This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
After a discussion at Meta, a new user group called "interface administrators" (formerly "technical administrator") has been created. Come the end of August, interface admins will be the only users able to edit site-wide JavaScript and CSS pages like MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css, or edit other user's personal JavaScript and CSS. The intention is to improve security and privacy by reducing the number of accounts which could be used to compromise the site or another user's account through malicious code. The new user group can be assigned and revoked by bureaucrats. Discussion is ongoing to establish details for implementing the group on the English Wikipedia.
Following a request for comment, the WP:SISTER style guideline now states that in the mainspace, interwiki links to Wikinews should only be made as per the external links guideline. This generally means that within the body of an article, you should not link to Wikinews about a particular event that is only a part of the larger topic. Wikinews links in "external links" sections can be used where helpful, but not automatically if an equivalent article from a reliable news outlet could be linked in the same manner.
Technical news
The WMF Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input on the second set of wireframes for the Special:Block redesign that will introduce partial blocks. The new functionality will allow you to block a user from editing a specific set of pages, pages in a category, a namespace, and for specific actions such as moving pages and uploading files.
Hello GorillaWarfare (is it OK to post here?). I disagree with some of your comments and also with the hatting on Talk:Sarah_Jeong, but don't intend to edit war over them. At the end of the day it is fine to agree to disagree, and I don't believe in getting bent out of shape over stuff. If there's anything specific you want to discuss I'm happy to do so. One area of disagreement we seem so far unfortunately not to find common ground on is the whole intersectional social justice issue, which gives selective allowances for negative racial generalizations and stereotyping against what's perceived as the "dominant" people group(s). One of the reasons I don't like that is that it is profoundly disaffirming to young people (with whom I spend a lot of time) to expose them to abusive racial hate directed at their skin color. Even if they are white, they have feelings that can be hurt, and they can be made to feel sub-human. I have spent a lot of time on the internet and I have thick skin, but it breaks my heart to see especially young people of any race receive abuse like that. It's just not OK, and I feel in my heart of hearts that you have to agree with that, even if we disagree on any number of specifics on how society should get where it needs to go. Anyway, cheers! Wookian (talk) 02:51, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's no doubt that white people can get hurt too, and yet it's not the same thing, since white people (in America) have benefits that non-whites don't have, to put it as briefly as I can. That's hard to deny. Drmies (talk) 02:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See, you are so close to me not having a problem with you at all. You just need a magic word like some. If you say some Muslims support terrorism, and some white people oppress black people, and some men contribute to patriarchial subversion of women's advancement opportunities, then there's no problem and no hate speech. But as soon as you say Muslims support terrorism and stuff like that, then you hurt innocent people. That applies to innocent white people too (you do agree with that, right, that some white people are 100% innocent and neither contribute to, nor benefit from all the hurtfulness bigots inflict on each other in society?). Wookian (talk) 03:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Good Doctor's point is that if you are white in the United States you have advantages over people of other races, even if you don't want to have them. (Also, hi GW and Drmies) TonyBallioni (talk) 03:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Wookian: sorry if I'm intruding, but I want to say that no one said that "not all Muslims" is a good excuse. And have you read the #NotAllMen article? wumbolo^^^07:25, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Wookian: Of course it's okay to post here, I've asked you do so more than once. As a young(ish) white person I think it's extremely appropriate for other white people (younger than me or not) to understand the historical context of their race and their interactions with other races, and understand why PoC often mistrust white people based on that history and based on current interactions. Generalized comments about white people such as Jeong's are not meant to attack every white person, they're meant to draw attention to the shittiness that some white people have historically inflicted on PoC.
Take as an example people who say "kill all men". As far as I'm aware there are no genocidal serial killer feminists advocating that men be wiped out (and if there were I'd think they'd probably not post about it.) It's an exaggerated expression of frustration against men who have historically oppressed women; not a serious call to violence against men. GorillaWarfare(talk)02:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you GW. As I see so often in black media, "notallwhitepeople", and I'm sure they get tired of having to repeat that. But Wookian, we're talking about structural things here. Hehe, sorry for barging in here, all oldmanwhitesplaining and stuff. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hateful speech against people based on their identity is still hateful speech, no? It's nice that Jeong probably didn't intend to literally murder men, but what is a young boy to think when faced with hatred of his identity like that? Isn't it easier if everybody just follows The Rules? Like Jesus (/plus many cultures') Golden Rule, and Dr. MLK Jr's wisdom for race relations, etc? Wookian (talk) 03:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Young white boys would do well to learn about their privilege early on. The golden rule is lovely but it does not take into account centuries of horrible treatment and systemic bias against people of color. GorillaWarfare(talk)03:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know (or at least presume) it feels really good to take revenge against innocent people because of their gender or skin color. However this is where we're going to have to agree to disagree. Just because bad stuff happened in history doesn't make it OK to direct hate speech against innocent people based on their identity. If you don't see that, I'm really not sure what else to say. So it's been a pleasure chatting, and cheers! Wookian (talk) 03:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to chirp in; I probably agree with everything you said, but isn't it more unifying to criticize white people (as you would say, address a reality) in other ways, by treating them like people, with a degree of grace? One might think of gaining popularity by being extraordinarily toxic towards white people, and then make a point, but in my opinion, not everyone will get the message. Let me ask this – let's say you hate one aspect of white people. Do you think it's better to draw generalities to all white people, and then make a (if any) divide only between white people and everyone else; or do you think it's better to focus on getting everyone together, against that aspect? In my opinion, the latter is the only way to get white people to admit where they're wrong.
"kill all men" is not drawing any attention, I presume because it's impossible to do it, and then people ignore it. Furthermore, people tend to ignore if someone is repeatedly toxic. With a right ratio of toxicity and non-toxicity, one can optimize the number of people listening. Let me explain why repeated toxicity does not help a productive conversation. If someone responds toxically way too often, it turns out they respond toxically to minor things (also way too often). And if you're non-toxic by default (so more people listening by default), then you have the power to make a point by occasionally screaming about something you really, really care about. And please don't then make it a generalization of men, because while you may observe a generalization of men (not good to always assume a generality), it's better to describe the low-level stuff (to the greatest details, how who what and where so people can understand exactly what you're talking about, and boycott or whatever together, question what allowed for it, get everyone to think about similar instances in their lives, etc. See what I did there? I said "everyone"; if you're generally a nice person, every action you take will be unifying; while in contrast, if you're generally a toxic person, everything you do and say will divide people)
If by talking about "kill all men" etc. you wanted to say that every male is evil because of its biology and culture shaped around it (i.e. that criminals and thugs are the most male people), then we also have to agree to disagree.
A quick question about the golden rule. There are a couple of variations, and to make sure we're on the same page, please tell me if you meant the positive or the negative version to be useless so we can discuss. wumbolo^^^12:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, Wumbolo, you think that in general white people are not treated with enough grace? Do you even know how people of color are treated? You really think we're that oppressed? Do you want to make a list of the things that white people think are good enough reasons to call the cops for, if it's black people doing it? So who is it that should be treated more "like people"? Drmies (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: I'm not going to answer in general, because that's not how I originally said it, but yes I think a whole race of people should be treated with more grace than comparing it to goblins. So who is it that should be treated more "like people"? Everyone. Some are treated more like people; some are treated less like people. But everyone should be treated as much like people as possible. Like I said, deliberately treating a race of people less like people is not unifying. wumbolo^^^18:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Aww that's so kumbaya of you, this call for unification. I'm sure the president feels the same way, and I wish that Sarah Jeong could hear you; she'd be touched. Who was she anyway, criticizing white people for racism? It's not like white people practice it. Drmies (talk) 20:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: so she was criticizing white people for racism? I don't know if Jeong would be touched by my words, and frankly I did not aim any of my words at her (Jeong would either be embarassed or laughing if she could hear me; I'm really not a good writer, and I really did not write the previous comments with much care). However, I do know someone else who is touched right now, and that's Jeong's harassers, who are gaining notorious amounts of fame right now. You might say that the harassers don't get any direct attention, but influencing coverage of such high-profile individuals is a million times more than what these trolls generally aim for. wumbolo^^^21:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. They'll be thrilled if more of it worms its way into her Wikipedia bio. I just read an article that said it well: "To win the Wikipedia edit war is to define the stub of future history. To get Jeong’s tweets mentioned is to tag her with them for the rest of her career. To get them called racist is to tag her with that epithet in her most widely distributed biography." GorillaWarfare(talk)21:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia policies are like races; WP:NPOV likes to discriminate against WP:NOT. At least that's how consensus is commonly judged. The only way is to add WP:NOT to WP:CCPOL, which is probably not going to happen (in our lifetimes ). WP:NOT is covered by WP:5P but in today's world, CCPOL seems to trump 5P. wumbolo^^^21:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Not sure how I found my way over here, but figured I would throw my 1 cent in. I just cannot see how it is okay to disparage anyone based on their race, religion, gender, or sexuality. Regardless of the backgrounds of the two people or situation. PackMecEng (talk) 20:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Wumbolo:This is a good article on generalizations like we're discussing here. Particularly When we write about things that white people do, we use the generic phrase “white people” as a catchall (see also: wypipo). We use it to represent the type of collective whiteness that unites white people even when y’all aren’t all on the same page or following the same agenda or falling into the same category. It’s that “general you” versus “specific you” type of thing. When I make generalizations about white people or men or what have you, I am not saying that every single white person or man on the face of the earth is a bad person or racist or misogynist. I am, however, acknowledging that many are and that it's something deeply rooted in white/male privilege. I don't hate all white people (I am white, for god's sake) or all men.
The golden rule ("treat others how you wish to be treated") is all well and good, but if someone is treating someone else poorly or if a whole group of people historically and disproportionately treats other groups of people poorly, I'm not going to hope that being nice to them will make them stop. There is a weird rhetoric lately about how if we were just nicer to Nazis or incels or whoever, it would help things. I can't agree with that.
