User talk:GorillaWarfare

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Theunicyclegirl)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive
Archives
April 2019 – present

August 2018 – March 2019
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


Administrators' newsletter – September 2019[edit]

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

ANEWSicon.png

Administrator changes

added BradvChetsfordIzno
readded FloquenbeamLectonar
removed DESiegelJake WartenbergRjanagTopbanana

CheckUser changes

removed CallaneccLFaraoneThere'sNoTime

Oversight changes

removed CallaneccFoxHJ MitchellLFaraoneThere'sNoTime

Technical news

  • Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
  • The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Woohoo[edit]

Yep, GW, football started, so get ready for a bunch of drunk boys venting on Saturdays in various Wikipedia articles with neither knowledge of or respect for the BLP. FWIW Tennessee just lost in double overtime, which of course is right and proper. As you know already, I'm sure, Alabama had a nice practice session. If you believe in miracles, you can wish for an Auburn loss, but don't get your hopes up. The only thing I can't decide on is who I really want to lose, LSU or Texas. Rah rah! Drmies (talk) 02:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I figured a game must have just finished up. It's always something—I think previously it was pro wrestling. Or is that still going? GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
@Drmies: are you saying you are not inspired by the infinitely-clever depths of alcohol-fueled sports vandalism!? I mean, they even target infoboxes, a sure sign of right-mindedness! SamHolt6 (talk) 02:58, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Haha, there's always a game that just finished. Most recently, Arkansas - Ole Miss. My wife hates Ole Miss so I should too. "Landsharks"--who came up with that BS? And they're still Rebels--you know all those white frat boys fly the stars and bars. Sam, I try to stay away from infoboxes. Every time someone says "oh you should run for ArbCom" I say to myself, "sandboxsandboxsandbox", three times, and then any desire for anything is gone. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
BTW you both seem like reasonable human beings, so I assume a. you cheered for Alabama and b. you were happy to see Jalen Hurts tear it up today. Drmies (talk) 03:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
I have to admit to being largely ignorant (and apathetic) to the world of college football, which probably doesn't come as much of a surprise to those who know my alma mater... As for "infoboxinfoboxinfobox", you've got me looking worriedly in the mirror behind me.... GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Oops, yeah, odd mistake--I guess I type the word "sandbox" more often than "infobox". I take that as a good sign. Y'all are dealing with some complicated stuff. The Polish thing is big, and is the Fram case still a happening thing? That reminds me--I was thinking of sending in some evidence (related to my last successful ArbCom run--successful for ArbCom, not my candidacy), but I forgot, and maybe it's too late now. BTW when I was at Alabama we sucked, mostly, despite a few good years courtesy of Shaun Alexander. I remember we got free beers at Egan's when we won the SEC. Right now, we're all just tremendously spoiled--even thinking of losing a football game is a nightmare. It'll pass, I'm sure. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:40, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Bit too late on the evidence for the Fram case, I'm afraid. PD has been posted and voting is finishing up. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment[edit]

