User talk:GorillaWarfare

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
August 2014 – present

August 2013 – July 2014
November 2012 – July 2013
April 2012 – October 2012
November 2011 – March 2012
April 2011 – October 2011
December 2010 – March 2011
September 2010 – November 2010
April 2010 – August 2010
November 2009 – March 2010


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

Recusal in GamerGate[edit]

While you may not feel that your tweets on GamerGate show bias [(See [1], since deleted), my observation is that they evince a significant personal involvement in the substance of the dispute, and hence represent a serious conflict of interest, and cause for you to recuse yourself.

Apparently, at one time you also felt that you had a conflict of interest - which lead to you recusing yourself at the beginning of this arbitration. Yet, you changed your mind.

There is no ArbCom policy, that I can find, which supports the notion that, once an arbitrator has recused, they can change their mind.[2] In fact, I can find no such concept in any body of ethical standards applicable to arbitrators. While ArbCom has the right to define Arbitration Policy, it has not, in the past, done so by fiat. And it should not do so in this case.

Unfortunately, your unilateral reentry into the case, both by voting on the proposed decision, and attempting to influence the opinions of other arbitrators, has irreparably prejudiced the case. Any sanctions which ArbCom might now impose on involved parties will be open to question.

I'm contacting you here, on your talk page, pursuant to ArbCom policy [3], and requesting that you recuse yourself, and redact all of your comments and votes in the case. While I don't believe that this will substantially change the outcome of the case, I do believe it's necessary to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest.

This is, by any definition, an extraordinary circumstance, requiring action irrespective of the fact that the case has already entered the voting state. So, while I will await your response here, I believe the issue must also be referred to the full Arbitration Committee.

Note: Quite a lot of comments on this matter, both here and in the Proposed Decision talk page, have been getting rather quickly deleted. Not by you, but by apparently well meaning people. That's probably a bad idea. Fearofreprisal (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

This is getting circulated on Twitter Imgur compilation. Liz Read! Talk! 16:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd not seen that. My issue about conflict of interest in this matter has nothing to do with what GorillaWarfare's particular point of view might be. It's that GW is *personally involved*. But, beyond this, recusing then changing your mind about it is procedurally unconscionable. Fearofreprisal (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
If Gorilla honestly thinks GamerGate is just about defaming and threatening women or that Mozilla allowing a female supporter of GamerGate to express her views on the issue was "legitimizing the abuse of women" then she should recuse. Seems clear that Gorilla has the "neutrality is not acceptable" take on GamerGate. Being an editor on the topic would not be a big deal, but there is no way in hell someone should be acting as an arbitrator when they have such an attitude on the subject.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
But, looking over the proposed decision page, the case findings don't concern the subject of GamerGate itself (pro, con or neutral) but focus on whether an editor has been disruptively editing and interacting with other editors. They are looking at editor behavior which can be judged regardless of what one thinks of the subject of the article. Liz Read! Talk! 18:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying, but the fact that GorillaWarfare has decided to be recused due to being considered involved in other GG matters seems to indicate that this is not an appropriate exception to make. Again, it is not a failing or moral weakness to lose neutrality over an issue where you and people you care about have been ridiculed and targeted. I know I wouldn't be neutral after that if that happened to me. Peanutenvelope (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
They are looking at editor behavior which can be judged regardless of what one thinks of the subject of the article. This is absurd to anyone who's familiar with the parties to the case. GorillaWarfare has shown up out of nowhere and suddenly started registering votes against action for parties who have promoted the "legitimizing the abuse of women" interpretation.
She has argued, without any evidence, reasoning or analysis that the "misuse of sources" arguments against two of those parties are weak, and then simultaneously asserted that she doesn't think it's her job to assess that anyway. She is currently the only one opposing a finding of "battleground conduct" for another such editor, which nine arbitrators support.
I'd like to note here that One of the editors being defended here has been arguing on the PD talk page about the supposed Gamergate playbook, describing the sort of discussion that you are looking at right now with rhetoric like aggressive, hostile "investigation," claims of bias, accusations of "collusion", doxxing and anonymous abuse based on the slightest bit of personal information that can be teased out about them... brazenly attempting to influence the arbitration proceeding by attacking the character of at least two arbitrators... [an] atmosphere of fear [which is a] dystopian future [for Wikipedia]. Pardon me for thinking that this does look like people sticking up for each other (especially when GW's votes on the talk page are fairly neatly mirrored by another arbitrator - who I presume is the other one NBSB has in mind - even in cases where others clearly disagree), air-quotes around the word collusion be damned. As well as, you know, more than a little ridiculous all-around. That editors like NBSB are carrying on like this on the Arbcom talk page should, realistically, only be seen as further evidence of battleground mentality and bringing a clear bias to the discussion.
Anyway, after those editors complained on the talk page that one of the "pro-Gamergate" editors was not facing any disciplinary action, she added an SPA FoF against him, supported with diffs that are far less damning than anything seen against other editors, and which don't appear to have come from the original evidence page (and only four diffs to establish "battleground conduct", which she apparently thinks is not enough in other cases). While she supports a topic ban for that editor, she seeks only admonishment for another editor on the other side of the conflict, even after also adding more supporting diffs for "battleground conduct" in this case.
She also added a POV FoF against an editor widely perceived as neutral in the discussion, which stands opposed by seven other arbitrators, on the basis of diffs that don't include any main article edits (as noted by other arbitrators), and proposed a topic ban on that basis. (talk) 07:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare, I don't think you will do it, but just in case you're even thinking about, please don't let these guys pressure you into recusing yourself. Love. Lightbreather (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

