User talk:GorillaWarfare

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

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

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

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

Discussion at Talk:Nazi gun control theory

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)Template:Z48

"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

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 (Talk • Contributions • Log) 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

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 pork^Makin'_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 pork^Makin'_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 pork^Makin'_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 pork^Makin'_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

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

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

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)

On possible misinterpretations and misunderstandings.

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

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)

I notice that vaginal evisceration says it's a surgical emergency, but surgical emergency, which seems to be a list of links, doesn't list/link vaginal evisceration. I'd just fix it myself, but maybe there is a deeper reason for this that I'm missing? In fact, nothing links to vaginal evisceration. --GRuban (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

YGM

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.

--Lucywhirlpool (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@Lucywhirlpool: I am not seeing anything in my email from you. Did you send it via Special:EmailUser/GorillaWarfare? GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Cleo Dubois

19:21, 18 April 2015 GorillaWarfare (talk | contribs) deleted page Cléo Dubois (A7: No credible indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events))

2014 | Inducted in The Society of Janus‘ Hall of Fame 2008 | Leather Marshall, San Francisco Pride Parade

Is it possible to get this restored? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesv (talk • contribs) 20:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Lesv: I have restored the article to the draftspace at Draft:Cléo Dubois. Considerable work will need to be done to remove bias and uncited content, and to add reliable sourcing; as it stands, the article does not meet the general notability guideline, and is liable to be deleted if it is moved back into mainspace without substantial improvement. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

AN/I

Your Block of Kevin Gorman was mentioned at AN/I Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Unblock_of_JackTheVicar. Not sure it has anything to do with that discussion, but notifying per AN/I best practice. Monty₈₄₅ 16:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

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.

--Cosmic  Emperor  04:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing

Seeing you are uninvolved would you mind looking at this: [4], it relates to me as I was one of those editors who offered my support opinion. I was going to let it go until the same editor doubled down on her opinion when told it was Canvassing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not quite clear what you're asking me to do here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The issue was brought to ANI Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User has gone over the edge up to you if you want to get involved. In my opinion this is turning into another Chelsea Manning case. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For the drafting arbitrators of the SPI block case decision. Pine✉ 19:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for adding your name to the WP:Women's health project page. This new project is off to a good start and seeing new editors signing up to help or express support encourages the rest of us.

  Bfpage |leave a message  06:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

New page patrol

FYI, twinkle doesn't mark pages as curated anymore if you nominate a page for PROD deletion. --I dream of horses (talk to me) (contributions) @ 03:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The more you know... Thanks for the heads up. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I dream of horses is the Twinkle team aware of this bug (if it is indeed a bug)? Otherwise we should post something over at WT:TWINKLE or this'll never get fixed. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@Salvidrim!: Just left a comment/reply there. --I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{Ping|I dream of horses}} to your message. (talk to me) (contributions) @ 07:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Redactions

Hi -- if you were trying to delete the new material on the Case page, you did not succeed. The edits can't be viewed in the history, but the text is still there. (Apologies if I caught you mid-process.) Looie496 (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it worked—I simply replaced a username in your response with "(Redacted)". GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh I see -- thanks for explaining. Looie496 (talk) 18:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 15 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Mykki Blanco page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Re: Hope chests

I hope I am doing this properly. I've never tried to write anything to a talk page before today. (I normally just try to help around the edges, fixing typos and such when I see them on regular pages.)

Anyway, I just wanmted to be clear about this: *I* did not put the link you deleted onto the web page about hope chests. It was already there when I arrived. But it was a broken/outdated link, so I just fixed/updated it so that it would work right. I don't feel confident enough to make serious content changes to Wikipedia just yet, except with respect to a few narow subject areas that I am especially familiar with.

So anyway, because of this, I have really no opinion, one way or the other about the change you made. I do think that it would be Good to have a link for the lock replacement _somewhere_ on the page about hope chests, but I have no clear idea about where it would be best to put that.

P.S. My name is Ron G, and I _do_ have a wikipedia account, but I hardly ever use it. But if you see an edit from 69.62.255.118 then that's going to be me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.255.118 (talk) 05:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Oversight-worthy stuff being visible to all admins

Hi. Do you know if this issue was raised elsewhere? If not, I'll raise it somewhere. (Any idea where?) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

It was not, to my knowledge, raised anywhere. I'm not really sure where the best place would be to bring it up. AN, perhaps? If it's happening, it seems to be more an administrator issue than an OS one, so AUSC is probably not the right route. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

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.