You said, Fram's behavior has not met the standards at WP:ADMINCOND. That could be a reasonable interpretation of the evidence and I would accept that statement, if you could please provide a few representative diffs. I am sure you can find some that will not expose the editors who complained about Fram. Additionally, could you please add a finding of fact to the case stating that, contrary to our customs, Fram was not unblocked to participate in the case and was only allowed to comment "from afar". I think this will be helpful to future readers who try to evaluate what happened here. It may also be helpful to a future ArbCom that is asked to review this case. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 14:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Jehochman, The board statement] said We support ArbCom reviewing this ban. We have asked T&S to work with the English Wikipedia ArbCom to review this case. We encourage Arbcom to assess the length and scope of Fram’s ban, based on the case materials that can be released to the committee. While the review is ongoing, Fram’s ban will remain in effect, although Arbcom and T&S may need ways to allow Fram to participate in the proceedings (my emphasis). Fram was sent the evidence prior to the public posting and I participated on his talk page a few times during the workshop. Other arbitrators are there now. It's far from ideal, but he was not ignored. WormTT(talk) 14:05, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
I understand that, but I'd like clear documentation of what happened here. The ban was found to be improper, yet it was kept in place throughout the case and prevented Fram from commenting on the record where everybody could see it. This is important for future observers to understand. Jehochman Talk 14:08, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
@Jehochman: For what it's worth, I am keeping up to date with all of the comments on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram/Proposed decision, so there is no need to repeat comments there on my talk page. While I am not attempting to respond individually to each request, rest assured they are being read and considered. You and various others have made very thoughtful comments there, and I have been considering them over the past few days. As always, I appreciate everyone taking the time to provide feedback on this decision. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Let me reiterate the most important thing I said above. "Thank you." I know it's hard work. Jehochman Talk 16:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand why it is difficult for people to grasp the concept of "yeah, the behavior wasn't bad enough for them to be sent to prison, but we don't want them working here, either." We see instances of this all the time in the real world. Again, I post this link to Fram's entire contribution history on mediawiki.org, which should tell you all that you need to know about their behavior. Admittedly, this isn't on enwiki, but that kind of wikilawyering is exactly why no one trusts anyone to actually do jack or shit. --Jorm (talk) 16:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Jorm for teaching me something new. I had never seen the phrase "do jack or shit" and thought it must be a typo for the common phrase "do jack shit" But, after research I see that "do jack or shit" is its own unique phrase. Uncle uncle uncle 23:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
I have no problem with whatever result comes about as long as it's justified with evidence. We can't say there's secret evidence of on wiki activity. That's a contradiction. Moreover, it's important that Fram be allowed to defend himself from specific accusations. If he's spouting off at Meta, that's understandable because he's been treated unfairly. It's possible for somebody to be guilty as sin, yet still be treated unfairly. Jehochman Talk 16:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
I believe Jorm is referring to Fram's behavior on Mediawiki.org, not Meta-wiki. I'm not really familiar with Fram's behavior on Mediawiki (or anyone's, really—I haven't been active there in quite some time), and it feels improper for me to really spend that much time looking at it. The ArbCom doesn't have jurisdiction over behavior on other projects, and even in this case the WMF limited Fram's sanctions to enwiki—a choice that I feel must have been intentional, since it deviates from their usual global bans. This is a somewhat unusual case in that we are considering some input from Meta-wiki, but that's sort of a workaround to allow Fram to participate in the case. Why we didn't simply allow them to participate on the enwiki case pages I am not sure in retrospect, but Fram has to be allowed to participate in some manner, and whether it comes from enwiki or Meta or email or carrier pigeon doesn't much matter to me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
You're way more capable than the average community member. In retrospect we should have let Fram comment on the case pages, like any other case. If he goes back to RFA (or RFAR) it's going to be really hard for enwiki users to review his response to all this. Maybe it's not too late to give him a chance to draft and post a formal response on the case pages, even by proxy, before the case is closed. Jehochman Talk 17:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
I think the whole point that whomever submitted that was trying to make was to add some context as to why they thought WMF might be looking for an excuse to ban Fram, since he was threatened with blocks on mediawiki.org by some WMF staff and ultimately desysopped there by WMF staff. I suppose it (and it was battleground behavior, plain and simple) could be considered relevant under the "take notice" part of the Arb policy relating to other wikis - but the case was set with a scope of 3 years, so if enwiki evidence was ignored from over 3 years ago this probably has to be as well. (And for those watching at home, no, I didn't submit anything as evidence. Not that I didn't think of it, but I was way too busy that week plus the directions said "last three years".) --Rschen7754 07:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

One more thing[edit]

Carcharoth asked a question five days ago here, at the bottom and never received an answer. I mention it to you here because you've been very generous and thoughtful about providing explanations. Jehochman Talk 18:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I've replied there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. The work laid out here is good. Will that be retained as part of the case pages (maybe ask if it can be put somewhere suitable)? Carcharoth (talk) 14:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Hm, I was planning to just leave it in my userspace, but I could move it if you'd prefer. Not really sure where I'd move it, though—we don't usually publish longform notes by individual arbs. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Fram[edit]