Drmies said it well above—white people are generally treated extremely graciously. And I am extremely gracious towards all people in general. But when people are doing harm to other people, I will and do speak out about it. And if a privileged group of people is regularly acting in oppressive ways, I will sometimes speak out about it by using exaggerated generalizations. GorillaWarfare(talk)20:22, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will also point out that Dr. King was no stranger to critizing white people:
First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection. — Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from Birmingham Jail
Seems there is a reasonable difference between bringing and discussing grievances and things like "oh man it's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men". Issues should be discussed and everything possible done to solve. I think everyone can reasonably agree with that. But that is not what was happening. Even if we go with the I was being harassed by racist nasty people (which again I doubt anyone is saying that didn't happen) the response was inappropriate. PackMecEng (talk) 20:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"I, a white person, feel aggrieved and deeply attacked because someone I don't know traded insults in kind with other white people, who I must defend at all costs."--Jorm (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While trying to find more recent articles on the kerfuffle I did stumble across this article from Slate that goes along the lines I was talking about. It is an interesting read. PackMecEng (talk) 00:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who has endured hardly a fraction of the online harassment Jeong has faced, it's understandable to me that she might not respond to every terrible tweet with a smile and a turn of the cheek. It's interesting to me that so much discussion around this Twitter incident has centered on denouncing "oh man it's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men" and not "Shut the fuck up you dog eating g***". GorillaWarfare(talk)20:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Being horrible is not a contest, both are terrible. Though sunlight is the best disinfectant and light should be shown on both sides. PackMecEng (talk) 20:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @PackMecEng: Right. Sunlight on both sides. Got it. I, for one, think that it's a great idea to hold people accountable for arguably racist tweets. Here's the weird part: if that were one's actual motivation, and if one started at the top, I think it would take awhile to work one's way down to Sarah Jeong. Put another way: if you survey the current political and social-media landscape for racism, and decide that Sarah Jeong's tweets are the item most deserving of your attention and scorn, then I think says more about you than about her. MastCellTalk21:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And I've learned a lot from my students, about what it's like, for instance, to be arrested for walking down the street. And I bet most white people (SOME white people) don't even know what the real-life results can be of just being arrested if you're already leading a fragile life. The depths to which some people will sink by calling 911--as long as white people do that (SOME white people, whatever), white people (MOST white people) don't have much to complain about. Drmies (talk) 20:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What happened to NPOV, NOTADVOCACY, SOAPBOX and RIGHTGREATWRONGS ? Those are our prevailing PAGs. Color is not/should not be the issue when including/excluding material for our encyclopedia - save that for your academic evaluations or books that I hope you author so we can cite them in our articles. In the interim, if you really want to feel the brunt of discrimination, look at it from the perspective of misogyny which is quite prevalent today regardless of one's color. What is the answer? It should not be using Wikipedia to further a cause or advocacy. We are supposed to present relevant views from a NPOV, and if you cannot do that with peace of mind, you should recuse. Brought to you by an optimistic pragmatist...and yes, you can be both. Atsme📞📧20:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We agree about the golden rule. White people are treated extremely graciously – thanks for being honest about it – but what do you think is better? Killing white privilege by strongly denouncing harassers and reporting them to the police, or killing white privilege by attempting to belittle (wrong word perhaps) white people without actually focusing on the harassers? Now that's where I have a problem; the mainstream media love to focus on race (sensationalism), e.g. here they focused on Jeong's tweets, and did their best to talk as little as possible about the harassment she had received. The article you linked is alright; but it had to end with ", white people.". Sorry for responding to your comment in backwards. wumbolo^^^21:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Police do very little when online harassment is involved, especially when anonymity and mob mentality are complicating factors. Building a culture in which people are aware of their own privilege and where privileged people mistreating other people are denounced rather than encouraged is a perfectly legitimate goal. GorillaWarfare(talk)21:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Online harassment will unfortunately never disappear since it's an unfixable feature of the internet; one just has to make sure they're safe and then the online harassment which can have lasting impact on someone e.g. doxing, cyberstalking, is illegal and is prosecuted to the fullest degree. I find your second sentence slightly contradictory, since a culture in which people are aware of their own privilege is a pretty silent culture (mere "awareness" is never enough for anything in the individual sense of the word awareness, while in the societal sense of the word awareness it is extremely decentralized and leads to online shaming); while a culture where privileged people mistreating other people are denounced rather than encouraged is word-by-word what I would like. wumbolo^^^21:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not it will disappear remains to be seen; I'm sure as hell going to keep trying. I hope that over time it can be made less common by not legitimizing things like "it's an unfixable feature of the internet".
I disagree that "mere" awareness of one's privilege is silent; I like to think if people truly understood privilege and where they stand in society compared to others, they'd be more willing to lift up those who need lifting and less likely to abuse their privilege in stupid ways. I'm not sure how I see recognition of one's privilege as leading to online shaming. GorillaWarfare(talk)22:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is kinda off-topic from what we originally discussed, and I'm guilty of mentioning it. I was just mentioning the online shaming dangers of mass awareness about a single focus point (people tend to scream before looking at the evidence or even "hearing themselves"). With regards to privilege awareness, everyone would be aware of their own privilege. Now I'm skeptical that this is enough. I still believe it is contradictory to believe that merely making everyone aware of their privileges is going to end up in a society where mistreatment is denounced. Also, if it helps that people tell other people when they misuse their privileges, I'm all for it. Both being silent while knowing of a case of mistreatment (I thought that we agreed that endlessly talking only to a guilty person won't help), and falsely accusing someone of mistreatment (which is online shaming), are very wrong, and both are fixed if people look at evidence and denounce ignoring evidence. This way, no one is denounced for speaking out, and when people are essentially forced to see when other people do something bad, they will start to look at themselves (and their colleagues). wumbolo^^^15:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
less likely to abuse their privilege in stupid ways that manager was fired, and that IS one way to learn about your privilege. wumbolo^^^22:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Online harassment will only disappear if people are forced to identify. Like Quora or not, it enforces a real name policy. If the same is done for mainstream messaging applications, it will be too good to be true. What I'm thinking right now, is having a separate comment section for verified accounts, and genuinely anonymous accounts. Looks like it has already been proposed by Twitter, Instagram, Google Search results (after this) etc. It can only help an online forum where people like to impersonate other people. One more thing – an account could be "verified" so that Twitter knows the name of the person behind the account, but the name doesn't have to be publicly available. This way multiple forums can be had, with different levels of anonymity. And this would be no more privacy-violating than the current websites, which collect all kinds of data. This way you are either non-anonymous or anonymous. wumbolo^^^22:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, though that's not exactly a scalable solution and the people who are reported to the police are still being put in danger. I'd hoped that the recent spate of news coverage would make white people think just a little bit harder before calling the cops on people of color who are barbecuing, sitting in a Starbucks, selling water, mowing a lawn, waiting for a ride, trying to cash a check, sleeping in a dormitory common room, canvassing for a politician, trying to use a coupon, going to the park, swimming in their condo's pool, allowing their child to play on their property, going to a funeral, not talking to them, listening to music... but as evidenced by the length of this ever-growing list it doesn't seem to have made much difference. GorillaWarfare(talk)22:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The racism aspect doesn't even have to be proved by prosecutors, if the law dictates that calling the cops for these "reasons" is illegal (is it illegal though? if not, why?). Having people go through due process for alleged racism while serving their sentence for calling the cops for these "reasons" seems like the most logical solution. Everybody happy, including the cops. wumbolo^^^22:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the state, I believe. There are misdemeanor penalties for misusing 911, but examples I found while googling were people calling 911 to try to make a date with the operator or when a sandwich shop botched a sandwich order. I would imagine it'd be tough to make a strong case that any of the people in my above examples were calling 911 just for giggles. Calling 911 on someone dozens of times might be enough for a harassment charge, but again that's sort of a different situation. GorillaWarfare(talk)22:51, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe real name policies are a viable solution to online harassment; they have in the past been very problematic when it comes to some groups of people, particularly Native Americans, trans people, and victims of abuse or stalking. Facebook real-name policy controversy is an interesting read. GorillaWarfare(talk)22:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so stupid as to suggest algorithm-based real-name "policies". Real identification would have to be provided (I don't care about photo IDs or whatever, since not everybody has those, but just something that law enforcement can use to identify an individual). To me it seems like a lot of work, but it's more than worth it (and it's not that much work). Everybody happy. wumbolo^^^22:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What about trans people who haven't legally changed their names? People who don't have identification? Abuse or stalking victims? And why should people be required to provide their personal identification to online services who historically haven't done a great job of protecting privacy or data security? GorillaWarfare(talk)22:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about people providing identification, but that their actual names can be whatever they want. And everyone who accesses the internet (except through proxies, VPNs, etc.) has a trackable IP address. And people already provide a bunch of personal information to these services. If a service accepts dealing with this sensitive data, it serves as a heavy incentive not to mess things up, something only the largest companies would be able to deal with. wumbolo^^^23:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And those who don't have ID? Don't want to provide additional PII like drivers license numbers or home addresses? People who use VPNs to protect their privacy and would be required to expose themselves anyway? GorillaWarfare(talk)23:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They will have to post anonymously, and online services will finally have to respect that. And people who want to deal with exclusively non-anonymous people can check a box to hide anonymous posts. wumbolo^^^23:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, GorillaWarfware. Wow! This thread has grown. I hope it is enjoyable discussion for all, and I'll try to find time to catch up and see what everybody had to say. Just bounced by to respond to this: "Barr's tweet wasn't explicitly racial What???"
