User talk:GorillaWarfare/Archive 13

July 2017 at Women in Red

		Welcome to Women in Red's July 2017 worldwide online editathons.
		File:60C0074BA4FF-1 Джемма Халид.jpg "Women in dance" "Women in music" "Women from India"

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 02:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

AN

I have reverted Nick's close, despite your endorsement of it, because I think that more discussion is needed. I understand your feelings of irritation at all parties to this, but I had independently noticed problems with Dr.S's reviewing. DGG ( talk ) 01:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

If you truly think it's needed, I won't object, though I think this will only end in SwisterTwister digging themself into a hole and more time being wasted on this issue. We shall see. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I think you may be right about the end result, but there are still the problems of other reviewers also. DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Paul George back to semi protection

Hey GorillaWarfare. Bagumba recently increased protection on Paul George to admin-only due to content disputes regarding a transaction he is involved with. That transaction, a trade, has now been completed and made official [1] [2], so the page can be returned back now to semi-protect edit mode. I logged a request at Bagumba's talk page, but he is currently inactive. With this being a pressing event, the page needs to be returned back to allow confirmed users to edit the page to reflect the trade being officially announced. If you could help out, that would be much appreciated. Cheers. 18:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@DaHuzyBru: Looks like it was just reduced to semi-protection by another administrator. You should be all set. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate the response, but it wasn't actually reduced. The protection was increased to indefinite. I still can't edit the page. DaHuzyBru (talk) 18:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@DaHuzyBru: Have you tried editing it? The protection that was placed was indefinite semi-protection, which you should be able to edit through. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I can only see "view source"? I don't know what's up. The same problem was noted here. DaHuzyBru (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Legend! Thanks a tone. DaHuzyBru (talk) 18:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2017).

Administrator changes

Happyme22 • Dragons flight

Zad68

Guideline and policy news

• The RFC discussion regarding WP:OUTING and WMF essay about paid editing and outing (see more at the ArbCom noticeboard archives) is now archived. Milieus #3 and #4 received support; so did concrete proposal #1.

Technical news

• Fuzzy search will soon be added to Special:Undelete, allowing administrators to search for deleted page titles with results similar to the search query. You can test this by adding ?fuzzy=1 to the URL, as with Special:Undelete?fuzzy=1. Currently the search only finds pages that exactly match the search term.
• A new bot will automatically revision delete unused file versions from files in Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old.

Miscellaneous

• A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
• A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
• Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Virginia Apuzzo

On 10 July 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Virginia Apuzzo, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Virginia Apuzzo was a nun until shortly after the Stonewall riots, when she left her convent and became a gay rights and AIDS activist? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Virginia Apuzzo. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Virginia Apuzzo), 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.

Alex Shih^Talk 00:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion: 5miles

Hi! I´ve just seen you marked this page (5miles) for speedy deletion. Can you please help me understand why? I used credible sources to make sure it passes the "Credible claim of significance" test. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mchichorro (talk • contribs) 02:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@Mchichorro: There are some sources on that article, but there's very little text at all explaining what is notable about the company. I've moved it to Draft:5miles if you'd like to continue working on it; you might find WP:Your first article helpful. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Thank you so much for clear explanation. I understand now what the problem was. I worked on it to make sure it is a better fit. Please check it and if you think is ok, move it from draft. Thank you

@Mchichorro: If you add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the article, someone will review it and see if it's ready to be moved back. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Sunday July 16: New England Wiknic @ Cambridge, MA

Sunday July 16, 1-5pm: New England Wiknic

You are invited to join us the "picnic anyone can edit" at John F. Kennedy Park, near Harvard Square, Cambridge, as part of the Great American Wiknic celebrations being held across the USA. Remember it's a wiki-picnic, which means potluck. Sunday July 16 New England Wiknic (also on Facebook) 1–5pm - come by any time! Look for us by the Wikipedia / Wikimedia banner! We hope to see you there! --Phoebe (talk) 16:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Request for your Expert Review or Opinion

Hello GorillaWarfare, is there a chance that you have a look at the article "Nader El-Bizri" and the discussions around it? I am a new editor here, and I hope that such request is within the bounds of the Wikipedia policies and etiquette. Thanks kindly (AcademeEditorial (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC))

re: AfD/Prime Campus

Thanks for your note. I've responded on my talk page. -User:Grutness

Draft: Lynn Cominsky - recent deletion of submission

The draft submission of the article titled 'Lynn Cominsky' was recently deleted by you for copyright violation. The author of the referenced website has provided the content under the correct license as per Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. The current page placeholder states to 'contact the user who completed this action' before trying again. I would like this page undeleted, as the copyright infringement is no longer accurate.

From the email, of which I have a copy:

---

"I hereby affirm that I, Dr. Lynn Cominsky am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of http://www-glast.sonoma.edu/~lynnc/biography.htm, and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work. I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. Dr. Lynn Cominsky Copyright Holder July 14, 2017"

Sidenote in regards to your username: I'm really looking forward to seeing the new Planet of the Apes. Thanks for reminding me.

Gentlemanscientist (talk) 17:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

In order to release this, she should send the email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org so there is a record of it accessible to volunteers. Alternatively, she can post a notice on the sonoma.edu page declaring that she's releasing it under that license. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The email was sent to that address this morning. Gentlemanscientist (talk) 19:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@Gentlemanscientist: Thanks for letting me know. I've processed the ticket, and it looks like the article was just moved out of the draft space to Lynn Cominsky. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Kraiburg TPE

Regarding Draft:Kraiburg TPE

I have received a note from SwisterTwister yesterday as below:

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.

This submission appears to be taken from https://www.jobstreet.com.my/en/companies/441388-kraiburg-tpe-technology-m/. Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere, unless it explicitly and verifiably has been released to the world under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license or into the public domain and is written in an acceptable tone—this includes material that you own the copyright to. You should attribute the content of a draft to outside sources, using citations, but copying and pasting or closely paraphrasing sources is not acceptable. The entire draft should be written using your own words and structure. Note to reviewers: do not leave copyright violations sitting in the page history. Please follow the instructions here.

After reading this, I intend to delete the unapproved link. But before I could react, the article has been deleted quickly two hours later.

Kindly reinstate the article so that I can make the necessary change and send for re-submission.

Thank youApmsia (talk) 07:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@Apmsia: The part of the article that was not taken from that source is so promotional in tone that I think you would be better off rewriting it completely. Before you do so, you should read WP:COI and WP:YFA. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:07, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Deleted?

Why did you delete the Iron March article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiwaz1488 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Tiwaz1488: Did you even read the delete template ? It was deleted as "A7: No credible indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events)" - FlightTime (open channel) 23:19, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Salvidrim!

I moved your response from question 6 to the discussion section. You may move it within the discussion section if it makes more sense, or move to the talk page if you would like. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! Happy to leave it where it is if you think that's the best place for it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Any of those areas are OK. I try to clerk RfX's with a very light hand - however placement in the questions section gave it a bit undue weight for editors landing on the page. You could of course ask a question, but it didn't seem that is where you were going with your response. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 04:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Since the RfB got closed I can't respond there, so I'll note here instead- I resent very much your statement that I must not have read your oppose links based solely on the fact that I disagreed with you. I read them; I just don't care- I vote on people's roles on Wikipedia based on their actions on Wikipedia. Salvidrim's actions and statements off-wiki and in real life would certainly be a point of concern were he running for a public-facing role representing the WMF, but he wasn't- even most editors on-wiki haven't heard of the position. It concerns me a little that even if he was explicitly okay with it that your inclination was to go trawling through his off-wiki posts looking for something objectionable before voting on an internal minor functional role. A little bit more considering you're an arb, and I know personally that arbcom would throw out any statements in an arbcom case about off-wiki activity. --PresN 15:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I apologize for the implication that you didn't read the oppose votes; that was rude of me. Regarding the trawling thing, I had come across his Reddit posts some time ago because of his activity on a Wikipedia/GamerGate subreddit where I am occasionally mentioned. I looked through them more carefully when he submitted his candidacy for ArbCom about a year ago, because I had concerns about him joining the Arbitration Committee. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, sorry for getting upset and accusing you of trawling for muck; the scenario is a bit different if you'd been aware of his posting beforehand. --PresN 17:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• I just wanted to state I do not support any of what was said and had I realised that was said I would've opposed immediately, I've since asked if it could be struck as for me this is something I cannot ignore nor support,

As for the Opposes, I only read up to #2 ("Sorry, but I have serious concerns about the candidate's judgement and demeanor, having observed a number of their interactions since being promoted to admin (which I supported)") and figured everyone was unhappy about his "childish" behaviour and simply made my support, But I did simply want to state I don't support any of his views and as I said had I known they were made I would've struck in a heartbeat, Thank you for the ping tho and thus making me aware, Happy editing, –Davey2010^Talk 16:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Just read the RfB and I have to voice my objections to digging some Reddit comments about what he had done when he was 7 years old too. What a low-blow. One editor I dislike has posted strange fetish stuff on other sites, but under no circumstances would I bring that stuff up here to make an argument, and even if I did it would be rev-deleted pretty fast. --Pudeo (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Pudeo there is a difference here. The editor that you refer to is just a regular editor, right? They aren't trying to place themselves in a situation where the trust of the community is required; a position which to non-Wikipedians represents Wikipedia. Per WP:ADMINACCT, "Conduct elsewhere incompatible with adminship" may be scrutinized which is different than for regular editors. In every employee handbook worth its salt there will be a clause that states something along the lines that you shouldn't bring the company into disrepute. He was applying for a higher management position, so to speak and that certainly becomes a consideration. How one exercises their discretion is germane here. The postings didn't occur when he was seven years old. I imagine that he would concede at this point that he exercised poor discretion by publishing those comments.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Pudeo There's a huge difference between posting about "strange fetish stuff" and posting about molesting another child, criminally exposing yourself, how you identify with many traits of psychopaths and narcissists, etc. It would be ridiculous to say that a 7 year old's actions have much bearing on how someone would do as a bureaucrat, I agree. But the posts were recent, and I do think they are relevant. As for the rev-deletion comment, if you're trying to imply I've outed Salvidrim! by referring to his postings on Reddit, I have not. He publicly links the two accounts on Wikipedia and frequently posts on Wikiepdia-adjacent subreddits, which is how I stumbled across his account in the first place.

You may not think it's relevant information, and that's your prerogative; I think there were others who !voted there who agree with you. But that's why everyone is allowed to !vote how they please on RfXs, and explain why they did so. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Kurtis ^(talk) 15:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much, GW. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2017

Thank you for your contributions to SpongeBob SquarePants 4-D, but we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, so please keep your edits factual and neutral. Our readers are looking for serious articles and will not find joke edits amusing. Remember that Wikipedia is a widely used reference tool, so we have to take what we do here seriously. If you'd like to experiment with editing, use the sandbox instead. Thank you. 2.31.86.232 (talk) 20:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red's new initiative: 1day1woman

		Women in Red is pleased to introduce... A new initiative for worldwide online coverage: 1day1woman
		Create articles on any day of any month Cover women and their works in any field of interest Feel free to add articles in other languages, too Social media hashtag campaign: #1day1woman (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 03:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

August 2017 at Women in Red

		Welcome to Women in Red's August 2017 worldwide online editathons.
		"Indigenous women" "Women in peace" "Canadian women"

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --

A new WiR initiative starting in August

		Introducing... WiR's new initaitve: 1day1woman for worldwide online coverage Facilitated by Women in Red
		Create articles on any day of any month Cover women and their works in any field of interest Feel free to add articles in other languages too (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Thanks for taking care of that sockfarm at Juwel Rana actor GABgab 22:47, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2017).

