User talk:GorillaWarfare/Archive 18

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Administrators' newsletter – August 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020).

Administrator changes

Red Phoenix

Euryalus • SQL

Jujutacular • Monty845 • Rettetast • Madchester

Oversight changes

GB fan

Keegan • Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news

There is an open request for comment to decide whether to increase the minimum duration a sanction discussion has to remain open (currently 24 hours).
Speedy deletion criterion T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) has been repealed following a request for comment.
Speedy deletion criterion X2 (pages created by the content translation tool) has been repealed following a discussion.
There is a proposal to restrict proposed deletion to confirmed users.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Cloudflare

Corresponding article, hCaptcha, has plenty of sources. 108.54.126.168 (talk) 22:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Then you can add one of them inline to the Cloudflare article to verify that Cloudflare is using hCaptcha how you said they are. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats

	Notorious Feminist Agitator
	Gotta admit, I'm jealous.[1] SummerPhD^v2.0 03:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We talkin' Duran Duran? Or "All the ladies in the place with style and grace..."? Binksternet (talk) 05:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gauthier Destenay

Disruptive IP editing is continuing after the protection expired [2] (t · c) buidhe 07:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, I've given it another two weeks of semiprotection. GorillaWarfare (talk) 13:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen this ?

https://www.rt.com/usa/492970-parler-conservatives-twitter-censorship/

have a read! Think someone's rubbed them up the wrong way!If we sift through the emotional stuff there may be a small smidgen of truth. I don't want the right wing media thinking we only rely on strong arming wikipedia pages to win the political debate haha Alexandre8 (talk) 11:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll read and reply over at Talk:Parler so as to not split the conversation between there and here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 13:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Replied: [3] GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:19, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request to change protection on List of My Hero Academia characters

Serial Number 54129 reported said article claiming that one IP has been vandalizing the article with unsourced content. The aspersion that one user has been doing so is simply not true. While yes, my IP did change from 72.203.118.154 to 72.219.72.215 on an unknown date, several other users who are not me have also reverted SN's mass removals of content, including 2601:246:4800:70c0:b834:343a:587c:e5c6 and Exukvera; several other edits by other users that are not me have readded the info back in, rather than just me. I can even prove that he other IP is not me; They live in Illinois; I live in California. Another issue I have with indefinite protection is that it does not follow the format of BRD. Removing the content was a bold edit, they were reverted, and then Serial Number 54129 refuses to hold a discussion on the matter. Their aspersion of me being a crufter is also false; I have no issue with removing fancruft (I myself have removed cruft so several times). My issue was with the amount of content being removed, not the fact that content was being removed, and do not believe indefinite protection is necessary fo good-faith edits that are backed up by other users (while falsely being accused of only being one) and struck down as being part of something I have made efforts to remove. I would like to have the protection be lifted, once a consensus is reached, rather than protect it because one user thinks so. 72.219.72.215 (talk) 08:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that multiple users have been warring the content back and forth for some time is precisely why I applied page protection. Whether or not you personally are behind the other IPs is not important to me. Although you are claiming that Serial Number 54129 has refused to discuss, the article talk page history tells a different story. If you reach a new consensus on what should be included in the page and have issues implementing it, feel free to reach out to me. However at the current moment there has been no such consensus and I see no reason the edit warring wouldn't start back up again immediately upon the protection being lifted. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:44, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I accept this as a good reason to keep the page protected for now. However, I'd like to rephrase what I meant by Serial Number 54129 refusing to hold a discussion, which I admit was bad wording on my part. They comment on the talk page their position a few times, tells me to stop editing the page despite good faith, then when I ask why other content was removed besides the character descriptions, including some sourced content, they decide not to respond to the talk page at all. That is what I meant by refusing to hold a discussion, which I admit I worded wrongly. 72.219.72.215 (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My recommendation would be to put together a specific list of exactly what text you wish to see re-added to the page, and then propose that on the talk page. Whether SN54129 decides to weigh in on that is their decision -- there is no requirement that they do so, and you can achieve consensus without their input if they choose not to give it. But arguing back and forth about reinstating an enormous amount of text that you have also acknowledged is crufty is not productive. State which parts of it you wish to see retained/readded with specific text and citations, and it will be a much easier discussion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to check if I'm doing this correctly. Like this? 72.219.72.215 (talk) 23:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I skimmed through it and it seems reasonable, though I'm not super familiar with the show. I generally like to paste the exact text I'm suggesting be added, along with citations, so people don't have to dig to find it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copying the text that I'm proposing to add sounds like a good idea, but there is so much text that I would like to be added that it would be extremely difficult to the talk pages' readability. Would it be possible to archive the talk page sans the most recent section? What is the policy on archiving sections of a talk page? I don't really know how to. Thanks in advance if you do it. I really appreciate the guidance you are giving me in this difficult situation. 72.219.72.215 (talk) 01:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think archiving the page would be best, since there are other related conversations there that might be useful for people weighing in. When the suggestions are large I sometimes put them on a user subpage so as not to clog the page too much. You would need to make an account to do that, though that's probably a good idea to do anyway. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coming back to this, I personally feel as if the page is safe to be unprotected. I forgot to mention Serial Number's mention of WP:OWN in his protection request, which is not true (nobody has claimed to own the article on either side). Additionally, the discussion with DESiegel and Drmies made me realize both arguments; basic descriptions are considered sourced to the material itself and are fine unreferenced (contrary to the protection request, which called the content unsourced), while there did in fact exist a couple of seemingly interpretive statements (which technically were explicitly mentioned in the show, but are so crufty that there was no way to not make it sound interpretive). The seemingly interpretive statements have been removed, and recent discussion with Tutelary and North8000, as well as discussion with lullabying and Tutelary again in January, as well as Exukvera’s edits to the page, and this comment from a different IP when the page was semiprotected makes me feel as if there is a consensus to keep the basic descriptions, as at least 5 users (me included) and at least 2 other IP’s say that the descriptions should not be blanked, as well as due to Serial Number’s absence for the entire RFC (which had been going on for almost a week before his hiatus). If the page gets frequently vandalized or actual unsourced content does keep getting added, I am open to reprotect the page. Thank you in advance if you do choose to unprotect it, and if I still need more input for a consensus, I will patiently wait for it. Also, separate question, but if the input that has been given is considered a consensus to keep the content, would it be reasonable to report Serial Number 54129 to ANI for stonewalling and disruptive editing if he does the same thing without discussion again? Unnamed anon (talk) 03:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Unnamed anon: I've removed the protection, since it does seem to be no longer necessary. However, please don't take my removal of the page protection to signal agreement that consensus has been established -- I think there is a lot of confusion at that RfC over what exactly is being discussed, and it would be wise to reframe the RfC a bit so it's extremely clear and so people can actually weigh in. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit War on Wikipedia page President of Azerbaijan

Hello GorillaWarfare, 4 days ago an account called Lebanese1235 published an edit on the page President of Azerbaijan, the edit was reverted by IP adress 109.93.13.102, the edit was published again by another account called NewGreenFish, and the same IP adress 109.93.13.102 reverted the edit again. Today the edit was put back by an account called MonkeyPeaceMan. I am not an admin, so please can you inform the IP address that they created an edit war and ensure that the edit that many editors support will stay on Wikipedia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Editor331 (talk • contribs) 07:34, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:16, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Wishing GorillaWarfare a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Birthday Committee! Best wishes! Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I'm old! Thanks both @Synoman Barris and CAPTAIN RAJU: GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:06, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing and weight

Hi GW, I was wondering if you could have a look at this discussion around sourcing and weight, if you have time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:National_Rally#Right_wing_populist I have found you to be an excellent editor in the topic area, particularly in assessing sources, so I'd like to hear what you think. Cheers. Bacondrum (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bacondrum: My assessment pretty much matches yours. If I wasn't familiar with editing in the topic area of far-right articles where this descriptor is so commonly disputed, I'd be surprised there's an RfC at all since it seems to be so strongly-supported by the sourcing. However I am unfortunately familiar with how this term will be disputed in even the most clear-cut cases, such as this one. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time, I appreciate the feedback. Bacondrum (talk) 23:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Notifying you on behalf of SamMontana. Kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:48, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Chi Chi DeVayne

On 21 August 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Chi Chi DeVayne, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Amakuru (talk) 12:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you for defending my image

... so to speak. Anyway, Thank you. It really is the best one I could find and/or make, they all are. --GRuban (talk) 19:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, sure thing :) Thanks for creating it! GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:14, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Your name was on a list at ANI as an alternative to posting a dispute there. I came here and liked what I saw about you, so I am asking for your help. I opened a discussion at DNR and I got confused when part of the discussion was overlooked but the DNR closed. I went to the mediator and asked her about it. The discussion at DNR has since been reopened, but the discussion with the moderator went to Hell in a handbasket quickly. Here is the archived discussion from her talk page: [4] I remain confused about how and why this happened. Is this my fault? If you could help, I would be so grateful. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:36, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jenhawk777: What are you hoping to have me do? The DRN discussion is open, and that is where this issue should be handled. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the DRN discussion is reopened and the issue there will be resolved one way or the other, but I am also concerned about the problem this caused with the moderator. That's what is referenced above. I guess I am hoping for help understanding what happened if nothing else. It seems unresolved, but I can see no way to accomplish that without creating more drama in an ANI. So instead I came here. I'm trying to learn something from this even if it turns out I can't resolve things with her. If you don't want to get involved, that's okay, I do understand that. I'll go away if you prefer. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest letting sleeping dogs lie. Nightenbelle made it pretty clear she doesn't wish to interact with you, and I suspect attempting to patch things up would not be welcomed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

okay, thanx. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion of Esperanza pages for the Signpost

Would you allow (or would ArbCom) the undeletion of some Esperanza pages as a part of an inquiry by the Signpost. They would be temporarily place in my user space and then deleted again when they're no longer necessary. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 23:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@P,TO 19104: This was all before my time, but to my knowledge the ArbCom wasn't involved with the Esperanza project (or its eventual end) and so probably wouldn't be the ones to ask about restoring the pages. Personally I don't see any reason they couldn't be restored to your userspace, unless of course there were copyright issues or something similar. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare: Okay, well I just a little bit concerned that ArbCom might try to censor me or something, because I know people were concerned of Esperanza coming back if the pages weren't deleted. Who could I ask to undelete the pages? Would it be inappropriate for you to do it? Thanks, P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 01:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@P,TO 19104: Which pages do you want? GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Give me some time to figure this out — I’ll have a list ready a little later. Thanks for offering help! P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 02:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have found out that many former Esperanza pages have merely redirected and actually have not been deleted, because of this I will only need the following undeleted temporarily:

Thank you so much for allowing these pages to be undeleted. You can place them in my user space in accordance with the name like this: User:P,TO 19104/Wikipedia:Esperanza/XXX (placing the name of the subpage where it says XXX) like: User:P,TO 19104/Wikipedia:Esperanza/Charter. Thanks, P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@P,TO 19104: I've placed copies of those three pages into your userspace. I've avoided doing a full restore (of all the history, etc.) and then moving them because that splits the history from the original page, and I don't wish to disturb it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare: Great. Thanks for the help! P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 15:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For helping when it wasn't even requested! A true star Giant-Dwarfs^Talk 22:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September Women in Red edithons

Women in Red | September 2020, Volume 6, Issue 9, Numbers 150, 151, 176, 177

Online events:

New: Women writers | Women in conflict zones
Interwiki collaborations: Women of WWII
Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman | BLM/Anti-discrimination
Help us plan future events: Virtual Ideas Cafe

Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage

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

Social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	I couldn't have written Jim Watkins (businessman) any better had I done it myself; incredible job. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 04:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:14, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Men Going Their Own Way

There's a short footnote to Marwick & Lewis (2017) in that article, but no full citation. I can't really figure out who added it, but since you created the article (I think, or at least are heavily involved around the time the reference got added), I figure I'd let you know. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb: Good catch, thanks for letting me know! I'd pulled over the short citation from manosphere but missed adding the full citation. I've just fixed that, as well as missing page numbers you pointed out in a different citation. Thanks for the cleanup! GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I crossed checked your other article creations and found [5] and [6] to fix, so feel free to double check those. User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js is really useful here. Your ~60 or so articles are all clear as far as I can tell, but this will check errors in other article you come accross / articles you've expanded. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, that's a neat script, thanks! I'm shocked that the articles are clear, but that's probably only because I use Harvard style cites fairly infrequently 😅 GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Boogaloo Movement

Your write up on the "Boogaloo Movement" is dramatically inaccurate. Those who identify with this ideology are NOT far-right, and you proved it yourself by stating that they are anti-government. That, even for the simple minded, states the DO NOT support the right. Yes, all "Boogaloo Bois" ARE pro-gun and have an absolute distain for the current government in place, left or right. They are prepare for a war, civil or revolutionary, but are NOT looking to incite such events. One VERY important FACT you need to educate yourself with, it that these people ARE NOT in ANYWAY "white-supremists" OR "neo-Nazi". To even suggedt such a thing only shows how ignorant and agenda driven you are. The Boogaloo Movement is about freedom, justice and LIBERTY FOR ALL! The "Boogaloo is responsible for killings" is flat out deception and lies. Anyone can do the slightest research and find that people like Steven Carillo had ZERO ties with the movement. Remember, the FBI lies to protect their own interests. They have recently lied for the democrats with the Ukraine investigation and they have lied for the republicans for things such as "weapons of mass destruction". Your post on this subject is vile at the very least. It is more than apparent that you do not have the slightest idea about what your writing about. This is just fueling the fires caused by a disingenuous media that is looking to push an agenda of deceit. You are not a journalist, as it has been abundantly clear that the field died long ago. And furthermore, BLM is the most racially devisive organization currently on US soil. Not to mention their organizers openly supporting Marxist ideology. You need to learn from those who support the movement, directly. Not regurgitate the lies that you have read somewhere else. OmegaSixtyTwo (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@OmegaSixtyTwo: I would recommend you read up a bit on Wikipedia's policies about reliable sourcing and original research. There was firm consensus that reliable sourcing consistently describes the boogaloo movement as "far-right", and so the Wikipedia article reflects that. Reliable sources also say that some boogaloo groups are white supremacist and/or neo-Nazi, therefore the article does as well.

No one has said "boogaloo is responsible for killings", however some associated with the boogaloo movement have been charged with murder. The article says the latter, not the former as you have claimed.

Drawing our own conclusions about whether "anti-government" conflicts with "far-right" (it does not) or "learning from those who support the movement directly" is completely against Wikipedia's core principle of original research. Wikipedia articles reflect what reliable sources say, not what individual editors have heard from people claiming to represent the movement.

The singular point on which you are correct is that I am not a journalist. I am an encyclopedist, and this is an encyclopedia, not a place for journalism.

If you have additional feedback on the article, and can be constructive in communicating it, I would recommend bringing it to the article talk page rather than my personal user talk page, as I am not the only editor of the page. However if you only wish to continue your incivility ("ignorant", "vile", "regurgitate lies") and political rhetoric around BLM and disingenuous media, I'd recommend avoiding political topics; otherwise it is likely that you will not be allowed to edit them. I will formalize it on your talk page so it is logged properly, but you can consider this your notice that discretionary sanctions apply in the area of post-1932 American politics, and you must use care when editing these topic areas. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What ever help you sleep at night. Wikipedia expecting reliable sources is just like facebook usimg politifact to say what truth is or is not. Any organization that constantly says facts about one side are lies and lies are facts, on a consistant basis, are by no means credible. And your article here, as well as your sources and not only incredible, but full on fallacy. And just because the internet says so, doesn't make it true. But you should have learned that years ago. Your article is wrong and it's horrific that people will just accept it as fact. You should be embarrassed over your ignorance and blind accepting of fiction over fact. And as a side note, all of your resource information is someone elses work. You did zero "in the field" research. If you asked ANYONE that actually knows something on the matter, they would also agree in your false information OmegaSixtyTwo (talk) 16:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative take is that those sources are not lying and you have fallen victim to propaganda and misinformation. Which is, honestly, the correct take.--Jorm (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @OmegaSixtyTwo: Again, you are showing your ignorance of how Wikipedia works. If what I've linked to you so far is more than you're interested in reading, WP:EYNTK is a good primer. If I had done "in the field research" to write the article as you're suggesting, I would be violating policy.