Thank you for your thorough work on the Fram case. Whatever the final result here, it is clear that you have worked on the case with integrity and put a lot of thought into it. Haukur (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Haukur. I appreciate your kind words. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I came here to say the same thing. It's always reassuring to see an arbitrator who's willing to change their mind. Kurtis (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Barnstar[edit]

I hereby give you the Newyorkbrad barnstar for your thoughtful work in resolving a difficult arbitration case. Jehochman Talk 03:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you :) GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

SpecialBarnstar.png The Special Barnstar
Thank you for your diligence in sticking with the unprecedented task handed ARBcom. This level of work can save Wikipedia. Neonorange (Phil) 05:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Recognizing your above and beyond dispute resolution efforts[edit]

Peace Barnstar Hires.png The Barnstar of Diplomacy
In spite of an unwinnable and unenviable task given to you through no fault on your own, and in spite of a community coming apart at the seams, your efforts go a long way towards keeping it together. Magisch talk to me 11:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

You[edit]

are choosing to sit at a position, where you have the ability to wield near-absolute power but yet responding to mere hyperbolic criticism, with an overzealous defensiveness. This does not reflect well, in my eyes and is petty.

At any case, you, WTT and SilkTork were the lone arbitrators who quite impressed me, despite wherever the three of you ultimately landed up in. So, thanks for all your efforts across these tumultuous spans. WBGconverse 19:42, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I am choosing to stand behind the clerks team. Whether or not one agrees the original comment deserved to be removed, repeatedly reverting (or manually undoing) a clerk action is a bright line issue. Thank you for your kind words on this case. I wish it had turned out differently. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:59, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I think this was a learning opportunity. Some learn faster than others. You three did the best. I think some of the others will hopefully understand things better in time. I’m very upset at how this case was handled and how WMF leadership and Jimmy put ArbCom in a bad position to start. Jehochman Talk 20:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I suspect there are few people who would not agree on that last point, at least. Hopefully that is at least a lesson learned, and through the RfC we can achieve some good in this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Arb / Fram[edit]

I know I come across as a grumpy bastard (which I am, of course), but thank you for being one of the few Arbs who took the time to discuss and explain your reasons and rationales, even if I didn't necessarily agree with them all. - SchroCat (talk) 06:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

GW, I'll add my thanks for your hard work. I can only imagine how difficult this has been for all of you, and I appreciate the time and energy you all spent on this. --valereee (talk) 13:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

October Events from Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red logo.svg
October 2019, Volume 5, Issue 10, Numbers 107, 108, 137, 138, 139, 140


Check out what's happening in October at Women in Red...

Online events:


Editor feedback:


Social media: Facebook icon.jpg Facebook / Instagram.svg Instagram / Pinterest Shiny Icon.svg Pinterest / Twitter icon.png Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

A barnstar for you![edit]

Civility Barnstar Hires.png The Civility Barnstar
For being the one who pushed hardest to restore the admin status of someone who had used it to block you. Clearly deserves some kind of barnstar; if not civility, knight-errantry or something (dame-errantry?). Not necessarily wisdom, of course, as being eager to block a recent arbitrator is hardly a sign of good admin judgment; but I don't think anyone can ever accuse you being thin skinned from now on. GRuban (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
And another for, you, know, not resigning. Geeze, y'all are dropping like flies. Is it something in the water? --GRuban (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I support the barnstar. I should perhaps have pinged you when I mentioned you, saying that they should listen to the women more, and now I forgot. You really tried hard, and would have turned me around if I hadn't been on that side anyway ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to you both for your kind words :) GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
I also support the barnstar. I will not characterise on the wisdom of the block, but not being one to bear a grudge, I very much respect the objectivity in the support for restoring Fram's adminship, even if it doesn't work out. Thank you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:15, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Kudpung. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Bet you never thought you'd get a barnstar from me[edit]

