![]() | 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. |
Hello Ma'am, You blocked [ [1]] who's a sock puppet of vrghs jacob, and he's already using multiple accounts like Uncletomwood and many others which I brought into notice, last year. He got away with it that time. Please have a look at his contributions and pages he likes to edit like, Vehicle beacon lights of India, Indian Order of Precedence, Indian Revenue Service, Indian Defence Accounts Service, Gujarat National Law Univ. (GNLU) and the current argument he's having with me on his talk page, you can notice the similarities and his silly line of argument. he brought up the topic of "job" which I said on his rahulkejriwal id. The images he's putting up at the GNLU article is from facebook page of the university and not at all his own. I don't wanna start any trouble, but the readers should be able to get clear, concise and reliable information that they were looking for. People like vrghs jacob with a particular propaganda try to mislead others. I don't have much time to edit wiki regularly, so thought to bring this issue to your notice. Thanks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.212.229.72 ( talk) 19:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Dear GorillaWarfare, please see
this polite request, and provide a positive thoughtful response there, if you have one. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 00:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC).
Guild of Copy Editors
July 2014 backlog elimination drive wrap-up
Participation: Thanks to everyone who participated in the July drive. Of the 40 people who signed up this drive, 22 copy edited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: We reduced our article backlog from 2400 articles to 2199 articles in July. This is a new month-end record low for the backlog. Nice work, everyone! Blitz: The August blitz will run from August 24–30. The blitz will focus on articles from the GOCE's Requests page. Awards will be given out to everyone who copy edits at least one of the target articles. The blitz will run from August 24–30. Sign up here! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, and Miniapolis. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
15:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
|
I'm not sure if you're the person to ask, but would you be able to merge the page history of Vacation (2014 film) with Vacation (2015 film)? Just so that any unnecessary redirects can be phased out. Rusted AutoParts 06:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Hope everything works out. - OberRanks ( talk) 18:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors
October 2014 newsletter is now ready for review. Highlights:
– Your project coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978 and Miniapolis. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
00:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
|
As the blocking administrator, was wondering if you had any opinion @ the placing of the {{Blocked user}} tag on Dcoetzee's user page. Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 14:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello GorillaWarfare:
Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia. Have a fun
Halloween!
–
SW3 5DL (
talk)
16:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello GorillaWarfare:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable
Halloween!
– –
Davey2010 •
(talk)
16:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I am glad to speak to GorillaWarfare again. Although the arbitrator is able to contribute neutral statements to the GamerGate case, she has made a smart move by recusing herself, thus avoiding to surf through massive amounts of text. This community surely likes to talk.
As I see it, these cases are content-related issues that are brought to the arbitration committee because the topic is controversial, and content-related hierarchy is not as developed as conduct-related one. I believe that we can solve this problem and I have a suggestion. Is GorillaWarfare interested? 84.127.115.190 ( talk) 21:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
At User_talk:Worm_That_Turned#I_know_you.27re_busy.2C_but_..., I'm having trouble getting a response to my request for at least some of you on the Committee to have a look at something that happened yesterday that you may or may not find relevant to a case you're voting on as we speak. Could I ask you to have a look? Reply anywhere you like. P.S. Dennis has already "unhatted" per my request. - Dank ( push to talk) 21:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello GorillaWarfare. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.
The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.
If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)
If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.
Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.
I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).
Sent via-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Hey GW. I'm calling in on you as you are the last (active) admin to have deleted page 2015 MLS SuperDraft ( Singularity42 did so again a few months after you, but he is shortly to lose his admin privileges due to long-term inactivity). This page seems to have full protection on at the moment, so I can't do anything with it. Could you kindly create it as a redirect link to this page, please? I would argue that it's not needed to make this page, except for that it seems that this template has been specially formatted to look for pages called 20xx MLS SuperDraft and use them for the previous/next season articles at the bottom of the infobox. You can see on the infobox at the top of this page that the infobox clearly isn't linking to the 2015 article because no article exists under the standard naming convention - creating a redirect should then fix the coding. Thanks. Falastur2 Talk 23:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
You ask here "how is this relevant to the PD?" I would have thought that was obvious: it is all these wild, unsubstantiated claims of things that affect women here that have been at the root of most of the problems central to the case. That is what ArbCom should have been getting to grips with and yet I don't think it is anywhere in the PD even though it was in the evidence and elsewhere in the workshop. Seriously, GW, I realise that yours is a thankless task and you'll never please everyone all of the time but in this case it looks very likely that the committee is not going to please anyone, which takes some doing. - Sitush ( talk) 00:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
You have mail. — Neotarf ( talk) 07:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Whispering: women ask (a woman first) to please find a better way (than forcefully breaking up their long-term beloved editing collaborations), -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
ps: just found this image -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
This [ [4]] was addressed to the arbs (you) about the remedy and not meant as an exercise of new evidence. As you can see at least one arb has since changed their vote maybe not completely based on that section but I'm sure it would have something to do in a small way, would you mind unhatting it? Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 23:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I am trying to fix the numbering in the oppose portion of this proposed remedy. It had #1 for both Salvio and NYB, I fixed that part, and presume I should fix it so you are the #2, but I'm puzzled by the strikeout. It leaves a sentence fragment, and an unnumbered entry. I originally thought you were adding yourself as an oppose, I am now wondering if the indentation means you are commenting on Salvio's comment, rather than voting.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 16:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Maybe, I missed the drama, I'm not active much anymore, but I can't find any drama anywhere that warrants this block and both the block log and your notice on their talk page are completely uninformative. Care to explain? Dpmuk ( talk) 22:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I'll also confirm that the Committee is aware of this and that GorillaWarfare's actions were appropriate. I will not elaborate further, nor will anyone else. So far as your general questions about the private handling of information, it's a decision made on a case by case basis, but by definition, if we elaborate on why we're handling something privately, it's no longer being handled privately. Handling those sensitive situations is one of the responsibilities of the Committee, and it is one we take very seriously. It's not a decision undertaken lightly, especially when something like a block is involved. It is expected that any arbitrator who must make a block or take some other action based on private evidence immediately notify the rest of the Committee what they have done and why, and the reason had better be legitimate. I would not tolerate the abusive use of that authority, and having worked with the other members of the Committee for almost a year now, I cannot imagine that they would tolerate it either. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC) As a fellow -- whatever I am -- I'll suggest the more succinct response that GW's activities are not only in compliance with the WMF privacy policy, she is actually prohibited from revealing non-public information per WMF access policy. NE Ent 00:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I think we've lost the thread a bit here. We've made it pretty clear that we don't intend to discuss the Dcoetzee block, nor the reasons for keeping it private, so I think this discussion can end. Further discussions about the transparency of the Arbitration Committee should take place in more appropriate fora.
GorillaWarfare
(talk)
04:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
|
Actually if you read the guidelines that is the correct page to requrest a checuser on during an open arbcase. When to consider it tells us to request on that page, I followed your instructions to go to SPI but I went to the suggested place. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 20:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Greetings from the
Guild of Copy Editors
![]() Candidate nominations for Guild coordinators to serve from January 1 to June 30, 2015, are currently underway. The nomination period will close at 23:59 on December 15 (UTC), after which voting will commence until 23:59 on December 31, 2014. Self-nominations are welcomed. Please consider getting involved; it's your Guild and it won't coordinate itself, so if you'd like to help coordinate Guild activities we'd love to hear from you. Cheers from your GOCE coordinators
Jonesey95,
Baffle gab1978, and
Miniapolis.
Message sent by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC) |
![]() |
A cute for you :) |
Thanks for fixing up the tables on ovarian cancer, you're the best! <3 Keilana| Parlez ici 00:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC) |
Guild of Copy Editors December 2014 Newsletter
![]() Drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in November's Backlog Elimination Drive. Of the 43 people who signed up for this drive, 26 copy edited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: The November Drive removed 26 requests from the Requests page and 509 articles from the {{ copy edit}} backlog. We copy edited 83 articles tagged in the target months; July, August, and September 2013. Together with tag removals from articles unsuitable for copy editing, we eliminated July 2013 from the backlog and reduced August and September's tags to 61 and 70 respectively. As of 01:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC), the backlog stood at 1,974 articles, dipping below 2,000 for the first time in the Guild's history (see graph at right). Well done everyone! Blitz: The December Blitz will run from December 14–20 and will focus on articles related to Religion, in recognition of this month's religious holidays in much of the English-speaking world. Awards will be given out to everyone who copy edits at least one of the target articles. Sign up here! Election time again: The election of coordinators to serve from 1 January to 30 June 2015 is now underway. Candidates can nominate themselves or others from December 01, 00:01 (UTC), until December 15, 23:59. The voting period will run from December 16, 00:01 (UTC), until December 31, 23:59. You can read about coordinators' duties here. Please consider getting involved and remember to cast you vote—it's your Guild and it doesn't organize itself! Thank you all once again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve anything without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, and Miniapolis. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list.
|
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 03:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I cant find a meetup page on WP itself!
Victor Grigas ( talk) 22:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for helping me appeal my block extension.
Lightbreather (
talk)
19:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!! |
Hello GorillaWarfare, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this
seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
![]() |
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!! |
Hello GorillaWarfare, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this
seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) on behalf of {{U| Technical 13}} to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list
Hi, Molly GorillaWarfare i rly need your help on some articles beacause i am new here and dont know how things go here, i noticed you are very good with wikisource english and i wanted to help me to solve some cases on some articels.Many of them has to do with names pages how they are spelled in english,i provided many sources but they keep ignoring me, there are some editors who are vandalizing the article and not providing good facts and sources only words like:"go away","soon the page will be like this" etc. here,here are some of the articles. here, [6], here, [7]i hope that you will help me clear this mess.Regard and Respect Lindi29 ( talk) 19:04, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
TheGeneralUser (
talk) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
![]() |
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!! |
Hello GorillaWarfare, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this
seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
A Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year GorillaWarfare :) Best Wishes! TheGeneralUser ( talk) 00:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Igor_the_facetious_xmas_bunny_-_NOT_HERE Way out of control. Legacypac ( talk) 10:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Someone is 'out of control'. It's not me. Igor the facetious xmas bunny ( talk) 11:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
As noted above, User:Igor the facetious xmas bunny is continues to be discussed at ANI. The user's behavior is also up for discussion at two seperate threads at WP:AN/3RR ( link 1, link 2) and an SPI has been opened here.