If you saw the request on the PD talk page, I imagine you also saw my response. I do not intend to recuse at this stage. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The statement you link to is dishonest. Were you really just condemning doxing and harassment that would be one thing, but your comments on Twitter are clearly more extreme. I have never seen anything to suggest Georgina Young doxed or harassed people, yet you retweeted someone who suggested that letting her provide a pro-GamerGate perspective was legitimizing abuse of women. You also made comments to someone about GamerGate as a movement by saying a legitimate movement doe not threaten and defame women. Clearly, you are not simply condemning parts of GamerGate that have doxed and harassed but the whole thing. As to what Liz says, there is no way being of this mindset on the subject can allow someone to be neutral about the conduct of editors in the topic area. The evidence in this case covers POV-pushing and misrepresentation of sources. If Gorilla is of the mindset that neutrality is not acceptable on GamerGate then she cannot make an objective evaluation of such conduct.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 18:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I retweeted someone who spoke against a piece that Mozilla published (and later took down). I did not accuse Young of doxxing or harassment.
saying a legitimate movement doe not threaten and defame women I stand by that.
As for my neutrality, we obviously disagree on the "clear" meanings of my offwiki statements, as well as the effect they have on my ability to neutrally arbitrate user conduct. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
They took down both pieces, the one that was anti- and the one that was pro-, so there is no significance to them being taken down. Nothing about Young's piece was there for "speaking out against" other than it being a woman expressing an opinion that you apparently think it is not proper for a woman to express, which was basically that women such as herself have been harassed for expressing an opinion on GamerGate different from yours. In fact, that is something your views would expressly prejudice regarding this case as one of the main concerns I raised are the comments and edits editors such as Tarc, Ryulong, Red Pen, and Baranof, have made regarding harassment of GamerGate supporters, particularly those who are women or minorities.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
If what your reply said were 100% the case, I don't think there would be a problem. ("Regarding my tweets, I don't think that condemning parts of Gamergate that doxxed or harassed women is reflective of my bias (or even particularly controversial)")However, multiple uses of the Twitter hashtag "#StopGamerGate2014" shows that it was not just a condemnation of particular persons' actions, but everyone in GamerGate as a whole—of which this ArbCom case is partially deciding whether to "stop" to an extent with possible block and ban actions on the table for many known GG-editors. The hashtag system on Twitter is used for advocacy, and I don't think your use of it on Twitter was an exception. It is not a moral failing or weakness to not be neutral in a situation where people have ridiculed and targeted you and people you care about, and is quite understandable, and I know I would be the same way. It just isn't appropriate for a delicate case like with GG, however. Peanutenvelope (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
@Peanutenvelope: If you could put your messages below previous ones, that would be super helpful. I've moved your last one. ArbCom is not making any statement on how the GamerGate group should continue—saying that ArbCom is deciding whether to stop GamerGate is ridiculous. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Heads up that Peanutenvelope has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Chillum 19:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Could you clarify why you chose to recuse in the first place and what made you change your mind? Bosstopher (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

