Jump to content

User talk:GorillaWarfare/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Orphaned non-free image File:EnerNOC Logo.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:EnerNOC Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hide IP address ASAP

Hi please hide my Ip address: [REDACTED - Oshwah] from this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khaled_Juffali without removing content added if possible — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantom122 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RevDel

Thanks for cleaning up at ANI. Can I also trouble you to hide Special:Permalink/891316983 (content and edit summary)? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 04:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, thanks for pointing it out! GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:38, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Thanks for hiding it. Also, on the same topic (before I forget, since I won't be able to refresh my memory) is it a COI to give an IP a {{Uw-npa4im}} warning if I was the target? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 04:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, being the target of personal attacks doesn't make you involved in any way. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know. Thanks again, --DannyS712 (talk) 04:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2019).

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a 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. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
  • As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A bowl of strawberries for you and your cat!

For Max(imus) and you. qedk (t 桜 c) 17:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why thank you! Not sure how Max(imus) would feel about strawberries, but I sure like them :) GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I made edits but you removed them

How do I supply a source for adding family information? I am a relative and have first hand knowledge of this family. Leona Goodell (talk) 02:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any reasons

as to why the voting of arbitrators (i.e. the support/oppose/abstain/recuse tally) in private appeals aren't disclosed? ∯WBGconverse 06:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually not sure -- I think we may have disclosed tallies in the past on a per-case basis, but it's not common practice. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I don't see any reason as to why the common practice can't be changed. You might remember the drama-fest w.r.t to the premises of the first question over here. ∯WBGconverse 05:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The better place to discuss this would probably be at WT:ARBCOM where all the arbs can see it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May you join this month's editathons from WiR!

May 2019, Volume 5, Issue 5, Numbers 107, 108, 118, 119, 120, 121


Hello and welcome to the May events of Women in Red!

Please join us for these virtual events:


Other ways you can participate:


Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, GorillaWarfare. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Funcrunch (talk) 22:36, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Icon of a white exclamation mark within a black triangle
 Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Enso Group logo.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Enso Group 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GW. What a horrible CF. [And all this comes without hugely digging through heaps of AC pages, as I simply neither have the time nor patience. Something has gone horribly wrong here. These days I keep out of enWP politics and just potter along with administrative bitsies. 1) Why is ArbCom even discussing this? It is not within the scope of AC, as I know it. 2) How did the first email come about? Let alone be sent? 3) How did the subsequent email come about and semi-justify the first? Should have been a complete retraction, nothing more.

Looks like you/we need to fix the AC house. Both in getting it back to the AC's scope, and managing what the personnel attached to AC are doing. As a long term admin, that is pretty disappointing. We are a consensus, not and AC has a scope within which to work. And I am not going to do individual blame, I am looking to solutions. [And it doesn't need a personal explanation, it is me expressing a PoV without getting entrenched in enWP politics, as those days are in the past.] — billinghurst sDrewth 03:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, and I just saw special:permalink/891851004#Return_of_permissions_for_compromised_administrator_accounts. How is this part of AC? I hope that the bureaucrats throw this out as overreach. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Billinghurst: There's a fair bit of discussion over at WT:ACN if you've not seen it. To answer your questions: 1) The ArbCom does handle desysoppings in the case of admin compromise (and in other situations), as it has for years. Typically we've just restored admin permissions once people have regained access to their admin account, but there have been concerns recently about administrators inadequately securing their accounts after account compromise. 2) There have been six compromised admin accounts in recent history, and more if you go back into slightly less recent history, that have come about from poor account security. The first email was drafted by an arbitrator and then submitted for discussion among the rest of the committee. 3) Same process for the second email. I disagree with you that the note should have been retracted entirely; the tone was poor and the bullet point about 2FA didn't adequately convey that it remains optional, but the substance of the message is important. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:47, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To reply to your addition that we edit conflicted on, the bureaucrats can't really "throw it out" per se—there is no ratification process by the bureaucrats or anything like that. I suppose they could refuse to resysop administrators when we asked them to, but that would be an odd change given they've been doing so as long as I can remember. Adding the option to not resysop a compromised admin more or less automatically is putting more of the decision in the community's hands than before, not less. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:49, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This should be community consensus, not the AC consensus and edict. The AC should be putting recommendations to the community for their consensus to how we the community operate, not by AC edict. This is rule creep and authority creep, and the AC should be well aware of this shift in power and pushing hard against it.

Any bureaucrat worth a pinch of shit would be asking any returning admin who lost control of their account to demonstrate how they have better secured their account, and showing compliance. This is not something that is arbitration. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The removal of rights that AC adopted was "temporary" that you have taken it further, is unreasonable. Please check the 2009 adaptation. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Billinghurst: I don't particularly appreciate your implication that I've been unaware of a procedure I've been responsible for following for several years. Have you seen Joe Roe's 15:43, 4 May 2019 comment at WT:ACN? It sums up my opinions on this quite well. I'd recommend moving this conversation to that page, anyway—I am one member of a larger Committee, and you seem to be addressing the Committee as a whole in these comments. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:14, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.

Arbitration

  • In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
  • Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Galobtter, alpha male.
(Commons is severely lacking in the Gorillas beating their chest department Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC))[reply]

I came here expecting to thank a burly, alpha male with hair on his chest and a large medallion for being a good role model in the fetid swamp of the Article on Gab, and instead I'm thanking this other person. Now I have to rewire my brain to accommodate this new information. I appreciate your balance and fairness.Tym Whittier (talk) 04:50, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I get that a lot... Thanks for being willing to take a step back and cool off. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:54, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"I came here expecting to thank a burly, alpha male with hair on his chest." No, that's another admin. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 19

For what it's worth, I'd like to say thanks for supporting me at the ANI against the false accusations by the two users, accusing me of being responsible for the revdel edit. I normally wouldn't expect that level of fairness from an 'opponent'. I can appreciate why you have been given adminship. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 03:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't consider myself your "opponent". I'd recommend assuming good faith when it comes to those users—I don't think they're trying to falsely accuse you, I think they either misread the discussion or were not able to view the diff. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please undelete this edit

This edit is the topic of a paragraph at STEM School Highlands Ranch shooting. It is contrary to Wikipedia's purpose to be concealing important primary data. In general the RD3 policy looks like it badly needs to be fixed because it talks about severe threats like worms but is being applied by some admins to anything that is "nothing but disruptive" in a very lesser sense of the word disruptive. Nonetheless, an edit that our article presents as important evidence, as a public threat to commit a heinous crime that happened, most definitely is not "purely disruptive". Wnt (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen Talk:STEM School Highlands Ranch and the subsequent AN thread? The topic strayed a bit away from the edit and into the filer's behavior, but the closing admin remarked, The edit in question was pretty worthless but there's reasonable arguments on revdel versus reversion. Consensus supports the revdel option but it's all a bit academic given no one is arguing to put the edit back. Having appropriately discussed it, let's all move on. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:20, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is an unworthy hill to choose to die on, Wnt. And, yes, that is a metaphor. Let it go. Liz Read! Talk! 03:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is unfortunate I missed that discussion, since obviously I would have voiced my support to undelete this. Yes, it is a very technical point given that all of the information in the edit can be reconstructed -- the content, the editor, the time and date, everything. Yet I have to wonder what the thought process could be to explain why such a perfectly reconstructible, notable edit of public importance would still be kept deleted, leaving Wikipedians to rely on outside sources to report what Wikipedia contained. Wnt (talk) 22:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, Wikipedia would never cite a revision in an article, so there's no real need for it to be visible. I've never seen the argument that revs should be unhidden because they're notable applied before. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:07, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, how often do we have a paragraph in an article suggesting a psychopath was hinting at a massacre in advance of the deed on Wikipedia? It's a crazy situation, so my instinct is we should be as forthright as possible. Wnt (talk) 00:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to stick with what I said there - if we have some evidence that this is actually connected, I can see undeleting for the sake of history, etc. Until then, it's just vandalism on a school page, which, frankly, there is no shortage of. --GRuban (talk) 01:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I need a favor