If you have reliable sources that contradict any of the claims made in the article, feel free to present them on the article talk page. If you believe a source used in the article is not reliable, feel free to bring it up on the article talk page or at WP:RSN. But if you just want to rail against Wikipedia because you don't understand how it works, feel free to direct it at /dev/null, because I'm certainly not interested in reading it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please merge two deletion requests?

Could you be so good as to merge Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puteri Indonesia Lingkungan into Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puteri Indonesia Pariwisata? I'm not sure if there is an official procedure for this, but as you can see by going there, the nominator of the two has expressed the intention to bundle these together, and I, as the sole person discussing either so far, think that's a good idea, since the reasoning to delete and keep are basically the same for the two of them, so it would be good if what discussion there were applied to both. This probably does not actually require admin tools; but then again it just may, and it certainly does require knowledge of deletion formalities, and you're certainly knowledgeable about crossing ts and dotting is, and since I expressed an opinion I maybe shouldn't do it myself. It's not that I'm lazy at all, no, that would never be the case. --GRuban (talk) 02:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GRuban: All set! GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --GRuban (talk) 21:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manosphere talk page

Aw gee, and I had tinkered awhile with my little rant. Yes, it was rather forum-ish, so I was somewhat expecting that criticism. Was a little surprised at the hatting. The "manosphere" term is new to me; the association fallacy seemed to leap right from the page. I have no association with any of the "member" groups, just a moderate appalled by so much social polarization. But I do know how Wikipedia works.. I need to find a real forum. Good day. Assambrew (talk) 02:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Assambrew: Not sure if you think I was the person who hatted your comment, I wasn't, though I do think hatting or removing it was the right move. Since you understand WP:NOTFORUM, I'm not sure why you bothered to leave the message there—it seemed to mostly amount to "I hope the sources change some day", which is not at all actionable feedback. Perhaps you're correct that a real forum would be better. As for the "guilt by association" thing: some manosphere groups are certainly more extreme than others, but I think I did a decent job of representing the various groups' shared beliefs without inaccurately implying the more extreme ones are held by all manosphere groups. If you disagree, that would be an appropriate conversation for the talk page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I knew you didn't hat my comment; I wrote to you because you seem to be the main "custodian" of the article. I know how Wiki works, but I forget sometimes.. got caught up in the moment of hoping to influence people, thought I might get away with a little advocacy. (If you think I was bad, take a look at the RationalWiki talk page for Manosphere. Now THAT's a forum!)

The body of the article does a thorough job of differentiating the various groups.. good job there. My beef is mostly with the header (which many don't read past anyway), where the groups are all bunched together and basically condemned. But really my beef is with the term "manosphere" itself, which linguistically seems to imply "the world of men", but is then defined as those messy subsets. Like I said, it's a new term to me.. guess I don't get out much :-) As for the sources changing, who can say? In 50 years or so, hopefully we will have a less polarized world. A lot of worms may turn.

Bottom line: I need to get my strategies in order. Not to mention my head. Thanks for responding. Assambrew (talk) 21:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Words don't always mean what logic would imply. Most bathrooms don't have baths. Antisemitism isn't a dislike of all semitic people. Teamsters haven't driven teams for over a century. --GRuban (talk) 23:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm just picturing a very large sphere made up of men. Like a spherical version of this... manodisc? GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GRuban: Most antisemites probably do dislike all semitic people, but that's off point. Bathroom and teamster are anachronistic terms, but only the modern term "manosphere" appears to disparage half the human race. Guess I can blame Ian Ironwood. Anyway, it's been fun(?) getting a little education, but now probably time for me to move on... Assambrew (talk) 02:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).

Administrator changes

Eddie891

Angela • Jcw69 • Just Chilling • Philg88 • Viajero

CheckUser changes

SQL

Guideline and policy news

Following a request for comment, the minimum length for site ban discussions was increased to 72 hours, up from 24.
A request for comment is ongoing to determine whether paid editors must or should use the articles for creation process.
A request for comment is open to resolve inconsistencies between the draftification and alternative to deletion processes.

Arbitration

A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2020 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
An open request for comment asks whether active Arbitrators may serve on the Trust and Safety Case Review Committee or Ombudsman commission.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at m:Merchandise giveaways/Nominations § Shishir Dua

You are invited to join the discussion at m:Merchandise giveaways/Nominations § Shishir Dua. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All peace is hard won

	Blessed are the peacemakers
	Really appreciate your careful support. The Little Platoon (talk) 22:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[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. Doug Weller talk 15:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Boogaloo movement (2)

Thank you for reaching out and sending a message on the minefield I stepped into, I apologize I saw that the DHS classification was missing from the article and wanted to make sure that it was clear (All of my edits were sources with wiki classified reliable sources). After seeing that my first edit wasn't accepted I chose to just add my citation to the end without changing other content (thus not counting as a revert per the three-revert policy). I didn't realize that that page was such a minefield. I'll let you guys figure it out as you are already addressing it. I do find it interesting that the article cites one part of the intelligence briefing on June 19th but rejected the citation from the same DHS briefing as confirmed by newsweek (Green reliable source) that it is of the DHS opinion they are neither left or right and instead appear to be opportunists. I do not envy you and the rest of the group trying to sort this thing out — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrozenIceman01 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FrozenIceman01: I reverted your edit for two reasons: 1) you wrote that "The US Department of Homeland Security classifies them as" as though it was an official proclamation by the DHS, in the way they might classify a group as a "terrorist organization". However, this is misleading -- it was a tweet by the DHS Twitter account that described them as such, and not any sort of formal classification. It was also sourced only to the tweet, which for some reason you also accompanied by a reference to an article in The Week that mentions neither the DHS nor the boogaloo movement. 2) You changed "Attempts by some individual elements of the movement to support anti-racist groups such as Black Lives Matter have been met with wariness and skepticism" to "The movement has supported anti-racist groups such as Black Lives Matter", which is contrary to both the sourcing that previously was in the article and to the source you added, all of which are quite clear that only some boogaloo groups support BLM. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the direct quote from the week article here: "DHS found the reports striking for another reason, tweeting Saturday that the Politico article is "a work of fiction" because the DHS note did "not identify the Boogaloo movement as left-wing OR right-wing. They are simply violent extremists from both ends of the ideological spectrum." Perhaps I added the wrong link? The second edit was done on the first revert about standing with BLM was sourced from this article here which clearly indicates that they stand with BLM "While “boogaloo” supporters showed up to George Floyd protests saying they wanted to stand in solidarity with Black Lives Matter protesters against police violence" (perhaps that link was lost too?). From a sanity check perspective it makes sense, they are anti cop and pro liberty, with the desire to cause an eventual civil uprising, it makes sense they would want main stream support on issues that would support that goal. Either way, I am not going to touch that article with a ten foot pole, way too much infighting for my taste. FrozenIceman01 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FrozenIceman01: Yeah, your edit added a link to an unrelated article in The Week. I see that they are one of those (IMO annoying) websites that changes the URL as you scroll through articles, so you probably just scrolled a little bit too far and the URL changed without you noticing. Regardless, my concern about the misleading characterization of the DHS statements stands even with the correct source.

The source in The Guardian also supports the other sources in the page, which are quite clear that some boogaloo groups support BLM and other antiracist groups, while some very much do not. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Jim Watkins (businessman)

On 21 September 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jim Watkins (businessman), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that some have speculated that Jim Watkins (pictured) is working with "Q", the anonymous poster behind the QAnon conspiracy theory, or that Watkins himself is Q? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jim Watkins (businessman). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Jim Watkins (businessman)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October editathons from Women in Red

Women in Red | October 2020, Volume 6, Issue 10, Numbers 150, 173, 178, 179

Online events:

Annual Ada Lovelace Day celebratiaon: Women in STEM
Contest (Oct-Nov-Dec): Women in Asia
Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman | BLM/Anti-discrimination
Help us plan future events: Virtual Ideas Cafe

Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage

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

Social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

THANK YOU

For your responses in the MFD about the homophobia userbox discussion. (Sorry I still haven't got the hang of linking on this site). You said more succinctly the reasoning I was trying to say and I appreciate you articulating why these boxes can make certain groups feel unwelcome here. Valeince (talk) 21:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, and thanks for your comments there as well -- they were well-said. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

+1. I'm seeing some really depressing commentary from users I thought had their heads screwed on straight. I'm glad to see you're speaking up here. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 08:40, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please fix a page move I royally screwed up?

A couple of weeks ago I asked for your comments on a page I was working on in my user space, at User talk:GRuban/Honey Badger (men's rights). You didn't comment, but a few others did, I hacked on it some more, and today decided it was ready to move it to main space. Except I

moved the page and talk page to a different place in user space, User:Honey Badger (men's rights). Yup.
Then trying to fix that I somehow moved just the talk page to the place of the article page.
Then I at least moved the talk page to the right place, Talk:Honey Badger (men's rights).
But now I can't seem to move the article page (still at User:Honey Badger (men's rights)) to the right place (Honey Badger (men's rights)) because of that.

This could be a slapstick comedy routine. I am so ashamed; in theory I've been doing this for quite a while now. Heeeelp! --GRuban (talk) 22:04, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be all set now! There are still somehow two copies of the talk page (one in userspace) -- let me know if you want to delete the remaining one. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, thank you! Ten thousand blessings on your golden mop. --GRuban (talk) 22:11, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thorpe Park

Hi there,

Unfortunately our edits clashed and it looks like I have also reverted your edits on Thorpe Park. I think we were both trying to fix a previous problem edit.

Sorry about that!

Cheers,

AussieWikiDan (talk) 17:09, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all, thanks for trying to fix it! GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:11, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit reversion on MGTOW and Discretionary Sanctions notices on my talk page

Hello Feminist, Could you please explain your position on the discussion page about why you reverted my edit on MGTOW page? Also, why are you trying to threathen me by pasting some discretionary sanctions notices on my talk page? What is your agenda and what do you want? Sohcb8 (talk) 03:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sohcb8: I'm the one who posted the notices. Your edit here showed a strong POV by using terms like leftist, interfere, and hard earned money. You also copy pasted material from other articles without attribution. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this is GorillaWarfare's talk page, not Feminist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) EvergreenFir (talk) 03:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sohcb8 is probably using "Feminist" as a generic reference to a perceived feminist editor, in this case GW. feminist (talk) 05:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really wonder about your common sense since you even lack the basic discretion of differentation betweeen a username and a noun. Have you ever heard someone named Feminist? I really doubt the wikipedia criertion of making someone an admin before even doing a basic check or maybe multiple people are using the same account, which would be cause of grave concern.

Anyways, the word leftists is not an abusive word and nor is the phrase hard earned money. Even if you felt that there was room for improvement "in your opinion" then you could have refined the language instead of reverting the whole edit.

Further, your point that I copy pasted the material from other articles without attribution is factually wrong and is your blatant attempt to mislead the discussion. The definitions were copied from their respective wikipedia pages and other lines were my own. I challenge you to find any article on web with same langauge. You are clearly abusing your power and breaking many wikipedia rules. Sohcb8 (talk) 05:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oof... EvergreenFir (talk) 02:54, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Sohcb8, please remember to keep communication with editors civil and assume good faith.

AussieWikiDan (talk) 07:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the user with username Feminist is posting right there, in this very section, immediately before Sohcb8's query whether anyone has heard of someone named Feminist. In other words, yes. By the way, I'd like to echo the resiliency comment of a few sections up, and compliment GW on her aplomb. --GRuban (talk) 17:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that Sohcb8 has earned themselves an indef block, so I haven't bothered to spend time replying here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Did you mean to delete the section?Nigel Ish (talk) 14:42, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nigel Ish: I did not... that's very weird that it didn't warn me of an edit conflict. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it has happened to me, but mainly on articles rather than talk pages.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Resilient Barnstar
	I don't know how you manage to put up with some of the vile and horrible abuse you get from vandals and trolls. If I had even half of that, I think I'd have quit the project by now. So the fact you're still here and contributing deserves some sort of award. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hard agree.--Jorm (talk) 20:43, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both <3 GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:50, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree too. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:47, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ~~second third~~ fourth that! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 04:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on this, I notice at least one person has said publicly they will not run for adminship despite being qualified because of the abuse they would get, similar to what I recently encountered here. I wonder what on earth we can do about this? I assume good faith where possible for newcomers, but it's pretty easy to distinguish somebody who's cross after they got templated against somebody who's just here to troll admins, and I've got no issue with giving the latter group a big "thwack" and telling them not to let the door hit them on the way out. In light of recent events, would you mind having this talk page semi-protected? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: My user talk page? While I don't mind it being briefly semi-protected when it earns the attention of a particularly interested troll, I do prefer it to remain unprotected as much as possible so that well-intentioned newcomers are still able to contact me. I use the {{welcome}} templates a fair bit, which invite users to reach out via my talk page if they have questions, so I always worry when my talk page is semi-protected that someone will follow the instructions and find they're unable to leave a message. GorillaWarfare (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the context is this message from an experienced editor explaining why they will never run for RfA, and it's left me quite disillusioned about some things, particularly that somebody has openly said they can't trust the WMF to protect them from harassment. And I've been told the same message from several other editors in confidence. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I blame them for taking that stance. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:06, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:GorillaWarfare and User: Ritchie333: I have admired the heck out of y'all ever since I started editing during surgery recovery... and the fact that you read and commented on my cranky thought is like, jeez, getting retweeted by Sonia Sotomayor and Jimmy Carter! For what it's worth, I'm a 49-year-old American woman in a testosterone-infused profession ~~which has robbed me of my soul and I hate it, but anyway~~ and, lordy mercy, I have THICK FREAKING SKIN for stuff like, e.g., South Asian nationalistic/MOS debates over where ras malai originated and whether its name should be capitalized.

I'm way more worried about, e.g., American "entrepreneurs" who refuse to accept the notion that Wikipedia isn't a social-media platform for publicizing their buzzword-intensively-promoted "start-ups". If one venture-capital-bro takes umbrage with my CSD-ing of his stupid barbecue-grill-tool venture, and thinks it would be cool to out me, I could lose my job. (Which, to be honest, might be cool and lead to discontinuation of antihypertensives. But still.)

But if one bananas gun guy takes umbrage with one of my random lunchtime reversions of poorly sourced, patently WP:NPOV/WP:BLP-transgressive edits of, say, Steve Sisolak, I am scared to freaking death that I'm going to come home to a Hazel-and-Cha Cha-level of my cats having been tortured to death in my microwave oven and a bunch of Cormac McCarthy-envisioned cannibals waiting for me to get home so they can snack on my poorly exercised triceps. THIS STUFF SCARES THE BEJEEZUS OUT OF ME. (Am I irrational? Maybe? Tell me.)

I enjoy copyediting and proofreading as an anti-insomnia measure so much. More so, I love learning and sharing stuff I know about random topics, because that's just what makes my world go around. And, full disclosure: User:Dravecky, o.b.m., who had been one of my favorite high school semiclassmates, clumsily gave me my first kiss when I was 13 and it was traumatizing, and Wikipedia is the way I was able to get over it and forgive him and become friends with him again before he horrifically died so young. (His dad was my AP American History teacher, and his brother and I are still Facebook frendz.) User:Drmies, User:WereSpielChequers, and a couple of other really good Wikipedians have asked me if I'd like to stand for adminship. I'm just too scared for my professional and personal privacy.

A dumb thought I have, given my actual legit professional credentials, is that I should pitch the WMF on hiring either inside or outside counsel specifically devoted to protecting users' privacy. I don't want to out myself any further by suggesting that I would be extremely good at this (and can document the basis for that bold-ital assertion) and it would make me legit want to get out of bed in the morning to be able to protect volunteer editors from horse-hockey legal nonsense and let, without limitation, women do their thing here.. I have no desire to move to California and hence never pitched that, but COVID has demonstrated that this might not be an issue. My gosh, I want to fight for this project so hard; it is the most rewarding thing I've ever done.