"It is a principle of natural justice that no person can judge a case in which they have an interest. The rule is very strictly applied to any appearance of a possible bias, even if there is actually none: 'Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done'."[4]
Whether you are neutral or not is immaterial: There is an appearance of possible bias. Fearofreprisal (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I can confirm that the appearance of possible bias exists. -Pollinosisss (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
1) Will you similarly ask whether every other arbitrator has a position ("interest") on this subject matter? Have you checked all of their Twitter accounts as well?
2) There are a large number of active arbitrators on this case (14 is more than I'm used to seeing) and I doubt that any one arbitrator will have the deciding vote in the proposed decisions. What I'm saying is that even if GW decided to recuse, the outcome would likely be the same. It doesn't look like these are remedies that will come down to 7/7 or 8/6 voting decisions. Liz Read! Talk! 21:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@Bosstopher: I initially recused because I was concerned that people would, as they are currently doing, perceive comments I've made about feminism and GamerGate elsewhere as indicative of a conflict of interest in this case. I thought about it quite a lot, and realized that it's silly to feel obligated to recuse because I have opinions on feminism, and did not choose to hide them. It's easy to make arguments for my recusal, or that of any other arbitrator's, on many cases—maybe I should have recused on Interactions at GGTF because I am a woman, a feminist, and I believe that the gender gap is an issue; maybe I should have recused on DangerousPanda or Kafziel or Nightscream or any other case involving sysop conduct because I'm a sysop; maybe I should have recused on Media Viewer RfC because I'm a software developer, or because I've contributed to MediaWiki, or because I personally prefer the old way of viewing images; maybe I should have recused on American politics because I'm an American, and have opinions (which I've also publicly stated) on political and social issues in the U.S. The point is that it's a judgment call for each arbitrator each time, and arguments can be made for or against recusal on just about any case, but without a significant conflict of interest, I choose to remain active. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Shockingly, the appearance of possible bias can be construed through any number of potential scenarios, but the actual level of bias in this situation is negligible at best. Thanks for remaining active, GW—you made the right call. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
If you are set on this, I'd recommend seeking a resolution of the full Arbitration Committee. That way, if it blows up, you've got coverage. Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't intend to do that any more than I would on any other case in which I choose not to recuse. I'm not going to increase the workload of the rest of the Committee with a procedural vote when no one else on it has expressed concern to me about my decision. If another arbitrator believes I should recuse, they are of course welcome to suggest this resolution, and with no hard feelings from me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
People have opinions on a lot of issues, but here you are once more not being completely honest. Your opinions about feminism are not being raised as especially relevant and it is not merely having opinions on GamerGate that is an issue. Rather, the problem is that your opinions are indistinguishable from those of the people you are supporting in the arbitration case and those opinions are quite extreme. You have a partisan take on the issue and your actions as an Arb here are partisan in nature.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
So you feel that I can arbitrate on cases to do with issues on which I have opinions, as long as I only vote to sanction people who hold similar opinions...? GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
No, this is relatively straightforward. If you feel so strongly about an issue that you think even allowing the other side to be heard is a bad thing that should be stopped, then you should not be an Arb on a case concerning that issue.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 01:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
TDA, that screed is nothing more than personal attack. Accusing somebody of dishonesty because you disagree with them on a procedural issues is absolutely outrageous and under normal circumstances I'd block you for something like that. Make no mistake: if you accuse anyone, anywhere in Wikipedia of being dishonest, especially if it is intended to have a chilling effect on that person's participation in matters of policy enforcement, I will block you. The only reason I haven't already is that it would inhibit your participation in the case at this critical juncture. Parties to arbitration cases have a lot of leeway to defend themselves, but that leeway is not infinite. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Has the ridiculous bureaucracy of Wikipedia, with its love of procedure over substance, come to such a point where an editor cannot state the obvious when the evidence is compelling? "Personal attacks", so called, are legitimate if the substance of said "attack" is to state the obvious, that there is a biased and involved individual [5]. It is scandalous that certain admin/sysop's have refused to recuse themselves, despite being biased, involved and obviously motived by factors other than creating a great encyclopedia. Making tedious reference to obscure policy in an effort to shut down discourse is wrong. (talk) 01:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
A disagreement on the policy is not the basis of my statement. She states "I thought about it quite a lot, and realized that it's silly to feel obligated to recuse because I have opinions on feminism, and did not choose to hide them." No one here is saying her opinions on feminism are the issue, but her opinions on GamerGate specifically. She then suggests that having opinions on GamerGate is like having an opinion on admins or opinions on politics. Unfortunately, it seems increasingly that the default response of admins when questioned regarding this type of issue is to make an absurd remark about a much broader subject than the topic under discussion. It is not even just that she has an opinion on GamerGate. I would hardly expect someone to not have an opinion on an issue, but what matters is the nature of that opinion and how strongly it is held.
