User talk:GorillaWarfare/Archive 11

__NONEWSECTIONLINK__

17:33:14, 6 August 2015 review of submission by GeorgiaMay32
Hi there, I am confused to why my article has been declined. I have added references and tried to make it more verifiable. Please help. Thank You Georgia, (GeorgiaMay32) 06.08.15 GeorgiaMay32 (talk) 17:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

GeorgiaMay32 (talk) 17:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Female mentorship
I nominated this article for CSD for promotionalism but it could use a liberal dose of WP:TNT if you are interested in fixing it. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement proposed decision
Hi GorillaWarfare, in the open Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 12:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Request on 15:42:40, 10 August 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Quinnschafer
Hey GorillaWarfare! Thanks for reviewing my article, I appreciate the fast turn around. I would love to improve the quality of my writing for wikipedia, however I am not sure what next steps to take. I took effort to remove promotional language and added some links to internal wikipedia pages as well as articles from external notable publishers. Do you have any further suggestions on how to improve this article for next submission?

Thank you!! -Quinn Schafer Quinnschafer (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Quinnschafer (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Tuba Azmudeh
Gatoclass (talk) 16:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement closed
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedy have been enacted: For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 01:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) The Arbitration Committee delegates the drafters of this case to amend and clarify the text of the policy at Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions and the text on Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement to bring them in line with the clarifications contained in this decision.
 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

You're invited! Smithsonian APA Center & Women in Red virtual edit-a-thon on APA women
--Romeo and Wikipedia (talk) 08:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Five minutes to help make WikiProjects better
Hello!

First, on behalf of WikiProject X, thank you for trying out the WikiProject X pilot projects. I would like to get some anonymous feedback from you on your experience using the new WikiProject layout and tools. This way, we will know what we did right, and if we did something horribly wrong, we can try to fix it. This feedback won't be associated with your username, so please be completely honest. We are determined to improve the experience of Wikipedians, and your feedback helps us with that. (You are also welcome to leave non-anonymous feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject X.)

Please complete the survey here. The survey has two parts: the first part asks for your username, while the second part contains the survey questions. These two parts are stored separately, so your username will not be associated with your feedback. There are only nine questions and it should not take very long to complete. Once you complete the survey I will leave a handwritten note on your talk page as a token of my appreciation.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Harej (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello! Just sending a reminder to complete the survey linked above. (This is the only reminder I'll send, I promise.) Let me know on my talk page if you have any questions. Thank you!!! Harej (talk) 22:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Ping
I tried to ping you, but I may have flubbed the ping, in which case it flopped and so here's a link.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to subscribe to the edit filter mailing list
Hi, as a user in the edit filter manager user group we wanted to let you know about the new wikipedia-en-editfilters mailing list. As part of our recent efforts to improve the use of edit filters on the English Wikipedia it has been established as a venue for internal discussion by edit filter managers regarding private filters (those only viewable by administrators and edit filter managers) and also as a means by which non-admins can ask questions about hidden filters that wouldn't be appropriate to discuss on-wiki. As an edit filter manager we encourage you to subscribe; the more users we have in the mailing list the more useful it will be to the community. If you subscribe we will send a short email to you through Wikipedia to confirm your subscription, but let us know if you'd prefer another method of verification. I'd also like to take the opportunity to invite you to contribute to the proposed guideline for edit filter use at WP:Edit filter/Draft and the associated talk page. Thank you! Sam Walton (talk) and  MusikAnimal  talk  18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 15 December
''This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.'' As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are beginning the transition to the new policy.

An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.

The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this email because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. The general confidentiality agreement is now ready, and the OTRS agreement will be ready after 22 September 2015. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign

If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnum@undefinedwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.

