User talk:GorillaWarfare/Archive 10

Another sock

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)

GorillaWarfare, the above user has been block for block evasion. You may wish to look into it further. We have at least 117.201.254.189, 117.212.229.72 and 117.222.29.55 which of course is a bit too dynamic for blocking (range wise). Rjd0060 (talk) 13:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Resolution

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).

I hope you'll find my response sufficiently positive and thoughtful. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

GOCE July drive and August blitz

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)

History merge request

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)

Hello, GorillaWarfare. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Response

Hello, GorillaWarfare. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Hope everything works out. -OberRanks (talk) 18:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

GOCE October 2014 newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors October 2014 newsletter is now ready for review. Highlights: Results of the August Blitz and September Drive A few changes around the Guild's pages Sign up for the October Blitz Review the Coordinators election results – 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)

Recent edits to User:Dcoetzee

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)

I don't feel it's necessary. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween greetings!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello GorillaWarfare:
Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia. Have a fun Halloween!
    – SW3 5DL (talk) 16:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

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)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Discussions, discussions, discussions

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)

Have we spoken before?

I assure you I did not recuse from the GamerGate case because of its length; I would not have signed up for this if I was unwilling to read through long cases.

I do not see the Gender Gap Task Force or GamerGate cases as being more content-related than most arbitration cases. I also do not know what you mean by "content-related hierarchy" and "conduct-related hierarchy". I'm happy to hear suggestions for improving the project, but I don't know if my talk page is necessarily the best venue for that sort of discussion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare's reasons to recuse do not matter; being free from such a case does. She has coding skills and policy understanding, thus she is the best choice.

In a controversial topic, it is often disputed what viewpoints come from reliable sources and how much weight they should have; WP:NPOV is a content policy. However, the proper hierarchy is missing:

• Wikipedia has a strong conduct-related hierarchy: 12 active arbitrators and over 1000 administrators; these users represent about 1% of the active community and their decisions are enforceable.[statistics]
• Content-related hierarchy comprises eight members in the mediation committee and three coordinators of the featured article candidates process; hardly 0.01% of the active community and adhering to decisions is voluntary.

Sometimes, a decision made by top experienced users allows a small group of editors to get work done and produce a featured article; remaining concerns can be addressed after. The problem is how to determine the most suited editors for this content-related hierarchy.

Is it understood so far? 84.127.115.190 (talk) 04:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

So far so good, though I may need to head you off at the pass about one part... You mention that I have coding skills and policy understanding, which leads me to believe that you have a software solution in mind. Between working fulltime, arbitration, and my own projects (and occasional social life), I do not have additional free time to develop software for MediaWiki. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare should not worry about that; there is no hurry nor requirement to code. Does she agree that a content-related hierarchy would be helpful? 84.127.115.190 (talk) 04:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

It looks like I underestimated the arbitrator's statement about lack of free time; I wondered if she was GuerrillaWarfare before she was GorillaWarfare. Anyway, I thank the arbitrator for her time. 84.127.115.190 (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• I would disagree that the length of the case had anything to do with GorillaWarfare's decision to recuse. Arbitrators are people too, with their own opinions and ideas. If I were an arbitrator, I'd probably recuse myself from matters pertaining to GamerGate as well, and that's because I have strong and conflicting feelings about the topic of gender equality. My ability to remain dispassionate may be compromised if I were to participate in such a case. Kurtis ^(talk) 15:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

You are both, I think, misreading the IP OP. "Smart move" is not suggesting (except in jest) that length was the reason for recusal. But certainly Gender Gap is not a content issue, except obliquely. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 04:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC).

Help please

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)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews

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)

2015 MLS SuperDraft

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)

 Done GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Much obliged. Falastur2 ^Talk 18:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

PD

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)

The Arbitration Committee is not going to make a statement about the validity of gender gap issues on Wikipedia—that is quite clearly out of scope. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Mail

You have mail. —Neotarf (talk) 07:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Women

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)

Gerda you have given these same pleas on like 2 other arb's talkpages [2], [3] that in my view is almost amounting to WP:CANVASSING. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Then you do not understand that policy. Dennis - 2¢ 00:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Linking to a picture of a boy holding a doll with a shrine dedicated to Eric and using a word like "forcefully" when it comes to a banning choice does not come across to me as a neutral way of getting your point across. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

She is addressing an Arb, not lining up buddies for an AFD. What you are doing, however, is badgering: Repeated implying impropriety to undermine another person's position. GW is an adult, and can decide if she wants to listen to Gerda or not. If you really care about doing the right thing, you would delete your comments and mine, and simply leave GW and Gerda alone, as this isn't your business nor mine. Dennis - 2¢ 02:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no requirement that Gerda be neutral in their opinions on the arbitration case. They are linking me to a post on the PD talk page, which I'm clearly reading anyway, so I'm not terribly concerned. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not neutral, but the dedication is, please read to the end about knowledge and kids: "This one dedicated to Eric Corbett and the GGTF--but most of all to the boy's mother and his teachers, and to all the mothers and the sisters and the wives and friends: I want to offer my love and respect to the end." - It's the most constructive edit I've seen in a while, and I like to share. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

You are linking being a woman to drive up support for Eric rather than the evidence at hand. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

You obviously don't understand me. Should we talk on your talk? GorillaWarfare, please tell us if it is enough here. I am a woman who likes to work with Eric. There are many others, but that's not my point here. I don't like bans. Period. I don't care if man or woman, or which specific user. I believe that there must be more civil means, and said so before, even on that talk, but the softer voices possibly get overlooked. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather you move this elsewhere, since I'm mostly spectating at this point. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

PD talkpasge

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)

The suggestion that Carolmooredc is NOTHERE is not new, which leaves the two diffs, which would are what we would expect to see in the evidence stage. I don't see much in terms of new material there, and unhatting will just invite more argument between you and Neotarf. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Cleaning up

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)

Wow, I messed that up rather nicely. Sorry about that! I've fixed it to display as I intended. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but that's what we are here for :)--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Dcoetzee

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 don't. {{ArbComBlock}}s are often intentionally vague. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC) Personally I find that complete lack of transparency unacceptable and is one of the main reasons I don't edit here anymore as I realise I'm not changing this. I've often thought about starting an RfC on ArbCom privacy so there's more firm guidelines on what ArbCom can and cannot keep private but I can't ever see change happening so have never seen the point. I'd be much happy of there was more guidance on what you may keep private but at the moment it's so vague that you can probably keep anything you want private whether the community would agree or not. I'm not saying you do but it hardly instils trust in the process when it seems a possibility. I mean in this instance you don't even say if it's a privacy issue, a legal issue, beans issue or what. How releasing that limited amount of information is "unsuitable for public discussion" is quite beyond me. I know that I'm not the only editor that doesn't trust ArbCom due to the almost complete lack of transparency. I trust many of the Arbs individually but not the process since so much of it is private and ArbCom have never even bothered to elaborate on what they keep private or their reasons for doing so in any real detail. Thank you for reconfirming my complete lack of trust in the ArbCom process. Dpmuk (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC) Feel free to start an RfC on ArbCom transparency if you wish. Until then, I'm going to follow the existing policy and keep private matters private. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC) I assume you're referring to point four of that policy. Are you saying that you received private correspondence that led to the blocking? If so that would, broadly, satisfy me in this instance. Dpmuk (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC) I am saying that the Committee discussion leading to this block is private, as I would think is apparent from my unwillingness to discuss it with you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC) So are you also saying that the reason it is private is private? And if so, as a general statement not specific to this issue, how do think that fits in with the accountability of ArbCom? Can you at least see what my concern is here? It's not that I don't trust you, it's much more the lack of transparency and how that could lead to mistrust of ArbCom. And I do appreciate your willingness to discuss this as much as you feel you can. Dpmuk (talk) 22:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC) I am. Current policy allows the Arbitration Committee to keep private any matters that we determine require privacy; I don't think this conflicts with accountability. I am personally confident that fifteen people (or approximately that, as it were this year) is a large enough group to prevent others on the Committee from keeping non-private information private—I know many on the current Committee who would stop me from doing so if I were to try. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC) As a fellow arbitrator, I endorse GorillaWarfare's handling of the matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC) (edit conflict)I am aware that is currently policy - a policy I strongly disagree with. And in many ways it's not even the "rogue" arbs issue that you allude to that is my problem. My concern isn't really that but rather a concern as to whether Arbs have the same view on what should be private as the community at large. In the same way that we often discuss how editors are not representative of readers I think it's fair to assume that Arbs are not representative of the community at large - for a start Arbs are inevitably at least admins before becoming Arbs. Although it was some time ago now the seed of this started when it came out that ArbCom had a private wiki. I can see the need for such a thing, I can see the need for (at least some of) it's content to be private. I could never see the need to keep it's existence private. Ever since then I've wondered whether Arbs have the same view on privacy and the like as the wider community. In the bigger picture, and as some what of an aside, I think it should be the community that broadly decided how Arbcom works (obviously not the details but the broad brush things such as how many Arbs are needed for a decision etc) and I note, and appreciate, a move towards that with the current policy. Can I also ask then how ArbCom decides what to keep private? Have you agreed, for example, in this case that both the discussion should be private and the reason for keeping it private should be private or it it left down to individual arb discretion? Dpmuk (talk) 23:11, 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) @Seraphimblade: I disagree with the statement "by definition, if we elaborate on why we're handling something privately, it's no longer being handled privately.". People are used to, for example, courts saying why their keeping something secret - to protect the privacy of x, to protect a minor, to protect national security. Likewise they're used to governments saying why they won't release information under freedom of information acts request. I am well aware that Wikipedia is not a court, democracy or similar, I merely use those as examples of what, in my opinion, the average user would expect when "you're handling something privately" - the fact that you've handled something privately and why would be public but not the details. And that's certainly my reading of the arbcom policy - although I agree it's open to interpretation (which takes me back to the "do arbs see things the same way as the community?" question). @NE Ent: You make a fair point, but I note that not once in this conversation has anyone mentioned that being constrained by the WMF privacy policy is the reason for not saying more. Instead reference has been made to the much more vague arbcom policy which lists other possible reasons as well. Of course I assume you have no personal knowledge of the situation here so that you're statement is hypothetical and it could be for some other reason (e.g. legal but not privacy related). @Whoever I'd be interested to know, as a rough estimate, how many situations arbcom encounter similar to this where they can't even discuss the reason for something being private. If it's very rare I'd be willing to accept this as an unusual one off. If it's a common situation then I think we may have a bigger problem that needs wider discussion as to whether ArbCom, the community and of course, most importantly, the WMF are in sync about what needs to be kept private. Dpmuk (talk) 01:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC) And I should re-iterate, I'm not accusing any member of the committee of misconduct here. It does however seem to me that it is quite possible the committee is out of touch with the community as a whole in a similar manner that it is oft stated that editors are out of touch with readers. This is not a criticism of members of ArbCom but, in my opinion, a natural consequence of ArbCom members being experienced, having advanced permissions etc. This is why I'd like to see the community more involved in deciding how ArbCom works although I accept it obviously can't be involved in cases etc. Dpmuk (talk) 01:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC) You may wish to read User:FT2/Arbcom the punchball, which explains parts of the general situation. WMF should really be handling a lot of this stuff, but they don't always, so volunteers are stuck with it. --Rschen7754 01:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC) @Rschen7754: That's an interesting piece but I think in many ways it reinforces my position - "few people who haven't served, have any real idea what ArbCom handles for the community." I suspect this is probably the case, and is part of the reason I've tried to make it clear I'm not complaining about individual arbs but the system. Essentially because ArbCom keep so much private no one that's not involved really has a good handle on it - that's essentially what the piece says. In my opinion this is a good reason for ArbCom to make more of their work public. I'm aware of things like WP:BEANS and don't feed the troll but I think the advantages of shifting it a little more public (if done carefully), in terms of transparency, more understanding etc., would outweigh the disadvantages. At the very least I think it's a discussion the community should have. Dpmuk (talk) 01:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC) You seem to have missed the parts about where someone's privacy would have been violated if the matter had been handled onwiki. --Rschen7754 01:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC) @Rschen7754: No, I didn't. First off those sort of issues aren't the only things discussed in that piece. Secondly, stuff like putting out more information about, say for example, how many ban appeals are dealt with off-wiki, and how much effort that takes on average would not impinge on anyone's privacy. Nor do I believe that it would be a breech of privacy if some of what was discussed there was anonymised first (although this may still fall afoul of policies as currently written). That was why I added "done carefully". Yes there is some stuff that will never be made public. There is plenty of stuff that could be, even if a lot of it would have to be meta-information. And thinking about it more, as an example, why should a ban appeal be held of wiki unless it contains personal information. Under current policy it has to be as it will be contained in an e-mail and we say we'll keep them private. But there is nothing stopping us saying that if you want to appeal your ban you have to agree to the e-mails, or at least the request itself, being made public. That's the sort of thing I think needs discussing. Dpmuk (talk) 02:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC) I have no access to any data other than what is publicly available to all users. I have observed that past breaches of arbcom confidential material have been treated very critically by both the rest of the committee and the community. The fact committee members refuse to even hint at Dcoetzee's circumstances, rather than be a cause for concern, should be reassurance that if your or my personal information became relevant to Wikipedia proceedings it would be handled with discretion. NE Ent 01:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC) @NE Ent: Again you make a fair point. But that's a judgement call on your part. Personally I'd prefer the release of a little more information, even my information, if, as a result, I had more confidence in the "Wikipedia proceeding" being conducted fairly and in accordance with community wishes. There's a balance there and personally, at the moment, I think it's in the wrong place. I may be in a minority with that but without a community discussion I have no idea what others think. And of course past breaches have been dealt with critically, because there was that expectation of complete privacy. Not to mention the size of some of the past breaches! Dpmuk (talk) 02:08, 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)