I understand that this is shocking to you, however you have to put yourself in other people's shoes and assume good faith to make this leap (and I guess it is sort of a leap, since the vast majority of RS's/commentators/etc. disagree with my little thought experiment here). But basically it goes like this. If you are NOT a racist person, then you do not immediately equate apes with African Americans. With me so far? Good. Next, assume that Barr was telling the truth that she didn't know Jarrett was African American. Then it becomes not a racial insult, but just a really offensive "you have an ugly appearance" insult of another white and/or Iranian (widely regarded as Indo European) person, which while childish and offensive, is at least individual in nature and not a slur on an entire racial level. This admittedly requires some assumptions, so I'll agree with modified phrasing of "less incredible" rather than "more credible" if you like. Wookian (talk) 01:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. And yet... I'm not aware that she was considered to be a racist until she expressed some kind of support for Trump, and then this happened. So the timing is suspicious. Leftists are notorious for hurling the term "racist" around at the drop of the hat for purely political reasons. If Barr was not known to be a racist before (let's be gracious and give her that), and she was tweeting dumb insults while inebriated, drugged up or otherwise mentally compromised, AND she didn't know Jarrett was partially African American, then I don't see the flaw in the logic. You know, at least I gave my analysis of the situation. You just stated your opinion as fact. Who has made the stronger case here? Wookian (talk) 02:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's ignorant to claim that "muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby=vj" is not explicitly racist. There are no extenuating circumstances that make that an okay thing to say. GorillaWarfare(talk)02:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is that you aren't interacting with my logical deduction above at all, you're just repeating your side as a flat assertion. It is not possible to debate like that. And if you are not interested in debating, that's fine of course. It's your talk page! Wookian (talk) 02:40, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, baby steps... care to share more? Which part do you disagree with. Are you saying that apes are inexorably associated with African Americans? So if somebody talks about Planet of the Apes they must be insulting an African American? Or are you claiming that Barr did know Jarrett was partially African American? That is a legitimate opinion, though the reason I am inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt on that is that I didn't know she was African American either. She is light skinned and of mixed race. If she identified as White European or African American I don't think anybody would (or should) get bent out of shape. It's all a bunch of nonsense, the old "single drop of blood" rule, as I'm sure you'll agree. Anyway, I'd be interested in your response to this specific aspect - Barr's claim she didn't know Jarrett was partially (and identified as) African American. What makes it kind of messy to analyze (and of questionable value to debate) is that Barr seems to suffer from some level of mental illness(es). So she makes these claims and excuses, and while I think my analysis is sound assuming good faith all the way, I certainly wouldn't bet any kind of money on this. But again, if my logic is unsound, it would be kind of you to point out which deduction fails, and why. Wookian (talk) 02:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. It is not true that the word "ape" is an ethnic slur. Rather, it can be used as an ethnic slur. Sometimes the word "ape" is used as an ethnic slur, and sometimes it just refers to apes. It is downright silly to suggest that a reference to the movie Planet of the Apes must necessarily, 100%, always be an ethnic slur. Wookian (talk) 03:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added thought: GorillaWarfare, you mentioned: "I suffer from a mental illness, but somehow I manage not to be racist". Having the experience of people close to me with mental illness, I'd like to wish you all the best in your personal journey. I don't believe you are a racist. I think sometimes you say racist things (as did Barr) without intending for them to be racist, such as generalizations about white people. I've already shared my opinion on that, and you already know my strong personal view that just because intersectional social justice grants people permission to make racial slurs and/or derogatory exaggerations directed at whites/men/etc doesn't make it right. So no need to rehash that here. :) Wookian (talk) 03:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So she just happened to make an ape joke about someone who just happened to be African American? Sure, she could be simultaneously remarkably ignorant and remarkably unlucky, or she knew exactly what she was doing. It's amazing the contortions you are willing to embrace to give the benefit of the doubt to a famous white woman and the energy you are willing to expend arguing against an Asian woman. But I'd never assume bad faith, I'm sure you are just another poor victim of circumstance like Rosanne Barr. Gamaliel (talk) 03:15, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I myself didn't know Jarrett was African American. It is possible for somebody to say something offensive and not realize it. Haha, well... OK, Barr's tweet was wrong and offensive however you slice it. :) However, I've made a solid case that it may well not have been a racial insult, but rather a juvenile, schoolyard insult. Neither you nor GorillaWarfare has refuted my logical argument thus far. Wookian (talk) 03:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As far as Jeong's tweets, all I will say is gimme a break. Her tweets are explicitly directed at whites, men, and the police. They are racial slurs, they are gender slurs, and they are anti-cop. You don't have to use a racist dog whistle listening device ("Planet of the Apes has to mean African Americans") in order to make the deduction, because Jeong made it unambiguous in her tweets. Wookian (talk) 03:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Gamaliel on this one. It's amazing you see Barr's tweets as "schoolyard insults" and Jeong's as racist and gendered slurs. Also your comment associating my opinions on tweets about privileged majorities as a symptom of my mental illness was uncalled for. GorillaWarfare(talk)03:45, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say anything was a symptom of your mental illness, nor did I mean to imply it. Sorry you got that impression, perhaps it would have been better if I split my (genuine) well wishing into a separate paragraph. Wookian (talk) 03:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did you just link to Gaslighting? I think I am done here. Cheers, and I truly would like to wish you the best, with no sarcastic links attached! Wookian (talk) 04:04, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - I am posting the notice of DS to everybody recently active on Sarah Jeong who has not had a notice of these DS in the past year.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Oh that one again/still? I opened up an SPI. BTW, you're dropping CU blocks like they're hot--are they for double pay today? Drmies (talk) 03:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Giant group of editors all created in a fairly short period of time from a small number of IP addresses, making fairly rudimentary edits to a small number of pages in a similar topic area. GorillaWarfare(talk)03:37, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not want to continue the discussion on the Silent Sam talk page since that is not the forum for it. My response was warranted for the backhand personal attack:
Well, that speech was pretty fucked up. I mean, Washuotaku, maybe it's normal to brag about whipping negro wenches where you live, but even down here we don't do that any more. So yes, of course it's about what is covered in the sources. Fun fact: Lincoln wasn't the only speaker at Gettysburg in 1863. --Drmies
Please remind your friend that personal attacks on Wikipedia are not warranted, we are all trying to improve the article and the purpose of the talk page is to flush out ideas, good or bad. --WashuOtaku (talk) 02:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Washuotaku: I'm not sure why you're taking this up with me and not with my friend, but as I mentioned on the article talk page, that is not a personal attack. I think he and I are both quite aware what article talk pages are for, but thank you. GorillaWarfare(talk)02:45, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I brought it to your talk page because you said you didn't see it as a personal attack; I'm responding that it was and bold the words that make it such. Drmies hasn't responded yet. --WashuOtaku (talk) 02:51, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The bolding doesn't change the fact that it's not a personal attack. VM calling the speech "fucked up" is not uncivil, nor was his comment unconstructive. I believe that's what Drmies was trying to say. At the risk of explaining what should be clear: there are regional differences in attitudes toward racism, and I believe Drmies was pointing out that even in a southern U.S. state where racism is sometimes more prevalent than other parts of the country, the speech would still be considered racist. There was no personal attack there, unless I suppose if you do believe that it's normal to brag about whipping "negro wenches" and are being called abnormal. GorillaWarfare(talk)03:05, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am saying your friend is implying I live in an area that it's normal to brag and I take offense to that because that is simply not true. Of course, maybe Drmies should correct his comment so it is crystal clear to anyone that read it without getting confused by the message. --WashuOtaku (talk) 03:27, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're the only person that is apparently confused by the comment, though I don't think you're anywhere near as confused as you claim to be.--Jorm (talk) 03:29, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm well I do apologize if my comment was misunderstood. GorillaWarfare read it correctly. I suppose I was using a kind of hyperbole to indicate how completely outrageous that speech was (what some Americans would call "fucked up"). In fact, when I first read this article I had to blink and read it again. THE DUDE REALLY SAID THAT? And then implied that the Federal soldiers were OK with it? And then he admitted to his fetish: he enjoyed whipping a poor black woman in public? Then again, I shouldn't be surprised at the depths and callousness of racism... Drmies (talk) 14:26, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your apology. Yes, society then was vastly different than it is today and his Carr's speech is shocking to today's audience, though I wonder if he got a bit carried away with it. The irony is he has also did a lot of good, which is why a lot of places were named after him and are now also controversial. --WashuOtaku (talk) 15:54, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. Do not come with that Confederate apologist "he did some good" bullshit. He was an evil, evil fuckstick. If these confederate fuckos did any "good" then Atlanta wouldn't have been a burning hole in the ground after the war. He didn't "get carried away". He was a horrible person and if there is a hell he burns within.--Jorm (talk) 16:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know this isn't a forum, but still--Washuotako, in addition to what Jorm signals, you seem to be confusing his words with his actions. Apparently his words aren't just words: he claims to have brutally whipped someone in public for having been, what, not polite? When did he get carried away? When he whipped the woman or when he bragged about it? Drmies (talk) 17:33, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While I am more conservative than you guys, I would appreciate not assumed to approve of Carr's actions (again) as some sort of sympathizer. I do not condone what a man did a century ago, I'm just stating the obvious and being attacked for it, which I frustrates me immensely. --WashuOtaku (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What's obvious? That this was a good man who just had a slip-up or two? You're not being "attacked", but if you say these kinds of things you can expect to be challenged. You can stop saying things that seem to apologize for a violent racist any time you like. Drmies (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see things black and white as you guys do, and I realize you have the numbers here to put me in a corner, despite the fact I do not believe you guys are wrong. Regardless, since I appear to be a stalker now too, I will stop this communication and thank @GorillaWarfare: for putting up with me. --WashuOtaku (talk) 18:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes, thank you for letting me know! It certainly was. The "[rollback]" link appearing in my watchlist with no confirmation has bitten me a few times now; I didn't even realize I'd hit it this time. I've undone my rollback. GorillaWarfare(talk)23:17, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I used that for a while but it got in the way a lot since the vast majority of my rollbacks are intentional. I wish there was some way to have a confirmation pop up if you roll back from some location other than an article history page or a diff; at least for me, that'd catch the vast majority of mistaken rollbacks without adding an extra click to the intended ones. Maybe someday I'll whip something up. GorillaWarfare(talk)23:20, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello GW. How in the world did legobot not leave this notice on your talk page. Little wiki-coincidences like that give me the occasional chuckle. I hope you have a pleasant week. MarnetteD|Talk05:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
sorry for potential BLP violation and I didn't know how pings work, I'm new to Wikipedia. I really don't want to talk to Jorm because it seems he prefers to just revert blindly instead of using words even when I post on his talk page of blind edit warring with me and others on this page. Plus you seem to be the only meaningful editor of the wiki page as everything seems to pass through you as the final filter. I'm moving onto other Wiki pages on the manosphere cuz that's where I can be helpful — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willwill0415 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The only time you came to my talk page was to call me a bully. I told you to learn how Wikipedia works. Which you still haven't done (c.f., not signing your comments).--Jorm (talk) 03:38, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't learnt everything, but most of it. Yea you are even being a bully here, like I clearly know how to edit a wiki, but haven't all the nuances of how to justify blind reverts. If for example if people make mistakes or edit contrary to how you think, your edit notes are simple reverts with "nope" "I don't like" etc, I try to at least say why I do what I do on the pages I edit per edit and make heavy use of the talk page now Willwill0415 (talk) 03:39, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Willwill0415:Jorm does not revert blindly; in my experience he tends to have a reason for his edits and he knows what he's talking about. I am also not the editor through which everything passes as the final filter; I created the original article and I try to keep an eye on new changes, but the article is as subject to WP:CONSENSUS as any other article on this site. GorillaWarfare(talk)04:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now, regarding your question: I took it as not being strictly true in the most literal sense, but it almost is if the sourcing is to be believed. As was reported last month when this matter was first mentioned, National Geographic published an article titled "Globalist Katherine Maher" on 19 May 2018, which stated the following as its lead sentence: "The executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation was on the road 200 days last year. Here's how the 35-year-old travels." The rest of the article is about Maher's traveling, which seems to generally—or, at least, often—be by plane.