Administrator changes

Anarchyte • GeneralizationsAreBad • Cullen328 ^{(first RfA to reach WP:300)}

Cprompt • Rockpocket • Rambo's Revenge • Animum • TexasAndroid • Chuck SMITH • MikeLynch • Crazytales • Ad Orientem

Guideline and policy news

• Following a series of discussions around new pages patrol, the WMF is helping implement a controlled autoconfirmed article creation trial as a research experiment, similar to the one proposed in 2011. You can learn more about the research plan at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial. The exact start date of the experiment has yet to be determined.
• A new speedy deletion criterion, regarding articles created as a result undisclosed paid editing, is currently being discussed (permalink).
• An RfC (permalink) is currently open that proposes expanding WP:G13 to include all drafts, even if they weren't submitted through Articles for Creation.

Technical news

• LoginNotify should soon be deployed to the English Wikipedia. This will notify users when there are suspicious login attempts on their account.
• The new version of XTools is nearing an official release. This suite of tools includes administrator statistics, an improved edit counter, among other tools that may benefit administrators. You can report issues on Phabricator and provide general feedback at mw:Talk:XTools.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks (but don't waste your energy)

Thank you for your kindness on Kudpung's talk page. I'm not bothered by the comments, insinuations, or vague threats. It's all part of the Wikipedia experience. I find the toadying a bit hard to take, but that's probably just me. Cheers! World's Lamest Critic (talk) 01:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad that you're not bothered; I'm saddened that it's part of the Wikipedia experience. Good luck with your editing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare deleted page Marti Amado

Hello, I do't understand this deletion. I had contested it. I had edited it to add links. The subject is a Hollywood musician (the links were there). 1. Why was it still deleted? 2. Where can the page be found now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aman Zaidi (talk • contribs) 09:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Aman Zaidi: When I deleted the article, it did not meet the notability criteria for musicians (see WP:NMUSIC). I've moved it to the draftspace at Draft:Marti Amado. You can continue working on it there, and submit it for review by adding {{subst:submit}} when you're ready. Please note that if you move it back into the articlespace yourself and it still does not meet the notability criteria, it will likely be deleted again. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Thank you. Any tips on how I could improve it further? Also, I think it would fit nicely under the Women in Music section on your WiR projects. Aman Zaidi (talk) 08:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of the page Khethukuthula Mhlongo and Draft: Khethukuthula Mhlongo

Hey. @GorillaWarfare I noticed that you deleted my page on the grounds that it was unambiguous promo / advertising. I would like to refute such. I clearly understood your intentions and I moved the page to Draft fpr further editing. What I dont understand is why would you delete a draft that was still undergoing extensive edits and rewriting? I wish to appeal to your conscience as an administrator to give us juniors time to carefully craft our pages and articles. Deleting pages and/or articles we jave spent so much time crafting and researching about is absolutely discouraging. @GorillaWarfare: Mhlongokhetho (talk) 10:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Currently Mhlongokhetho is conducting guerilla warfare (proposing 5 articles for deletion and laughing at Jacob Zuma). Vysotsky (talk) 14:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Mhlongokhetho: I looked into restoring the draft article and just removing all the promotional content and unusable references, but ended up with basically nothing left. If you really want to work on this article, try reading WP:YFA and WP:NBIO, then trying again in the draftspace. That said, I don't think that this person comes close to meeting our notability criteria, so it's probably not worth doing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Mohamed Mohamed Fouad

@GorillaWarfare: Hi, Mohamed Mohamed Fouad, seems to have been magically reappeared. scope_creep (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Re-deleted and warned. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I tried to go into page curation about that but apparently you need a User Right to use it now. I find this ironic.--Jorm (talk) 19:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

This user creates new accounts as fast as his others are deleted. He uses every combination of the word 'Fouad', and then some. I block this character and delete his works as fast a I can and I have suggested making a filter or user name creation blacklist (or whatever we do in such circumstance) but no one has reacted. Ironically, SPI is terribly understaffed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Move Educate! (nonprofit) to Educate!?

Hi, GW. There is a Ugandan nonprofit called Educate! that we have a page on, but it seems the most obvious title for it has been protected from creation, and so our article about it lives with an unnecessary parenthetical disambiguator. (I somehow doubt there are a lot of other things called "Educate!".) Would you be so kind as to wave your magic mop and move the article to the proper place? --GRuban (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@GRuban: I can... but reading that article I'm more tempted to G11 it. Are you planning to clean it up? GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Um ... that was not the goal I was looking for! No, I wasn't planning on it, it's not really my main focus. I'm slowly working on User:GRuban/Lyndsey Scott (black woman model and programmer - beat that) who wrote her first app for that nonprofit, which is why I noticed it. I mean I'll do it if you insist, but it's not that bad, surely? It's only 8 sentences long, after all...? --GRuban (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

That's kind of the issue -- when a page consists of eight sentences and most of them are as promotional as "Educate! is partnering with governments schools to foster a culture of entrepreneurship among youth by tailoring an innovative and cost-effective education model to the skill requirements of the job market.", it falls pretty squarely into the G11 category. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin case

Should Legacypac be a named/involved party in the case? As I understand it, it was his Autopatrolled user right which was removed by AR, and restored by DGG. Mjroots (talk) 12:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Mjroots: I'm briefly online to check a few things but don't have time right now to look in on that case request. You'll probably get a quicker answer by asking at the case request or emailing the Committee; otherwise I'll try to get back to you soon. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Hello, back. I see that Legacypac has said in their statement "I'm uninvolved in and previously unaware of the dispute brought here." While they may have had disputes with Arthur Rubin, I'm hesitant to add them to the list of involved parties myself because of this. If they wish to add themselves as an involved party I will not object, but I see no reason to do it for them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC);

I've mentioned the incident in my statement. I'm not going to force the issue now, it's something that can be presented as evidence. Mjroots (talk) 04:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I have never been engaged in any TRM vs AR issues and as I said, was completely unaware of the dispute. I just happened to see AR being discussed at ANi and ArbComm and given his recent abuse of me, posted a note. When requested to substantiate my note at ANi I created User:Legacypac/AR because I'm totally unlike AR and I can back up anything I say. I have no interest in being a party to an ArbComm case unless absolutely necessary and I've already made my evidence available for review in support of the filing. I've made my opinions clear at ANi. Oh and not autopattrolled but NPP right. Easy to confuse them. Legacypac (talk) 14:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

User:PakePakwan

Hello, I found another account of User:PakePakwan, it is User:PAKHIGHWAY. He just put back all the POV edits of sock account User:DawedalRaqqa which I had reversed. (2600:1001:B00F:C83A:F571:B46C:2494:E2 (talk) 12:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC))

@GorillaWarfare: Good day. Upon your investigation, you will most likely conclude that the claims being made by talk is indeed a false accusation. I have been working hard for the past few days in resurrecting the History of Pakistan wiki article, which was a complete mess. What I would like to highlight is that the person making these false accusations is him or herself guilty of using several fake user IDs: User talk:2600:1001:B022:9456:78B8:AE85:6CBD:C2A, User talk:2600:1001:B00F:C83A:B021:8FCE:3046:6FB6, User talk:2600:1001:B129:1728:EC19:6226:642B:1B69,User:2600:1017:b429:564c:9d19:4c33:46ce:2581 (This was blocked). All 4 ID's are making the same edits and has a history of wanting to add "Indian Subcontinent" (an obsolete term) into all articles related to South Asia. Kindly consider investigating this Wiki user. Thank you and have a nice day. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 14:08, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@2600:1001:B00F:C83A:F571:B46C:2494:E2: You should really bring these concerns to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PakePakwan, not to the talk pages of random checkusers. I can't really help you at the moment. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Goats

So I guess goats are the new kittens? So have a goat Barnstar

--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 04:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

If you think I'm going to foster goats, you're woefully mistaken 😛 GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Thenmozhi Soundararajan

Sorry about the conflict - I didn't realise you were still editing. Will leave you to it. - Sitush (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Not a problem! GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikimania photos

• 
• 
• 

Hello Molly! It was great to see you at Wikimania again and learn about your recent work. Also thanks for doing Wikipedia Weekly - I enjoyed listening. I have joined the Wikimania episode of Wikipedia Weekly before and found the conversation inspiring. I hope you have another fruitful year to come, whether or not that involves more ArbCom Deryck C. 12:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Great to see you at Wikimania, and I'm glad you enjoyed the podcast! Thanks for the photos, they're great! GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Possible BLP violations on 2017 Berkeley protests

Pinging you since you redacted names added to this article previously. You might want to check out recent edits and current discussion on the talk page. Funcrunch (talk) 18:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm responsible for the edit he's complaining about. After extensive discussion on the talk page with delete-ers, I proposed a compromise mentioning the person -- who's name apparently we are forbidden to use -- but only using media sites. Namely:

• BAUER, SHANE (27 April 2017). "A Punch in the Face Was Just the Start of the Alt-Right's Attack on a Berkeley Protester". Mother Jones. Retrieved 19 August 2017.
• "Woman seen getting punched in viral video speaks out". CBS News. 18 April 2017. Retrieved 19 August 2017.
• "Was a Protester Throwing Explosives Into a Berkeley Crowd Before She Was Punched?". Snopes. Retrieved 19 August 2017.
• and this article in the New York Times following the Charotteville killing -- "'Antifa' Grows as Left-Wing Faction Set to, Literally, Fight the Far Right". 17 August 2017. Retrieved 24 August 2017., which includes a photo of the woman and the caption "[name deleted] became a symbol of the antifa movement in April when a white nationalist leader punched her in the face during a melee near the University of California, Berkeley." --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

(I should have mentioned that my opponents have NOT agreed to my suggestion, but just wanted to let you know that I am not seeking to have my old edit reinstated. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC))

@Funcrunch: Done, thanks for the ping. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society

Dear GorillaWarfare,

It was nice meeting you at Wikimania 2017. I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more. Cheers!

Best regards, DarkFireTaker (talk) 03:19, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

September 2017 at Women in Red

		Welcome to Women in Red's September 2017 worldwide online editathons.
		"Hispanic and Latina Women" "Women in the Olympics" "Women from New Zealand"

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Administrators' newsletter – September 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2017).

Administrator changes

Nakon • Scott

Sverdrup • Thespian • Elockid • James086 • Ffirehorse • Celestianpower • Boing! said Zebedee

Guideline and policy news

• ACTRIAL, a research experiment that restricts article creation to autoconfirmed users, will begin on September 7. It will run for six months. You can learn more about the research specifics at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial, while Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed article creation trial is probably the best venue for general discussion.
• Following an RfC, WP:G13 speedy deletion criterion now applies to any page in the draftspace that has not been edited in six months. There is a bot-generated report, updated daily, to help identify potentially qualifying drafts that have not been submitted through articles for creation.

Technical news

• You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
• Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
• In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.

Arbitration

• Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Andrea Pino

My edits had citations and were not NPOV. If you believe my actions were in error, please leave this on the talk page of the Andrea Pino article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthseeker5005 (talk • contribs)

@Truthseeker5005: (talk page watcher)I see a citation to Digital Journal that was user-submitted and so falls under WP:USERG. I also see a bunch of little bits of commentary strewn throughout that were not sourced and obviously biased. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

More or less what Ian.thomson said. That article is an opinion piece, and even if it was a usable source, many of your changes were not supported by it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I am not "Alt-Right"

I have found your twitter page, in which you describe me/my edits as alt-right. Thank you for the insult over the internet. I'm not even white, but ok. I am totally an alt-right neo-nazi bigot kkk klansman fascist mcnazifashy whatever you say I am. I just wanted to get equal coverage of both sides on the whole antifa debacle, and you are strawmanning. I would like a deletion of said slander. I recognize you have biases, and I have mine (I am actually a classical liberal vehmently opposed to any sort of racial or ethnic collectivism).

I also would like to say that I don't read the Daily Mail at all. I honestly mostly read reddit, mises.org, reason.com, and I also lurk on twitter. I have made all of my biases very clear. I have seen that you make your biases fairly clear on your twitter page. I understand Wikipedia operates under a bu**sh*t NPOV, but I am brave enough to get any bias I have out there. I wish you could recognize that as well.

