User talk:GorillaWarfare

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

Support cast of thousands

I have mentioned you here because it is an interesting question, isn't it? I think you've had long enough to think up an answer. Giano (talk) 18:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I've responded there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

FYI

GorillaWarfare(user). --kelapstick^(bainuu) 17:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Just as a general note, K et al., there seem to be other impersonation accounts following this pattern; I've blocked one for Acroterion, too. So be on the lookout. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The "clone"

You're welcome, my pleasure to help :-) ... Anyway, my doubt that GorillaWarfare(user) could be you was only "formal", just the time to wait the obvious response: malicious account impersonating a WP admin. And... the nick was quite identical (so as to make superfluous) with that "(user)", the edits were a copy of your UP and, rotfl, talk page, you were away on IRC, the account was not identified by you and was not marked as patrolled. Lol, not so sly as vandal :-D . Regards. --Dэя-Бøяg 22:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for your good work. Pine✉ 19:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia into darkness. Regarding the XX thing:

• Although you didn't campaign on it per se, some of the AC2013 voter guides explicitly mentioned your gender, so complaining about the negative effects [1] is a wit bit lame.
• Given the multiple meanings of White knight as indicated by the fact that it's a disambig page, including some, e.g. White knight (business), with no sexual / romantic content, it was a lack of good faith to call out Writ Keeper for using the term without first inquiring what their intent in using the term.
• The most important thing to understand is that you were not attacked for your actions in the KG case because you are a woman, you were attacked because you got in the way of someone's political theater, and the gender thing was an excuse. Last I looked I have 1 K WQA and about 2 K ANI edits, so I've lots of experience in wiki pissing contests; folks in wikibattle will find and use any excuse for an ad hominem attack on those they disagree with, ranging from gender to race to country of origin to wiki project to whatever. For good or bad, you've chosen to edit fairly publicly so you're likely to get all sorts of nonsense. (Personally, if I was going ad hominem you I'd use the Python thing; everyone knows real programmers use C) NE Ent 23:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

References

It's "a bit lame" for me to mention that someone is being sexist because some voter guides mentioned I was female? What? I don't see why people knowing that I am female should stop me from acknowledging when people are using that fact to insult me. I'm also a bit offended at the implication that I somehow was elected to ArbCom due to my gender, regardless of whether or not you think I campaigned on it.

Perhaps you are right about Writ Keeper's use of the term "white knighting," although I don't think it was too bad-faith of me to assume he was using the gender-related term in a conversation relating to sexism. Either way, he already explained his use of the term here, so I think we're on the same page.

I was not under the impression that I was being attacked because of my gender; I'm fully aware that it was the block and events surrounding it that led to the dispute. My comments pertaining to my gender were simply me expressing my distaste at it being used as a basis for attack. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• *headscratches*. So, GorillaWarfare is not allowed to have or voice opinions about anything where...someone else has already had an opinion? Does this apply universally? Because I have some strong opinions about C++. Mostly they're good, but still. Arguing over whether it was sexist or not sexist is perfectly viable, but arguing that GW is unable to mention or discuss the negative effects of gender transparency on the internet because other people have, outside of her control, mentioned it, is simply trite.
• Also, Python is a terrible, terrible language. Give me strict typing or give me death. Ironholds (talk) 23:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Of course she's allowed to have opinions, and of course she's "allowed" to voice them. Surely I'm allowed to voice my opinion (once, in a respectful non-disruptive way)? Not all that is permitted is wise, however, and I've seen multiple editors become trollbait because they've tipped that a particular type of comment gets under their skin. NE Ent 00:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• I do appreciate your advice. Regardless, I'd rather become trollbait than ignore sexist remarks. I'd like to think our community won't allow any future bigoted comments that my reaction provokes. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Wiki as it should be: Simple civility principle
• Wiki as I'd hoped / urged : Notes on civility
• Wiki as it unfortunately seems to be: the real problem is English Wikipedia does not have a functional civility policy; as evidenced by the the arbcom case and the technically open but moribund civility enforcement RFC. NE Ent 02:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration request motion passed

An Arbitration Clarification request motion passed. You contributed to the discussion (or are on the committee or a clerk)

The motion reads as follows:

• By way of clarification, the formal warning issued by Kevin Gorman was out of process and therefore has no effect. The provisions of WP:BLPBAN will be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee and where necessary updated.

For the Arbitration Committee, --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration case request assistance

Being one of the 13 active members of the Arbitration Committee, selected randomly, I ask GorillaWarfare for assistance. I would like to make an arbitration case request, since I have exhausted the last available avenue.

I would love to believe that I have been given a fresh start, as a volunteer advised, and that I can bold edit normally, like any other user. But I know the facts and what the opposing users actually stated. Thus, I must try arbitration before performing my last leap of faith.