... anyway. thanks for letting me share. keep coming back. Julietdeltalima (talk) 05:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Julietdeltalima: I'm glad you came and joined this conversation! I totally hear you on having a thick skin for some things, but less so for others. I was quite anonymous when I began editing this website, and up until 2010 or 2011 very few people even knew my first name or my gender. However, as someone who has been doxxed repeatedly and with varying degrees of severity over the years due to my involvement with Wikipedia, I wish I could say that your fears about that are misplaced, but sadly they are not. I am lucky to have an understanding employer, but not everyone is, and the ramifications of various incidents both long ago and recent could have been a lot worse for someone in a different position than me. As for your concerns about your pets, etc.: though the chances of someone actually harming your pets or similar is probably a lot lower, I can't honestly say the chance of someone threatening to do it is.

I have spent a lot of time, especially during my tenure on the ArbCom, trying to figure out how to make this project safer for people who might wish to edit but don't wish to expose themselves to that kind of risk, but it is a hard problem to solve. Much of the doxxing and harassment happens off-wiki, and even if punishing the perpetrator on-wiki was an effective way to dissuade the behavior (which it often isn't), it's extremely difficult to connect an off-wiki harasser to an on-wiki identity. Much of the on-wiki harassment is hard to stop also–checkusers can rangeblock IPs that are the source of harassment, but only temporarily, and rangeblocks aren't hard for a minimally clever person to get around. User talk pages can be protected, but then people will go cross-wiki, or use the ping functionality, etc. I spend a lot of time wishing that we could just do something to fix the issue, but when it comes to actually figuring out what to do, I feel like I've run out of good ideas. Even when it comes to asking the WMF to do more, I've started to run out of ideas, but it sounds like you have some–if you're comfortable, I'd urge you to share them with the Wikimedia Foundation. They have been soliciting input on various things to do with community safety lately, the most recent being their meta:Universal Code of Conduct/Draft review.

Anyway, long story short, I am very happy that you have found joy in editing Wikipedia like I have, and very sad that you have felt it's too dangerous to pursue adminship. If you ever need a helping hand (admin-related or otherwise) or even just someone with whom to commiserate, my talk page and email are always open to you. Stick with the winners :) GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is basically (to a less serious degree, we're just a website, not life or death) the Black lives matter/Blue lives matter debate. One side says that we hold admins to an overly high standard, that they deserve protection instead of criticism, and that almost all of the people who get in trouble with admins are in trouble because they deserve it, and the majority of the things admins do are to the benefit of the website. The other says that we should hold admins to such a high standard because we do give them more power. Honestly, I am more on the second side, and agree with Ritchie's poster, that anyone who doesn't want to deal with trolls (and do their best to do so with grace, even!) should not be an admin. It is a tough job that not everyone is cut out for. We can support our admins morally, give them barnstars, defend them verbally. But in the end, the reason we respect them is precisely because they are there dealing with the abuse for us. That is the job. Being able to move a page over a redirect, as she did a section above, that's just a button and/or technical knowledge. Nice, but that part anyone could in theory do. Being able to civilly and often even kindly deal with someone who is outright abusive, that's a special kind of character. --GRuban (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with the police comparison, nor do I think the "sides" are nearly that clearcut. The fact of the matter is that some Wikipedians are subjected to an enormous amount of abuse, and becoming an admin is one way to substantially increase the likelihood that you'll be among them. There is a major difference between legitimate criticism of admin actions and the abuse that some admins (and non-admins) receive, either due to their status as admins or for other reasons. There is also an enormous difference between having to deal with run-of-the-mill online unpleasantness such as disputes getting too heated (which I think admins should have to be willing and able to take on), and being targeted for intense abuse and often serious violations of privacy (which I do not think admins should have to accept).

I think Ritchie is right that one should not have to decide when they weigh whether or not to run for adminship whether they are willing to be subjected to the same harassment a lot of us receive. However I agree with both GRuban and Julietdeltalima that the current state of the project means that one has to. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the same Ritchie who has been and remains so openly hostile to one editor that they were subject of an interaction ban by ArbCom, or another completely different Ritchie ? I have to say, given the behaviour demonstrated by Ritchie and the way they've managed to cruelly engineer a situation where that editor will have enormous difficulty in passing RfA, I find it completely laughable Ritchie is now showing concern about harassment and discussing being disillusioned, given how they've been an integral part of these problems in the past. Nick (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^^^^^^^This right here is the exact kind of snipe-y bullshit that prevents me from ever thinking about joining the admin corps. Who wants to put their hand in this fan?--Jorm (talk) 17:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Er ... folks? Shall we not have an argument on GWs talk page in the section where's getting a barnstar for enduring abuse? I mean, technically it's not abusing her, but even so, I somehow doubt she will see it as adding to the honor. (Or, to put it another way: "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the GorillaWarfare room!")--GRuban (talk) 17:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Popping my head in because I was pinged earlier in the thread. Admins can be useful even if they stay away from some contentious areas, and it is possible to be uncontentious as an admin for years and many many admin actions. It is nearly a decade since I last got a death threat, and because I avoid certain topics in the country where I live, all but one of the death threats I remember getting on Wiki were from people who would have logistical problems driving their pickup through an ocean, getting guns into the UK and in some cases I suspect simply getting a passport. In my early years as an admin I used to patrol userspace for the f word that in my variety of English means a small amount of firewood, or a meatball, and also for the word that is possibly the most impolite way to address African Americans. Among other things I did, that upset a few knuckle draggers on the internet. Then various decisions that I made in life meant that I needed to reduce my risk of abuse from crazy people on the internet, and I consciously refocussed, dropped off the drama boards and got more involved in things like trawling through lists of active article creators who aren't yet autopatrolled and setting suitable ones as Autopatrolled. But life has a way of changing, and it is possible that in the next decade or so Mrs WereSpielChequers and I will be in a position where I can gird my loins again and resume hunting for racists and homophobes on the internet. In the meantime I figure that if I and other admins do the uncontentious stuff, braver souls like GorillaWarfare can concentrate on the truly toxic. So Juliet, there are ways of sharing the admin burden that are unlikely to endanger or annoy you or yours, as one can to an extent calibrate ones activity to the flak you are ready to take on. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020).

Administrator changes

Ajpolino • LuK3

Jackmcbarn

Ad Orientem • Harej • Lid • Lomn • Mentoz86 • Oliver Pereira • XJaM

There'sNoTime → TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

A request for comment found consensus that incubation as an alternative to deletion should generally only be recommended when draftification is appropriate, namely 1) if the result of a deletion discussion is to draftify; or 2) if the article is newly created.

Technical news

The filter log now provides links to view diffs of deleted revisions (phab:T261630).

Arbitration

The 2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place from September 27th to October 7th.
Following a request for comment, sitting Committee members may not serve on either the Ombuds Commission or the WMF Case Review Committee. The Arbitration Committee passed a motion implementing those results into their procedures.

Miscellaneous

The Universal Code of Conduct draft is open for community review and comment until October 6th, 2020.
Office actions may now be appealed to the Interim Trust & Safety Case Review Committee.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AUDIT/STATS

I see I'm not listed here for August, or September of this year.

I returned to the CU group on 11 August 2020, and performed 55 checks in August, and 39 in September.

I'm not sure if I'm allowed to add stats directly, so I thought I'd let you know. SQL ^{Query me!} 00:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, looks like I may have a bug in my script! Thanks so much for pointing that out, I'll see what's going on and make sure the numbers are corrected. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, looks like I wasn't accounting for people who have both relinquished and been restored CU or OS in the past six months. Patching it now! GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All set now! Fixed my script and the missing data. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! SQL ^{Query me!} 22:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up, there's a separate log for Special:Investigate now. Special:InvestigateLog. SQL ^{Query me!} 19:40, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh jeez, that's... certainly a choice. Hopefully they will eventually merge the logs but for now I'll be sure to build that into my script. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, GorillaWarfare. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 23:28, 4 October 2020 (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.

Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Block

Please block 65.188.181.13 (talk · contribs), persistent vandalism on Quarantine plus personal attacks on editor's talk pages. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 21:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Cullen328 beat me to it! GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring from a blocked IP

You have blocked 2600:1700:9250:e280::/64 range, as have a number of other admins. What appears to be a new user, LoveChoccyMilk appeared immediately after your latest block with identical edits at Alone (Heart song). I would have reported at SPI but using an IP range as a Puppeteer seems odd. Behavioural evidence is the persistent instructions to a bot to "Stop", which I suspect it can't hear. Any help to stop these mild nagging edits would be great. Thanks Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Velella: Thanks for letting me know. Looks like Newslinger already took care of it by blocking the sock and protecting the page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Little help

Hi GorillaWarfare,

Sorry to bother you... I'm in need of a little help.

User talk:Jammo85 has just been warned by another user, who strongly thinks they are right, but who so far is "outnumbered" per WP:CONSENSUS.

Would you mind publicly publicly nullifying that warning? I don't want Jammo85 to feel threatened, nor I think the warning is appropriate. To me it is clear WP:CANVASing.

Of course, wouldn't mind if you took a look at my report in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Addicted4517_reported_by_User:Walwal20_(Result:_), but this would likely by a longer job :P

Thanks in advance, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 03:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Walwal20: Nullifying other users' warnings isn't really something we do, and they're not wrong that sources like Facebook, blogs, etc. are not ideal for contested information about a BLP. I also don't really understand what you mean by it being canvassing—leaving a message for a person who is already a part of a dispute is not soliciting new users to the discussion. As for the rest, I'll comment at the AN/EW report. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GorillaWarfare, thanks a lot for the feedback. I said canvassing because Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate, and since Addicted is involved in the same dispute, I do think that the notification was done to intimidate the other party, possibly having them back off, give up, or anything of the sorts. Also, you're right that social media is not appropriate, especially alone. In this case, I have been adding them to support the main references, and I do not argue that they should remain in the article. Best, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 04:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SPI for your CU

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GreenTeaExtracts. As sometimes happens, reports multiply. In any case, as the CU has happened, you might want to close this? Thanks, jps (talk) 19:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ජපස: Oop, should've checked SPI. I'll go handle that too. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[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.

George (talk) 08:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ChemWarfare: I'm not seeing an email from you. Do you mind resending it? My email address is gorillawarfarewikipedia@gmail.com, or you can always use Special:EmailUser/GorillaWarfare. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OH really? I sent it to your other account that I have corresponded with you through before, You dont see it?George (talk) 17:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ChemWarfare: If you're comfortable saying on-wiki, what email address did you send it from so I can search? Otherwise I'd recommend going through EmailUser. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure a clever person like you can find an email. George (talk) 17:33, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ChemWarfare: I don't know what to tell you, I searched both my personal and Wikipedia email addresses for "ChemWarfare" and for the email address you used to email me at my Wikipedia email a little over a year ago, and I'm not seeing anything more recent than June 2019. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will resend them later. Too late now!George (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I resent to gorillawarfarewikipedia@gmail.com did you get it? George (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recent reversions

H. GW. You just reverted two of my edits, in succession, so it seems better for me to respond to you here, rather than on the talk pages of the articles in question. Can you explain the problem? I was just following the principle that the first sentence of an article should state what it's basically about, and judgmental stuff should be left to later clauses or sentences. Whats bad about that? Eleuther (talk) 19:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eleuther: "Far-right", "conservative", etc. are not "judgmental" descriptors, they are highly relevant descriptions of the political slant of the network and of the individual in question. Both are long-standing descriptors, and they have been discussed at length on the respective talk pages; if you think either should be changed, you should first seek consensus on the article talk pages. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, GW, the terms in question re Laura Loomer are far-right, anti-Muslim, and conspiracy theorist. Of course they are judgmental, and also pejorative, but that isn't the issue. I didn't remove or try to mitigate any of these terms, I just made a reasonable change to the order of presentation. Why is that objectionable? The fact is that I came to the article not knowing who she is, and I had to read through all these terms and a mass of footnotes before finally encountering the "who" clause, that she is a Congressional candidate from Florida. That is the wrong order of presentation for an encyclopedia article, so I moved the "who" clause to an earlier position, to make the article easier to understand by someone who is coming on it for the first time. I didn't try to interfere with or re-interpret any of the terms in any way, so your stated reason for reverting my edit is not really applicable. Regards, Eleuther (talk) 23:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the citations contained within the footnotes are appearing in-text for you, and not at the bottom of the page, it sounds like you are experiencing some sort of display issue. You didn't change the terms but you did couch them in "she has been characterized as" wording, which I disagree with. If you want to continue to discuss Loomer specifically, we should probably move it to the article talk page so others with opinions on the matter can weigh in. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am compulsively distracted by footnotes, I don't have a display issue. So do you think "she has been characterized as..." should be replaced by "she is universally agreed to be..." or something like that? Eleuther (talk) 00:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see... well I think perhaps it is not helpful to rearrange heavily-sourced material simply because inline citations are distracting to you. There may be some display settings you can tweak to mitigate the issue on your end, though I haven't looked into it myself.

And no, I think it should remain how it is: Laura Loomer is an American far-right and anti-Muslim political activist, conspiracy theorist, .... GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So you think the form of the lead should be "Laura Loomer is an <attack> <attack> <attack> <fact>", as opposed to "<fact> <attack> <attack> <attack>"? The only justification for this order requirement is rhetorical, I think, i.e., the former form is deemed to be more polemical and powerful as an attack, though perhaps less encyclopedic in tone. But the attack must be carried on at all cost!

PS. I own several print encyclopedias, and I read a lot of encyclopedia articles online, and it is really unusual for an article to take this kind of polemical approach to its subject. Eleuther (talk) 00:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Far-right" is an accurate description of Loomer's political views, not an attack. Anti-Islam is the same, and I'll note that Loomer herself has referred to herself as a "proud Islamophobe" so I doubt she'd take issue with that one. Regarding your print encyclopedias, we don't strive to be a print encyclopedia, so I don't see how that's relevant. If you'd like to discuss whether "far-right" is acceptable on Wikipedia, that's fine with me—you might try WP:VPP if you're looking for a policy change, or (like I said above) Talk:Laura Loomer if you'd like a specific change to this article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you continue to ignore my point. I'm not arguing with your definitions of any of these terms, only the order in which they are presented in the article. Eleuther (talk) 00:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you are describing the statements as "attacks", and if they were attacks they should not be in the article at all, not rearranged. But to address the ordering—typically a politician/activist's political leaning/affiliation goes in the first sentence as well as the occupation for which they are most well known. Loomer built her years-long career as a far-right activist and conspiracy theorist, and only in the past year or so has become directly involved in politics. I would say the majority of her coverage comes from her past life, not her primary candidacy, though that may well change should she be elected next month. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but for a reader coming into the article for the first time, as I did, I think the fact that she's a Congressional candidate should be moved forward within the soup of rhetoric. Eleuther (talk) 01:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the second sentence; I really don't think it's that hard to spot. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you are obviously right about everything, so you win. Eleuther (talk) 01:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've already told you twice where to go if you want to discuss this more broadly, but just snarking at me is an option too, I guess. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for merging of Template:Welcome-personal

Template:Welcome-personal has been nominated for merging with Template:Welcome cookie. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An appeal

Hi GorillaWarfare. Here's an appeal that you don't judge me before taking a good look into the dispute happening in Talk:Hartley Jackson. Respectfully, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 07:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gorilla, he has reverted again against your instructions. I won't revert for now as I will leave that action if appropriate to you. It is crystal clear now that he is not interested in a solution to this issue in what is now a clear case of owning the page. Addicted4517 (talk) 08:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the block. I would have made it 48 hours, but I'm not an admin. However - a heads up. He makes is clear here by imputation that he will continue his actions, trying to justify them. I've got a feeling that he will continue to press this and not reasonably discuss. If he does then I will almost certainly report him to WP:ANI. I have already proven that the sources he is pushed (bar the one) can't be used. Addicted4517 (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Addicted4517: 24 hours is the standard length for a first block for edit warring. I've been pretty clear in my note under the block notice at User talk:Walwal20#October 2020 that continuance of the behavior will result in escalating blocks, and I've advised on what I think is the best next step for achieving consensus at the page, which is to publish the draft RfC and solicit outside input. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

no articel about my self

hello this articel Majid Max not about my self its iranian singer and musician articel for improve wikipedia articel and add more about this musician im editor fa i know about wiki pedia Law articel thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Younesmoradi1 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Younesmoradi1: File:Majid-max-face.jpg suggests that you are Majid Max; if you're not, how can that file be your own work while the creator is Majid Max?