There has been an FBI report out since mid 2016 that recognizes this danger (you deleted it from the article) of Antifa. There have been numerous sources from left-leaning media outlets, such as Vox (The Case Against Antifa) or even Trevor Noah that recognize that Antifa is a violent organization. This isn't my opinion. These are the facts of what happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fierysunset (talk • contribs)

@Fierysunset: See WP:OUTING. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Said user has already posted their full name in their User: page. I will just say "your twitter page".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fierysunset (talk • contribs)

Doesn't matter. If you posted your name, would that justify someone posting your other personal information? No. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Well how do I get this slander to be removed? I am clearly not alt-right. Do I tweet her with my random twitter account that I use only for viewing (I have 0 tweets on it)?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fierysunset (talk • contribs)

Gosh, you don't like being called alt-right? Could it be that it's inappropriate to accuse people of belonging to extremist groups, like you did here and here? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Some members are actually antifa supporters like: Bobfrombrockley, who edits the Antifa page regularly and calls himself an antifa supporter in his biography. I have huge respect for him just for recognizing his own bias. I also have respect for your overt bias as a Humanist in your biography. I have mostly strayed from editing the content of political articles until fairly recently, so I haven't put down my own biases. Most editors who edit on a certain topic care immensely about it. This is not their fault. If they support Antifa, say it out loud. I don't know if GorillaWarfare supports antifa, I was just mad people keep vandalizing Wikipedia for their own biases. This is why teachers hate this site (if you have been working in a school project) so much. It is just edit warring all over the place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fierysunset (talk • contribs)

So because one user supports the broader antifascist movement, everyone who edits the article is a card-carrying member of Antifa? Do you not see the hypocrisy here?

And as someone who studied and worked in education, no this is not why teachers don't let students use Wikipedia and that is a useless red herring that only gets thrown out when one can't make a valid point. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

As someone currently in high school, teachers don't let you use Wiki because anyone can edit it, including highly biased people like us right now. Don't take what I said out of context. I apologize for my own hypocrisy, but you will never be allowed to downplay the fact that people tend to edit pages they have an intrinsic interest in. I never said everyone was antifa, but I said that people who generally support the movement, whether it be antifa, or feminism, or libertarianism tend to edit the pages about the topic. A fewer amount of people are critics who need to be heard as well to give a true NPOV due to diversity of opinion and viewpoint. That user is the only overt one that I have found looking back within the last 50 edits. I did indeed get mad, and will not do so in the future. FIREYSUNSET (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Color me unsurprised to learn that you are in high school.--Jorm (talk) 19:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, my Lord. I have been so pleased to get a reply back from a Wikimedia administrator. This day will live on forever in my heart FIREYSUNSET (talk) 19:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That anyone can edit this is why we're more expansive and more accurate than the Encyclopedia Britannica. The real issue is that Wikipedia is an tertiary source with no credentials (that's why we don't Wikipedia). The sources we cite are good, though. That's what a university teacher who visits Wikipedia for more than the "List of (show) episodes" lists would tell you. My degree is for teaching English (language or literature) and I taught in a university for the past two years.

And most of our political articles actually attract as many members on the opposite end of the spectrum, actually. In the long-run, as the disruptive members of either side are blocked or else learn to cooperate, the article becomes more neutral. This goes beyond politics: I work with a lot of atheists in the religion articles. Users with strong feelings are more likely to end up being topic banned or even blocked because they have a harder time cooperating. I'm saying this with about 10 years worth of experience, and any other user who has been here for more than a few years will back me up on that. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: If Fierysunset dug hard enough I'm sure they could find where I've linked my Twitter account before on-wiki, so I have no problem with that, though I appreciate you looking out. @Fierysunset: It's good advice that you not do that in general, though—it would have been outing if I hadn't made the connection myself.

I've deleted the tweets, since you asked nicely (kind of) and because you're right that it's not fair for me assume you are alt-right. Similarly I would recommend you don't call other editors members of antifa.

Regarding There has been an FBI report out since mid 2016 that recognizes this danger (you deleted it from the article) of Antifa.: You are still not following: I removed no reference. This claim is exactly why I found the situation funny enough to tweet about in the first place. Please look closely at the edit I made: [3]. See how I removed only the content of the reference but left <ref name=dhs_ter/>? This is because that same exact reference is used elsewhere in the article. You can look at the rendered version of the page as it appeared after my change to confirm that that reference remains (reference 10), or ctrl-f in the page source to see the original "dhs_ter" ref. If you're not clear on what's happening there, check out Help:Footnotes#Footnotes:_using_a_source_more_than_once.

There is literally no difference in the page after my change except that the bright red "citation error" message is gone. No references were removed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

A lot of this argument looks like Whataboutism to me. Irrelevant falacious arguments. WP:Don't feed the trolls. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

hola GorillaWarfare

Hi, if I removed some content of the Marcia Mead article it was a mistake. I´ve only tried to translate the article from english to spanish. Thank you for your advise! Agpesk Agpesk (talk) 20:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Agpesk:! It looks like you inadvertently removed the infobox from the beginning of the article: see the difference between your edit and the previous version. Not a problem, it's fixed now. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Main page images

Sorry about the revert - I hadn't realised that the image had been changed for a different one of the hurricane, and that you'd used a different protection method for the replacement image. Thryduulf (talk) 22:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

No problem! GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality

I have yet to perceive the merest soupcon of neutrality on Wikipedia. All I see is left-wing reactionism. You also shy away from the least controversy unless it is of the Trump-bashing type, worthy of Bill Maher or one of his grapefruit-IQ'ed associates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:581:302:FB9B:18AD:4BDB:B597:571D (talk) 01:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I would encourage you to try to fix those changes where you see them. Introducing more is not helpful. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Deleting pages

Why did you delete the article about a sports club which has been national champion in an international sport? What makes this not relevant enough for Wikipedia? Bandy Hoppsan (talk) 19:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, which article is this? GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I prefer to hear the answer first, since it is the principle I am wondering about. Bandy Hoppsan (talk) 23:18, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

You can read WP:NSPORT and WP:NORG to learn about the general notability criteria for these things, but if you want to know why I deleted a specific article I need to know which article you're discussing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

No, I want to know, from you, why you delete an article about a club which has been national champion in an international sport. I want to understand that, before I decide wether it is worth it to take the issue further. And I am surprised that you don't remember the articles you delete. Bandy Hoppsan (talk) 12:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I delete a lot of articles that meet the various criteria for deletion. I would delete an article like that if it was unambiguously promotional, a copyright violation, if it made no indication of importance, if it had an expired PROD... hence why it's hard for me to answer this question without knowing. I'm guessing from your deleted contribs that you're talking about SBK Skiold, which I see you've recreated. It seems like the portion of the club that won the championship is no longer active, but rather has been merged with another club (which does have an article). GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:43, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is SBK Skiold. So you have no answer as to why you deleted it? May I just kindly suggest you to be more careful in the future, so you don't delete articles which shouldn't be deleted. Bandy Hoppsan (talk) 00:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Question

How old do you have to be to join Wkikpedia? Will underage users be blocked? 72.238.163.74 (talk) 00:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

It really depends on the specific case. We worry about child protection but have had very successful underage admins, not just users. WP:YOUNG has advice. --GRuban (talk) 02:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks @GRuban:. I don't have much to add beyond that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!! 72.238.163.74 (talk) 15:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

This is not normal

I'm finding it nearly impossible to even have a reasonable discussion about a certain article, Gene Freidman. As far as I know, there's nothing special about the article, but it was tainted by being created by an editor who (two years later) was found to be part of a sockfarm. I started a discussion on the BLP noticeboard to discuss a couple of BLP issues raised on the talkpage. There were two sections removed. One was about Freidman's arrest for fraud, the other was a "personal life" section which included mention of Freidman's assault on his wife. At this point, I'm simply trying to get the personal life section (without the assault) added back since it should not have been removed in the first place. I think that seems very straightforward and easy to do, but somehow this article seems to have become some kind of special case. Can you or your talk page stalkers take a look at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Gene_Freidman and give me a hint if there's something I'm missing? Thanks. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:25, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

All you need to do is follow the RfC process and WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BLP. This is what everyone is supposed to do, but posting here in the hope of finding someone who does not believe in that process is not likely to be of great avail. Collect (talk) 22:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I rest my case. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@World's Lamest Critic: This seems pretty normal to me. Someone had a BLP concern with a section of the page and removed it, now there's a discussion about how many (if any) details about his personal life are appropriate to include. I can understand why they removed the whole section, since leaving just the first paragraph would incorrectly imply that the couple is still together. I'd suggest you continue the discussion at the BLP noticeboard or on the article talk page. I understand that you feel that there are process issues there (and I've given you my opinion), but as for actually resolving the issue, reaching out to folks such as myself who are completely uninformed about and uninterested in these people is not likely to add much to the discussion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

You seem like someone with a good perspective on things but since you aren't interested please accept my apologies for disturbing you. I'm tired of trying to roll this particular stone up the various hills people keep constructing for me so I'll find something better to do with my time. Thanks. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 02:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@World's Lamest Critic: To be clear: I'm not particularly interested in this Freidman fellow, hence why I've never edited his article. I would be interested if there was an issue with the proceedings at BLPN, but that does not appear to be the case. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Could you remove a BLP phrase?

Could you be so kind as to remove the "and the marriage was arranged by their parents" text from Satya Nadella#Personal life? It's pretty much a BLP violation, was added uncited by a non logged-in user last year, isn't backed by any of the three sources for that section,[4][5][6] and most importantly, I understand it isn't true, as will soon be detailed by the autobiography soon coming out. I'd do it myself but likely have a COI. Thanks!

Pauses. Remembers last time asked the Gorilla for a similar favor. Considers odds the article will be completely deleted next time looks. Decides to risk it.

--GRuban (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Done! (By which I mean I deleted the sentence, not the article ) GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Admin confidence survey

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Fix links

Hi. Can you please fix the links found here to link to the Archives so I can easily access the right ddiscussion in th future? Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 23:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Which links? I don't believe any of those links are broken (or will be when the page is archived). GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

My mistake. My laptop plays games on me. -- Magioladitis (talk) 05:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Appealing a Committee sanction?

Hey! I want to appeal my "Japanese culture" topic ban.

When I looked at the page, it had a detailed description of appealing, which was followed by These provisions apply only to discretionary sanctions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. But the Hijiri88/Catflap08 case did not involve any discretionary sanctions, and the ban that I want to appeal was placed by the Committee, so I'm a little confused as to what I should do -- do I go to WP:ARCA and request that the Committee amend the ban?

Sorry to bother you with a question that probably comes up a lot in places where I can't seem to find it, but any clarification you could provide would be most appreciated. :D

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: No bother! WP:ARCA is the correct place to request the ban be lifted. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Requested. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Or it's the place to discuss it just to get it strengthened, despite what Molly claims. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Not gonna happen. I've been a good widdle boy, and I really just want to get back to building an encyclopedia. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Yep, you'll be fine, you're not considered a persona non grata, so I'm sure it'll all work out. If not, you'll only have to wait a few months before the collection of "Arbs" gets swept out for (hopefully) some individuals who actually can take responsibility for what they do. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh TRM that's cute. You should come over for a beer. BTW, didn't know you were on a first-name basis with GorillaWarfare, even while insulting her. How do you swing that? Drmies (talk) 01:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Concerns about altered images and other questionable image uploads

In a discussion on ANI about nude swimming, I identified a couple of obviously NSFW images that were related to another editor's question about images of nude children on Wikimedia Commons. Those images were File:Naturist girl.png and File:Naturist young girl.png. Those files were uploaded to Commons by MarianaOchoa who is definitely not Mariana Ochoa. That same user also uploaded File:Mariana Ochoa Interview.jpg (archive). It looks like a crop of File:MARIANA OCHOA Y FRANCHELIN - panoramio.jpg but look closely at the panel on the right side of the image where a nude picture has been faintly superimposed. That nude picture of Ochoa comes from the magazine H Para Hombres (apparently also known as Revista H).