When someone feels so strongly about an issue that they think presenting both sides is "legitimizing the abuse of women" and thus anyone attempting to present both sides of an issue should be criticized severely until they stop presenting the "bad" side, then it is an entirely different matter. Another Arb has made some comments regarding GamerGate on Twitter, but from what I saw in that case there are far fewer comments and they are much more tame. Her having an opinion is not a big deal in itself, but when her opinion is essentially that there is something inherently immoral about presenting more than one side of the issue, then that is a problem. By no means is she unaware that the issue is more than simply her having an opinion on the subject and she would certainly be aware that having an opinion on a far more broad issue is not the same as having an opinion on a much more narrow issue.
The Huffington Post brought on numerous female GamerGate supporters to discuss their feelings regarding GamerGate. Aljazeera America talked to various different supporters regarding their feelings on the issue, including female supporters. Numerous major media have sought out and covered various sides of the issue, including the Washington Post. GorillaWarfare's endorsement of a position that is diametrically opposed to allowing such alternative views is damning. How can someone believe she is going to be neutral regarding this case when she apparently thinks people should not be neutral regarding the subject at all?--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 01:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Well I suspect you know exactly what I'd say if you'd spoken to me the way you've spoken to Molly (I find it excessively formal to refer to someone by their username when they disclose their first name on their userpage, but that's just me.)—I'd suggest that you went elsewhere, but I wouldn't use quite so many letters. I'm not going to get into a lengthy and unproductive discussion with you about why Molly should or shouldn't recuse, both because it would be lengthy and unproductive and because it would be impolite to discuss Molly in the third person on her own talk page. My warning wrt personal attacks, accusations of dishonesty, and chilling effects stands. You can either heed it or be blocked. The choice is entirely yours. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Apologies if I misinterpreted what you said—I've been getting a lot of accusations from all angles in the last 24 hours, and sometimes it's hard to tell who's taking issue with what. We could go back and forth here for a long time about whether I'm biased, but I'm going to end this conversation now in the interest of focusing on both the case and my schoolwork. To repeat what I said above: I don't intend to recuse from the case. If another arbitrator wishes to bring it up for discussion among the rest of the Committee, that's fine, but I don't intend to do so myself. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Apologies if I shouldn't reply here, if so by all means delete my comments, I was looking for somewhere to explain myself what I mentioned to two other arbs. I sincerily don't get why you accused me of being a SPA when my editing history covers everything from music, politics, games not even related to GamerGate, terrorism, etc. If you compare to all those others getting called SPAs I'm not even similar to them, giving that my account is almost 9 years old, and I've even edited the Spanish Wikipedia, your proposal striked me as weird, this would be my first ever sanction. Then I saw all the fuzz and it's just sad in my opinion, I truly had an entire different view of Wikipedia before all this. Please take this with the utmost respect, I'm not one to use insults or snarks, I'm not a random IP user who comes here to vandalise, It's not only your offsite ideas, it's your decisions in this case which, in my humble opinion, show a one sided thinking, that really just makes people doubt if the evidence was really put into effect and analysis (I have already been accused of being a SPA on ANI, and the case was dropped) or the votes were decided from the get go due to your personal views on what is being deemed an anti-Feminist movement by media, and your strong oppositions to the movement and its participants (hence your potential dislike for people introducing content that may be deemed favorable to it, like DungeonSiege, Tutelary, TitaniumDragon, Xander; and your favoritism to what outside participants of the movement deeem antiGG, like Ryulong, NorthBySouthBaranof and Gamaliel, from the so called 5 Horseman), that's what every outsider would think of this. In the interest of not damaging the image of the project, I please ask you to take the advise of several people and reccuse yourself like you did at the start of this case. Thanks for hearing, and again apologies if this shouldn't be here, take care. Loganmac (talk) 05:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
No problem in talking to me here, but the issue of the SPA finding is more suited to discussion on the PD talk page. I proposed the finding, but it's the entire Committee who decides if it passes or not. Regarding my recusal, I don't really know how much clearer I can get on the issue. GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Gorilla Warfare, please be aware, and I am confident that you are, that a legion of experienced editors who choose to avoid the areas of bitter conflict on a day-to-day basis, are deeply grateful to the administrators and arbitrators who delve into these swamps to clean them up. That's why we elected you and your colleagues to ArbCom. We know that, if it weren't for the efforts of you and your colleagues, this encyclopedia would be overrun and destroyed by the POV pushers, fanatics, kooks and trolls who swarm all over the internet, attacking Wikipedia's credibility at every opportunity. Please ignore their entreaties, cloaked in the facade of "reasonableness" and stick to our policies and guidelines. Steadfastness is essential. My warmest regards to you, and thank you for the work you do. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Molly. I noticed the discussion about this, and I remember seeing the e-mail you sent the clerks asking to be moved from recused to active on this case (this would have been on 3 December). Over on the PD talk page, you said this, referring to this edit by Sphilbrick (the edit summary refers to the e-mail). An arbitrator moving from recused to active on a case is extremely rare - it has happened a couple of times before (I give an example below), but in general my view would be that when an arbitrator states they are recusing, they should stay recused. It is because unrecusing is so rare that there are no hard and fast rules. Maybe what should happen is that an arbitrator wishing to unrecuse should ask the rest of the committee first? Or at least provide a reason on-wiki for the unrecusal at the time? Having to explain now about an unrecusal that took place by proxy via e-mail and a clerk around 7 weeks ago is not ideal. Explaining at the time would have been better.