With the mess the user has caused (as evidenced by the multiple threads linked above) it might be helpful to know who we are dealing with here. Igor says he/she "confirmed my prior history with" you. Since the user's behavior is less than stellar (ie: edit-warring, socks, gaming the system, ANI thread, 3RR violations, etc.), knowing who they are would be helpful. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Apologies for the delay–have been AFK all morning, and am only briefly around right now, though I'll be back later. I would not consider a reversal of the block to be wheel-warring at this point. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi GW. Could you have a look at recent edits by Igor the facetious xmas bunny to see if they are helpful or not? There's been a bit more edit warring, possibly baited by other editors. I've asked Legacypac to back away, but I'm concerned. Thanks. Jehochman Talk 19:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I have to agree that Legacypac's choice to come to that page and begin edit warring with Igor the bunny does give the appearance of hounding. Igor's edits did indeed remove uncited information, and they left a message on the talk page (and edit summary) explaining what they were doing. Legacypac categorizing the edit as vandalism is incorrect, and saying that the material "looks very crediable and is undoubtably sourced in the refs" is not an acceptable form of citation. Given Igor's recent conflicts, walking on eggshells here and not reverting at all (as opposed to just playing by 3RR—it does not always take three edits to make something an edit war) wouldn't hurt, but I do feel that it was Legacypac who was in the wrong here. Legacypac, I strongly recommend that you disengage—your concerns with Igor seem to be clouding your judgment, and are starting to look an awful lot like harassment. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
P.S. In concluding this issue, please consider my complaint that there remain unreferenced claims on the BLP, (re)inserted by Legacypac [20].
I have no wish to re-engage with any articles he's battled me over, but I'm concerned about leaving a BLP with unreferenced claims. Igor the bunny ( talk) 23:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I'd also like you to consider his/her accusation that I made an "Outright lie" [21]. I've complained repeatedly about harassment here, and I can understand a certain amount being tolerated, and being told to 'let it go away'. But this has gone on for too long.
Legacypac has accused me of many things, and I'd like something done about it. If nothing can be done right now, please direct me to the right place to seek appropriate action - RFC/U or arb or whatever? I'm sick of the harassment, and it's gone too far to ignore it and walk away. Igor the bunny ( talk) 23:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
@ Legacypac: I've changed your edit to your comment to strike the bit you removed, rather than remove it completely. Considering it's been replied to in detail here, removing it makes the following conversation pretty confusing, so striking is much more appropriate (per advice at WP:REDACT). GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Hey Molly. I think I only briefly talked to you about the Co-op at Wikimania this past summer; we're looking to get our pilot started late in January 2015, and we're looking for folks who might be interested in mentoring one or two people during the month o' piloting. I figure it's a long shot to ask knowing you have commitments to ArbCom and elsewhere, but I wanted to pitch it your way in case you were interested and had the time. I also just generally feel like you would be a good fit for mentoring. If you're interested, you can sign up here and check out / ask questions about how the Co-op will work. Thanks a bunch, I, JethroBT drop me a line 03:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
You have the patience of a saint. — Ched : ? 01:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
Thanks for the clean up of 64.134.234.63. Seasons Greetings to you. Pvpoodle ( talk) 04:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC) |
- just a quiet ‘’all the best’’ to you for 2015 and I hope you’ll continue to be around on Wikipedia for a long time to come without the work load in that 'special' place wearing you down. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 12:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Regards, Manul ~ talk 19:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The Anti-Flame Barnstar | |
For your recent coolness in conflict. B E C K Y S A Y L E S 05:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC) |
There is a proposal at the IdeaLab that may interest you. Lightbreather ( talk) 22:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Cheers, Manul ~ talk 10:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Since WikiProject Women as proposed at the IdeaLab may take some time to realize, and based on a discussion on the proposal's talk page, I have started a test Kaffeeklatsch area for women only (cisgender or trans-woman, regardless of sexual orientation).
It is a place where women can go and be sure they'll be able to participate in discussions without being dominated by men's advice, criticism, and explanations. If interested, your participation would be most welcome. Lightbreather ( talk) 23:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
This is my Twitter account; this is my website. GorillaWarfare (talk) 08:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
While you may not feel that your tweets on GamerGate show bias [(See [23], since deleted), my observation is that they evince a significant personal involvement in the substance of the dispute, and hence represent a serious conflict of interest, and cause for you to recuse yourself.
Apparently, at one time you also felt that you had a conflict of interest - which lead to you recusing yourself at the beginning of this arbitration. Yet, you changed your mind.
There is no ArbCom policy, that I can find, which supports the notion that, once an arbitrator has recused, they can change their mind. [24] In fact, I can find no such concept in any body of ethical standards applicable to arbitrators. While ArbCom has the right to define Arbitration Policy, it has not, in the past, done so by fiat. And it should not do so in this case.
Unfortunately, your unilateral reentry into the case, both by voting on the proposed decision, and attempting to influence the opinions of other arbitrators, has irreparably prejudiced the case. Any sanctions which ArbCom might now impose on involved parties will be open to question.
I'm contacting you here, on your talk page, pursuant to ArbCom policy [25], and requesting that you recuse yourself, and redact all of your comments and votes in the case. While I don't believe that this will substantially change the outcome of the case, I do believe it's necessary to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest.
This is, by any definition, an extraordinary circumstance, requiring action irrespective of the fact that the case has already entered the voting state. So, while I will await your response here, I believe the issue must also be referred to the full Arbitration Committee.
Note: Quite a lot of comments on this matter, both here and in the Proposed Decision talk page, have been getting rather quickly deleted. Not by you, but by apparently well meaning people. That's probably a bad idea. Fearofreprisal ( talk) 16:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
They are looking at editor behavior which can be judged regardless of what one thinks of the subject of the article.This is absurd to anyone who's familiar with the parties to the case. GorillaWarfare has shown up out of nowhere and suddenly started registering votes against action for parties who have promoted the "legitimizing the abuse of women" interpretation.
Gamergate playbook, describing the sort of discussion that you are looking at right now with rhetoric like
aggressive, hostile "investigation," claims of bias, accusations of "collusion", doxxing and anonymous abuse based on the slightest bit of personal information that can be teased out about them... brazenly attempting to influence the arbitration proceeding by attacking the character of at least two arbitrators... [an] atmosphere of fear [which is a] dystopian future [for Wikipedia]. Pardon me for thinking that this does look like people sticking up for each other (especially when GW's votes on the talk page are fairly neatly mirrored by another arbitrator - who I presume is the other one NBSB has in mind - even in cases where others clearly disagree), air-quotes around the word
collusionbe damned. As well as, you know, more than a little ridiculous all-around. That editors like NBSB are carrying on like this on the Arbcom talk page should, realistically, only be seen as further evidence of battleground mentality and bringing a clear bias to the discussion.
If you saw the request on the PD talk page, I imagine you also saw
my response. I do not intend to recuse at this stage.
GorillaWarfare
(talk)
18:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
saying a legitimate movement doe not threaten and defame womenI stand by that.
Could you clarify why you chose to recuse in the first place and what made you change your mind? Bosstopher ( talk) 19:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
@ Bosstopher: I initially recused because I was concerned that people would, as they are currently doing, perceive comments I've made about feminism and GamerGate elsewhere as indicative of a conflict of interest in this case. I thought about it quite a lot, and realized that it's silly to feel obligated to recuse because I have opinions on feminism, and did not choose to hide them. It's easy to make arguments for my recusal, or that of any other arbitrator's, on many cases—maybe I should have recused on Interactions at GGTF because I am a woman, a feminist, and I believe that the gender gap is an issue; maybe I should have recused on DangerousPanda or Kafziel or Nightscream or any other case involving sysop conduct because I'm a sysop; maybe I should have recused on Media Viewer RfC because I'm a software developer, or because I've contributed to MediaWiki, or because I personally prefer the old way of viewing images; maybe I should have recused on American politics because I'm an American, and have opinions (which I've also publicly stated) on political and social issues in the U.S. The point is that it's a judgment call for each arbitrator each time, and arguments can be made for or against recusal on just about any case, but without a significant conflict of interest, I choose to remain active. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Apologies if I misinterpreted what you said—I've been getting a lot of accusations from all angles in the last 24 hours, and sometimes it's hard to tell who's taking issue with what. We could go back and forth here for a long time about whether I'm biased, but I'm going to end this conversation now in the interest of focusing on both the case and my schoolwork. To repeat what I said above: I don't intend to recuse from the case. If another arbitrator wishes to bring it up for discussion among the rest of the Committee, that's fine, but I don't intend to do so myself. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Molly. I noticed the discussion about this, and I remember seeing the e-mail you sent the clerks asking to be moved from recused to active on this case (this would have been on 3 December). Over on the PD talk page, you said this, referring to this edit by Sphilbrick (the edit summary refers to the e-mail). An arbitrator moving from recused to active on a case is extremely rare - it has happened a couple of times before (I give an example below), but in general my view would be that when an arbitrator states they are recusing, they should stay recused. It is because unrecusing is so rare that there are no hard and fast rules. Maybe what should happen is that an arbitrator wishing to unrecuse should ask the rest of the committee first? Or at least provide a reason on-wiki for the unrecusal at the time? Having to explain now about an unrecusal that took place by proxy via e-mail and a clerk around 7 weeks ago is not ideal. Explaining at the time would have been better.
One of the reasons unrecusals are rare and should be discouraged, is that it reflects badly on the committee to have arbs being uncertain about their recusal status (it can get to the point where people don't believe arbs will stay recused, or even that it is possible to pressure arbs into recusing - if you state that the decision made at the time of the case request is final, you are less likely to get people trying to change that recusal status either way).
On a more practical note, the main case page still states that you are recused. People reading that will be confused because the way the recusal status was changed was to edit a template providing data to the PD talk page. Ideally, a note would be added to the main case page striking through your recusal and giving a diff to the change made by Sphilbrick. For an example of a case where the recusal status of several arbitrators changed during the request and after the request was accepted (with strike-throughs and additional notes added afterwards), see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds.