You're the first CU I've found who doesn't have a sign up about being otherwise occupied, therefore I am posting this here because I need a look under the hood to confirm something I took action on at WP:ANI [1]; if it turns out we're right the tags I used will need to be tweaked accordingly. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:35, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see any reason to run the check, if the only purpose is to tweak tags. The behavioral evidence seems like plenty to go on. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AGF, Gab and Epik

Hey there, I'm Alex. As I'm sure you've noticed, I've made a couple of sections on Gab talk page, mostly because I've reviewed the archives and disagree with how quickly the contributors jump to a concensus. I am trying to provide a NPOV for the article, because as it stands right now - it's a mess. I don't want to make emotionally charged edits, and am fully capable of admitting when I'm wrong. All I ask is that you do the same. Try to look at each section as its own issue, as opposed to the collection of them as some sort of personal attack on you and your edits. I've made good points, and they have either been: not addressed at all, or addressed very poorly. So I respond trying to challenge the poor responses.

You found a source that matches the description in the lead, and I conceded. That's how Wikipedia should be. We can argue like this forever if no one is willing to at least hear the other side out. You can see my contributions, I'm interested in a variety of things but I'm especially anal about poor sourcing, OR, and SYNTH.

In my opinion, the Epik article should be deleted entirely, as should the Monster page. They're not notable enough to warrant TWO articles which essentially say the same stuff and use the same sources. But until deletion, I decided to at least balance it out.

Cheers, Alex.osheter (talk) 18:11, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Hearing you out" does not mean "agreeing with you", which seems to be what you're asking for here and when you ask for compromise on the Gab talk page. I am hearing you out, I (and Jorm) have pointed out that your arguments are ones that have been brought up repeatedly in the past, and directed you there. I have attempted to answer your questions where you've asked them.
You did agree with me, but later changed your mind assuming bad faith. If someone were to make the edit you're so afraid of, you can revert it and call them to the talk page. Alex.osheter (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the Epik article should be deleted, AfD is thataway. I see you've already brought Rob Monster there, and I've commented. But what you're trying to do to the article cannot be described as "balancing"—that would imply there are sources that present another view on Epik's activities, which I've not seen and you've not produced. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, "balancing" can mean removing statements that are simply not in the source, which is what I did. Alex.osheter (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That would seem to be a discussion we should continue on Talk:Epik (domain registrar). GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point :) BTW, I responded to your question on the Gab talk page, hopefully that section could be closed now. I missed your edit. Alex.osheter (talk) 20:34, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could use your input here

Discussions on Gab and Mr.Monster aside, I could really use your input here. What do you think? Notable? Yes? No? Alex.osheter (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll take a look. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:48, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Alex.osheter: By the way, I've replied at Talk:Epik (domain registrar). GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it seems like you've put a lot of effort into it and I appreciate that. I want to put a lot of effort into my response as well, so I'll go to sleep now and respond tomorrow. Alex.osheter (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I responded. By the way, you haven't addressed my section regarding "Cleaning up some OR" on Gab. I've made a couple of suggestions to keep it OR free. Alex.osheter (talk) 16:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help with another Editor

So you know I'm relatively new. I see words like "arbitration" and "content disputes" and read Wikipedia Policies that describe certain behaviors as generally "bad". I've held off addressing the problem/conflict directly as I am aware that I am "under development" however things have come to a head and I'm seeking some sort of action. Preserving this account (meaning not getting kicked off) is priority #1, however that sentiment is in direct conflict with my willingness to tolerate a persistent pattern of non-constructive "editing". I have a grievance. What's my next step?Tym Whittier (talk) 09:22, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first step is to try to address the grievance directly with the user. If that is unsuccessful, the next step would be a more formal type of dispute resolution. WP:DRR can help you determine what's appropriate based on the type of issue; ANI is sort of the catch-all if it's not specifically to do with edit warring or COI or anything like that. Arbitration is a last resort, only for if other attempts at dispute resolution fail. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June events with WIR

June 2019, Volume 5, Issue 6, Numbers 107, 108, 122, 123, 124, 125


Check out what's happening in June at Women in Red:

Virtual events:


Other ways you can participate:


Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

A kitten for you!

Thanks for your ongoing efforts to improve Wikipedia. Your efforts at articles like Gab, BitChute, and around current events are noticed and appreciated.

Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:02, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gab, X-Editor, and "editting promotionally"

So I'm trying to take a lesson from X-Editor's mistakes. I made some attempt at looking at the diffs, and what he did was not obvious to me, so if you could clarify that I'd appreciate it. Also, the question "What's the difference between "editing promotionally" and "attempting to include balance"? The best I can come up with is that the idea that "balance" requires RS to say things, vs. what Gab says about itself. I just need to know (among other things) if this is the standard. The most concrete reason I can think of involves a passage of text in or near the lede where xyz big tech company says Gab is bad, and Wikipedia tenders that quote to the Article with it's encyclopedic voice, while in the exact same RS, the very next passage also says "Torba says Gab is good.", and Wikipedia doesn't mention that at all. It's been my several weeks long temptation to "be bold" and add the comment, but I'm holding off because of the possibility that what big tech says is simply the truth, and what Gab says about itself is "promotion". I can get into the gritty specifics if you'd like. I'd rather not do it on the Talk page, and if that's the only option I'll hold off on this for another time. This is as much an opportunity to learn something as it is an attempt to bring some balance, AFAIC. And it can wait. Indefinately, if necessary.Tym Whittier (talk) 16:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2019).

Administrator changes

removed Andonic • Consumed Crustacean • Enigmaman • Euryalus • EWS23 • HereToHelp • Nv8200pa • Peripitus • StringTheory11 • Vejvančický

CheckUser changes

removed Ivanvector

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
  • An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
  • An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

Technical news

  • The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
  • Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help?