Thank you for the information and sorry if my attempt at helping was inappropriate. Since it appears discussions may be happening now, I'll leave it at that. I hope you have a great rest of the day / night, both of you. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 05:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to take the bait and respond to your comment on The Signpost article, but there is absolutely nothing misogynistic about it, the same would have been said about any CEO whatever their gender, male, female, or TG. If anything, the article is a critique about the WMF, and in regard to them there is much to be criticised. Please note that much of the article reports comments by other users, some of them highly respected. I wasn't going to bring up your own inflammatory comments again, but I will thank you to put an end to your campaign and misogyny innuendo against me - you were the one who led me to dissociate myself from my support of gender gap issues on Wikipedia, but that doesn't make me a misogynist either. You obviously didn't take a blind bit of notice of my polite reply to your unsolicited email, and you are gaming on the fact that I told you I do not respond to The Signpost reader's comments. Comment on content, not on the contributor, otherwise your attitude, I'm sorry to say, is getting very unbecoming of a former Arbitrator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Friend, you might do well to re-read our conversation from a few weeks ago. I politely asked you to refer to me by my username when you were listing me among other male users and referring to them by their usernames; apparently I spoke out of turn enough that you not only "relax[ed] your efforts" in "defending women from misogyny," but also implied I was a "man hater," and rescinded your support of Women in Red despite me not being an active member. You then decided to wander off to several other talk pages (Rosiestep's and TonyBallioni's) to make sure everyone knew of this. You're saying I "didn't take a blind bit of notice of my polite reply to your unsolicited email"—you failed to mention my "unsolicited" email was in reply to an "unsolicited" email you sent me recently—no worries, though, my email inbox is open to you and anyone else for emails, solicited or otherwise. You did mention in your email that you don't generally respond to Signpost comments, which is your prerogative, but I see that ten or so people have commented on your article and I see no reason why I can't do so as well. I'll link our discussion there. GorillaWarfare(talk)08:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I must say, I'm upset by these conversations, as you are two editors I have the utmost respect for and have worked closely with in the past - I'd go so far to consider you both friends. I'm not sure if there is more history that I am unaware of and I understand that sometimes people just do not get along, but I absolutely believe that the commentary provided by both of you about the other is inaccurate. If you two would like a third party to chat things through with, you both have my email address. If there's anything I can do, please use it. WormTT(talk) 09:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't need a mediator, it needs someone willing to tell a grown man to stop blaming someone's simple request for his temper tantrum. Gamaliel (talk) 14:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I thought the article was pretty vicious towards Katherine, especially suggesting that she was not qualified for her job and suggesting that she doesn't know what's going on at the WMF. None of that came from quoting other people or seemed warranted from the controversy, which had little or nothing to do with her, other than the fact that she's the ED. Kaldari (talk) 09:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Don't patronise me with 'friend', GorillaWarfare. And once again I'll thank you for not taking my comments out of context and putting your own disingenuos slant on them. And yes, WTT, there is more history than you are aware of, but thanks anyway. Kaldari: "...which had little or nothing to do with her", precisely, but many would assume she would be involved with them as ED, and I'll refer to the quote from Cullen328, for example. No one suggested she was not qualified, but on the face of it, as a very competent person in all respects, she appears to be concentrating on something else equally valid, while other senior staff make the decisions. Perhaps her mission as head of the Foundation is not sufficiently understood by the volunteer communities. You know me well enough Ryan, and I'm sorry if you as an employee whose work I especially value, find that I am particularly antagonistic towards the WMF, but some things need to be said that represent the views of many volunteers; The Signpost is the en.Wiki's organ, not the WMF's. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What the Worm said. Though I probably know even less history, I do respect the both of you, and am sure there is room for not turning a problem with the WMF hiring a marketing firm into a personal dispute between two excellent volunteer admins. Please? --GRuban (talk) 12:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Kudpung: Consider this a formal warning - your behaviour here is inappropriate. Regardless of the bad blood between you and GorillaWarfare, the sensible thing to do would be not comment or interact. If I see anything else like this again, anywhere on-wiki, I will block you. - TNT💖14:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't do that, if I were you. A person being accused of misogyny (a misogynistic campaign, no less) replies on the talk page of the accuser, which part of that is blockable, and under which policy? Blocking Kudpung (or anyone) for the comments they made in this section would most likely led to a swift unblock, and at least a trout for you. Fram (talk) 15:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely Fram, given Kudpung is being nothing less than inappropriate here. That's not even mentioning the blatant personal attacks elsewhere, which you'll note no one gave a shit about, because of the gender of whom it was directed at, and the gender of who directed it. Got a problem with that, go to WP:ANI - TNT💖15:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And two more admins are now railing at each other. For the love of Jimbo. Please. Can we declare that the first person NOT to escalate wins? --GRuban (talk) 15:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's no "winning" or "losing" this - I've said my bit, I've told Kudpung what I wanted to say. There doesn't need to be an escalation here at all. Fram clearly has their opinion and biases here, as does everyone else. I don't dispute that. I do, however, stand by my comment that "If I see anything else like this again, anywhere on-wiki, I will block". Fram is welcome to open an ANI thread on how appropriate my message was, or the content of it, as are they welcome to leave me a message at my talk page or email me. I'm sure we can all appreciate this is an emotive subject. - TNT💖15:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is among the saddest conversations that I have read in a long time and I am commenting only because I was pinged. I cannot see anything productive coming out of this and encourage all involved to take several steps back from the brink. Cullen328Let's discuss it18:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm late to the party as usual, but I'd go further than what Cullen328 says. I just cannot understand how two long-established editors who have done great work for the encyclopedia, despite facing unpleasant shit I would never wish to face myself, can be so utterly at loggerheads with each other, and I wish there's something I could do. I look at the atmosphere at Women in Red / Green and wish the rest of the project could be like that, not really because it's about biographies of women so much as everybody just gets on with each other and they're all nice. I can't put it simpler than that. To paraphrase something somebody said to me a while back, you are all good dedicated people, please accept this ASCII asterisk as a token of my appreciation - * Ritchie333(talk)(cont)18:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attack
Please remove or significantly rephrase your comment at the Signpost[1]. Accusing people of misogyny is a personal attack, and you provide no evidence that the Signpost article is misogynistic (being negative and being about a woman does not equal misogyny) or that the editor is "continuing a campaign" of misogyny. That you had a recent negative interaction with the editor doesn't make everything they write about women immediately or automatically misogynistic, and it would be better if you refrained from making such attacks onwiki. Fram (talk) 09:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Thankfully Kudpung, such criticism means people have started reading the Signpost and are worried about its implications. Feels so similar to how newspaper editors in RL get attacked/accused for revealing the goings-on in organizations. Lourdes13:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Where was the warning when Kudping accused GW of being a man hater? Referring to overtly misogynistic comments as misogyny isn't a personal attack. I find it funny so many (predominantly male) admins are coming out of the woodwork to warn GorillaWarfare but were mysteriously silent when Kudpung went on a tirade about how men suffer so much misandry on Wikipedia. CHRISSYMAD❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯14:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Where was the warning? No idea, I don't have Kudpung's talk page on my watchlist, and I'm not going to warn two weeks later. "I find it funny so many (predominantly male) admins are coming out of the woodwork to warn u|GorillaWarfare" I haven't identified my gender on enwiki anywhere, ever; I don't know the gender of Lourdes (it's a female name, but also a town in France). No idea where "so many predominantly male admins" have made these warnings, or why the gender of the admins would matter (most admins who have self-identified are male, as far as I know). "Referring to overtly misogynistic comments as misogyny isn't a personal attack." Perhaps not, but where in that signpost article are those "overtly misogynistic comments"? Fram (talk) 15:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your warning in the first comment of this section, accusing GW of making PA's. Where was your warning for Kudpung literally calling her a man hater followed by a ridiculous tirade after he gave up the bit under a cloud? And you'll note, I said "largely." That doesn't necessarily include you. CHRISSYMAD❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯15:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, you were turning this into some men-admin vs. woman thing, without any evidence that the "many" admins actually were male. So please provide such evidence, or stop turning this into some evil men-cabal conspiracy thing. Fram (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it. Please don't reinstate this PA per our policy. @Drmies:, why are you thanking an editor who refuses to remove or rewrite a personal attack? Fram (talk) 04:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because I appreciate what GorillaWarfare is doing, and even without getting into all the ins and outs of it, "being misogynistic towards me" may be a harsh observation (the "towards me" part indicates perception, which may well be valid and which I must acknowledge, per AGF for instance) but it's not a personal attack. I know Kudpung, I have met Kudpung, and I appreciate Kudpung greatly, but I'm with GorillaWarfare in that I don't understand why she was named in that way, and why her polite request provoked the response that it did. Nor do I understand why you are making so much out of this, and so much a different thing. Drmies (talk) 04:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whether Kudpung was misogynistic towards GorillaWarfare is not what the PA is about though. That page is not about GorillaWarfare, but about the WMF, and GorillaWarfare claimed in a section she titled "misogyny" that it continued a campaign. Without any evidence then or afterwards. That is a personal attack. Fram (talk) 04:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll remove it again. Reinstate it again and I'll block you. That comment you link to, please read it again. I was asked "where was the warning for Kudpung for his comments of weeks ago". To that, I replied "Where was the warning? No idea, I don't have Kudpung's talk page on my watchlist[...]". To use that as an excuse as if I didn't warn you is very lame. Perhaps I should have templated you instead of leaving a personalizes message, and just removed it mysef instead of hoping that you would do the right thing yourself. Fram (talk) 04:33, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And that is where the "Fram, please" part comes in. Fram, please. I'm an admin too, though maybe not as adminny as you, and it is my opinion that this is not a personal attack, that you are overreacting, and that by inflating this you are creating a less than healthy atmosphere. There will be a shitstorm, and you will not come out shiny. Drmies (talk) 04:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The comment was inappropriate and that you might have been wronged by Kudpung (as some are stating) does not justify your own Personal Attacks. ∯WBGconverse17:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
wronged by kudpung - you mean, personally attacked and hounded, repeatedly? Calling comments misogynistic is about the content of the comment, not the editor, whereas, for example, calling an editor or multiple editors "man hater" or "men haters" is a direct attack on the editor with no room for interpretation. I'll wait for everyone's outrage over that. CHRISSYMAD❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯17:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Chrissymad, I have notmuch admiration for K's style of conversation.But, what I believe is that accusing someone of a campaign of misogyny is a personal attack and it is not any justifiable by K's previous behavior, (however low it had stooped).There are mechanisms to deal with personal attacks/aspersions and AFAIK, returning favors in equal terms ain't one of them.Also, echo YairRand in his entirety.Best, ∯WBGconverse05:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have some outrage. No one should be calling anyone a "man hater". No one should be mentioning the gender of an editor or group of editors. No one should be calling anyone a misogynist. Both parties, and several individuals jumping onto the conflict, have acted completely inappropriately, and should not continue this discussion. --Yair rand (talk) 17:47, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At no point has GorillaWarfare, that I know of, outright called anyone a misogynist. The edit was being misogynistic towards me. That is commenting on the content, not the editor. CHRISSYMAD❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯17:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The section header is "misogyny". If it was only about Kudpungs behaviour towards GorillaWarfare, it had no business at the page it was placed. But of course it clearly accused Kudpung of having a campaign of misogyny, of which the piece about the WMF was supposedly a continuation.