Another user on Commons has uploaded an images from the same photo layout but cropped to just show Ochoa's buttocks File:Mexican Woman Buttocks.jpg. That same user, Toma'ss, has also uploaded another Ochoa image (File:Woman Mexican.jpg) with a filter used to disguise the source. These are simple copyright violations. More troubling is a composite image featuring the same naked child as in the original photos, File:Two sisters and mother in hospital.jpg (archive).

If you take a look at their uploads it appears that جاي is the same user. Miriamos may also be related. I'm sure there are other accounts as well. I was going to start a discussion at ANI, but since it involves cross-wiki activities (and contacting the WMF legal team), I decided that you or your talk page stalkers are better able to deal with it. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Apart from a declined speedy deletion request for a related article, nothing visible has happened here on Wikipedia. Commons admin Jcb has deleted the images uploaded by Toma'ss as part of a clean up of images lacking permission. The account was not blocked. If I have time later I will start a discussion on ANI to deal with the sockpuppetry and image uploads. Considering the context, I was hoping to avoid that and I am disappointed that no one acted on this report. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 15:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@World's Lamest Critic: Sorry about the delay in responding to this. I got the message notification while I was at work, and you can probably understand why I didn't want to look into the issue right then. You definitely seem to have found a group of socks. Since the behavior is primarily on Commons, you may want to start a discussion on that project. You also should probably contact the stewards, since there's crosswiki activity. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

So it doesn't take another 5 days, I've taken the liberty of mirroring the complaint to Commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#User:MarianaOchoa_and_altered_pornographic_and_underage_images --GRuban (talk) 23:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@GRuban: Thank you, and apologies again to all for the delay. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Wasn't meant to be a jab; we're all volunteers here, you're not punching a clock. --GRuban (talk) 00:23, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Didn't take it as a jab! Just felt bad for reading this message and then forgetting to return to it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, I wasn't expecting you to handle this personally, but I hoped another admin might see my posting here and act on it. Thanks to GRuban for starting the discussion on Commons. I haven't done much editing there and don't really know my way around. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 02:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red October editathon invitation

		Welcome to Women in Red's October 2017 worldwide online editathons. New: "Women and disability" "Healthcare" "Geofocus on the Nordic countries" Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative Begin preparing for November's big event: Women World Contest
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

The Rambling Man

Do you think it's a good idea to unilaterally block a long-standing editor without discussion? What happened to User:Gerda Arendt/User talk before you block? Why can't you just stick to content? I have a number of "go to" editors who I know can help me improve articles on women (e.g.: sourcing on Karen Carpenter) but you are not on the list because frankly I get annoyed at the nonsense and drama you pull like this. I'm reminded of something GoldenRing said at his RfA : "I don't particularly want to mention specific situations here, but I'm sure we're all aware of the admin who's had a long term grudge who jumps on an AE report to issue a long block ... or the admin who takes a thread with a lot of back-and-forth and issues the maximum possible block within the letter of an arbcom remedy ... Admins should always take time and care when blocking someone, but failing to do so when dealing with people who you know will have a pitchfork-bearing army behind them always strikes me as rather short-sighted." Something to think about. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I have a number of concerns about this block:

1. I am very surprised to see the (revised) sanction being used to prevent The Rambling Man from criticizing ArbCom. I find the idea that ArbCom can apply a sanction preventing users for questioning the competence of arbitrators disturbing.
2. Is it appropriate for an arbitrator to be the one to apply a block for criticism of ArbCom?
3. Per Ritchie333, why no discussion - where was the urgency?
4. Why the talkpage restriction before any abuse occurred? During previous blocks, TRM has posted useful material to his talkpage allowing other editors to fix WP:ERRORS in mainpage content. Wikipedia is harmed by preventing him from doing so.
5. The two week duration of the block appears to prevent TRM from participating in a case in which he is a party. This is especially problematic after the suggestion was made by an arbitrator that TRM ought to participate more in the evidence and workshop pages of that case if he wanted it to come to a particular result.

Best, WJBscribe (talk) 10:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

What a stupid block. This is supposed to be an arbitration committee, not a dictatorship. No wonder the committee commands the respect of virtually no one I know. Cassianto^Talk 11:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• As they said. Talk before you block. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

No talk page access after you block seems to try to avoid ANY talk. It looks like Arbcom at its worst. Elections will come up soon, - I'd elect we do without it. Worst time sink I met on the project. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

We talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll furthermore add that TRM passed London Paddington station as GA mere hours before being blocked, which was an article that several people had hoped would get back up to that status for some time, and a number of editors have been working hard towards digging out the sources. I do apologise for being blunt above, but had the GA still been on review at the time you blocked, I would have probably been three more times irate. I note also that TRM is working on at least one Featured List currently, so you've torpedoed work on that. I repeat - this is not a clear cut situation and you need to seriously consider the pros and cons of what you are doing, particularly as you have been dragged to Arbcom for doing this before. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• This also looks like a very troubling block to me. It prevents him from participating in an arbcom case where he's a party, and given your history, probably violates WP:INVOLVED. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• I think there was plenty of talk before this block: months and months worth of talk, as a matter of fact. TRM was warned and admonished and specifically told that this kind of talk would get him blocked. Well, that's what happened. Ritchie, I don't like disagreeing with you, but I do disagree: this has gone on long enough. Thank you GW. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Last week, I saw TRM and Arthur Rubin having a food fight on a thread at Wikipedia talk:Recent years. I decided to hat the thread, which led to TRM leaving a note on my talk page. I wrote a sympathetic reply, let him have the last word, and then everything blew over. That is how you manage the situation (in my view), not slam controversial blocks without so much as a how d'ya do. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, if you can tell him to stop talking shit about people in general, maybe he'll listen to you. The above dispute, meh--TRM is in a case involving Rubin, so that's a different kettle of fish. But he is not in some ongoing case against every other admin. There was a "how d'ya do"--here and here. Drmies (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• If you're going to block TRM over him questioning Arbcoms incompetence then you may aswell block each and every editor on this site!, In all fairness to him he's only saying what we're all thinking, I'm also lost with the talkpage access revoking protecting - I believe TPA revocation/protecting is for vandals and those use naughty words .... which TRM isn/t/hasn't done neither, Anyway it was a bad block and the TPA thing talkpage protecting wasn't needed either. –Davey2010^Talk 15:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • If that's what y'all are thinking, show up at the next election and vote us out. The essence of the violation was his language, or "naughty words" as you may call it, so removing TPA isn't outrageous. Remember, a wise man once said "Admittingly I think TRM does need to tone it down a notch"--and that was over a year ago. Drmies (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
    • And I still stand by that statement the tone in some of his posts can be a tad over the top I've never said otherwise but in this case I personally don't find the tone an issue at all - If I did have an issue then I would've said, Again I disagree with revoking protecting it as I don't believe any good will come of it but anyway that's all my 2c. –Davey2010^Talk 15:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Davey, I think these comments aren't really like personal attacks in the sense of insults: they are more troubling than that because they completely disregard AGF. Young people might refer to that strategy as gaslighting. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
      • (Just a side note I've struck "TPA revoking" and added "protecting" as although technically he can't edit his own talkpage the action was never done as TP revoking and so why I used that is anyones guess but anyway updated. –Davey2010^Talk 11:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC))
• It truly depresses me when I find a number of editors I respect involved in such drama, and entrenched deeply enough that no resolution seems likely. Setting aside my own opinion of whether a block was necessary in the first place (or on civility blocks in general), blocks are supposed to be preventive, not punitive. GW felt TRM's behavior bad enough to require a preventive block. But though TRM was bloody rude; and being a highly intelligent person, he was probably aware of this fact: I do not see how a two week block will improve anything that a shorter block will not. I'd also add that a person rushing to TRM's defense now would have done well to tell him to cut it out, a few hours previously. Come on, folks, this community does not need some of its most prominent editors drawing lines in the sand between each other. Vanamonde (talk) 18:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Vanamonde93: The block length was likely set in accordance with the case/standard arbitration procedure, as the previous arb enforcement block was reduced to one week on appeal. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• @The ed17: I recognize that there is a rule-based justification for the length of the block: I was only suggesting that that length may not actually be the most productive. I don't want to engage too much here, because in an effort to provide constructive comment I have no wish to annoy both parties, for whom, as I have said before, I still have respect. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 18:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey all. Couple of answers to some of your questions. I blocked because The Rambling Man violated his prohibition (from "posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their general competence") several times: inability to communicate satisfactorily [7], You are unfit for this job. [8], Arbcom have collectively demonstrated a complete lack of ability in this case. [9], etc. are all pretty cut-and-dried examples of "reflections on general competence." Last time I checked, the prohibition didn't include an exception allowing him to behave this way towards arbitrators, but not other editors. Regarding his ability to participate in the ArbCom case, he has email access and is welcome to send his input to the Committee via email. I placed the block and immediately informed the rest of the Committee. If they think it's a bad block, they're welcome to overturn it (or I will). GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Forgive me, GorillaWarfare, but I think your block has shown a great incompetence. You may be an arbitrator, but you are not negated from any kind of criticism. I think you should take your head out of the dark, small place that it currently seems to be in. Cassianto^Talk 19:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

:-) And here we have the demonstration that it was a prohibition. We are allowed to reflect on her competence, TRM wasn't. That's what made it a penalty on TRM, rather than a protection of GW. (Though, I propose speculations on a small dark place might have overstepped WP:CIVIL; this isn't a kindergarten.) --GRuban (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, you seem to have done the typical politician's trick of answering the question you'd like to answer, and not the actual question I asked, which is "Was this a good idea?" I gave you an identical case earlier where I didn't block TRM for a similar incident, and it did the trick. (Okay, Drmies didn't agree but I prefer Deep Purple to Black Sabbath and yet we still get along despite not agreeing on everything) Yes, the arbcom guidelines (remember we don't do absolute dogma around here) say you can block, so why didn't you do this?

1. Say something like "Alright, TRM, knock it off, stop hassling [names of admins] right now or there'll be a block. Last warning." I personally think unless you are dealing with a blatant vandal, you should always give a personalised "seriously, shut it" type warning before you block. (Note, sometimes when I see somebody file a report at AIV / AN3 that actually deserves a WP:BOOMERANG, I consider the warnings, usually Twinkle related, that they dished out to the other party to be functionally equivalent. Don't try this at home, kids). Then at least when they file an unblock request saying "I didn't see this coming", everyone else can see they should have.
2. If TRM carries on, yeah block. Do a quick triage in your head for the amount of hassle saved by not having a derailed conversation against the amount of hassle you'll get on your talk page when the pitchfork brigade turn up (seriously, it's only a matter of time before somebody tells you to resign your tools). Based on that, I think if you absolutely and utterly had to block, then you should have done 6 hours, with an addendum of "and by the way, if you carry on straight after the block ends, we'll start again, only this time it'll be 24 hours". If TRM sticks two fingers up at that, well most people will know he had it coming.
3. Leave the talk page on. If TRM wants to use his talk page to raise reports for ERRORS; fine, he can do that - he's improving the project. Always ask yourself when performing an admin action - did my use of the tools there improve the encyclopedia?

Look, I've got to be honest here, I think you're a good editor but you're not a particularly good admin and I think somebody needs to give you a straight-up opinion that if you haven't already got a reputation for being a troublemaker, you have now. You're definitely not in the crowd of admins who wouldn't know a content creator if it came up and bit them on the ass and I don't think anybody here is being nasty or malicious; we do appreciate your mainspace contributions and we'd have loved to have had you on board for Emily Davison's FAC. But you made a serious error here, in my view, and one that will probably be used against you in future. So think back and reflect - was it really worth it?

I think that's about all I've got to say - offer still stands on working on an article together, or if you want to do Karen Carpenter's GA review when it's ready, then give me a nod. You'll find I'm nice as pie when we're talking about articles. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie, over the last year or so TRM has been warned more times than anyone here can count. That includes an arbitration case and the revisions set in place to ensure that he had clear conduct boundaries. Then TRM deliberately broke them. He absolutely knew what would happen.