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
The situation was fraught and WP was in a state of near revolt, with daily resignations and a Bad Wikipedia Story on the verge of breaking through to the mainstream press. Arbcom didn't have the luxury of completely dictating the terms of their review in the Fram case; or if they did, they didn't immediately realize it ("reversing a Foundation ban — unthinkable!!!"). They had to act quickly and decisively, which is something Arbcom even under the best of circumstances is rarely able to do. So the fundamental mistake of accepting a secret case with secret, redacted evidence and then proceeding with a "modified regular" case using that as a basis was made. So it goes... Stuff happens... I believe that, given the suboptimal circumstances that Arbcom faced, you navigated the swirling waters better than anyone else on the committee. You listened, explained, and earnestly tried to rectify the glaring contradiction that the punishment did not fit the public findings of fact. I've never been a Fram fan, but observing your actions in this process, I have become a GorillaWarfare fan. Well done. Carrite (talk) 14:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Carrite. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:22, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
September
Herbstzeitlose, Neuhof.jpg
meadow saffron
I agree! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

ARBEE[edit]

Hi GorillaWarfare,

You name is on the top of the arbitrator list, so you may be a right person who can answer my question. I looked at the WP:ARBEE page, and I am completely confused. That page has been amended so many times that it is hard to understand what exactly does it currently stipulate. Intuitively, I understand that the users who are dealing with the topics covered by DS, may be subjected to much severe sanctions in a case of violation of some rules. However, I don't understand what these rules consist in. Are they just standard rules (the three content policies + BLP + behavioral policy)? If that my understanding is correct, does in mean that, for example, a standard fringe POV pushing, which normally is supposed to be reported at ANI, should be reported at AE, and the violator will be sanctioned more severely than usually? If my understanding is wrong, and some specific rules exist a user working in areas covered by DS should stick with, where can I find these rules?

Thank you in advance,

Sincerely, --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert: The main takeaway from that page and its many amendments is that Pages which relate to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, broadly interpreted, are placed under discretionary sanctions. You are correct that a user editing any page that falls under that topic umbrella, once made aware of the discretionary sanctions, may be sanctioned more harshly for misbehavior there. The behavioral expectations are described at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Guidance_for_editors. The types of sanctions that may be placed for failing to follow that guidance are described at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Sanctions, and would be requested at WP:AE. It's also possible that administrators have placed sanctions that apply more specifically to a page that is being edited; if that is the case, the page will have an editnotice explaining any restrictions in force. They are also all listed at WP:Arbitration enforcement log. I hope this has answered all your questions. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:32, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, is has. Thanks.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:35, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
One more question. I am preparing an AE request against a civil PROFRINGE pusher. I need to present quotes from peer-reviewed journals to demonstrate that the theory that was being pushed is fringe. A standard 500 word limit is not sufficient for that. Whom should I ask about a word limit extension?--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
@Paul Siebert: You'll want to make your initial AE report within the word limit, and then as a part of that report request the extension. A reviewing admin will decide whether or not to grant it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:46, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Barnstar!![edit]

Barnstar of Reversion Hires.png The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
This is for your valuable efforts for countering Vandalism and protecting Wikipedia from it's threats. I appreciate your effort. You are a defender of Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 11:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Recent events[edit]

I don't do the barnstarry stuff, but I would like to say that I was very impressed with your Fram-related editing; if only more Arbs could be bothered to spend time to dig more closely into complicated issues such as that. I realise you aren't up for re-election this time, but if you are considering standing again in the future (and I must say I would not blame you in the slightest if you weren't), you would certainly have my vote. Thanks. Black Kite (talk) 23:17, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very kind. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:20, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

ARBCOM Stuff[edit]