Finally, I know it won't help much, but one of the reasons I stayed well away from this case was because of the sort of thing you have been having to put up with. Whatever you decide to do here, you and the other arbs coming under pressure on this case have my sympathy. I hope what I've said here will help. Carcharoth ( talk) 02:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
I wish I could buy you a real-life beer or cup of coffee or whatever you prefer. Hell - even dinner and a night on the town. You've earned a trip to a tropical island for the unflappable way you handle crap. Lightbreather ( talk) 20:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC) |
![]() |
Life is better with tea! Best wishes! MONGO 22:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC) |
![]() |
You're great, the haters can't hold a candle to you. <3 Keilana| Parlez ici 22:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC) |
![]() |
Because chocolate is the answer for every situation. Liz Read! Talk! 00:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC) |
I usually don't do cute pictures (or Python), but I'd annoyed if you let the naysayers talk you on of doing the job you were elected to do. Also, feel free to ban folks from your talk page, no one will think less of you. NE Ent 01:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible
conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you.
09I500 (
talk)
17:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Epic Meal Time, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. GamerPro64 01:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to keep this anonymous for a number of reasons, but I wanted to express how abhorrent I find your treatment by certain Gamergate supporters. Full disclosure: I am strongly pro-Gamergate, I have been involved in the Wiki controversy over it in the past (though am not a party to the arbitration), and I find a lot of the rhetoric thrown around by the editors I oppose on this issue to be equally abhorrent. That said, prying into your off-wiki activity and trying to push you to recuse yourself at the first sign of voting 'against us' is despicable and only paints my 'side' as even worse than it's already been painted. I don't agree with all of the decisions you've made on this case, but I don't have to do that to acknowledge that they're reasonable and that you have a right to make them. Even if they weren't reasonable, you are one of fourteen voices and I would imagine the point of having so many voices is that extreme opinions can be balanced out and a fair consensus can be found.
Thank you for your handling of this issue. I hope it hasn't inconvenienced you much in life, and I condemn the behaviour of others surrounding it. 192.249.132.237 ( talk) 17:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
How or why was the entire history of Nekrogoblikon prior to your December 29, 2014 editing revision-deleted? LINK I've never seen anything like this on WP... It seems to be something in need of reversal, yes? Carrite ( talk) 13:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Heya Carrite. Yep, SarekOfVulcan is correct—there was a relatively large block of text that made up much of the article that was directly copied from another source. It remained in the article unnoticed for quite some time, so a lot of revisions were affected. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Before casting your vote in the Wifione case, please be sure to have read and understood this thread. If you have any questions, please ask. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 13:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Let me start off by saying that I'm a lifelong gamer (yes, I know how nerdy that must sound), and someone whose sole involvement has been an admittedly ill-advised post on the GamerGate talk page back in November; see this follow-up conversation on Drmies's talk page for more on that, and to clarify what I had meant by my initial commentary. There are aspects of the movement that I support; for example, I think there are valid reasons to criticize Feminist Frequency by Anita Sarkeesian, and I say this as someone who strongly believes that women are not given fair representation in the gaming industry by a long shot.
So why am I against GamerGate? This is a perfect example. These kinds of character assassinations are precisely why I'm so embarrassed of this particular strand of the gaming community. Anyone who says that GamerGate is about "journalistic integrity" needs to take a good, hard look at what they've aligned themselves with: terrorizing people into fleeing their homes, unproven accusations of misconduct, death threats and other vile attacks against women, the list goes on. I don't care if people say that harassment and trolling are just a part of internet culture — men don't experience this kind of hatred. Anyone who thinks otherwise, and believes that this is a legitimate way of expressing disagreement, is a bad person.
I was going to ask you about your decision to unrecuse yourself from this case, but based on what I've read above, I don't want to anymore. You may have opinions about GamerGate; so what? Does having a perspective on something make a person any less capable of rational thought? I personally view religion as a means of psychological control over people, but that doesn't mean I condone demeaning people based on their beliefs. Even if your votes didn't always align with the majority, you spared neither side in condemning the edit-warring and hostility. I hope anyone who criticizes you can at least recognize that much. Kurtis (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
we hear you're talkin 'bout equality ... |
Lawd Almighty, keep talkin' like that, you might even get the right to vote! Djembayz ( talk) 05:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Purple Barnstar | |
For suffering the slings and arrows of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Interactions at GGTF. Illegitimi non carborundum. GRuban ( talk) 04:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC) |
Please tell me you're going to make a regular habit of responding to arbitration in haiku. Suddenly the page has been given a certain subtle grace... Yunshui 雲 水 13:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
and out of my depth. (So are Melanie, and Tim Trent, to say nothing of the author who started it all...) Best to begin with the 'Copyright and other matters' thread on my talk page, and take in User talk:Timtrent and Draft talk:Atlantic Horns. The author is trying to give permission to use his stuff from outside via OTRS instead of taking the easy way and rewriting. (Ritchie333 started a rewrite, but may have given up.) I know nothing about permissions and OTRS, so could you have a look at this series of unfortunate events? (Be a good title for some books, that...) So far, he seems to have confirmed his identity and that he runs two websites, which wasn't really what was wanted (but doesn't surprise me, the way things are going). Help, please. <8-( Peridon ( talk) 18:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I've been watching Is not a/Dear ODear ODear for a bit now and am curious what prompted the ban if it's public info. Just curiosity. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 21:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I pinged you today. [28] Did you not receive a notice? Lightbreather ( talk) 03:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
added bolton news ref as asked so please allow edit, it is referenced and I was at meeting as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.55.2.79 ( talk) 18:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes stating the fact, there was a public vote which was accepted, then Andy allowed the council to change their mind, then all tyldesley residents voted no to Andy, just fact — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.55.2.79 ( talk) 18:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
see the ref mentioned which I added, it explains what happened, uk published news article is reliable source or as least as reliable as uk wikipedia info :) you obviously dont live in tyldesley like i do — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.55.2.79 ( talk) 18:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I posted a question of Mkdw's talk page [29] and he suggested I contact you. He also said I should move the discussion from the archives, but I don't know how to do that. Thanks. Mdtemp ( talk) 15:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Hey, GW. I messed up the ping on Mishae's talk page, but I'm thinking about an unblock, and was wondering about your opinion. I've been discussing it with Mishae, and while I'm not totally convinced that they get it, I think there's at least progress, and an unblock might be worth a shot. What do you think, as the blocking admin? Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 22:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare, I'll just tack this on here. After Mishae's unblock, it looks like they've gone almost straight back to problematic behavior. We reached consensus not to remove the Wikiproject Insects tag here, though Mishae starting removing the tags again and now they're trying to pretty tendentiously justify it on the individual pages (at the bottom), accusations of COI, etc. I'm basically just disengaging from conversation for now trying to figure out how to tackle this after comments like this. It looks like Mishae is just going to keep plowing ahead, so what's the best course of action here? Is this a pretty blatant violation of WP:ROPE after just coming off an unblock and resuming the activity that just warrants a block outright? Otherwise, is it better to just reopen the ANI case? We've had a few admins at Mishae's page now discussing the previous block, so I'm not really sure what the best course of action is at this point. Thanks. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 23:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
![]() | On 16 April 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Alma Dolens, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alma Dolens. 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. |
Allen3 talk 08:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Nazi gun control theory#Godsy's preferred lead. Should article be locked down/protected? If so, which version, and for how long? Thanks.
Lightbreather (
talk)
22:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I've responded there to say that I don't know if I'd be much help. I definitely don't think the article should be protected, though the edit warring should be dealt with if it continues. As for pinging, I did receive the ping earlier. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Because I was asked to address the multiple instances of misuse of tools or the longterm patterns of poor judgment. I have cited a few different examples concerning Bgwhite at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Arbitrary break, there are also about others. Please have a look. You would find that there is a long term pattern of edit warring with editors, then blocking them, thus not only violating WP:INVOLVED but also WP:3RR.
He has same kind of pattern of edit warring and wikihounding, where I am contributing. He unnecessarily picks up the edit wars and arguments where I am currently contributing, and he never contributed before. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Since you are a champion of civility and consider "fuck off" to be an "egregious violation of civility" I'm bring this to your attention. The encyclopedia needs your protection. Or has your stance on "fuck off" changed, or is it merely selective based upon the individuals involved? Two kinds of pork Makin' Bacon 00:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I checked the Google Street View of the CVS Pharmacy that was burned in the 2015 Baltimore Riots, and it was near an entrance to the Penn–North (Baltimore Metro Subway station). That was why I added the link to this station. --------- User:DanTD ( talk) 00:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
The Rachel Maddow show on MSNBC is reporting on the burning of a CVS store at Franklin and Brannan Streets as I started reading this post. That's how I heard the street names anyway but am not citing this source myself. I think they mentioned another CVS as well but am unsure since I was simultaneously reading about the Nepal earthquake since I have a friend there. I am unfamiliar with Baltimore geography. My point is that many reliable sources are available covering the Baltimore riot in great detail and we do not need to and should not rely on any form of original research for our coverage of this riot. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I noticed you put the Baltimore riots page under protection. I was wondering if you could do the same for Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, the mayor. I've made the request at the appropriate spot already.
There's been anonymous IPs editorializing and edit-warring, removing content and replacing it with their own non-NPOV stuff. One of them was fairly persistent for a few hours; most of the edits involve her press conference - I expanded the coverage of that presser to make it more NPOV, but they didn't like that. At the moment it's in good shape, but I'm tired of babysitting it. Feel like maybe 48 or 72 hours would be plenty. Thanks, Rockypedia ( talk) 22:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
In regard to the case currently before Arbccom [30] I ask that you recuse as a voting member of the case; and restrict your input to comments and evidence. I ask this because I feel that you are "involved" to the extent of being biased towards one or more members of the case.