@Nihlus:, accusing someone of a campaign of misogyny for a Signpost article they wrote, but without any evidence of actual misogyny in that article, is not a personal attack? Fram (talk) 04:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since you edit warred to reinstate your personal attack despite a clear warning, you have now been blocked for 24 hours. Please don't reinstate the PA or make further similar ones after your block has expired. Fram (talk) 04:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Warnings or not, I'm afraid I'm not much for the "sit down and shut up" type of thing when I am not only following the rules but also just speaking out about how myself and another woman were mistreated. GorillaWarfare(talk)04:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Removing things like PAs, BLP violations, copyvio, ... don't make you involved, they are acting in an administrative capacity. Fram (talk) 04:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They are if you're about the only one making the claim. So yeah, you ARE involved, in using your admin powers to push YOUR point of view. If you can't understand that, you should be giving up the admin bit. --Calton | Talk08:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the above section, I see plenty of other people making the claim (not saying that they therefor support my subsequent block or comments): Lourdes, WBG, and Yair Rand. Drmies and Nihlus disagreed (some others as well, but I have a hard time seeing their comments as uninvolved, neutral observers). So, no, I was not "about the only one making that claim", which invalidates the remainder of your reasoning. Fram (talk) 09:32, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fram, so you have a hard time seeing [my] comments as involved, neutral observers simply because I disagree with you? Under what thought process does it make sense to make that statement? I hope you realize that GW is far from my favorite person on this site and one of the last people I would feel compelled to defend, but your actions here have been nothing but divisive and inflammatory. Why on earth have you felt so compelled to pursue this until you got your way? Do you sincerely believe that you handled this appropriately? Nihlus11:04, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nihlus: you misparse my statement (or I was rather unclear). I take the comments by you and Drmies as comments of uninvolved, neutral observers; I have a hard time seeing the comments by "some others" (i.e. not you or Drmies) as being made by uninvolved and/or neutral editors. Fram (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fram, that was the thing here: it was clearly not unequivocally a personal attack, or there wouldn't have been such disagreement. Calton makes a good point: if it is not clear that something is a violation, then insisting that it is and having to explain that it is makes it creep into "point of view". At that moment one can argue that it becomes INVOLVED. I won't go that far; I simply think it was a very bad block, and a slap in the face of an administrator who has done the project much good. I had hoped that my poorly verbalized pleading might make you think twice, and I was obviously wrong. I am really sad you didn't stop this earlier. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just when you think this world has progressed....you learn that it is perfectly ok for a man to imply that a woman is a "man hater", but it is a blockable offence for a woman to imply that a man is a "woman hater". Sigh, and sigh again. Well, best of luck to you! Huldra (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Following a "stop-gap" discussion, six users have temporarily been made interface administrators while discussion is ongoing for a more permanent process for assigning the permission. Interface administrators are now the only editors allowed to edit sitewide CSS and JavaScript pages, as well as CSS/JS pages in another user's userspace. Previously, all administrators had this ability. The right can be granted and revoked by bureaucrats.
Technical news
Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour.
Some abuse filter variables have changed. They are now easier to understand for non-experts. The old variables will still work but filter editors are encouraged to replace them with the new ones. You can find the list of changed variables on mediawiki.org. They have a note which says Deprecated. Use ... instead. An example is article_text which is now page_title.
Abuse filters can now use how old a page is. The variable is page_age.
Arbitration
The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process. The deadline to submit an application is 23:59 UTC, 12 September, and the candidates that move forward will be published on-wiki for community comments on 18 September.
Hello. It appears your talk page is becoming quite lengthy and is in need of archiving. According to Wikipedia's user talk page guidelines; "Large talk pages become difficult to read, strain the limits of older browsers, and load slowly over slow internet connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions." - this talk page is 127.3 KB. See Help:Archiving a talk page for instructions on how to manually archive your talk page, or to arrange for automatic archiving using a bot. If you have any questions, place a {{help me}} notice on your talk page, or go to the help desk. Thank you. — Nick Gurr 7777| TALK / CONTRIBS |00:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You calling me a grandmother? Although I will say that my knees started hurting earlier and then it started raining, so maybe my old lady weather forecasting superpowers are developing already. :P He's right, though, this page is getting unwieldy. GorillaWarfare(talk)00:12, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend a wonderful book called Nickel and Dimed to all former waitresses and other human beings. After reading that book, I increased my tips to wait staff to 20%+. I began my work career as a paperboy, a restaurant dishwasher and a hospital janitor. I did temporary jobs like loading thin sheets of steel into a punch press, and loading cardboard cases of canned motor oil onto railroad boxcars. That was not an air-conditioned work environment in 1971. As for the sad incel page, we cannot possibly let that page be controlled by motivated incels and their sources, can we? Cullen328Let's discuss it05:28, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, I will check out that book! I was lucky enough to work summers at a diner in coastal, touristy Maine. Tons of customers, fast table turnover, and low meal prices were all in my favor. When someone has a meal that comes to $8 in total, a 15% tip would be $1.20. Not that many people dig through their change for tips (especially if they happen to be wealthy and/or on vacation), so you're more likely to get people leaving $2 (25%), or usually more because it feels weird to leave only a buck or two. When all I had to do was welcome them, take their order, pour a coffee, bring a plate of pancakes out, and repeat it 20 minutes later, all across 8 tables or so. Not a great gig if you're looking for health insurance and a 401k, but a pretty sweet deal for a high schooler looking for something to do with their summer. Plus the locals who were regulars were wonderful people, and on a slow day they'd sometimes invite me to sit down and enjoy a mug of coffee with them and shoot the shit. I love my work these days, but I do miss that job :)
As for the incels page, if an incel comes up with an actually reliable source that is sympathetic to them, it's worth considering for inclusion. The problem is they're largely characterizing the unwillingness to include their poor sources as "anti-incel activism" and such. It's no secret what I think of incels, but I'll damn sure edit the article fairly as I do with any other. GorillaWarfare(talk)05:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the wonderful restaurant work anecdote. The stories I could tell! My parents told me that hard unglamorous work helped build character, and now I must concede that perhaps they were right.
I am kind of "sympathetic" to incels in the sense of "OMG! That's terrible! Whip yourself into shape and find a partner!", but I am not a reliable source and I come from the perspective of a straight white guy who celebrated his 37th wedding anniversary yesterday. As for the sources actually used in that article, they must be impeccably reliable, and I commend you for helping to maintain that quality. Cullen328Let's discuss it06:00, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think your parents are right—I firmly believe the world would be a better place if white collar workers had all spent some time working jobs like waiting tables, working in retail, etc. I am sympathetic towards incels in the same way I am sympathetic towards people who aren't having much luck in the dating world (and those are two very different things). Sexual frustration is real, and not being able to get a date sucks. But taking that and using it as an excuse for violent hatred towards women is something else entirely, and if saying so makes me an "anti-incel apologist" as Thylacoop5 has claimed, so be it. GorillaWarfare(talk)06:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Wow, I'd never seen that Incel thing - I'd heard the abbreviation, but I had no idea of the online culture thing. How horrible. (ob joke: I've been involuntarily celibate in the past, but then I got married and it became voluntary). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hurray for former waitresses! After college I fled the South and waited tables for 4.5 years in Manhattan (what else is a newcomer going to do who can't type?). A mixed bag to be sure, but in the better venues I met some cool fellow servers, including of course actors and other people in the arts -- and then occasionally you accidentally get to wait on celebrities (so you get bragging rights when you leave The City). Also, the experience is one reason I so loved and identified with the recently departed Anthony Bourdain's Kitchen Confidential. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:35, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It annoys me that the US don't pay their wait staff a proper wage so they don't have to live on tips but it was nice when Americans visited and we got tips of 15% on a table. Money for free!! ☕ Antiqueightchatter13:07, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The good ole days...maybe
What an enlightening discussion! Being a female who, as an early teen in the 60s bussed tables for a cafeteria, then moved up in life a few years later to gallop Thoroughbred race horses for Red Barn Farms in the early AM before I hopped on my motorcycle and drove to work 30 miles away to work as the supervisor of the proof department at a national bank, I can appreciate the strides women have made over the years. My experiences came long after Woman's suffrage, before the bra-burning and during the Hippie generation when young adults were driving flowered Volkswagens. Yep, I remember it well, most of it vicariously through an older sister who was Miss Valentine's Sweetheart in high school while I participated in sports and hated wearing dresses. Back then, incel was not as prominent in discussions (never heard of it until now), probably because couples married young and it was considered a woman's duty to obey. Headache jokes were plentiful. I did not have to walk 5 miles to school in deep snow like my parents did, and I managed to rise above the oppression as a result of my chosen career, so it's all bygones now. I agree that one's trials and tribulations in life are what builds character...and I also recognize that there is a big difference in having character and being a character, so I'll close with that thought. 😊 Atsme📞📧18:22, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please wait someone will be expanding the page please dont delete it03:43, 11 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamheentity (talk • contribs)
The edit I undid was undone because it contained not properly sourced material itself in large quantity, which was removed previously. Please check all the changes included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.111.114.121 (talk) 04:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly there never was a single non-vandalism edit from that address, with its last block lasting 3 months (just in case you think 31 hours was too generous, which was my impression). —PaleoNeonate – 05:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
GW, hope all is well. Can you please look at the talk page of the Wayne Dupree draft in my sandbox? I've hit a process "roadblock" getting it mainline again. Not sure what the other users are asking me to do to move it along. Please advise if you have time. Thanks. Cllgbksr (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Cllgbksr: The user was asking for you to add a template to request review of the article instead of moving it yourself. I see you've done that, so you're all set. Once someone reviews it they'll either move it for you or tell you what issues remain. GorillaWarfare(talk)21:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is an open request for comment on Meta regarding the creation a new user group for global edit filter management.
Technical news
Partial blocks should be available for testing in October on the Test Wikipedia and the Beta-Cluster. This new feature allows admins to block users from editing specific pages and in the near-future, namespaces and uploading files. You can expect more updates and an invitation to help with testing once it is available.
The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team is currently looking for input on how to measure the effectiveness of blocks. This is in particular related to how they will measure the success of the aforementioned partial blocks.
Because of a data centre test, you will be able to read but not edit the Wikimedia projects for up to an hour on 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time.
Following a request for comment, the size of the Arbitration Committee will be decreased to 13 arbitrators, starting in 2019. Additionally, the minimum support percentage required to be appointed to a two-year term on ArbCom has been increased to 60%. ArbCom candidates who receive between 50% and 60% support will be appointed to one-year terms instead.
Nominations for the 2018 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission are being accepted until 12 October. These are the editors who help run the ArbCom election smoothly. If you are interested in volunteering for this role, please consider nominating yourself.