As a postscript, and for the information of everyone involved, Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Please remove my admin rights. Don't worry I have no intention of continuing this discussion. Dpmuk (talk) 02:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

ARBCOM is SPI

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)

Where? Regardless, this is really more suited to SPI, and the evidence should be posted on the case you opened there, not on the PD talk page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

[[5]], If you go to the section that says when to request check user it's under the column that states when you suspect it's sockpuppetry on an open arbcase to request the checkuser on the arb page. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. Missed it within the collapsed section. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I wanted to point out one last thing, I stated this is the comment I had when presenting it an arb, it was the only way I could think of presenting it as it was relevant to why we were there, I didn't mean to be misleading. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

GOCE coordinator elections

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 :)

	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)

Anytime! :) GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014 GOCE newsletter

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)

Let me know where this should go -

I cant find a meetup page on WP itself!

Boston Wikimeetup December 13 2014

Victor Grigas (talk) 22:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The meetup page is Wikipedia:Meetup/Boston, and the page for yesterday's meetup was Wikipedia:Meetup/Boston/End of 2014 Meeting. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for helping me appeal my block extension.

Lightbreather (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Seasonal Greets!

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. Happy editing, --L235-Talk Ping when replying 03:47, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Happy Holidays!

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. Happy editing, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC) 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

Help

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)

Merry Christmas!

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.

Seasonal Greets!

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. Happy editing, TheGeneralUser (talk) 00:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC) 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)

please clean up your mess

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)

Big Mess

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)

The ANI thread has been closed with the following summary by User:Nick: "GorillaWarfare appears to have taken responsibility for this debacle and will presumably clear up the mess left by Igor the facetious xmas bunny when they return online later. I would have indefinitely blocked the account for disruption, in agreement with several of my fellow administrators, but if GW wants to take responsibility for this disruption, on their head be it. Please, can everybody else return to more productive, fruitful editing."

On the SPI, there is a possible, though currently unconfirmed, connection between Igor and globally-blocked User:Operahome. There is behavioral evidence that leans toward Igor being Operahome. Edits by various IPs connected to Igor after Operahome blocks are very curious. Plus, Operahome and Igor both editing the article/draft for Igor Janev (now SALTed after an Operahome SPI) shows a possible connection as well. User:Toddy1 also claims there is "very good evidence that Igor is Operahome".

I believe a response to all of this is needed from you, especially after the ANI thread being closed and the responsibility for Igor's behavior being placed on your head. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

If you are not going to deal with this user can you at least make it clear that at this point enough new edits have been made that you would not consider a reversal to be wheel warring? Your choice to unblock without discussion or consensus has left us hand tied due to wheel warring policies. Chillum 17:53, 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)

Noting that I haven't had a minute to read through the contribution history since last night, so I can't say whether I agree that my unblock was unwise, but I don't want to hold anything up or have accusations of wheel-warring flying around just because I'm not available at the moment. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

People have occasionally told me that I'm foolish and assume good faith when I shouldn't. To do something unwise, but kind, is not a fault. You tried to help this user and hoped they would do better. We should give your initiative every chance to succeed. I've been asking people to back away from the conflict in hopes that the user will settle down. I recommend people wait a bit longer before deciding what to do. Igor should try to avoid doing anything controversial and see if they can get along. In particular, the soapboxing at User talk: Jimbo Wales should stop. Jehochman ^Talk 22:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

At this diff he claims to have explained to GW his previous identities. He has already stated he has edited under a different account at User talk:Chillum at this diff - "Yes, I have edited previously under another account; I hope that you understand that that is not a cardinal sin". Can GW confirm this? If not it would demonstrate bad faith. Also, any info given might help at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Igor the facetious xmas bunny. --Mrjulesd (talk) 22:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• For better or for worse, Gorilla, you are now the bunny's keeper. :) Good luck with it. I want to echo Jehochman's comment, and I credit you for sticking your neck out. Drmies (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

GW: I think what needs to be explained is under what basis he was granted an alternate legitimate account. I've looked at WP:SOCK and the closest I could come up with, based on his humorous user name, is a humor account. Is this the case? If it could be explained I would be very grateful. --Mrjulesd (talk) 18:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

It sounds like he stopped using the old account and started a new one. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that as long as it is not done to avoid scrutiny. Suggest we leave well enough alone. Jehochman ^Talk 18:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@Mrjulesd: If you're looking for the specific part of WP:SOCK, it's "Clean start under a new name" under WP:SOCK#LEGIT. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Igor

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)

Jehochman advised me to 'walk away' [8], so I found an entirely unrelated article to work on, in a cleapup category - Shaiwatna Kupratakul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). A BLP with unreferenced material, tagged as such since Jan 2010. I moved unreferenced claims onto the talk page for possible discussion and potentially adding it with refs [9].

Legacypac (RV 1) put it back, calling my edits vandalism [10].

My first revert asking for refs. [11] Not 'vandalism' at all. Please see WP:BURDEN. Don't add it back without refs, thansk

Legacypac (RV 2) removed it again. [12]

My second revert [13], Please do not add unreferenced info to this BLP. Please discuss it on the talk page. WP:V WP:BURDEN

Then another user - Titusfox - reverted. After discussion, he undid his own revert. [14].

Legacypac (RV 3) [15]

Legacypac is the one edit-warring. As detailed above, 3 times, he has reverted - calling my edits 'vandalism', and introducing unreferenced info to this BLP, without discussing it on the talk page. [16]

I have not attemted to revert it more than the 2 times specified above.

Please deal with the problem of Legacypac a) harassing me, b) edit-warring, c) accusing me of vandalism, d) adding unreferenced material to a BLP.

I'm happy to discuss possible sourcing of those apparently unref'd BLP claims on the talk page.

BTW, although I disagree that the name "Igor the facetious xmas bunny" was in any way disruptive, I have nevertheless changed it. Best, Igor the bunny (talk) 20:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

It was very nice for you to accommodate others for no reason other than to make them feel better. We have to get everybody's emotions under control so they can think rationally. We need to convince Legacypac to stop bothering you. I started with a friendly request to them. Let's see how they react. Jehochman ^Talk 21:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Fine, and I'm happy to disengage, apart from leaving the large amount of unref'd information on that BLP, per [17]. I won't (for now) undo it, I'll leave it to you to hopefully fix. Igor the bunny (talk) 21:52, 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)

I'm walking on eggshells - I've not edited it further. I hope others will solve the specific issue of the unref'd text on that BLP.

I'm editing other (pretty random) stuff.