Don't blame ArbCom, and GorillaWarfare specifically, for enforcing the boundaries. Blame TRM's evident inability to follow basic civility guidelines which should have allowed him to productively edit without negatively impacting others. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I think the best person to blame is the admin who started this, who I managed to kick off the project. And see this for a lengthy explanation of why British and American culture are different and what is "incivil" in one isn't in the other (although with Orange Head at the wheel, America, or at least the subset managing it, seems to be catching up.)Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:56, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Not at all. I have absolutely zero sympathy for someone who has been:

1. Warned at least a dozen time that they are being uncivil, abrasive, and vitriolic
2. Blocked several times for the same reasons
3. Given a set of conduct guidelines in lieu of more severe sanctions

And then can't even manage to follow them. TRM knew what would happen when he lost his temper yet again; it had been made abundantly clear to him in multiple forums. There's no room for blame for anyone but TRM in his current predicament. I'm genuinely surprised you haven't recognized by now that TRM is a classic case of playing the victim, and that you're helping enable him. (Read the article closely, especially the blockquote in the section I linked, and tell me you don't see a little/lot bit of TRM in there.) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I have completely lost count by now of how many warnings TRM has been given for this kind of behavior. If you want to see where TRM was told to "knock it off or you will be blocked", it's right here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

That is not what I said. Clearly you have no interest in what I'm trying to tell you, so I'm going to see if there are any articles I can rescue from CAT:CSD now and request that you have a nice life. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Have I missed something? Your entire first point is a demand for a final warning. "Say something like "Alright, TRM, knock it off, stop hassling [names of admins] right now or there'll be a block. Last warning." ... you should always give a personalised "seriously, shut it" type warning before you block." etc. etc. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I see a ban on "reflections on their general competence." I postulate that TRM was not making reflections on their "general competence" (which I would view as the required competency that all editors should possess and display when working on the project) as prohibited by the ArbCom restriction, but was discussing the specific competence required for the elected position of Arbitrator and their performance as one. Seems like if one wants to restrict someone to not making comments about competency, they should ensure they do not add qualifying descriptors to the verbiage of the ban, and where those descriptors exist, they should take an extra minute to evaluate the context of the commentary.DsareArde (talk) 00:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

That seems like an unreasonable interpretation to me. Otherwise you could argue that any speculation on competence was not speculation on general competence, but rather as someone's competence at editing Wikipedia, or writing prose, or whatever the specific situation may be. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:24, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I qualified that in the second sentence as the competency all editors should possess when working on the project. I think that someone's competence at editing, and that all editors are called... editors, no brainer there. Writing prose, adding (or checking) refs, not blanking entire pages, etc... all part and parcel of the general competency editors should possess. Applying for and acting in an elected and advanced support capacity (admin, crats, arbitrator, etc.) is not part of the general competency that all editors should possess (it'd be nice if everyone was perfectly suited for those positions...but the history of arbcom cases de-sysopping individuals and failed RFA's is proof that is not the case). As a peer elected "official", one should demonstrate both a higher level of competency and accountability in their actions, and also expect increased criticism when one does something wrong (or that someone believes is wrong). DsareArde (talk) 00:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Hm. I really don't think that is the intended meaning of the restriction, though I suppose we could clarify it if it's being widely misinterpreted (either by me or by you). GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear, in your interpretation of the restriction, what do you think the word "general" adds to the sentence? WJBscribe (talk) 12:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

The three cases given, "inability to communicate satisfactorily", "unfit for this job", "complete lack of ability" are pretty general competency complaints. There isn't a lot you can do on the Wikipedia if you can't communicate satisfactorily. The other two are only applicable to admins and arbs, rather than all Wikipedians, but that doesn't make them issues with specific competencies, they are very general complaints with the targets. They aren't specific enough to be actionable. Not that I'm GW, but I'm guessing the intent was to still allow TRM to point out specific errors that could be corrected - you missed a semicolon here, your date is off by ten years there - without allowing him to be uncivil to people in general terms; the three cases cited are very much the latter. --GRuban (talk) 19:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, GRuban worded it well. "I think you made a mistake with this edit" or "I disagree with you" are fine, "unfit for this job" and "complete lack of ability" are not. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Yep, exactly. The history at ARCA is always a pain to read, but if you look back you'll see my original text said something like "editors or administrators" and Callanecc recommended removing that part on the grounds that we are all editors and it was unnecessary to make that distinction. It was definitely not intended that the restriction should apply only to those who aren't admins (crats, arbs, etc) or only to actions taken "as editors". Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Suddenly finding today that TRM had been blocked came as a surprise to me as I hadn't been following the AR case as it wends its way through the different stages. So I read through the Workshop page without finding any, as I thought, blockable statements by TRM and had to find out his "offences" by other means. I find the block disappointing because I have been impressed by how much TRMs behaviour has improved since he was sanctioned, and the talk page access angle is particularly regrettable as a limitation of free speech. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit filter mismanagement

@Ritchie333: Yada yada yada. Before criticising ArbCom for preventing editors participating, isn't that exactly what you have done with your new filter 880? Someone yanked your chain (justifiably in my opinion) and this is how you react. You're supposed to give notice on the Edit Filter Noticeboard when you set a filter to "disallow", but then you would never let complying with policy get in the way of pursuing your agenda. 86.171.242.45 (talk) 15:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Filter 880 does not fire on mainspace; feel free to improve articles there. Or feel free to go to the Edit Filter noticeboard or ANI and lodge a complaint. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Or feel free to log in, IP. Cassianto^Talk 19:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oh it's that one again, with their made-up charges. Thanks User:Ritchie333. Drmies (talk) 18:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

It looks like this kitten is being a troublemaker.

Gamaliel (talk) 00:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Project Proposal: Investigating the Impact of Implicit Bias on Wikipedia

Hi GorillaWarfare! Here is the current draft of my project proposal: Investigating the Impact of Implicit Bias on Wikipedia. I value your input and would greatly appreciate your feedback. Please share it on the project proposal discussion page. I hope you're doing well! Best, Jackiekoerner (talk) 04:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Inspiration

I have a habit to show a DYK of the day on top of my talk. Please look. What I see: the image shows the inspiration of a composer, something like an ark on a vast body of water. On the Main page, it was cropped to showing the building, - the inspiration part is lost. What do you see? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

That's a beautiful building, and I agree that the photo is much more striking uncropped. I guess it's partly folks trying to deal with the fact that the DYK images are very small—maybe one day we'll see that fabled main page redesign and it can incorporate larger images. I've had a similar frustration with images at DYK being replaced. I brought Mary Jackson (engineer) to DYK, with a fabulous portrait of her holding a model in a wind tunnel. It was replaced after being approved and posted with a "clearer" but much less interesting portrait of her standing with a clipboard. GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I see you understand ;) - I'd normally go to Mainpage errors, but the one usually helping me and others there is currently blocked. Did you read my little "We talk" above, which I understood as pure support and friendliness, improving a hook and an article? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I did. Have you raised it at MPE? GorillaWarfare (talk) 08:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd normally go. - The crop was done in good faith, I won't fight it, understanding is enough. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:27, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Your protection of TRM's talk page

I see that you have protected his talk page and cite the arbitration case. I cannot however see where the arbitration case decided that TRM's talk page required protection. I'd like to leave him a semi-goodbye message and you are preventing me from doing this seemingly without good reason. Please either amend your protection so the log shows what the rationale is more clearly or, better, remove the apparently unnecessary page protection. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

"The enforcing administrator may also at their discretion fully protect The Rambling Man's talk page for the duration of the block" from the case, paragraph 4 -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 09:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I see it now. No idea why it's useful or necessary. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Good luck with that Dweller, I tried convincing GorillaWarfare that a six-hour block would have done the trick, but all I got was "but he was incivil - waaaah!" Obviously I would support unprotection and talk page enabled. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I actually have more of a problem with the TPP than I do with the block (my reservations about which have already been articulated above). I would have expected a rationale better than "the finding said I can do it". It gives an impression of "You're blocked for two weeks. Oh, and while you're blocked, shut up." Black Kite (talk) 11:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree. The whole motion to "relax" the sanctions on TRM has left a very bad taste in my mouth. I can't imagine how TRM must feel... no wonder he's not exactly singing the praises of various arbitrators. And it's a shame, as before the whole thing of relaxing the sanctions was brought up, TRM had been productive and mostly avoiding the behavior that was problematic to some other editors. (Not your fault Dweller... you tried in good faith to make things better). The talk page protection just strikes me as guaranteed to make TRM have no faith in ARBCom... it's pretty much going to assure him returning to the bad behavior and then he'll get banned. If I was the type to assume bad faith, I'd think that was what was wanted. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, would you agree to the issue of the talkpage protection being put to the community for discussion at WP:AN (or WP:AE as you prefer) on the basis that it will be removed if there is a consensus to do so? WJBscribe (talk) 12:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

To echo the sentiments, I agree that a short block would have been sufficient. Choosing to block at the worst timing possible makes not only TRM, but possibly many other community members to have no faith in ArbCom. I think a community discussion about talk page protection should certainly be put forward somewhere. Alex Shih^Talk 15:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: The block length was likely set in accordance with the case/standard arbitration procedure, as the previous arb enforcement block was reduced to one week on appeal. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

This thread is about the poor decision to gag TRM's talk page, not about the poor block, which is above. - SchroCat (talk) 15:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I must say that the decision to effectively gag TRM (and others it now seems, who wish to post harmless supportive messages on their talkpage) is let us say, unwise. I would request that the community be allowed to comment on this at the appropriate forum. Irondome (talk) 15:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Unwise, in my view, not so much for the inability of people to leave supportive comments but because it means that TRM's only remedy for being blocked by a member of Arbcom for his criticisms of Arbcom is to, err, appeal by email to Arbcom rather than appeal to AE via his talk page. It doesn't exactly give the impression of him being treated fairly, however fair the intentions are. Bencherlite^Talk 16:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I thought we had a different log for arbitration enforcement actions nowadays. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

On another point - out of interest, GW, why did you decide not to make a record of the block, and the talk-page protection, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man#Enforcement log? After all, given your role as an arb, I'm assuming that it's fair to say that you're well aware of the necessity of doing so. Bencherlite^Talk 16:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

That was a mistake on my part. I've updated the log, thank you for pointing it out. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Is there anything to stop an AN/I thread being opened to discuss the matter? I don't see the need to wait for one editor to give their opinion on their own action? Sure, it would be cleaner and easier if GW piped up and admitted that it may be a step too far, but even in the absence of such self-awareness, I don't see any need for her approval to open a thread. - SchroCat (talk) 16:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• Here is a discussion I started: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#The Rambling Man's talk page accessTheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey, sorry to make you guys wait. Cat had to go to the vet (and then subsequently get a bath, yikes). Totally fine with a discussion of the talk page protection, and fine with whatever result comes out of it. I'd think AE would be the place, but it looks like there's a discussion already at AN, so no point in moving it now. Regarding why I placed the TPP, it was because of TRM's past history in reacting to blocks (and I believe this is why that enforcement was authorized to begin with). In the past, TRM has responded to blocks by generally whipping himself and others into a frenzy, often goaded or egged on by folks who want to push his buttons. He's in the past made things worse for himself, as well as wasted a lot of time for people trying to keep it under control, so I decided to include the TPP to avoid that. I feel like it's worked fairly well—folks with concerns about the block/protection have still been able to discuss their concerns, and TRM has been able to discuss the block via email with myself and the Arbitration Committee. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I think that for an action that is so... debatable, the wider input of the community is probably better than the relative backwater of AE. I hope the cat is all ok. - SchroCat (talk) 21:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, either makes sense to me. The cat is peeved about the bath but otherwise in perfect health GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

GW, when you say "TRM has been able to discuss the block via email" with you and Arbcom mean "TRM has discussed the block via email", or does it mean "TRM can discuss the block by email if he wants to do so, but has not done so as yet"? Thanks for clarifying this. Bencherlite^Talk 23:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