Hey GorillaWarfare, I was wondering if you could help me with the situation going on at List of mass shootings in the United States in 2019? If you can, it would be much appreciated. Thank you! – Braxton C. Womacktalk to me! 00:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for this. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request for help

Hi, Molly. I wonder if you would be willing to have a look at something in your capacity as an arbitrator. It concerns unblock requests at User talk:Aldaz321, relating to a block dating from May 2018. The editor has posted several unblock requests since then, one of which is still open. The editor was twice advised by TonyBallioni to contact the Arbitration committee, first in May 2018 and again in September 2018. The editor stated on 11 June 2018 that he or she had emailed ArbCom, and on 18 June 2019‎ stated that he or she had done so again in April 2019. It is not entirely clear, but what he or she has said seems to me to imply that the first time ArbCom considered and rejected the appeal, but that there has so far been no response to the second email. In one way my best response might be to just say "wait for ArbCom to get round to it", but I thought I would enquire just in case there is some problem such as the editor's email not having reached ArbCom. Could you let the editor know, and perhaps me too, what the situation is, e.g. "being dealt with, wait a bit longer", "we never got your second email", or whatever? (I'm not sure whether contacting an individual arbitrator, rather than emailing ArbCom as a whole, may be frowned on, but since the matter at issue is a question of whether a communication to ArbCom may or may not have received a response, I thought it better to contact an actual person.) JamesBWatson (talk) 11:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh gosh. I didn’t realize I’d reviewed that twice :/ I’m not aware of anything else beyond what is on the talk page, however. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@JamesBWatson: I'm not seeing any messages after the appeal was rejected, so it seems like perhaps the second email didn't come through. As for contacting an individual arb vs. the whole committee, I personally don't mind either way, though you of course run the risk that the individual arb is busy, etc. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July events from Women in Red!

July 2019, Volume 5, Issue 7, Numbers 107, 108, 126, 127, 128


Check out what's happening in July at Women in Red...

Virtual events:


Initiatives we support:


Editor feedback:


Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Full case

My compliments for this; I have to say, I don't envy you. Unless the WMF T&S have let you (plural) know more than it has us, this is going to be a tough case to judge. --GRuban (talk) 22:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I'm going to edit my comment to make it clearer what scope I envision. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
True, you do have a wide range of scopes to choose from. --GRuban (talk) 13:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Age

I don't want to get in trouble with the ageism group - but you look way to young to remember that. [2] :-) — Ched :  ?  — 08:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, I was impressed by GW's edit – WP:FRAM is in need of such insightful humour :)Britishfinance (talk) 10:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you feel it appropriate to make a comment about a woman's appearance or age? --Jorm (talk) 15:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just when I decided to state ceterum censeo I thought that gorilla warfare required moar hair. --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gorillas, probably not currently engaged in warfare

Thank you

For the poignant query. Indeed, it's time to move this along. El_C 17:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks also goes to AGK, for another pointed query. I'm seeing a trend! El_C 17:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that ArbCom should consider getting into a private huddle and releasing a statement tomorrow on where they stand – the known facts (which I don't think everybody is fully clear on), the likelihood of any change in future facts (let's be realistic), and ArbCom's view on the way forward. ArbCom is as close as the community gets to having a "leadership", and is an important part of its sense of itself as a structured community; I think the community is in need of both now? Britishfinance (talk) 19:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input, Britishfinance. We are definitely doing plenty of chatting about how best to move forward. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately, there is no "schoolbook solution" here (i.e. WMF can't/won't share all the information with you). However, in chaotic situations, establishing clearly the full fact base (e.g. what does ArbCom realistically think WMF will and won't do) can be very helpful. The future path can become obvious, and having a shared fact-base can galvanize people. It is when the fact-base is disjointed/unclear, that people start doing their own things, and taking individual actions (per the BN). Britishfinance (talk) 19:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You weren't kidding! Great note from ArbCom on many levels. Well done. Britishfinance (talk) 09:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:A Woman of the Century has been nominated for discussion

Category:A Woman of the Century, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
For an open letter. Honestly, I'm surprised your talk page isn't covered by these stars. GRuban (talk) 16:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Joe Roe deserves the credit for the bulk of the writing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just replied to you

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.

Tornadosurvivor2011 17:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Received. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2019).

Administrator changes

removed 28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • Floquenbeam1 • Flyguy649 • Fram2 • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe
1Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.
2Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

Guideline and policy news

  • In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

Technical news

  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Chabloz

It strikes me that her inclusion on gab is a BLP violation as she is non notable, and seems to be there just to be an example of the kind of bigot they have there. The problem is that she is not in any way notable, and so it just looks like a bit of a dig at a nobody.Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've replied at the article talk page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Such a 'nobody' that a certain militant Zionist NGO decided to turn me into a minor celebrity by taking me to court for my satirical songs. Somewhere recently, I saw a complaint that there is no WP page dedicated to me, whereas plenty of 'other' non-notables do have dedicated pages. I really don't care either way, hence my request that the inclusion of my name in the Gab users WP article either be edited to reflect my actual profession (rather than the usual labels attributed by biased mainstream articles) or else be removed entirely.
Accusations of non-neutrality are also laughable. The article in question cited my name. My edit request was proper and civil. In a plain contravention of rules stated in the opening section, I was then subjected to personal attacks from someone who appears to be a cheerleader for book burners - or in my case, song burners.
My case is still undergoing the appeal process. I have worldwide support. I do not believe the official 'Holocaust' narrative and efforts by WP editors to uphold this historical event as some kind of religion by citing NPOV render WP articles on this topic obsolete and without any credibility whatsoever. Alison Chabloz (talk) 18:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @GW:- I have removed her name because she does not seem to be a high profile character, by my searches. But, feel free to revert, shall you disagree. More importantly, why is Alison allowed to be over here? WP:NONAZIS. ∯WBGconverse 18:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Winged Blades of Godric: Thanks for doing that, after looking more into it I agree that she should not be mentioned in the article. I've also blocked her account—she's clearly only here to try to whitewash mentions of herself on-wiki and push an antisemitic POV. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter userbox

Hello, I saw you have an userbox to showcase your twitter account, went into source and saw it was made from scratch, so -in case you made it- can i borrow the code so I can have one on my user page? Might be a silly question but I wanted to be sure. Greetings -Gouleg (Talk • Contribs) 00:31, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gouleg: Yes absolutely, feel free! GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Huggle