I'm also hoping the ANI will be closed; can't see anything remaining problematic (not ever, really). Igor the bunny (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Hm, I could have phrased that a bit better, I suppose. I meant that, in general, walking on eggshells with respect to reverting might help defuse some of the concerns about your editing, not just with that article. Thanks for stepping off like that—I can imagine this is really frustrating. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, GW, the eggshells Igor is walking on were created by the eggs he himself broke in the ruckus of his not-so-gentle fresh start. In that regard, he's as responsible as anyone else for his situation, if not moreso. I do agree that Legacypac needs to back off and allow things to settle down, but I'm a bit concerned that Igor is being let off the hook here and his role in the entire mess is being downplayed more than is reasonable. BMK (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I think we may actually be saying the same thing (minus that he's being let off the hook). Most people would let slide a few reverts like the ones Igor made at Shaiwatna Kupratakul. I'm saying that because of Igor's rough start, they need to be much more careful than any other user to not give the appearance of edit warring, as opposed to merely abiding by 3RR. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I think bunny owes me an apology for the above comments. Bunny said: "Jehochman advised me to 'walk away' [18], so I found an entirely unrelated article to work on, in a cleapup category - Shaiwatna Kupratakul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). A BLP with unreferenced material, tagged as such since Jan 2010. I moved unreferenced claims onto the talk page for possible discussion and potentially adding it with refs [19]."

This is an outright lie used to paint me as someone doing the harassment. The walk away comment was made by User:Jehochman 15:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC). The unrelated article edit was made by bunny at 9:58, 28 December over 5 hours earlier, not after the walk away comment like he claims. My second revert was on 10:25, 28 December 2014‎ still over 5 hours before the walk away comment. Bunny went on to pester another editor into reverting their revert. I indeed walked away after I was asked to except to deal with the ongoing SPI and ANi etc. Later, when I restored the article today, bunny has reverted me again even though above he says he will not do that. I could care less about a retired Thai physicist, but I don't like another user disrupting and making false claims about me. Legacypac (talk) 23:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

"after the walk away comment like he claims" - I never claimed any such thing. I walked away before being asked to do so. That's not a bad thing?

I have not 'reverted' anything. I hope GW (or other admins) will see who is telling the truth here, and deal with it accordingly. Igor the bunny (talk) 23:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I indeed walked away after I was asked to except to deal with the ongoing SPI and ANi etc - yep, he(she) walked away from everything involving me, except for all the things involving me?!

I restored the article today, bunny has reverted me again - nope, I did not. Check the history. I did not perform any such edit today.

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)

Igor, drop the sticks, all of them, walk away from all the articles which have been the bone of this contention, resist the temptation to get retribution or "justice", go somewhere else completely unrelated to anything you've done before and anywhere Legacypac has been --Wikipedia is a very big place. If Legacypac follows you there, then we'll know what's what. If, on the other hand, he stays away and the response to your editing in the new place is another ruckus, then we'll know who's responsible. If, instead, everything is peaceful, then there will be joy in the Wikiworld. BMK (talk) 23:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Legacypac: My concern here was the choice to follow Igor to that article, not whether this happened before or after the two of you were advised to walk away. Igor did not revert you today, he added a refimprove-blp template. Do you feel that template is in error?

You blindly accepted his false charge against me, that I've now demonstrated to be based on a lie. You should admit you wrong. I can't understand how you can't see his behavior as disruptive when so many Admins and Users disagree, but hey, you have the big hammer and he's your pet so its your problem. If he comes near me again or accuses me of any more problems I'll deal with it appropriately. I only followed him in an effort to minimize damage to various articles as he ran around causing trouble. I make constructive edits, not destroy stuff and anger good editors. Legacypac (talk) 00:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Please point me to where I said anything that indicated that I agreed (or even cared) that the edits to Shaiwatna Kupratakul came after the advice to walk away, and I will strike them. If by "have the big hammer" you mean I am an arbitrator, I don't see how I used that to influence anything here. The only mention I've made of the Arbitration Committee in this whole incident is below, where Igor asked if that was the correct place to go, and on ANI, where I affirmed that I was not acting as an arbitrator. I stated above that I would not consider reversal of my admin action to unblock to be wheelwarring, and I stated on ANI that I was completely open to review of the block. I'm not sure what more you think I can do, short of resign from the Arbitration Committee, to make this seem equivalent to review of any other administrator's action. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@Igor the bunny: If you want outside comment on the behavior here, WP:ANI would be the place to go. WP:RFC/U was recently closed down, so the next step would be arbitration, but I doubt this issue would be considered "ripe". That said, you are welcome to file a request if you disagree. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

That said, I like BMK's suggestion better than ANI or arbitration. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Either the underlined statement by bunny is the truth or its a lie. The time logs don't lie. Legacypac (talk) 00:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@Legacypac - It could also be a simple misapprehension based on when Igor learned of the various statements. You, too, should let it go. BMK (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Christ. Jehochman told you two to walk away at 21:56, 28 December 2014. Igor first edited Shaiwatna Kupratakul at 09:54, 28 December 2014. You are correct that Igor edited an unrelated article before being asked to walk away. I do not see why this matters. Both of you, please disengage with one another. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@G In 6 years here, I've yet to see anything good come from ANI. I'll "consider the options".

(I'll ignore what Legacypac posted here as obviously incorrect) Igor the bunny (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@Igor - Could you indent your comments in the normal fashion? Thanks. BMK (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Any in particular? Sorry, not sure which you mean; feel free to indent my comments; I'll shout if I object. Thanks, Igor the bunny (talk) 00:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, did you mean this where I put a semi-colon instead of a colon? If so, sorry; it was a genuine typo. Igor the bunny (talk) 00:41, 31 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)

Thanks - I misspoke, and realized looking more closely it was a tag not a revert today - I assumed it was a revert based on things bunny said and seeing he was the last person to edit the article. Not my core point anyway, he just brushed off my core point that the whole complaint was based on an incorrect characterization of the timing of events. I don't like your conclusion that "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." because it immediately follows what I've demonstrated to be a false accusation and mischaracterization of what happened. Did I hound bunny? Maybe I did for a while. He started by tagging my new article for deletion inappropriately, then slapping a BLP on a guy that has been dead for 170 years, then cut out work history on a retired scientist, and other stupid stuff. I took him for a facetious vandel out to make a WP:POINT and dealt with his activity as he piled on more and more stupid actions, taunting people all the way. My view of him and his activity was and is shared by many other editors - so kindly don't look at one or two of my actions on one article in isolation based on a false timeline presented by bunny. I would never suggest you give up an elected position over this, but its pretty obvious that Admins defer to an Arb Com member pretty quick around here. Legacypac (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

You keep making apparently baseless accusations.

he piled on more and more stupid actions, taunting people all the way - diffs, or it didn't happen. Igor the bunny (talk) 01:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I have no intentions to make any actions based on the interactions with you two, so I'm not sure continuing this conversation is terribly productive. I would rather find a way forward from here, rather than continue to rehash what happened when or why. Perhaps you and Igor the bunny would agree to a voluntary IBAN? GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll accept an IBAN, iff Legacypac undoes their edit which adds unreferenced material to a BLP [22]. Igor the bunny (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:Co-op

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)

Hi! Yeah, between the Committee and going back to classes, I don't think I'd be able to dedicate the time or energy to mentoring. Thanks for thinking of me, though, and I wish you the best of luck. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Kudos

You have the patience of a saint. — Ched :  ?  01:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

True :-)

Just want to point out that all I asked of GW was a confirmation of my ID - that I am not breaching any sock policies. That is all. And it was because a) arb member, b) knows me personally. Nothing else about GW's involvement in this debacle is due to me. I only wanted her to confirm I wasn't doing anything naughty (sock), not to deal with anything else.Igor the bunny (talk) 02:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	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)

he has popped up again with another IP 64.134.101.117, could you perform an RD2 on his offensive, racist edits and edit summaries? thanks Pvpoodle (talk) 08:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks like someone else beat me to it, but thanks for the heads-up. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi GW

- 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)

Thanks Kudpung. All the best to you too! GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

YHM

Hello, GorillaWarfare. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Regards, Manul ~ talk 19:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		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)

IdeaLab proposal

There is a proposal at the IdeaLab that may interest you. Lightbreather (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, GorillaWarfare. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Cheers, Manul ~ talk 10:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Test Kaffeeklatsch area for women-only

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)

Details

This is my Twitter account; this is my website. GorillaWarfare (talk) 08:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Recusal in GamerGate

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)

This is getting circulated on Twitter Imgur compilation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd not seen that. My issue about conflict of interest in this matter has nothing to do with what GorillaWarfare's particular point of view might be. It's that GW is *personally involved*. But, beyond this, recusing then changing your mind about it is procedurally unconscionable. Fearofreprisal (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

If Gorilla honestly thinks GamerGate is just about defaming and threatening women or that Mozilla allowing a female supporter of GamerGate to express her views on the issue was "legitimizing the abuse of women" then she should recuse. Seems clear that Gorilla has the "neutrality is not acceptable" take on GamerGate. Being an editor on the topic would not be a big deal, but there is no way in hell someone should be acting as an arbitrator when they have such an attitude on the subject.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

But, looking over the proposed decision page, the case findings don't concern the subject of GamerGate itself (pro, con or neutral) but focus on whether an editor has been disruptively editing and interacting with other editors. They are looking at editor behavior which can be judged regardless of what one thinks of the subject of the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but the fact that GorillaWarfare has decided to be recused due to being considered involved in other GG matters seems to indicate that this is not an appropriate exception to make. Again, it is not a failing or moral weakness to lose neutrality over an issue where you and people you care about have been ridiculed and targeted. I know I wouldn't be neutral after that if that happened to me. Peanutenvelope (talk) 18:49, 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.

She has argued, without any evidence, reasoning or analysis that the "misuse of sources" arguments against two of those parties are weak, and then simultaneously asserted that she doesn't think it's her job to assess that anyway. She is currently the only one opposing a finding of "battleground conduct" for another such editor, which nine arbitrators support.

I'd like to note here that One of the editors being defended here has been arguing on the PD talk page about the supposed 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 collusion be 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.

Anyway, after those editors complained on the talk page that one of the "pro-Gamergate" editors was not facing any disciplinary action, she added an SPA FoF against him, supported with diffs that are far less damning than anything seen against other editors, and which don't appear to have come from the original evidence page (and only four diffs to establish "battleground conduct", which she apparently thinks is not enough in other cases). While she supports a topic ban for that editor, she seeks only admonishment for another editor on the other side of the conflict, even after also adding more supporting diffs for "battleground conduct" in this case.