Regardless of that, please follow Praxidicae's advice and add more reliable sources to Draft:Majid Max to demonstrate the subject's notability before trying to move it to the articlespace again. When you think it's ready, you can add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft article to get an experienced editor to review it and then move it for you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

no im tray for add more articel on wiki and this image i use it on instagram of majid max for make new articel on wiki need new photo for him when i want upload error and atlast i can upload this image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Younesmoradi1 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory

Good work, thanks for your efforts here. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! What better way to spend a Saturday afternoon...

GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GorillaWarfare, I figure you'll get more brickbats than thanks (a sure sign you're doing something right) so thought I'd get my appreciation in first. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, I removed a section from that talk page that had been placed by GuitarGuy2323, under WP:NOTFORUM policy. I know you responded to them but it's an obvious troll account to judge by these edits and a lot of their past history too:

They seem to be here to do nothing but scream nonsense such as claims that "Wikipedia is bought by the Biden Campaign". I believe the applicable policy is WP:NOTHERE. Maybe you or @JzG: could take a further look. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:2CFA:3DA8:CE80:C645 (talk) 01:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that, no objections to the removal. I'd rather not get involved in an admin capacity given my recent activity editing the page, but I'll create a section at WP:ANI. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'm sure I'm not experienced enough to do that yet. You may also want to review their talk page User_talk:Guitarguy2323#August_2020, it appears this is a longer pattern and they were warned quite firmly. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:2CFA:3DA8:CE80:C645 (talk) 01:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've raised it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Guitarguy2323. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare: Thanks, there may be another one or it may be their alternative account or someone else's alternative account. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TruthWarrior5940 aka https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TruthWarrior2020, who was warned for using multiple accounts in March 2019. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:2CFA:3DA8:CE80:C645 (talk) 15:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've already mentioned this at ANI, which is the right choice. I'm not going to involve myself administratively with this user/this page so it's best that an uninvolved admin at ANI look into it. There's also WP:SPI. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Bloomberg and The Hill.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Christianity

Stop Meddling with non-Christian Contributions on Criticism of Christianity! As a Christian you should refrain yourself from unfairly intervening on such topics to ensure it remains an open platform for discussions from non-Christian perspectives! Stop misusing your privileges to engage in blocking, edit-warring, and attacking on other forms of theism such as polytheism! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.81.174 (talk) 10:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To comply with Wikipedia user reporting rules, I would like to notify you that I have just reported you for unfair interventions and abusions of administrator privileges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.81.174 (talk) 10:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding 96.44.5.219

You may want to see these edits by them:

Their talk page [7] indicates a history of making problematic/racist edits as well. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:1415:FAD2:6664:3C80 (talk) 23:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing vandalism

Heya--looks like you're active at the moment. There's quite active vandalism going on at Matthew Colligan and a probably username violation. I don't think it's gotten the attention of anyone with the mop yet. The article looks to be in your remit too, if you're interested. Thanks for the help!Jlevi (talk) 01:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking... GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jlevi: Blocked indefinitely as a vandalism only account, as well as for the username concerns. Thanks for bringing it to my attention! GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Jlevi (talk) 01:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About "NedFausa"

To be blunt, he is attempting to conceal the fact that an addition is politically motivated, AND is deleting anything posted that points that out.

By their own actions, "NedFausa" appears to be part of the effort to push a biased agenda on wikipedia.

97.107.46.157 (talk) 02:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed what NedFausa has done, and he is acting in line with Wikipedia policy. If you think the statement ought to be removed from the article, please explain why you think it is not supported by sourcing, etc. The alleged political ideology of the person who added it does not matter, and if it is well-sourced and duly weighted it ought to remain. If it is not, then there is an easy argument for its removal that you can make. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you bothered to track back the original edit that added "to kill", you would see it was politically motivated. Sadly, it seems wikipedia is only concerned with hiding facts, as both yourself and NedFausa show by your actions (and lack of actions).

97.107.46.157 (talk) 02:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can see (and have seen) the same exact edit history as you can, and that does not change the fact that here on Wikipedia we focus our arguments on page content and whether or not it is well-sourced, neutral, and otherwise in line with Wikipedia policy. My statements above stand, and I would suggest you take my advice rather continuing to attack other editors and talk nonsense about "tracing" other users. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2600:1016:b023:d6eb:d9ab:a471:1062:acf6

I'm confused. Is the IP blocked? --Hammersoft (talk) 02:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the /64 that contains that single IP, then when I went to leave the template on the single IP's talk page I accidentally blocked the single IP again (which I then removed). The block on the /64 is still in place. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Been quite a while since I did IP/IPX stuff so I'm lost in the /64 meaning. No worries. Thanks for the block. Hopefully that stops the disruption on the article. If not, I'll ask for a protection. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You'll often see with IPv6, someone who is clearly the same editor will be editing from an IP where the first four blocks (in this case 2600:1016:b023:d6eb) remain the same but the last four change around a lot. That's because of the way the IPs are assigned by internet service providers, and so we regularly block the full /64 range of IPs from 2600:1016:b023:d6eb:0:0:0:0 to 2600:1016:b023:d6eb:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff because it is almost always a single network equivalent to one IPv4 address; otherwise the IP will often quickly change to one slightly different but within the same block and they will find themselves miraculously unblocked. More details if you're curious at m:Help:Range blocks/IPv6. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detail. I worked with IP stuff before IPv6 became common. I'll read up on that help link. Thanks! --Hammersoft (talk) 03:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So less than an hour after the block expires, the IP is back at it again [8] conducting the same edit without discussion or citation. Could you block again for a bit longer? Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 11:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hammersoft: I've blocked again, this time for a week. I see another admin has also protected the page so that should hopefully help if they do manage to find a new IP range. Thanks for keeping an eye on it and letting me know. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

86

I came here to leave a quick thanks, and immediately got a chuckle seeing Peter Sellers at the top, so thanks for that too. But also, thanks for helping keep straight the craziness that is Talk:86 (term) right now. Stuff like that often goes unnoticed, but it's really helpful. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, it's a zoo over there today (and yesterday). GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TPA

Hi GW. Please can you upgrade a recent block to yank the talkpage access from this editor? Maybe some revdel work is needed too. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charming. TPA removed, edits revdeled. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Thanks for sorting it. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mail Oct 19

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.

_signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bean

That was very kind, and IMO shows a nice understanding of the difference between the malignantly bellicose and the keen-but-misguided. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fingers crossed it works out. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for advice

Hello, hate to bother you again but could you or @JzG: give some advice regarding the "Dr. Swag Lord Ph.D"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dr.Swag_Lord,_Ph.d

They have been repeatedly trying to insert the WP:DEADNAME of a minor and misgendering them, into the article about Dan Crenshaw. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dan_Crenshaw#Luna_Younger

Other edits of theirs lead me to believe that they are of the "civil pov troll" type described by @Doug Weller: here. https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/03/12/wikipedia-wars-inside-fight-against-far-right-editors-vandals-and-sock-puppets

Their initial editing was involved in trying to push a right-wing fraud regarding Ilhan Omar: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ilhan_Omar&diff=prev&oldid=981221451
They also have a history of trying to whitewash articles for right-wing individuals: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeff_Miller_(Florida_politician)&diff=prev&oldid=982395397 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charlie_Kirk_(activist)&diff=prev&oldid=982215958
They appear to have coordinated with others here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Washington_Free_Beacon&type=revision&diff=982623831&oldid=982345590

curprev 09:05, 9 October 2020‎ Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d talk contribs‎ 17,439 bytes +1‎ Undid revision 982345590 by Praxidicae (talk). Stop edit warring and stop referring to it as "far-right." All RSs describe it as "right-wing" or "conservative" undo Tags: Undo Reverted

curprev 15:51, 7 October 2020‎ Praxidicae talk contribs‎ m 17,438 bytes -1‎ Reverted edits by 2600:387:A:3:0:0:0:35 (talk) to last version by Rdp060707 undo Tags: Rollback Reverted

curprev 15:47, 7 October 2020‎ 2600:387:a:3::35 talk‎ 17,439 bytes +1‎ undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reverted

curprev 03:26, 3 October 2020‎ Rdp060707 talk contribs‎ 17,438 bytes +80‎ Reverted good faith edits by 47.201.225.5 (talk): Not far-left undo Tags: Undo Twinkle

curprev 03:24, 3 October 2020‎ 47.201.225.5 talk‎ 17,358 bytes -80‎ undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reverted

curprev 12:57, 2 October 2020‎ Praxidicae talk contribs‎ m 17,438 bytes -3‎ Reverted edits by 2601:603:1E80:AE90:7972:B0F2:DFF1:FA89 (talk) to last version by Dosafrog undo Tag: Rollback

curprev 12:54, 2 October 2020‎ 2601:603:1e80:ae90:7972:b0f2:dff1:fa89 talk‎ 17,441 bytes +3‎ Fixed a biased opinion about this group. undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Manual revert Reverted

curprev 19:04, 30 September 2020‎ Dosafrog talk contribs‎ 17,438 bytes -3‎ undo Tag: Reverted

curprev 00:43, 26 August 2020‎ 107.77.202.208 talk‎ 17,441 bytes +4‎ wl undo

I'm not sure what to do, but I believe some action is needed. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:F498:F707:531D:DF4C (talk) 15:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My advice would be to begin a discussion at WP:AE. They've been alerted about discretionary sanctions in the topic areas of both post-1932 American politics and BLPs, so if they've continued to disrupt in those topic areas, AE is the place to go to have it handled. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare: it appears I'm not allowed to do that? "Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed." 2601:2C0:C300:B7:F498:F707:531D:DF4C (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah shoot, I forgot that. I can post it on your behalf. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare: Thank you :) 2601:2C0:C300:B7:F498:F707:531D:DF4C (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Filed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d. Although you are not allowed to file your own reports there, you are more than welcome to comment on this one. Please do add anything I may have missed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's disappointing. After reading the policies it doesn't look like it's supposed to get closed that fast, and after Atsme blatantly just started throwing a tantrum to derail the deliberations too. :( They spent more time arguing over whether you should have filed it than actually looking at the problem of someone trying to WP:DEADNAME and out a minor for harassment :( 2601:2C0:C300:B7:9922:D361:2E74:D5EF (talk) 23:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say it's unusual for an AE request to be closed that quickly, and I'm satisfied that there were enough admin eyes on it to give opinions before it was closed. Hopefully it will help the user understand the concerns with their editing to see them laid out, and they will be more careful going forward. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for review of edits by User:7&6=thirteen

@GorillaWarfare: Please review edits by User:7&6=thirteen at 86 (term). I cannot revert them all because of the 1RR limit you imposed. But it seems clear this user is editing with disruptive effect, if not intent. NedFausa (talk) 16:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:NedFausa I had put in two edit, and was in the process of correcting the unintended citation errors I caused. There was an edit conflict. There is no disruption. I put in a citation and a clarification, since you got rid of the note I put in. Please discuss it here. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss it on Talk:86 (term), not here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding making an account

At this point, I know the Jorm thing hasn't been formally decided yet. Given the behavior of Atsme and Bus Stop there's a decent part of me that wants to continue just being as I am to show that I won't be bullied into creating an account. I know, that's probably something they're going to take as a reason to argue further against me and I know, it's contrarian, but it's just how I'm feeling at the moment. On the other hand, it also means that pages like Talk:Hunter Biden are places I can't even respond or make suggestions on. Sigh. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:9922:D361:2E74:D5EF (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You will certainly have an easier time of things if you do create an account. You will also get a few perks: your IP will no longer continue to bounce around this /64 range you are using (making it somewhat difficult for users who are not familiar with modern IP addressing to tie all your contributions together), and you will also get more privacy as your IP address will no longer be visible. However, you are more than welcome to continue editing without logging in, and in the end the decision is yours alone to make. That's a shame that Talk:Hunter Biden had to be protected, though I do see why it was necessary. In general I really hate it when talk pages have to be protected at all. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep thinking about it. On the one hand, users like you, Jorm and Muboshgu have extended the invitation in good faith and seem to be good people otherwise. On the other hand... bullies like Atsme and Bus Stop. :( 2601:2C0:C300:B7:9922:D361:2E74:D5EF (talk) 17:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, it can be really hard to discern a well-intentioned IP editor who sincerely disagrees with you from one who is trolling you. (For the record I am absolutely not saying I think you're trolling anyone!) I know that isn't fair to people who for whatever reason can't or prefer not to register an account. One of the ways we here on Wikipedia can easily tell whether an editor is well-intentioned and not trolling us is to be able to easily see their edit history. When we see someone argue against us, and we look at their edit history and see thousands of good edits, we relax a bit. We see them as someone very likely well-intentioned with whom we simply disagree. With an IP, we can never be sure with whom we're interacting and what their full edit history is and whether they've possibly wasted hundreds of hours of dozens of editors' time trolling them over years. Again, not fair to IPs. It just sort of is what it is. Try not to think of it as being bullied into doing something. You are in charge. You can choose to make your editing life easier, or you can choose to make a point. :) —valereee (talk) 18:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

" Try not to think of it as being bullied into doing something...You can choose to make your editing life easier, or you can choose to make a point." Can I just say, for the record, on the receiving end of those words, that comes across as borderline bullying itself. Placing the blame on someone for how others treat them...When I was younger, I had a "guidance counselor" tell my parents that I should start throwing answers and getting lower grades in school so that I would "stop standing out" to bullies. I don't put much faith in any such "advice." 2601:2C0:C300:B7:9922:D361:2E74:D5EF (talk) 23:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, someone set it up on Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory too now. I guess it's extortion to make an account or else. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:9922:D361:2E74:D5EF (talk) 00:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the trend may have to continue as the election draws nearer. Editing AP articles will probably prove increasingly difficult. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently someone named ST47 put the page up for it despite agreeing with you at another discussion it wasn't needed so I don't know what's going on and I'm just pissed at being bullied to make an account at this point. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:9922:D361:2E74:D5EF (talk) 00:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ST47 suggested that the talk page be protected at WP:RFPP#Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory due to "a lot of repetitive arguments being posted, and now, some edit warring over applications of WP:NOTFORUM." It was the article itself that ST47 and I were discussing at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Distruptive editing of Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory and its talk page, which has been extended-confirmed protected for several days now and IMO needs no further restrictions. I don't believe the page protection was intended to stop your contributions specifically, and I certainly don't think anyone was bullying you by imposing it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize; it was completely unintentional, and I'm sorry I came across as bullying. I didn't intend it as putting blame on you at all. I meant it as a completely non-judgemental statement: Having an account makes an editor's life easier. I think that sucks, for the record. It's not fair, and it shouldn't be true, but IMO it's just reality. There's bigotry in the world, and we here on Wikipedia aren't immune. —valereee (talk) 13:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok fine. I made a stupid account. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice username

GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IHateAccounts—and may I weigh in here, GorillaWarfare? My question is directed to User:IHateAccounts. Why do you "hate accounts", assuming that can be taken literally? Bus stop (talk) 11:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This account was blocked half an hour before you posted; they can't answer here. —valereee (talk) 13:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I need to point this out somewhere... this mix-and-matching feels like the misgendering by "Swag Lord" is deliberate (and in the case of the young girl probably was too). https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMONGO&type=revision&diff=984913956&oldid=984863777 IHateAccounts (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It may be, or it may be someone who is unfamiliar with they/them pronouns. If you would like to report it you certainly can, but I think it might be best to just go your separate ways. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

user:LoveChoccyMilk is back restoring the same old content at Alone (i-Ten song) (used to be Alone (Heart song)) at a slightly different IP address of 2600:1700:8530:BE30:C9C3:9B41:96B7:738F . Clearly a blo0ck evasion , identical edits, identical restoration of an unwanted infobox. I can start an SPI is needed, but as you made the orginal IP range block, I suspect it may be easier to simply extend the range and hopefully undo all the intervening edits at the sweep of a mop. Many thanks Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:02, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Velella: Appreciate the report. I've blocked the IP range for 1 month, rolled back all their edits, and applied six months of page protection to Alone (i-Ten song). GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, much appreciated. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help with another BLP subject connect to OTRS

Hi again!