Hello, and welcome to Huggle!
If you have any questions, doubts, or queries regarding Huggle; please don't hesitate to ask me or Petrb.
Regards, —usernamekiran(talk) 05:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hi, GW - regarding my ARCA case, would you be so kind as to visit User:Atsme/sandbox and review what I've proposed? Also, see the Alert notice at the top of my UTP (forgive the humor in my alert but it makes a better fit for my UTP. mm) Atsme Talk 📧 19:39, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My concern about your suggestion is that the allowance for "similar awareness notices" would not be something that could be checked by the DS alert filter. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It can, according to JFG, (if my memory serves) he can simply write the code that generates an already alerted pop-up notice that can be linked to my custom alert notice. But why would anyone need to check anything but my custom notice because it already states that I'm aware of every possible topic under DS, and links to the page that lists all DS topics? IOW, I'm opting out of the fall-back excuse that I wasn't aware the article was under DS, so I'm poopie out of luck if I get drug to AE and try to say I didn't know it was subject to DS. In fact, Doug Weller just alerted me to a cc DS alert and he did see the notice on my UTP but at that time, my notice did not include that particular topic area. I went ahead and changed it to include ALL topics listed in the WP:Arbitration enforcement log - just trying to keep it as simple as possible for all. Atsme Talk 📧 21:03, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that need to be done for every custom notice like yours? I consider the abusefilter the authoritative record for if someone has been alerted, and I do not want to require people to check additional locations in addition to it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let's say you want to come to my UTP to alert me to GG DS. You arrive at my page and the first thing you see is the DS Alert Notice at the top of my page. You see that in the notice it states that I'm aware of DS restrictions on all topics that are listed in the contents of the WP:Arbitration enforcement log, which includes GG. You move on to the next editor you want to alert. They have nothing at the top of their user page, so you go through the normal routine - nothing changes in that regard. You move on to the next editor. They have a custom DS Alert Notice at the top of their UTP that states they are aware of DS for Abortion and Gun Control. You go through the normal routine to alert them about GG. Next editor - they have a custom alert that lists GG - you move on. See what I mean? Simple. As more editors realize the simplicity of it, and of course the ability to customize it to fit the aethetics of their UTP, it will save sooo much time. Atsme Talk 📧 22:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the time I arrive at your page and click "new section" I don't see or read any alerts at the top of your talk page. I add the DS alert, click save, get the editnotice, see that there's nothing in the log, and leave an alert, all without seeing that you've added a custom notice at the top of the page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you prefer to do it that way, then the code JFG or Awilley or whoever else volunteered to write, will bring up that big ugly notice and prevent you from adding another notice or it may not, and then you will have added that ugly notice on someone's happy place (hopefully not mine). ^_^ Whatever makes you happy is good enough for me! Thank you for giving it your consideration. Now get out there and enjoy the weekend!! Atsme Talk 📧 23:04, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

edits to Adrian Kennedy irish DJ and journalist page re his drink driving conviction

hello, i edited the adrian kennedy page to show his conviction for drink driving

the text i added (again) said In 2006 Kennedy was found to be almost twice the legal drink driving limit and was put off the road in Irish courts. The topic of drink driving was not brought up on the show following the conviction.

The link to back is up is: https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/shock-jock-put-off-the-road-on-drinkdrive-conviction-26352069.html

That article needs a lot of work as far as references are concerned, so I'm giving it a bit of an overhaul anyway. I'll see about adding it, if it's worth including. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

President Betsy DeVos

UR 2 quick 4 me.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 2019

@CASSIOPEIA: I think you missed :) GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Gorilla Warfare, somehow placed the wrong line at Huggle. It has been happen many times. I am so so sorry. Mistake is all mine. My appologies. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 03:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem, I do it all the time too! GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:28, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I guess when I check the talk page of the user in Huggle and then go back to place warning, it jump to the next line (user) - that what I meant it happened many times. So sorry Gorilla Warfare. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 03:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IP comment

The comment I made about the audio quality on Planet Earth II was based on my personal observations while watching the program. I am an electronics engineer, and notice things like this because it shows that someone who was supposed to be paying attention to the audio quality was either inattentive or incompetent. And - even my non-technical wife noticed the anomalies in the sound level of the narration. John Kernkamp - (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.19.104.118 (talk • contribs)

DYK

ARCA: A DYK review has to happen in a dedicated template (per "hook") which you possibly don't know. In my ARCA comment, I gave an example of a review TRM gave me in 2017. He could NOT do the same now because of the DYK topic ban, which I find sad, and all the ARCA is about is to make it possible again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded at the ARCA. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:43, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You have not responded to my question, but I take that as the response. Forgive me having tried to clarify, please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 2019 at Women in Red

August 2019, Volume 5, Issue 7, Numbers 107, 108, 126, 129, 130, 131


Check out what's happening in August at Women in Red...

Virtual events:


Editor feedback:


Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

--Rosiestep (talk) 06:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
  • The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

    Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Woohooo

Happy Adminship from the Birthday Committee

Wishing GorillaWarfare a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!

-- Mjs1991 (talk) 05:15, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats GW. Many thanks for your efforts over the years! MarnetteD|Talk 05:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats! - even if we disagree at times. I'm so happy that The Rambling Man helps me to reviews for DYK and GA. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:28, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both! GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardamon (talk • contribs) 23:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, appreciate the ping! GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Finally replied [4]. Cardamon (talk) 01:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cloudflare, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wired (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019 at Women in Red

September 2019, Volume 5, Issue 9, Numbers 107, 108, 132, 133, 134, 135


Check out what's happening in September at Women in Red...

Online events:


Editor feedback:


Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]


Administrators' newsletter – September 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).

Administrator changes

added Bradv • Chetsford • Izno
readded Floquenbeam • Lectonar
removed DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana

CheckUser changes

removed Callanecc • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

removed Callanecc • Fox • HJ Mitchell • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Technical news

  • Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
  • The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Woohoo

Yep, GW, football started, so get ready for a bunch of drunk boys venting on Saturdays in various Wikipedia articles with neither knowledge of or respect for the BLP. FWIW Tennessee just lost in double overtime, which of course is right and proper. As you know already, I'm sure, Alabama had a nice practice session. If you believe in miracles, you can wish for an Auburn loss, but don't get your hopes up. The only thing I can't decide on is who I really want to lose, LSU or Texas. Rah rah! Drmies (talk) 02:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I figured a game must have just finished up. It's always something—I think previously it was pro wrestling. Or is that still going? GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: are you saying you are not inspired by the infinitely-clever depths of alcohol-fueled sports vandalism!? I mean, they even target infoboxes, a sure sign of right-mindedness! SamHolt6 (talk) 02:58, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, there's always a game that just finished. Most recently, Arkansas - Ole Miss. My wife hates Ole Miss so I should too. "Landsharks"--who came up with that BS? And they're still Rebels--you know all those white frat boys fly the stars and bars. Sam, I try to stay away from infoboxes. Every time someone says "oh you should run for ArbCom" I say to myself, "sandboxsandboxsandbox", three times, and then any desire for anything is gone. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BTW you both seem like reasonable human beings, so I assume a. you cheered for Alabama and b. you were happy to see Jalen Hurts tear it up today. Drmies (talk) 03:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit to being largely ignorant (and apathetic) to the world of college football, which probably doesn't come as much of a surprise to those who know my alma mater... As for "infoboxinfoboxinfobox", you've got me looking worriedly in the mirror behind me.... GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, yeah, odd mistake--I guess I type the word "sandbox" more often than "infobox". I take that as a good sign. Y'all are dealing with some complicated stuff. The Polish thing is big, and is the Fram case still a happening thing? That reminds me--I was thinking of sending in some evidence (related to my last successful ArbCom run--successful for ArbCom, not my candidacy), but I forgot, and maybe it's too late now. BTW when I was at Alabama we sucked, mostly, despite a few good years courtesy of Shaun Alexander. I remember we got free beers at Egan's when we won the SEC. Right now, we're all just tremendously spoiled--even thinking of losing a football game is a nightmare. It'll pass, I'm sure. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:40, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bit too late on the evidence for the Fram case, I'm afraid. PD has been posted and voting is finishing up. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