Hi GW, Firstly, I have a question about emails to ARBCOM, does that only go to ARBCOM or do the clerks get that as well? Also, I'd like to know if ARBCOM has jurisdiction on appealing a community TBAN enacted over at ANI, and if it does how would that work and if it doesn't how can someone appeal a decision enacted at ANI? Thanks, SJ Sir Joseph (talk) 00:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, I hope it's not unwelcome if I answer, I noticed this question on my watchlist. As a clerk, I only have access to emails sent to clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org . I do not have access to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org . I hope this helps. SQLQuery me! 01:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Sir Joseph: Emails to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org go only to the ArbCom, not the clerks. Community-imposed bans can be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee, though typically that is only as a last resort. Community bans are usually reviewed by the community at WP:AN. See WP:UNBAN for the relevant portion of policy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare, @SQL: thank you. If I decide to appeal, I will not be going to AN, as you are probably aware from many people, AN and ANI is a toxic place. The whole reason why I would choose to appeal is because the community got it wrong,IMO, why would I go back to them? At ANI, all I asked for was a DIFF of evidence and I was told that was not allowed, and that the evidence is clear as day, and asking for a DIFF was evidence of BATTLEGROUND behavior (and that was from admins as well as from users), so why would I go back there? If you're willing to read the ANI and provide me with a DIFF, then so be it, and that is all I'm asking, as @Levivich: and others pointed out, a TBAN needs more than one DIFF and the reason I was getting frustrated was I was repeatedly asking for evidence and repeatedly denying the accusation (and the vile accusation) I was accused of. But the way ANI works is the community piles on, and that's the end of that. As you said before, you didn't read the thread, so you aren't aware of that whole episode and what was the impetus of it. It's very frustrating to be TBANNED for saying X when you literally said Not X, especially when you hardly ever edit in that area, but now this is over your head the whole time now. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:16, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Sir Joseph, I should point out that where there is an appeal of a community sanction, we will generally a community consultation before lifting, which gets mentioned at AN, so chances are similar discussions will still be held. WormTT(talk) 06:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Worm That Turned, the whole point of an appeal is to not go through the community again. It defeats the whole purpose of asking ARBCOM to review the evidence and verdict. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Sir Joseph, when the community places a sanction - the committee may be persuaded by an appeal but does not have the full facts of a case. The community needs an opportunity to comment, to raise any issues that may be missed by the committee. The committee still makes the final decision but if the evidence is only provided by the appealant it's likely to not be complete. WormTT(talk) 06:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Sir Joseph, if the case is something the community can address, and can be expected to resolve, chances are that Arbcom will decline to adjudicate on that basis. While it is certainly true that ANI is often subject to mob rule from the peanut gallery by self-important people who would never become sysops if they tried, AN is a somewhat more dignified venue. On a lighter note, it's a almost like the difference between the House of Commons, and the House of Lords (but that analogy may fall flat among our American cousins, just as we Brits haven't a clue how Congress works). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
One of the evidences that triggered SJ's ANI case was his comment on my post, so I think I should comment on that too. I was neutral during that ANI discussion, but I agree that the word "mob" is quite applicable to many users who voted there. The level of the discussion was surprisingly low, some arguments were totally laughable. Thus, one user who supported SJ's ban presented a diff where SJ and him were arguing about the question who should be considered an ethnic Jew. Obviously, this discussion had zero relation to antisemitism/filosemitism, which means that diff was not an evidence at all. Nevertheless, I am sure the vote of that user was taken into account.
I got an impression that that type discussions really look like lynching: many people vote just because they don't like some user (and, in SJ's case that was understandable, for SJ's tone is redundantly aggressive). However, although SJ's manner to communicate is far from optimal (sorry, SJ), his behaviour was hardly punishable, for the most evidences of throwing false accusations of antisemitism were really shaky. The problem is, however, that logical arguments do not work in that case: people don't like SJ, and they pick some evidence that may serve as a pretext for voting in support of a ban. Unfortunately, no logic is working here.
In that sense, it would be good if such cases were reviewed my more reasonable people, who have time not only to count votes, but to analyze arguments. Do I understand correct that AN, in contrast to ANI, is a place where such questions are discussed among admins?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Paul Siebert, the term "lynching" is completely inappropriate in this context. Please do not EVER use that term for such a situation again. If you want to know what the term means, I will be happy to show you around my hometown, and we'll visit the The National Memorial for Peace and Justice, which memorializes the extrajudicial killing of almost 5000 victims of racism. Drmies (talk) 17:27, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