I have been working on this edit with Philroc and recevied a go ahead to publish. I have provided sources for everytrhing. When I last communicated with Philroc and all seemed good. I dont't understand the reason for this deletion.
OldJoe555 (talk) 22:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to add this guy's name in the murderer list. can you please help me?
just his name would be fine.
people should know who he is and what he did.
I hate the fact that searching for his name shows nothing about it and he gets to just get on with his life as if it never happened.
please help me expose him for what he is.
sorry for rant CiggyNZ (talk) 21:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@CiggyNZ: To be added to the list, you would need to write a Wikipedia article about him. From what I can see, there is not nearly enough coverage of this person to justify him having a Wikipedia article (see WP:NBIO). Wikipedia really isn't the place to pursue this kind of agenda. GorillaWarfare(talk)21:36, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bonnie Bainbridge-Cohen draft
Hello GorillaWarfare
I would like to know why you deleted the draft for the Bonnie Bainbridge-Cohen article.
All you have said is something about a copyright infringement but I don’t see why deletion of the whole article is the appropriate course of action. If it was because of the quote from the website www.bodymindcentering.com surely removing the quote or making sure it is formatted correctly is a much more sensible choice.
Please get back to me about this as within the field of knowledge which is in question, this article has real encyclopaedic value and I am far from convinced you made the correct choice according to any kind of guidelines.
I made the change to Norman Sheil due to his passing Oct 26th. He is a personal friend of mine so I knw the information to be accurate. His obituary will be posted in the coming days.
Thank you
@Mary Godak: I am so sorry for the loss of your friend. Unfortunately we'll have to wait for the obituary to be published before that information can be added to Wikipedia, since we require published reliable sources to verify information. GorillaWarfare(talk)19:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Feasibility of getting a diff removed from the "findings of fact" of an old ArbCom case?
Hey! I was wondering about whether it would be possible to get this diff, currently diff 85 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88, removed? I am not sure if the diff was presented publicly as evidence during the proceedings, but had I seen it I definitely would have questioned its relevance before the case concluded. It was not about Catflap08 or anyone else involved in the case, and actually predates my conflicts with any of them by well over a year; it was brought on by frustration with the targeted editor, who was apparently defending a site-banned stalker of mine who was, at the time, actively posting my personal information (real name, parents' home address, etc.) at various places on the site, as well as multiple off-wiki fora, and the targeted editor continued defending them despite being made aware of this, apparently either because of an unrelated dispute with me or just for fun. I'm not going to defend my lashing out in the manner that I did, but I would have liked a chance to directly address it and point out its irrelevance to the case, and I don't think it's fair to have it permanently enshrined in the ArbCom findings of fact completely devoid of its original context. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:23, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Shit. I hadn't noticed you weren't currently an Arbitrator. I'm not sure if you want to advise me on the matter anyway. I chose to contact you basically for no reason other than your having been the drafter of the proposed decision, but I wouldn't for a second assume you still remember what your thought process was when you chose to include that diff three years ago, so I wouldn't mind just retracting the above and posting it on the talk page of someone who could directly affect a change (or possibly disclosing the full context, which as implied above involves my personal information, by email). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hijiri 88, GW may no longer be an Arb, but I would certainly trust her opinion on such matters, so I wouldn't say you've chosen the wrong person. As it happens, I am a current arbitrator, and while I wasn't one during that case, I hope I'll be able to help out a bit. The diff in question was raised in the evidence page, 168 by CurtisNaito, as part of a pattern of behaviour, which is how it appears in the final decision. Generally, I would suggest it really isn't worth fighting over one diff on an Arbcom case 3 years ago, as it's far better to move onwards. If you wish to address the issue, however, I would normally suggest this sort of thing be raised at WP:ARCA, but given that there is private information involved, can I suggest that you email the Arbitration committee with your request? WormTT(talk) 11:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that somewhat complicates matters. If I recall correctly, I was actively avoiding reacting to the evidence and commentary added by CurtisNaito, whom I considered to have followed me to an ArbCom case about a dispute that didn't involve him, and I believed the Committee would see things the same way and weigh his evidence accordingly. (I obviously don't hold it against the 2015 ArbCom, let alone the current Arbs, for not doing so.) Curtis having been the one who added it means I probably didn't even read the comment to which it was attached until just now. I realized shortly after the case closed that not responding to Curtis's evidence was probably one of the stupidest decisions I ever made on Wikipedia, which was what brought on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88#Amendment request: Catflap08 and Hijiri88 (May 2016) and an unpublished request that the fact that Curtis was hounding me be added to the findings of fact. Given later developments at ANI with which I was not involved (I was pinged a few times), an extended discussion of whether Curtis was hounding me and whether his evidence should be weighted accordingly feels somewhat inappropriate. I'll probably think about this a bit more and get back to you guys: it's too messy now to bother with it if it's just removing a single diff, and I'm guessing your advice above doesn't necessarily apply to the whole cat and caboodle that I didn't think would be relevant. The private information is not a central part to the hounding issue, but I would probably be more comfortable discussing off-wiki anyway. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:22, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm afraid I'm not overly familiar with the case, it was during the period that I'd pretty much sworn off Arbcom matters and while I've generally reviewed it, I've not done so in depth. I will say that generally committee members are likely to be reluctant to modifying findings without good reason, as they're generally (for want of a better word) explaining the committee's thought processes for the remedies, so ARCAs and email equivalents should generally be focussed on the remedy. That said, if it's particularly bothering you, explain why - you can only ask. WormTT(talk) 13:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Heya Hijiri88. Worm has given some good advice here and I agree with him. I would be hesitant to remove the edit even if I was still on the committee—partly because it was a part of the decision and partly because removing those things tends only to draw more attention to them. But it's also not my decision anymore, so if you still want it to be removed, your best bet is ARCA or an email to the Committee. GorillaWarfare(talk)23:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey GW. Thank you for your reply. As I said to Worm above, I'm having serious second thoughts about what I said above anyway, even without the issue of red tape involved in changing the "part of the decision" and drawing more attention to them, but that it would involve addressing the CurtisNaito issue, and if I was going to go through that I might as well ask for an amendment to say CurtisNaito has hounded Hijiri88, which would be easy to prove but would be completely pointless when the editor in question left the community more than two years ago. Getting my one remaining sanction lifted would make it pretty unlikely anyone would ever look at those diffs again anyway, but I'm not even that pushed about that. I know how to appeal sanctions, anyway, so I'll probably just jump right into that rather than coming here or to someone else's talk page first if/when that time comes. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:19, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Partial blocks is now available for testing on the Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the local talk page or on Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
A user script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
The 2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for admins and stewards that may be of interest.
Arbitration
Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
The Arbitration Committee's email address has changed to arbcom-enwikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.
Hi GW, do you have the time and inclination to run for ArbCom again? We need good people, and there is a severe paucity of admin candidates (only one admin candidate to fill six seats). Please consider serving again if you are able. The deadline is in a few days. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 10:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
GW, you know how much I appreciated working with you: you are the best. I'm a little sad because you'll get twice or three times as many votes as me, but then again, you deserve the community's trust. I don't mind losing to you. Losing to Kelapstick, that's another matter...but we'll always have bacon and square milk jugs. Drmies (talk) 00:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Softlavender, in parts of Canada (mainly eastern) milk is sold in bags, as well as cartons and jugs. However once upon a time I lived in rural Nevada where they actually packaged milk from the local dairy farm in square jugs (you may remember the square milk jug craze of ‘09). At the time I could buy a gallon of 2% for $2.25. The lowest I have ever paid. Thus ends my TED talk “Dairy Distrubution and its Effects on Wikipedia.” —kelapstick(bainuu) 03:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
🤔 I'm trying to think if I've ever seen a not-square milk jug. I've been drinking milk since a fair bit before 2009 and it's always either come in a square cardboard carton (like this, but in English) or in a squareish plastic jug (like this). GorillaWarfare(talk)03:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that Square milk jug is one fugly motherf*cker (the jug, not the article). It looks like something gasoline should come in. Anyway, this conversation made me flash on the milk containers in my primary school cafeteria. I may be dating myself, but they came in pyramidal tetrapaks (like the one on the right, but in English). These were awesome because the straws fit so tightly inside the strawhole that you could inflate the thing with air, remove your mouth, and milk would squirt all over everything. Ah, the days. Also, there were more than the usual number of episodes of milk coming out of people's noses, perhaps due to that tight-straw inflation thing plus laughing.
My daughter was noticibly disturbed when I told her the story of a kid throwing a carton of chocolate milk into a ceiling fan during a high school food fight. I haven’t gotten an angry call from the principal (yet). —kelapstick(bainuu) 04:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What is the protocol for going to the talk, I know there's the 3 revert rules, but I understood that to apply to reverts, not rewrites. If I rewrite the section, after others have re written the section, the Wikipedia editor does not warn, so I figured this was perfectly acceptable. How should I actually be interpreting the edit warring rules?
@Ethanpet113: The edit warring policy clarifies that A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. If you look at the discussion at Talk:Linux#New section "Code of Conduct Controversy", you'll note that Ahunt has written Okay it seems three other editors have now evaluated it and the section has been removed, so I think that constitutes an editing consensus. You should discuss on that talk page whether the code of conduct and Linus's hiatus should be added back to the page, since current consensus seems to agree it should not be included, and only re-add it once the discussion has reached consensus.