I’m working on a case for Jim Nash’s personal life section. In 2018 he Instagrammed about coming out six years earlier but it’s not as definitive as it could be.

If you’re willing could you try messaging him to get clarification on his possibly being in the LGBTQ community or what his Coming Out Day message was about in 2018? I think this could help end several years of conflict on the article. Glee^anon 04:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gleeanon409: I think the best course of action would be to go by what secondary reliable sources say, rather than relying on the primary source (his Instagram post) and trying to interpret ourselves. Similarly I don't think we should be emailing him for clarification directly. If it's unclear and secondary sources haven't covered it, it's best to leave it out entirely IMO. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another question

Regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Tvaughan1&offset=&limit=500&target=Tvaughan1 , is this something that I or someone else should present to the AE board?

They have:

- multiple times copied information in violation of copyright policy that had to be removed, and been warned by EvergreenFir.
- Repeatedly tried to paste information to Talk: Hunter Biden from sources that are not Wikipedia:Reliable sources that are bordering on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons problems.

I also don't know enough to know whether the contributions listing for NationalInterest16 makes any sense or if there is a connection. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/NationalInterest16

I hope you're ok with my asking for your advice. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@IHateAccounts: Totally fine with you asking me for advice! Apologies for the slow reply. Regarding Tvaughan1, it looks like Guy beat you to it and started an ANI discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Tvaughan1. If you have concerns that haven't been mentioned there yet, you can comment there to raise them. As for NationalInterest16, I'm not sure I see anything there to be overly concerned about. They seem to be willing to discuss in a fairly productive way. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare: Thank you for your willingness to take a look. I am concerned as well by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Michael-Ridgway, their entire purpose seems to be trying to insert opinion columns and unreliable sources into biography pages. They were already warned about trying to push stuff from the NY Post elsewhere (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&diff=prev&oldid=984598282) but keep doing it with edits like this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Biden%E2%80%93Ukraine_conspiracy_theory&diff=prev&oldid=985296349 IHateAccounts (talk) 05:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heya, looks like they've already earned themselves a 48-hour block for BLP vios. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Have not seen anyone carry through with a report as fast as you did, keep up the good work! Red Panda 25 01:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just good timing! Thanks for the barnstar! GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A strange question

I'm very confused as to why so many of the accounts that are showing up to some of the Biden-related pages are ages old but have huge gaps. Ones like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Flying_Lambs. Maybe you can tell me some thoughts since you are more experienced? IHateAccounts (talk) 02:25, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty common to see accounts like that on major news events, since it's pretty common for that to spur people to return to editing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare: (or @JzG: maybe?): Given the following, would I be proper or correct in suggesting that perhaps Wikieditor19920 ought to be told not to edit political articles for a period of time?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Bacondrum_reported_by_User:Wikieditor19920_(Result:_Both_editors_involved_removed_from_Andy_Ngo_for_a_month)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wikieditor19920#October_2020
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FEdit_warring&type=revision&diff=985575528&oldid=985574648 Black Kite indicating that Wikieditor19920 was already given "a recent 3-month ban from American politics and a partial block from Ilhan Omar"

From what I see, BaconDrum is behaving with decorum but Wikieditor19920 is as likely as not to target someone else, as they did making threats to my talk page already too. I recognize that your advice may be to just step away and let others look at it. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@IHateAccounts: I would reiterate my advice at User talk:IHateAccounts#How to handle this, and advise not getting involved. It looks like the conversation is still open on what kind of sanction is going to stick with Wikieditor19920 (given they have appealed the block that was applied it AN/EW), and I doubt the possibility of reimplementing the AP topic ban will slip their mind given the editor's pretty clear editing focus. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GorillaWarfare, agree. Wikieditor19920 is a 100% WP:OWN warrior. Leave to dig own grave. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GorillaWarfare, yeah, happens a lot. These things bring people back. And in some case they are farmed accounts, but mostly not IMO. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, farmed accounts certainly happen, but I'd agree that's the exception and not the norm. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Woohoo

We're famous! I hope lots of people click on the link to my user page, and pay homage to my two heroes. You think I should sweeten up my user page a bit? Greetings from a less than exuberant administrator, Drmies (talk) 16:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was a good piece :) GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Hey, I saw the template you just placed on Theresa Greenfield's talk page and am reading through the article, and all the diffs. This version should have been accepted already, thanks in part to the good work of KidAd. Specific political notability aside, if it had gone live and been sent to AfD, it would have been kept via the GNG. Drmies (talk) 17:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are probably right about that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Robert's action there doesn't look good. It is true that AfC is a terrifying thing to dabble in, of course. So many drafts are on notable topics but just need cleaning up, or the addition of sources, and sometimes I see those and I just don't have the energy to do that. Still, in this case, it was clean enough: KidAd is no fool. Ah well. Thanks GW. (Can you tell I'm taking a break from online grading? My laptop broke over the weekend, so I had a nice quiet weekend--and now I have 80 essays to grade...) Drmies (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to put too much blame on an individual reviewer–it's not any one person's fault that there has been no real attempt to standardize the criteria for acceptance, and a lot of factors (including the massive backlog) at AfC incentivize a quick decline over a reviewer spending time to improve an article to the point that it could go to the mainspace. It's a terribly flawed process, but I also have no genius ideas to solve it either.

Sorry to hear your laptop went on the fritz and you're now buried in grading... speaking of a massive backlog! Perhaps you should adopt the AfC way and just fail everyone... GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, Thanks so much for the early morning praise. I cannot complain about being the unsung hero – my words, of course – of a decent draft. Congrats on the media attention. I hope you two have talent representation! KidAd talk 18:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think I hired Max and Ruthie for? GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:36, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, GW owns Twitter, so I think we're good. Thanks KidAd--see you next time. GW, I hear you...and yet I wished it had gone differently. In the meantime I graded one class worth of exams, and surprise! I got to copy/paste the same comment to every essay: "I wish you had expanded your conclusion. For Sigourney, the consequence is that the entire idea of American freedom is tainted; for Child, it means that slavery is incompatible with all the things white American Christians claim they believe in: the value of domesticity, the sanctity of marriage, the purity of women..." Drmies (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're putting your cats to work? That's ... well OK that's cute. I have a big fact stinky dog who likes to hang out on the couch and put his snout on my (new) laptop. He's such a good boy! He's so happy! Drmies (talk) 18:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to share your mention in the news, but Drmies beat me to it. I still offer kudos for that and do feel applying ECP is a good idea for the election pages. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:01, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you enjoyed your 15 minutes of fame Molly. 😊 Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November edit-a-thons from Women in Red

Women in Red | November 2020, Volume 6, Issue 11, Numbers 150, 173, 178, 180, 181

Online events:

New: Textile arts | Stage+Screen+Radio+Podcast
Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman | BLM/Anti-discrimination
Contest (Oct-Nov-Dec): Women in Asia
Help us plan future events: Virtual Ideas Cafe

Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage

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

Social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Comment on Press coverage

Per the guidance at Wikipedia:Press coverage, this [9] is something I would instead put in a template at article-talk, IMO there's too little WP in it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:56, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Patriot Front

With regard to edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patriot_Front&oldid=985806318, I was trying to capture the part of the Buzzfeed article that identifies tension/potential conflict between Patriot Front and other extremist groups. The point wasn't really about Patriot Front's position on BLM, but I thought that context was necessary in order to quote the relevant part of the article about the Boogaloo Boys and The Proud Boys. I didn't think it was misleading, but I think I understand your point. Is there a different way I make the entry?

Best, Jastighe (talk) 21:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to craft an entry that cites the part of the article that discusses tension between Patriot Front and extremist groups. This time, I'll just leave out the BLM reference.

Jastighe (talk) 18:20, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The part of your edit mentioning the Proud Boys seems fine, it was mostly the comment about how they feel about boogaloo boys that was misleading. Sorry for the delay in replying—I think someone else left a message on my talk page after yours and I missed your original message. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trolls talking about a "cofounder of wikipedia"

It looks like Larry Sanger is trying to direct them to Talk:Hunter Biden from his twitter page:

In fact, his whole twitter feed the past couple days is 90% or more falsehoods about this topic. I am not sure what sort of warning is appropriate for this but I think it is relevant. IHateAccounts (talk) 02:17, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@IHateAccounts: Huh. You wouldn't know he'd done that, looking at Talk:Hunter Biden. I suppose the semi-protection has helped with any potential brigading that would've resulted from it, though the tweets don't seem to have gotten a ton of engagement. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I asked him on Twitter why he had gone over to the dark side and I was promptly blocked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:05, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I noticed it because I tried to look up what https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Theschulman was ranting about at Talk:Proud Boys and it turned out to be the same person I saw https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tvaughan1 ranting about last week. That led me to the cesspit that is Sanger's twitter, where Sanger is now making baseless claims that "the laptop" contained illegal material involving minors. I think this should be cause for serious concern for some time. https://twitter.com/lsanger/status/1320174215576903680 IHateAccounts (talk) 03:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Yeah, I've been blocked for a while now too...

@IHateAccounts: Larry's comments about Wikipedia's "bias against conservatives" and all that has certainly given ammo to those pushing a conservative/right-wing POV, though since none of it is based in policy it doesn't really get them very far. I would certainly say his behavior is concerning, probably especially to some who are close to him (I certainly never was) but there's not much to be done about it on-wiki if that's what you mean. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare: I was wondering if there is a note that can be left on the top of the talk page, or included in the FAQ, acknowledging that a bad actor offsite has been directing people to that page. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@IHateAccounts: Ohh, got it. Probably not worth doing—if his comments were gaining major traction, maybe, but there are tweets from random people about the Hunter Biden Wikipedia page that have gained way more attention than his (and such tweets are common about any given controversial page, and not something we usually warn about on talk pages). If he was actively encouraging participation in an RfC on the page, {{notaballot}} could be useful. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why was J vandalized 12 hours after you protected it?

Just curious how this can happen: 12 hours after you configured pending changes settings for J (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) because of persistent vandalism, it was vandalized again by a new IP user (who has consequently been blocked for an odd time). Please feel free to reply by e-mail if you don't want to discuss this here. ◅ Sebastian 03:20, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought; I may just be misunderstanding the history. Maybe the changes were still pending, and it's just not displayed as such in the history. ◅ Sebastian 03:24, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SebastianHelm: Yep, if you click in to the diff, you'll see it was only ever a pending revision. When someone rolls back a pending change that was never accepted, it doesn't really look that different in the page history and so can be confusing at a glance. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:29, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! ◅ Sebastian 22:03, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Section I just removed from Talk:Joe Biden

Hello @GorillaWarfare:, @JzG:, I just removed a section from Talk:Joe Biden that I think clearly went WAY beyond the bounds of WP:BLP policy after starting from a WP:NOTFORUM violating rant anyways. Here is the relevant edit that I think went way beyond. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJoe_Biden&type=revision&diff=986323494&oldid=986289444 IHateAccounts (talk) I will leave it to those more experienced than I am if this ought to be actioned or taken to one of the places like Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or something else. IHateAccounts (talk) 04:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of a baffling comment, not really sure what the "CCP prostitutes" thing was about. Not sure it really needs further action, though. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:32, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CCP is the Chinese Communist Party. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know that (and they wikilinked it). GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Calling people "CCP prostitutes" is a common smear in the right-wing echo chamber when they want to accuse someone of being connected to China. I've seen it often with people accusing the World Health Organization of things using that language thanks to Trump. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? I thought "CCP prostitutes" was the conspiracy theory that the CCP send prostitutes to embarrass and shame their enemies. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Emir of Wikipedia: Did you read the removal? The text involved was Tickle Me's wording "the former quality press is losing any credibility among non-Democrats, as CCP prostitutes aren't popular, ratings and sales are plummeting", accusing any non-extreme-right-wing outlets of being "CCP Prostitutes". This is a common slur that right-wing individuals use, and I have seen numerous COVID-19 pandemic denialists using the same slur to attack the World Health Organization following Trump's attacks on the WHO this summer. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean in this case specifically. I have never seen say the phrase "CCP Prostitutes" been used in the way you are describing before, so either I am lucky enough to avoid those circles and/or it is not as common as you think. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:07, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emir of Wikipedia, For what it's worth, my experiences match yours. SQL ^{Query me!} 18:18, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2020).

Administrator changes

John M Wolfson

Bduke • Nilfanion • Philosopher • Rspeer • Yunshui

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

TonyBallioni

CheckUser changes

EdJohnston • Oshwah • Yamla

Yunshui

Oversight changes

Anarchyte

Yunshui

Guideline and policy news

Community sanctions now authorize administrators to place under indefinite semiprotection any article on a beauty pageant, or biography of a person known as a beauty pageant contestant, which has been edited by a sockpuppet account or logged-out sockpuppet, to be logged at WP:GS/PAGEANT.

Technical news

Sysops will once again be able to view the deleted history of JS/CSS pages; this was restricted to interface administrators when that group was introduced.
Twinkle's block module now includes the ability to note the specific case when applying a discretionary sanctions block and/or template.
Sysops will be able to use Special:CreateLocalAccount to create a local account for a global user that is prevented from auto-creation locally (such as by a filter or range block). Administrators that are not sure if such a creation is appropriate should contact a checkuser.

Arbitration

The 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections process has begun. Eligible editors will be able to nominate themselves as candidates from November 8 through November 17. The voting period will run from November 23 through December 6.
The Anti-harassment RfC has concluded with a summary of the feedback provided.

Miscellaneous

A reminder that standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. (American Politics 2 Arbitration case).

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Vox/Recode coverage of Wikipedia Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw! I thought she did a pretty good job. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just found out about Wikipedia:Press coverage 2020 and there must be a half dozen articles about Wikipedia and tomorrow's election. Some of it is really wrong, like stating that every editor who has a page on their Watchlist will get an email message every time the page is edited. It makes it sound more vigilant than it is. I'm sure the main articles will have lots of eyes on them though. I was more concerned about surreptitious editing in the months leading up to the election than I am about tomorrow which is such a high profile day. We've had four years to get ready for this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the reporters have been busy this past week or two. It's hard to write about Wikipedia, given it's all really hard for "outsiders" to understand well, and so you tend to see a lot of mistakes like the watchlist one you mention. A few reporters have been on the "Wikipedia beat" for a while now, though, and have gotten pretty good. I think the potential for m/disinformation is still high through the election, but I agree with you generally. If I were trying to influence an election I'd probably to introduce misleading info much before people were voting, and especially with all the early voting this year, that time has mostly passed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I posted on Samwalton9 (WMF)'s talk page that the Hunter Biden articles had some vandalism a while ago from three different IP accounts that located in Moscow. I didn't expect it to be that obvious. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:23, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have no shortage of established US-based editors who are more than willing to bludgeon article talk pages with partisan misinformation, so it seems like the Russians could save their efforts. MastCell ^Talk 20:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on even more coverage. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to chip in and say I also thought the article was pretty good, and I believe a little more public-facing transparency is probably salutary for this place. So in short, both kudos and thanks to you. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 07:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Islamic_renaissance_front

I'd made the initial edits for this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Islamic_renaissance_front and that will be it for now. Is it possible to have it as a normal page and not draft? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nageeb Gounjaria (talk • contribs) 07:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nageeb Gounjaria: I moved that page to the draftspace because I saw that you had just created it and so were probably still working on it. However I did so as an alternative to deleting the page, which is what many administrators would have done. It quite readily fits two of the speedy deletion criteria: G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion) and A7 (no indication of importance). I didn't see it at the time, but it also apparently could have been deleted per G12 (unambiguous copyright infringement), which I see Sphilbrick noticed and addressed. It is completely lacking in independent, reliable sources. Until those issues are addressed, it will not be moved to the main articlespace. I would recommend reading Help:Your first article, improving the page accordingly, and then adding {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page when you think it is ready. That will add it to a queue of articles to be reviewed by experienced Wikipedia editors, who can either move it to the main articlespace if it is ready, or provide feedback on what else needs to be addressed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PUMA

Hey sorry I'm new to wikipedia and have no idea how to edit/have conversations. Hopefully this is the right spot.