She also added a POV FoF against an editor widely perceived as neutral in the discussion, which stands opposed by seven other arbitrators, on the basis of diffs that don't include any main article edits (as noted by other arbitrators), and proposed a topic ban on that basis. 76.69.75.41 (talk) 07:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, I don't think you will do it, but just in case you're even thinking about, please don't let these guys pressure you into recusing yourself. Love. Lightbreather (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

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)

The statement you link to is dishonest. Were you really just condemning doxing and harassment that would be one thing, but your comments on Twitter are clearly more extreme. I have never seen anything to suggest Georgina Young doxed or harassed people, yet you retweeted someone who suggested that letting her provide a pro-GamerGate perspective was legitimizing abuse of women. You also made comments to someone about GamerGate as a movement by saying a legitimate movement doe not threaten and defame women. Clearly, you are not simply condemning parts of GamerGate that have doxed and harassed but the whole thing. As to what Liz says, there is no way being of this mindset on the subject can allow someone to be neutral about the conduct of editors in the topic area. The evidence in this case covers POV-pushing and misrepresentation of sources. If Gorilla is of the mindset that neutrality is not acceptable on GamerGate then she cannot make an objective evaluation of such conduct.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I retweeted someone who spoke against a piece that Mozilla published (and later took down). I did not accuse Young of doxxing or harassment.

saying a legitimate movement doe not threaten and defame women I stand by that.

As for my neutrality, we obviously disagree on the "clear" meanings of my offwiki statements, as well as the effect they have on my ability to neutrally arbitrate user conduct. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

They took down both pieces, the one that was anti- and the one that was pro-, so there is no significance to them being taken down. Nothing about Young's piece was there for "speaking out against" other than it being a woman expressing an opinion that you apparently think it is not proper for a woman to express, which was basically that women such as herself have been harassed for expressing an opinion on GamerGate different from yours. In fact, that is something your views would expressly prejudice regarding this case as one of the main concerns I raised are the comments and edits editors such as Tarc, Ryulong, Red Pen, and Baranof, have made regarding harassment of GamerGate supporters, particularly those who are women or minorities.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

If what your reply said were 100% the case, I don't think there would be a problem. ("Regarding my tweets, I don't think that condemning parts of Gamergate that doxxed or harassed women is reflective of my bias (or even particularly controversial)")However, multiple uses of the Twitter hashtag "#StopGamerGate2014" shows that it was not just a condemnation of particular persons' actions, but everyone in GamerGate as a whole—of which this ArbCom case is partially deciding whether to "stop" to an extent with possible block and ban actions on the table for many known GG-editors. The hashtag system on Twitter is used for advocacy, and I don't think your use of it on Twitter was an exception. It is not a moral failing or weakness to not be neutral in a situation where people have ridiculed and targeted you and people you care about, and is quite understandable, and I know I would be the same way. It just isn't appropriate for a delicate case like with GG, however. Peanutenvelope (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@Peanutenvelope: If you could put your messages below previous ones, that would be super helpful. I've moved your last one. ArbCom is not making any statement on how the GamerGate group should continue—saying that ArbCom is deciding whether to stop GamerGate is ridiculous. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Heads up that Peanutenvelope has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Chillum 19:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

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)

"It is a principle of natural justice that no person can judge a case in which they have an interest. The rule is very strictly applied to any appearance of a possible bias, even if there is actually none: 'Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done'."[26]

Whether you are neutral or not is immaterial: There is an appearance of possible bias. Fearofreprisal (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I can confirm that the appearance of possible bias exists. -Pollinosisss (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

1) Will you similarly ask whether every other arbitrator has a position ("interest") on this subject matter? Have you checked all of their Twitter accounts as well?

2) There are a large number of active arbitrators on this case (14 is more than I'm used to seeing) and I doubt that any one arbitrator will have the deciding vote in the proposed decisions. What I'm saying is that even if GW decided to recuse, the outcome would likely be the same. It doesn't look like these are remedies that will come down to 7/7 or 8/6 voting decisions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:24, 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)

Shockingly, the appearance of possible bias can be construed through any number of potential scenarios, but the actual level of bias in this situation is negligible at best. Thanks for remaining active, GW—you made the right call. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

If you are set on this, I'd recommend seeking a resolution of the full Arbitration Committee. That way, if it blows up, you've got coverage. Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't intend to do that any more than I would on any other case in which I choose not to recuse. I'm not going to increase the workload of the rest of the Committee with a procedural vote when no one else on it has expressed concern to me about my decision. If another arbitrator believes I should recuse, they are of course welcome to suggest this resolution, and with no hard feelings from me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

People have opinions on a lot of issues, but here you are once more not being completely honest. Your opinions about feminism are not being raised as especially relevant and it is not merely having opinions on GamerGate that is an issue. Rather, the problem is that your opinions are indistinguishable from those of the people you are supporting in the arbitration case and those opinions are quite extreme. You have a partisan take on the issue and your actions as an Arb here are partisan in nature.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

So you feel that I can arbitrate on cases to do with issues on which I have opinions, as long as I only vote to sanction people who hold similar opinions...? GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

No, this is relatively straightforward. If you feel so strongly about an issue that you think even allowing the other side to be heard is a bad thing that should be stopped, then you should not be an Arb on a case concerning that issue.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

TDA, that screed is nothing more than personal attack. Accusing somebody of dishonesty because you disagree with them on a procedural issues is absolutely outrageous and under normal circumstances I'd block you for something like that. Make no mistake: if you accuse anyone, anywhere in Wikipedia of being dishonest, especially if it is intended to have a chilling effect on that person's participation in matters of policy enforcement, I will block you. The only reason I haven't already is that it would inhibit your participation in the case at this critical juncture. Parties to arbitration cases have a lot of leeway to defend themselves, but that leeway is not infinite. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Has the ridiculous bureaucracy of Wikipedia, with its love of procedure over substance, come to such a point where an editor cannot state the obvious when the evidence is compelling? "Personal attacks", so called, are legitimate if the substance of said "attack" is to state the obvious, that there is a biased and involved individual [27]. It is scandalous that certain admin/sysop's have refused to recuse themselves, despite being biased, involved and obviously motived by factors other than creating a great encyclopedia. Making tedious reference to obscure policy in an effort to shut down discourse is wrong. 67.97.90.189 (talk) 01:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

A disagreement on the policy is not the basis of my statement. She states "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." No one here is saying her opinions on feminism are the issue, but her opinions on GamerGate specifically. She then suggests that having opinions on GamerGate is like having an opinion on admins or opinions on politics. Unfortunately, it seems increasingly that the default response of admins when questioned regarding this type of issue is to make an absurd remark about a much broader subject than the topic under discussion. It is not even just that she has an opinion on GamerGate. I would hardly expect someone to not have an opinion on an issue, but what matters is the nature of that opinion and how strongly it is held.

When someone feels so strongly about an issue that they think presenting both sides is "legitimizing the abuse of women" and thus anyone attempting to present both sides of an issue should be criticized severely until they stop presenting the "bad" side, then it is an entirely different matter. Another Arb has made some comments regarding GamerGate on Twitter, but from what I saw in that case there are far fewer comments and they are much more tame. Her having an opinion is not a big deal in itself, but when her opinion is essentially that there is something inherently immoral about presenting more than one side of the issue, then that is a problem. By no means is she unaware that the issue is more than simply her having an opinion on the subject and she would certainly be aware that having an opinion on a far more broad issue is not the same as having an opinion on a much more narrow issue.

The Huffington Post brought on numerous female GamerGate supporters to discuss their feelings regarding GamerGate. Aljazeera America talked to various different supporters regarding their feelings on the issue, including female supporters. Numerous major media have sought out and covered various sides of the issue, including the Washington Post. GorillaWarfare's endorsement of a position that is diametrically opposed to allowing such alternative views is damning. How can someone believe she is going to be neutral regarding this case when she apparently thinks people should not be neutral regarding the subject at all?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Well I suspect you know exactly what I'd say if you'd spoken to me the way you've spoken to Molly (I find it excessively formal to refer to someone by their username when they disclose their first name on their userpage, but that's just me.)—I'd suggest that you went elsewhere, but I wouldn't use quite so many letters. I'm not going to get into a lengthy and unproductive discussion with you about why Molly should or shouldn't recuse, both because it would be lengthy and unproductive and because it would be impolite to discuss Molly in the third person on her own talk page. My warning wrt personal attacks, accusations of dishonesty, and chilling effects stands. You can either heed it or be blocked. The choice is entirely yours. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:31, 21 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)

Apologies if I shouldn't reply here, if so by all means delete my comments, I was looking for somewhere to explain myself what I mentioned to two other arbs. I sincerily don't get why you accused me of being a SPA when my editing history covers everything from music, politics, games not even related to GamerGate, terrorism, etc. If you compare to all those others getting called SPAs I'm not even similar to them, giving that my account is almost 9 years old, and I've even edited the Spanish Wikipedia, your proposal striked me as weird, this would be my first ever sanction. Then I saw all the fuzz and it's just sad in my opinion, I truly had an entire different view of Wikipedia before all this. Please take this with the utmost respect, I'm not one to use insults or snarks, I'm not a random IP user who comes here to vandalise, It's not only your offsite ideas, it's your decisions in this case which, in my humble opinion, show a one sided thinking, that really just makes people doubt if the evidence was really put into effect and analysis (I have already been accused of being a SPA on ANI, and the case was dropped) or the votes were decided from the get go due to your personal views on what is being deemed an anti-Feminist movement by media, and your strong oppositions to the movement and its participants (hence your potential dislike for people introducing content that may be deemed favorable to it, like DungeonSiege, Tutelary, TitaniumDragon, Xander; and your favoritism to what outside participants of the movement deeem antiGG, like Ryulong, NorthBySouthBaranof and Gamaliel, from the so called 5 Horseman), that's what every outsider would think of this. In the interest of not damaging the image of the project, I please ask you to take the advise of several people and reccuse yourself like you did at the start of this case. Thanks for hearing, and again apologies if this shouldn't be here, take care. Loganmac (talk) 05:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem in talking to me here, but the issue of the SPA finding is more suited to discussion on the PD talk page. I proposed the finding, but it's the entire Committee who decides if it passes or not. Regarding my recusal, I don't really know how much clearer I can get on the issue. GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Gorilla Warfare, please be aware, and I am confident that you are, that a legion of experienced editors who choose to avoid the areas of bitter conflict on a day-to-day basis, are deeply grateful to the administrators and arbitrators who delve into these swamps to clean them up. That's why we elected you and your colleagues to ArbCom. We know that, if it weren't for the efforts of you and your colleagues, this encyclopedia would be overrun and destroyed by the POV pushers, fanatics, kooks and trolls who swarm all over the internet, attacking Wikipedia's credibility at every opportunity. Please ignore their entreaties, cloaked in the facade of "reasonableness" and stick to our policies and guidelines. Steadfastness is essential. My warmest regards to you, and thank you for the work you do. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:37, 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)

A beer for you!

