not just one tree. If you need time to do other things you don't have to respond to this quickly ping when you have time but I've defintely found the exchange to be enlightening on a number of levels.
Hell in a Bucket (
talk)
02:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
I don't think lowering the threshold for female administrators would particularly affect the levels of harassment they face. I think there are three major issues that stand in the way of shutting down gendered harassment on-wiki. Unfortunately I can't pretend to have the solutions to them.
On-wiki response to harassment: The admin corps and functionaries are quite effective at dealing with the overt stuff: "SHOW YOUR TITS" and similar is typically quickly reverted and revision-deleted. But the smaller things—the
microagressions like the implications that women need male administrators to help them with enforcement, that women are too emotional for roles such as arbitration, or even the comments that women are not actually experiencing harassment (when they clearly are)—need to be reigned in. This would ideally be a part of an overhaul of the civility policy. It would also need to be enforced, and by people who are versed in actually noticing when these things are happening. This is where I think a larger group of women on the Arbitration Committee and among the admin corps would be beneficial, and ideally these groups would be trained in recognizing and responding to this kind of thing.
Technical limitations: A lot of the harassment I've dealt with has not been one editor coming to my talk page, making a crude comment, being blocked, and then disappearing. More frequently, the user keeps coming back under different proxies and throwaway accounts. If my userpage is semiprotected, they'll comment on an unprotected talk page and use the ping functionality to make sure I see it. Or sometimes they'll make a crude username, and then go through my edits and "thanking" me for them so that I'll get the notifications. This is exhausting, both for the victim of the harassment who has no real way of avoiding or escaping it, and for the administrators, checkusers, and oversighters who have to run damage control.
Off-wiki harassment: As it currently stands, we are completely unequipped to deal with off-wiki harassment. The Arbitration Committee has attempted it several times, generally with very fumbling results, but often people who are victims of off-wiki harassment are told it's not within the scope of the Arbitration Committee. They'll also hear that it's not something that can be handled on-wiki, and generally requests for help from the Wikimedia Foundation are met with a "sorry this is happening, we'll keep a record in case we ever figure out who's doing this" and not much else.
GorillaWarfare(talk)03:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Thank you so much for your clear, fact- based and comprehensive explanation of the harassment you've received, and your continued service on ArbCom. I hope your story gets attention from a diligent, responsible journalist. I feel confident that it will help inform our efforts to eliminate harassment of women editors in particular, and more broadly, any targeted groups. I am deeply sorry that all of this happened to you.
Cullen328Let's discuss it07:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Molly, thank you for your comment on Jimbo's talk page. I've seen some of the worst that women have to deal with on Wikipedia, but even I had not appreciated quite the volume (I'm well aware that you'll have had far more than you mentioned there). I'd just like to say, I really appreciate that you stick with Wikipedia and hope that you realise you are making a difference.
WormTT(
talk)
09:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Thanks for posting what has occurred to you on Jimbo's page. I can't believe there are still so many dumbshit basement dwellers who don't realize how bad the problem is.--Milowent • hasspoken12:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)--
S Philbrick(Talk)13:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Thanks for sharing your experiences. Like others, I wasn't surprised that incidents like that happen, but I was totally blown away by the sheer volume and intensity. I am particularly troubled by the off wiki harassment – while we are struggling with addressing the on wiki harassment the off wiki seems like a tougher problem. 23 October 2015 (UTC)--
S Philbrick(Talk) 13:12, (I think
S Philbrick signed the wrong comment - hopefully this is right.
SpartazHumbug! 09:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC))
sphilbrick stupid ping
SpartazHumbug!09:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
+1 to all the above. Some of comment on WT:JIMBO saddens me deeply and its unbelievable in this day and age that people expect women to bare their scars before they are taken seriously. I'm sure it was uncomfortable reliving that lot again but daylight is a great disinfectant for trolls and I hope that your bravery will encourage more users to take this issue seriously and shame those who willfully do not.
SpartazHumbug!09:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
I have to agree with the above views. I know we haven't seen eye to eye on some stuff but I think we are both here to improve the encyclopedia and nobody deserves the sort of abuse you've had to put up with. It happened to
Kathy Sierra (though it shouldn't have!) and I can sadly believe it could happen to somebody else. I don't really have any answer other than use your revdel and block buttons where you can and get the police involved if necessary. Although my other half has occasionally popped onto Wikipedia to write the odd article, she certainly thinks the culture is abusive and unpleasant and it's not really an exaggeration to say she "puts up" with me editing on here more than anything else. On a final note, I would just politely caution you to go easy on Eric, I know he rubs people up the wrong way but he has done a lot of good work; you might be interested to read about the
Cottingley Fairies, an article he got through FAC some time back and quite a fascinating story, in my view.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
I just read the information at Jimbo's talk, and it made me entirely depressed. What GW and other female editors have gone through is appalling. Just imagine what would happen if the harassers did that sort of thing over their real names, in their workplaces. --
Tryptofish (
talk)
17:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Molly, you may wish to visit my last revert on Yngvatdottir's T/P and do the necessary block. I think it is the same IP. Regards, Simon.
Irondome (
talk)
23:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
I generally don't like being the one to block those who are being critical of me when there are others who could do it, even when it is obvious trolling. More so in cases like this where a checkuser will probably be needed. Pinging
Acalamari, who just blocked the user on a different IP.
GorillaWarfare(talk)23:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
One potential solution to the harassment problem is to have a legal fund where cases of persistent, severe harassment would be referred to a lawyer for action. Anonymity disappears real quick when subpoena's are issued. Even a clever toll who uses a proxy will slip up once in a while and leak their identity. A few well-placed lawsuits could deter would-be harassers.
JehochmanTalk16:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)reply
I can be a bit of a draconian bastard on some issues myself, as I think you unfortunately might remember, but based on what I've seen I'm wondering whether the easiest way to go would be to extend
WP:BLP to explicitly cover editors who are editing under their real life names, or whose identities are public knowledge, and/or to maybe make libellous or similarly grossly unacceptable comments, including harassing user names, subject to the same conditions as those at
WP:LEGAL.
John Carter (
talk)
17:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Online harassment such has this has historically been difficult to handle legally. Many laws are still far behind the current state of technology, and the existence of proxies, Tor, VPNs, and other strategies for anonymizing oneself on the internet can make it incredibly difficult to prove that a harassing comment was made by a specific individual. That said, I have been keeping the WMF's community advocacy team in the loop about the harassment that ventures into criminal territory.
GorillaWarfare(talk)20:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)reply
I was shocked, and angry, to read the summary of the harassment that you've encountered on WP on Jimbo's page. I knew we were thoroughly male rather than female-heavy with editors, but I had no idea that being identified as a woman could attract that kind of childish, senseless, only-possible-in-a-patriarchical society kind of offensive nastiness (especially when it gets personally identified with your workplace or similar). This is not right and it's not what we're here for. We're here, among other things, to help move the world towards 50% of the responsibility and power for 50% of the people. I'm not sure that there's anything I can personally do, but please accept my sympathies, and should there ever be anything I can actually do or discussions on treatment-of-women that I should be aware of, or contributing to, please do sing out. Kind regards
Buckshot06(talk)11:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)reply
I, too, echo the other comments above at the horrific conduct you were forced to endure. I can only imagine what other women who remain silent have suffered, as well. At least know that your effort to shine a light on the problem does change minds around here. Chris Troutman (
talk)22:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)reply
ArbCom
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Block of Eric Corbett and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the
guide to arbitration and the
Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
I was actually wondering about your accepting the apology myself but assumed you were metaphorically trying to take the high road when dealing with someone of a comparatively subterranean perspective.
John Carter (
talk)
21:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)reply
(
talk page stalker) I've been watching quietly in the background and am still a little shaken by what I have read. What on earth happened to kindness, politeness, and
the Golden Rule so many of us were taught to live by? What happened to humanity? GW, even though I've neither met you nor do I recall ever communicating with you in the past, I must say, it is an honor to have the opportunity to do so. With the utmost sincerity and respect, THANK YOU FOR ALL YOU DO!!!