I'd prefer that you stay on the case. I've seen no evidence of bias, and lots of evidence of a steadfast commitment to reason and fairness. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 13:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
IF editors believe that you & Salvio would be biased in Lightbreather's Arbcom case, on opposite sides? Then, I fail to see what the concerns are. Afterall, if the bias claims were true, then wouldn't both your participations, cancel each other out?? GoodDay ( talk) 19:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I just wanted to say that I can see that my post on your talk page on commons may have easily been misinterpreted as a reference to the impersonation problem that you have been experiencing. I assure you that I have no involvement in or knowledge of that issue whatsoever. My statements were only intended as a complement of your username and also that, with my admittedly very limited knowledge and observations, I perceived you as a reasonably decent human being here who has a lot of experience and knowledge of the issues at Wikipedia and a person in a high position of authority whom I, as a very recent arrival, would do well to try to develop a good rapport with.
Sincere regards-- ChemWarfare ( talk) 10:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Vaginal evisceration at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
97198 (
talk)
12:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
-- Lucywhirlpool ( talk) 15:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
19:21, 18 April 2015 GorillaWarfare (talk | contribs) deleted page Cléo Dubois (A7: No credible indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events))
2014 | Inducted in The Society of Janus‘ Hall of Fame 2008 | Leather Marshall, San Francisco Pride Parade
Is it possible to get this restored? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesv ( talk • contribs) 20:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Your Block of Kevin Gorman was mentioned at AN/I Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Unblock_of_JackTheVicar. Not sure it has anything to do with that discussion, but notifying per AN/I best practice. Monty 845 16:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
-- Cosmic Emperor 04:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Seeing you are uninvolved would you mind looking at this: [32], it relates to me as I was one of those editors who offered my support opinion. I was going to let it go until the same editor doubled down on her opinion when told it was Canvassing. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 14:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
For the drafting arbitrators of the SPI block case decision. Pine ✉ 19:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC) |
Thank you for adding your name to the WP:Women's health project page. This new project is off to a good start and seeing new editors signing up to help or express support encourages the rest of us.
FYI, twinkle doesn't mark pages as curated anymore if you nominate a page for PROD deletion. -- I dream of horses ( talk to me) ( contributions) @ 03:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi -- if you were trying to delete the new material on the Case page, you did not succeed. The edits can't be viewed in the history, but the text is still there. (Apologies if I caught you mid-process.) Looie496 ( talk) 17:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I hope I am doing this properly. I've never tried to write anything to a talk page before today. (I normally just try to help around the edges, fixing typos and such when I see them on regular pages.)
Anyway, I just wanmted to be clear about this: *I* did not put the link you deleted onto the web page about hope chests. It was already there when I arrived. But it was a broken/outdated link, so I just fixed/updated it so that it would work right. I don't feel confident enough to make serious content changes to Wikipedia just yet, except with respect to a few narow subject areas that I am especially familiar with.
So anyway, because of this, I have really no opinion, one way or the other about the change you made. I do think that it would be Good to have a link for the lock replacement _somewhere_ on the page about hope chests, but I have no clear idea about where it would be best to put that.
P.S. My name is Ron G, and I _do_ have a wikipedia account, but I hardly ever use it. But if you see an edit from 69.62.255.118 then that's going to be me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.255.118 ( talk) 05:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Do you know if this issue was raised elsewhere? If not, I'll raise it somewhere. (Any idea where?) -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 05:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
-- Cosmic Emperor 00:07, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Did you see the WP:AE consensus / closed section that basically this was not worth actioning? I'm not going to intervene either way, but I am curious what you saw that they all didn't? Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 03:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I've replied at Eric Corbett's talk page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
the ability of arbcom to retain their ability to exercise legitimate power...is more important than [the contributions of a prolific content creator]I just don't know what to say about that attitude, other than that I don't share it and I hope it's rare. It sounds like a line from a cheesy techno-dystopia. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 07:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
calling the result of that AE discussion consensus against enforcing the restriction is a bit of a stretch—out of the nine commenters, only one is a sysop.... Well, perhaps there were few comments because it was only open for a few hours, and all of the participants concurred that this wasn't worth the drama? I saw that discussion when it opened but didn't have time to read it. I was relieved to see it had been closed by the time I got back online, because I was actually considering commenting even though getting involved in arbitration enforcement is somewhere between chewing tinfoil and making sculptures out of dryer lint on my personal list of things that sound like a good time.
a potential loss of at least one good content editorSee, this is what I read again and again on talk pages and I just don't get.
Eric knew very well he was going to get in trouble for his comment ... he has more than deserved his break he was aiming for. ChristopheT ( talk) 08:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
You voted to impose the topic ban on Eric Corbett in the first place - indeed, in the same ArbCom case, you were the most vocal in wanting to ban him completely from the project. Your comments on that case display clearly that you are not uninvolved regarding Eric (or at the very least hold a very negative view of him) and you should undo your block. Note that I haven't got a problem with an actually uninvolved admin blocking, even though consensus was clearly against it at AE and I can't see what benefit it brings to the project. Black Kite (talk) 09:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Waiting for the inevitable comments from other WMF/Jimbo proxies ... - Sitush ( talk) 10:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Black Kite (talk)
10:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Look, I'm not interested in debating the merits of another Eric Corbett block now. What I'm here to say is: Do you seriously think it is a good idea for you to be overturning a consensus of AE admins? The work we do there is pretty much completely thankless and kind of a bureaucratic nightmare, largely thanks to the committee's own decisions to require about a jillion bits of paperwork every time we implement sanctions. I think we have a reasonable expectation that arbs are going to respect the decisions we make and not overrule them when it strikes their fancy. And it's not like there's a surplus of admins working there (several items there have been sitting for a week or more waiting for action). And yet despite our hardly impressive numbers, arbs coming along and doing this makes me question if I've got any interest in contributing anymore at all if it's just going to be crapped on by the first arb who doesn't agree. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
AE does not work by consensus, any admin that wanders by is free to take whatever action they wish. Callanecc proved that easily enough when I was blocked for 3 days despite no string leanings in my AE case a few months back. Tarc ( talk) 17:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Gorilla Warfare, you did right to block Eric Corbett. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 15:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Morning, all. I've woken up to quite a lot of comments to respond to here, at Eric Corbett's talk page, on arbitration pages, and various other forums. I've responded to a few of the quicker ones, but am going to go make some breakfast and then begin threading in replies. Good thing I'd decided to take a three-day-weekend from work this weekend, though admittedly responding to tens of Wikipedia comments was not quite what I'd had planned :) GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
To avoid more accusations that I'm avoiding accountability, I'm noting here that I'm going out for the evening, and cannot guarantee I'll be back and responding to discussion before tomorrow afternoon. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Deliberately ignoring an existing discussion in favor of a unilateral preferred action. GregJackP Boomer! 02:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Tarc, you may want to look at the discussion at AN, a good number of admins and editors, including Black Kite ( here), seem to view it as an inappropriate reversion or wheel-warring. GregJackP Boomer! 03:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Wheel-warring by GorillaWarfare 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.
Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 04:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I have filed a motion for you to recuse in the current arb proceedings. I feel your continued involvement is inappropriate as there are interconnected issues relating to each other. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 10:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
"I have yet to hear from anyone who feels that Eric Corbett did not violate his topic ban. GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)"
That's pretty cocky and here's why: I don't believe *you* have explained at any time just how EC violated it. The burden of demonstrating a violation rests with you. What you've done instead is pushed the burden onto others, to prove a negative.
IHTS (
talk)
12:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Editors topic banned by the Committee under this remedy are prohibited on the English Wikipedia from editing any pages relating to or making 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. An uninvolved admin may remove any comments that breach this remedy, and impose blocks as necessary. The Committee's standard provisions on enforcement of arbitration provisions and appeals and modifications of arbitration enforcements apply.
"I don't see how commenting on [...] can be construed as anything other than [...]". (If "anything other than [...]" doesn't refer to your own construed result, then what does it refer to?) IHTS ( talk) 23:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
![]() | On 28 June 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Vaginal evisceration, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that vaginal evisceration is a rare complication of surgically removing the uterus entirely through the vaginal canal? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Vaginal evisceration. 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. |
Gatoclass ( talk) 01:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:
You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the
AN page, the
AE page or the
Case Requests page
and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee,
L235 (
t /
c /
ping in reply) via
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
By motion, the committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:
Therefore, you were recently listed as a party to 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/Arbitration enforcement. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 13, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
Wehwalt gave me this back in 2012. You deserve it more. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 09:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC) |
It's much more complicated than I thought, I apologise for (mis)reading between the lines. Guy ( Help!) 09:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.
On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:
There is a discussion about you at WP:ANI. They failed to notify you, so I am. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!
With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:
Send on behalf of
The Wikipedia Library using
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Can I have whatever the non BLPvio part of my section was back? Bosstopher ( talk) 22:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I was reading through this and I noticed that 3.2.3.8 had 10 supporting votes -- it looks like you supported it twice. I don't know if it matters, but I just thought I'd let you know. Mizike ( talk) 03:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I would prefer if you not weigh in on the afd (canvassing concerns and all) but I have a question. I wrote a stub Tahera Ahmad. Recently she was in the news for an incident on a united airlines flight but when I researched I found almost 4 years of coverage in newspapers, tv and radio. She was featured on a PBS series "The Calling" and later was the first female to recite the Quran at the largest US Muslim convention, she was also honored at one point during woman history month at the White House in 2014. I thought it was a great start for a stub due to those things, is that gender inequality or is my notability scale that far off? I messed up my links in the AFD somehow and so now half of them don't work correctly, not sure why. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 14:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Drat. Well yeah unfortunately there isn't a who lot just a lot of little stuff. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 22:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Love the article on Hidiya Hanim Barakat. I wanted to add it to the new women articles for WikiProject Women in Red, but didn't know if there was some reason you didn't want to, so thought I'd ask. SusunW ( talk) 15:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Mariam Behruzi at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions)
20:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I see you recently joined Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red. I've made a proposal to merge this project into Wikipedia:WikiProject Women at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red, so we can not only cover missing articles but focus on general quality of women's biographies. If interested please put your name down on the WP:Women page at the bottom.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
![]() | On 31 July 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mariam Behruzi, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Mariam Behruzi was one of four women elected to the first Iranian Parliament? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mariam Behruzi. 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. |
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
![]() | 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. |
![]() | 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. |
Hello Ma'am, You blocked [ [1]] who's a sock puppet of vrghs jacob, and he's already using multiple accounts like Uncletomwood and many others which I brought into notice, last year. He got away with it that time. Please have a look at his contributions and pages he likes to edit like, Vehicle beacon lights of India, Indian Order of Precedence, Indian Revenue Service, Indian Defence Accounts Service, Gujarat National Law Univ. (GNLU) and the current argument he's having with me on his talk page, you can notice the similarities and his silly line of argument. he brought up the topic of "job" which I said on his rahulkejriwal id. The images he's putting up at the GNLU article is from facebook page of the university and not at all his own. I don't wanna start any trouble, but the readers should be able to get clear, concise and reliable information that they were looking for. People like vrghs jacob with a particular propaganda try to mislead others. I don't have much time to edit wiki regularly, so thought to bring this issue to your notice. Thanks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.212.229.72 ( talk) 19:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Dear GorillaWarfare, please see
this polite request, and provide a positive thoughtful response there, if you have one. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 00:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC).