You said, Fram's behavior has not met the standards at WP:ADMINCOND. That could be a reasonable interpretation of the evidence and I would accept that statement, if you could please provide a few representative diffs. I am sure you can find some that will not expose the editors who complained about Fram. Additionally, could you please add a finding of fact to the case stating that, contrary to our customs, Fram was not unblocked to participate in the case and was only allowed to comment "from afar". I think this will be helpful to future readers who try to evaluate what happened here. It may also be helpful to a future ArbCom that is asked to review this case. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 14:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, The board statement] said We support ArbCom reviewing this ban. We have asked T&S to work with the English Wikipedia ArbCom to review this case. We encourage Arbcom to assess the length and scope of Fram’s ban, based on the case materials that can be released to the committee. While the review is ongoing, Fram’s ban will remain in effect, although Arbcom and T&S may need ways to allow Fram to participate in the proceedings (my emphasis). Fram was sent the evidence prior to the public posting and I participated on his talk page a few times during the workshop. Other arbitrators are there now. It's far from ideal, but he was not ignored. WormTT(talk) 14:05, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, but I'd like clear documentation of what happened here. The ban was found to be improper, yet it was kept in place throughout the case and prevented Fram from commenting on the record where everybody could see it. This is important for future observers to understand. Jehochman Talk 14:08, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jehochman: For what it's worth, I am keeping up to date with all of the comments on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram/Proposed decision, so there is no need to repeat comments there on my talk page. While I am not attempting to respond individually to each request, rest assured they are being read and considered. You and various others have made very thoughtful comments there, and I have been considering them over the past few days. As always, I appreciate everyone taking the time to provide feedback on this decision. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let me reiterate the most important thing I said above. "Thank you." I know it's hard work. Jehochman Talk 16:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why it is difficult for people to grasp the concept of "yeah, the behavior wasn't bad enough for them to be sent to prison, but we don't want them working here, either." We see instances of this all the time in the real world. Again, I post this link to Fram's entire contribution history on mediawiki.org, which should tell you all that you need to know about their behavior. Admittedly, this isn't on enwiki, but that kind of wikilawyering is exactly why no one trusts anyone to actually do jack or shit. --Jorm (talk) 16:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jorm for teaching me something new. I had never seen the phrase "do jack or shit" and thought it must be a typo for the common phrase "do jack shit" But, after research I see that "do jack or shit" is its own unique phrase. Uncle uncle uncle 23:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with whatever result comes about as long as it's justified with evidence. We can't say there's secret evidence of on wiki activity. That's a contradiction. Moreover, it's important that Fram be allowed to defend himself from specific accusations. If he's spouting off at Meta, that's understandable because he's been treated unfairly. It's possible for somebody to be guilty as sin, yet still be treated unfairly. Jehochman Talk 16:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Jorm is referring to Fram's behavior on Mediawiki.org, not Meta-wiki. I'm not really familiar with Fram's behavior on Mediawiki (or anyone's, really—I haven't been active there in quite some time), and it feels improper for me to really spend that much time looking at it. The ArbCom doesn't have jurisdiction over behavior on other projects, and even in this case the WMF limited Fram's sanctions to enwiki—a choice that I feel must have been intentional, since it deviates from their usual global bans. This is a somewhat unusual case in that we are considering some input from Meta-wiki, but that's sort of a workaround to allow Fram to participate in the case. Why we didn't simply allow them to participate on the enwiki case pages I am not sure in retrospect, but Fram has to be allowed to participate in some manner, and whether it comes from enwiki or Meta or email or carrier pigeon doesn't much matter to me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're way more capable than the average community member. In retrospect we should have let Fram comment on the case pages, like any other case. If he goes back to RFA (or RFAR) it's going to be really hard for enwiki users to review his response to all this. Maybe it's not too late to give him a chance to draft and post a formal response on the case pages, even by proxy, before the case is closed. Jehochman Talk 17:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the whole point that whomever submitted that was trying to make was to add some context as to why they thought WMF might be looking for an excuse to ban Fram, since he was threatened with blocks on mediawiki.org by some WMF staff and ultimately desysopped there by WMF staff. I suppose it (and it was battleground behavior, plain and simple) could be considered relevant under the "take notice" part of the Arb policy relating to other wikis - but the case was set with a scope of 3 years, so if enwiki evidence was ignored from over 3 years ago this probably has to be as well. (And for those watching at home, no, I didn't submit anything as evidence. Not that I didn't think of it, but I was way too busy that week plus the directions said "last three years".) --Rschen7754 07:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing

Carcharoth asked a question five days ago here, at the bottom and never received an answer. I mention it to you here because you've been very generous and thoughtful about providing explanations. Jehochman Talk 18:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. The work laid out here is good. Will that be retained as part of the case pages (maybe ask if it can be put somewhere suitable)? Carcharoth (talk) 14:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I was planning to just leave it in my userspace, but I could move it if you'd prefer. Not really sure where I'd move it, though—we don't usually publish longform notes by individual arbs. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fram

Thank you for your thorough work on the Fram case. Whatever the final result here, it is clear that you have worked on the case with integrity and put a lot of thought into it. Haukur (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Haukur. I appreciate your kind words. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

I hereby give you the Newyorkbrad barnstar for your thoughtful work in resolving a difficult arbitration case. Jehochman Talk 03:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

The Special Barnstar
Thank you for your diligence in sticking with the unprecedented task handed ARBcom. This level of work can save Wikipedia. Neonorange (Phil) 05:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recognizing your above and beyond dispute resolution efforts

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
In spite of an unwinnable and unenviable task given to you through no fault on your own, and in spite of a community coming apart at the seams, your efforts go a long way towards keeping it together. Magisch talk to me 11:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You

are choosing to sit at a position, where you have the ability to wield near-absolute power but yet responding to mere hyperbolic criticism, with an overzealous defensiveness. This does not reflect well, in my eyes and is petty.

At any case, you, WTT and SilkTork were the lone arbitrators who quite impressed me, despite wherever the three of you ultimately landed up in. So, thanks for all your efforts across these tumultuous spans. ∯WBGconverse 19:42, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am choosing to stand behind the clerks team. Whether or not one agrees the original comment deserved to be removed, repeatedly reverting (or manually undoing) a clerk action is a bright line issue. Thank you for your kind words on this case. I wish it had turned out differently. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:59, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think this was a learning opportunity. Some learn faster than others. You three did the best. I think some of the others will hopefully understand things better in time. I’m very upset at how this case was handled and how WMF leadership and Jimmy put ArbCom in a bad position to start. Jehochman Talk 20:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect there are few people who would not agree on that last point, at least. Hopefully that is at least a lesson learned, and through the RfC we can achieve some good in this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arb / Fram

I know I come across as a grumpy bastard (which I am, of course), but thank you for being one of the few Arbs who took the time to discuss and explain your reasons and rationales, even if I didn't necessarily agree with them all. - SchroCat (talk) 06:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GW, I'll add my thanks for your hard work. I can only imagine how difficult this has been for all of you, and I appreciate the time and energy you all spent on this. --valereee (talk) 13:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October Events from Women in Red

October 2019, Volume 5, Issue 10, Numbers 107, 108, 137, 138, 139, 140


Check out what's happening in October at Women in Red...