@GorillaWarfare:Oh sorry for some reason my mind treated this talk page as different from an article space talk space and I forgot to sign '_'. Thanks for the clarification. If I want to discuss the specific nature of the article as it existed in some revision, is it appropriate to copy a chunk of it verbatim to the talk page, or is there a better way, e.g. should I create a stub in my Userspace, and link it to the talk discussion? Also while I'm here is there a shorthand for linking a revision or do I just have to copy the whole article URL?Ethanpet113 (talk) 02:45, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Any of those options is fine; you can copy it over (although if it's very long that can get unweildy), copy it to a userspace page, or just link to the diff. I usually link to diffs by copying the link because it's quick, and you can format it like so: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Linux&oldid=868883621 diff] to make it show up in a shorter form as diff. There is also a {{diff}} template you can use, though I don't find it saves much effort. GorillaWarfare(talk)03:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
So I did make a mistake deleting that part of the wiki, but thanks for restoring it back to the original form.I really meant to add on some thoughts in my mind.And another thing, why were you in the pulsar wiki page? were you trying to know more about pulsars just like me? maybe i don't know
Their edits seem to be an attempt to contribute, but they seem to simply not be aware of zh.wikipedia. Is there maybe a way to direct them to that project, rather than a continuous barrage of warnings they don't understand, and potentially an unnecessary block? I can understand the difficulty, as I don't write in Chinese, and don't anybody that does. Is it really fair to barrage with warns and blocks they won't understand though? dross (c · @) 23:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
see that you don't link your Wikipediocracy profile over here, in which case it is impossible to ask something related of your comments over there (about a very recent issue) at our ACEPage, without felling foul of OUTING Guidelines. Would you mind providing a link? This request is somewhat awkward (or might be even perceived as stupid) and feel free to decline, if you are not comfortable.∯WBGconverse11:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware of the rule on the 2014 Isla Vista killings for non-free image use; I thought images like the one I uploaded could be used in a case like this as a means to identify the perpetrator? --NowIsntItTime 21:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
@NowIsntItTime: If you look at Talk:2014 Isla Vista killings the first thing on the page is a notice saying A non-free image of the perpetrator is deleted per FFD. Please do not use copyrighted images of that person. Before reusing the image, please contact the administrator who deleted the image. If that administrator is unable to undelete the image, a deletion review must then be initiated. As consensus was achieved to delete the image in the past, new consensus must be reached to overturn that decision before the image can be re-uploaded. GorillaWarfare(talk)22:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry. I should have seen that. When I looked at the "DO NOT ADD IMAGE" notice, I for some reason thought it was talking about free images. This won't happen again -NowIsntItTime 22:05, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, GorillaWarfare. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
It actually seems to be a copyvio—once you make it past the CAPTCHA and all the banner/popup ads, it does appear to be a website where you can download episodes of The Flash. The previous edits were the same link. GorillaWarfare(talk)06:33, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would avoid it, since it might mislead people into believing the page doesn't exist. The signature guideline says A distracting, confusing, or otherwise unsuitable signature may adversely affect other user and I think this would qualify. GorillaWarfare(talk)22:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dear GorillaWarfare, please help me. Some Indonesia's fans had tried to change page Miss International 1976 and Indonesia at major beauty pageants. They changed placements of theirs country. They robbed achivements of some countries and replaced with theirs contestants. If you see history of these pages, you can see it. I tried to stop but did not succeed. They are User:DPIDAMU, User:DeanBWFofficial and others. I'm so sorry because my English language skills is limited. Please help me to prevent them.
Nguyenquochieu2107 (talk) 7:05 , 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Dear GorillaWarfare, please help me again. Once again, some Indonesia's fans had tried to change page Miss International 1976 and Indonesia at major beauty pageants. They changed placements of theirs country. If you see history of these pages, you can see it. I tried to stop but did not succeed. They are KimverlynMaeRAMOS(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log), 125.164.40.163(talk·contribs·WHOIS) and others. They created many account and some of which has been confirmed by a CheckUser as a sock puppet of User:DeanBWFofficial like User:DPIDAMU, User:KevinLilliana. They changed placements of theirs country. They robbed achivements of some countries and replaced with theirs contestants. If you see history of these pages in 2017, 2016, you can see it. They did not give a better source to prove it. And now they have tried to block me. They lay that I have been blocked many times. Actually I have never been blocked. I have never deleted minor award of competition. Miss International Organziation has never created a wikipedia account. But some Indo fan created sock puppet such as User:MissInternationalorg, User:M.I.Official in order to change the result.
I tried to stop but did not succeed. Last time you helped me to prevent them but now they change again. I'm so sorry because my English language skills is limited. Please help me to prevent them.
It's local knowledge mate. Ask anyone who lives in either Burnie or Somerset and they'll tell you the same. If you don't want local insights on Wikipedia that's fine. If you want local knowledge, here it is. Dukenemesis (talk) 08:33, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was publicised on every national WikiProject, as well as the Elections and Referendums, Politics and UK Politics projects. Tagging each of the 35,000 odd pages that would be moved as a result would not have been a reasonable request. Number5712:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I hadn't realised it was that many pages that are being moved without a proper discussion. Surely a bot could have helped, or, given the huge number, a watchlist notice? To move 35,000 pages without their watchers getting a chance to discuss it is well out of order. As a supplementary, do you know how many templates will need to be edited to use direct links as a result? DuncanHill (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, GorillaWarfare. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 00:59, 27 November 2018 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
GorillaWarfare, I deliberately didn't pose the same question to you as I did towards the others running for reelection because of our previous history (my block of you which clearly didn't have consensus). And you weren't active in the unblock anyway. I didn't want to give the impression of using the arbcom elections to go after someone I had been in conflict with (for things totally unrelated to the arbcom election). With the other 4, I had no reason not to ask the question, so I did. Things with Drmies only escalated afterwards. I did incluse you in the ArbCom request because Drmies kept hiding after the "we did it all together" excuse, and I didn't feel like deliberating who to include and who to leave out. The whole Arbcom case is born out of frustration anyway.
In any case, if it wasn't clear, the case is not against you or seeking to sanction you in any way, I wouldn't have the faintest idea how to even twist that case in that direction. As far as I can see, you did absolutely nothing wrong there. I only included you to be complete. You are of course free to give your opinion of it all, including about me, but I wouldn't want this case to set more bad blood between us than there might already be. Fram (talk) 07:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No hard feelings on my end, I wasn't under the impression that the case was filed or seeking sanction against me. I was mostly linking to my comments for the benefit of others who might be curious if/how I voted in the unblock discussion. GorillaWarfare(talk)07:53, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it four in the morning over there? About a half hour ago you removed the following comment from an IP at the Computing reference desk which was subsequently hidden:
Humans were termed "computers", rather than "calculators", because the word is from the Latin computare, CUM ("with") + PUTARE ("think"). They were not termed "calculators" because the word "calculate" derives from Latin calculus, "a small stone".
You also blocked the contributor and removed his/her talkpage access. Why did you do that? This editor has probably been put off Wikipedia for life, and is even now telling his/her friends what an unpleasant website it is. 62.49.80.34 (talk) 09:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for letting me know—they edited amongst a large amount of IP vandalism and I mistakenly blocked the IP thinking it was a part of it. I've removed the block, apologized on their talk page, and reinstated their edit. Unfortunately I can't un-suppress (un-hide) the edit because it would reveal the oversightable content that was added immediately before them.
How are we supposed to "figure it out on the Talk page" when my comments on said page are repeatedly sent down the memory hole?
I have attempted to settle this issue amicably for roughly two years at this point, but my appeals to reason and the OFFICIAL reference for President Trump's height are met with blatant censorship. I have been silenced repeatedly, all for the "offense" of insisting that President Trump's accurate and OFFICIAL height be displayed in the article in question.
Trump's personal physician, Dr. Ronny Jackson, declared Trump's measured, OFFICIAL height to be 6'3". Yet, fake news conspiracy theories are continually re-inserted as references, attempting to discredit this OFFICIAL medical examination and the recorded height measurement of 6'3". Apparently the good Admiral Dr. Jackson is involved in an insidious conspiracy theory to stroke Trump's ego and provoke his detractors, by publicly adding inches to Trump's declared height.
This is all absolute absurd horseshit, and I appeal to whatever sense of fairness and rationality you may possess, to end this once and for all, replace Trump's OFFICIAL medical exam as the sole credible reference for his height, and ban the stubborn trolls who continue to vandalize the article.
Personally, I will not let this issue go, and no matter how many bans or edit-protections I have to wait out, I WILL continue to maintain Trump's height in this article as 6'3", and preserve the OFFICIAL medical exam as the sole credible reference. I have fought this battle for approximately two years, and I will continue to do so, no matter how many different IPs it requires, until either a) the article is removed, b) Wikipedia ceases to exist, or c) I cease to live. 2601:600:827F:B40A:31F8:A529:21EC:7595 (talk) 11:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, deleting another user's comments and posting Stop deleting my comments, cuck bitch. ([3]) is probably not a great start. The same is true for abusing multiple accounts/IPs to edit the page through blocks/bans. I'm afraid it's not feasible to use the "OFFICIAL medical exam" as the "sole credible reference"—that's simply not how Wikipedia works (see WP:PRIMARY). The exam is a cited source on that page, but other reliable sources are acceptable as well. GorillaWarfare(talk)11:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Curious case of 182.253.122.93
I just came across a vandal and had a severe edit war for about ten minutes. The IP (contribs) was reported to ARV and subsequently blocked by you. The most peculiar thing was the edits contained the names of Wikipedian users. Just to know, was that a bot that went rogue or some IP who collected a lot of usernames and then made over 70 edits? The edits were kind of murder charges and all and hence, are they supposed to be hidden? The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:45, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@The Herald: There's no need to warn this character - this is Soft skin, aka the Reference desk vandal. You'll recognise him by the scurrilous allegations he makes against editors who regularly answer questions at the Reference desk. He runs an automated vandalbot which can spew these allegations out every few seconds. The filter has virtually shut him down at the Reference desk so sometimes he gets frustrated and starts attacking random pages. 62.49.80.34 (talk) 09:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
GW you KNOW THIS WAS ALL TRUE. I am very sad to see that you can't recognize the truth that is RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR EYES. Seriously, if you'd been here with Mrs. Drmies and me, you'd... well we'd have made YOU make dinner and get us beers cause holy hell that was one hell of a game, and Jalen pulled it out of the fire for us. Drmies (talk) 03:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks--we were all crying. Well maybe not Kelapstick, but that it was kind of a reverse of last year, with two so gracious young men filling in for each other, makes me have hope about the future of America. Anyway, I'm getting all teary-eyed again so I'll leave the vandalism to you for tonight. Thanks GW for being a wonderful human being, Drmies (talk) 03:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A request for comment is in progress to determine whether members of the Bot Approvals Group should satisfy activity requirements in order to remain in that role.
A request for comment is in progress regarding whether to change the administrator inactivity policy, such that administrators "who have made no logged administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped". Currently, the policy states that administrators "who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped".
Administrators and bureaucrats can no longer unblock themselves unless they placed the block initially. This change has been implemented globally. See also this ongoing village pump discussion (permalink).
To complement the aforementioned change, blocked administrators will soon have the ability to block the administrator that placed their block to mitigate the possibility of a compromised administrator account blocking all other active administrators.
In late November, an attacker compromised multiple accounts, including at least four administrator accounts, and used them to vandalize Wikipedia. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. Sharing the same password across multiple websites makes your account vulnerable, especially if your password was used on a website that suffered a data breach. As these incidents have shown, these concerns are not pure fantasies.
Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (Raymond Arritt) passed away on 14 November 2018. Boris joined Wikipedia as Raymond arritt on 8 May 2006 and was an administrator from 30 July 2007 to 2 June 2008.
i wanna apologize for the edit, i didn't know it was a british spelling of a word. i honestly thought it was a misspelling. i know i don't have to apologize for it but i really want to.