Guild of Copy Editors
July 2014 backlog elimination drive wrap-up
Participation: Thanks to everyone who participated in the July drive. Of the 40 people who signed up this drive, 22 copy edited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: We reduced our article backlog from 2400 articles to 2199 articles in July. This is a new month-end record low for the backlog. Nice work, everyone! Blitz: The August blitz will run from August 24–30. The blitz will focus on articles from the GOCE's Requests page. Awards will be given out to everyone who copy edits at least one of the target articles. The blitz will run from August 24–30. Sign up here! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, and Miniapolis. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
15:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
|
I'm not sure if you're the person to ask, but would you be able to merge the page history of Vacation (2014 film) with Vacation (2015 film)? Just so that any unnecessary redirects can be phased out. Rusted AutoParts 06:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Hope everything works out. - OberRanks ( talk) 18:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors
October 2014 newsletter is now ready for review. Highlights:
– Your project coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978 and Miniapolis. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
00:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
|
As the blocking administrator, was wondering if you had any opinion @ the placing of the {{Blocked user}} tag on Dcoetzee's user page. Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 14:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello GorillaWarfare:
Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia. Have a fun
Halloween!
–
SW3 5DL (
talk)
16:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello GorillaWarfare:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable
Halloween!
– –
Davey2010 •
(talk)
16:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I am glad to speak to GorillaWarfare again. Although the arbitrator is able to contribute neutral statements to the GamerGate case, she has made a smart move by recusing herself, thus avoiding to surf through massive amounts of text. This community surely likes to talk.
As I see it, these cases are content-related issues that are brought to the arbitration committee because the topic is controversial, and content-related hierarchy is not as developed as conduct-related one. I believe that we can solve this problem and I have a suggestion. Is GorillaWarfare interested? 84.127.115.190 ( talk) 21:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
At User_talk:Worm_That_Turned#I_know_you.27re_busy.2C_but_..., I'm having trouble getting a response to my request for at least some of you on the Committee to have a look at something that happened yesterday that you may or may not find relevant to a case you're voting on as we speak. Could I ask you to have a look? Reply anywhere you like. P.S. Dennis has already "unhatted" per my request. - Dank ( push to talk) 21:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello GorillaWarfare. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.
The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.
If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)
If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.
Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.
I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).
Sent via-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Hey GW. I'm calling in on you as you are the last (active) admin to have deleted page 2015 MLS SuperDraft ( Singularity42 did so again a few months after you, but he is shortly to lose his admin privileges due to long-term inactivity). This page seems to have full protection on at the moment, so I can't do anything with it. Could you kindly create it as a redirect link to this page, please? I would argue that it's not needed to make this page, except for that it seems that this template has been specially formatted to look for pages called 20xx MLS SuperDraft and use them for the previous/next season articles at the bottom of the infobox. You can see on the infobox at the top of this page that the infobox clearly isn't linking to the 2015 article because no article exists under the standard naming convention - creating a redirect should then fix the coding. Thanks. Falastur2 Talk 23:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
You ask here "how is this relevant to the PD?" I would have thought that was obvious: it is all these wild, unsubstantiated claims of things that affect women here that have been at the root of most of the problems central to the case. That is what ArbCom should have been getting to grips with and yet I don't think it is anywhere in the PD even though it was in the evidence and elsewhere in the workshop. Seriously, GW, I realise that yours is a thankless task and you'll never please everyone all of the time but in this case it looks very likely that the committee is not going to please anyone, which takes some doing. - Sitush ( talk) 00:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
You have mail. — Neotarf ( talk) 07:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Whispering: women ask (a woman first) to please find a better way (than forcefully breaking up their long-term beloved editing collaborations), -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
ps: just found this image -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
This [ [4]] was addressed to the arbs (you) about the remedy and not meant as an exercise of new evidence. As you can see at least one arb has since changed their vote maybe not completely based on that section but I'm sure it would have something to do in a small way, would you mind unhatting it? Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 23:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I am trying to fix the numbering in the oppose portion of this proposed remedy. It had #1 for both Salvio and NYB, I fixed that part, and presume I should fix it so you are the #2, but I'm puzzled by the strikeout. It leaves a sentence fragment, and an unnumbered entry. I originally thought you were adding yourself as an oppose, I am now wondering if the indentation means you are commenting on Salvio's comment, rather than voting.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 16:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Maybe, I missed the drama, I'm not active much anymore, but I can't find any drama anywhere that warrants this block and both the block log and your notice on their talk page are completely uninformative. Care to explain? Dpmuk ( talk) 22:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I'll also confirm that the Committee is aware of this and that GorillaWarfare's actions were appropriate. I will not elaborate further, nor will anyone else. So far as your general questions about the private handling of information, it's a decision made on a case by case basis, but by definition, if we elaborate on why we're handling something privately, it's no longer being handled privately. Handling those sensitive situations is one of the responsibilities of the Committee, and it is one we take very seriously. It's not a decision undertaken lightly, especially when something like a block is involved. It is expected that any arbitrator who must make a block or take some other action based on private evidence immediately notify the rest of the Committee what they have done and why, and the reason had better be legitimate. I would not tolerate the abusive use of that authority, and having worked with the other members of the Committee for almost a year now, I cannot imagine that they would tolerate it either. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC) As a fellow -- whatever I am -- I'll suggest the more succinct response that GW's activities are not only in compliance with the WMF privacy policy, she is actually prohibited from revealing non-public information per WMF access policy. NE Ent 00:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I think we've lost the thread a bit here. We've made it pretty clear that we don't intend to discuss the Dcoetzee block, nor the reasons for keeping it private, so I think this discussion can end. Further discussions about the transparency of the Arbitration Committee should take place in more appropriate fora.
GorillaWarfare
(talk)
04:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
|
Actually if you read the guidelines that is the correct page to requrest a checuser on during an open arbcase. When to consider it tells us to request on that page, I followed your instructions to go to SPI but I went to the suggested place. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 20:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Greetings from the
Guild of Copy Editors
![]() Candidate nominations for Guild coordinators to serve from January 1 to June 30, 2015, are currently underway. The nomination period will close at 23:59 on December 15 (UTC), after which voting will commence until 23:59 on December 31, 2014. Self-nominations are welcomed. Please consider getting involved; it's your Guild and it won't coordinate itself, so if you'd like to help coordinate Guild activities we'd love to hear from you. Cheers from your GOCE coordinators
Jonesey95,
Baffle gab1978, and
Miniapolis.
Message sent by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC) |
![]() |
A cute for you :) |
Thanks for fixing up the tables on ovarian cancer, you're the best! <3 Keilana| Parlez ici 00:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC) |
Guild of Copy Editors December 2014 Newsletter
![]() Drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in November's Backlog Elimination Drive. Of the 43 people who signed up for this drive, 26 copy edited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: The November Drive removed 26 requests from the Requests page and 509 articles from the {{ copy edit}} backlog. We copy edited 83 articles tagged in the target months; July, August, and September 2013. Together with tag removals from articles unsuitable for copy editing, we eliminated July 2013 from the backlog and reduced August and September's tags to 61 and 70 respectively. As of 01:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC), the backlog stood at 1,974 articles, dipping below 2,000 for the first time in the Guild's history (see graph at right). Well done everyone! Blitz: The December Blitz will run from December 14–20 and will focus on articles related to Religion, in recognition of this month's religious holidays in much of the English-speaking world. Awards will be given out to everyone who copy edits at least one of the target articles. Sign up here! Election time again: The election of coordinators to serve from 1 January to 30 June 2015 is now underway. Candidates can nominate themselves or others from December 01, 00:01 (UTC), until December 15, 23:59. The voting period will run from December 16, 00:01 (UTC), until December 31, 23:59. You can read about coordinators' duties here. Please consider getting involved and remember to cast you vote—it's your Guild and it doesn't organize itself! Thank you all once again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve anything without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, and Miniapolis. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list.
|
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 03:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I cant find a meetup page on WP itself!
Victor Grigas ( talk) 22:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for helping me appeal my block extension.
Lightbreather (
talk)
19:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!! |
Hello GorillaWarfare, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this
seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
![]() |
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!! |
Hello GorillaWarfare, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this
seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) on behalf of {{U| Technical 13}} to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list
Hi, Molly GorillaWarfare i rly need your help on some articles beacause i am new here and dont know how things go here, i noticed you are very good with wikisource english and i wanted to help me to solve some cases on some articels.Many of them has to do with names pages how they are spelled in english,i provided many sources but they keep ignoring me, there are some editors who are vandalizing the article and not providing good facts and sources only words like:"go away","soon the page will be like this" etc. here,here are some of the articles. here, [6], here, [7]i hope that you will help me clear this mess.Regard and Respect Lindi29 ( talk) 19:04, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
TheGeneralUser (
talk) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
![]() |
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!! |
Hello GorillaWarfare, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this
seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
A Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year GorillaWarfare :) Best Wishes! TheGeneralUser ( talk) 00:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Igor_the_facetious_xmas_bunny_-_NOT_HERE Way out of control. Legacypac ( talk) 10:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Someone is 'out of control'. It's not me. Igor the facetious xmas bunny ( talk) 11:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
As noted above, User:Igor the facetious xmas bunny is continues to be discussed at ANI. The user's behavior is also up for discussion at two seperate threads at WP:AN/3RR ( link 1, link 2) and an SPI has been opened here.