@Drmies: I know what lynching means, but mostly from books. In the country where I was grown up, this term probably has much less negative connotations. Well, "a situation when a mob votes for severe sanctions against a person whom they do not like, and they do that without bothering to analyse evidences and address arguments, because they do not feel responsibility for their vote" - that is what I meant. If "lynching" is an incorrect summary of this description, I apologize.
In general, the word "lynching" is a part of a world culture, like "pogrom" or "Aufbau". Yes, to many Americans this word sounds more terrible that to other people, but, in my opinion, we have to live with that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
There is also the option of not using words that mean murder to refer to a very limited sanction on an Internet web site. Just a suggestion. --GRuban (talk) 18:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Drmies. I completely agree. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:52, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Paul Siebert, we don't have to live with that. Wikipedia's is a global culture and living in it requires more sensitivity than the average locker room or hallway. "Lynching" is indeed an incorrect summary of what you describe--"terrorizing a minority and violently killing them" is a better start. I promise you I never use the word "pogrom" in any metaphorical sense, and I don't know, or need to know, what the incorrect use of "Aufbau" is. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
You are absolutely free to use "pogrom" in any sense: I fully realise that the person who has grown in a different culture sees things at different angle. I am not sure if it is a totally appropriate place, but I can give you an example when "more sensitivity" just created big problems for one good man: a person from Israel was deported from the US because he gave water melon to one black woman. Importantly, only few non-Americans will understand this story without explanations. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Drmies, I still find it extremely distasteful when people refer to certain communities in the US as ghettos. No matter how bad it is in the community, it is not a ghetto and should not be called that. The same with calling people Grammar Nazi or Feminazi, etc. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Paul Siebert: I agreed with you until you edited to add your last paragraph. It's understandable and excusable if I do not initially realize that a word I've used has a very strong, negative connotation in a different culture from my own. But once it's explained to me, it would be quite insensitive for me to continue using the word knowing the awfulness I'm evoking among my colleagues when I do—especially when many synonyms convey the same point without the historical baggage. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
@GorillaWarfare: I am not going to use this word, I just explained that there should be two manifestations of tolerance: (i) to avoid using some words that can be seen offensive by peoples from some culture, and (ii) to forgive people from other cultures for using some words that are not seen offensive in their culture. We usually focus on "i", but we forget about "ii".--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Our edits crossed in the air so I did not see it to respond in my previous message, but you do not have the standing to authorize the usage of that word just because it does not bother you personally. And no, this is not the place for that kind of slippery slope argument—if you want to argue that it's okay to use awful words just because they are not awful to you, please do it somewhere other than my talk page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I don't. I meant: "you are free to use this word in a conversation with me". And I didn't write "allow", I wrote "forgive": yes, these words should be avoided, but the mistakes made by peoples from different cultures are more forgivable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Paul Siebert, one problem is that many people who commented were admins. Also, at AN, non-admins are also free to comment it's just a different audience and different jurisdiction, if you will for posting, so it doesn't usually result in the same type of threads you might see at ANI. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Like I inferred: rabble rousers vs sedate, experienced admins. On another note, cross-cultural dichotomies can be a thorny area especially with their near and false cognates. It helps to be perfectly bi- or trilingual like me and Drmies, but even the UK and the US are two nations famously divided by a common language . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Kudpung, like "tabling a discussion" which actually caused a big fight among British and American military planners during World War II. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news

  • As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, GorillaWarfare. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 06:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

WBGconverse 06:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Rationalobserver[edit]

Hi GW, are you familiar with RO's behavior? Drmies thought you might be.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

  • I always thought of RO as a feline editor, and GW knows cats. Drmies (talk) 00:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)