User talk:GorillaWarfare

Archives
August 2018 – present January 2018 – July 2018 July 2017 – December 2017 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

Orphaned non-free image File:EnerNOC Logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:EnerNOC Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Hide IP address ASAP

Hi please hide my Ip address: [REDACTED - Oshwah] from this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khaled_Juffali without removing content added if possible — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantom122 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

RevDel

Thanks for cleaning up at ANI. Can I also trouble you to hide Special:Permalink/891316983 (content and edit summary)? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 04:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Sure thing, thanks for pointing it out! GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:38, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for hiding it. Also, on the same topic (before I forget, since I won't be able to refresh my memory) is it a COI to give an IP a {{Uw-npa4im}} warning if I was the target? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 04:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Nope, being the target of personal attacks doesn't make you involved in any way. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Good to know. Thanks again, --DannyS712 (talk) 04:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2019).

Administrator changes

Reaper Eternal • ThaddeusB

Bogdangiusca • Christopher Parham • Necrothesp • Schneelocke • Siroxo • Sarah

Mentifisto → Lofty abyss

Interface administrator changes

Mr. Stradivarius

Bureaucrat changes

DeltaQuad

Kingturtle

Technical news

• In Special:Preferences under "Appearance" → "Advanced options", there is now an option to show a confirmation prompt when clicking on a rollback link.
• The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Please see meta:Community health initiative/User reporting system consultation 2019 to provide your input on this idea.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee clarified that the General 1RR prohibition for Palestine-Israel articles may only be enforced on pages with the {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}} edit notice.

Miscellaneous

• Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
• As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you and your cat!

For Max(imus) and you. qedk (t 桜 c) 17:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Why thank you! Not sure how Max(imus) would feel about strawberries, but I sure like them :) GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I made edits but you removed them

How do I supply a source for adding family information? I am a relative and have first hand knowledge of this family. Leona Goodell (talk) 02:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Any reasons

as to why the voting of arbitrators (i.e. the support/oppose/abstain/recuse tally) in private appeals aren't disclosed? ∯WBG^converse 06:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm actually not sure -- I think we may have disclosed tallies in the past on a per-case basis, but it's not common practice. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

In that case, I don't see any reason as to why the common practice can't be changed. You might remember the drama-fest w.r.t to the premises of the first question over here. ∯WBG^converse 05:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

The better place to discuss this would probably be at WT:ARBCOM where all the arbs can see it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

May you join this month's editathons from WiR!

May 2019, Volume 5, Issue 5, Numbers 107, 108, 118, 119, 120, 121 Hello and welcome to the May events of Women in Red! Please join us for these virtual events: New topics: "May" women / Mayors / Environentalists Geofocus: CEE countries Continuing initiatives: Suffrage / #1day1woman Other ways you can participate: Help us plan our future events: Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

You've got mail

Hello, GorillaWarfare. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Funcrunch (talk) 22:36, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

Why have I received this message? All administrators are receiving it. What prompted you to send this message? Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account. What do I need to do? Only to follow the instructions in this message. Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites). Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable). Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers. How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)? You can find out more about 2FA at m:2FA.

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Template:Z152

Orphaned non-free image File:Enso Group logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Enso Group logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Template:Z83

Hi GW. What a horrible CF. [And all this comes without hugely digging through heaps of AC pages, as I simply neither have the time nor patience. Something has gone horribly wrong here. These days I keep out of enWP politics and just potter along with administrative bitsies. 1) Why is ArbCom even discussing this? It is not within the scope of AC, as I know it. 2) How did the first email come about? Let alone be sent? 3) How did the subsequent email come about and semi-justify the first? Should have been a complete retraction, nothing more.

Looks like you/we need to fix the AC house. Both in getting it back to the AC's scope, and managing what the personnel attached to AC are doing. As a long term admin, that is pretty disappointing. We are a consensus, not and AC has a scope within which to work. And I am not going to do individual blame, I am looking to solutions. [And it doesn't need a personal explanation, it is me expressing a PoV without getting entrenched in enWP politics, as those days are in the past.] — billinghurst sDrewth 03:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, and I just saw special:permalink/891851004#Return_of_permissions_for_compromised_administrator_accounts. How is this part of AC? I hope that the bureaucrats throw this out as overreach. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Billinghurst: There's a fair bit of discussion over at WT:ACN if you've not seen it. To answer your questions: 1) The ArbCom does handle desysoppings in the case of admin compromise (and in other situations), as it has for years. Typically we've just restored admin permissions once people have regained access to their admin account, but there have been concerns recently about administrators inadequately securing their accounts after account compromise. 2) There have been six compromised admin accounts in recent history, and more if you go back into slightly less recent history, that have come about from poor account security. The first email was drafted by an arbitrator and then submitted for discussion among the rest of the committee. 3) Same process for the second email. I disagree with you that the note should have been retracted entirely; the tone was poor and the bullet point about 2FA didn't adequately convey that it remains optional, but the substance of the message is important. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:47, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