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)

+1 Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

+2 ..... quite. The Land (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Life is better with tea! Best wishes! MONGO 22:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Another cup of tea for you!

You're great, the haters can't hold a candle to you. <3 Keilana|Parlez ici 22:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Because chocolate is the answer for every situation. Liz Read! Talk! 00:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Stay the course

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)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

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)

And, it's been removed from that noticeboard as a discussion that was not appropriate for that discussion board. So that's one annoyance you don't have to deal with today, yay! --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Epic Meal Time's GAR

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)

Thank you

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)

*applause* That's a model of how we should be doing things here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

*brava* Digging into editor's off-wiki activity is despicable and never justified. Thank you Gamergater for distancing yourself from those people. 107.77.76.25 (talk) 17:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Nekrogoblikon

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)

(talk page stalker) If there was some really blatant copyvio in the original version that was never dealt with, this wouldn't be out of line. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

And that is, in fact, what the deletion log states. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:09, 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)

Thanks for the clarification. Like I say, I've never seen it before. Carrite (talk) 15:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Note

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)

And from me as well

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)

Up here in heaven, chile ...

	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)

Purple Barnstar

		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)

ARCA

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)

Struggling

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)

What he said :) Fiddle Faddle 18:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks like it's sorted now. Moonriddengirl's been putting labels on things. Peridon (talk) 13:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Glad to hear it! For future reference, I'm generally not as quick to respond as some others (or as posting on a noticeboard). GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Dear ODear ODear

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)

The block was due to a combination of evidence submitted by email and on-wiki conduct during the Collect case request. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you for the reply! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello?

I pinged you today.[28] Did you not receive a notice? Lightbreather (talk) 03:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I did, but by the time I got online to check it, the thread had been closed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

andy burham tyldesley

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)

The phrase "public voted for the amendment and then Andy changed his mind on vote outcome, this is why tyldesley residents will vote you out." is more commentary than anything, and does not really follow our neutral point of view policy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:12, 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)

It's commentary on what happened; commentary like that cannot be included unless it exists elsewhere in a reliable source. Furthermore, the source does not mention this as being a controversy at all. Please don't reinsert the information without discussing first. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:17, 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)

The source seems reliable enough; my concern is that the information that you are adding does not exist in that source. Where does the source say that Burnham called for the vote? Where does it say that Burnham changed his mind? And where does it say that this is any sort of controversy to do with Burnham himself? GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, please stop re-adding the information before we come to an agreement. This is becoming edit warring, and I'd appreciate you undoing the addition until we can agree on this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Please help

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)

You can simply copy the thread from the archived page and paste it back on ANI if you wish to restore it. That said, I'm not seeing much to act on here. Systemic bias is a recognized issue on Wikipedia, and although SPI is not the best place to point it out, I don't think observations on the pattern in the AfDs is unreasonable, and I'm not seeing personal attacks. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I see no point in restoring that section if admins are saying it's OK to call a bunch of editors racists even when they didn't vote on the AFD discussions mentioned. The only crime we committed was disagreeing with him on a topic anytime in the past.Mdtemp (talk) 18:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Mishae

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)

No worries, I've responded there. Thanks for the heads up. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:04, 15 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)

I would speak with Writ Keeper, as they are the unblocking admin and the one who gave the conditions for the unblock. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't sure if they would be the main go to person or not in this case. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

*sigh* I guess hope doesn't spring eternal after all. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 06:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Alma Dolens

Allen3 ^talk 08:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Nazi gun control theory

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)

"Whisperback" didn't seem to apply to this. I heard "ping" doesn't work any more. I switched to template "U" - but I'm not sure that works, either. So, secondary question: Most reliable pinging tool? Lightbreather (talk) 22:50, 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)

Updated

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)

Your statements should be made on the arbitration case request, not on individual arbitrators' talk pages. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

FYI

Since you are a champion of civility and consider "fuck off" to be an "egregious violation of civility" I'm bring this edit 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)

• Pork, you know very well that "fuck off" on one's own talk page is allowed--in other words, you're baiting here. (Also, well, that person needed to be told--a libertarian like you should know that.) Do not let your Wikipediocracy sympathies get the best of you: Kiefer doesn't need you to fight his fights for him. And next time you run into him, please tell him I said hi. Drmies (talk) 02:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the POINTy heads-up, TKoP. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Drmies, honest to God I've no idea why you are talking about Kiefer. I've seen his name here before but up until just now had no idea he was banned. I think I've had a total of 5 posts over at Wikipedicocracy. Once again, sorry to drag your name through this but I felt GorillaWarfare deserved a chance to reconcile her inconsistencies. Perhaps you are unaware but GW removed my to access, amongst other things, for telling someone to "Fuck off". However the cognitive dissonance is probably washed away with "the ends justify the means" sort of rationalization, and more's the pity if that's the case.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 23:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

If you want to discuss something with Drmies, please feel free to do so somewhere other than on my talk page. If you want someone to examine his choice of edit summary, there are the administrator noticeboards. Regarding your comment (which was not among those that I described as egregious violations of civility), that was not the only reason I chose to remove your talk page access. Blocked users' talk pages are intended for discussion of the block, not for continuing discussions that you were prevented from joining. If you disagree with my action, I think you know the proper channels to bring it up if you feel it was the wrong decision. I would question why you waited almost three months to bring it up—perhaps it was because you don't have an issue with it so much as you want to use it to make a point? GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

err the inconsistency in that reasoning alone is appalling given recent history. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Blocked users' talk pages are intended for discussion of the block, not for continuing discussions that you were prevented from joining -- which you selectively enforce -- but I'll predict your rejoinder "I'm not responsible for monitoring every page" -- true, but I can easily dig into the archives to show at least one instance of where this occurred. IMO your action was a shameful abuse of the tools to silence someone who may have pissed you off. There's a word for that -- it's called a bully. I certainly could find a venue to bring this up, but to what purpose? You are politically entrenched here and I am not. I might as well spit into the wind. Why didn't I bring this up sooner? I had thought about it for a bit, but I couldn't for a month because I was blocked for 30 days. After that I felt that letting sleeping dogs lie was perhaps the best course -- which in retrospect was the correct instinct, but here we are. Maybe there is a lesson here if we each look hard enough.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 17:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

A lesson for one person, surely. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I relatively regularly remove talk page access when blocked users continue to use it inappropriately. If you'd like to dig through my blocks, have at it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm speaking more about your gamesmanship, which at times is cringeworthy. I just noticed that you enjoy to code. Good for you! The workplace desperately needs more women in the engineering disciplines. You should easily be able to parly your experience with wikipedia politics and rise In the ranks of a faculty department should you choose, however it's a miserable experience and takes you away from doing the work you enjoy. Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 03:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You, sir, are coming off spectacularly in this discussion. No evidence or tact, with sides of pointiness, dead horses, and a refusal to even attempt to address your perceived problem. I'd say to quit before you embarrass yourself, but we went past that point with the opening post. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The switch from an aggressive stance to a faux-congratulatory "oh my, a woman in a male-dominated field. I expect your experience at Wikipedia will allow you to raise your status in professional work" is an unacceptable personal attack, an attempt to bait. Do not do the same in the future. LFaraone 04:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Riots in Baltimore

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)

Is there a reliable source you could find that supplies this location? Checking Google Street View is original research. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I really have to dispute that in this case. I looked at news footage of the looting of that CVS, and noted the entrance to the station. Then I examined the aforementioned map and the street patterns, before finally getting an exact location of the station and the CVS that was burned afterwards. Would you prefer an official location from CVS's website? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 00:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

No, you need a third-party source saying that's where the riots occurred. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

What third party could possibly be available? You have an exact address with someplace like CVS (http://www.cvs.com/stores/store-detail-and-directions.jsp?storeId=3976). ---------User:DanTD (talk) 01:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Many news sources discuss the location. This, for example, mentions west and downtown Baltimore, as well as more specific locations. Various incidents have taken place in various places, and I worry that mentioning a specific location such as a train station will lead people to believe all incidents took place there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that as I was going through one of the CNN links there. Unfortunately, it wouldn't let me scan the caption indicating the location of the CVS Pharmacy. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 01:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

(comment from uninvolved editor) @DanTD:, the article probably doesn't need a Street View. It is useful for railway stations and the like, but less useful to show on pages about riots that destroyed buildings. In essence, I'm saying that for this particular article, it may be irrelevant. Epic Genius (talk) 02:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

That's understandable. Maybe we can use it for the station article. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 04:17, 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)

I just posted here. Curious if you could weigh in on it? Victor Grigas (talk) 16:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Mayor of Baltimore

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)

Nevermind, another admin just did it. Rockypedia (talk) 01:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Formal request

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.

aside: I have a great deal of respect for you, but I felt that I had to ask this. — Ched :  ?  04:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

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)

I'll respect whichever decision she makes. If she says she can be objective, I'll trust that. — Ched :  ?  14:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it makes very little difference whether GW recuses or not. Her agenda is clear, and she'll no doubt have her say in the private discussions regardless. Eric Corbett 15:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Recused arbitrators are expected not to involve themselves in public or private discussions of the cases where they're recused, and this is something we all strictly respect. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Ched, what makes you feel I am too involved to arbitrate on this case? GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I've commented at a motion for Salvio to recuse. I'd be in favor of Gorilla Warfare recusing only if Salvio does. The reason being is that they are a bit of counterweights to each other. I'd base this off the private emails, forumshopping by Lightbreathers and comments Gorilla Warfare herself made about at least one parties to this case. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

What private emails are you referring to? I might be searching my email archives poorly, but I'm not sure we've ever communicated via email. Regarding comments I've made about "at least one parties to this case," do you just mean Lightbreather, or are you talking about non-parties? The only other party currently is Karanacs, who I'm not sure I've ever even really interacted with. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Well that's a good question. Your comments in voting for the case is that it was your preference to not limit the case to Lightbreather but also the named parties. I am one of those members. You have openly called me sexist, attacked a fellow arb regarding a call out on a personal attack [[31]] as well as a couple of other questionable actions regarding Lightbreather or gender issues. Now I emphasize again I would only support you recusing if Salvio is forced to recuse and that's only to balance the scales. The emails I refer to is Lightbreathers attempts to canvass you which you have previously admitted to and much to my surprise (I respected you did this) you told her to cease doing so. With what I think 15 active arbs I doubt you or Salvio will be casting pivotable swing votes. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay. I don't see a reason to recuse based on emails I've received or based on people who might eventually be added as parties but as of yet have not. I also disagree with the idea that two arbitrators who did have conflicts of interest wouldn't need to recuse based on some sort of balancing effect. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Pardon me if I'm missing something, but has anyone specified why Molly should recuse? There might be a case for her to recuse wrt HiaB if he were added as a party to the case, but I'm not seeing anything along the lines of "you should recuse because this comment shows you have conflicting interests". Compare that with LB's request to Salvio. I have no strong feelings on whether either or both should recuse, but I'd hate to see an arb brow-beaten into recusal—or worse, a lengthy meta-drama about whether a given arb should have recused which puts a cloud over the whole case. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• In reply to your question about "why" I asked GW. My belief is that you have strong feelings of support for LB, and I believe much of it stems from the whole GGTF issue. I have seen comments in the past where you were very supportive of not only the GGTF, the whole "kafka" "women only" thing, and explicit support of LB ... but that you've expressed negative views regarding people which opposed LB. (HiaB, and Eric are easily shown). I believe that much of the efforts to support the causes which LB champions, are in fact very divisive to this project. I think it is wrong to assume any gender to any account name. I originally requested this when there was the issue of bringing other editors into the case. As the case was accepted as it was framed, I'm not as concerned as I was. Mentioned above is also "Salvio". I agree with HiaB with respect to ANY arb who has preconceived mindset towards any case. I don't agree with any "one vote cancels out the other" thought however.