Atsme📞📧19:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)reply
I might have indicated instead that you more than earned it by your being willing to put up with some of the rather repellent harassment you have been subject to and continuing to be one of our leading contributors, but I can't argue that it is earned anyway.
John Carter (
talk)
19:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Host/Facilitator: Women in Red (WiR) in collaboration with Women scientists: Did you know that only 15% of the biographies on Wikipedia are about women? WiR focuses on "content gender gap". If you'd like to help contribute articles on women and women's works, we warmly welcome you!
Event details: This is a virtual edit-a-thon hosted by WiR in parallel with a
"phyisical" event during the afternoon of Sunday, November 22 in New York City. It will allow all those keen to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women in
science to participate. As the virtual edit-a-thon stretches over three weeks, new participants will be able to draw on the assistance of more experienced editors while creating, translating or improving articles on women who are (or have been) prominent in the field. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome.
After reading
the op-ed in the most recent Signpost, I'm considering running for the Arbitration Committee. (I already know I have only a slim chance because of the way that historically candidates who were already administrators have been preferred.) I thought I would solicit your perspective on what to expect if I were to win, particularly about how much of my time ArbCom duties would take up, and how much harassment I might potentially receive specifically as a result of being on the committee. Thanks in advance for your input. —
GrammarFascistcontribstalk21:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
I'd first direct you to
User:Risker/Thoughts for Arbitration Committee Candidates. As for my own answers: It's a lot of work; much more than it seems just from what you see us put on-wiki. Expect to spend at least one hour a day on ArbCom responsibilities, and more if the caseload is high, you're drafting a case, or you're active on the
ban appeals subcommittee. You will certainly be subject to scrutiny, but I can't predict how much harassment you will receive. One note: if you do run, you should probably expect to have to answer some questions about your username.
GorillaWarfare(talk)22:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Thank you very much for responding. Risker's essay was very helpful. I already spend more than an hour a day on Wikipedia, particularly in
DYK and
the Teahouse; I have the time to spare, so long as it isn't going to be anything like a 40-hour-a-week job. To be frank, the reason I'm considering running is that I agree that ArbCom needs more members who aren't straight white cis men, and I'm decent at proposing compromise solutions that opposing parties are willing to accept, in addition to being neither straight, white, cis, nor a man (I'm physically disabled and neuroatypical, too — I have a very full social justice bingo card). I could already tell it would be a fair amount of work for little appreciation (and speaking of which, thank you for your work on the committee, and please accept my condolences for the reprehensible harassment you received) and am honestly not exactly eager to get the job, as opposed to feeling a responsibility to run if enough other candidates who aren't straight white cis men don't put themselves forward. As for my username, I have had to answer questions about it already, but as I have no fascist beliefs or associations and was just making a play on words, I have no fear of answering more. Thanks for the specific heads up, though, and thanks again for answering my questions. —
GrammarFascistcontribstalk09:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)reply
On
9 November 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Nelle Morton, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Nelle Morton is thought to have taught the first course on women and religion? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at
Template:Did you know nominations/Nelle Morton. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (
here's how,
live views,
daily totals), and it may be added to
the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the
Did you know talk page.
Let it be - Giano right now in my view has his back up against an arbcom wall. It isn't helping anything seeing the two of you go at it, if you want to sort things out I suggest another venue. Im not saying you are right or wrong Gorilla but sometimes it is best to just do nothing, and save this discussion for another day. -
Knowledgekid87 (
talk)
14:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)reply
I got a notice about the election today and have had no prior experience with it. I looked at the ballot, and was solely drawn to your user name only because of the humor inherent in it. I read your statement, then randomly looked at edits you've made over time to try to get some flavor of your ability and neutrality. To tell you the truth, I don't think I'll have the time to read much more than candidates statements, as I'm incredibly busy.
This has something to do with the arbitration process, however. I've edited for over nine years and have never been involved in one, so I am an absolute novice.
I made numerous edits to the
Rafael Bienvenido Cruz page. The page seemed like a mess, not nearly meeting Wikipedia standards, with extremely extensive quotes in the references section, a muddled chronology, a good deal of unsourced information and some significant and obvious gaps in the content.
I did a huge amount of reading to get a better understanding as to the subject of the article.
A few days ago, another editor seemed to begin savaging the article, in particular my edits. He or she made many edits which I did not feel were disruptive, so I didn't feel any need to change them. On the other hand, however, the editor removed many elements which I felt were significant to understanding the history of the subject and the accuracy of his treatment. I disagreed extensively on the article's talk page, but the response I received was not helpful. Finally, I just started rolling back the reverts. I was met with obstinacy and restorations of the rollbacks and more slashing and burning through the article.
I really don't know what to do at this point. I'm really being soured and frustrated by this experience. Please don't put yourself out on my behalf, if you don't have the time, but I wonder if you could look at the process that's been involved? If you like, I'll also include my latest rather strained attempt and finally a bit testy plea to the other editor to deal with what I've felt was territorialism and indefensible reverts and deletions.
I spent probably an hour composing it, leaving it on the editor's talk page, hoping to reach some resolution. That editor reverted it so quickly, instantly perhaps, that I can't imagine that much if any of my response was actually read.
I'm only asking for your thoughts about this and only if you have the time to do so. I'm certainly not in any way suggesting that I'll vote for or against you, no matter whether or not you are able to look at it, and whether I'll vote at all. That's also whether or not you agree or disagree with me, if you are able to take a look and you might make some helpful suggestions. In fact, on second thought, I just won't vote at all, whether or not you're able to spend a few minutes reviewing this.
I don't have a lot of time to get involved in some really extensive bureaucratic process, but if this can be resolved expeditiously, whether or not it's in my or either of our (myself and "WV"s, the other editor's) favor, that would certainly be useful. I mean we both may be out of line and I don't mind being told that if I am.
Thanks for your advice. It is appreciated. If things don't improve, I'll go to that noticeboard, which "Liz" also recommended. Best of luck with your election!
Activist (
talk)
13:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)reply
(
talk page stalker) Things wouldn't likely go well for Activist at either. He's been stubbornly edit warring and violating BLP guidelines over his insistence on keeping the content in addition to citing unreliable sources. He hasn't even exercised BRD on the article talk page. Folliwing BLP guidelines/policy and exercising the 'D' portion of BRD should be his first actions. -- WV ● ✉✓19:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)reply
2015 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election
You are a clever and very beautiful. I voted for you!
I decided to do numerological readings of all of the candidates' usernames and base my voting solely on whether their number was in sync with those who are already on the arbitration council. It is important for there to be harmony, which is better than cleverness or beauty.
Seriously though, I just threw darts against a wall with their names on it to see who was hit. Then, I voted for who I wanted to vote for anyway.
LizRead!Talk!02:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Trying to be scientific and objective, I have produced two sheets of paper with all the candidates listed, adorned with hundreds of check marks and Xs. The final result after all that study is that I ended up voting mostly for the people I already had positive feelings for. The turnout is heavy.
Cullen328Let's discuss it03:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)reply
I think the mass mailing was a gross error and has turned the entire exercise into a farce. Just imagine what would happen if the same thing were to be done for every RfA.
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (
talk)
15:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Forgot how I got here, but among other reasons, your portrait, (how is that a self-protrait), reminded me of a Hogwarts class portrait, so I figured that's a plus for you. :)
Sir Joseph(talk)16:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Liz: The over 2,500 votes is going to make a heavy workload for the Scrutineers. They were overwhelmed with less than half that total in other years. The results were delayed, and you can expect a long delay this time. So I hope people are patient and realize that this is a volunteer effort and they are trying to unsure that the people that voted are legal votes, and there is a lot of work that entails that.