--Cosmic  Emperor  00:07, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Eric Corbett block

Did you see the WP:AE consensus / closed section that basically this was not worth actioning? I'm not going to intervene either way, but I am curious what you saw that they all didn't? Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Can you explain why you are blocking against a clear consensus at WP:AE? Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 03:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• She saw her chance to block him and ran that ball into the endzone. Seen it a few times already. It's also one of the reasons several asked her to step aside her decisions aren't based on reason but her personal biases rule in this matter. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I've asked you plenty of times to please take your issues with me to a formal setting if you think I'm really as horrible as you like to say, but have yet to see you do so. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

User:GorillaWarfare I'd certainly consider it if you weren't backed by an army of sycophants. I certainly wouldn't say you are a horrible person but your decisions and actions show you clearly aren't unbiased. I'm actually curious other then my recent block when you stated I could appeal when have you made that statement to me? Not to make tedious work but if you have indeed asked me before I didn't remember and I can certainly disinvite my self from your talkpage if the opinions make you that uneasy. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Irony EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'd certainly consider it if you weren't backed by an army of sycophants. ... Says a person supporting Eric. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Prophecy? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Sigh, shades of Giano again, eh Gorilla? It never gets old. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to go through our edit histories to find them, it would indeed make tedious work. If you'd prefer I can change my wording to "You have repeatedly raised serious concerns about my actions without taking them to a formal setting" if you think I haven't asked you multiple times, but I'm not sure why I'm even needing to ask this in the first place. You do not need to disinvite yourself from my talk page, but I would appreciate you taking your snarky comments and bad faith to a more appropriate venue. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Well that's disappointing that you are willing to make more accusations and not back them up. I have raised concerns on this in the proper venues at the time, I've made statements of this bias at ARCA, and also at AE. The only times I recall engaging you other then that is on threads that other people have started and namely that was the request that you recuse in the arbcom case or when you blocked me. I have not engaged you any other time to my recollection on any other matter. I am a little snarky, sorry about that, I have a difficult time controlling it sometimes as you can tell. But if I removed the snark completely you would still deny the issue so let's put that cover aside too. I've experienced first hand your bad faith and that is why I comment on these issues only. Clearly you have strong feelings that override your judgement in this subject matter. I'm not saying that you are a horrible person, admin etc, I don't know you from Eve but what I can say is that I believe your beliefs and biases are overriding your reason. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you disagree that Eric breached his restriction? GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it was stupid, it was something that shouldn't have been done technically but that it harmed no one and disrupted no one. I think it was stupid it was brought to AE. I think it was stupidity all around. I think that the sanctions are being used as a bludgeon which is ironically what I stated at AE. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Now that the discussion here is again duplicating the conversation at EC's talk page, I'm responding there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I've replied at Eric Corbett's talk page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Good block. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you, GW, for enforcing the clear will of the committee (as expressed in a decision you helped write, iirc.) If de minimis exceptions were meant to apply to arbcom bans, it would have been very easy for GW and the other arbs to have mentioned it somewhere. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• Blocks should be preventative not punitive. Instead of preventing disruption, it would seem, in this instance, the block was significantly more disruptive than the actions it was carried out in response to.TyTyMang (talk) 05:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Betacommand sure did a lot of valuable work to the encyclopedia. His block as Betacommand also greatly benefitted the encyclopedia; he had driven off a sufficient quantity of users that his continued presence as Beta caused more harm than good. I wouldn't describe Eric as a net negative in the same way, but his behavior was clearly intended to test whether or not arbitration restrictions would be enforced against him, and I believe the ability of arbcom to retain their ability to exercise legitimate power though that itself certainly is unfortunately imperfect and could use repair is more important than Eric's ability to edit for a month. I also have an awfully hard time feeling bad for Eric, because this was a pretty deliberate challenge. He poked the bear after a two week block for doing pretty much the same thing. Him doing the same thing again so soon again isn't much different than him voluntarily deciding to be unable to edit for a period of time. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

the ability of arbcom to retain their ability to exercise legitimate power...is more important than [the contributions of a prolific content creator] I just don't know what to say about that attitude, other than that I don't share it and I hope it's rare. It sounds like a line from a cheesy techno-dystopia. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The ability of Wikipedia to maintain itself as something other than an anarchy was what differentiates this place from Newsnet. Kevin Gorman (talk) 09:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• I wake up (before I could even comment at AE - a place that I try to avoid at all cost but would have made an exception) to another unbelievable enforcement of unbelievably petty restrictions (called above "the clear will of the committee, which is unfortunately correct). I am probably not the right person to try to have them lifted, and Eric is too proud a person to even react, but could someone with a better reputation than mine (as an alleged infobox warrior) perhaps start working on that?

See also stepping forward for what's right, and read a book, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, you wrote on Eric's talk page calling the result of that AE discussion consensus against enforcing the restriction is a bit of a stretch—out of the nine commenters, only one is a sysop.... Well, perhaps there were few comments because it was only open for a few hours, and all of the participants concurred that this wasn't worth the drama? I saw that discussion when it opened but didn't have time to read it. I was relieved to see it had been closed by the time I got back online, because I was actually considering commenting even though getting involved in arbitration enforcement is somewhere between chewing tinfoil and making sculptures out of dryer lint on my personal list of things that sound like a good time.