One of the reasons unrecusals are rare and should be discouraged, is that it reflects badly on the committee to have arbs being uncertain about their recusal status (it can get to the point where people don't believe arbs will stay recused, or even that it is possible to pressure arbs into recusing - if you state that the decision made at the time of the case request is final, you are less likely to get people trying to change that recusal status either way).

On a more practical note, the main case page still states that you are recused. People reading that will be confused because the way the recusal status was changed was to edit a template providing data to the PD talk page. Ideally, a note would be added to the main case page striking through your recusal and giving a diff to the change made by Sphilbrick. For an example of a case where the recusal status of several arbitrators changed during the request and after the request was accepted (with strike-throughs and additional notes added afterwards), see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds.

Finally, I know it won't help much, but one of the reasons I stayed well away from this case was because of the sort of thing you have been having to put up with. Whatever you decide to do here, you and the other arbs coming under pressure on this case have my sympathy. I hope what I've said here will help. Carcharoth (talk) 02:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png I wish I could buy you a real-life beer or cup of coffee or whatever you prefer. Hell - even dinner and a night on the town. You've earned a trip to a tropical island for the unflappable way you handle crap. Lightbreather (talk) 20:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
+1 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
+2 ..... quite. The Land (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you![edit]

Meissen-teacup pinkrose01.jpg Life is better with tea! Best wishes! MONGO 22:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Another cup of tea for you![edit]

Meissen-teacup pinkrose01.jpg You're great, the haters can't hold a candle to you. <3 Keilana|Parlez ici 22:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

A brownie for you![edit]

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

Stay the course[edit]