Dave Dial (
talk)
18:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)reply
The securevote system will ensure that all voters are eligible(the accounts fit the criteria for voting), the Scrutineers go over the voting to make sure no double voting happens and that some voters aren't using masking techniques to disguise themselves. The data will be compared and it's a lot to go through.
Dave Dial (
talk)
18:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)reply
I can't help wondering how meaningful this election is anyway. I was rather surprised to see that an account I abandoned 9 years ago (last edit: 17:21, 2 February 2006) is eligible to vote. Don't worry, I haven't voted twice, but I dare say quite a few have. Probably not the right place to bring this up, but I'm not greatly interested in watching the election pages. Giano(talk)18:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Well
Giano, that's a somewhat valid concern. In your (example)case, that should be seen even before it gets to the Scrutineers. But if it did slip past, the Scrutineers should pick that up pretty easily. Here is
the page that outline the voting process and who is an eligible voter. Here are
the instructions(description) of the duties for the Scrutineers. They are pretty thorough, and the instructions are clear. But it is a daunting task, considering the sheer number of votes.
Dave Dial (
talk)
18:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)reply
As far as I know,
Dave Dial, the scrutinizers have been doing their work since the election was open, they don't wait until December 6th before they begin.
I still don't understand why some editors think that less active editors will invariably vote for less qualified candidates. We have no basis to judge what criteria they will use (or what criteria any editor uses) and they are just as likely (or more likely) to select an experienced candidate over an inexperienced one. I mean, I trust less active editors' choices more than those editors who decide not to participate at all or decide to just oppose all candidates...at least they are making a choice which is what you want to happen in an election.
LizRead!Talk!18:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Thanks Liz, I didn't realize they start right away. Hopefully that reduces the burden. And I agree that less active doesn't equal bad choices.
Dave Dial (
talk)
18:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Host: Women in Red (WiR): Did you know that only 15% of the biographies on Wikipedia are about women? WiR focuses on "content gender gap". If you'd like to help contribute articles on women and women's works, we warmly welcome you!
Event details: This is a virtual edit-a-thon hosted by WiR. It will allow all those keen to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women in reigion to participate. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome.
Dear Wikipedian, you
recently voted in the
ArbCom election. Your username, along with around 155 other usernames of your fellow Wikipedians, was
randomly selected from the 2000+ Wikipedians who voted this year, with the help of
one of the election-commissioners. If you are willing, could you please participate (at your option either on-wiki via userspace or off-wiki via email) in an
exit poll, and answer some questions about how you decided amongst the
ArbCom candidates?
If
you decide to participate in this
exit poll, the statistical results will be published in the Signpost, an online newspaper with over 1000 Wikipedians among the readership. There are about twelve questions, which have alphanumerical answers; it should take you a few minutes to complete the exit poll questionnaire, and will help improve
Wikipedia by giving future candidates information about what you think is important. This is only an unofficial survey, and will have no impact on your actual vote during this election, nor in any future election.
All questions are individually optional, and this entire
exit poll itself is also entirely optional, though if you choose not to participate, I would appreciate a brief reply indicating why you decided not to take part (see Question Zero). Thanks for being a Wikipedian
The questionnaire
Dear Wikipedian, please fill out these questions -- at your option via usertalk or via email, see Detailed Instructions at the end of the twelve questions -- by putting the appropriate answer in the blanks provided. If you decide not to answer a question (all questions are optional), please put the reason down: "undecided" / "private information" / "prefer not to answer" / "question is
not well-posed" / "other: please specify". Although the Signpost cannot guarantee that complex answers can be processed for publication, it will help us improve future exit polls, if you give us comments about why you could not answer specific questions.
quick and easy
exit poll , estimated time required: 4 minutes
Q#0. Will you be responding to the questions in this
exit poll? Why or why not?
Your Answer:
Your Comments:
Q#1. Arbs must have at least 0k / 2k / 4k / 8k / 16k / 32k+ edits to Wikipedia.
Your Numeric Answer:
Your Comments:
Q#2. Arbs must have at least 0 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7+ years editing Wikipedia.
Your Numeric Answer:
Your Comments:
Q#3. Arbs...
A: should not be an admin
B: should preferably not be an admin
C: can be but need not be an admin
D:should preferably be an admin
E:must be or have been an admin
F:must currently be an admin
Your Single-Letter Answer:
Your Comments:
Q#4. Arbs must have at least 0 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7+ years of experience as an admin.
The Quick&Easy End. Thank you for your answers. Please sign with your Wikipedia username here, especially important if you are emailing your answers, so we can avoid double-counting and similar confusion.
Q#6. Completely optional, as all these questions are completely optional:
which candidates did you oppose this year, and why?
Your List-Of-Usernames You Opposed:
Your Comments:
Q#7. Are there any Wikipedians you would like to see run for ArbCom, in the December 2016 election, twelve months from now? Who?
Your List-Of-Usernames As Potential Future Candidates:
Your Comments:
Q#8. Why did you vote in the 2015 ArbCom elections? In particular, how did you learn about the election, and what motivated you to participate this year?
Your Answer:
Your Comments:
Q#9. For potential arbs, good indicators of the right kind of contributions outside noticeboard activity, would be:
A: discussions on the talkpages of articles which ARE subject to ArbCom sanctions
B: discussions on the talkpages of articles NOT subject to ArbCom restrictions
C: sending talkpage notifications e.g. with Twinkle, sticking to formal language
D: sending talkpage notifications manually, and explaining with informal English
E: working on policies/guidelines
F: working on essays/helpdocs
G: working on GA/FA/DYK/similar content
H: working on copyedits/infoboxes/pictures/similar content
K: working with other Wikipedians via wikiprojects e.g. with
MILHIST
L: working with other Wikipedians via IRC e.g. with #wikipedia-en-helpconnect or informally
M: working with other Wikipedians via email e.g. with
UTRS or informally
N: working with other Wikipedians in person e.g. at edit-a-thons / Wikipedian-in-residence / Wikimania / etc
O: other types of contribution, please specify in your comments
Please specify a comma-separated list of the types of contributions you see as positive indicators for arb-candidates to have.
Your List-Of-Letters Answer:
Your Comments:
Q#10. Arbs who make many well-informed comments at these noticeboards (please specify which!) have the right kind of background, or experience, for ArbCom.
Please specify a comma-separated list of the noticeboards you see as important background-experience for arb-candidates to have.
Your List-Of-Letters Answer:
Your Comments:
Q#11. Arbs who make many comments at these noticeboards (please specify!) have the wrong kind of temperament, or personality, for ArbCom.
Options: (same as previous question -- please see above)
Please specify a comma-separated list of the noticeboards you see as worrisome personality-indicators for arb-candidates to have.
Your List-Of-Letters Answer:
Your Comments:
Q#12. Anything else we ought to know?
Your Custom-Designed Question(s):
Your Custom-Designed Answer(s):
The Extended-Answers End. Thank you for your answers. Please sign with your Wikipedia username here, especially important if you are emailing your answers, so we can avoid double-counting and similar confusion.
Your Wikipedia Username:
General Comments:
Detailed Instructions: you are welcome to answer these questions via usertalk (easiest), or via email (for a modicum of privacy).
how to submit your answers , estimated time required: 2 minutes
If you wish to answer via usertalk, go ahead and fill in the blanks by editing this subsection. Once you have completed the usertalk-based
exit poll answers, click here to notify the Signpost copy-editor, leave a short usertalk note, and click save. The point of leaving the usertalk note, is to make sure your answers are processed and published.
If you wish to answer via email, create a new email to the Signpost column-editor by clicking
Special:EmailUser/GamerPro64, and then paste the *plaintext* of the questions therein. Once you have completed the email-based
exit poll answers, click here to notify the Signpost column-editor, leave a short usertalk note specifying the *time* you sent the email, and click save. The point of leaving the usertalk note, is to make sure your answers are processed and published (not stuck in the spam-folder).