Can I ask why you reverted changes on the 'PUMA' disambiguation page which included the phrase 'Party Unity My Ass'?

While the organization is officially known as 'People United Means Action', the term is backronym for the much more commonly used 'Party Unity My Ass' (as shown on the page for 'People United Means Action'. I think this is relevant to include because the unofficial name is much more common in political discourse. For example, People United Means Action only has 2100 google hits ( https://www.google.com/search?q="People+United+Means+Action ), while Party Unity My Ass has 350,000 google hits ( https://www.google.com/search?q="party+unity+my+ass" ). There are numerous articles which use that term, including ones from VOX, The Guardian, Washington Post, and New York Times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.135.34.38 (talk) 19:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it because it appeared to me to be vandalism, as it was unsourced and appeared derogatory. While it does appear the statement could be sourced, a slangy name for the committee is not something that ought to be included in a disambiguation page, which is meant to just briefly identify each entry so that people can go to the main page to learn more. If you wish, it could potentially be added (with sourcing this time) to People United Means Action, maybe in the "Criticism" section. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still a little confused. It's on the People United Means Action page already, and the name was the *original* name for the group which became People United when it was formally incorporated. Quote from the article: "The PUMA acronym as originally coined stood for "Party Unity My Ass", but the PAC was registered as "People United Means Action," a backronym". Given the sheer ubiquity of this term (again, more common and older than 'People United Means Action'), what would make it qualify for inclusion on the disambiguation page?

As for sourcing, it appears nothing else is sourced on the disambiguation page? What are the standards for including alternative names? I ask because I was trying to find the group and was surprised there was no 'Party Unity My Ass' wikipedia page, not realizing that the much more notable term (I am using google hits as a metric for notability, but is there some better way to establish it?) was excluded.

I'm not trying to be rude, just confused and new to wikipedia. Sorry if this seems confrontational at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.135.34.38 (talk) 20:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, that misunderstanding was on me. I tried searching the page for 'party unity' but I must've typoed it because it didn't show up when I first searched, but you're correct that it's in there. Given that, I think it's ok to re-add to the disambig page, and I can do so myself. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revert on ANI

~~Hola - you reverted my edit to my text on ANI, but that link didn't work, while the one on the version I last edited did! Any reason?~~ Sorry, saw your next click belatedly! Cheers Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:51, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry about that! My computer is getting up there in years and slowing down a bit, and sometimes it loads the page slowly such that when I go to click a link, more of the page loads and I end up misclicking. I have a script that's supposed to ask for confirmation when I click rollback from my watchlist, but I think because the issue is due to slow loading, sometimes the script hasn't loaded either and it goes through. Apologies for the confusion! GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How time flies! GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fox News reliability

Hi GorillaWarfare,

I think this is another blow to Fox News's credibility, if they have any left. https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/06/media/fox-news-election-projection-plan/index.html

I also think it's time for a Reliable Sources discussion regarding Fox's diminishing factual reliability, but I don't know the best way to go about filing it or how much information I need to gather and how it should be formatted. Could you offer some advice? IHateAccounts (talk) 16:47, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@IHateAccounts: I think your best bet would be to model it after the previous RfC, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 303#RfC: Fox News. The layout of the RfC should neutrally lay out the various options, which you may be able to actually reuse almost completely from that RfC. Because the previous RfC was only three months ago, I would also strongly suggest briefly laying out why you think circumstances have changed substantially since then such that a new RfC is justified; otherwise it is liable to be flooded with comments that we shouldn't waste time revisiting an RfC so soon. You might consider drafting the RfC in a user subpage somewhere and then getting some outside input -- maybe from the people who drafted the original RfC. The last Fox News RfC was quite high-engagement, and I would expect the same to be true of any future one, so making sure the RfC is extremely well-constructed before kicking off conversation is worth the time and effort. You might consider seeing if any of the previous drafters, or other experienced Wikipedians, wish to team up with you on creating the next one. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:10, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IHateAccounts, if I may follow up on GW, I would not do it now, or not yet, and not based on just this article (I'm not saying you don't have more evidence). I have no doubt that in the aftermath of this election there will be a slew of research on this. Academic publishing is a slow affair, but it may well be that editorial boards of publications like the Columbia Journalism Review will come out with statements; such articles will come quicker than studies that go through the regular editorial process. In general, for such discussions (that will become very loaded very quickly) the more academic, peer-reviewed sources you can find, the better it is. But maybe I'm telling you something you already know--in which case, my apologies. Drmies (talk) 17:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: This came up today and it is similar in analysis. https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2020/11/10/fox-new-hypocrisy-election-results-stelter-newday-vpx.cnn/video/playlists/stories-worth-watching/ I am very open to the idea of establishing a drafting page somewhere as GorillaWarfare suggested and I would love to have some help in collecting the sources and formatting it. IHateAccounts (talk) 01:09, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

Hey I just wanted to let you know that the user 'Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d' is likely a sockpuppet of user 'PackMecEng.' On the article talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Karen_Bass they have been commenting with these two accounts within minutes of each other in an attempt to manufacture a false consensus. This user has already been accused of using multiple accounts before, especially given that this newish account seems to be a longtime user. Thanks! Dosafrog (talk) 01:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dosafrog: If you believe they are sockpuppets, you should file a report at WP:SPI. I filed an arbitration enforcement report with respect to Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d a few weeks ago and so it would be improper for me to get involved in an admin capacity with respect to that user. I should say that simply commenting on the same side of an argument in quick succession as a different account is probably not sufficient evidence for SPI, though—that kind of thing happens often when two users are active at the same time and share the same opinion, and is not itself a sign of sockpuppetry. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare: Hello. After this user issued a vile, personal attack against me [10], they seem to have stalked my entire edit history. They have proceeded to edit war with me [11],[12], and they have falsely claimed to have consensus [13]. They have inserted contentious edits that are actively being discussed on an RfC [14]. Furthermore, they have removed large chunks of sourced material, without first discussing it on the talk page: [15], [16]. And now, they are baselessly accusing me of being a sock (btw, feel free to check, if you want). All of these edits occurred after their block was lifted. Is there any merit to file an WP:ANI report against them? Or, is there some remedy for WP:Harassment? I appreciate the advice. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 03:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: If you need admin intervention, ANI would be the place to go. Like I said, I'm not going to get involved administratively with respect to you for obvious reasons, on any side of a dispute in which you're involved (and while I appreciate you saying it'd be okay, it's still something I'm going to steer clear of). ANI is full of uninvolved admins who'll be able to help resolve any dispute, though. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 03:19, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dosafrog: I did some google searching and found out that Wikipedia has some tools at Wikipedia:Tools/User_interaction_investigations to compare. I am not experienced enough to say anything other than their closest timing is on Karen Bass, then Charlie Kirk (activist), and then Talk:Donald Trump. I am concerned about Swag Lord's attempting to push material that seems to be WP:UNDUE and crossing a line into WP:BLP-violating accusations of Karen Bass being a scientologist, especially as Swag Lord had to be warned by Muboshgu and yet accuses you of having "removed large chunks of sourced material, without first discussing it on the talk page" without acknowledging that their insertion of the material was improper. Part of my concern is that at least on Swag Lord's part this is looking dangerously close to the sort of behavior that I first saw them exhibit when they were edit-warring trying to insert the WP:Deadname of a minor into an article. IHateAccounts (talk) 04:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent RFP request

I see that you are actively at RfPP right now. Could you take a look at my request for a few hours full protection of Donald Trump? Thanks. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN: Yep, I actually just implemented it while you were leaving this message. Do you have a good suggestion for a clean revision to revert to? GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We worked that out at the talk page. An issue that occurred to me: It’s important that there not be any unprotected lapse between the full protection and the previous EC protection. So we should restore EC before the full expires. I see that the full protection expires after 12 hours. You installed it about 10 a.m. my time (pacific) which means it will expire about 10 p.m. my time. Will you be able to convert it back to EC before that, or do you want me to, or do you want to extend the full protection to a more convenient expiration time for you? -- MelanieN (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good call-out. I'll try converting it back a little later tonight and see how that goes—if disruption resumes I'll extend the full protection to sometime during my waking hours tomorrow and then revisit it then. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EZTV

As you can see, the section is sourced to TorrentFreak, as are many other parts of the article, so apparently that's considered a "reliable source". To say that it is unsourced, is simply a bald-faced lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.252.235.213 (talk) 18:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Parler RfC format

I *think* this is the format for the vite you're going for, let me know if it isn't and I messed things up. Artw (talk) 23:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep! I was figuring people would just bold their choice of Options 1–4 like that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Artw (talk) 00:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Danville, Kentucky

Hi GorillaWarfare. I didn't mean to use rollback on your edit, sorry. I just checked; there is a Wikipedia article for the person specified in the edit you reverted. I've added it. Thanks. Silikonz (💬│🖋) 04:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good catch, thanks! No worries about the rollback, I do that by accident too sometimes. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Silikonz (💬│🖋) 04:17, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Boyce-Sneed_feud

Hi GorillaWarfare. Regarding Boyce-Sneed_feud, the original reports said it was eight dead but at some point it was changed to seven in the main article while leaving the 8 in the infobox. The reason for this is the Sneed meme from the Simpsons when the character Sneed talks about soil pH levels (7 to 8 max). So people started to edit the article to make it unclear if it was 7 or 8 dead. You can check the edit history. Thank you.

Always impressed

I've no idea how you do it, but I'm constantly amazed at how productive an editor and ~~janitor~~ sysop you are while also productively serving on ArbCom and getting more than your fair share slung your way. I really appreciate all you do for the project, thank you! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

+1 —valereee (talk) 14:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's very kind of you. It helps a bit that we've had a fairly quiet few months on the ArbCom. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from 2603:9001:808:84F5:3134:8829:FD10:970C

Your article on Donald Trump left out many glaring weaknesses of Trump for witch much evidence exists. He should be clearly identified as a science denier and the one person who has done The most to interfere with progress on climate change. You left out the part where was it 35 prominent psychiatrists Declared him mentally unfit as a president. He also made many many comments evidencing his racist tendencies not to mention putting the children in jail in cages and keeping them from their families. Your article on Trump does not include any truth about the fact that he had no compassion or evidence of compassion for the less fortunate, for people of color, for immigrants. You say that to make a change in your article about Donald Trump you would need evidence : what about the evidence that he stopped the best scientist and medical professionals from leading our country to a healthier experience of the Covid virus. Many believe him to be responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths.Your article should make it clear that he was not a president for the people. There’s a lot of other stuff...open your eyes correct your reporting. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9001:808:84F5:3134:8829:FD10:970C (talk) 14:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any suggestions for changes to the article should be made at Talk:Donald Trump, along with reliable sourcing supporting the changes. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fredrick Brennan lead theorizing Watkins as QAnon

Brennan has theorized that Watkins controls the account ... this bothers me, on both WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP grounds. For weight, is it really one of the most important things about Brennan that he has theorized something about someone else? Surely not, unless that someone else is of a truly massive notability, which Watkins is not; Watkins has a barely longer article than Brennan does. For BLP, should we really write about, again, a not-tremendously-notable living person, in the lead of another person's article, that someone thinks they are the cause of a highly controversial (to put it mildly) conspiracy theory? It's like putting that someone thinks you're Bigfoot. I'd think we need to remove that last sentence from the lead. --GRuban (talk) 22:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the (recent, at least) coverage of Brennan has been because of his research into the identity of Q, which is why I put it in the lead. The fact that, among Q journalists, "some of them think it's likely, everyone agrees it's more than plausible" ([17]) is what made me comfortable doing it. Do you still disagree it should be included? GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Likely, plausible" isn't the bar that we need to meet for BLP, it's more like truthiness. How about we replace it in the lead with the proven, that he proved QMap was owned by Watkins? --GRuban (talk) 00:05, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've adjusted the lead per your concerns. (Sorry for the capitalization issue with your username). GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you --GRuban (talk) 13:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop

Ok honestly, I think Bus stop is deliberately feigning ignorance to try to frustrate other commenters and provoke angry responses. They can't be THAT blind to the reasons that conservatives have gotten themselves banned from Twitter over the years, nor the same stuff that those conservatives are now posting on Parler that is getting covered in reliable sources. :( IHateAccounts (talk) 22:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem there's some amount of WP:IDHT given they continue to repeat the WP:OTHERSTUFF Twitter argument. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I get the same feeling around them that I have about that Jroehl account, and Emir and Swag Lord. I'm not sure why other than it seems to be behavior particular to a clique, half the time they haven't read the policies (or think the policies should read differently if not downright oppositely) and half the time it looks like they never read the sources. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some of Jroehl's behavior I think can be attributed to unfamiliarity—though the account has been registered since 2009 they have just under 300 edits, only 57 of which were this year. Bus Stop, on the other hand, has 43,000+ edits and advanced userrights, and really ought to have a solid understanding of our policies and guidelines. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:27, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare: Ok, Bus Stop is getting very frustrating. I just had to point out that they made a claim based on a Jerusalem Post article which was specifically debunked in the text of the article, at Talk:Parler, and they're yet again ranting about Twitter on the Parler talk page, even to the point of restoring a very obvious WP:NOTFORUM section to rant about it and just re-hash things that people already answered in the RFC section. They've been going at a level I think is hitting WP:BLUDGEON issues along with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT constant repetitions of stuff. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I hope whichever poor soul closes the RfC is able to wade through it all and see it for what it is. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:39, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's still happening. I need a drink. .... I should probably not edit Wikipedia while drinking, correct? IHateAccounts (talk) 23:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What could possibly go wrong? GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:41, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I could get angry? I could wind up deciding the disruption has gone on long enough and completely fuck up a filing somewhere? IHateAccounts (talk) 23:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I could spill it on my keyboard and ruin my laptop? IHateAccounts (talk) 23:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Offically: WOW. IHateAccounts (talk) 01:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Double Wow. I just realized they put a Katie Hopkins quote on their user page. Spiking a user page with a quote from a european white supremacist is... not something that paints a good picture? IHateAccounts (talk) 04:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[18] Ugh. And I'd been trying to avoid Swag Lord for good reason too. :( IHateAccounts (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A wise choice, and one they would probably wise to consider doing in the reverse. I would try to pay it no mind; until they decide to take it to a noticeboard I don't think there's much to do. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

sorry

I found your message on my talk page sorry for what I did Atharv Khamkar (talk) 04:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Parler

It appears that "Geremy.Hebert" who previously edited in December 2019, prior to becoming a very staunch removalist on the Parler article, intends to repeatedly remove the content that is under RFC. I have restored it twice but I won't do it again since that would be getting close to the 3RR rule. I think they are getting disruptive, especially since the consensus on the RFC seems to be to retain the content. IHateAccounts (talk) 01:28, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see that. I will open an ANEW report if they continue. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:28, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@IHateAccounts: See WP:ANEW#User:Geremy.Hebert reported by User:GorillaWarfare (Result: ). GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:34, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know you said the page is getting more attention from news coverage but looking at their comments, is it POSSIBLE that Geremy.Hebert and Jroehl are connected? IHateAccounts (talk) 01:53, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would be pretty surprised if they were. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At this point there's got to be someone sending them here from Parler with the same talking points. The sheer repetition amount of "but what about the twitter page" is ridiculous. IHateAccounts (talk) 21:42, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could be. Not much to do about it either way. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by 71.203.10.104

8chan - followed the link to 8chan looking to research qanon conspiracy theory. Link contained Child Pornography. Wikipedia essentially becoming a search engine for Child pornography. Iremoved the links to 8Chan, described doing so in talk, and reported child pornography link. I Believe Wikipedia have a legal obligation to follow up on this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.10.104 (talk) 01:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For anything involving legal concerns, please contact the Wikimedia Foundation. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

talkt

Why did you remove my reminder to not comment on users??Slatersteven (talk) 18:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: Ack, sorry! I've been having an issue with slowness on my computer causing me to misclick rollback links (see here where I explained it in more detail). Usually I notice when it happens and revert immediately but I clearly didn't in this case. Apologies. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

damning description of Gab.