The arbitration requests page is protected. Being an IP user, this venue is denied to me. Therefore, I request to celebrate the arbitration case in a page I have permission to write, such as the talk page for my IP. Please indicate whether this is acceptable and I will proceed to make the case request. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 01:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that an arbitration case is actually what you want here. The issue seems to be primarily a content dispute, which is not under the Arbitration Committee's remit. I think Guy Macon's suggestion that you try an RFC might be a wise next step. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I am sure an arbitration case is actually what applies and what I want here. I want what I should have gotten from day 0: a formal answer that Wikipedia will never accept this content. Wikipedia will never admit that it rejects the content not because of lack of reliability or verifiability, but because of the topic. This is why there has never been discussion. Guy Macon did not discuss either (I know it is a volunteer job).

I am not asking for the material to be accepted. I am asking for discussion. Quoting RfC, "Before using the RfC process [...], it always helps to first discuss the matter". Quoting the Dispute resolution noticeboard FAQ, "Repeatedly refusing to discuss changes, especially controversial ones, is considered a conduct issue". I am the one who discusses but also the one who gets blocked for an edit war excuse, is that a content issue?

Perhaps I will file all those requests for comments. Why does not the Arbitration Committee help, reject my arbitration case request and state that this is really a content issue? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 01:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Because WP:DRN deals with content disputes and not user conduct, it is not my place to comment on user conduct issues. Because arbcom deals primarily with user conduct issues and does not rule on content disputes, I want 84.127.80.114 to understand that a new DRN case can be filed if an arbcom member feels that going back and dealing with content issues would be beneficial. If that happens, I plan on recusing myself and letting another dispute resolution volunteer handle the case. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Why does Guy Macon continue with this confusion? I have not asked Guy Macon to talk about user conduct. Guy Macon did not discuss the article content [2].

GorillaWarfare's talk page is not the place to talk about what happened in the DRN case. Unless GorillaWarfare asks, we should move the subject to another place. I am in this page because of an arbitration case request. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 02:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

"I want what I should have gotten from day 0: a formal answer that Wikipedia will never accept this content." You state right here that you want a statement on content. I don't see why you need the Committee to formally reject the case when you're already saying it's a content issue. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

And right after, "Wikipedia will never admit that it rejects the content not because of lack of reliability or verifiability, but because of the topic." It is a topic issue, a refusal to discuss the content for reasons not based on policy. The Arbitration Committee deals with topics: Abortion, Afghanistan, Arab-Israeli conflict...

Why does not GorillaWarfare simply oppose to my arbitration case request? How about "do the bold edit, try that fresh start, it will not mean a block"? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 03:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The truth is Wikipedia isn't fair and its not meant to be. If the project were fair, then editors would have just as much ability to edit as admins do and that would cause the whole system, according to some, to collapse. Control of the system is in the hands of the admins so as long as you are just an editor, you are powerless to do anything about it. All you can do is stop editing. If enough people stop editing, then eventually they will be forced to either change the way the system works, or end Wikipedia. 172.56.3.179 (talk) 15:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Did you read the cases? The findings were all to do with the editors involved; the Committee did not decide what content should be added to the article.

Quite frankly, the content that you are attempting to add to the article is not appropriate for Wikipedia. You have been told this many times, but appear to prefer claiming that consensus-building has failed when it has not gone your way. An arbitration case will not change this, and even if your position was correct, we would not have the authority to say so. This would just waste the time of more editors. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Quod erat demonstrandum, again. GorillaWarfare did not answer my questions. I am not asking the Committee to decide what content should be added to the article. It is true that I have been told many times that the content is not appropriate for Wikipedia, although without explanation. I would love to discuss the material with GorillaWarfare, the discussion is still in the talk page. Will GorillaWarfare accept my invitation? I do not think so but I may be wrong.

I would like to request an arbitration case. Does GorillaWarfare oppose to this request? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 01:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure that if you create an arbitration case, someone could port it over to the requests page, but GW is right -- your case is dead on arrival, and requesting one is going to waste people's time. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

All of his questions were answered and he got good advice from me when he brought this to WP:DRN. The problem is that he is not willing to accept the answers or follow the advice.

I will repeat that advice here, because it is still good:

"As for the content dispute itself, normally at this time I try to get everyone to compromise and find a version that everyone can live with, but in this case it is quite clear that 84.127.80.114's preferred version simply does not meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability or neutrality. Rather than taking my word for it, 84.127.80.114 could post an RfC, but the result will be the same. 84.127.80.114. the consensus is clearly against you, and that clearly is not going to change. There comes a time when one must realize that a particular battle is lost. We even have a page explaining this: Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass."[3]

"The rest of the material about Debian internal politics has a snowball's chance of making it into the article. Even the claim we are discussing has a relevance problem; who outside of the Debian community cares about exactly how developers are kicked out? I just checked Slackware, Red Hat, Ubuntu, and BSD. None of them gets into such detail about internal politics."[4]

"Now you could post an RfC and get more editors to weigh in on this. We wouldn't want a handful of editors to dominate a page and so the editor with a minority view can, if he has good arguments, persuade a large group of editors to overrule the local consensus. You could do that but it is extremely doubtful in this case that the larger group of editors will agree with you.