Processing of responses will be performed in batches of ten, prior to publication in the Signpost.
GamerPro64 will be processing the email-based answers, and will strive to maintain the privacy of your answers (as well as your email address and the associated IP address typically found in the email-headers), though of course as a volunteer effort, we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will have a system free from computer virii, we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will resist hypothetical bribes offered by the KGB/NSA/MI6 to reveal your secrets, and we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will make no mistakes. If you choose to answer on-wiki, your answers will be visible to other Wikipedians. If you choose to answer via email, your answers will be sent unencrypted over the internet, and we will do our best to protect your privacy, but unencrypted email is inherently an improper mechanism for doing so. Sorry! :-)
We do promise to try hard, not to make any mistakes, in the processing and presentation of your answers. If you have any questions or concerns, you may contact column-editor
GamerPro64, copy-editor
75.108.94.227, or copy-editor
Ryk72. Thanks for reading, and thanks for helping Wikipedia.
GamerPro6414:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Congratulations, GW! One interesting factoid coming out of the election was that you were the candidate voters were the least Neutral about...people had strong opinions about your candidacy but you did receive more "Love her!" votes than "NO!" votes. 65.86% Support is not too shabby!
LizRead!Talk!20:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Aha, we meet again. Last time we met, wasn't that at some hamburger joint? That Obama had visited? All of a sudden I have a craving for a burger, which sucks cause we're eating pasta tonight. Ah well. Hey, I look forward to working with you and Making A Difference™, and I appreciate the time and effort you have already put in. Later!
Drmies (
talk)
23:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)reply
I have this problem too. I could fill all of Commons with cats (what else would the internet need more of, after all?) Congratulations on being the only one with more supports than neutrals! :)
Opabinia regalis (
talk)
08:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)reply
I'm more of a puppy person, but that was more because I was proven to have allergies to cats when I was 2 years old. I haven't tested the theory otherwise since, but I'm probably clear now. GW, welcome back to hell, and Opabinia, welcome to hell. :) --
Amanda(aka DQ)09:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)reply
We voted for you cat women to make it more bearable ;) - spread the news that a limit of two comments in any discussion by anybody (not only me) might be a blessing, --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
10:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Congrats! I knew you could do it and I'm very happy you're reelected. It seems to be shaping up to be a nice ArbCom this year, and I'm pretty happy with the results in general, as several of my top candidates got elected, you included :). Here's to two more good years! Johannatalk to me!see my work03:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Hello, GorillaWarfare. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 04:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Best wishes for your Christmas Is all you get from me 'Cause I ain't no Santa Claus Don't own no Christmas tree. But if wishes was health and money I'd fill your buck-skin poke Your doctor would go hungry An' you never would be broke." —C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1914. Montanabw(talk)
You are receiving this message because you are a party or offered a preliminary statement and/or evidence in the Arbitration enforcement 2 case. This is a one-time message.
1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the
Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at
arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.
3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.
6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.
I like your openness and am in agreement with what you've said. I would like to hear something about WP content in general, not only concerning gender. --
lifeform (
talk)
00:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Lifeformnoho: I'm generally very impressed with the quality of Wikipedia's content, although it's interesting how this quality is distributed. There has been
discussion of how Wikipedia covers some topics (video games, female pornstars, popular culture, recent events) more comprehensively than others. The strengths, unsurprisingly, coincide with the interests of "
the average Wikipedian", often leaving articles about other subjects to fall by the wayside.
GorillaWarfare(talk)16:45, 26 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Thanks, G., for that. I found out I'm almost completely an average Wikipedian. In my subjective (and not very well read) opinion, regarding the articles touching on Humanities/Politics/Economics, Wikipedia is not exactly in the front lines of the fight for truth or justice. --
lifeform (
talk)
06:56, 27 December 2015 (UTC)reply
(
talk page stalker) Wikipedia is far too often allowed to be used as a platform for radical socio-political activists. The problem is that it is considered bad faith by the louder voices in the community to do anything about it, especially when such people bad-mouth totally disinterested editors for refusing to be drawn into such discussions. Arbcom should take a firmer stand but can only do so when issues are reported to it by the community. --
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (
talk)
09:35, 27 December 2015 (UTC)reply
(Warning: A speech follows.) Verifiability is certainly not in opposition to truth. Truths which are facts (i.e. events which have happened) are in general subject to verification. "Truths" which are not facts cannot be verified in the same sense (e.g., "justice"). No matter how obvious or right they might seem to some, or even all, or how much power supports them, they are ideas and should not be accepted unexamined. Isn't it "encyclopedic" (and just) to record the diversity of ideas, and the sources of them (that is, the truth - the facts as they exist - "so and so says such and such"), rather than follow Wikipedially correct rules too closely in order to decide what to include? In this sense, as an encyclopedia, WP should be on the front lines. --
lifeform (
talk)
04:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Case Finland
Thank you for your comment regarding
Finland, first about references and then about biased point of view. I am not sure why you blank out all of the changes, as clearly your comments are related to some specific sentences. Based on your first blank/revert, I reviewed all my previous changes, and added references and changed wordings. All this in good faith, as per Wikipedia policies. Also I did some new changes/addings. However if you categorically blank out everything always, that seems unfair, aggressive and even edit warring. Would it be more appropriate to mark and label the points you consider questionable, eg. if something is missing in references or delete some part of the text you read as personal/biased comment? I have again reviewed the changes, and honestly it is hard to see any personal analysis in there, anything more than what is usually found in the articles. Now when all changes are blanked out, many important facts and references are lost, many which are properly referenced and relevant. When writing about history or current affairs of one country, there are clearly good soil for argument and differences in the points of views. However what I tried to add, in good faith, was just more neutrality, since many parts of the article at the moment are actually rather prejudiced, partisan if not even incorrect. So, with these comments, I kindly would like to propose further consideration on the matter and request revert of the blanking. Thank you, and please do not hesitate to contact to discuss more. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
119.76.73.67 (
talk)
11:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)reply
I apologize for that. It was
this edit that I intended to revert, but the
tool I was using will automatically revert an entire block of edits made by one user. I didn't notice that it had done so here. I've reinstated your edits (minus that last one).
GorillaWarfare(talk)19:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC)reply
:: Thank you for your response and revert. Good that you found such a bug, hopefully in the future innocent edits wont get accidentally flushed away. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
119.76.73.67 (
talk)
11:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Excuse me. I am lead writer for the Signpost's "Arbitration Report" and am wondering if you would be interested in answering some interviews questions as a newly elected Arbitrator. The questions will be asked through email, unless answering them here would be a more suitable choice.
GamerPro6422:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)reply
2. Why did you want to run for a seat in the Committee?
Although it was occasionally exhausting and disheartening, I enjoyed my 2013–2015 term on the Arbitration Committee. I think institutional memory and experience with the processes is as valuable as fresh faces, so I felt that I could be valuable in that sense. I also think the Arbitration Committee has a lot it can improve on in the near future, and I would like to help with that improvement.
3. How did you feel about the election as a whole?
I was pleased with it! I was really happy about the increased voter turnout, and the results included many people that I am excited to work with in the next two years.
4. What are your thoughts on the outcomes to cases from the previous year (e.g: GamerGate, Lightbreather, Arbitration Enforcement 1/2)? Did you think they were handled the best that they could have? Why?
I think some of the cases were handled quite well. However, your examples are cases that I do not think were handled well. In a number of them, the PDs were very incomplete when they were posted. I have found that although many people urge the Committee to do as much work as possible onwiki, they still often see PDs as final, so I think it's best to wait until a draft PD is fairly complete before posting.
I also think that in some of the cases, the evidence that was presented did not necessarily accurately represent the issues. This leaves the Arbitration Committee in a bit of a predicament, because the decisions are based off the evidence, and it's not always seen as kosher for arbitrators to go find evidence of their own while drafting.
Some of these cases I think did little to address the issues at hand, particularly AE1 and AE2.