I usually don't do cute pictures (or Python), but I'd annoyed if you let the naysayers talk you on of doing the job you were elected to do. Also, feel free to ban folks from your talk page, no one will think less of you. NE Ent 01:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. 09I500 (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Epic Meal Time's GAR[edit]

Epic Meal Time, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. GamerPro64 01:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

I'd like to keep this anonymous for a number of reasons, but I wanted to express how abhorrent I find your treatment by certain Gamergate supporters. Full disclosure: I am strongly pro-Gamergate, I have been involved in the Wiki controversy over it in the past (though am not a party to the arbitration), and I find a lot of the rhetoric thrown around by the editors I oppose on this issue to be equally abhorrent. That said, prying into your off-wiki activity and trying to push you to recuse yourself at the first sign of voting 'against us' is despicable and only paints my 'side' as even worse than it's already been painted. I don't agree with all of the decisions you've made on this case, but I don't have to do that to acknowledge that they're reasonable and that you have a right to make them. Even if they weren't reasonable, you are one of fourteen voices and I would imagine the point of having so many voices is that extreme opinions can be balanced out and a fair consensus can be found.

Thank you for your handling of this issue. I hope it hasn't inconvenienced you much in life, and I condemn the behaviour of others surrounding it. (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

*applause* That's a model of how we should be doing things here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
*brava* Digging into editor's off-wiki activity is despicable and never justified. Thank you Gamergater for distancing yourself from those people. (talk) 17:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


How or why was the entire history of Nekrogoblikon prior to your December 29, 2014 editing revision-deleted? LINK I've never seen anything like this on WP... It seems to be something in need of reversal, yes? Carrite (talk) 13:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If there was some really blatant copyvio in the original version that was never dealt with, this wouldn't be out of line. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
And that is, in fact, what the deletion log states. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Heya Carrite. Yep, SarekOfVulcan is correct—there was a relatively large block of text that made up much of the article that was directly copied from another source. It remained in the article unnoticed for quite some time, so a lot of revisions were affected. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

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


Before casting your vote in the Wifione case, please be sure to have read and understood this thread. If you have any questions, please ask. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

And from me as well[edit]

Let me start off by saying that I'm a lifelong gamer (yes, I know how nerdy that must sound), and someone whose sole involvement has been an admittedly ill-advised post on the GamerGate talk page back in November; see this follow-up conversation on Drmies's talk page for more on that, and to clarify what I had meant by my initial commentary. There are aspects of the movement that I support; for example, I think there are valid reasons to criticize Feminist Frequency by Anita Sarkeesian, and I say this as someone who strongly believes that women are not given fair representation in the gaming industry by a long shot.

So why am I against GamerGate? This is a perfect example. These kinds of character assassinations are precisely why I'm so embarrassed of this particular strand of the gaming community. Anyone who says that GamerGate is about "journalistic integrity" needs to take a good, hard look at what they've aligned themselves with: terrorizing people into fleeing their homes, unproven accusations of misconduct, death threats and other vile attacks against women, the list goes on. I don't care if people say that harassment and trolling are just a part of internet culture — men don't experience this kind of hatred. Anyone who thinks otherwise, and believes that this is a legitimate way of expressing disagreement, is a bad person.

I was going to ask you about your decision to unrecuse yourself from this case, but based on what I've read above, I don't want to anymore. You may have opinions about GamerGate; so what? Does having a perspective on something make a person any less capable of rational thought? I personally view religion as a means of psychological control over people, but that doesn't mean I condone demeaning people based on their beliefs. Even if your votes didn't always align with the majority, you spared neither side in condemning the edit-warring and hostility. I hope anyone who criticizes you can at least recognize that much. Kurtis (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Up here in heaven, chile ...[edit]

Sojourner Truth c1864.jpg we hear you're talkin 'bout equality ...
Lawd Almighty, keep talkin' like that, you might even get the right to vote! Djembayz (talk) 05:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Purple Barnstar[edit]

Purple Star.png The Purple Barnstar
For suffering the slings and arrows of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Interactions at GGTF. Illegitimi non carborundum. GRuban (talk) 04:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


Please tell me you're going to make a regular habit of responding to arbitration in haiku. Suddenly the page has been given a certain subtle grace... Yunshui  13:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)