Hey, hope this finds you well. I just wanted to send a quick message asking why the description of the Gab social network is so damning. I've been there a lot and none of what you have wrote of it to be so "right wing" . I have however found it enlightening to actually have real dialog there without censorship. is it possible to change what is wrote to accurately describe the site without bias? thanks, from donation giver. 107.190.70.207 (talk) 07:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see any of the discussions at Talk:Gab (social network). The short answer is that Wikipedia articles reflect what is said in reliable, independent sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 12:12, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Duck For You!

	The Jackalope 10 award
	For being cool Jackalope 10 16:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bob's Burgers (season 11)

Why did you undo the edit when the episode was airing? Stop vandalizing edits with your rollback ability. 04:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:470:1f2d:c:78ef:4af3:28d2:17f7 (talk) 04:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted a change that removed a reference. Please either leave references in place, or if they are improper/no longer available, replace them with a new one. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Magali Roques deletion

I am opening an arbitration request for your deletion of Magali Elise Roques. --Melchior2006 (talk) 07:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki editors told me to get in touch with you first, before I submit the case to Deletion review. The article about Roques made no attack on her. It did, however, document the fact that several of her publications have been retracted by the editors of scholarly journals because of plagiarism. These are facts that are worthy of documentation, and they are not injuring anyone. --Melchior2006 (talk) 08:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the situation, while infuriating and unjust, would warrant a WP page only if the scholar herself was already notable or if the incident became a much bigger and broader (and notable) issue beyond the scholar herself (e.g., if it reveals mismanagement and corruption of the employer CNRS, of the journal, or the field as a whole). As it stands, Roques is too junior to qualify for Academic Notability and the coverage of the incident is not significant enough to satisfy General Notability. At the moment, creating such a page risks resulting in a pseudobio, especially if the supportors of Roques continue to edit her page into an academic biography. FlybellFly (talk) 11:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To note, this case has been removed as premature Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 15:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Melchior2006: I stand by the deletion–she doesn't appear to meet WP:NPROF or the WP:GNG, and the purpose of the biography appeared to be to focus on accusations of plagiarism. It was a WP:COATRACK. If you want to take it to WP:DRV that's fine, but arbitration wasn't the spot for it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:Notability (academics) she fulfills

2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
She was given a stipend at the Maison_française_d'Oxford in 2011, one at the Université de Bretagne Occidentale (2011–2012), held a Canada Research Chair for the Theory of Knowledge (2013–2014), was part of the Excellence Cluster Topoi in Berlin (2014–2015), in Genf and Neuenburg 2016, was a fellow at the Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies (2017–2018), and held a post-doc in the Philosophy Department (2017-2019). In 2017 she was awarded the Prix Jeunes Chercheurs by La Fondation des Treilles.
What else does a woman have to do to be considered "notable"? I suppose if she was an e-sports player or a porn star this would not be debated. --WiseWoman (talk) 18:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, she never held a Canada Research Chair, that information is based on inaccurate reading of her CV. She was just a postdoc at UQUAM, under the supervision of Claude Panaccio who was indeed the Canada Research Chair for the Theory of Knowledge there. That, as they say, is two big differences. Nsk92 (talk) 16:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason I do not think she would be thanking those who are trying to get her article restored right now. --GRuban (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to bring it to DRV, be my guest. But I assure you my motivation in deleting the article was preventing a largely negative WP:COATRACK on a BLP; I don't appreciate the absurd insinuation I was somehow displaying bias against women in my deletion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input; I am going to bring it to DRV. The very fact that such a "successful" young scholar has had her work retracted so often makes her notable in itself. You don't find many plagiarism cases of this magnitude. That justifies the article. --Melchior2006 (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to seeing what DRV has to say. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here it is .... Melchior2006 (talk) 19:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've left a note there and added it to my watchlist in case anyone has any questions. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Magali Elise Roques

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Magali Elise Roques. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Melchior2006 (talk) 19:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please unprotect WP:LTA/INTSF

Anons should be able to edit the page, I just found out that VPN usage in this case is involved. 173.56.224.210 (talk) 15:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you need to edit the page? GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user is using a VPN, FreePN. They're using the same IPs as me. 173.56.224.210 (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but that doesn't explain why you need to edit the LTA page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I need to edit the page to make people aware of their behaviour. 173.56.224.210 (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Open proxy concerns can be reported at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user is forging my signature. View the page history. 173.56.224.210 (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting the Plot Against the President

Hello, could you please protect the article The Plot Against The President to require autoconfirmed users? There's now been several vandalism attempts. Is there another place this should be requested? Thanks Lord Pharazon (talk) 00:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can request page protection at WP:RFPP. Personally I'm not seeing sufficient recent disruptive activity to justify protection, but no objection to you trying your luck with a different admin at RFPP if you like. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Geremy.Hebert

Hi GorillaWarfare,

it looks like a bot removed the block notices at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Geremy.Hebert&action=history, is that normal? IHateAccounts (talk) 03:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't know if (or what) the archive bots check to determine if talk page messages should be archived, other than just their age. But it's only declined unblock notices that are not allowed to be removed (per WP:UP#CMT) so I think it's fine. If they appeal the block, it'll be easy enough for the reviewing admin to fish the block notice and related discussion out of the archive or page history. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Message from 172.58.30.212

You recently reverted an edit of mine on the anti-racism page. I think on your part and a couple of other editors it was a misunderstanding but to the originators of the content I edited it was and is not. The photo at the top of the anti-racism page is blatant propaganda. You can easily tell by looking at the histories of some of the editors. The poster of the photo was also banned for trolling. In addition, the description of the photo on Wikipedia Commons is inaccurate and makes it look like it wasn’t really posted by an Israeli or posted by one with an ulterior motive because no one in the photo would likely be described as white. They are from the same background that in most of the west would be described as a person of color - or at least in the current discourse and parlance that the Anti-Racism movement exists in. I got part of the it removed so it is not that bad in the caption but the intent behind and effect of the propaganda still exists due to the source of the photo. Further, letting people spread hate on a site that is allegedly about equality (which most of it is I think but this photo is not posted by the well intentioned) is not a good policy because essentially it is like telling the KKK “well you guys can control your page...as long as your only reasonably antagonistic to others rather than blatantly”. Honestly, a section on racist/anti-Semitic behavior in this new movement should be added to the page. I personally would prefer the page to be deleted and salted and then let the people that are allowed to edit the “Anti-Racism” section on the “Racism” page instead. Or lock the English Anti-Racism page and allow the Racism page approved editors on the page. Also, I would like to note that this is somewhat what already happened on the French page. Further, absolutely none of my edits were inappropriate in any way and were unequivocally constructive. In fact, the photo I tried to put in its place is EXTREMELY REPRESENTATIVE of anti-racism as it is not just a photo of a crowd but a symbol of the movement/theory. The (not you) knowing reverts to put the propaganda back up are vandalism. This is all recently an issue on the anti-racism page and should be taken care of sooner rather than later. Just because you have a lot of vandalism by a group of editors that claim vandalism on behalf of others to create a power play for editing does not make a legitimate edit vandalism - it’s quite the opposite. Wikipedia is used by scores of impressionable college aged people and to inundate them with this type of hatred/suspicion of an ethnic group is not appropriate. Wikipedia isn’t just for the editors to share a message but also for readers to gain valuable and accurate information. Not propaganda. To allow a subtle underhanded propagandist message on Wikipedia like this one is in a way supporting the message - especially when the intention of the message has been brought to the attention of the editors and in spite of legitimate edits to remove it, it (Wikipedia and/or it’s team/editors) fail to take action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.30.212 (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@172.58.30.212: Such discussions should be held at Talk:Anti-racism, as Aquillion has already mentioned to you via edit summary. I reverted your edit because it removed the image with no edit summary at all, which appeared to just be vandalism -- this is why edit summaries are important. I have no real insight into whether or not the image is appropriate, but it appears other editors thing it is -- that's why you should engage them at the article talk. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:42, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I get maybe not wanting to be involved at this point but you did my edit as a member of an arbitration committee- representing Wikipedia on some level at least. I’ll try the talk page but the edit summary is explained over and over again on other edits too. And this is not opinion under any circumstances. I reject ANY NOTION that removing what is Anti-Semitic propaganda to be vandalism (in fact many would find it highly offensive). The other editors can see how much it is being taken off and the justification for it. I did put a description plenty of times. They are choosing propaganda over edits- that was my point when I said one group of high energy editors for their propaganda does not make what they are doing not that. Just because everyone holds an anti-Semitic view and says “oh it’s fine and normal” doesn’t take away that it is anti-Semitic. You understand that literally over 20 million people were killed about 80 years ago and it started specifically with this type of material being disseminated. Specifically, I don’t really have that large of family because of it so if you think this is just a “whining complaint”, it’s not going away. Please contact who you need to to get the photo off while I keep working on it. Any argument that someone will make to justify this photo remaining will be absolute trash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.30.212 (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am researching it as we speak. It would be particularly useful if you could explain specifically what the image is representing and what the issue is -- I can't read the text on the sign and the image description is not particularly informative. I am looking on Commons to see if there is a more clearly-appropriate image than that one to use for now while discussion unfolds on the talk page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have temporarily replaced the image, and created a section for you to explain your concerns: Talk:Anti-racism#Image GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For clearing out the backlog at WP:RFPP practically single handed. Amazing work! MelanieN (talk) 23:46, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

+1 :) Jr8825 • Talk 00:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing! GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Fox News...

This came up today. https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/17/media/fox-news-newsmax-ratings/index.html IHateAccounts (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How the turntables... GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring

I brought it up here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring Yousef Raz (talk) 03:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yousef Raz: Your report was quite malformed. I've fixed it for you, but there's a lot you still need to fill out: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Therequiembellishere reported by User:Yousef Raz (Result: ) GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help.Yousef Raz (talk) 04:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Reset

I've seen a conspiracy theory going around Twitter with mention from multiple RS ([19][20][21], +1 I haven't looked at yet [22]). The original plan also has coverage ([23][24][25]). Given the RS coverage, I'm considering writing an article on it (There's currently a section at World Economic Forum, but I think it would be better with its own article). Should I? Username ⁶⁸⁹² _{(Peer Review)} 16:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it might be worthwhile if there is the sourcing to support it (not sure about voi.id, but NYTimes is a quality source). I've also seen quite a bit of discussion about it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a section at World Economic Forum on it, though I think the plan doesn't have much to do with the WEF itself (besides the WEF proposing it). I made a draft (I think the disambiguation isn't needed, it's more well-known than the book of the same name) which is currently at AfC. Username ⁶⁸⁹² _{(Peer Review)} 23:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Username6892: I don't think there is enough for an article yet, I think it might be better to flesh out the subsection and make the sourcing solid. On your draft, the section "The Proposal" doesn't seem to contain much in the way of details on the proposal itself and I think that's desperately needed. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IHateAccounts, I think an article is warranted because multiple of sources used address it as a standalone plan. This is especially true for sources covering the conspiracy theory, which talk more about the conspiracy theories themselves than the WEF. I also expect some more coverage given a google search showing the first 7 "news" results promoting the conspiracy theory. Username ⁶⁸⁹² _{(Peer Review)} 03:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Username6892: An article might be warranted sometime soon, for now your draft needs expansion. As you say, you "expect some more coverage" somewhere in the near time period. I was hoping to provide some constructive feedback, I really think the section on "The Proposal" needs much more detail on the actual proposal. IHateAccounts (talk) 14:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Parler Talk section title

I'm writing to flag my continuing concern over the title you chose to use on the Talk page for Parler concerning my single edit to that article. The title you used was 'Edit Warring', which was a quite direct insinuation/allegation that I was engaging in such. As I think was quite clearly established in the discussion under that section I was not doing any such thing and you went on to apologise for the characterisation. However, I am still not fine with my edit being discussed under such a title. I am requesting you change it, perhaps to something like 'Movement of second sentence' or something similarly neutral.

I see by the way that the discussion has been closed by another user. Seems a somewhat dubious action to me but anyway, that shouldn't affect you changing the title. Oska (talk) 00:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I've changed the title. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Oska (talk) 02:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting advice again

Hi GorillaWarfare, I'm sorry to bring another question to you but I am very concerned about something and I don't know how to proceed or if I should ask for someone else to step in.

Regarding User_talk:Yurivict#Important_notices, I noticed that this user (who appears to be Russian?) was inserting conspiracy theory language to Talk:2020 United States presidential election [26] and Sidney Powell [27] after they made a rather stunning post regarding Newsmax [28]. I worked out how to leave the DS template because it turned out they had not had it as a notice since 2017, and also tried to reiterate a warning they received previously about inserting WP:FRINGE theories into Wikipedia.

Their last reply back was "I am sorry that you are so brainwashed and so devoid of the ability of independent thought and analysis" [29] and while I am trying to assume good faith, it appears to me they are currently WP:NOTHERE for good purposes at least as far as reliable sourcing and topics connected to American Politics. IHateAccounts (talk) 01:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly concerning. They have received some good advice from you and Valjean. If they decide to continue POV-pushing in the topic area, an WP:AE thread would probably be in order. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to ask, one more... I left my concerns at User_talk:Bradv#2601:46:c801:b1f0::/64 since he is the previous blocking admin for Special:Contribs/2601:46:C801:B1F0:0:0:0:0/64 regarding Talk:Proud Boys. Any insight you have is appreciated. Thanks for the coffee :) IHateAccounts (talk) 18:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They could be the same person, or perhaps 3Kingdoms just saw 2601's comment on proto vs. neofascism, agreed, and repeated it. I don't really consider myself uninvolved with respect to that page—I haven't actively edited it but I have edited Enrique Tarrio and I created Kyle Chapman (American activist)—so I definitely won't step in in a CU capacity. Bradv can make that call if he thinks it's compelling, but I think even if I weren't involved that probably wouldn't be enough for me to consider checking the accounts. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It appears they returned and left a personal-attack-filled comment directed at Valjean, on a Closed RFC. I reverted it since the RFC is closed but the edit is here [30]. I still see similarities between them, 3Kingdoms, and Special:Contribs/2601:46:C801:B1F0:0:0:0:0/64. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Greetings,

The page United States presidential pets is being very persistently vandalized. I'm not a very experienced editor but I saw you protected it last time, so do you know what to do? I was thinking that protection on that page is probably a good idea. Happy editing. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 06:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SilverTiger12: Thank you for letting me know. I've added another month of semiprotection to the page. In the future if you run into issues like this, you can ask for pages to be protected at the requests for page protection page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy Notice

Since I'm not ever sure if pings work in a long comment, I thought I would let you know that I mentioned you on User talk:JzG. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 05:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the note! GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Hey GW, Long time since we visited, I had created a page that was mainstream WP 2016 for months until nominated/deleted in AfD citing lack of notability. 4 years later subject has received more coverage from RS. Don't want to ruffle feathers by re-submitting a BLP on a subject that has been deleted in AfD with new citations without making sure I'm aligned procedurally before resubmitting. My understanding pages that have been deleted have to follow a procedural protocol. So how do I do that? If you could walk me through this or direct me to an editor who you think could help me I'd appreciate. Although I have extended-confirmed like to have another editor review before submitting, a second set of eyes to make sure it passes notability muster. All the best. Cllgbksr (talk) 08:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @Cllgbksr: Is this WRT Wayne Dupree? Given the history of this particular article, I would maybe reccomend following the WP:AfC process in order to get an independent third party to review the new sources. However, my own search isn't turning up any sources I'd consider reliable. Perhaps you could share this new coverage and I'll go over it with you? Cheers! -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 14:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that AfC is a good way to get a second set of eyes before the article is moved to mainspace. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks GW and Alfie. Yes it's Wayne Dupree. I'll review the WP:AfC process as suggested, put together the new sourcing which may/may not establish WP notoriety requirements of BLP and contact Alfie for review. Probably be next week. Thanks! Cllgbksr (talk) 07:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Listing Powell as a conspiracy theorist RfC

Dear Gorilla,

I have tried to post an RfC about this on Powell's talk page. Please feel free to fix any formatting errors I have made, or refer me to a style guide for designing RfCs.