TRM has emailed both me directly and also the Committee. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

That's not quite the same thing as a discussion. Have you (or the committee) engaged with him, or has it been one-way traffic? WJBscribe (talk) 23:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes. I responded a number of times to the emails he sent me shortly after I placed the block, then asked him to loop in the rest of the Committee instead of emailing me directly. He sent an email to the Committee, which is still being discussed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

GW, I commend you for responding to this matter in a calm and unemotional fashion (though I do not doubt that you feel emotions about this) despite quite an onslaught. I also do not doubt the sincerity of those who disagree with your action, but I am always surprised that so many experienced editors spring to the defense of uncontrolled drama, instead of supporting the people we have selected to quiet it and calm it down. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Of course, us plebs should shut up and let the Star Chamber do whatever they want without question, even when it is a dubious course of action. Brilliant - it's a great way to build up resentment! In terms of the revoked TPA, it has created much more dramah than it was claimed it would stop, and I wouldn't be surprised if people stepped over the mark further. Posting to his user page is verboten, and another heavy handed action has said to email messages of support: it misses the rather obvious point that TRM's email facility isn't activated, and messages of support are as much a public statement than a private one (and, quite importantly, act as a lightning rod to diffuse tension). Still I see that some people don't want a public show, they want unquestioning obedience while the pressure of resentment is kettled. This is not a great advert for ArbCom, particularly as much of the case is about the poor behaviour of someone who isn't TRM. I can understand his levels of frustration with the passive-aggressive stance taken by the committee, and it is as unedifying as it usually is when an editor is in their gunsight. - SchroCat (talk) 08:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

@SchroCat: Honest question: What even is a star chamber? The idiom must be lost on me, or something. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)}  If you reply here, please ping me by using {{re|Ks0stm}} in your reply.  08:59, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

See Star Chamber. "In modern usage, legal or administrative bodies with strict, arbitrary rulings and secretive proceedings are sometimes called, metaphorically or poetically, star chambers. This is a pejorative term and intended to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the proceedings.". Black Kite (talk) 09:05, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Wonderful. 😑 The more you (I? we? somebody? I'm too tired to care) know, I suppose. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)}  If you reply here, please ping me by using {{re|Ks0stm}} in your reply.  09:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Black Kite, although as a historian I do not necessarily use the term in line with the modern usage. I've often found, while helping to write an encyclopaedia, that the best place to look up something I don't know is an encyclopaedia. I stress the term encyclopaedia, because it seems to me like most people forget that is why we are here, not because it's a social media site, or because we're in a sociology project. TRM is one, at least, who understands why we are supposed to be here, and isn't afraid to point out what is not fit for purpose. - SchroCat (talk) 09:19, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Quick point of clarification: I believe TRM had EmailUser active until some point after the block and protection were placed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:40, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

TRM/Arthur Rubin case

Given your controversial block, you now need to recuse from that case. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 19:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Enforcing an arbitration restriction does not make an administrator involved with respect to that person. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

+1 (to GW's comment). That's not how that works. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)}  If you reply here, please ping me by using {{re|Ks0stm}} in your reply.  01:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

A very similar conversation occurred on the Arthur Rubin case and recently on the Winhunter case request. In this instance, the block against TRM and voting in the Arthur Rubin case would not be an WP:INVOLVED conflict of interest. Both instances are 'administrative' in nature. WP:INVOLVED would only apply if the case was specifically examining the block, which the case is not. Mkdw ^talk 03:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• If you can't see the issue I am seriously concerned about you folks, seriously. It's like the removal of TRM's talk page access - it's not whether it must or can be done, but whether it should be done. And now it's not must you recuse, it's whether you should; surely you can see how you being involved in the case might look to some people, especially if it comes to voting on a proposed sanction on TRM? Black Kite (talk) 06:32, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• You make a reasonable point. If an editor breaches an Arbcom sanction on a case page and gets blocked for it, I agree that doesn't mean the blocking admin must recuse themselves from the case; but it's perfectly reasonable to ask if they should. In my view, there's no reason for anyone to recuse in this instance - the routine exercise of administrative functions like this is specifically covered in wp:involved and the heart of the case is about a third party and seems easily resolvable on the evidence. But there's nothing wrong in putting the case for recusal, even if it doesn't proceed. Mildly, I suspect the reason why everyone leaps to "must" and "mustn't" in every comment is because much recent commentary around this case has been inflamed by some startling hyperbole. People are heroes or villains, everyone is biased, rude or incompetent, Wikipedia cannot survive without this editor but must immediately dispose of that one, and so on. Unfortunately in that environment it becomes easy to interpret good-faith comments or requests as more black or white than they're meant to be. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Well, for what it's worth, there's abstain for that. The vast majority of the case involves Arthur Rubin, not TRM, and I don't see how any action against TRM should make her recuse from examining Arthur Rubin's actions. My comment here is related. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)}  If you reply here, please ping me by using {{re|Ks0stm}} in your reply.  06:37, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I do understand the difference between "should" and "must". My answer remains the same. GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I wasn't actually suggesting that you didn't. Black Kite (talk) 09:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, you did say "need" originally. ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 13:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect, GW, the last time you unilaterally took an AE action, it resulted in an AE case - did you think it wise to repeat that series of events? Dax Bane 05:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I thought it wise to enforce what I continue to see as a clearcut violation of TRM's restrictions. If it gets discussed at AE (or in this case, AN) that is fine with me—I always welcome folks to review my actions. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Man this whole think really stinks pretty badly. I mean, a guy gets slammed by an admin for fabricated reasons, then watches the Arb process drag its feet in a blatant 'storm die down' tactic because AR is 'one of your own', gets frustrated trying to read the awful English of the Arb as they fudge everything in favour of AR, then gets site banned with a total shutdown on his talk page while the case is ongoing and finally the person who shut him down controversially retains their right to comment on the case. Bloody hell, talk about shady. Can't wait to see what happens next in this filthy episode, it's like a spy thriller. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 13:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Per Cullen328 above. Administrators and arbitrators wade through **** for the community. "I also do not doubt the sincerity of those who disagree with your action, but ... [I support] the people we have selected to quiet [the drama] and calm it down." Banedon (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect talk page section?

Hello. At WP:AN "The Rambling Man talk page Access discussion" you said "linking to my reasoning here just so it's available from this discussion" and the url provided leads here:[10]. I am thinking this is not the section that you intended to provide. I think you actually meant this section on your talk page: [11]. It seems more likely in case you want to fix that link. Or I may be wrong. Regards. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, you're right that I had the wrong link. Fixed now. GorillaWarfare (talk) 13:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

DYK review

Hi GowillaWarfare, I've reviewed your DYK nomination (Template:Did you know nominations/Leaena Tambyah) and have just one small request before it's good to go. Please take a moment to check ut out. Kind regards, Yakikaki (talk) 11:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

@Yakikaki: Her degree is supported in sources 2 and 3, which were included inline after the following sentence. I see that's unclear, though, so I've duplicated them after the sentence about her degree. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Yakikaki (talk) 20:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Excellent work on making a difficult block on rational grounds and keeping the good of the project foremost in your mind, even though I'm sure you knew you'd get a lot of bother for it. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

There is no need for gravedancing, and these sort of messages upset Gerda. Please stop making them. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

They don't upset me, I try to ignore them, - not worth a comment, but now you pinged me ;) - I fail to see how "the good of the project" is improved by a block (almost any block, I mean) but obviously others are able to see it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I support the block, the talk page restriction, and the barn stars. I'd add one myself but it would be redundant. This disruptive situation with TRM has gone on for years. He's now been blocked three times this year alone, and we will never know how many decent editors TRM has driven away. GW, I simply thank you for making the right call. Gerda, in my view you are completely wrong: the project has hereby been improved. Jusdafax 13:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

You didn't understand me. I said I don't see how, and you didn't explain how any block is for the good of the project. He has not driven me away, on the contrary, he has helped me. But perhaps I am no decent editor? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I make no comment on your decency, Gerda, but I question your inability to understand the basic fact that TRM is an internet bully. I have to some degree been driven away by Wikipedia editors like TRM, who are endlessly abusive, use words as bludgeons and arrogantly refuse to abide by community sanctions, as seen in this very case. What could be more plain? Countless hours have been absorbed by this ongoing case, to the point of my deep, lasting disgust. It took me over an hour just to read it all. Gerda, you yourself have seen fit to place an award on my Talk page. Rescind it if you like, but I tell you now I'm horrified by your inability to stand up for this sanction on TRM. It's as plain as day. By essentially being a part of enabling this wretched drama to drag on endlessly, you, yes you, do this project a profound disservice, as I see it. I will rephrase my italics above. How many others feel as I do, and leave, God damn it?

When is enough finally enough for you, and TRM's little clique of a few dozen? Jusdafax 14:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Fear not, I will not rescind the award. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jusdafax: You may find this very interesting, along with the rest of the article. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Alternatively, you may enjoy reading this. Or this. Or this, this, this and this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

It's simple - get on the right side of him and ignore anything you disagree with. It works for everybody. That's why he's managed to make substantial contributions to Wikipedia:Featured topics/List of London Monopoly locations, and between us we've managed to improve a significant number of articles to GA. Because we are here to write an encyclopedia. Jusdafax, you have made one mainspace edit in the past month which suggests you are more interested in picking fights than writing an encyclopedia. As for "we will never know how many decent editors TRM has driven away" - zero, I think. I know two who will not edit WP again (or at least have told me as such, though they might change their mind) because of GW's actions. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I have ten years and 70k edits here, so your slant on my edit history is obvious. I sharply curtailed my edits recently because I was disgusted by TRM. Now, in my years of experience, TRM is about his own self-aggrandizement, first and foremost. Your opinion is noted. His block log, and Arbcom sanctions however, speak volumes. His adminship was resigned to avoid having it stripped. Abuse is not a "style" but a sanctionable act. And right now, he isn't building anything. Jusdafax 14:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

From my experience, if you get three books to research a lengthy article you want to improve to GA / FA status, and concentrate on that, or spend an afternoon reading a Featured Article and getting absorbed it, the drama fades away and disappears. Indeed, GW is actually doing this now, and has ignored the drama on this page in place of improving an article and getting a DYK nomination out of it. So, my advice is to give that a go - it really does work. Also, most people in the world don't care about on-wiki dramas, they're not important to anyone. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

And TRM's talk page was blocked to stop grave-dancing trolls? I wonder whose page they'll leave childish little barnstars on now... Ah, I see... the revenge of the peanut gallery - they are the ones who get my "deep, lasting disgust". - SchroCat (talk)

TRM's User Page: I'd call it disruptive. Jusdafax 15:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Compare his editnotice, as if made especially for you ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

So he's not a Stepford wife? Neither he, nor anyone else, has to kowtow to other people on this site. Peanut gallery grave-dancing trolls, on the other hand, can be, and are being, disruptive. The fact you want to enable that trolling speaks volumes to me. - SchroCat (talk) 15:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Here have a barnstar for causing unnecessary drama, I'm so proud of what this place has become. –Davey2010^Talk 15:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Davey2010, I'm consistently disappointed in stances you take around the wiki, but this is one I don't want to let go. This is what happened; TRM brought drama upon himself. Please stop enabling him. Thank you. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
    • And I consistently don't care what you think of me if i'm honest, GW is entirely to blame for all of this - Sure no one would've been happy with the block either but it would've died down ... this on the other hand hasn't - As others have said what's GW's protection achieved ?.... Exactly sweet sod all. –Davey2010^Talk 03:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
      • @Davey2010: Fair. ;-) To be clear, you don't believe that arbitration restrictions ought to be enforced? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

"Grave dancing" was not my intention. What I am impressed by was the willingness to make a difficult and controversial decision for the benefit of the project. A fear of drama shouldn't be used as an excuse to let unhealthy situations fester, but hopefully this decision will lead to less drama further down the road. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC).