Online events:


Editor feedback:


Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar
For being the one who pushed hardest to restore the admin status of someone who had used it to block you. Clearly deserves some kind of barnstar; if not civility, knight-errantry or something (dame-errantry?). Not necessarily wisdom, of course, as being eager to block a recent arbitrator is hardly a sign of good admin judgment; but I don't think anyone can ever accuse you being thin skinned from now on. GRuban (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And another for, you, know, not resigning. Geeze, y'all are dropping like flies. Is it something in the water? --GRuban (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I support the barnstar. I should perhaps have pinged you when I mentioned you, saying that they should listen to the women more, and now I forgot. You really tried hard, and would have turned me around if I hadn't been on that side anyway ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you both for your kind words :) GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also support the barnstar. I will not characterise on the wisdom of the block, but not being one to bear a grudge, I very much respect the objectivity in the support for restoring Fram's adminship, even if it doesn't work out. Thank you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:15, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Kudpung. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bet you never thought you'd get a barnstar from me

The Original Barnstar
The situation was fraught and WP was in a state of near revolt, with daily resignations and a Bad Wikipedia Story on the verge of breaking through to the mainstream press. Arbcom didn't have the luxury of completely dictating the terms of their review in the Fram case; or if they did, they didn't immediately realize it ("reversing a Foundation ban — unthinkable!!!"). They had to act quickly and decisively, which is something Arbcom even under the best of circumstances is rarely able to do. So the fundamental mistake of accepting a secret case with secret, redacted evidence and then proceeding with a "modified regular" case using that as a basis was made. So it goes... Stuff happens... I believe that, given the suboptimal circumstances that Arbcom faced, you navigated the swirling waters better than anyone else on the committee. You listened, explained, and earnestly tried to rectify the glaring contradiction that the punishment did not fit the public findings of fact. I've never been a Fram fan, but observing your actions in this process, I have become a GorillaWarfare fan. Well done. Carrite (talk) 14:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Carrite. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:22, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
September
meadow saffron
I agree! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ARBEE

Hi GorillaWarfare,

You name is on the top of the arbitrator list, so you may be a right person who can answer my question. I looked at the WP:ARBEE page, and I am completely confused. That page has been amended so many times that it is hard to understand what exactly does it currently stipulate. Intuitively, I understand that the users who are dealing with the topics covered by DS, may be subjected to much severe sanctions in a case of violation of some rules. However, I don't understand what these rules consist in. Are they just standard rules (the three content policies + BLP + behavioral policy)? If that my understanding is correct, does in mean that, for example, a standard fringe POV pushing, which normally is supposed to be reported at ANI, should be reported at AE, and the violator will be sanctioned more severely than usually? If my understanding is wrong, and some specific rules exist a user working in areas covered by DS should stick with, where can I find these rules?

Thank you in advance,

Sincerely, --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul Siebert: The main takeaway from that page and its many amendments is that Pages which relate to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, broadly interpreted, are placed under discretionary sanctions. You are correct that a user editing any page that falls under that topic umbrella, once made aware of the discretionary sanctions, may be sanctioned more harshly for misbehavior there. The behavioral expectations are described at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Guidance_for_editors. The types of sanctions that may be placed for failing to follow that guidance are described at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Sanctions, and would be requested at WP:AE. It's also possible that administrators have placed sanctions that apply more specifically to a page that is being edited; if that is the case, the page will have an editnotice explaining any restrictions in force. They are also all listed at WP:Arbitration enforcement log. I hope this has answered all your questions. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:32, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, is has. Thanks.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:35, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One more question. I am preparing an AE request against a civil PROFRINGE pusher. I need to present quotes from peer-reviewed journals to demonstrate that the theory that was being pushed is fringe. A standard 500 word limit is not sufficient for that. Whom should I ask about a word limit extension?--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Paul Siebert: You'll want to make your initial AE report within the word limit, and then as a part of that report request the extension. A reviewing admin will decide whether or not to grant it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:46, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar!!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
This is for your valuable efforts for countering Vandalism and protecting Wikipedia from it's threats. I appreciate your effort. You are a defender of Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 11:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recent events

I don't do the barnstarry stuff, but I would like to say that I was very impressed with your Fram-related editing; if only more Arbs could be bothered to spend time to dig more closely into complicated issues such as that. I realise you aren't up for re-election this time, but if you are considering standing again in the future (and I must say I would not blame you in the slightest if you weren't), you would certainly have my vote. Thanks. Black Kite (talk) 23:17, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's very kind. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:20, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ARBCOM Stuff