5. Having been part of the Committee in the past, what made you want to run again?
I think I covered this in question 2.
6. What would you say would be the challenges of this position? What do you plan to accomplish from this?
The perception of the Arbitration Committee is definitely a challenge. It can be difficult to motivate yourself to work on a Committee that is often reviled. There are also a fair number of people who do not trust the Arbitration Committee, which can lead to a lot of pushback when we handle issues in private, which is unfortunately sometimes necessary. I'm not sure there's much that can be done about these issues, other than for the Committee as a whole to try to handle issues as fairly, transparently, and expediently as possible.
7. Would there a chance to bring back the Ban Appeals Subcommittee in the future?
I hope not. I think it's reasonable for the Arbitration Committee to handle a small subset of block and ban appeals (namely, those involving private evidence, AE blocks, bans based on Arbitration Committee decisions, etc.) However, I think the community is completely able to handle the majority of appeals that the BASC was handling. I'd generally prefer the Arbitration Committee take on as few responsibilities as possible. Furthermore, the BASC appeals were coming in at such a volume that they were overwhelming a Committee that was already slow to handle other matters.
Hello, GorillaWarfare. 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello, GorillaWarfare. 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
The Wikimedia Foundation is currently running
a consultation on the value and planning process of Wikimania, and is open until 18 January 2016. The goals are to (1) build a shared understanding of the value of Wikimania to help guide conference planning and evaluation, and (2) gather broad community input on what new form(s) Wikimania could take (starting in 2018).
How can a sock appeal a block? Shouldn't the master have appealed? Should this be considered a successful appeal by banned user G-Zay, of who Brayden96 was a proven sock? What does this entail for other blocked socks? Did BASC have any reason to completely discount the evidence presented in the SPI and' copied to the user's talk when he appealed the block? Is it customary for BASC to not consult the blocking admin? If the account does make other edits that evidence sockpuppetry of a ban user, will reblocking lead me to a desysop for wheel-warring? ☺ ·
Salvidrim! ·
✉07:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)reply
The last question is definitely not rhetorical; right after being unblocked he went back to editing
Motomu Toriyama, in the same manner as previous G-Zay socks. Previous edits by Brayden96 to the same article were also reverted as being made by a sock of G-Zay by two other editors very familiar with this LTAer and who helped clean up his messes. We're talking about an LTAer who has made lengthy, ranty blogposts about maintaining multiple personas and social media accounts, so this is not "unexpected". Please advise on whether you would consider reblocking per the new evidence to be wheel warring. ☺ ·
Salvidrim! ·
✉07:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Salvidrim: Brayden96's appeal was granted because we've determined that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that he is a sockpuppet of G-Zay; his successful appeal should not be regarded as having any effect on G-Zay's standing ban. As far as re-blocking is concerned: unless Brayden96 engages in conduct that is disruptive in and of itself (without reference, in other words, to your assertion that he is a reincarnation of a banned user), a re-block will be viewed as a deliberate attempt to interfere with the implementation of a Committee ruling, and will be responded to accordingly.
Kirill Lokshin (
talk)
17:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC)reply
I understand that BASC determined that at the time of the original block, not enough evidence supported a sock block. If after the unblock, new and sustained evidence is produced that this is in fact G-Zay, why should the BASC decision make the user "immune" from sock blocks? ☺ ·
Salvidrim! ·
✉17:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)reply
New evidence may be considered if it's substantially different in nature from the evidence that we've already dismissed. In particular, evidence that merely shows two accounts having a shared interest or opinion (where such an opinion might reasonably be held by more than one person) is unlikely to be convincing in the absence of other corroborating evidence.
Kirill Lokshin (
talk)
17:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Thank you. And just to make sure, if there ever is reason to seek a reblock, what should be done? SPI, AN, contact ArbCom (since BASC is dead)? ☺ ·
Salvidrim! ·
✉19:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)reply
I would recommend that you ping us if something comes up; depending on the specific nature of the evidence in question, we may ask that you take it to SPI/AN/etc. or consider it ourselves.
Kirill Lokshin (
talk)
19:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Thanks a lot for taking the time to respond, and apologies (particularly to GW) if my initial post felt a bit "aggressive". I remain unconvinced but will stick to monitoring quietly. :) ☺ ·
Salvidrim! ·
✉19:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Thanks for responding to this Kirill. I was volunteering at an event this weekend and so my time was fairly limited. As this block (and subsequent unblock) were not based on checkuser evidence, I don't think it's necessary to treat this differently than you would any user who was unblocked via a request on their talk page or UTRS. That said, courtesy pings to let us know what's going on are never unwelcome.
GorillaWarfare(talk)05:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Dave? Any chance you could rephrase this to more specific and constructive and less combative? Criticizing an Arb for their vote is certainly allowed, but specifics such as "I think that was wrong because X; you should instead do Y" would probably be more useful. "You still haven't learned anything" doesn't really tell anyone much, and is more on the offensive side. I had to go and look at your edit history, and to see if you had made any comments on that page to see what your point of view was - and, honestly, still haven't figured it out despite that. Don't know if you've noticed, but this page is semi-protected. That's because the Gorilla has been flamed by IPs quite recently. That might well make her less interested in trying to get the kernels of usefulness out of a wrapping of insult. Clearly she won't fold to a bit of harsh language, but she might not pay attention to it either. In fact, I would not be shocked if someone outright deletes this section as a personal attack if it doesn't get more constructive. --
GRuban (
talk)
16:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Well, of course it was purposely a bit hostile. Listen, I like GW and think she is smart. I am disappointed that after outside agitators brought about the GG case, harassed and caused untold drama, and had many long time editors sanctioned or banned, that she would allow another outside agitator to do the same here. The new Arbs seem to get that ArbCom should be here to reduce drama and help the project run smoothly. GW seemed to get that too, but her current vote seems to put having a case filled with more drama over a common sense motion.
Dave Dial (
talk)
17:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)reply
I do appreciate your point, and I gave my vote quite a lot of thought for quite this reason. In the end, I decided that a full case would be preferable to a hasty motion just to get rid of the case request. That said, my opinion
was in the minority. Hopefully my judgment of the motion was wrong, and it will help the issues in that area.
GorillaWarfare(talk)00:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the response. I'm not going to change my wording or anything, because I meant what I wrote. But I will point you to the
ACE results. I don't know of a time in ACE that so many people voted and members received so many votes. So just keep doing what you think is right. Your colleagues should also keep that in mind when they are
getting the kind of flack from some editors that are consistently and devotionally here to stir shit.
Dave Dial (
talk)
02:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Hi. May I trouble you to correct the exhibit. I did not step down until February 2, so I am covered by the exemption through January and should have the note applied to my February numbers. Thanks! --
Avi (
talk)
15:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)reply
I think that there would be value in putting the (stepwise) rise of Maggie Dennis.
The other arrival / departure that I saw of note was Nik Everett, and his building of CirrusSearch, then his disappearance, unheralded, especially when search and discovery were of importance.
Wikimania decisions and the biffo that came through those decisions, and the determinations outside of real consensus. Just snap open and close. <shrug>
Thanks likewise. The reorg timeline is also relevant: creating CE, refactoring engineering. –
SJ + (who would preorder a bio titled "the stepwise rise of Maggie Dennis")
Great catch on Nik Everett. I've added an entry for him and James Douglas, who apparently
left simultaneously. I will be sure to check out the Maggie thing (and keep an eye out for preorders of the book
Sj mentioned...) I've also added CE and the engineering reorg per other requests. Many thanks for your suggestions!
