User talk:GorillaWarfare

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive
Archives
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

Please help[edit]

I posted a question of Mkdw's talk page [1] and he suggested I contact you. He also said I should move the discussion from the archives, but I don't know how to do that. Thanks.Mdtemp (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

You can simply copy the thread from the archived page and paste it back on ANI if you wish to restore it. That said, I'm not seeing much to act on here. Systemic bias is a recognized issue on Wikipedia, and although SPI is not the best place to point it out, I don't think observations on the pattern in the AfDs is unreasonable, and I'm not seeing personal attacks. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I see no point in restoring that section if admins are saying it's OK to call a bunch of editors racists even when they didn't vote on the AFD discussions mentioned. The only crime we committed was disagreeing with him on a topic anytime in the past.Mdtemp (talk) 18:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Mishae[edit]

Hey, GW. I messed up the ping on Mishae's talk page, but I'm thinking about an unblock, and was wondering about your opinion. I've been discussing it with Mishae, and while I'm not totally convinced that they get it, I think there's at least progress, and an unblock might be worth a shot. What do you think, as the blocking admin? Writ Keeper  22:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

No worries, I've responded there. Thanks for the heads up. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, I'll just tack this on here. After Mishae's unblock, it looks like they've gone almost straight back to problematic behavior. We reached consensus not to remove the Wikiproject Insects tag here, though Mishae starting removing the tags again and now they're trying to pretty tendentiously justify it on the individual pages (at the bottom), accusations of COI, etc. I'm basically just disengaging from conversation for now trying to figure out how to tackle this after comments like this. It looks like Mishae is just going to keep plowing ahead, so what's the best course of action here? Is this a pretty blatant violation of WP:ROPE after just coming off an unblock and resuming the activity that just warrants a block outright? Otherwise, is it better to just reopen the ANI case? We've had a few admins at Mishae's page now discussing the previous block, so I'm not really sure what the best course of action is at this point. Thanks. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I would speak with Writ Keeper, as they are the unblocking admin and the one who gave the conditions for the unblock. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I wasn't sure if they would be the main go to person or not in this case. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
*sigh* I guess hope doesn't spring eternal after all. Writ Keeper  06:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Alma Dolens[edit]

Allen3 talk 08:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Nazi gun control theory[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Nazi gun control theory#Godsy's preferred lead. Should article be locked down/protected? If so, which version, and for how long? Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 22:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

"Whisperback" didn't seem to apply to this. I heard "ping" doesn't work any more. I switched to template "U" - but I'm not sure that works, either. So, secondary question: Most reliable pinging tool? Lightbreather (talk) 22:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I've responded there to say that I don't know if I'd be much help. I definitely don't think the article should be protected, though the edit warring should be dealt with if it continues. As for pinging, I did receive the ping earlier. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Updated[edit]

Because I was asked to address the multiple instances of misuse of tools or the longterm patterns of poor judgment. I have cited a few different examples concerning Bgwhite at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Arbitrary break, there are also about others. Please have a look. You would find that there is a long term pattern of edit warring with editors, then blocking them, thus not only violating WP:INVOLVED but also WP:3RR.

He has same kind of pattern of edit warring and wikihounding, where I am contributing. He unnecessarily picks up the edit wars and arguments where I am currently contributing, and he never contributed before. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 05:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Your statements should be made on the arbitration case request, not on individual arbitrators' talk pages. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