With the mess the user has caused (as evidenced by the multiple threads linked above) it might be helpful to know who we are dealing with here. Igor says he/she "confirmed my prior history with" you. Since the user's behavior is less than stellar (ie: edit-warring, socks, gaming the system, ANI thread, 3RR violations, etc.), knowing who they are would be helpful. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Apologies for the delay–have been AFK all morning, and am only briefly around right now, though I'll be back later. I would not consider a reversal of the block to be wheel-warring at this point. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi GW. Could you have a look at recent edits by Igor the facetious xmas bunny to see if they are helpful or not? There's been a bit more edit warring, possibly baited by other editors. I've asked Legacypac to back away, but I'm concerned. Thanks. Jehochman Talk 19:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I have to agree that Legacypac's choice to come to that page and begin edit warring with Igor the bunny does give the appearance of hounding. Igor's edits did indeed remove uncited information, and they left a message on the talk page (and edit summary) explaining what they were doing. Legacypac categorizing the edit as vandalism is incorrect, and saying that the material "looks very crediable and is undoubtably sourced in the refs" is not an acceptable form of citation. Given Igor's recent conflicts, walking on eggshells here and not reverting at all (as opposed to just playing by 3RR—it does not always take three edits to make something an edit war) wouldn't hurt, but I do feel that it was Legacypac who was in the wrong here. Legacypac, I strongly recommend that you disengage—your concerns with Igor seem to be clouding your judgment, and are starting to look an awful lot like harassment. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
P.S. In concluding this issue, please consider my complaint that there remain unreferenced claims on the BLP, (re)inserted by Legacypac [20].
I have no wish to re-engage with any articles he's battled me over, but I'm concerned about leaving a BLP with unreferenced claims. Igor the bunny ( talk) 23:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I'd also like you to consider his/her accusation that I made an "Outright lie" [21]. I've complained repeatedly about harassment here, and I can understand a certain amount being tolerated, and being told to 'let it go away'. But this has gone on for too long.
Legacypac has accused me of many things, and I'd like something done about it. If nothing can be done right now, please direct me to the right place to seek appropriate action - RFC/U or arb or whatever? I'm sick of the harassment, and it's gone too far to ignore it and walk away. Igor the bunny ( talk) 23:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
@ Legacypac: I've changed your edit to your comment to strike the bit you removed, rather than remove it completely. Considering it's been replied to in detail here, removing it makes the following conversation pretty confusing, so striking is much more appropriate (per advice at WP:REDACT). GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Hey Molly. I think I only briefly talked to you about the Co-op at Wikimania this past summer; we're looking to get our pilot started late in January 2015, and we're looking for folks who might be interested in mentoring one or two people during the month o' piloting. I figure it's a long shot to ask knowing you have commitments to ArbCom and elsewhere, but I wanted to pitch it your way in case you were interested and had the time. I also just generally feel like you would be a good fit for mentoring. If you're interested, you can sign up here and check out / ask questions about how the Co-op will work. Thanks a bunch, I, JethroBT drop me a line 03:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
You have the patience of a saint. — Ched : ? 01:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
Thanks for the clean up of 64.134.234.63. Seasons Greetings to you. Pvpoodle ( talk) 04:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC) |
- just a quiet ‘’all the best’’ to you for 2015 and I hope you’ll continue to be around on Wikipedia for a long time to come without the work load in that 'special' place wearing you down. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 12:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Regards, Manul ~ talk 19:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The Anti-Flame Barnstar | |
For your recent coolness in conflict. B E C K Y S A Y L E S 05:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC) |
There is a proposal at the IdeaLab that may interest you. Lightbreather ( talk) 22:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Cheers, Manul ~ talk 10:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Since WikiProject Women as proposed at the IdeaLab may take some time to realize, and based on a discussion on the proposal's talk page, I have started a test Kaffeeklatsch area for women only (cisgender or trans-woman, regardless of sexual orientation).
It is a place where women can go and be sure they'll be able to participate in discussions without being dominated by men's advice, criticism, and explanations. If interested, your participation would be most welcome. Lightbreather ( talk) 23:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
This is my Twitter account; this is my website. GorillaWarfare (talk) 08:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
While you may not feel that your tweets on GamerGate show bias [(See [23], since deleted), my observation is that they evince a significant personal involvement in the substance of the dispute, and hence represent a serious conflict of interest, and cause for you to recuse yourself.
Apparently, at one time you also felt that you had a conflict of interest - which lead to you recusing yourself at the beginning of this arbitration. Yet, you changed your mind.
There is no ArbCom policy, that I can find, which supports the notion that, once an arbitrator has recused, they can change their mind. [24] In fact, I can find no such concept in any body of ethical standards applicable to arbitrators. While ArbCom has the right to define Arbitration Policy, it has not, in the past, done so by fiat. And it should not do so in this case.
Unfortunately, your unilateral reentry into the case, both by voting on the proposed decision, and attempting to influence the opinions of other arbitrators, has irreparably prejudiced the case. Any sanctions which ArbCom might now impose on involved parties will be open to question.
I'm contacting you here, on your talk page, pursuant to ArbCom policy [25], and requesting that you recuse yourself, and redact all of your comments and votes in the case. While I don't believe that this will substantially change the outcome of the case, I do believe it's necessary to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest.
This is, by any definition, an extraordinary circumstance, requiring action irrespective of the fact that the case has already entered the voting state. So, while I will await your response here, I believe the issue must also be referred to the full Arbitration Committee.
Note: Quite a lot of comments on this matter, both here and in the Proposed Decision talk page, have been getting rather quickly deleted. Not by you, but by apparently well meaning people. That's probably a bad idea. Fearofreprisal ( talk) 16:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
They are looking at editor behavior which can be judged regardless of what one thinks of the subject of the article.This is absurd to anyone who's familiar with the parties to the case. GorillaWarfare has shown up out of nowhere and suddenly started registering votes against action for parties who have promoted the "legitimizing the abuse of women" interpretation.
Gamergate playbook, describing the sort of discussion that you are looking at right now with rhetoric like
aggressive, hostile "investigation," claims of bias, accusations of "collusion", doxxing and anonymous abuse based on the slightest bit of personal information that can be teased out about them... brazenly attempting to influence the arbitration proceeding by attacking the character of at least two arbitrators... [an] atmosphere of fear [which is a] dystopian future [for Wikipedia]. Pardon me for thinking that this does look like people sticking up for each other (especially when GW's votes on the talk page are fairly neatly mirrored by another arbitrator - who I presume is the other one NBSB has in mind - even in cases where others clearly disagree), air-quotes around the word
collusionbe damned. As well as, you know, more than a little ridiculous all-around. That editors like NBSB are carrying on like this on the Arbcom talk page should, realistically, only be seen as further evidence of battleground mentality and bringing a clear bias to the discussion.
If you saw the request on the PD talk page, I imagine you also saw
my response. I do not intend to recuse at this stage.
GorillaWarfare
(talk)
18:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
saying a legitimate movement doe not threaten and defame womenI stand by that.
Could you clarify why you chose to recuse in the first place and what made you change your mind? Bosstopher ( talk) 19:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
@ Bosstopher: I initially recused because I was concerned that people would, as they are currently doing, perceive comments I've made about feminism and GamerGate elsewhere as indicative of a conflict of interest in this case. I thought about it quite a lot, and realized that it's silly to feel obligated to recuse because I have opinions on feminism, and did not choose to hide them. It's easy to make arguments for my recusal, or that of any other arbitrator's, on many cases—maybe I should have recused on Interactions at GGTF because I am a woman, a feminist, and I believe that the gender gap is an issue; maybe I should have recused on DangerousPanda or Kafziel or Nightscream or any other case involving sysop conduct because I'm a sysop; maybe I should have recused on Media Viewer RfC because I'm a software developer, or because I've contributed to MediaWiki, or because I personally prefer the old way of viewing images; maybe I should have recused on American politics because I'm an American, and have opinions (which I've also publicly stated) on political and social issues in the U.S. The point is that it's a judgment call for each arbitrator each time, and arguments can be made for or against recusal on just about any case, but without a significant conflict of interest, I choose to remain active. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Apologies if I misinterpreted what you said—I've been getting a lot of accusations from all angles in the last 24 hours, and sometimes it's hard to tell who's taking issue with what. We could go back and forth here for a long time about whether I'm biased, but I'm going to end this conversation now in the interest of focusing on both the case and my schoolwork. To repeat what I said above: I don't intend to recuse from the case. If another arbitrator wishes to bring it up for discussion among the rest of the Committee, that's fine, but I don't intend to do so myself. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Molly. I noticed the discussion about this, and I remember seeing the e-mail you sent the clerks asking to be moved from recused to active on this case (this would have been on 3 December). Over on the PD talk page, you said this, referring to this edit by Sphilbrick (the edit summary refers to the e-mail). An arbitrator moving from recused to active on a case is extremely rare - it has happened a couple of times before (I give an example below), but in general my view would be that when an arbitrator states they are recusing, they should stay recused. It is because unrecusing is so rare that there are no hard and fast rules. Maybe what should happen is that an arbitrator wishing to unrecuse should ask the rest of the committee first? Or at least provide a reason on-wiki for the unrecusal at the time? Having to explain now about an unrecusal that took place by proxy via e-mail and a clerk around 7 weeks ago is not ideal. Explaining at the time would have been better.
One of the reasons unrecusals are rare and should be discouraged, is that it reflects badly on the committee to have arbs being uncertain about their recusal status (it can get to the point where people don't believe arbs will stay recused, or even that it is possible to pressure arbs into recusing - if you state that the decision made at the time of the case request is final, you are less likely to get people trying to change that recusal status either way).
On a more practical note, the main case page still states that you are recused. People reading that will be confused because the way the recusal status was changed was to edit a template providing data to the PD talk page. Ideally, a note would be added to the main case page striking through your recusal and giving a diff to the change made by Sphilbrick. For an example of a case where the recusal status of several arbitrators changed during the request and after the request was accepted (with strike-throughs and additional notes added afterwards), see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds.