And, my apologies for the edit-warring on Powell. I need to recognize and clamp down on my passion in this regard.

- Cozy

CozyandDozy (talk) 01:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CozyandDozy: I've just adjusted it a bit per the instructions at WP:RFCST. Should be good to go now, though feel free to change anything I somewhat boldly edited on your behalf. Thanks for taking a step back and seeking consensus. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaurs

I saw you blocked 2001:2D8:E292:75FE:0:0:0:0/64. Do you know who the LTA is? I've seen those edits for a while now. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Not sure if there's a named account behind it, I think it's just a South Korea-based IP user with a focus on dinosaurs. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: As far as I am aware the user has never had an account, The user has a Dynamic IP on the 2001:2D8:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) range, with the earliest vandalism being on the 9th of December 2019 [31] followed by a several month lull, beginning a persistent pattern of making the same edits since late March. The /32 range has a large amount of non-dinosaur vandal related edits, though the vandal does make a large proportion of the total edits on the range, so it's not practical to permanently block the range. The range was blocked for 3 months back in August, but that didn't deter the vandal, and they came back soon after the range block was lifted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hemiauchenia, thank you: I saw the block log, and added to it. GorillaWarfare, I hope that's OK with you. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No objections from me, hopefully it helps with the disruption. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IHateAccounts inappropriately collapsing removing talk page comments

I've responded; if the two of you want to have it out, do it somewhere else. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GW, I'm posting this here since IHateAccounts has asked that I not post on their talk page. I've noticed that IHA has frequently collapsed and even deleted talk page comments that they consider to be wp:NOTFORUM. [[32]][[33]][[34]][[35]][[36]][[37]][[38]] (more examples in IHA's edit history). IHA, if other editors have replied to a comment then those edits should only be removed in exceptional circumstances. Even comments by IP editors complaining about bias in an article should be retained as they represent some level of feedback. Even collapsing or marking the discussion as closed should only be done in limited cases. Please take this as constructive feedback. Springee (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although on occasion they have collapsed discussions that I don't think should have been collapsed, I've found their cleanup on those pages to be generally helpful. A large number of new discussions on those pages are either a) completely duplicating past or existing discussions, or b) entirely non-actionable. Leaving them open in the case of a) results in discussions being split in a way that's confusing for all parties, and in the case of b) tends to waste editors' time.

I would recommend not using another editor's talk page as a way to communicate with IHA after they've asked you to stop editing their talk page. If you think admin intervention is needed, a noticeboard discussion would be appropriate, but I don't particularly feel like being IHA's secondary talk page in this way. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was told to either close or hat WP:NOTFORUM items rather than deleting them, which I've done. At this point this feels like sealioning from Springee, who I really don't want to deal with unless I absolutely have to. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea when you moved to hatting vs deleting but this was from earlier today [[39]]. I have made no personal comments about you, only a statement that I think you are being too aggressive with blanking talk page comments. The accusation of sealioning (ie trolling) is a personal attack of the sort something valereee warned you about [[40]]. The next time you attack me personally I will open an ANI. Springee (talk) 19:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

FYI on ECP for World War II in Poland

Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland#Antisemitism_in_Poland:_Motion_(May_2020),

The following is added as a remedy to the Antisemitism in Poland arbitration case: 7) 500/30 restriction: All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. This prohibition may be enforced preemptively by use of extended confirmed protection (ECP), or by other methods such as reverts, pending changes protection, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 rule are not considered edit warring.

- Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by the methods mentioned above.
- Standard discretionary sanctions as authorized by the Eastern Europe arbitration case remain in effect for this topic area.

(t · c) buidhe 19:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I'd forgotten about that change. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rudolf Berthold

Hey, you beat me to reverting that vandal...but I definitely don't mind. Many thanks.Georgejdorner (talk) 00:31, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dominion Voting Systems

I think we need to be fairly emphatic in this article about the fact that there is no evidence of the conspiracy theories about Dominion (and plenty of evidence to the contrary, e.g. the Georgia hand recount and Arizona audit). Living people, namely the corporate executives, are being implicated in heinous federal crimes, so we have a responsibility to emphasize the baselessness of the charges in this article, including the lede. (Same as we do with respect to, e.g., Pizzagate). I know that you are on the same page as me here. But I am writing to ask that you, as an admin who is privy to the situation, keep an eye on the article and be prepared to impose suitable sanctions if BLP standards there continue to be violated. CozyandDozy (talk) 03:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CozyandDozy: I'm not sure, but I believe GorillaWarfare may be considered WP:INVOLVED on the page and that makes it inappropriate for her to use admin functions there. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CozyandDozy: IHA is correct that I should not impose any sanctions on editors or otherwise act in an administrative capacity with respect to that page, as I have been active in editorial discussions and directly editing the page. However, if I see disruption that I think needs outside intervention I will report it to uninvolved admins at the proper noticeboard, and I would encourage you to do the same. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:43, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Recentism

Are you sure you and the other admin (Melanie) are interpreting this correct? I take this policy to mean: In a biography of "x" (person, organization, etc), don't apply extra weight to event y, just because it happened recently. Conversely, you guys seem to think it means: don't apply extra weight to "y" (the thing that happened recently to organization or person "x), even if the majority of RS coverage related to x is about y.

I'm not unsympathetic to your notion that recent events should not define an individual or organization that has done a lot of important things. But, again, this strikes me as an editorial judgment on your part, rather than a product of policy.

Regarding Dominion, if the "recent" events (i.e. its role in the 2020 election, and the erroneous conspiracy theories that arose from it) constitute the large majority of RS mentions about the firm, aren't we obliged to weight accordingly? CozyandDozy (talk) 05:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you're replying here rather than on the article talk page; it splits the discussion and also makes it harder for other editors to weigh in. But yes, I am aware of what the WP:RECENTISM essay says. See the portion on "article imbalance" and "articles ha[ving] an inflated or imbalanced focus on recent events". I am quite aware that much of the sourcing around Dominion is covering recent events, but looking at the lead you'd barely know this company existed since 2002, there is no mention of the systems' widespread use in Canada, etc. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pkeets

What is the protocol for reporting someone clearly WP:NOTHERE for good purposes? [41] [42] [43], and some WP:POVPUSH items like this too [44] IHateAccounts (talk) 15:37, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Typically a report at ANI is the way to go. I think you saw my Bus stop report, which you could perhaps use as a model. There is also WP:AE if you wanted to go that route, although ANI will probably reach more eyes and an AE topic ban can still be imposed at ANI. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I might be able to work on it tomorrow, today has been tied up with limited family and trying to stay offline for mental health. IHateAccounts (talk) 04:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I created a draft [45], I would appreciate any thoughts or feedback you have. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@IHateAccounts: I've read over it briefly, and would recommend adding to it their behavior at Talk:Sidney Powell if you're not already planning to. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the input! I've included items from Talk:Sidney Powell and also Talk:Dominion Voting Systems, would you be ok giving it another look? IHateAccounts (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good timing! I just finished my evening chores and sat down with a fresh cup of tea for some Wikipedia time, so I'll go take a look now. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@IHateAccounts: I've made a few edits, mostly to make links a little clearer and to add timestamps. I've also removed some mentions of behavior that isn't particularly problematic (for example, adding redlinks before creating Sidney Powell and adding her to lists of notable alumni). Feel free to revert any or all of my edit if you disagree with it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:31, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time looking at it and your expertise in the writing! I'm going to file it in a moment. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:34, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@IHateAccounts: One more thing: I would avoid suggesting a NOTHERE sanction. NOTHERE is generally for folks who show no intention of positive contributions to the encyclopedia. Although Pkeets has been quite disruptive in recent weeks in this topic area, they are a highly active editor with a long editing history, and so NOTHERE does not likely apply. On the same note, I'm not sure what "Their 7th edit was the creation of Sidney Powell" means—they've been editing since 2007, long before the Powell article ever existed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That was a misreading on my part. I clicked for older edits on their history and was taken to not the oldest set of their edits. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, makes sense, that's easy to do. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Joy. Of course right-wing PackMecEng shows up, they never miss a chance to cast aspersions on me. [46] IHateAccounts (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@IHateAccounts: I would recommend removing "I am well aware that, as a right-wing editor, PackMecEng dislikes me (especially since I am nonbinary)." without some strong evidence. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They just claimed they "had no way of knowing". My pronouns are literally on my user page. I call bullshit. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. But as far as I've seen, PackMecEng has made no comments about your pronouns or gender, hence why I'd recommend either producing diffs or removing the comment—otherwise it is indeed casting aspersions, and only likely to add fuel to their comments about you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They've already misrepresented many other edits as well... I'm walking away. I knew there was a likelihood posting this would lead to multiple right-wing editors coming in to scream, but I think what I need is a hot soak with a lush bomb. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, though I would still urge you to strike or remove the comment. Bath bomb sounds like a great idea, enjoy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Double barf. A friend emailed me that this came across their feed. https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/k2z8px/wpanipkeets/ It looks like reddit moderators killed the post, they called me a "tranny" there but I don't know what else was said. I hate this so much. IHateAccounts (talk) 02:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is disgusting. I'm sorry you are experiencing this kind of harassment in off-wiki venues. I'm glad the Reddit moderator was quick to remove it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December with Women in Red

Women in Red | December 2020, Volume 6, Issue 12, Numbers 150, 173, 178, 182, 183

Online events:

New: Women who died in 2020 | Philanthropists
Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman | BLM/Anti-discrimination
Contest (Oct-Nov-Dec): Women in Asia

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Re: Bus stop

Sorry to ask, I just saw that Bus stop appears to have decided their new task is tagging individuals as Jewish on Wikipedia [47]. I don't know if it's close enough to the scope of their topic ban but it's... disconcerting to see. IHateAccounts (talk) 21:42, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe this is new for them; see the ANI archives. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At this point does this qualify as hounding? PackMecEng (talk) 22:29, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think it does. It's a legitimate concern, and IHA asking about it (or Bus stop's previous behavior, which was problematic enough to earn them a topic ban) is not hounding. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Following them around to articles to complain about the same user over and over trying to get them sanctioned by a preferred admin is problematic. You encouraged them above to try one of the various drama boards but here we are again. I understand you two have an issue with them, but at this point you two should probably just let it go and move on to something productive is all I'm saying. PackMecEng (talk) 22:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IHA is perfectly aware that I am WP:INVOLVED with Bus stop, and cannot (and would not) take administrator action against them. This is not IHA asking for me to sanction Bus stop. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, a better way to put it would probably be trying to get you to take them to a notice board again. You encouraged them above to try one of the various drama boards but here we are again. I understand you two have an issue with them, but at this point you two should probably just let it go and move on to something productive is all I'm saying. PackMecEng (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PackMecEng: I had a reasonable concern when I saw a tendentious person going around appearing to start flagging pages of notable people with the word "Jewish". I asked for GorillaWarfare's perspective and advice because she is much more experienced than I am. Nothing more. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why was my protection request of my signature page declined?

Why was my protection request of my signature declined? Best regards, 4thfile4thrank {talk} :? 22:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:UPROT: "User pages and subpages within their own user space may be protected upon a request from the user, as long as a need exists. Pages within the user space should not be automatically or pre-emptively protected without good reason or cause." GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The reason I requested it is that it is like a high risk template. Everything on that page is directly transcluded to all my signatures in all the talk pages. If someone edits it, it change will show on all my signatures. Is that a valid enough reason? Best regards, 4thfile4thrank {talk} :? 00:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@4thfile4thrank: If the page proves to be a common target of vandalism, then you can re-request it be protected. But we generally don't protect pages that might be vandalized before it actually happens. I imagine you could reduce the risk of vandalism further by removing the link to the signature page from your userpage; then most people won't even know you're using a template in your signature that could be vandalized.

Furthermore, high-risk templates are generally considered as such because they are transcluded on many pages (that is, the current content of the template is what shows up on the page, regardless of when the template was added) and not substituted (that is, the content of the template at the time of save is substituted into the page, and effectively capturing a "snapshot" of the template at that point in time), or because they're substituted by many different users (like the common warning templates; not the case for a signature). I imagine you will be substituting, not transcluding the template in your signature, which effectively limits the risk only to signatures you leave after the vandalism occurs, rather than to all pages your signature exists on. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per the guidance on signatures, transclusions are not allowed and substitutions discouraged, for the very reason you are citing as well as others. isaacl (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Champ and Major

On 28 November 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Champ and Major, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Major will be the first rescue dog to live in the White House? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Champ and Major. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Champ and Major), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exchange of Opinions about the Corrective Tone, re. My Bitchute addition, I Hope, Welcome.

Hello. Whenever one joins an organization, one has, I accept, to defer to those whose personal efforts, and imaginative endeavours, preceded one's own, unless one joins those who are influential, in a project's evolution. But it's not about that I write. As others I've read elsewhere, on other topics, the need to express a disappointment with the tone of the correction has arisen. To be advised to "Take it up with...", and, startlingly, to speak of grades of "Warning", is really quite unnecessary. Surely, this is meant to be a mutually enjoyable, friendly, collective effort, where one doesn't expect to have a mortarboard, or piece of chalk, seeringly propelled into the eye?; and, as one who's made to feel that next time, the summary sentence shall be that a spell standing outside the classroom door, without appeal, shall be passed? Anyway, I felt that for the voiceless, and for myself, I owed the truth the same liberty of expression as I allow my critics. I'm sure that this exchange has stimulated the same entriguing philosophical stimulation within each of us, which listening to others often creates. I'll contact, as you advise, the American website that you recommend, as I feel that to misdescribe their political status that way, could only be the too-suuccessful use of irony, convincing their critics of the rightness of their suspicions, and themselves of the impossibility of trying to rationalise with the bitter. I feel that they are doing themselves a disservice. If I receive a reply, I'll let you know. Thanks. Heath St John. Heath St John (talk) 14:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Heath St John: The edit summary you're referring to said, "this is the same description agreed upon at InfoWars. Take it up at Talk:InfoWars if you think it ought to change". This was a perfectly civil and polite explanation of my reversion, and your description of it as having "a mortarboard, or piece of chalk, seeringly propelled into the eye" is bizarre exaggeration. I am not sure why you feel the need to dedicate this long comment to perceived issues with my tone rather than discuss your actual concerns about the article on the article talk page, but I am not particularly interested in engaging with it any further. I also don't know what you mean when you say I have "startlingly, to speak of grades of 'Warning'".

As for the actual advice, you have misunderstood me. I suggested you raise your concerns with the description of InfoWars in the BitChute article at the talk page of the InfoWars Wikipedia article, not with the InfoWars company themselves. This is because the BitChute article is simply reprinting the description that has been agreed upon at the InfoWars article, and so any issues with that description should be discussed where it originated. You are certainly welcome to contact InfoWars themselves about anything you wish, but I don't see how it will change anything on Wikipedia. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:20, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Heath St John (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Hey I just wanted to thank you for talking me through my issue on the PUMA wikipedia page. I just checked back in (it's been a busy month) and saw what you said/did.

I know you do a lot on this website, especially regarding political extremism, so I appreciate you taking time out to figure out that page.

Thanks again, Alexandra K. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.189.62 (talk) 23:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing! And apologies again for my original confusion around it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:48, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020).

Administrator changes

Andrwsc • Anetode • GoldenRing • JzG • LinguistAtLarge • Nehrams2020

Interface administrator changes

Izno

Guideline and policy news

There is a request for comment in progress to either remove T3 (duplicated and hardcoded instances) as a speedy deletion criterion or eliminate its seven-day waiting period.

Technical news

Voting for proposals in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey, which determines what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year, will take place from 8 December through 21 December. In particular, there are sections regarding administrators and anti-harassment.

Arbitration

Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 7 December 2020 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.