GorillaWarfare(talk)04:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)reply
I’m not quite so convinced that “the stepwise rise of Maggie Dennis” belongs on the timeline. I did a quick review so apologies if I missed any but the timeline includes departures from WMF and additions to WMF from outside, but no promotions or reassignments within WMF. Presumably, most of the departures from WMF have an associated reassignment or promotion. If you add Maggie you have to look into adding every other such change which I think would be cluttering the timeline, not to mention a staggering amount of work.--
S Philbrick(Talk)21:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Although it was necessarily presented off-site, the impact of your beautifully crafted timeline in exposing the dysfunctional situation in the San Francisco office and accelerating the resolution of the problem can not be overstated. It was a fantastic piece of work and a brilliant political document — devastatingly effective without being polemic. Thank you for your efforts.
Carrite (
talk)
15:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)reply
I remember that I was determined not to appeal my sanctions. It took
this to break my pride. - I archived the whole case when 2016 came and wish others would do the same. --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
08:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)reply
I'm inferring the block of Cla68 was made in your role as admin/oversight, not as a committee action. Could you verify that for me? Thanks.
NE Ent10:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)reply
I had doubts about why it had been erased but its been helpfull that someone told me the exact reason why.
I appreciate it.
Whith all my respect.
Bye
Pd: i dont know if it is possible for you to help about this, but wikipedia gives to many problems when used in an ipad and in my opinion it should try to be changed.
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others. The scope of this case is Gamaliel's recent actions (both administrative and otherwise), especially related to the Signpost April Fools Joke. The case will also examine the conduct of other editors who are directly involved in disputes with Gamaliel. The case is strictly intended to examine user conduct and alleged policy violations and will not examine broader topic areas. The clerks have been instructed to remove evidence which does not meet these requirements. The drafters will add additional parties as required during the case. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Evidence.
I have no idea if you even remember me at all. If you do - I'm guessing you were a bit surprised to see me sticking up for you at all. :-) — Ched :
? 03:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)reply
You're a familiar face, in that I run into you around the wiki fairly often, but had you not brought it up I would not have gone back to try to remember what you are referring to :) Though in my searching I found your first ever post on my talk page, which was
quite nice, though I have no idea what the context was.
GorillaWarfare(talk)04:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)reply
7&6=thirteen (
☎) has given you a
Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos torte and spread the
WikiLove, just place {{
subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Hello, GorillaWarfare. 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello, GorillaWarfare. 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I was referring to the email i sent to ARBCOM and since you are on the list, i thought i should notify you so you can check it at your earliest convenience.
Sheriff |
☎ 911 |
18:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Ah thanks, we did receive it. Because it was sent to the -b list (because of a current case involving recused arbitrators, of which I am one), there was a bit of a delay in it being forwarded to the full committee.
GorillaWarfare(talk)01:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)reply
So, i did not receive any reply to that email, no confirmation that whether its being reviewed or not, so i was wondering what is the process like going forward. How long it can take for ARBCOM to review it? Or when would i get any response? Could it happen that ARBCOM might never reply?
Sheriff |
☎ 911 |
18:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Drmies: That was sent before I sent the case to ARBCOM but I saw it afterwards so technically it does not count as a confirmation of an ARBCOM case.
Sheriff |
☎ 911 |
01:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)reply
I was starting to feel slighted and sad already, Sheriff. Well, in that case GorillaWarfare, who is a much better spokesperson, will just have to respond. Take it easy,
Drmies (
talk)
01:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Thank you. I noticed you are not addicted to userboxes like some Wikipedians are (I have seen collections of over a hundred userboxes on a single userpage!!!) but you may like this userbox I have created based on a joke I found online.
The Quixotic Potato (
talk)
02:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)reply
This user is sick of the stereotype that all women wear superhero capes.
He also suggested my username made me a sexual harasser, referred to me as a "young chick", said that I was immature and making ArbCom worse for it, etc... I don't really care to follow that conversation.
GorillaWarfare(talk)20:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)reply
It looks like
Bbb23 already handled the new reports. I did run a CU on Theodoxa and decided that between the CU data and the behavior they were a Confirmed sock, though Bbb23 seems less confident of this link and calls it "possilikely".
GorillaWarfare(talk)14:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)reply
I agree with your conclusion and the block. It think it's a matter of semantics. For me, "confirmed" requires a greater degree of technical similarity, that's all.--
Bbb23 (
talk)
14:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Admin The Wordsmith's comments re: "...the ineptness of many current Arbs..." is certainly casting aspersions
Given the seriousness of this Rfc at
User talk:The Wordsmith/GMORFC the ongoing threats to sanction participating editors seem to ring hollow in light of supervising admin The Wordsmith's
astonishing comments regarding ArbCom members. The comment, which by any definition "casts aspersions," raises a number of questions that call for immediate answers, given the self-created deadline for comments.
The questions, which I hereby put directly to The Wordsmith, are as follows:
Exactly which ArbCom members are you referring to, when you describe them as "inept?"
In what way are these current community-elected ArbCom members, as you term them, "inept?"
Do you have diffs to support this sweeping claim, and can you produce them? If not, why not?
Since the thrust of this extraordinary Rfc seems to be to prevent "casting aspersions," in the Talk pages of GMO articles (as well as precedent-establishing proposed "locked in" multiple article wording regarding GMO safety) is this not exactly what you are doing in the past 24 hours towards members of the Arbitration Committee? Does this not disqualify you immediately from further participation?
To all concerned: I will post the above subsection on the Talk pages of current ArbCom members, per The Wordsmith's declaration, despite substantial objections, that they will be locking down the page a few hours from this posting, making further timely discussion on this page impossible.
Jusdafax11:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)reply
I've seen the responses from other arbs to your messages on their talk pages, so I'll keep this brief to avoid splitting any discussion further. In the future, please consider posting things you wish the ArbCom to see to one of the several arb discussion boards, or just using the ping functionality. Spreading this across so many talk pages is confusing as hell, not to mention brushing up against admin shopping (arb shopping?) With respect to calling the ArbCom inept, that strikes me much more as criticism of the Committee (which is of course allowed) than as some sort of personal attack or aspersion. I also see that some of my colleagues disagree with me on this somewhat.
GorillaWarfare(talk)00:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)reply
An arbitration case regarding Gamaliel and others has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
DHeyward (
talk·contribs) is admonished for engaging in incivility and personal attacks on other editors. He is reminded that all editors are expected to engage respectfully and civilly with each other and to avoid making personal attacks.
For conduct which was below the standard expected of an administrator — namely making an incivil and inflammatory close summary on ANI, in which he perpetuated the perceived BLP violation and failed to adequately summarise the discussion — JzG is admonished.
Arkon is reminded that
edit warring, even if
exempt, is rarely an alternative to discussing the dispute with involved editors, as suggested at
WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.
The community is encouraged to hold an RfC to supplement the existing
WP:BLPTALK policy by developing further guidance on managing disputes about material involving living persons when that material appears outside of article space and is not directly related to article-content decisions.
I have seen your email. So only registered users at least 4 days old and 10 edits can request for arbitration? Will I be considered a sockpuppet if I create an account to request for arbitration?
108.162.157.141 (
talk)
03:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)reply
(
edit conflict) It is fine to move from editing as an IP to editing as an account, so long as you do not use both the IP and the registered account in a way that violates the sockpuppetry policy (see
WP:ILLEGIT for specifics). If you are uncomfortable with doing so or concerned about being able to follow that policy, I can also move a request to the case page for you, although you may continue running into similar issues when adding comments/etc. to the request.
GorillaWarfare(talk)03:29, 5 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Discretionary Sanctions Question
Hey GW, I had a quick question on ArbCom's Discretionary Sanctions Regarding Mohammed broadly construed. Would you say
Jesus in Islam qualifies under those sanctions? I was thinking yes but thought I'd double check before I advised someone one way or another. pinging @
Oshwah: as this is related to a discussion I was having with him. --
Cameron11598(Talk)06:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Orphaned non-free image File:Free Range Studios logo.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Free Range Studios logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a
claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see
our policy for non-free media).
Orphaned non-free image File:Karl E. Brinkmann GmbH (logo).gif
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Karl E. Brinkmann GmbH (logo).gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a
claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see
our policy for non-free media).