To reply to your addition that we edit conflicted on, the bureaucrats can't really "throw it out" per se—there is no ratification process by the bureaucrats or anything like that. I suppose they could refuse to resysop administrators when we asked them to, but that would be an odd change given they've been doing so as long as I can remember. Adding the option to not resysop a compromised admin more or less automatically is putting more of the decision in the community's hands than before, not less. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:49, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

This should be community consensus, not the AC consensus and edict. The AC should be putting recommendations to the community for their consensus to how we the community operate, not by AC edict. This is rule creep and authority creep, and the AC should be well aware of this shift in power and pushing hard against it.

Any bureaucrat worth a pinch of shit would be asking any returning admin who lost control of their account to demonstrate how they have better secured their account, and showing compliance. This is not something that is arbitration. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The removal of rights that AC adopted was "temporary" that you have taken it further, is unreasonable. Please check the 2009 adaptation. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I don't particularly appreciate your implication that I've been unaware of a procedure I've been responsible for following for several years. Have you seen Joe Roe's 15:43, 4 May 2019 comment at WT:ACN? It sums up my opinions on this quite well. I'd recommend moving this conversation to that page, anyway—I am one member of a larger Committee, and you seem to be addressing the Committee as a whole in these comments. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:14, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).

Administrator changes

HickoryOughtShirt?4 • RexxS

Necrothesp

Bratsche • Kyle Barbour • Kzollman • Madman

Interface administrator changes

Pharos

Bureaucrat changes

Primefac

CheckUser changes

Reaper Eternal

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment concluded that creating pages in the portal namespace should be restricted to autoconfirmed users.
• Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.

Technical news

• XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.

Arbitration

• In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
• Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.

Miscellaneous

• A request for comment is currently open to amend the community sanctions procedure to exclude non XfD or CSD deletions.
• A proposal to remove pre-2009 indefinite IP blocks is currently open for discussion.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Galobtter, alpha male.
(Commons is severely lacking in the Gorillas beating their chest department Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC))

I came here expecting to thank a burly, alpha male with hair on his chest and a large medallion for being a good role model in the fetid swamp of the Article on Gab, and instead I'm thanking this other person. Now I have to rewire my brain to accommodate this new information. I appreciate your balance and fairness.Tym Whittier (talk) 04:50, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I get that a lot... Thanks for being willing to take a step back and cool off. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:54, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

"I came here expecting to thank a burly, alpha male with hair on his chest." No, that's another admin. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

May 19

For what it's worth, I'd like to say thanks for supporting me at the ANI against the false accusations by the two users, accusing me of being responsible for the revdel edit. I normally wouldn't expect that level of fairness from an 'opponent'. I can appreciate why you have been given adminship. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 03:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider myself your "opponent". I'd recommend assuming good faith when it comes to those users—I don't think they're trying to falsely accuse you, I think they either misread the discussion or were not able to view the diff. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Please undelete this edit

This edit is the topic of a paragraph at STEM School Highlands Ranch shooting. It is contrary to Wikipedia's purpose to be concealing important primary data. In general the RD3 policy looks like it badly needs to be fixed because it talks about severe threats like worms but is being applied by some admins to anything that is "nothing but disruptive" in a very lesser sense of the word disruptive. Nonetheless, an edit that our article presents as important evidence, as a public threat to commit a heinous crime that happened, most definitely is not "purely disruptive". Wnt (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Have you seen Talk:STEM School Highlands Ranch and the subsequent AN thread? The topic strayed a bit away from the edit and into the filer's behavior, but the closing admin remarked, The edit in question was pretty worthless but there's reasonable arguments on revdel versus reversion. Consensus supports the revdel option but it's all a bit academic given no one is arguing to put the edit back. Having appropriately discussed it, let's all move on. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:20, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

This is an unworthy hill to choose to die on, Wnt. And, yes, that is a metaphor. Let it go. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