Finally, I know it won't help much, but one of the reasons I stayed well away from this case was because of the sort of thing you have been having to put up with. Whatever you decide to do here, you and the other arbs coming under pressure on this case have my sympathy. I hope what I've said here will help. Carcharoth ( talk) 02:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
I wish I could buy you a real-life beer or cup of coffee or whatever you prefer. Hell - even dinner and a night on the town. You've earned a trip to a tropical island for the unflappable way you handle crap. Lightbreather ( talk) 20:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC) |
![]() |
Life is better with tea! Best wishes! MONGO 22:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC) |
![]() |
You're great, the haters can't hold a candle to you. <3 Keilana| Parlez ici 22:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC) |
![]() |
Because chocolate is the answer for every situation. Liz Read! Talk! 00:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC) |
I usually don't do cute pictures (or Python), but I'd annoyed if you let the naysayers talk you on of doing the job you were elected to do. Also, feel free to ban folks from your talk page, no one will think less of you. NE Ent 01:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible
conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you.
09I500 (
talk)
17:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Epic Meal Time, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. GamerPro64 01:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to keep this anonymous for a number of reasons, but I wanted to express how abhorrent I find your treatment by certain Gamergate supporters. Full disclosure: I am strongly pro-Gamergate, I have been involved in the Wiki controversy over it in the past (though am not a party to the arbitration), and I find a lot of the rhetoric thrown around by the editors I oppose on this issue to be equally abhorrent. That said, prying into your off-wiki activity and trying to push you to recuse yourself at the first sign of voting 'against us' is despicable and only paints my 'side' as even worse than it's already been painted. I don't agree with all of the decisions you've made on this case, but I don't have to do that to acknowledge that they're reasonable and that you have a right to make them. Even if they weren't reasonable, you are one of fourteen voices and I would imagine the point of having so many voices is that extreme opinions can be balanced out and a fair consensus can be found.
Thank you for your handling of this issue. I hope it hasn't inconvenienced you much in life, and I condemn the behaviour of others surrounding it. 192.249.132.237 ( talk) 17:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
How or why was the entire history of Nekrogoblikon prior to your December 29, 2014 editing revision-deleted? LINK I've never seen anything like this on WP... It seems to be something in need of reversal, yes? Carrite ( talk) 13:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Heya Carrite. Yep, SarekOfVulcan is correct—there was a relatively large block of text that made up much of the article that was directly copied from another source. It remained in the article unnoticed for quite some time, so a lot of revisions were affected. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Before casting your vote in the Wifione case, please be sure to have read and understood this thread. If you have any questions, please ask. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 13:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Let me start off by saying that I'm a lifelong gamer (yes, I know how nerdy that must sound), and someone whose sole involvement has been an admittedly ill-advised post on the GamerGate talk page back in November; see this follow-up conversation on Drmies's talk page for more on that, and to clarify what I had meant by my initial commentary. There are aspects of the movement that I support; for example, I think there are valid reasons to criticize Feminist Frequency by Anita Sarkeesian, and I say this as someone who strongly believes that women are not given fair representation in the gaming industry by a long shot.
So why am I against GamerGate? This is a perfect example. These kinds of character assassinations are precisely why I'm so embarrassed of this particular strand of the gaming community. Anyone who says that GamerGate is about "journalistic integrity" needs to take a good, hard look at what they've aligned themselves with: terrorizing people into fleeing their homes, unproven accusations of misconduct, death threats and other vile attacks against women, the list goes on. I don't care if people say that harassment and trolling are just a part of internet culture — men don't experience this kind of hatred. Anyone who thinks otherwise, and believes that this is a legitimate way of expressing disagreement, is a bad person.
I was going to ask you about your decision to unrecuse yourself from this case, but based on what I've read above, I don't want to anymore. You may have opinions about GamerGate; so what? Does having a perspective on something make a person any less capable of rational thought? I personally view religion as a means of psychological control over people, but that doesn't mean I condone demeaning people based on their beliefs. Even if your votes didn't always align with the majority, you spared neither side in condemning the edit-warring and hostility. I hope anyone who criticizes you can at least recognize that much. Kurtis (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
we hear you're talkin 'bout equality ... |
Lawd Almighty, keep talkin' like that, you might even get the right to vote! Djembayz ( talk) 05:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Purple Barnstar | |
For suffering the slings and arrows of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Interactions at GGTF. Illegitimi non carborundum. GRuban ( talk) 04:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC) |
Please tell me you're going to make a regular habit of responding to arbitration in haiku. Suddenly the page has been given a certain subtle grace... Yunshui 雲 水 13:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
and out of my depth. (So are Melanie, and Tim Trent, to say nothing of the author who started it all...) Best to begin with the 'Copyright and other matters' thread on my talk page, and take in User talk:Timtrent and Draft talk:Atlantic Horns. The author is trying to give permission to use his stuff from outside via OTRS instead of taking the easy way and rewriting. (Ritchie333 started a rewrite, but may have given up.) I know nothing about permissions and OTRS, so could you have a look at this series of unfortunate events? (Be a good title for some books, that...) So far, he seems to have confirmed his identity and that he runs two websites, which wasn't really what was wanted (but doesn't surprise me, the way things are going). Help, please. <8-( Peridon ( talk) 18:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I've been watching Is not a/Dear ODear ODear for a bit now and am curious what prompted the ban if it's public info. Just curiosity. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 21:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I pinged you today. [28] Did you not receive a notice? Lightbreather ( talk) 03:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
added bolton news ref as asked so please allow edit, it is referenced and I was at meeting as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.55.2.79 ( talk) 18:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes stating the fact, there was a public vote which was accepted, then Andy allowed the council to change their mind, then all tyldesley residents voted no to Andy, just fact — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.55.2.79 ( talk) 18:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
see the ref mentioned which I added, it explains what happened, uk published news article is reliable source or as least as reliable as uk wikipedia info :) you obviously dont live in tyldesley like i do — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.55.2.79 ( talk) 18:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I posted a question of Mkdw's talk page [29] and he suggested I contact you. He also said I should move the discussion from the archives, but I don't know how to do that. Thanks. Mdtemp ( talk) 15:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Hey, GW. I messed up the ping on Mishae's talk page, but I'm thinking about an unblock, and was wondering about your opinion. I've been discussing it with Mishae, and while I'm not totally convinced that they get it, I think there's at least progress, and an unblock might be worth a shot. What do you think, as the blocking admin? Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 22:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare, I'll just tack this on here. After Mishae's unblock, it looks like they've gone almost straight back to problematic behavior. We reached consensus not to remove the Wikiproject Insects tag here, though Mishae starting removing the tags again and now they're trying to pretty tendentiously justify it on the individual pages (at the bottom), accusations of COI, etc. I'm basically just disengaging from conversation for now trying to figure out how to tackle this after comments like this. It looks like Mishae is just going to keep plowing ahead, so what's the best course of action here? Is this a pretty blatant violation of WP:ROPE after just coming off an unblock and resuming the activity that just warrants a block outright? Otherwise, is it better to just reopen the ANI case? We've had a few admins at Mishae's page now discussing the previous block, so I'm not really sure what the best course of action is at this point. Thanks. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 23:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
![]() | On 16 April 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Alma Dolens, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alma Dolens. 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. |
Allen3 talk 08:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Nazi gun control theory#Godsy's preferred lead. Should article be locked down/protected? If so, which version, and for how long? Thanks.
Lightbreather (
talk)
22:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I've responded there to say that I don't know if I'd be much help. I definitely don't think the article should be protected, though the edit warring should be dealt with if it continues. As for pinging, I did receive the ping earlier. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Because I was asked to address the multiple instances of misuse of tools or the longterm patterns of poor judgment. I have cited a few different examples concerning Bgwhite at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Arbitrary break, there are also about others. Please have a look. You would find that there is a long term pattern of edit warring with editors, then blocking them, thus not only violating WP:INVOLVED but also WP:3RR.
He has same kind of pattern of edit warring and wikihounding, where I am contributing. He unnecessarily picks up the edit wars and arguments where I am currently contributing, and he never contributed before. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Since you are a champion of civility and consider "fuck off" to be an "egregious violation of civility" I'm bring this to your attention. The encyclopedia needs your protection. Or has your stance on "fuck off" changed, or is it merely selective based upon the individuals involved? Two kinds of pork Makin' Bacon 00:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I checked the Google Street View of the CVS Pharmacy that was burned in the 2015 Baltimore Riots, and it was near an entrance to the Penn–North (Baltimore Metro Subway station). That was why I added the link to this station. --------- User:DanTD ( talk) 00:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
The Rachel Maddow show on MSNBC is reporting on the burning of a CVS store at Franklin and Brannan Streets as I started reading this post. That's how I heard the street names anyway but am not citing this source myself. I think they mentioned another CVS as well but am unsure since I was simultaneously reading about the Nepal earthquake since I have a friend there. I am unfamiliar with Baltimore geography. My point is that many reliable sources are available covering the Baltimore riot in great detail and we do not need to and should not rely on any form of original research for our coverage of this riot. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I noticed you put the Baltimore riots page under protection. I was wondering if you could do the same for Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, the mayor. I've made the request at the appropriate spot already.
There's been anonymous IPs editorializing and edit-warring, removing content and replacing it with their own non-NPOV stuff. One of them was fairly persistent for a few hours; most of the edits involve her press conference - I expanded the coverage of that presser to make it more NPOV, but they didn't like that. At the moment it's in good shape, but I'm tired of babysitting it. Feel like maybe 48 or 72 hours would be plenty. Thanks, Rockypedia ( talk) 22:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
In regard to the case currently before Arbccom [30] I ask that you recuse as a voting member of the case; and restrict your input to comments and evidence. I ask this because I feel that you are "involved" to the extent of being biased towards one or more members of the case.