Thanks for uploading File:Pmc logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a
claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see
our policy for non-free media).
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited
Basilica of Our Lady of Mercy (Yarumal), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page
Clappers. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the
FAQ • Join us at the
DPL WikiProject.
Yes; I didn't challenge notability, but wanted to take the COI account out of the picture so it could be cleaned up a bit. It's worth watchlisting for further activity and IP socks. And thank you, and several other accounts, for helping out. Cheers,
2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (
talk)
23:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)reply
This kerfluffle doesn't seem to be going away soon. You're also not doing so well on the RfC, although you have a slim lead.
I'm contacting you in particular because you blocked
User:Jytdog. I don't know him and it seems quite possible that he was a long-term tendentious editor with whom you and/or the admin corps just lost patience. If that's it then you should say so, I would advise.
Hi @
Herostratus:. Thanks for the heads up—I've also just seen your ping over at WT:Harassment. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting it, but if "which remains empty" is a criticism of my slowness to respond, please know that the chances of me responding between 16:03 and when you left this note at 23:36 on a weekday (so 12:03–19:36 EST) are slim to none given my working hours. I will respond over there shortly, once I've had a chance to catch up on the discussion.
You're also not doing so well on the RfC, although you have a slim lead. Can you explain what you mean by this? I have commented very little on the subject as of yet, so unless there's some RfC about me that I don't know about, I'm not sure what you're referring to.
If I was going to block someone as a tendentious editor, I'd have said so. There were no secret plots to get rid of Jytdog here; I blocked for exactly the reason I gave: violation of the outing policy. When I informed the oversight team shortly after placing the block, they endorsed the block. Another oversighter has
verified this if you don't want to take my word for it.
GorillaWarfare(talk)00:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)reply
I'm not criticizing you, relax, I assumed you weren't even aware of that thread. It's not a matter of taking your word or that of other functionaries, at this point I think people are thirsting to know in more detail what happened exactly. "Violation of policy X" is insufficiently detailed at this point. You don't have to release any identifying information to explain in more detail.
Don't answer me here, rather make your point over there, at your convenience of course.
I'm not accusing anyone of secret plots, for goodness sakes. For my part, I'm fine with "last straw" as justification for blocking bad editors who seen uninclined to reform, even if the particular offense is not itself that bad. AFAIK this happens from time to time, and fine.
In fact I'd be happier if that was it. You say it's not, so here we have a good, very involved, very long-term, heroically prolific editor, who is terminated and probably without realistic recourse to appeal.
He must have done something very very bad. Tell us what it was! I'm sure once we know the facts people will understand.
In saying You're also not doing so well on the RfC, although you have a slim lead, I jumped the gun and made a false inference (for which I apologize) that you were not a fan of our policy "Posting links to other accounts on other websites is allowable on a case-by-case basis". I made this inference because some people have suggested that Jytdog was blocked for some harmless technical violation, such as showing a link between an account here an an account on a commercial-editing site, or something, in which case the policy "Posting links to other accounts on other websites is allowable on a case-by-case basis" would come into play if it's ever to be operative.
On reflection I realize that that can't be true. I know it can't be true because I know you wouldn't mess up the life of a good editor, an editor who has many more edits (and almost as much time in harness) as you or I, unless he had done some really terrible. I know how much of ourselves people like him pour into the project, and how very depressed editors like him must feel on being summarily banned, because I know how very depressed I would be and how much it would mess up my life.
I believe in you and I know you wouldn't do that to another person, and a good editor on the Wikipedia which you are sworn to protect (if he is, which I guess so), unless the person had done so very much more than a technical violation of a policy which even has a specific exception built in (not even counting
WP:IAR).
You don't have to release any confidential information! I'm sure that if you explain that he dug up and released the name and home address and phone number of another good editor, or photoshopped another good editor doing some bad thing and posted it on the internet, or whatever he did, that people will rally to you.
Herostratus (
talk)
01:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Just noting I've seen this reply. I'm typing up a big ol' response to go on the WT page, and will append my responses to your points there as you've requested. Apologies if I misinterpreted some of what you are saying; I do appreciate the assumptions of good faith that you're making towards me and will be more careful to do so to you in return.
GorillaWarfare(talk)01:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Being Jewish is a religion not an ethnicity. Calling Jewish people an ethnicity is like a racial slur. You would never describe a Christian person as ethnicity Christian. Let me put it this way. If a Christian converted to Judaism that would not make them ethnicity Jewish. Their religion is Jewish but not their ethnicity. I don't think any of you are Jewish and old enough to understand this fact. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Gschofer (
talk •
contribs)
10:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Noticed that you had commented about a previous action involving a certain editor, so thought you may find this discussion to be of interest:
[7].
Montanabw(talk)18:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Hello GW. I took the liberty of adding a section header so this wouldn't get lost on your talk page. I would add to Zbb123445 that someone born on July 3, 1993 is now 23 years old so your source either has a misprint or it was written three two years ago.
MarnetteD|
Talk05:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Is
revision deletion possible (hide the edit summary and the content) as a result of this user's recent contributions? He called the Wikipedia contributors "sexist". This is likely to be insulting to other contributors. Eyesnore02:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)reply
@
GorillaWarfare: What you missed seems to be the edit summaries to the edits made to the
Jimmy Wales page. They each have the edit summaries containing the words "sexism" or "sexist". Also, could you please unhide my cleanup edit? That removed all of the insulting material. Eyesnore02:36, 31 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Sorry about that, I accidentally got one too many revisions when I was deleting. As for the Jimmy Wales edits, I don't see the mere inclusion of "sexism" or "sexist" as warranting revision-deletion, and the comments are not directed at any particular person.
GorillaWarfare(talk)02:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC)reply
I don't really feel those contain much that meets the RD criteria. Accusations of "trolling" are fairly benign and commonplace, and the sexism comments don't really fall under "grossly offensive", etc.
GorillaWarfare(talk)03:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Caribana
Hi Gorilla ... I am a feminine identified drag queen with a black boyfriend, we are both wondering what was wrong with the submission. Yes I went to Teachers College & Employment Counselling Schools where people learn their values from what challenges them: inclusion maybe is very controversial. Soyer plus precise, svp. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Steven Iwanow (
talk •
contribs)
02:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)reply
You're again up for reconfirmation on Wikisource. It's going quite smoothly, however. Just thought you might want to know. Cheers!
bd2412T16:13, 4 August 2016 (UTC)reply
I saw your recent statement on my WP:ARC case. I have pointed out some relevant things in my section of the thread.
[12] I thought I'd draw your attention to it. If this is not necessary, or if this is a breach of protocol, please let me know.
Debresser (
talk)
13:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)reply
I am not a page stalker nor is that grounds for anything the page is written with a humourous spin and she can be directly quoted as being transgender
Danoppo86 (
talk)
00:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)reply
The {{tps}} template refers to the poster, not others on the talk page. If Wambui has been quoted in a reliable source identifying herself as transgender, please provide the source and the information can be added to the page.
GorillaWarfare(talk)00:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)reply
You claimed that "she can be directly quoted as being transgender". Where are the quotes in those links? Two of them are authors speculating about her with zero proof; one doesn't mention her at all.
GorillaWarfare(talk)00:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)reply
I genuinely apologize for the confusion/bothering you, i misread a quote on one page and thought that the research paper was using her as a foil to the hyperandrogenous athletes and wanted her to get recognition. When i came on the page it was over curiosity over her gender and when i read it it said transgendered athlete. Then a minute later it didnt. The first edit was not me. When it was deleted i mistook it for someone trying to hide the fact that she was transgender (i understand it is uncertain) and wanted her to recieve recognition. That said, its important to have discussions like this even though this was a waste of time. Have a good day, i will avoid doing this on my phone to combat making poor decisions based on not being able to read small type. Have a good day.
Danoppo86 (
talk)
01:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Well, "uncertain" is generous, given that from what I can see neither she nor reliable sources even discuss that she might be trans. Thank you for understanding the reverts.