Alexlion0511 (talk) 05:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, on 26 October 2018 you reverted an edit by Emotionhaha55. On 11 December 2018 user Emotionhaha55 did exactly the same edit, with summary "the references those refer to the article are not clear". Looking at the article before that edit, I could not recognise this. However, I am not a native English speaker, so it might be OK after all. Looking at his recent edits, I saw a lot of large text deleteions. My impression is that all text that is negative for Vajiralongkorn and also for Bhumibol Adulyadej has been deleted. Can you check what is going on or lead this concern of me to the correct place? --FredTC (talk) 02:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@FredTC: Thanks for pointing this out! I'm just dropping in quickly to check my talk page and so don't have time to look into it in detail right now. I can look into it a little later, or if you want a quicker response I would post this message to WP:ANI. GorillaWarfare(talk)03:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@GorillaWarfare: Hey admin. As I was looking at Vandalism, create HOAX Infos, reverting/changing official admin edit, provoke Edit War and Using Bad Words on Edit Summary section by User:Nguyenquochieu2107 at Miss International 1976, [:Indonesia at major beauty pageants]], Philippines at major beauty pageants, and Miss Universe 2018. I tried to stop but did not succeed. If you check his talk page"user:Nguyenquochieu2107 talk page". Wikipedia. Retrieved 17 December 2018. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help), he's already been blocked by so many times and received so much warning by another users from all around the world (*Ps: He's already edited and deleted some of the Warning Reports on his talk page which is inappropriate to delete someone feedback warns), he keep lying about the info's especially pages that relate about pageantry. I think this user need to be deleted and blocked from editing Wikipedia pages since he's editing too much with self-sources and provoke War by doing editing and using bad words at the 'edit summary section, this is generally considered yelling and starts war with other Wikipedian users and readers.
Welcome back
Hi GW. Congratulations on your success in the elections and welcome to the 2019 Arbitration Committee. Sorry to be a pain, but we'll need to go through the formalities.
the email address you'd like to use for ArbCom and functionary business
Over the coming days, you will receive a small of emails as part of the induction process. Please carefully read them. If they are registration emails, please follow any instructions in them to finalise registration. You can contact me or any other arbitrator directly if you have difficulty with any of these formalities.
Thank you for volunteering to serve on the committee. We very much look forward to introducing ourselves to you on the mailing list and to working with you this term.
More like welcome back! GW got that many votes in 2015 too - and is as far as I can see the only person to have gotten more than a 1000 votes more than once - Congrats! Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
GW, that was a great result, especially considering your very public profile that has almost certainly attracted opposition from all kinds of assorted bigots. Delighted to have you back. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on your election, and thanks for putting yourself forward to do what I am sure is a time-consuming and largely thankless task. It makes me happy to know that people like yourself are on the committee. GirthSummit (blether)16:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well done! I like your net score, considering the article you brought to GA. The oppose !!votes (see what I did here) show that you're an exceedingly great (too good) ArbCom member, and I hope you enjoy your time more than the first one. wumbolo^^^18:27, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely comfortable lobbying against the Daily Mail ban given its history, I have asked you, and your "confrère", @Nuclear Warfare:, to weigh in on the Daily Mail debate at RS/N. I trust that the pings, and the mention at Wikipediocracy will be sufficient for you to understand the implications of banning a major press outlet for inconvenient political opinions. Cordialement, — 🍆 RosasHillst · c00:00, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello GorillaWarfare,
Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that
Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?"
My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk22:36, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You've got mail!
Hello, GorillaWarfare. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 22:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Whether you celebrate Christmas, Diwali, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Festivus (for the rest of us!) or even the Saturnalia, here's to hoping your holiday time is wonderful and that the New Year will be an improvement upon the old. CHEERS!
Hello GW. I saw the post on your user page and I want to send you my best wishes in dealing with your health issues. I hope you get to feeling better soon. Cheers also for your 2019. MarnetteD|Talk00:45, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{db-blankdraft}}.
Members of the Bot Approvals Group (BAG) are now subject to an activity requirement. After two years without any bot-related activity (e.g. operating a bot, posting on a bot-related talk page), BAG members will be retired from BAG following a one-week notice.
Technical news
Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:
User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.
Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
{{Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.
Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
Hello. As I edited to Vajiralongkorn. I am sorry for did not inform you about the referent but I removed that content because I saw that had incorrect meaning and I already had removed it again with the correctly referent. Could you please consider again. Thank you. Emotionhaha55 (talk) 02:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)Emotionhaha55[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Tata Institute of Social Sciences logo.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Tata Institute of Social Sciences logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hello, GorillaWarfare. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello, and welcome to Huggle! If you have any questions or doubt, then kindly refer to Huggle's manual. If your query is still unanswered, please feel free to ask Petr Bana, or this user, or me. If you have any question, or doubt regarding enwiki, please feel free to ask me or this user (wouldnt make much of a difference). Regards, —usernamekiran(talk)23:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Σύνταξις: The removal of your edit to Eugenics was a mistake, which is why I fixed it and removed the warning. The issue with your edit to History of abortion is not that it was non-factual, but rather that it was not neutral (see the warning I left on your talk page). The underlined portion of the sentence you added "However, many unborn who would have otherwise been aborted were also allowed to come to term and have a chance at life." is pushing an anti-abortion viewpoint, which is not appropriate for the article. There was also an error in one of your other edits where I think you accidentally added the word "priority". GorillaWarfare(talk)23:45, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Σύνταξις: Have you read WP:NPOV? It explains it quite well. As for the mistake, I was using a semi-automated tool called Huggle. I accidentally pressed the wrong key while your edit was active on the screen, which caused the program to revert the edit and warn you. GorillaWarfare(talk)01:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
== NPOV ==
Yeah, I read the NPOV page. Can you point out the part that my comment is inconsistent with? Sorry to be a bother. Thanks for your help. Σύνταξις (talk) 01:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dang Jorm, simmer down. No need to go all “pal”ing me. Let’s keep it friendly. page. GorillaWarfare, I think I’m getting the idea of it. But under the way you’re reading that, wouldn’t the sentence I mentioned above be non-neutral for the same reasons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Σύνταξις (talk • contribs) 01:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here’s what I wrote. Somehow it got into another thread. Sorry for being so messy with all this.
In the line of reasoning your applying to my edit, wouldn’t these lines (really the second sentence) from the page also be considered value-laden, since they assert that the salient cause of women suffering from illegal abortions was not their choice to seek it, but the law against it? That is an ideological position often asserted in pro-abortion arguments, right? “India enforced the Indian Penal Code from 1860 to 1971, criminalizing abortion and punishing both the practitioners and the women who sought out the procedure.[147] As a result, countless women died in an attempt to obtain illegal abortions from unqualified midwives and "doctors".”
Can you help me understand the answer to my question? Thanks. You don’t need to reply right away. I’m pretty tired actually so imma hit the hay. You can just give it some more thought and get to it whenever is convenient. You don’t need to feel pressure from me. Of course, you can reply now if you want, but... Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Σύνταξις (talk • contribs) 02:27, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm not sure what you're not understanding. Abortions were criminalized, women continued to seek (now-illegal) abortions, and many died as a result of seeking said abortions. As I understand it, women died as a result of the law (because abortions were criminalized and so those who provided them tended to be less capable rather than medical professionals) and as a result of their choice to seek said abortions. Is that not what you said you wanted it to say? GorillaWarfare(talk)03:55, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, GorillaWarfare. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 18:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
@Maddox121 ForgotHisPassword: Thanks for trying to provide a citation. There's more information about how to format them correctly at WP:INLINE. However, the video you provided doesn't support the text you added—it says nothing about the alt-right, Reddit, or Paul Joseph Watson. You need to add a source supporting precisely what you're adding. GorillaWarfare(talk)18:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For taking the time to help an editor grateful for it, for being thoughtful to an editor who would appreciate it, and for always being calm and considerate to any editor in need of it. ~ Amory(u • t • c)12:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.
Technical news
A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.
A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.
Restarting that article was brave, but seems to have worked. The previous problems appear to be kept under control. Good job. Guy (Help!) 23:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Following discussions at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:Administrators, an earlier change to the restoration of adminship policy was reverted. If requested, bureaucrats will not restore administrator permissions removed due to inactivity if there have been five years without a logged administrator action; this "five year rule" does not apply to permissions removed voluntarily.
Technical news
A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.
Arbitration
The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
paid-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
checkuser-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.
I've never really considered it, no. I don't do much closing of discussions, and I'm not sure they're really in need of more crats. Thanks for thinking of me, though :) GorillaWarfare(talk)22:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Recent IP block
I noticed that you blocked an IP for disruptive edits to Batman v Superman (here). I just wanted to give you a heads up that I'm fairly certain that this IP is User:TommyVictor, who made the same edits to the page and said that if they were blocked they'd just create a new account or use a VPN to get around the block. BIGNOLE (Contact me)14:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, 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. –MJL‐Talk‐☖12:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@AlanM1: Probably, had I seen your comment sooner. By now they've probably lost interest and a block won't do much. I'd definitely recommend WP:AIV to report issues like this in the future, just so folks can handle an issue sooner if admins who've interacted with the vandal have gone offline, as I had. GorillaWarfare(talk)12:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not unusual or WP:INVOLVED to protect a page when an edit war is going on despite requests to discuss on the talk page, and then revert someone who has edited through that protection instead of joining the discussion. I haven't edited the page outside of an admin capacity ([8]). GorillaWarfare(talk)12:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting an edit-warred page to the original version while discussion continues is a standard action. It would be questionable if I was actively contributing to the discussion about that content, but I am not; I am just stopping the edit warring until consensus is reached. GorillaWarfare(talk)13:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
). WP:NOT is covered by WP:5P but in today's world, CCPOL seems to trump 5P. wumbolo ^^^ 21:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
wumbolo ^^^ 15:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
PackMecEng (talk) 23:21, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
None
Asterion • Crisco 1492 • KF • Kudpung • Liz • Randykitty • Spartaz
Optimist on the run → Voice of Clam
Arbitration
Hello. It appears your talk page is becoming quite lengthy and is in need of archiving. According to Wikipedia's user talk page guidelines; "Large talk pages become difficult to read, strain the limits of older browsers, and load slowly over slow internet connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions." - this talk page is 127.3 KB. See Help:Archiving a talk page for instructions on how to manually archive your talk page, or to arrange for automatic archiving using a bot. If you have any questions, place a {{help me}} notice on your talk page, or go to the help desk. Thank you. — Nick Gurr 7777 | TALK / CONTRIBS | 00:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
.jpg)
—PaleoNeonate – 05:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. [2] Willwill0415 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Interface administrator changes
Oversight changes
wikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.
- TNT 💖 16:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Al Ameer son • Randykitty • Spartaz
Miscellaneous
Obituaries
.jpg)
_(14586469407).jpg)
Hello! Your submission of Hazel Smith 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! Yoninah (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