Since you are a champion of civility and consider "fuck off" to be an "egregious violation of civility" I'm bring this edit to your attention. The encyclopedia needs your protection. Or has your stance on "fuck off" changed, or is it merely selective based upon the individuals involved?Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon 00:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Pork, you know very well that "fuck off" on one's own talk page is allowed--in other words, you're baiting here. (Also, well, that person needed to be told--a libertarian like you should know that.) Do not let your Wikipediocracy sympathies get the best of you: Kiefer doesn't need you to fight his fights for him. And next time you run into him, please tell him I said hi. Drmies (talk) 02:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the POINTy heads-up, TKoP. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Drmies, honest to God I've no idea why you are talking about Kiefer. I've seen his name here before but up until just now had no idea he was banned. I think I've had a total of 5 posts over at Wikipedicocracy. Once again, sorry to drag your name through this but I felt GorillaWarfare deserved a chance to reconcile her inconsistencies. Perhaps you are unaware but GW removed my to access, amongst other things, for telling someone to "Fuck off". However the cognitive dissonance is probably washed away with "the ends justify the means" sort of rationalization, and more's the pity if that's the case.Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon 23:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
If you want to discuss something with Drmies, please feel free to do so somewhere other than on my talk page. If you want someone to examine his choice of edit summary, there are the administrator noticeboards. Regarding your comment (which was not among those that I described as egregious violations of civility), that was not the only reason I chose to remove your talk page access. Blocked users' talk pages are intended for discussion of the block, not for continuing discussions that you were prevented from joining. If you disagree with my action, I think you know the proper channels to bring it up if you feel it was the wrong decision. I would question why you waited almost three months to bring it up—perhaps it was because you don't have an issue with it so much as you want to use it to make a point? GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
err the inconsistency in that reasoning alone is appalling given recent history. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Blocked users' talk pages are intended for discussion of the block, not for continuing discussions that you were prevented from joining -- which you selectively enforce -- but I'll predict your rejoinder "I'm not responsible for monitoring every page" -- true, but I can easily dig into the archives to show at least one instance of where this occurred. IMO your action was a shameful abuse of the tools to silence someone who may have pissed you off. There's a word for that -- it's called a bully. I certainly could find a venue to bring this up, but to what purpose? You are politically entrenched here and I am not. I might as well spit into the wind. Why didn't I bring this up sooner? I had thought about it for a bit, but I couldn't for a month because I was blocked for 30 days. After that I felt that letting sleeping dogs lie was perhaps the best course -- which in retrospect was the correct instinct, but here we are. Maybe there is a lesson here if we each look hard enough.Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon 17:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
A lesson for one person, surely. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I relatively regularly remove talk page access when blocked users continue to use it inappropriately. If you'd like to dig through my blocks, have at it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm speaking more about your gamesmanship, which at times is cringeworthy. I just noticed that you enjoy to code. Good for you! The workplace desperately needs more women in the engineering disciplines. You should easily be able to parly your experience with wikipedia politics and rise In the ranks of a faculty department should you choose, however it's a miserable experience and takes you away from doing the work you enjoy. Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon 03:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) You, sir, are coming off spectacularly in this discussion. No evidence or tact, with sides of pointiness, dead horses, and a refusal to even attempt to address your perceived problem. I'd say to quit before you embarrass yourself, but we went past that point with the opening post. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
The switch from an aggressive stance to a faux-congratulatory "oh my, a woman in a male-dominated field. I expect your experience at Wikipedia will allow you to raise your status in professional work" is an unacceptable personal attack, an attempt to bait. Do not do the same in the future. LFaraone 04:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Riots in Baltimore[edit]

I checked the Google Street View of the CVS Pharmacy that was burned in the 2015 Baltimore Riots, and it was near an entrance to the Penn–North (Baltimore Metro Subway station). That was why I added the link to this station. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 00:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source you could find that supplies this location? Checking Google Street View is original research. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I really have to dispute that in this case. I looked at news footage of the looting of that CVS, and noted the entrance to the station. Then I examined the aforementioned map and the street patterns, before finally getting an exact location of the station and the CVS that was burned afterwards. Would you prefer an official location from CVS's website? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 00:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
No, you need a third-party source saying that's where the riots occurred. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
What third party could possibly be available? You have an exact address with someplace like CVS (http://www.cvs.com/stores/store-detail-and-directions.jsp?storeId=3976). ---------User:DanTD (talk) 01:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Many news sources discuss the location. This, for example, mentions west and downtown Baltimore, as well as more specific locations. Various incidents have taken place in various places, and I worry that mentioning a specific location such as a train station will lead people to believe all incidents took place there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that as I was going through one of the CNN links there. Unfortunately, it wouldn't let me scan the caption indicating the location of the CVS Pharmacy. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 01:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
(comment from uninvolved editor) @DanTD:, the article probably doesn't need a Street View. It is useful for railway stations and the like, but less useful to show on pages about riots that destroyed buildings. In essence, I'm saying that for this particular article, it may be irrelevant. Epic Genius (talk) 02:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
That's understandable. Maybe we can use it for the station article. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 04:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The Rachel Maddow show on MSNBC is reporting on the burning of a CVS store at Franklin and Brannan Streets as I started reading this post. That's how I heard the street names anyway but am not citing this source myself. I think they mentioned another CVS as well but am unsure since I was simultaneously reading about the Nepal earthquake since I have a friend there. I am unfamiliar with Baltimore geography. My point is that many reliable sources are available covering the Baltimore riot in great detail and we do not need to and should not rely on any form of original research for our coverage of this riot. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I just posted here. Curious if you could weigh in on it? Victor Grigas (talk) 16:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Mayor of Baltimore[edit]

Hi there, I noticed you put the Baltimore riots page under protection. I was wondering if you could do the same for Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, the mayor. I've made the request at the appropriate spot already.

There's been anonymous IPs editorializing and edit-warring, removing content and replacing it with their own non-NPOV stuff. One of them was fairly persistent for a few hours; most of the edits involve her press conference - I expanded the coverage of that presser to make it more NPOV, but they didn't like that. At the moment it's in good shape, but I'm tired of babysitting it. Feel like maybe 48 or 72 hours would be plenty. Thanks, Rockypedia (talk) 22:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind, another admin just did it. Rockypedia (talk) 01:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Formal request[edit]

In regard to the case currently before Arbccom [2] I ask that you recuse as a voting member of the case; and restrict your input to comments and evidence. I ask this because I feel that you are "involved" to the extent of being biased towards one or more members of the case.

aside: I have a great deal of respect for you, but I felt that I had to ask this. — Ched :  ?  04:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd prefer that you stay on the case. I've seen no evidence of bias, and lots of evidence of a steadfast commitment to reason and fairness. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll respect whichever decision she makes. If she says she can be objective, I'll trust that. — Ched :  ?  14:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I think it makes very little difference whether GW recuses or not. Her agenda is clear, and she'll no doubt have her say in the private discussions regardless. Eric Corbett 15:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Recused arbitrators are expected not to involve themselves in public or private discussions of the cases where they're recused, and this is something we all strictly respect. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Ched, what makes you feel I am too involved to arbitrate on this case? GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I've commented at a motion for Salvio to recuse. I'd be in favor of Gorilla Warfare recusing only if Salvio does. The reason being is that they are a bit of counterweights to each other. I'd base this off the private emails, forumshopping by Lightbreathers and comments Gorilla Warfare herself made about at least one parties to this case. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
What private emails are you referring to? I might be searching my email archives poorly, but I'm not sure we've ever communicated via email. Regarding comments I've made about "at least one parties to this case," do you just mean Lightbreather, or are you talking about non-parties? The only other party currently is Karanacs, who I'm not sure I've ever even really interacted with. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Well that's a good question. Your comments in voting for the case is that it was your preference to not limit the case to Lightbreather but also the named parties. I am one of those members. You have openly called me sexist, attacked a fellow arb regarding a call out on a personal attack [[3]] as well as a couple of other questionable actions regarding Lightbreather or gender issues. Now I emphasize again I would only support you recusing if Salvio is forced to recuse and that's only to balance the scales. The emails I refer to is Lightbreathers attempts to canvass you which you have previously admitted to and much to my surprise (I respected you did this) you told her to cease doing so. With what I think 15 active arbs I doubt you or Salvio will be casting pivotable swing votes. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay. I don't see a reason to recuse based on emails I've received or based on people who might eventually be added as parties but as of yet have not. I also disagree with the idea that two arbitrators who did have conflicts of interest wouldn't need to recuse based on some sort of balancing effect. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pardon me if I'm missing something, but has anyone specified why Molly should recuse? There might be a case for her to recuse wrt HiaB if he were added as a party to the case, but I'm not seeing anything along the lines of "you should recuse because this comment shows you have conflicting interests". Compare that with LB's request to Salvio. I have no strong feelings on whether either or both should recuse, but I'd hate to see an arb brow-beaten into recusal—or worse, a lengthy meta-drama about whether a given arb should have recused which puts a cloud over the whole case. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • In reply to your question about "why" I asked GW. My belief is that you have strong feelings of support for LB, and I believe much of it stems from the whole GGTF issue. I have seen comments in the past where you were very supportive of not only the GGTF, the whole "kafka" "women only" thing, and explicit support of LB ... but that you've expressed negative views regarding people which opposed LB. (HiaB, and Eric are easily shown). I believe that much of the efforts to support the causes which LB champions, are in fact very divisive to this project. I think it is wrong to assume any gender to any account name. I originally requested this when there was the issue of bringing other editors into the case. As the case was accepted as it was framed, I'm not as concerned as I was. Mentioned above is also "Salvio". I agree with HiaB with respect to ANY arb who has preconceived mindset towards any case. I don't agree with any "one vote cancels out the other" thought however.
I am not going to spend time with diffs, I simply asked that you consider the fact that you may have thoughts leaning to one side or the other. I will respect your decision. — Ched :  ?  03:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your explanation. I have given it some thought, and will continue to do so as the scope of the case is worked out. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks GW - that's all I asked. — Ched :  ?  03:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The reason you should recuse is that everyone knows what will happen next. You will agitate for Uncle Tom Cobbley and all to be added to the list of parties and then you will vote for sanctions against everyone but LB, as she claims to be a female. Eric Corbett 18:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
    • If you have anything to demonstrate that I would ignore user conduct to vote for or against sanctions because of a user's gender, feel free to present it. If you just disagree with how I've voted on past cases or my opinions on feminism and the gender gap, well, I don't much care. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

IF editors believe that you & Salvio would be biased in Lightbreather's Arbcom case, on opposite sides? Then, I fail to see what the concerns are. Afterall, if the bias claims were true, then wouldn't both your participations, cancel each other out?? GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

If arbitrators are biased, they should recuse. Period. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
It is a spurious notion that, if A is biased in one direction and B is biased in the other, they cancel each other out and all is well. GW is correct that any biased arb should recuse. I believe that all current arbs are capable of reviewing the evidence without bias. I am confident that GW is perfectly capable of favoring feminism and efforts to recruit a more diverse pool of editors, while still fairly evaluating possibly disruptive behavior by a self-identified feminist editor. Thanks, Eric, for the chance to learn more about Uncle Tom Cobley, but please do not pre-judge the outcome. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Thread necromancy here, but the "cancel each other out" argument doesn't make sense based on the way arb !voting works. If it was simple majority, it would be plausible to balance, but since things are based on a 8/10 to pass, one or two biased arbs could quickly swing things to be mathematically unable to pass, even if there were balancing !votes on the other side. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

On possible misinterpretations and misunderstandings.[edit]

Hello. I just wanted to say that I can see that my post on your talk page on commons may have easily been misinterpreted as a reference to the impersonation problem that you have been experiencing. I assure you that I have no involvement in or knowledge of that issue whatsoever. My statements were only intended as a complement of your username and also that, with my admittedly very limited knowledge and observations, I perceived you as a reasonably decent human being here who has a lot of experience and knowledge of the issues at Wikipedia and a person in a high position of authority whom I, as a very recent arrival, would do well to try to develop a good rapport with.

Sincere regards--ChemWarfare (talk) 10:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I did not interpret it as such. That said, I have no intention of doing a recording of the copypasta. It has no encyclopedic value, not to mention that it's incredibly offensive. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:34, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Vaginal evisceration[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Vaginal evisceration at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! 97198 (talk) 12:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)