Try being impressed by any one of the hundreds of Featured Articles we currently have to offer and do what I do, send the odd, occasional note of appreciation to the author, no matter how old the article is. There really is no need to be "impressed" by someone who has committed an injustice towards one of our best contributors. Further, if you are of the kind to get such kicks out of something like this, do it privately. You've done it, purposely, in public, in order to show your rather pathetic hand. Cassianto^Talk 09:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2017).

Administrator changes

Boing! said Zebedee • Ansh666 • Ad Orientem

Tonywalton • AmiDaniel • Silence • BanyanTree • Magioladitis • Vanamonde93 • Mr.Z-man • Jdavidb • Jakec • Ram-Man • Yelyos • Kurt Shaped Box

Guideline and policy news

• Following a successful proposal to create it, a new user right called "edit filter helper" is now assignable and revocable by administrators. The right allows non-administrators to view the details of private edit filters, but not to edit them.
• Following a discussion about mass-application of ECP and how the need for logging and other details of an evolving consensus may have been missed by some administrators, a rough guide to extended confirmed protection has been written. This information page describes how the extended-confirmed aspects of the protection policy are currently being applied by administrators.

Technical news

• You can now search for IP ranges at Special:Contributions. Some log pages and Special:DeletedContributions are not yet supported. Wildcards (e.g. 192.168.0.*) are also not supported, but the popular contribsrange gadget will continue to work.

Arbitration

• Community consultation on the 2017 candidates for CheckUser and Oversight has concluded. The Arbitration Committee will appoint successful candidates by October 11.
• A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar from the peanut gallery

	The Cat Barnstar
	Since you'd rather be with cats instead of dealing with adults who can't behave. Gamaliel (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Good thing TRM's talk page is locked to stop the second-rate grave-dancing trolls. That's worked out brilliantly. Bravo! Gamaliel, you're supposed to be an administrator: start acting like one. - SchroCat (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

It looks like locking that page isn't stopping trolling at all. Gamaliel (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

DNFTT. - SchroCat (talk) 20:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

At this rate, I might as well lock this talk page - since GW's an admin, they can edit through it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Quite. Whilst I didn't agree with GW's protection, I can tell you that if the choice was between editing here and taking one of our cats to the vet's, the cat wins every time. Seriously, people. Black Kite (talk) 22:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

+1. The real-world responsibility to care for a living creature, be it human, cat, or otherwise, should always take precedence over a website. The implied suggestions this saga has produced suggesting otherwise are morally appalling. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)}  If you reply here, please ping me by using {{re|Ks0stm}} in your reply.  22:39, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes of course family members (whether two-legged or four-legged) come first, and we all have lives outside of Wikipedia. But, without expressing an opinion on the block or the protection, this saga has caused enough ill feeling without the pointed comments, barnstars, and accusations of trolling. May I suggest everyone take a deep breath and go and improve an article, and that any more messages of solidarity for GW be sent privately, before the drama any further outlives its use. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

If anyone's looking for a topic, I found my latest at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/57 GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I also just found an article which could be improved, Jazz in France. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For enforcing arbitration restrictions. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

More grave dancing? Another admin, another piece of trolling. This talk page needs to be locked to stop this drivel. - SchroCat (talk) 04:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@SchroCat: It's not grave dancing. It's thanking an administrator for taking an exceedingly difficult action. I certainly don't want to know how much time GW has invested in this situation over the last week. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

No, it second rate trolling, and you should be ashamed of yourself. You're supposed to be an admin: you should act like one, not like a pot-stirring dramah queen. - SchroCat (talk) 04:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@SchroCat: You're assuming an incredible amount of bad faith on my part. Please withdraw your completely unfounded accusations. Thanks. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Given you've seen the same reaction to the same grave-danincing posts above, no. As the advice has been to those who want to leave a message on TRM's page: if you want to send a message of support, use the email facility. (See the post by HJ Mitchell in the section just above this). Feel free to remove this thread (including all my posts) and send your message privately. - SchroCat (talk) 04:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@SchroCat: I'm happy with leaving my barnstar right there, thanks. :-) For one, I'm not trolling. GorillaWarfare deserves support for making a solid judgement call and upholding clear arbitration restrictions. I have an enormous amount of respect for HJ, but he and I differ in our views here. That last sentence also relates to two: I don't have anything to hide, so I'm not going to send it privately. Three, I'd like people to read this and see your utter lack of good faith. Cheers. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed. Fortunately I've had a pretty brutal stomach bug this week, so I've had more time to spend on-wiki since I haven't had much success devoting time to such frivolous matters as work and sleep. My cat, on the other hand, seems to be enjoying the extra attention. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Then my point stands, particularly when viewed in the light of the disruption caused by other barnstars, and the advice from other admins that this particular brand of grave-dancing should cease. Your bad faith is visible to all, and the enabling of trolling and gravedancing by an Arb shows a distinct lack of good judgement. - SchroCat (talk) 05:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

You've made your opinions on my judgment very clear by now, thank you. I am aware that you disagree with my choice to protect TRM's talk page (and have been editing User talk:The Rambling Man/Editnotice and User:The Rambling Man/pages to circumvent it), but I believe that matter was settled. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Given the state of this talk page, not settled, I think. Unfortunately the grave dancing trolls are still active, and you are doing nothing to curtail the additional dramah. I prefer my admins to take the heat out of events, not add to it or enable it. It's a shame this page wasn't also locked down alongside TRM's. - SchroCat (talk) 05:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Definitely settled. I like to think no one here is trying to antagonize TRM: so far as I can see he's not been pinged since the protection was upheld (though I suppose he might watch the page), nor have the barnstars actually made any comment about him. There are certainly some people who seem to be trying to get a rise out of me and other folks on this page; I imagine and hope everyone will shortly return to that whole "improving the encyclopedia" thing we're all here for. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Some of us are improving the encyclopaedia. Others are grave dancing and trolling, or enabling it, and yes, leaving these inappropriate barnstars is trying to get a rise out of people: it's a shame those who have done so haven't been as active or useful elsewhere. Either way, I'm glad the cat seems to be well. - SchroCat (talk) 05:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As am I. Have a good night! GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Trout

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Per this I wanted to leave this on your talk page along with the other barnstars. Not all of us agree that you improved the encyclopedia with your actions. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Bless your heart.--Jorm (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Labour Youth

Hi GorillaWarfare, FYI. I've 'requested' on their talk pages that all three users do not edit further until they verify their identity. But feel free to chip in further. Also, do you want to take a look at DeclanM89, DMeenaghLY and RobertodonnelI96? (@DoRD:) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, I've verified one (you were right) and blocked another. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Seems like the right way forward. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I've just checkuser-blocked a spate of accounts being operated by the same person: User:DMeenaghLY, User:RobertodonneII96‎, User:KevLYChair, and User:DeclanM89. User:DecMeenagh is also confirmed, but already blocked. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Deletation of Page Inaani Pte Ltd

Hi Gorilla Warfare, Hope you are fine. I found the page Inaani Pte Ltd has been deleted 1st October 2017 which I created. Could you please suggest me what should I do to get it back? Or could you please give me the guideline to create the page again so that Wikipedia consider my page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjida Rojly (talk • contribs) 03:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Sanjida Rojly: I deleted the page because it meets one of Wikipedia's "speedy deletion" criteria: "WP:G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion." The article is completely promotional, so any article about that company really needs to start over from scratch. Articles on Wikipedia need to be written neutrally, and you need to provide sources that are independent of the company that show the company meets our notability criteria. If you do start this article again, I would recommend going through the articles for creation process so that an experienced Wikipedian can review your article. If you have a conflict of interest with the company (for example, if you work for them) I would recommend not writing the article at all. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Leaena Tambyah

On 9 October 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Leaena Tambyah, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Leaena Tambyah founded Singapore's first school for children with multiple disabilities in 1979? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Leaena Tambyah. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Leaena Tambyah), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for a good one! My last DYK was Love's Labour's Lost. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to discuss the soon to built, Interaction Timeline

Hi Checkusers and Checkuser clerks,

The Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input about building the Interaction Timeline feature.

We’re inviting you to join the discussion because you use similar tools such as the Editor Interaction Analyser and User compare report during sockpuppet investigations.

You can leave comments on the on wiki discussion page or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

2017 Berkeley protests, again

Hi - pinging you because you previously redacted BLP violations on 2017 Berkeley protests. They've started up again. Funcrunch (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I've revision-deleted them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

RfA

I am aware that you often do not share my views and projects on Wikipedia, but I would like to thank you for sharing The ed17's and my opinion on Schonken's vote. I would like to retire form Wikipedia knowing that the RfA process has been cleaned up once and for all, and that gender related bias is no longer tolerated there or anywhere else on Wikipedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:47, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Ditto. As you've observed, I don’t hesitate to tell you when you're wrong. This time, you aren't. Wish I could help. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@Kudpung: Hope you're not looking to retire anytime soon, then 😕 GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I somehow missed your reply to me on this matter. I dislike the harassment opposers get at RfA. I don't begrudge anyone their opinions, but I don't think it helps the RfA process to argue with someone about their rationale, especially when supportive "why not" comments aren't likewise belittled. My distaste with how things are done on Wikipedia does not rest on "precedent" as the community's past mistakes don't justify the ongoing practice. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC) (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.)

congress theater

Hi Gorilla Talk, Congress Theater is closed--no need for promotion. I'm not sure what you're referring to in terms soapboxing. I was simply updating the page of this national landmark as much of its information was incorrect or out of date, and adding links and references. I thought this was an "encyclopedia" Would appreciate you restoring the information I updated today. ~~congress2135~~

@Congress2135: Regardless of whether the theater is open or not, we still need to cover it from a WP:NPOV. The links you added were good; the content was unfortunately not. Text like "Very few remain, and Congress Theater is among the finest," "prepare plans for a renovation that will carry the property forward its next 100 years as cherished community anchor," and "The theater's aging grandeur is noteworthy for its richly detailed lavishness in both space and materiality" is not at all in keeping with the less gushing tone that we try to use here. I would recommend checking out Harris Theater (Chicago) as an example to follow. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Most of that language was directly taken from a Landmark Designation Document produced by the City of Chicago. Happy to edit as you wish, but I can't access the page anymore. I checked out the Harris Theater page....much of that content seems equally as gushingly promotional, such as ' The Harrises had a long history of philanthropy benefitting the arts." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Congress2135 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@Congress2135: That's actually worse, that it was taken from a City of Chicago document. We have to respect copyright, and copying information word-for-word is against policy. Please don't do that again.

As for the Harris article, I disagree it's equally gushy. The quote you mention is a statement of fact, and it's supported by three separate sources, including a New York Times obituary that mentions his philanthropy to benefit the arts in its first sentence. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I will check on the copyright of the Landmark Designation Document--though it is cited as the source. I can rewrite if necessary, but it is all fact and can be cited by "three sources' as well. On Harris Theater, we can agree to disagree. The Harris's donation history is promotional to that family. If you are as familiar with Chicago theaters, you know that Harris Theater isn't actually at all comparable to Congress. Its not a National Landmark, nor does it have the legacy of Congress. More comparable pages would be Uptown Theater, Oriental Theater, Cadillac Palace Theater etc. I am trying to model the Congress page on those. The page in it's current form this morning was seriously deficient and inaccurate. 1500 people came through the theater yesterday for Open House Chicago. People want to know about the theater and its legacy. More importantly, they want to know about its future--that its in good hands, that it won't suffer the same demise as so many other historic theaters in Chicago.

That said, if you feel that accurate, factual--albeit subjectively gushy--information is less in keeping with Wikipedia standards than inaccurate, unsubstantiated information, then so be it. I can no longer even access my previous document in "view history' to make the edits you request.

It would indeed need to be rewritten, unless the City of Chicago releases its texts under a free license (which would surprise me). Simply citing it as the source is not sufficient; although short quotations may be pulled from copyrighted sources, it's not acceptable to incorporate large portions of copyrighted text into Wikipedia articles, quoted or not. You can no longer access your earlier revisions to the Congress Theater because I removed them from the article history based on the copyright issue. However, the article from which the text was taken is still available at https://archive.org/stream/CityOfChicagoLandmarkDesignationReports/CongressTheater_djvu.txt.