"You could go the rounds of various noticeboards and other dispute resolution venues, but again the odds that this will end up with you getting your way are vanishingly small. As I see it, you have two options. Either persuade other editors, or drop the stick There are currently 4,466,538 articles where you aren't so involved that you can work on."[5]

"Make a persuasive argument and get some editors to agree with you, and if you reach the point where there is a clear consensus for the changes you wish to make except for one holdout, and I will tell that fellow that he isn't going to get what he wants."[6]

--Guy Macon (talk) 07:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

What part of "not on GorillaWarfare's talk page" is not understood? Here it is my answer. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 03:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Ed is correct that you could create an arbitration case elsewhere and someone could move it for you. Regarding "Does GorillaWarfare oppose to this request?", yes. I think I've made it abundantly clear that I do not think you should try to bring this to ArbCom. Please pursue the RfC route instead. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I thank GorillaWarfare for answering. I see that I can edit an open case. I will prepare the request in due time. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 03:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

MarcusBritish

Using socks, said in an edit summary that a user was sexually abused by their father also removing his block notice by Arb Com via anon IPs, and making racist remarks: [[7]] [[8]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.79.12.223 (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I've already blocked these two, nothing to see here. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions 2013 review: Draft v3

Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 00:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Hi there!

TheGGoose (talk) 02:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Real Life Barnstar
	i want real life barnstar because i want to show people what is going on in life how life is going on Suzana2002 (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

GOCE March drive wrapup

Guild of Copy Editors March 2014 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter The March 2014 drive wrap-up is now ready for review. Sign up for the April blitz! – Your project coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978 and Miniapolis. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by

Guild of Copy Editors March 2014 backlog elimination drive wrap-up Participation: Thanks to all who participated in the drive and helped out behind the scenes. 42 people signed up for this drive and 28 of these completed at least one article. Final results are available here. Progress report: Articles tagged during the target months of December 2012 and January 2013 were reduced from 177 to 33, and the overall backlog was reduced by 13 articles. The total backlog was 2,902 articles at the end of March. On the Requests page during March, 26 copy edit requests were completed, all requests from January 2014 were completed, and the length of the queue was reduced by 11 articles. Blitz!: The April blitz will run from April 13–19, with a focus on the Requests list. Sign up now! – Your drive coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978 and Miniapolis To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

iDM/Cisco98

Hi. So yeah this is me. Danger^Mouse (talk) 09:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

You're invited!

NE Meetup #5: April 19th at Clover Food Lab in Kendall Square

Dear Fellow Wikimedian, New England Wikimedians would like to invite you to the April 2014 meeting, which will be a small-scale meetup of all interested Wikimedians from the New England area. We will socialize, review regional events from the beginning of the year, look ahead to regional events of 2014, and discuss other things of interest to the group. Be sure to RSVP here if you're interested. Also, if you haven't done so already, please consider signing up for our mailing list and connect with us on Facebook and Twitter. We hope to see you there! Kevin Rutherford (talk) and Maia Weinstock (talk)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Reference Errors on 10 April

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 Émile Durkheim page, your edit caused a cite error (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) 00:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Derp

user:FeelYouUp is derp on WP. Danger^Mouse (talk) 14:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

April blitz wrap-up and May copyediting drive invitation

Guild of Copy Editors April 2014 Blitz wrap-up Participation: Out of 17 people who signed up for this blitz, eight copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: During the seven-day blitz, we removed 28 articles from the requests queue. Hope to see you at the May drive! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Baffle gab1978. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

|}

RefTools.Ogv

Hey GW - as a heads up, I uploaded a copy of your reftools tutorial to the internet archive here, just because Mediawiki supports so few file formats (most of the people I've needed to show the video to couldn't play a .ogv.) Once the IA finishes transcoding the video, it should be available (and playable) to just about anyone who would like to view it. I'm going to go ahead and throw a link to the IA version in to the commons description. Hopefully there will be some more large scale IA/WMF collaboration in the near future on video, but for now, even this one is super convenient :) Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

teehee

did the GOCE forget to copyedit their templated message, or did I accidentally muck something up to get included in the coloring? starting another section to test it out.. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the former. Thanks for the heads up! Glad you've found it useful. GorillaWarfare (talk) 08:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Kiko4564 unblock discussion

Hello GW, sorry to trouble you, but Kiko4564 (a user you have previously blocked, changed the block settings for, or unblocked) has requested to be unblocked. There is a discussion at ANI which so far has attracted no interest, if you wish to leave a comment, you can find the discussion at Wikipedia:ANI#Unblock_request_by_User:Kiko4564. Nick (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

hail

Do you marry me?2.187.86.13 (talk) 03:04, 11 May 2014 (UTC)