I am not going to spend time with diffs, I simply asked that you consider the fact that you may have thoughts leaning to one side or the other. I will respect your decision. — Ched :  ?  03:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. I have given it some thought, and will continue to do so as the scope of the case is worked out. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks GW - that's all I asked. — Ched :  ?  03:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• The reason you should recuse is that everyone knows what will happen next. You will agitate for Uncle Tom Cobbley and all to be added to the list of parties and then you will vote for sanctions against everyone but LB, as she claims to be a female. Eric Corbett 18:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • If you have anything to demonstrate that I would ignore user conduct to vote for or against sanctions because of a user's gender, feel free to present it. If you just disagree with how I've voted on past cases or my opinions on feminism and the gender gap, well, I don't much care. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:52, 7 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)

If arbitrators are biased, they should recuse. Period. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

It is a spurious notion that, if A is biased in one direction and B is biased in the other, they cancel each other out and all is well. GW is correct that any biased arb should recuse. I believe that all current arbs are capable of reviewing the evidence without bias. I am confident that GW is perfectly capable of favoring feminism and efforts to recruit a more diverse pool of editors, while still fairly evaluating possibly disruptive behavior by a self-identified feminist editor. Thanks, Eric, for the chance to learn more about Uncle Tom Cobley, but please do not pre-judge the outcome. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

On possible misinterpretations and misunderstandings.

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)

I did not interpret it as such. That said, I have no intention of doing a recording of the copypasta. It has no encyclopedic value, not to mention that it's incredibly offensive. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:34, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Vaginal evisceration

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)

I notice that vaginal evisceration says it's a surgical emergency, but surgical emergency, which seems to be a list of links, doesn't list/link vaginal evisceration. I'd just fix it myself, but maybe there is a deeper reason for this that I'm missing? In fact, nothing links to vaginal evisceration. --GRuban (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, GorillaWarfare. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Lucywhirlpool (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@Lucywhirlpool: I am not seeing anything in my email from you. Did you send it via Special:EmailUser/GorillaWarfare? GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Cleo Dubois

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)

@Lesv: I have restored the article to the draftspace at Draft:Cléo Dubois. Considerable work will need to be done to remove bias and uncited content, and to add reliable sourcing; as it stands, the article does not meet the general notability guideline, and is liable to be deleted if it is moved back into mainspace without substantial improvement. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

AN/I

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. Monty₈₄₅ 16:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, GorillaWarfare. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Cosmic  Emperor  04:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing

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)

I'm not quite clear what you're asking me to do here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The issue was brought to ANI Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User has gone over the edge up to you if you want to get involved. In my opinion this is turning into another Chelsea Manning case. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	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

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.

  Bfpage |leave a message  06:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

New page patrol

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)

The more you know... Thanks for the heads up. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I dream of horses is the Twinkle team aware of this bug (if it is indeed a bug)? Otherwise we should post something over at WT:TWINKLE or this'll never get fixed. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@Salvidrim!: Just left a comment/reply there. --I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{Ping|I dream of horses}} to your message. (talk to me) (contributions) @ 07:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Redactions

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)

I'm pretty sure it worked—I simply replaced a username in your response with "(Redacted)". GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh I see -- thanks for explaining. Looie496 (talk) 18:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 15 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Mykki Blanco page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

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)

Re: Hope chests

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)

Oversight-worthy stuff being visible to all admins

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)

It was not, to my knowledge, raised anywhere. I'm not really sure where the best place would be to bring it up. AN, perhaps? If it's happening, it seems to be more an administrator issue than an OS one, so AUSC is probably not the right route. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, GorillaWarfare. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Cosmic  Emperor  00:07, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Eric Corbett block

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)

• Can you explain why you are blocking against a clear consensus at WP:AE? Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 03:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• She saw her chance to block him and ran that ball into the endzone. Seen it a few times already. It's also one of the reasons several asked her to step aside her decisions aren't based on reason but her personal biases rule in this matter. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I've asked you plenty of times to please take your issues with me to a formal setting if you think I'm really as horrible as you like to say, but have yet to see you do so. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

User:GorillaWarfare I'd certainly consider it if you weren't backed by an army of sycophants. I certainly wouldn't say you are a horrible person but your decisions and actions show you clearly aren't unbiased. I'm actually curious other then my recent block when you stated I could appeal when have you made that statement to me? Not to make tedious work but if you have indeed asked me before I didn't remember and I can certainly disinvite my self from your talkpage if the opinions make you that uneasy. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Irony EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'd certainly consider it if you weren't backed by an army of sycophants. ... Says a person supporting Eric. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Prophecy? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Sigh, shades of Giano again, eh Gorilla? It never gets old. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to go through our edit histories to find them, it would indeed make tedious work. If you'd prefer I can change my wording to "You have repeatedly raised serious concerns about my actions without taking them to a formal setting" if you think I haven't asked you multiple times, but I'm not sure why I'm even needing to ask this in the first place. You do not need to disinvite yourself from my talk page, but I would appreciate you taking your snarky comments and bad faith to a more appropriate venue. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Well that's disappointing that you are willing to make more accusations and not back them up. I have raised concerns on this in the proper venues at the time, I've made statements of this bias at ARCA, and also at AE. The only times I recall engaging you other then that is on threads that other people have started and namely that was the request that you recuse in the arbcom case or when you blocked me. I have not engaged you any other time to my recollection on any other matter. I am a little snarky, sorry about that, I have a difficult time controlling it sometimes as you can tell. But if I removed the snark completely you would still deny the issue so let's put that cover aside too. I've experienced first hand your bad faith and that is why I comment on these issues only. Clearly you have strong feelings that override your judgement in this subject matter. I'm not saying that you are a horrible person, admin etc, I don't know you from Eve but what I can say is that I believe your beliefs and biases are overriding your reason. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you disagree that Eric breached his restriction? GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it was stupid, it was something that shouldn't have been done technically but that it harmed no one and disrupted no one. I think it was stupid it was brought to AE. I think it was stupidity all around. I think that the sanctions are being used as a bludgeon which is ironically what I stated at AE. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Now that the discussion here is again duplicating the conversation at EC's talk page, I'm responding there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I've replied at Eric Corbett's talk page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Good block. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you, GW, for enforcing the clear will of the committee (as expressed in a decision you helped write, iirc.) If de minimis exceptions were meant to apply to arbcom bans, it would have been very easy for GW and the other arbs to have mentioned it somewhere. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• Blocks should be preventative not punitive. Instead of preventing disruption, it would seem, in this instance, the block was significantly more disruptive than the actions it was carried out in response to.TyTyMang (talk) 05:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Betacommand sure did a lot of valuable work to the encyclopedia. His block as Betacommand also greatly benefitted the encyclopedia; he had driven off a sufficient quantity of users that his continued presence as Beta caused more harm than good. I wouldn't describe Eric as a net negative in the same way, but his behavior was clearly intended to test whether or not arbitration restrictions would be enforced against him, and I believe the ability of arbcom to retain their ability to exercise legitimate power though that itself certainly is unfortunately imperfect and could use repair is more important than Eric's ability to edit for a month. I also have an awfully hard time feeling bad for Eric, because this was a pretty deliberate challenge. He poked the bear after a two week block for doing pretty much the same thing. Him doing the same thing again so soon again isn't much different than him voluntarily deciding to be unable to edit for a period of time. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:21, 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)

The ability of Wikipedia to maintain itself as something other than an anarchy was what differentiates this place from Newsnet. Kevin Gorman (talk) 09:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• I wake up (before I could even comment at AE - a place that I try to avoid at all cost but would have made an exception) to another unbelievable enforcement of unbelievably petty restrictions (called above "the clear will of the committee, which is unfortunately correct). I am probably not the right person to try to have them lifted, and Eric is too proud a person to even react, but could someone with a better reputation than mine (as an alleged infobox warrior) perhaps start working on that?

See also stepping forward for what's right, and read a book, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, you wrote on Eric's talk page 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.

Yes, sure, this is a 'justified by the rules' outcome, but that's all it is. The rules say you can use a sledgehammer to swat a fly, but not that you must or that it's a good idea or that you won't hit other people while swinging it around. What goal does this block serve (assuming Kevin's isn't the primary one) - even setting aside the 'building the encyclopedia' part; does it actually make Wikipedia a more welcoming place for women, improve civility on the part of other editors, facilitate anyone's efforts to avoid what has already been a lot of distraction and drama this week? Maybe I'll change my mind tomorrow, but for now I'm not seeing it. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

That's the thing, though. The restrictions we impose in arbitration cases are generally intended to be quite strict, and the committee spends quite a while deciding the scope. If you look through the history of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions at GGTF/Proposed decision, we went through several iterations of the wording to try to get it right. We eventually landed on a restriction that was broadly construed, and not restricted by namespace. There was also nothing in the provision about trying to gauge whether an edit is or is not dramatic, visible, egregious, etc. enough to warrant a sanction, because that kind of decision would almost inevitably end up with anyone enforcing a ban having to go through, well, this.

Regarding the drama that has resulted, that's also why the standard enforcement provisions are in place. In order to avoid wheel warring and protracted and scattered discussions about whether an enforcement action was warranted, the committee makes it fairly clear that an uninvolved administrator may block (or a non-admin can request a block at AE), and the block may only be overturned via a small number of methods. Eric has become the kind of editor that causes issues with this process, because those who sanction or request sanction are generally subjected to quite a lot of vitriol for daring to do so, and so the sanctions become difficult and time-consuming to enforce. I imagine EvergreenFir has noticed this as well. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

It is abundantly clear that rigidity as a means of preventing drama doesn't actually prevent drama. Consensus among those who participated in this brief discussion was that rigid enforcement wasn't worth the drama. "Not enough participants", "not enough admins", etc. is a red herring that overlooks the fact that there are diminishing returns to taking the time to add to near-unanimous agreement.

The fact that sanctions like these are difficult and time-consuming to enforce is an argument against investing that time and effort in response to trivial, harmless comments. Beyond the fact that this is a waste of time, a fairly significant process defect, and a potential loss of at least one good content editor, it sends a message that efforts to address the gender-gap problem necessarily will be accompanied by inflexible, officious, heavy-handed administrative actions that deliberately take no account of context or community response. I can't see that as anything but counterproductive. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

a potential loss of at least one good content editor See, this is what I read again and again on talk pages and I just don't get.

Administrators are often accused of being hard on newcomers while looking away when it comes to misbehavior by longtime editors. So why do I continually see messages like this, as if "good content editors" should get extra slack because they are so valuable? Undoubtedly, they contribute a lot to the project but admins shouldn't have different sets of standards, one for content contributors and one for everyone else. There was a topic ban in place and a clear violation. There shouldn't be quality considerations, as if one type of editor should receive a sanction if you're a good content editor, you can get a pass.

I'm not saying this is what you're suggesting but I have seen it said in so many words by other editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

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)

I also think Eric knew very well - but I don't agree with "in trouble", - I imagine him being amused about how well the predicable machinery of following the letter of something questionable - these restrictions - works, with little effort on his part. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED

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)

I suggest you actually read the section about involved admins you refer to - before making wild claims. ChristopheT (talk) 10:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

No wild claims here. "In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about." GW has made her feelings about Corbett very clear in the past and shouldn't be making any unilateral administrative actions on him. We have 400+ active admins so there's no need for the block to be enacted by GW. Black Kite (talk) 10:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Except that consensus of editors' opinions doesn't play a role at AE. In fact, one single admin can make a decision to act when the other admins offering their opinions say that no action is required. If AE doesn't require a consensus from the admins participating, I don't see why tallying the opinions of those offering statements is required. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#TheRedPenOfDoom for another example of a single admin deciding to act when all editors but the filer said TRPoD's actions weren't violations. And that incident is not uncommon at all. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

My point exactly and something that needs to be discussed (regardless of this particular block), as I've made at WP:AN. Black Kite (talk) 12:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Can you be more specific about which comments you're referring to? Looking at my votes on the proposed decision, my comments were "First choice", "Second choice", and "Third choice"...

That said, arbitrating a case generally does not make an arbitrator INVOLVED when it comes to taking admin action in that area. Otherwise becoming an arbitrator would more or less require us to drop our admin tools. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, I don't know you from Adam and I guess I can be construed as being WP:INVOLVED since I get on with Eric, have done a few GA reviews with him, and in about six weeks of being an admin I already have a history of doing "controversial" unblocks, but yet again I wake up and log on to find a conversation going on that involves a stupid block while I was busy sleeping. If you are truly here to write an encyclopedia, pick up one of Draft:Edith Meyer, Draft:Cathleen Miller (Author), Draft:Maggie Chapman or Draft:Zella Jackson Price (especially that last one as my other half wrote it) and improve it to mainspace standards, then apologise to Eric for issuing what amounts to a cool down block and do the decent thing and unblock. Please. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• As far as I'm aware there's no precedent to suggest that an arbitrator who holds a strong view in a case is unable to enforce the actual literal decision of the arbitration committee. In fact, it's a rather odd suggestion - if arbcom members with strong feelings were unable to enforce the literal rulings of arbcom, it'd be a bit loony. Eric was very very clearly attempting to poke the bear. He knew he was under a sanction, and even if he thought it was a stupid sanction, he clearly and intentionally violated it to see if ArbCom was able or willing to enforce its rulings against him. I imagine if he agreed to abide by the sanction and apologized, it wouldn't be long before he was unblocked. Kevin Gorman (talk) 09:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Kevin, you moderate the WMF gendergap list, where GW sometimes comments, to the point of censorship and this latest drama involves one of your pet hates. Despite your long study of Eric, I doubt that you are qualified to read his mind. GW is manifestly involved in this instance and she has applied first-mover advantage. There really doesn't seem to be any point to inviting comments at WP:AE now.

  Waiting for the inevitable comments from other WMF/Jimbo proxies ... - Sitush (talk) 10:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Come on Sitush, really? Gendergap has had fewer removed or warned users in its history than have gotten blocked at ANI in the last half day. Our standards of conduct have in fact generally been ridiculously low, to the point that people have compared us disfavorably with Foundation-l. I've soundly criticized Jimbo in public on more than one occasion, and have less than 230 hours of paid work in the past at the WMF. I rarely agree with Jimbo, and quite often disagree with the WMF, not infrequently in public. I'm a WMF proxy? Kevin Gorman (talk)

no need to be a mind reader Sitush- breaking a rule 4 times is indeed "poking the bear" - but we all know that [actually to argue the opposite would be a bit of an insult to Eric intelligence or state of mind] ChristopheT (talk) 10:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:AN

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)

AE admins

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)

On this point, @GorillaWarfare: would you mind clarifying the order of events: Where you aware of the AE close at the time you made the block, or did you make the block on your own first, and then find out about the close? Monty₈₄₅ 14:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I was aware of the AE close. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by overturning a consensus of AE admins. The only admins participating in this case were Floquenbeam, who didn't express an opinion but provided a link to an article about warfare, and Black Kite who closed the complaint. I don't see that as a consensus.

Right now, there is a useful discussion going on at AN that might produce a consensus (although opinion is pretty divided right now) but I don't think a consensus of AE admins existed at this case. There was one admin who wanted to close the case with no action (Black Kite), one admin who thought it was much ado about nothing (Floquenbeam) and GW who thought that the topic ban had been violated and acted on it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Consensus isn't needed (though I personally think that's silly). Admins can act unilaterally. Basically whoever acts first gets the result they want. Black Kite performed an AE action in closing. GW reversed that action which, according to procedure, is a rather large no no. Capeo (talk) 16:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

While consensus isn't strictly required to take action, any admin worth their salt is going to listen to others, weigh the arguments, and if they are going to act against consensus, expect to explain via WP:ADMINACCT. And I support the right to go against consensus when appropriate, it isn't a vote. The problem here is that the discussion was closed, which requires the admin tools to do (even if it isn't a button). Reopening the discussion would have been an acceptable revert, particularly since it was so short lived. Acting against it (assuming she knew how it had closed) is more a kin to wheel warring. People can say "he didn't use the tools" but the fact is, his tools are the authority that granted him the ability to close the discussion to begin with. In effect, closing an AE is an admin function in that only admin can do it. And this doesn't even touch on the whole WP:INVOLVED concerns, which are yet to be resolved. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:50, 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)

I'm certainly aware the system is highly prone to unilateral action. What makes this case stand out to me is that the unilateral action is by an arb: one of the very people allegedly delegating this responsibility to admins. It comes off like "Okay, here's what you folks can do," from the committee, and then an arb comes by like "Haha, just kidding! You can't!" Sure seems like something that would make folks question if they want to participate at AE anymore. I'm certainly questioning it. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

If GW had declared the block to be an Arb block, performed under the auspices of the Committee, I would agree. However, GW stated explicitly that the block was not that, that it was done as an administrator only, thus it could be reviewed by the community...which appears to be taking place now at WP:AN. Checks and balances, it all seems to be working as intended, and all the browbeating (not that you yourself are doing any of it, but a lot of others are) of GW is rather uncalled for. Tarc (talk) 23:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

You did right

Gorilla Warfare, you did right to block Eric Corbett. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 15:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• The irony that Eric was once blocked for using the word "sycophantic" isn't lost on me here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Dennis_Brown Ok, I accept that and have removed that sentence out of my response. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 18:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't block anyone for using that word, I just found it ironic. I'm pretty tolerant of heat in discussions, probably more so than most, but I'm of the mind that sometimes it's good to clear the air. Obviously I like Eric and have worked with him a great deal. That doesn't make me blind to the fact that he is a huge pain in the ass, and I tell him so frequently. It also doesn't mean I think a block was necessarily wrong, although blindly escalating a block without regard to the circumstances reduces admin to automatons, which I would like to think we are not. My concern is one of process, who should have, and should it have after AE closed, etc. We can debate that there of course, but rest assured, it isn't personal about anyone, even if they lump me with the sycophants ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Response

Rise and shine ... here are some coco pops.