As for me being familiar with Chicago theaters, I am absolutely not. That is why Wikipedia's policies about neutral point of view and quality sourcing are in place; any given reader of Wikipedia cannot be assumed to know the history and nuance regarding every article, and so it is up to Wikipedia editors to carefully reflect the existing publications on a subject, providing appropriate weight to various opinions so that an outsider can accurately get a sense of a subject and its importance. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, GorillaWarfare. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Jim1138 (talk) 06:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't remember changing anything on Wikipedia, was I hacked Oscar Whiskers (talk) 01:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

An award for you!

	The Secretarial Quill and Honor Roll
	Thank you for all the paperwork and pencil pushing you do. No one knows that behind the curtain it's you who keeps things organized. Drmies (talk) 22:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

November editathons from Women in Red: Join us!

		Welcome to Women in Red's November 2017 worldwide online editathons. New: The Women in Red World Contest Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

-Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Laughton (surname) ‎

I deleted some content to re replace it properly after it was vandalised by another user.... Check your facts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grigor Lachlain (talk • contribs) 23:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Grigor Lachlain: It's not being vandalized; it's being removed because it does not fit the tone or format for Wikipedia. I've moved it to Draft:Laughton (surname) where you can work on it without it being reverted. I'd recommend checking out WP:YFA and WP:INLINE before submitting it for review. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

In your opinion it does not does not fit the tone or format yet you and your friend offer no explanation or rationale for disagreement.... Do you think that is a reasonable way to behave considering the amount of work I have done to collate the basic information?

I've just provided the rationale. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Goodbye gorilla.... Your ego has cost you a wiki user. I won't forget and will never recommend wiki as a source again... And in fact will be more of a reverse cheerleader

Your rationale is inadequate and rude. Bye Grigor Lachlain (talk) 00:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

What the Gorilla is saying is that your writing is what we call original research, which we don't do here. Not that we're saying it's wrong, just that we're not a publisher of original research. We only reprint information that has been printed elsewhere. Your work on the origins of the surname may be very useful in a journal or magazine, perhaps on history or philology, but we're not that; we only reprint and summarize what's already been printed in such journals. --GRuban (talk) 15:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Hurracon

this is hurraconn. Why did you delete my edit. sorry i dont know how to send — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hurracon (talk • contribs) 01:05, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@Hurracon: Because it was vandalism, as were a number of your previous edits. There are lots of ways you can contribute productively to Wikipedia, but if you continue to vandalize you will be blocked. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

yeah, go ahead, keep calling truth vandalizim. Here how bout'i just lie and say it didint become a meme.

== WHY ==

why did you delete the steve harvwell edit? i was being serious and truthful. so tell me, what did i do wrong. was it because i said meme? is it because you dont like me? Just tell me. Hurracon (talk) 01:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

== NO ==

It was not vandalilizm it was truth. I really dont get it. i was bein serious. what should i do???? lie?? it did become a meme and i think thats why you deleted it Hurracon (talk) 01:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@Hurracon: Try reading this introduction to Wikipedia. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

No im leaving. mabye someone will think while they read my edits unlike you. Because the second you see a word like meme, you delete it. BI.

Warnings to Mhhossein

I don't know who is the master, and the threat is stupid, but it is obvious that they are all really the same duck. Thanks. I won't bother to file the ANI report that I was writing. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:42, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, agreed. Blocked them as socks, as well as a few sleepers, and hopefully that will solve the issue. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:44, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

It isn't enough to have disruptive editing due to American politics, but now we have disruptive editing, probably stupid, about Iranian politics. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Hi GW. Can you please delete this and block the sock? Thanks. Dr. K. 19:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Already done by a tag team of User:GeneralizationsAreBad and me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Lol. I guess that's one good example of tag-teaming. :) Thank you Floq. Take care. Dr. K. 19:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2017).

Administrator changes

Longhair • Megalibrarygirl • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93

Allen3 • Eluchil404 • Arthur Rubin • Bencherlite

Technical news

• The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team is creating an "Interaction Timeline" tool that intends to assist administrators in resolving user conduct disputes. Feedback on the concept may be posted on the talk page.
• A new function is now available to edit filter managers that will make it easier to look for multiple strings containing spoofed text.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors will be invited to submit candidate statements for the 2017 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 12 until November 21. Voting will begin on November 27 and last until December 10.
• Following a request for comment, Ritchie333, Yunshui and Ymblanter will serve as the Electoral Commission for the 2017 ArbCom Elections.

Obituaries

• The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Contributionsurveyor maintenance

Hi, it looks like the contributionsurveyor tool is down and the creator Dcoetzee is blocked by you. Sorry I don't know where else to ask, but do you know if someone else took over maintenance or if there's a place to report the issue? ☆ Bri (talk) 17:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the source code, it does not appear to be being actively maintained. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom election

Sorry to trouble you again (last post 27 October), but one of the administrators reported here on 16 October is strutting his stuff on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics. An editor asked a question, it was answered but the answer was deleted. The editor complained about the lack of an answer, someone provided one and Jayron32 has just deleted it. This makes us look unprofessional. God bless, 92.19.169.49 (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	For your service to the community over the past four years, which many appreciate more than you know, thank you. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Seconded! I wish you were currently still active enough to re-run for ArbCom! Softlavender (talk) 08:29, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you both! GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I can't believe it's been four years since you first ran; feels like yesterday, honestly. I may not have always agreed with you, but there is no question that you've been an asset to the committee. Kurtis ^(talk) 02:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

No one knows that better than me. GW is a rock. Drmies (talk) 03:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Dcoetzee Oct 2014 block

I've noticed that User:Dcoetzee seems have done a lot of constructive work in en.Wikipedia from 2009 to 2014, but on 8 Oct 2014 was blocked by you. I have no reason to either support or oppose the block, but I am curious to see why the block was imposed. The only clue I can find to the reason for the block is your brief comment announcing the block at the bottom of Old revision of User_talk:Dcoetzee. Is this because the issue is related to admin-privilege-related security or privacy concerns (https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l is a private list) rather than editorial behaviour? Boud (talk) 21:43, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

• Since GorillaWarfare hasn't edited for a while, I'll just suggest you look at User:Dcoetzee which also gives you a further email link. Black Kite (talk) 23:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the suggestion. However, I'm not really interested enough to want to ask by email. I guess it's obvious that it's an issue that has some sort of security/privacy/legal concerns and is not directly editorial related. I'm happy to leave it at that. Boud (talk) 20:22, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
• Thanks, Black Kite! @Boud: BK is correct in suggesting you contact cawikimedia.org with any questions—I can't give more information about the block. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • GorillaWarfare - thanks for the answer. That's enough information to answer my question. Boud (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

WiR December highlights

		Welcome to Women in Red's December 2017 worldwide online editathons. New: "Seasonal celebrations" "First Ladies" "Go local!" Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative Remember the World Contest closes on Thursday, 30 November
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 11:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Recusal

Short question -- did you recuse because you intend on resupplying the evidence from my RfB in the likely "admin conduct" case? No hard feelings if so, it's just the only explanation I can think of for your recusal. :p Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 18:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

No, I don't intend to participate in the case. It's mostly out of an abundance of caution given our interactions at your RfB/arbitration candidacy last year, plus I've been so busy lately that I would probably have needed to be inactive on the case had I not recused anyway. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd imagine GW would have recused either way. That's just what arbitrators are expected to do in cases where they might be perceived as being involved. Kurtis ^(talk) 22:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

It's okay, no worries. Thanks for the response GW :) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 22:49, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2017).

Administrator changes

Joe Roe

JzG

Ericorbit • Perceval • Thingg • Tristanb • Violetriga

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.

Technical news

• Wikimedians are now invited to vote on the proposals in the 2017 Community Wishlist Survey on Meta Wiki until 10 December 2017. In particular, there is a section of the survey regarding new tools for administrators and for anti-harassment.
• A new function is available to edit filter managers which can be used to store matches from regular expressions.

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is open until Sunday 23:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC). There are 12 candidates running for 8 vacant seats.

Miscellaneous

• Over the last few months, several users have reported backlogs that require administrator attention at WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on WP:SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
• The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, GorillaWarfare. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Getting Someone to start a GA Review

Dear GorillaWarfare, how do I get someone to start a Good Article review on a page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennete76 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article nominations. Or, if you mean to review an article that you believe reached GA incorrectly, Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. --GRuban (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Kurtis ^(talk) 12:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Update statistics

Based on your edit history and the few comments you've made recently, I can tell you're very busy, so I ask a favor with no expectations of even a response. Can you update WP:AUDIT/STATS? As a CU, I know I'm capable of updating the CU stats, but I'm not really sure the best way to do it. It looks like I have to actually count, at least partly by hand?? You of course can update both CU and OS, and you obviously know how. The stats are now two months behind. If you can, great; if not, maybe somebody watching this page can. I hope you're enjoying doing whatever it is you're busy doing. --Bbb23 (talk) 19:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Thanks for the nudge! I do it semi-manually with a script—doing it fully by hand would be terrible. I've just updated through November. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

And olive branch & holiday wishes!

GorillaWarfare, please accept these holiday wishes :) I've caused this year to end on a chord of disappointment for many, but I hope that despite my mistakes and the differences in opinion and perspectives, and regardless of what the outcome is or in what capacity I can still contribute in the coming year, we can continue working together directly or indirectly on this encyclopedic project, whose ideals are surely carried by both of our hearts. I'm hoping I have not fallen in your esteem to the level where "no hard feelings" can no longer ring true, because I highly respect you and your dedication to Wikipedia, and I sincerely wish you and your loved ones all the best for 2018. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 03:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC), humbled but optimistic about the upcoming year of renewal and growth!

Happy holidays to you and yours as well! GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

It's that time of the year again...

GW. No fancy template, but just wishing you all the best for the holidays and the new year. It's probably a bit warmer where I am than where you are 😎 Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy holidays to you as well, Kudpung! It's a balmy 28˚F here right now (better than the 15˚ earlier!) GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to all!

	We wish you a Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year 2018!
	Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas, and a Happy, Glorious, Prosperous New Year! God bless!  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 10:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy holidays and New Year Ssven2! GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

	Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018!
	Hello GorillaWarfare, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2018. May you and your family have a Happy, Safe and Prosperous New Year! Happy editing, --Cameron11598 (Talk) 00:24, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, and happy holidays! GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:28, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

New Year's resolution: Write more articles for Women in Red!

		Welcome to Women in Red's January 2018 worldwide online editathons. New: "Prisoners" New: "Fashion designers" New: "Geofocus: Great Britain and Ireland" Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Infoboxes

Having been subject to frequent trolling over infoboxes on Cary Grant, Stanley Kubrick and other articles I think it's about time arb looked at the infobox dispute problem again. The ruling made in 2013 that they are not compulsory and can be subject to discussion depending on the case really doesn't work in practice. A small army is growing on here of editors who seem to systematically target articles written by myself, Cassianto, SchroCat and a few others and attempting to enforce an infobox. Every few weeks somebody drives by to ask why there is no infobox and it always results in pointless time wasting. There should be something in place which prevents discussions from reoccuring and punish editors who cause trouble over them as well as those who encourage the people who complain. Is there any chance something could at least be discussed over the problem? Hope you're well.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: I'm only an arbitrator for the next five hours or so (but who's counting?), so I'm probably not the best person to ask. Your best bet is to file an amendment request. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Missing Edit Description

Thanks for the message - I was trying to learn about image formatting and forgot to fill in the changes description (I normally remember)! Thanks! Heron5110 (talk) 21:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Flat Earth

So you're a flat Earth?? Ritwik15 (talk) 21:12, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Why Are Revert?

I was making pretty good edit at Pluto but then you were of making rollback. I even made consults to verify good grammar, but you were not of impress. I will consult again with helpers and then also making edit right. But however, why you are of such? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.214.11.85 (talk) 21:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC)