User talk:GorillaWarfare

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

Discussions, discussions, discussions

I am glad to speak to GorillaWarfare again. Although the arbitrator is able to contribute neutral statements to the GamerGate case, she has made a smart move by recusing herself, thus avoiding to surf through massive amounts of text. This community surely likes to talk.

As I see it, these cases are content-related issues that are brought to the arbitration committee because the topic is controversial, and content-related hierarchy is not as developed as conduct-related one. I believe that we can solve this problem and I have a suggestion. Is GorillaWarfare interested? 84.127.115.190 (talk) 21:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Have we spoken before?

I assure you I did not recuse from the GamerGate case because of its length; I would not have signed up for this if I was unwilling to read through long cases.

I do not see the Gender Gap Task Force or GamerGate cases as being more content-related than most arbitration cases. I also do not know what you mean by "content-related hierarchy" and "conduct-related hierarchy". I'm happy to hear suggestions for improving the project, but I don't know if my talk page is necessarily the best venue for that sort of discussion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare's reasons to recuse do not matter; being free from such a case does. She has coding skills and policy understanding, thus she is the best choice.

In a controversial topic, it is often disputed what viewpoints come from reliable sources and how much weight they should have; WP:NPOV is a content policy. However, the proper hierarchy is missing:

• Wikipedia has a strong conduct-related hierarchy: 12 active arbitrators and over 1000 administrators; these users represent about 1% of the active community and their decisions are enforceable.[statistics]
• Content-related hierarchy comprises eight members in the mediation committee and three coordinators of the featured article candidates process; hardly 0.01% of the active community and adhering to decisions is voluntary.

Sometimes, a decision made by top experienced users allows a small group of editors to get work done and produce a featured article; remaining concerns can be addressed after. The problem is how to determine the most suited editors for this content-related hierarchy.

Is it understood so far? 84.127.115.190 (talk) 04:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

So far so good, though I may need to head you off at the pass about one part... You mention that I have coding skills and policy understanding, which leads me to believe that you have a software solution in mind. Between working fulltime, arbitration, and my own projects (and occasional social life), I do not have additional free time to develop software for MediaWiki. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare should not worry about that; there is no hurry nor requirement to code. Does she agree that a content-related hierarchy would be helpful? 84.127.115.190 (talk) 04:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

It looks like I underestimated the arbitrator's statement about lack of free time; I wondered if she was GuerrillaWarfare before she was GorillaWarfare. Anyway, I thank the arbitrator for her time. 84.127.115.190 (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• I would disagree that the length of the case had anything to do with GorillaWarfare's decision to recuse. Arbitrators are people too, with their own opinions and ideas. If I were an arbitrator, I'd probably recuse myself from matters pertaining to GamerGate as well, and that's because I have strong and conflicting feelings about the topic of gender equality. My ability to remain dispassionate may be compromised if I were to participate in such a case. Kurtis ^(talk) 15:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

You are both, I think, misreading the IP OP. "Smart move" is not suggesting (except in jest) that length was the reason for recusal. But certainly Gender Gap is not a content issue, except obliquely. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 04:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC).

Help please

At User_talk:Worm_That_Turned#I_know_you.27re_busy.2C_but_..., I'm having trouble getting a response to my request for at least some of you on the Committee to have a look at something that happened yesterday that you may or may not find relevant to a case you're voting on as we speak. Could I ask you to have a look? Reply anywhere you like. P.S. Dennis has already "unhatted" per my request. - Dank (push to talk) 21:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews

Hello GorillaWarfare. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

2015 MLS SuperDraft

Hey GW. I'm calling in on you as you are the last (active) admin to have deleted page 2015 MLS SuperDraft (Singularity42 did so again a few months after you, but he is shortly to lose his admin privileges due to long-term inactivity). This page seems to have full protection on at the moment, so I can't do anything with it. Could you kindly create it as a redirect link to this page, please? I would argue that it's not needed to make this page, except for that it seems that this template has been specially formatted to look for pages called 20xx MLS SuperDraft and use them for the previous/next season articles at the bottom of the infobox. You can see on the infobox at the top of this page that the infobox clearly isn't linking to the 2015 article because no article exists under the standard naming convention - creating a redirect should then fix the coding. Thanks. Falastur2 ^Talk 23:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Much obliged. Falastur2 ^Talk 18:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

PD

You ask here "how is this relevant to the PD?" I would have thought that was obvious: it is all these wild, unsubstantiated claims of things that affect women here that have been at the root of most of the problems central to the case. That is what ArbCom should have been getting to grips with and yet I don't think it is anywhere in the PD even though it was in the evidence and elsewhere in the workshop. Seriously, GW, I realise that yours is a thankless task and you'll never please everyone all of the time but in this case it looks very likely that the committee is not going to please anyone, which takes some doing. - Sitush (talk) 00:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee is not going to make a statement about the validity of gender gap issues on Wikipedia—that is quite clearly out of scope. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Mail

You have mail. —Neotarf (talk) 07:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Women

Whispering: women ask (a woman first) to please find a better way (than forcefully breaking up their long-term beloved editing collaborations), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

ps: just found this image --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Gerda you have given these same pleas on like 2 other arb's talkpages [1], [2] that in my view is almost amounting to WP:CANVASSING. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)