GorillaWarfare(talk)01:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Upcoming editathons: Women in Nursing & Women Labor Activists
I sincerely appreciate your help yesterday re: the Wayne Dupree draft. I made one edit which was removing my feedback to the editor who had declined the article on the 22nd of August at the very top of the page. I don't think it affected what you did. Again, thank you so much.
Cllgbksr (
talk)
02:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Cllgbksr: Glad I could help! I saw your changes today, as I've added the page to my
watchlist. They don't seem to have changed any of the edits I've made, but certainly feel free to make changes if you see any inaccuracies or omissions. I look forward to seeing how the AfC review turns out!
GorillaWarfare(talk)05:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Me too! Can't wait! I'm hoping the next notification I get is that the article has been moved into the Wiki encyclopedia. I think its been 4-5 days now since I resubmitted. Again thank you so much.
Cllgbksr (
talk)
20:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)reply
@
GorillaWarfare: Hello GW. Hope you are having a great Labor day holiday. Question, I believe I submitted this on the 24th and today is the 5th of Sep.... does it normally take this long? Wanted to make sure it wasn't hung up in the system. Thoughts?
Cllgbksr (
talk)
19:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)reply
@
GorillaWarfare: Hello GW. Hope all is well..Thought I'd say hello and was wondering how Wikipedia is doing with their backlog?...its been 3 weeks since we visited last...are submissions worked oldest to newest?...again appreciate all your help....
Cllgbksr (
talk)
19:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
The backlog is still huge, but yes, many reviewers prioritize the older submissions. It's taking a pretty long time though, so I'm just going to go ahead and move it myself.
GorillaWarfare(talk)00:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)reply
@
GorillaWarfare: Thank you very much GW... Many thanks.... Question, I saw this on the header today of the article and wonder what it means? "This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; try the Find link tool for suggestions. (September 2016)" Do you know?
Cllgbksr (
talk)
16:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Cllgbksr:WP:ORPHAN goes into a lot of detail about it, but it basically means that there are no other Wikipedia articles that contain wikilinks to the
Wayne Dupree article. This isn't the end of the world, and I'm not sure there's a particularly organic way to de-orphan this article right now without introducing unnecessary links from tangentially-related articles.
GorillaWarfare(talk)21:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)reply
The person I responded to is some suspected sockpuppet account that's been dormant-- or so it seems-- for six or more years. I very much doubt that they'd see my comment in response in the first place.
With that being said, I do otherwise take issue with the removal. What I said about Eidelberg or whatever his name is seems to fit the bill. What I said about the guy defending a rabid Palestinian-hating fanatic and his fanaticism and hatred at that, fits the bill as well.
I see that the account has been blocked, so that's a non-issue now. Generally speaking, sometimes Wikipedia does have to include information about and from people who hold controversial and even hateful opinions in order to satisfy neutrality and due weight policies. Keep in mind that people arguing for this information to be included do not always support those views. I am not familiar with the user you were responding to, so I'm just speaking generally.
GorillaWarfare(talk)23:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)reply
I wasn't arguing against the posting of scribblings by some vile little Palestinian-hating Jew pretending to be a professor or a "credible academic". Barring the fact that the comments in question are related to the talk page only and not even the official article, the point of my entire post was to call the "professor" and his supporters out as what they clearly are. Semantics, at best, when you consider that it's a dead account. I just couldn't not see that kind of rubbish and not respond to it.
This is further semantics, but it's pretty clear that the banned user in question agrees with or otherwise is fine with the warped and evil mindset of the "academic" in question. That's why he's defending his character and his "right to his opinions".
70.27.162.84 (
talk)
23:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Regardless of the opinions of this person, attacks like you've just made on him and on Wikipedia editors are completely unacceptable. I've just removed your latest comment; don't re-add similar commentary.
GorillaWarfare(talk)23:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Uris has been dead 13 years. It's fairly clear why I'm calling him those things and what I'm referring to in the context of his literary "work". It's not really a personal attack or harassment, nor is it slander or anything of that nature. But this is semantics again; I've posted indisputable evidence--as quoted from the source by N. Finkelstein-- that the man was a racist of the worst kind, for the talk page. Hopefully that'll settle the matter.
70.27.162.84 (
talk)
00:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Yep, should have noted here that I've brought this up with the clerks for review. @
Baseball Bugs: in the future it's best to let the clerks know if you think there's a post that should be removed, rather than removing it yourself.
GorillaWarfare(talk)04:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Orphaned non-free image File:RailWorks 3.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:RailWorks 3.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a
claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see
our policy for non-free media).
Hello, I saw your name in the arbitrator list and randomly decided to contact you because my posts/messages to the community are repeatedly being deleted with the technicality of 'sockpuppet' being used as a justification. This means that I am not actually able to address a disagreement through the proper channels and is, I would think, in total contravention of the intention of the wiki policies. Any new account that tries to address the blatant vandalism of several pages that would fall in the category of 'osgoode hall law school alumni' is deemed 'sockpuppet' so that no dissent is possible or even visible. Several of these pages (pages about alumni of this law school) have had recently added category tags ('osgoode hall law school alumni'), as well as other constructive contributions, repeatedly reverted. Anyone who tries to revert the vandalism is then told that THEIR contributions are not constructive and blocked...because some of the people involved in this destructive editing behaviour are actually administrators! Obviously this also puts them at fault for abusing their admin powers in addition to engaging in vandalism. Please make this matter known to arbitrators/other admins if you can...I have tried to address the issue but just find that posts/messages disappear and that I am not even able to post in the dispute resolution boards. You should be able to see an attempt for a reversion dispute resolution request that was deleted about the page Malcolm Archibald Macdonald on the arbitration request page history. This Macdonald page is just one which is being abused by these people: they remove tags about the law school alumni pages. I know you may be busy but even if you do not want to participate in this please let people know about this abuse. Not only is claiming 'sockpuppetry' not a valid reason to a) prevent any posting about a dispute resolution issue or b) protect vandalism, but it is difficult to imagine how this behaviour could be undertaken in good faith. I'm sure that if I try to add something constructive to certain pages of this law school's alumni I will find myself soon blocked and the contributions reverted...reverting the alumni tag?...that's appropriate? Please allow these contributions to remain. Thank you for your time. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
77.243.183.67 (
talk)
04:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Looking at the Macdonald article, I would guess the original edit adding that category was undone because it also unnecessarily removed links elsewhere. Subsequent accounts did not fix that error, they simply reinstated the edit. Given that the article had not been edited in quite some time before these three accounts came along to make the same edit, it's pretty clear that they are sockpuppets.
I also see from the dispute resolution request (not arbitration, to be clear) that there were concerns in 2015 about promotional editors trying to insert more content about this school into the encyclopedia, which could explain why people are wary of edits such as these.
I see from your contributions that this is not the IP you've been using to edit these articles, so it's hard for me to help you specifically. If you have not created an account already, it would be very helpful if you would do so, as IPs often change and it can be very confusing to know who is who. If you have already created an account, please don't edit without logging in. If you can't edit from your account, please appeal the block on the account instead of editing through other accounts/IPs.
GorillaWarfare(talk)00:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Hi
Mutante. It looks like you already added it to Commons, so I've just deleted the version of the file that was stored on the English Wikipedia and made a couple fixes to the Commons page. Should be all set!
GorillaWarfare(talk)22:11, 23 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Hello, GorillaWarfare. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.
Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned
"extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following
this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.
In July and August 2016,
a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:
Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
Please review
the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you. This message was sent to the administrators'
mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Invitation to Women in Architecture & Women in Archaeology editathons
Had to admit I always thought you were a guy. But I truly believe that the site deserves people like you especially those who handle arbitration. Arbcom decision are a prime example of consensus building so keep up the good work.
VegasCasinoKid (
talk)
11:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)reply
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
current talk page.