I'd prefer that you stay on the case. I've seen no evidence of bias, and lots of evidence of a steadfast commitment to reason and fairness. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 13:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
IF editors believe that you & Salvio would be biased in Lightbreather's Arbcom case, on opposite sides? Then, I fail to see what the concerns are. Afterall, if the bias claims were true, then wouldn't both your participations, cancel each other out?? GoodDay ( talk) 19:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I just wanted to say that I can see that my post on your talk page on commons may have easily been misinterpreted as a reference to the impersonation problem that you have been experiencing. I assure you that I have no involvement in or knowledge of that issue whatsoever. My statements were only intended as a complement of your username and also that, with my admittedly very limited knowledge and observations, I perceived you as a reasonably decent human being here who has a lot of experience and knowledge of the issues at Wikipedia and a person in a high position of authority whom I, as a very recent arrival, would do well to try to develop a good rapport with.
Sincere regards-- ChemWarfare ( talk) 10:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Vaginal evisceration at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
97198 (
talk)
12:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
-- Lucywhirlpool ( talk) 15:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
19:21, 18 April 2015 GorillaWarfare (talk | contribs) deleted page Cléo Dubois (A7: No credible indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events))
2014 | Inducted in The Society of Janus‘ Hall of Fame 2008 | Leather Marshall, San Francisco Pride Parade
Is it possible to get this restored? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesv ( talk • contribs) 20:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Your Block of Kevin Gorman was mentioned at AN/I Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Unblock_of_JackTheVicar. Not sure it has anything to do with that discussion, but notifying per AN/I best practice. Monty 845 16:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
-- Cosmic Emperor 04:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Seeing you are uninvolved would you mind looking at this: [32], it relates to me as I was one of those editors who offered my support opinion. I was going to let it go until the same editor doubled down on her opinion when told it was Canvassing. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 14:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
For the drafting arbitrators of the SPI block case decision. Pine ✉ 19:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC) |
Thank you for adding your name to the WP:Women's health project page. This new project is off to a good start and seeing new editors signing up to help or express support encourages the rest of us.
FYI, twinkle doesn't mark pages as curated anymore if you nominate a page for PROD deletion. -- I dream of horses ( talk to me) ( contributions) @ 03:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi -- if you were trying to delete the new material on the Case page, you did not succeed. The edits can't be viewed in the history, but the text is still there. (Apologies if I caught you mid-process.) Looie496 ( talk) 17:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I hope I am doing this properly. I've never tried to write anything to a talk page before today. (I normally just try to help around the edges, fixing typos and such when I see them on regular pages.)
Anyway, I just wanmted to be clear about this: *I* did not put the link you deleted onto the web page about hope chests. It was already there when I arrived. But it was a broken/outdated link, so I just fixed/updated it so that it would work right. I don't feel confident enough to make serious content changes to Wikipedia just yet, except with respect to a few narow subject areas that I am especially familiar with.
So anyway, because of this, I have really no opinion, one way or the other about the change you made. I do think that it would be Good to have a link for the lock replacement _somewhere_ on the page about hope chests, but I have no clear idea about where it would be best to put that.
P.S. My name is Ron G, and I _do_ have a wikipedia account, but I hardly ever use it. But if you see an edit from 69.62.255.118 then that's going to be me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.255.118 ( talk) 05:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Do you know if this issue was raised elsewhere? If not, I'll raise it somewhere. (Any idea where?) -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 05:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
-- Cosmic Emperor 00:07, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Did you see the WP:AE consensus / closed section that basically this was not worth actioning? I'm not going to intervene either way, but I am curious what you saw that they all didn't? Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 03:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I've replied at Eric Corbett's talk page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
the ability of arbcom to retain their ability to exercise legitimate power...is more important than [the contributions of a prolific content creator]I just don't know what to say about that attitude, other than that I don't share it and I hope it's rare. It sounds like a line from a cheesy techno-dystopia. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 07:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
calling the result of that AE discussion consensus against enforcing the restriction is a bit of a stretch—out of the nine commenters, only one is a sysop.... Well, perhaps there were few comments because it was only open for a few hours, and all of the participants concurred that this wasn't worth the drama? I saw that discussion when it opened but didn't have time to read it. I was relieved to see it had been closed by the time I got back online, because I was actually considering commenting even though getting involved in arbitration enforcement is somewhere between chewing tinfoil and making sculptures out of dryer lint on my personal list of things that sound like a good time.
a potential loss of at least one good content editorSee, this is what I read again and again on talk pages and I just don't get.
Eric knew very well he was going to get in trouble for his comment ... he has more than deserved his break he was aiming for. ChristopheT ( talk) 08:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
You voted to impose the topic ban on Eric Corbett in the first place - indeed, in the same ArbCom case, you were the most vocal in wanting to ban him completely from the project. Your comments on that case display clearly that you are not uninvolved regarding Eric (or at the very least hold a very negative view of him) and you should undo your block. Note that I haven't got a problem with an actually uninvolved admin blocking, even though consensus was clearly against it at AE and I can't see what benefit it brings to the project. Black Kite (talk) 09:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Waiting for the inevitable comments from other WMF/Jimbo proxies ... - Sitush ( talk) 10:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Black Kite (talk)
10:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Look, I'm not interested in debating the merits of another Eric Corbett block now. What I'm here to say is: Do you seriously think it is a good idea for you to be overturning a consensus of AE admins? The work we do there is pretty much completely thankless and kind of a bureaucratic nightmare, largely thanks to the committee's own decisions to require about a jillion bits of paperwork every time we implement sanctions. I think we have a reasonable expectation that arbs are going to respect the decisions we make and not overrule them when it strikes their fancy. And it's not like there's a surplus of admins working there (several items there have been sitting for a week or more waiting for action). And yet despite our hardly impressive numbers, arbs coming along and doing this makes me question if I've got any interest in contributing anymore at all if it's just going to be crapped on by the first arb who doesn't agree. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
AE does not work by consensus, any admin that wanders by is free to take whatever action they wish. Callanecc proved that easily enough when I was blocked for 3 days despite no string leanings in my AE case a few months back. Tarc ( talk) 17:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Gorilla Warfare, you did right to block Eric Corbett. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 15:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Morning, all. I've woken up to quite a lot of comments to respond to here, at Eric Corbett's talk page, on arbitration pages, and various other forums. I've responded to a few of the quicker ones, but am going to go make some breakfast and then begin threading in replies. Good thing I'd decided to take a three-day-weekend from work this weekend, though admittedly responding to tens of Wikipedia comments was not quite what I'd had planned :) GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
To avoid more accusations that I'm avoiding accountability, I'm noting here that I'm going out for the evening, and cannot guarantee I'll be back and responding to discussion before tomorrow afternoon. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Deliberately ignoring an existing discussion in favor of a unilateral preferred action. GregJackP Boomer! 02:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Tarc, you may want to look at the discussion at AN, a good number of admins and editors, including Black Kite ( here), seem to view it as an inappropriate reversion or wheel-warring. GregJackP Boomer! 03:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Wheel-warring by GorillaWarfare 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.
Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 04:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I have filed a motion for you to recuse in the current arb proceedings. I feel your continued involvement is inappropriate as there are interconnected issues relating to each other. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 10:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
"I have yet to hear from anyone who feels that Eric Corbett did not violate his topic ban. GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)"
That's pretty cocky and here's why: I don't believe *you* have explained at any time just how EC violated it. The burden of demonstrating a violation rests with you. What you've done instead is pushed the burden onto others, to prove a negative.
IHTS (
talk)
12:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Editors topic banned by the Committee under this remedy are prohibited on the English Wikipedia from editing any pages relating to or making 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. An uninvolved admin may remove any comments that breach this remedy, and impose blocks as necessary. The Committee's standard provisions on enforcement of arbitration provisions and appeals and modifications of arbitration enforcements apply.
"I don't see how commenting on [...] can be construed as anything other than [...]". (If "anything other than [...]" doesn't refer to your own construed result, then what does it refer to?) IHTS ( talk) 23:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
![]() | On 28 June 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Vaginal evisceration, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that vaginal evisceration is a rare complication of surgically removing the uterus entirely through the vaginal canal? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Vaginal evisceration. 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. |
Gatoclass ( talk) 01:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:
You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the
AN page, the
AE page or the
Case Requests page
and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee,
L235 (
t /
c /
ping in reply) via
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
By motion, the committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:
Therefore, you were recently listed as a party to 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/Arbitration enforcement. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 13, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
Wehwalt gave me this back in 2012. You deserve it more. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 09:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC) |
It's much more complicated than I thought, I apologise for (mis)reading between the lines. Guy ( Help!) 09:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.
On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:
There is a discussion about you at WP:ANI. They failed to notify you, so I am. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!
With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:
Send on behalf of
The Wikipedia Library using
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Can I have whatever the non BLPvio part of my section was back? Bosstopher ( talk) 22:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I was reading through this and I noticed that 3.2.3.8 had 10 supporting votes -- it looks like you supported it twice. I don't know if it matters, but I just thought I'd let you know. Mizike ( talk) 03:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I would prefer if you not weigh in on the afd (canvassing concerns and all) but I have a question. I wrote a stub Tahera Ahmad. Recently she was in the news for an incident on a united airlines flight but when I researched I found almost 4 years of coverage in newspapers, tv and radio. She was featured on a PBS series "The Calling" and later was the first female to recite the Quran at the largest US Muslim convention, she was also honored at one point during woman history month at the White House in 2014. I thought it was a great start for a stub due to those things, is that gender inequality or is my notability scale that far off? I messed up my links in the AFD somehow and so now half of them don't work correctly, not sure why. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 14:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Drat. Well yeah unfortunately there isn't a who lot just a lot of little stuff. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 22:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Love the article on Hidiya Hanim Barakat. I wanted to add it to the new women articles for WikiProject Women in Red, but didn't know if there was some reason you didn't want to, so thought I'd ask. SusunW ( talk) 15:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Mariam Behruzi at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions)
20:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I see you recently joined Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red. I've made a proposal to merge this project into Wikipedia:WikiProject Women at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red, so we can not only cover missing articles but focus on general quality of women's biographies. If interested please put your name down on the WP:Women page at the bottom.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
![]() | On 31 July 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mariam Behruzi, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Mariam Behruzi was one of four women elected to the first Iranian Parliament? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mariam Behruzi. 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. |
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
![]() | 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. |