Hi GW, Firstly, I have a question about emails to ARBCOM, does that only go to ARBCOM or do the clerks get that as well? Also, I'd like to know if ARBCOM has jurisdiction on appealing a community TBAN enacted over at ANI, and if it does how would that work and if it doesn't how can someone appeal a decision enacted at ANI? Thanks, SJ Sir Joseph (talk) 00:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Joseph, I hope it's not unwelcome if I answer, I noticed this question on my watchlist. As a clerk, I only have access to emails sent to clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org . I do not have access to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org . I hope this helps. SQLQuery me! 01:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Sir Joseph: Emails to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org go only to the ArbCom, not the clerks. Community-imposed bans can be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee, though typically that is only as a last resort. Community bans are usually reviewed by the community at WP:AN. See WP:UNBAN for the relevant portion of policy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
GorillaWarfare, @SQL: thank you. If I decide to appeal, I will not be going to AN, as you are probably aware from many people, AN and ANI is a toxic place. The whole reason why I would choose to appeal is because the community got it wrong,IMO, why would I go back to them? At ANI, all I asked for was a DIFF of evidence and I was told that was not allowed, and that the evidence is clear as day, and asking for a DIFF was evidence of BATTLEGROUND behavior (and that was from admins as well as from users), so why would I go back there? If you're willing to read the ANI and provide me with a DIFF, then so be it, and that is all I'm asking, as @Levivich: and others pointed out, a TBAN needs more than one DIFF and the reason I was getting frustrated was I was repeatedly asking for evidence and repeatedly denying the accusation (and the vile accusation) I was accused of. But the way ANI works is the community piles on, and that's the end of that. As you said before, you didn't read the thread, so you aren't aware of that whole episode and what was the impetus of it. It's very frustrating to be TBANNED for saying X when you literally said Not X, especially when you hardly ever edit in that area, but now this is over your head the whole time now. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:16, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sir Joseph, I should point out that where there is an appeal of a community sanction, we will generally a community consultation before lifting, which gets mentioned at AN, so chances are similar discussions will still be held. WormTT(talk) 06:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Worm That Turned, the whole point of an appeal is to not go through the community again. It defeats the whole purpose of asking ARBCOM to review the evidence and verdict. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sir Joseph, when the community places a sanction - the committee may be persuaded by an appeal but does not have the full facts of a case. The community needs an opportunity to comment, to raise any issues that may be missed by the committee. The committee still makes the final decision but if the evidence is only provided by the appealant it's likely to not be complete. WormTT(talk) 06:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sir Joseph, if the case is something the community can address, and can be expected to resolve, chances are that Arbcom will decline to adjudicate on that basis. While it is certainly true that ANI is often subject to mob rule from the peanut gallery by self-important people who would never become sysops if they tried, AN is a somewhat more dignified venue. On a lighter note, it's a almost like the difference between the House of Commons, and the House of Lords (but that analogy may fall flat among our American cousins, just as we Brits haven't a clue how Congress works). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One of the evidences that triggered SJ's ANI case was his comment on my post, so I think I should comment on that too. I was neutral during that ANI discussion, but I agree that the word "mob" is quite applicable to many users who voted there. The level of the discussion was surprisingly low, some arguments were totally laughable. Thus, one user who supported SJ's ban presented a diff where SJ and him were arguing about the question who should be considered an ethnic Jew. Obviously, this discussion had zero relation to antisemitism/filosemitism, which means that diff was not an evidence at all. Nevertheless, I am sure the vote of that user was taken into account.
I got an impression that that type discussions really look like lynching: many people vote just because they don't like some user (and, in SJ's case that was understandable, for SJ's tone is redundantly aggressive). However, although SJ's manner to communicate is far from optimal (sorry, SJ), his behaviour was hardly punishable, for the most evidences of throwing false accusations of antisemitism were really shaky. The problem is, however, that logical arguments do not work in that case: people don't like SJ, and they pick some evidence that may serve as a pretext for voting in support of a ban. Unfortunately, no logic is working here.
In that sense, it would be good if such cases were reviewed my more reasonable people, who have time not only to count votes, but to analyze arguments. Do I understand correct that AN, in contrast to ANI, is a place where such questions are discussed among admins?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Siebert, the term "lynching" is completely inappropriate in this context. Please do not EVER use that term for such a situation again. If you want to know what the term means, I will be happy to show you around my hometown, and we'll visit the The National Memorial for Peace and Justice, which memorializes the extrajudicial killing of almost 5000 victims of racism. Drmies (talk) 17:27, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: I know what lynching means, but mostly from books. In the country where I was grown up, this term probably has much less negative connotations. Well, "a situation when a mob votes for severe sanctions against a person whom they do not like, and they do that without bothering to analyse evidences and address arguments, because they do not feel responsibility for their vote" - that is what I meant. If "lynching" is an incorrect summary of this description, I apologize.
In general, the word "lynching" is a part of a world culture, like "pogrom" or "Aufbau". Yes, to many Americans this word sounds more terrible that to other people, but, in my opinion, we have to live with that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is also the option of not using words that mean murder to refer to a very limited sanction on an Internet web site. Just a suggestion. --GRuban (talk) 18:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Drmies. I completely agree. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:52, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Siebert, we don't have to live with that. Wikipedia's is a global culture and living in it requires more sensitivity than the average locker room or hallway. "Lynching" is indeed an incorrect summary of what you describe--"terrorizing a minority and violently killing them" is a better start. I promise you I never use the word "pogrom" in any metaphorical sense, and I don't know, or need to know, what the incorrect use of "Aufbau" is. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are absolutely free to use "pogrom" in any sense: I fully realise that the person who has grown in a different culture sees things at different angle. I am not sure if it is a totally appropriate place, but I can give you an example when "more sensitivity" just created big problems for one good man: a person from Israel was deported from the US because he gave water melon to one black woman. Importantly, only few non-Americans will understand this story without explanations. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, I still find it extremely distasteful when people refer to certain communities in the US as ghettos. No matter how bad it is in the community, it is not a ghetto and should not be called that. The same with calling people Grammar Nazi or Feminazi, etc. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Paul Siebert: I agreed with you until you edited to add your last paragraph. It's understandable and excusable if I do not initially realize that a word I've used has a very strong, negative connotation in a different culture from my own. But once it's explained to me, it would be quite insensitive for me to continue using the word knowing the awfulness I'm evoking among my colleagues when I do—especially when many synonyms convey the same point without the historical baggage. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@GorillaWarfare: I am not going to use this word, I just explained that there should be two manifestations of tolerance: (i) to avoid using some words that can be seen offensive by peoples from some culture, and (ii) to forgive people from other cultures for using some words that are not seen offensive in their culture. We usually focus on "i", but we forget about "ii".--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Our edits crossed in the air so I did not see it to respond in my previous message, but you do not have the standing to authorize the usage of that word just because it does not bother you personally. And no, this is not the place for that kind of slippery slope argument—if you want to argue that it's okay to use awful words just because they are not awful to you, please do it somewhere other than my talk page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I don't. I meant: "you are free to use this word in a conversation with me". And I didn't write "allow", I wrote "forgive": yes, these words should be avoided, but the mistakes made by peoples from different cultures are more forgivable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Siebert, one problem is that many people who commented were admins. Also, at AN, non-admins are also free to comment it's just a different audience and different jurisdiction, if you will for posting, so it doesn't usually result in the same type of threads you might see at ANI. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Like I inferred: rabble rousers vs sedate, experienced admins. On another note, cross-cultural dichotomies can be a thorny area especially with their near and false cognates. It helps to be perfectly bi- or trilingual like me and Drmies, but even the UK and the US are two nations famously divided by a common language . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kudpung, like "tabling a discussion" which actually caused a big fight among British and American military planners during World War II. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news

  • As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, GorillaWarfare. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 06:01, 9 October 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.

∯WBGconverse 06:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rationalobserver

Hi GW, are you familiar with RO's behavior? Drmies thought you might be.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just wondered

If you have had time to consider Gruban's email. I think it would be very good if we were to work together on this. Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019 at Women in Red

November 2019, Volume 5, Issue 11, Numbers 107, 108, 140, 141, 142, 143


Check out what's happening in November at Women in Red...

Online events:


Editor feedback:


Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).

Guideline and policy news

  • A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ygm

ygm. — xaosflux Talk 12:04, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Received, thanks. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Corbett

I note you have recently decided to suppress evidence of Eric Corbett’s thousands of edits and details of the huge amount of pages he raised to FA and GA status. Doubtless, your own work far surpasses this. However, if you could add these to your own watchlist, and help maintain them, that would be good. Many thanks Giano (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Manchester Mummy

Robert Tatton

Samlesbury witches

The Green Child

Tickle Cock Bridge

Been talking about you behind your back

Well, not really. But see phab:T238270. Is JJMC89 correct that your Huggle BotPassword doesn't include editprotected? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Suffusion of Yellow: Hm, apparently not. I take it I should generate a new one with that permission? GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Only if you're having trouble editing EC-protected pages with Huggle. Mostly we're just trying to figure out if this mess is our fault, or the devs. (Answer, thanks to your response: Ours). Thanks! Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:40, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Precious
Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Time flies when you're having fun :) GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fun is fine. - Today was no fun, but still good, a day to remember the dead where I live, so I had an article for DYK named Dance of Death, and on the German Wikipedia a great woman who recently died but didn't get a slot in our ITN because she was an Hungarian woman and not an American man, - pictured. And then I found that a great English man died, and I dropped all planned things to reference his many many recordings ... - I liked your efforts in the Fram arbcase, and didn't vote for any candidate who couldn't get behind that (but 13 could, - to get down to 11 I didn't support one whose recent edit summary I didn't like, and another who will be elected without my vote). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December events with WIR

December 2019, Volume 5, Issue 12, Numbers 107, 108, 144, 145, 146, 147


Check out what's happening in December at Women in Red...

Online events:


Editor feedback:


Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Choi Jong-Bum

I come to this page to ask you to protect the Choi Jong-Bum related page, because due to that confusion that is taking place in Korea due to the suicide of that famous singer Goo Hara, people are vandalizing this page several times and we have tried to fix it several times. Do something, it's already tiring and repetitive !!!! I know people are sad and shaken by what happened, but vandalizing the page doesn't help at all.

