User talk:GorillaWarfare

Archives
July 2017 – present October 2016 – June 2017 August 2015 – September 2016 August 2014 – July 2015 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

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: [1]. 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,[2][3][4] 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: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/57|"Women and disability"]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/58|"Healthcare"]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/59|"Geofocus on the Nordic countries"]] Continuing: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00|#1day1woman Global Initiative]] Begin preparing for November's big event: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest|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)

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 imcompetence 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 - I believe TPA revocation 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 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)