Yes, sure, this is a 'justified by the rules' outcome, but that's all it is. The rules say you can use a sledgehammer to swat a fly, but not that you must or that it's a good idea or that you won't hit other people while swinging it around. What goal does this block serve (assuming Kevin's isn't the primary one) - even setting aside the 'building the encyclopedia' part; does it actually make Wikipedia a more welcoming place for women, improve civility on the part of other editors, facilitate anyone's efforts to avoid what has already been a lot of distraction and drama this week? Maybe I'll change my mind tomorrow, but for now I'm not seeing it. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

That's the thing, though. The restrictions we impose in arbitration cases are generally intended to be quite strict, and the committee spends quite a while deciding the scope. If you look through the history of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions at GGTF/Proposed decision, we went through several iterations of the wording to try to get it right. We eventually landed on a restriction that was broadly construed, and not restricted by namespace. There was also nothing in the provision about trying to gauge whether an edit is or is not dramatic, visible, egregious, etc. enough to warrant a sanction, because that kind of decision would almost inevitably end up with anyone enforcing a ban having to go through, well, this.

Regarding the drama that has resulted, that's also why the standard enforcement provisions are in place. In order to avoid wheel warring and protracted and scattered discussions about whether an enforcement action was warranted, the committee makes it fairly clear that an uninvolved administrator may block (or a non-admin can request a block at AE), and the block may only be overturned via a small number of methods. Eric has become the kind of editor that causes issues with this process, because those who sanction or request sanction are generally subjected to quite a lot of vitriol for daring to do so, and so the sanctions become difficult and time-consuming to enforce. I imagine EvergreenFir has noticed this as well. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Eric knew very well he was going to get in trouble for his comment ... he has more than deserved his break he was aiming for. ChristopheT (talk) 08:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I also think Eric knew very well - but I don't agree with "in trouble", - I imagine him being amused about how well the predicable machinery of following the letter of something questionable - these restrictions - works, with little effort on his part. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED

You voted to impose the topic ban on Eric Corbett in the first place - indeed, in the same ArbCom case, you were the most vocal in wanting to ban him completely from the project. Your comments on that case display clearly that you are not uninvolved regarding Eric (or at the very least hold a very negative view of him) and you should undo your block. Note that I haven't got a problem with an actually uninvolved admin blocking, even though consensus was clearly against it at AE and I can't see what benefit it brings to the project. Black Kite (talk) 09:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you actually read the section about involved admins you refer to - before making wild claims. ChristopheT (talk) 10:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

No wild claims here. "In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about." GW has made her feelings about Corbett very clear in the past and shouldn't be making any unilateral administrative actions on him. We have 400+ active admins so there's no need for the block to be enacted by GW. Black Kite (talk) 10:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Except that consensus of editors' opinions doesn't play a role at AE. In fact, one single admin can make a decision to act when the other admins offering their opinions say that no action is required. If AE doesn't require a consensus from the admins participating, I don't see why tallying the opinions of those offering statements is required. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#TheRedPenOfDoom for another example of a single admin deciding to act when all editors but the filer said TRPoD's actions weren't violations. And that incident is not uncommon at all. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

My point exactly and something that needs to be discussed (regardless of this particular block), as I've made at WP:AN. Black Kite (talk) 12:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Can you be more specific about which comments you're referring to? Looking at my votes on the proposed decision, my comments were "First choice", "Second choice", and "Third choice"...

That said, arbitrating a case generally does not make an arbitrator INVOLVED when it comes to taking admin action in that area. Otherwise becoming an arbitrator would more or less require us to drop our admin tools. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, I don't know you from Adam and I guess I can be construed as being WP:INVOLVED since I get on with Eric, have done a few GA reviews with him, and in about six weeks of being an admin I already have a history of doing "controversial" unblocks, but yet again I wake up and log on to find a conversation going on that involves a stupid block while I was busy sleeping. If you are truly here to write an encyclopedia, pick up one of Draft:Edith Meyer, Draft:Cathleen Miller (Author), Draft:Maggie Chapman or Draft:Zella Jackson Price (especially that last one as my other half wrote it) and improve it to mainspace standards, then apologise to Eric for issuing what amounts to a cool down block and do the decent thing and unblock. Please. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• As far as I'm aware there's no precedent to suggest that an arbitrator who holds a strong view in a case is unable to enforce the actual literal decision of the arbitration committee. In fact, it's a rather odd suggestion - if arbcom members with strong feelings were unable to enforce the literal rulings of arbcom, it'd be a bit loony. Eric was very very clearly attempting to poke the bear. He knew he was under a sanction, and even if he thought it was a stupid sanction, he clearly and intentionally violated it to see if ArbCom was able or willing to enforce its rulings against him. I imagine if he agreed to abide by the sanction and apologized, it wouldn't be long before he was unblocked. Kevin Gorman (talk) 09:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Kevin, you moderate the WMF gendergap list, where GW sometimes comments, to the point of censorship and this latest drama involves one of your pet hates. Despite your long study of Eric, I doubt that you are qualified to read his mind. GW is manifestly involved in this instance and she has applied first-mover advantage. There really doesn't seem to be any point to inviting comments at WP:AE now.