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)

I think I'm caught up. If I've missed anything, you know where to find me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:14, 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)

• Re: this. It comes across as more than disrespectful .... but I guess you don't care about that or the feelings/concerns of other editors? SagaciousPhil - Chat 18:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I again apologize. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Not enough - you are an Administrator and Arbitrator and as such you are expected to set an example. Being wholly disrespectful towards the opinions of editors in such an appalling manner is unacceptable. SagaciousPhil - Chat 19:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Drop the stick already, the initial post wasn't disrespectful. Gorilla Warfare has been respectful from the get-go and has nothing to appologize for. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 19:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

It most certainly was not only disrespectful but disgraceful. I am done here - users like yourself, GorillaWarfare, etc have made it abundantly clear that Wikipedia does not require content editors, especially British females. Chalk up your own personal successes for (not) helping the concerns about the "Gender Gap" that you all pay lip service to. SagaciousPhil - Chat 19:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Just unblock Eric, or drop it down to "time served" of 24 hours, and I think we're all done and can get back to writing articles. We will solve the gender gap by writing more articles about women (here's one I prepared earlier) than fighting about silly rules and regulations. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm continuing to be confused by your insistence that I write an article. I do a fair amount of work on Wikipedia (including in the mainspace), but arbitration and administrative work make up a considerable portion of it. The amount of time I spend writing articles seems beside the point here. Regarding unblocking, there are a number of people who are unhappy with me because they feel I ignored the consensus of a discussion about the block. I'm not going to increase that number by personally deciding whether Eric remains blocked while there is an active thread at AN. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to force you to write more in the mainspace, all I'm saying is that a bit more mutual respect is all that's needed. You might do a good job at Arbcom, others excel at writing featured quality content, others are good at spotting typos at 100 paces, others still make all that weird MOS voodoo stuff happen. If you walk a mile in a content creator's shoes and create high quality, featured content, you'll find yourself less likely to hit a brick wall of abuse like "what does she know, she's just an arb". Sagaciousphil has just done a sterling job with Dr. Blofeld on getting Thurso to good article status. And having worked with Blofeld myself, I can tell you that working on content with him is genuine fun that is of real use to the project. It certainly isn't the perpetual pain in the ass that adminship is. And if you write more on important but neglected women like Bessie Abramowitz Hillman then you will be making a real difference to close the gender gap and systemic bias. Just something to think about. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I do appreciate the advice, though I think we have different opinions on what's needed to improve the gender gap. That's a discussion for another time, though. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't you think it was relevant now? Especially with the concern of so many editors expressed at AN? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Not particularly. This is a discussion about whether Eric breached his sanctions, whether topic bans can be loosened to allow for "harmless comments", and whether I am involved. Debating the basis and validity of his topic ban is a matter for ARCA. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok. I guess to me it would explain if you have an agenda in these blocks. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:10, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Do I think the gender gap on Wikipedia is a problem? Yes. Do I think that the issue manifests itself solely in the content of our mainspace articles? Certainly not. Was I enforcing a topic ban based on a comment that, so far, no one has argued was not a violation of the topic ban? Yes. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

There is also a question if you were wheelwarring (Deliberately ignoring an existing discussion in favor of a unilateral preferred action. GregJackP Boomer! 02:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

In what sense? To say that Black Kite's closure of the AE thread and GW's subsequent block are connected in a first-mover --> second-mover manner, where the block "reverses" the AE close is an extremely dubious stretch to make. Tarc (talk) 03:31, 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)

I've read though it, and disagree with much there, though BK is still one of the few good admins lef IMOt. I dunno, just making observations, which is the limit of my involvement in all this. Tarc (talk) 05:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

FWIW I don't see it as wheel-warring (because it isn't), as I've said at the ArbCom case. My whole point in bringing this up, however, was to clarify why a "no block" -> "block" sequence on an AE case does not appear to violate any rules, whereas a "block" -> "unblock" one would. Black Kite (talk) 15:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I understand that answering my questions is not how you wanted to spend your days off. I had planned to improve an article today, but ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Did I miss a question of yours somewhere? GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't add a question-mark to my first comment above, - look for my name or "read a book". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I will have to improve that article today - regardless of my mood - because it is for tomorrorw. The title translates to Merciful heart, alma dolens --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom notice

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)

Motion for recusal

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)

Hell in a Bucket if you were to read what's going on rather than making dramatic statements, you would see that she's already recused herself. Logicaly. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Kudpung, you're thinking of the wrong case. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

You're absolutely right User:Kudpung, [reading] is definitely helpful before making dramatic statements ;). Sorry couldn't resist no hard feelings on this end, link is doing the funky stuff so it's "Formal Request" above. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 11:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Shoe on wrong foot

"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)

Well lets see here, Eric was banned from a discussing a topic and then Eric discussed the topic. The violation has been demonstrated. Have you actually looked into the situation? Chillum 15:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes. And apparently better than you have, or are able. IHTS (talk) 23:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The violation strikes me as fairly obvious. Eric is indefinitely topic banned from the gender gap topic: 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.

Eric commented on his talk page about a workshop by the WMF, linking to the gendergap mailing list. I don't see how commenting on a workshop intended to address the gender gap can be construed as anything other than making an edit about a process or discussion relating to the gender disparity among Wikipedians, and as I've been saying, even those most vocally against the block do not seem to be arguing that Eric did not violate the ban. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow, GW. The fact you found it necessary to go thru a step of construing *anything* s/ give clue as to where/how you may have messed up. (Your interpretation what EC said took a leap. I see nothing about "gender disparity" in the description of that workshop. Nor did EC say anything re gender disparity. I'm sure the leap seemed tiny to you - but nevertheless it's a leap. And the direction of your leap, which created & assigned blame, isn't a function of your own predispositions to the subjects involved? [If someone asks you "Who are you?", are you going to construe it as "Who the hell do you think you are?", or simply, "Do I know you?"? Do you think the answer might depend on possible predispositions you might hold re that individual?] You s/b reading only what's there nothing more. Especially prior to imposing an extensive block. It's easy to allow a subtle difference to delude oneself that one is right. [That would be a fallacy, wouldn't it.]) IHTS (talk) 22:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Er, I said it can't be construed... GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

How do you explain the leap(s) you ingested into what EC wrote, then? IHTS (talk) 23:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

From the email: "The goal is to get them educated and wised up to the sexist tactics often used against women editors, women's bios, and women's causes on Wikipedia."

From the event description: "If a large number of Wikipedia admins learn how to better support women, we could have a significant impact on Wikipedia’s gender gap!" GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

More leaps. (EC didn't comment on any of those things. He objected to a one-sided course he felt implied women need "help" without which men don't know how to give. And BTW, here is what you wrote: "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)

He is prohibited from editing any pages relating to or making any edit about the any process or discussion relating to the Gender Gap Task Force or the gender disparity among Wikipedians. This was an edit about a process or discussion relating to the gender disparity among Wikipedians: it was occurring on the gendergap mailing list, and the initiative is intended to improve the gender gap. Regarding the "construing" business, I was saying I don't see how someone would be able to construe the comment as not being in violation of his sanctions, though I see that is clearly what is happening here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

How do you ingest a leap? I don't think that is semantically possible. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Putting things into EC's mouth. (Duh.) IHTS (talk) 23:56, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I will dispute that he violated any ban. If time permits - I will elaborate at the RFAR. — Ched :  ?  19:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Vaginal evisceration

Gatoclass (talk) 01:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration enforcement

By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

1. The case is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

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)

Arbitration enforcement arbitration case opened

By motion, the committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

1. The [Arbitration enforcement] case [request] is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

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)

A barnstar for you!

	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)

You're right

[33]

It's much more complicated than I thought, I apologise for (mis)reading between the lines. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Change from announced time table for the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case

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)

Motion passed in AE arbitration case granting amnesty and rescinding previous temporary injunction

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:

1. Paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Arbitration Committee's motion of 29 June 2015 about the injunction and reporting breaches of it are hereby rescinded.
2. The Arbitration Committee hereby declares an amnesty covering:
   1. the original comment made by Eric Corbett on 25 June 2015 and any subsequent related comments made by him up until the enactment of this current motion; and
   2. the subsequent actions related to that comment taken by Black Kite, GorillaWarfare, Reaper Eternal, Kevin Gorman, GregJackP and RGloucester before this case was opened on 29 June 2015.

ANI

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)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

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:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey m8

Can I have whatever the non BLPvio part of my section was back? Bosstopher (talk) 22:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Double Supported

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)

Ah, thanks. Fixed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Question

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)

I have read only your comment here (unfortunately my evening has been taken up by other matters) but from your description, the article subject sounds notable. Somewhat curious why you're asking me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Well if I'm being honest I was surprised that no one else thought she was notable. I wasn't bullshitting you when I told you that I am not a sexist, I am not sure how to disprove this. I do not consider a gender as a mitigating factor to be better or wield more power, weight or opinion etc. I'm sure you are aware the atmosphere currently is directed at gender gap and equality. I considered the sum of the subject and the collection of the coverages and thought it would make an interesting stub. I thought that as a woman that was making firsts in a male dominated religion would have actually helped accomplish some of the aims that the GGTF espouse. I wrote it, asked at the GGTF for help , asked Slim Virgin, and then finally you mainly because it is an area where you are active and could make a good contributor to and know places to look that I haven't. So after thinking it over there was two possibilities I could see including one that I can honestly say I hadn't considered or really witnessed here before, that it was possibly gender related bias. If I ask someone that has an area of interest in that subject and they think it's not notable odds are it's not notable. The secondary part of asking you is because it's important to be able to show that I can constructively work with people I've had disagreements on a deeply personal nature with when it is in the best interests of writing an article. That's it. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough; I do appreciate your work in the topic area. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I hope you won't mind if I pursue this issue with you further in that case. Maybe you can look at some of what I have and help me determine what I should highlight. The article really should be recreated but for me to be able to accomplish that I need it to be significantly different. User:Tarc weighed in and maybe they might be able to explain the deficiencies.

Radio

• [34] WBEZ "Tahera Ahmad works with all faiths as Northwestern University's first Muslim chaplain" 2011

Television

• [35] 2010 PBS documentary "The Calling"

News

• [36] Huff Post "Tahera Ahmad Is First Woman To Recite Quran At ISNA Convention" 2013
• [[37]] "Ahmad was recognized at the White House last year "as a leading Muslim female in the United States" during Women's History Month, according to Northwestern University. She had previously attended a Ramadan dinner hosted by President Barack Obama. In 2013, Ahmad sparked outrage among Islamic conservatives when she became the first woman to recite the Quran at the Islamic Society of North America convention in Washington, the nation's largest Muslim gathering, according to Northwestern." CNN.com 2015 (main part of article is about denied Coke can)
• [38] Islam today "New PBS Documentary Highlights Careers of Two American Muslim Preachers "
• [39] Voice of America "For Some, Religion Is Part of the College Experience " 2015

She has been the subject of many blogs on the internet and of course there was national and international coverage due to the Coke can incident. So my conclusion was that if we combined the elements of the coverage it would equal notability. I attempted to ignore the coke can incident as much as possible so as not to make it undue. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The depth of coverage isn't very good, at least in the sources you provide here. You'll run into WP:BLP1E issues, I imagine. The incident on the flight was, if I recall correctly, quite widely covered—I'm just not sure the other sources go into enough detail on Ahmad herself to pass the GNG. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:55, 15 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)

Hidiya Hanim Barakat

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)

Thanks! And no, there wasn't a reason other than my forgetfulness—in fact, I forgot to add any WikiProject templates to the article talk also... Doing now :) GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Great! I'd love for them to get it automated so we don't have to remember but for now, I have to remember to add them manually. SusunW (talk) 01:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, or a talk page template like {{WikiProject Women's History}} and similar... GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Mariam Behruzi

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)

WikiProject Women

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)

DYK for Mariam Behruzi

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)