It is unfortunate I missed that discussion, since obviously I would have voiced my support to undelete this. Yes, it is a very technical point given that all of the information in the edit can be reconstructed -- the content, the editor, the time and date, everything. Yet I have to wonder what the thought process could be to explain why such a perfectly reconstructible, notable edit of public importance would still be kept deleted, leaving Wikipedians to rely on outside sources to report what Wikipedia contained. Wnt (talk) 22:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

In fairness, Wikipedia would never cite a revision in an article, so there's no real need for it to be visible. I've never seen the argument that revs should be unhidden because they're notable applied before. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:07, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, how often do we have a paragraph in an article suggesting a psychopath was hinting at a massacre in advance of the deed on Wikipedia? It's a crazy situation, so my instinct is we should be as forthright as possible. Wnt (talk) 00:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to stick with what I said there - if we have some evidence that this is actually connected, I can see undeleting for the sake of history, etc. Until then, it's just vandalism on a school page, which, frankly, there is no shortage of. --GRuban (talk) 01:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I need a favor

You're the first CU I've found who doesn't have a sign up about being otherwise occupied, therefore I am posting this here because I need a look under the hood to confirm something I took action on at WP:ANI [1]; if it turns out we're right the tags I used will need to be tweaked accordingly. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:35, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't really see any reason to run the check, if the only purpose is to tweak tags. The behavioral evidence seems like plenty to go on. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

AGF, Gab and Epik

Hey there, I'm Alex. As I'm sure you've noticed, I've made a couple of sections on Gab talk page, mostly because I've reviewed the archives and disagree with how quickly the contributors jump to a concensus. I am trying to provide a NPOV for the article, because as it stands right now - it's a mess. I don't want to make emotionally charged edits, and am fully capable of admitting when I'm wrong. All I ask is that you do the same. Try to look at each section as its own issue, as opposed to the collection of them as some sort of personal attack on you and your edits. I've made good points, and they have either been: not addressed at all, or addressed very poorly. So I respond trying to challenge the poor responses.

You found a source that matches the description in the lead, and I conceded. That's how Wikipedia should be. We can argue like this forever if no one is willing to at least hear the other side out. You can see my contributions, I'm interested in a variety of things but I'm especially anal about poor sourcing, OR, and SYNTH.

In my opinion, the Epik article should be deleted entirely, as should the Monster page. They're not notable enough to warrant TWO articles which essentially say the same stuff and use the same sources. But until deletion, I decided to at least balance it out.

Cheers, Alex.osheter (talk) 18:11, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

"Hearing you out" does not mean "agreeing with you", which seems to be what you're asking for here and when you ask for compromise on the Gab talk page. I am hearing you out, I (and Jorm) have pointed out that your arguments are ones that have been brought up repeatedly in the past, and directed you there. I have attempted to answer your questions where you've asked them.

You did agree with me, but later changed your mind assuming bad faith. If someone were to make the edit you're so afraid of, you can revert it and call them to the talk page. Alex.osheter (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

If you think the Epik article should be deleted, AfD is thataway. I see you've already brought Rob Monster there, and I've commented. But what you're trying to do to the article cannot be described as "balancing"—that would imply there are sources that present another view on Epik's activities, which I've not seen and you've not produced. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Alternatively, "balancing" can mean removing statements that are simply not in the source, which is what I did. Alex.osheter (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

That would seem to be a discussion we should continue on Talk:Epik (domain registrar). GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Fair point :) BTW, I responded to your question on the Gab talk page, hopefully that section could be closed now. I missed your edit. Alex.osheter (talk) 20:34, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Could use your input here

Discussions on Gab and Mr.Monster aside, I could really use your input here. What do you think? Notable? Yes? No? Alex.osheter (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:48, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@Alex.osheter: By the way, I've replied at Talk:Epik (domain registrar). GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it seems like you've put a lot of effort into it and I appreciate that. I want to put a lot of effort into my response as well, so I'll go to sleep now and respond tomorrow. Alex.osheter (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I responded. By the way, you haven't addressed my section regarding "Cleaning up some OR" on Gab. I've made a couple of suggestions to keep it OR free. Alex.osheter (talk) 16:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Help with another Editor

So you know I'm relatively new. I see words like "arbitration" and "content disputes" and read Wikipedia Policies that describe certain behaviors as generally "bad". I've held off addressing the problem/conflict directly as I am aware that I am "under development" however things have come to a head and I'm seeking some sort of action. Preserving this account (meaning not getting kicked off) is priority #1, however that sentiment is in direct conflict with my willingness to tolerate a persistent pattern of non-constructive "editing". I have a grievance. What's my next step?Tym Whittier (talk) 09:22, 19 May 2019 (UTC)