  Waiting for the inevitable comments from other WMF/Jimbo proxies ... - Sitush (talk) 10:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Come on Sitush, really? Gendergap has had fewer removed or warned users in its history than have gotten blocked at ANI in the last half day. Our standards of conduct have in fact generally been ridiculously low, to the point that people have compared us disfavorably with Foundation-l. I've soundly criticized Jimbo in public on more than one occasion, and have less than 230 hours of paid work in the past at the WMF. I rarely agree with Jimbo, and quite often disagree with the WMF, not infrequently in public. I'm a WMF proxy? Kevin Gorman (talk)

no need to be a mind reader Sitush- breaking a rule 4 times is indeed "poking the bear" - but we all know that [actually to argue the opposite would be a bit of an insult to Eric intelligence or state of mind] ChristopheT (talk) 10:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:AN

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Black Kite (talk) 10:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

AE admins

Look, I'm not interested in debating the merits of another Eric Corbett block now. What I'm here to say is: Do you seriously think it is a good idea for you to be overturning a consensus of AE admins? The work we do there is pretty much completely thankless and kind of a bureaucratic nightmare, largely thanks to the committee's own decisions to require about a jillion bits of paperwork every time we implement sanctions. I think we have a reasonable expectation that arbs are going to respect the decisions we make and not overrule them when it strikes their fancy. And it's not like there's a surplus of admins working there (several items there have been sitting for a week or more waiting for action). And yet despite our hardly impressive numbers, arbs coming along and doing this makes me question if I've got any interest in contributing anymore at all if it's just going to be crapped on by the first arb who doesn't agree. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

On this point, @GorillaWarfare: would you mind clarifying the order of events: Where you aware of the AE close at the time you made the block, or did you make the block on your own first, and then find out about the close? Monty₈₄₅ 14:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I was aware of the AE close. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by overturning a consensus of AE admins. The only admins participating in this case were Floquenbeam, who didn't express an opinion but provided a link to an article about warfare, and Black Kite who closed the complaint. I don't see that as a consensus.

Right now, there is a useful discussion going on at AN that might produce a consensus (although opinion is pretty divided right now) but I don't think a consensus of AE admins existed at this case. There was one admin who wanted to close the case with no action (Black Kite), one admin who thought it was much ado about nothing (Floquenbeam) and GW who thought that the topic ban had been violated and acted on it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Consensus isn't needed (though I personally think that's silly). Admins can act unilaterally. Basically whoever acts first gets the result they want. Black Kite performed an AE action in closing. GW reversed that action which, according to procedure, is a rather large no no. Capeo (talk) 16:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

While consensus isn't strictly required to take action, any admin worth their salt is going to listen to others, weigh the arguments, and if they are going to act against consensus, expect to explain via WP:ADMINACCT. And I support the right to go against consensus when appropriate, it isn't a vote. The problem here is that the discussion was closed, which requires the admin tools to do (even if it isn't a button). Reopening the discussion would have been an acceptable revert, particularly since it was so short lived. Acting against it (assuming she knew how it had closed) is more a kin to wheel warring. People can say "he didn't use the tools" but the fact is, his tools are the authority that granted him the ability to close the discussion to begin with. In effect, closing an AE is an admin function in that only admin can do it. And this doesn't even touch on the whole WP:INVOLVED concerns, which are yet to be resolved. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

AE does not work by consensus, any admin that wanders by is free to take whatever action they wish. Callanecc proved that easily enough when I was blocked for 3 days despite no string leanings in my AE case a few months back. Tarc (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

You did right

Gorilla Warfare, you did right to block Eric Corbett. Ignore all of his sycophants. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 15:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• The irony that Eric was once blocked for using the word "sycophantic" isn't lost on me here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Response

Morning, all. I've woken up to quite a lot of comments to respond to here, at Eric Corbett's talk page, on arbitration pages, and various other forums. I've responded to a few of the quicker ones, but am going to go make some breakfast and then begin threading in replies. Good thing I'd decided to take a three-day-weekend from work this weekend, though admittedly responding to tens of Wikipedia comments was not quite what I'd had planned :) GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)