It looks like it's just one editor being disruptive there. If they continue, you can report them to WP:AIV. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:57, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019).

Administrator changes

added EvergreenFir • ToBeFree
removed Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂

CheckUser changes

readded Beeblebrox
removed Deskana

Interface administrator changes

readded Evad37

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter

That is a much better username for you.--Jorm (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :D GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal

With my appeal I'm thinking about having a list of options for listing each of the restrictions such as with the article creation restriction:

  • A, remove completely
  • B, only allow BUASDs, civil parishes and DABs/redirects
  • C, only allow civil parishes and DABs/redirects
  • D, only allow a certain number of articles (in said classes) such as 1 a day (30/31 a week, 365 a year) and DABs/redirects
  • E, only allow DABs/redirects

With the move restriction:

  • A, remove completely
  • B, remove with a 1RR (or 0RR) restriction
  • C, only allow a certain number such as 1 a day (30/31 a week, 365 a year)
  • D, only allow moves from "Foo (qualifier)" or "Foo, Qualifier" to "Foo" (in most cases this is impossible since something will be at "Foo" anyway)

I accept the point that others are concerned that I might make inappropriate creations/moves but when we removed the other restrictions there weren't many problems and nothing close to reinstating them. As we did with the geographical NC ban removal we should have a condition that they can be reinstated by any uninvolved admin and furthermore that all the creations can be mass deleted (providing they don't have substantial edits from others per WP:G5/WP:G7) and the moves can be mass reverted by a bot if serious problems occur. I think the most sensible outcome for the next appeal is C for the creation restrictions and B for the moves, @Worm That Turned: what do you think of this? Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:17, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crouch, Swale, I think it has not been 6 months since your last appeal, that this is 4th time of appealing in 2019. I will not be voting for relaxing any restrictions until you have spent a significant time just getting on with things. And significant time is not measured in months. WormTT(talk) 14:59, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it hasn't been 6 months yet, I was just querying with GW and you for when it comes. This will only be the 2nd in 2019, the one other than nearly 6 months ago was a clarification by another user not an appeal by me. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:07, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Worm That Turned you and some others were reluctant to unblock me but when that happened I didn't even come close to a block, when the geographical NC discussing restriction was removed hardly any problems came there (and again nothing close to reinstating them) so I think we should do the same with my proposals, remove as proposed to see if there needed or not. As noted if there are problems the pages can be deleted and the moves reverted. You seem to be asking me to climb a mountain because I was unable to climb a molehill. Although I understand you agreed not to take action against the proposed bot request its not clear why you objected to it at all, if you really don't feel that I should be creating articles myself then that was surely a good idea. Can you agree to accept my proposal at the ARCA when I propose it please, thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Crouch, Swale, no. I've made my position clear, you need to stop requesting to the area of disruption for a significant period and show that you can get on positively. If you consider that a mountain, I'm sorry. WormTT(talk) 10:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
6 months is more than enough time and as noted if there's disruption when lifted it can be reinstated. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Given the scale and duration of problems with your editing, I don't think it's a given that "6 months is more than enough time". GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:45, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers

Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry

This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true.

No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well GW. MarnetteD|Talk 11:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Io Saturnalia!

Io, Saturnalia!
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings

Hello there! Shearonink (talk) wishes you & yours the very best of the season!

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!

Share these holiday wishes by adding {{subst:User:Shearonink/Holiday}} ~~~~ to your friends' talk pages.

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas GorillaWarfare

Hi GorillaWarfare, wishing you and your family (and the cat per user talk page) a very Merry Christmas
and a happy New Year. Thanks for all your contributions to Wikipedia this year
   – Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 10:32, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Be well at Christmas

Have a WikiChristmas and a PediaNewYear

Be well. Keep well. Have a lovely Christmas. SilkTork (talk) 16:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays!
May your winter holidays be filled with joy, laughter and good health. Wishing you all the best in 2020 and beyond.

--Cameron11598 (Talk) 21:20, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020 at Women in Red

January 2020, Volume 6, Issue 1, Numbers 146, 148, 149, 150, 151, 153


Happy Holidays from all of us at Women in Red, and thank you for your support in 2019. We look forward to working with you in 2020!

Online events:


Editor feedback:


Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

Good luck

豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s

Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラPはGorillaWarfareたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！
フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラP 03:00, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas, Molly!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello GorillaWarfare, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020.
Happy editing,
TheSandDoctor Talk 08:41, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

From my family to yours, wishing you a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! Here's to a new decade! --TheSandDoctor Talk 08:41, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CONDUNBLOCK

Hello! It has been almost a year and I have abided by the sanctions that you gave to me over this issue. I don't intend to do any paid editing—ever. I never have and I never will. I also have no intention of editing the page in question, however I would really appreciate having my sanctions lifted officially so I can get more involved in Wikipedia stuff. I keep hitting walls where I'm told that I remain "under a cloud" since I am under sanctions, regardless of how honest the mistake was or how much good faith I have shown the process. Would you kindly allow these sanctions to be lifted so I can go back to doing what I love? The last year has been really rough because after this matter I have felt like I'm contributing to a project that doesn't want me here. I'd rather start this new year off on the right foot. The Pony Toast 🍞 (Talk) 22:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PonyToast: Can I ask what you've tried to do where you've run into issues about being "under a cloud"? GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:29, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
GorillaWarfare, sure. it's been in several off-wiki conversations on Discord, irc, and in my capacity as Ohio Wikimedian usergroup liaison. It was also mentioned when denied rollback permissions earlier this year. In short, I want to do more with Wikipedia and I personally feel I can't until I get past this. The Pony Toast 🍞 (Talk) 16:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@PonyToast: Hmm, I'm not sure if that's what Amory was referring to when they linked to the unblock request (it reads to me more that they were saying your return to editing involved a block, not pointing to the unblock conditions). That said, it seems that you've been able to abide by the restrictions and edit productively, so I'm willing to lift them. I will note it in your block log. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
GorillaWarfare, Thank you! The Pony Toast 🍞 (Talk) 03:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year GorillaWarfare!

Happy New Year!
Hello GorillaWarfare:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Donner60 (talk) 05:46, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]



Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks (static)}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Rename "Landship (Barbados)" to "Barbados Landship"?

See discussion at Talk:Landship (Barbados)#Rename: "Barbados Landship". Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HopsonRoad: It looks like there's a discussion ongoing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Landship, so probably best to let that run its course. By the way and for future reference, if you think a page should be moved and you can't do it yourself, the best thing to do is make a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves, rather than picking users at random and posting on their talk pages. You're much more likely to find someone who's available and willing to look into the matter there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply, GorillaWarfare. Just so you understand why you received this notice, I notified all recent past editors of this article, including you, of my proposal. I plan to make the change myself, absent any opposition to the move. I'm the first respondent at the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Landship and have left the same notice as above at that discussion. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, got it. My only edit to the page was using an automated program to revert vandalism, so I have little familiarity with the subject itself. Sounds like all is handled, though. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GorillaWarfare/Archive_16&oldid=1211801946"