Thank you,

Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation

''Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 23:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help

Quick edit on Project Sunroof?
Molly, could I ask you to remove this line from Project Sunroof? It's uncited, and more important, just wrong (the page was never down since launch), but I work on this, so probably shouldn't. --GRuban (talk) 15:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Defeatism?
. What if we had told all the women who flew the 1000s of new Spitfires, Wellingtons, and Hurricanes from the aircraft factories to the air bases; the women who 'manned' the Chain Home stations, the women who decoded at at Bletchley Park, and the women who worked in the munitions factories not to do it because the war is not a safe place? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Let us not forget Lydia Litvyak, who not only faced the danger of air combat, but also endured the boorish behavior of the male pilots with whom she shared her aircraft, who would throw away the flowers with which she used to adorn the cockpit. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Kudpung, I think you're minimizing the end of the quote: "...unless they are fully aware of what can come with it." The women you mention did what they did after being informed of the risks.  They effected change because they were willing to do the work anyway.  It's not that we shouldn't encourage women to edit.  It's that we shouldn't encourage women to edit without telling them what they're getting in to, so they can make an informed decision.  And I wish you'd come up with a different example; using WWII imagery comes with the unspoken implication that explaining the downside of Wikipedia editing is somehow "unpatriotic"; an implication I'm sure you didn't intend, but is certainly there. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * (more) Indeed, I don't encourage men or women I know to edit WP without telling them that it's anarchic and filled with obnoxious people. Most people I know think I'm nuts to spend time here. They're not wrong. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm fairly certain that the women who served in WWII were aware of the danger. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

This Friday: Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Cambridge, MA
You are invited to join the Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Cambridge, MA on October 16! (drop-in any time, 6-9pm)--Pharos (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Involved party
Hello, I would like to be acknowledged as an involved party in this arbcom case. I say this for a few reasons. Firstly, three other users, Beyond My Ken, AlbinoFerret, and Ivanvector, all named me in their preliminary statements as being an involved party, due to several unresolved AN/I cases involving me. Secondly, Guerillero accepted this case partly because of "the urging of Floq and Dennis". However, Dennis Brown only listed one AN/I case in his preliminary statement, and it involved me and Hijiri88, not Catflap08. In fact, Dennis Brown has stated that he will not discuss the issues between Hijiri88 and myself any longer, precisely because of the fact that he basically considers it the job of Arbcom now.CurtisNaito (talk) 17:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Not knowing the current rules for who can and cannot be included in the proposed decisions, there might be a few other people involved who aren't yet listed as parties who might be found to perhaps merit having their behavior addressed. It used to be, at least as I remember, the committee could issue rulings on "all those involved" or similar phrasing. I don't know if that is still the case, but if it isn't, there might be cause to add a few others as possible parties as well. John Carter (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I will ping to determine how he views his own situation.CurtisNaito (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Just noting that I've seen this request. I need to go to class and then look through the evidence, etc. before I get back to you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * FWIW, it looks like you are going to be the sole drafting arb in this case. My apologies in advance for a lot of what you might see here, both in terms of prior history and conduct in the pages themselves. John Carter (talk) 19:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, we're stretched pretty thin right now so for now it looks like I'll be going solo. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have unfortunately been deeply connected to this case. Beyond My Ken, AlbinoFerret, Ivanvector, and Blackmane all referred to me as an involved party. I was part of a recent AN/I case which was closed bascially on the grounds that Arbcom should deal with it.TH1980 (talk) 23:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Um, who are you? It looks like you forgot to log in here. John Carter (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry John, it has been a bit of a hectic day for me.TH1980 (talk) 23:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I have asked the clerks to add both of you, as well as, as involved parties to the Catflap08 and Hijiri88 case. I'd do it myself, but the clerks are basically magicians when it comes to ArbCom case formatting, and I'd rather not get in their way. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Wading in to this one ...

 * I'm not quite sure what you mean by "take this situation offline". GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It is time to start some serious conversations here in DC about what is going on with this organization, and the risks to which its volunteers are exposed, especially the women. In other words, advocacy, preferably of the quiet but persistent variety. People of a certain age have seen all this before-- we've seen cults, we've seen dorms go co-ed with no rules, we've seen the civil rights movement, so there isn't anything particularly new going on here, though it is a bit annoying that we have to go through it all over again ... :) It is not the 1970s, and the US is not a totalitarian country, so there is every reason to believe that this situation could be greatly improved. Carry on, maintain course and speed! and best of luck. --Djembayz (talk) 00:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for explaining. I thought you were suggesting pursuing legal action against harassers, which is unfortunately rife with its own many problems. Thanks for the support, and for your work. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Your history
I was fairly surprised with that accounting of things you listed on Jimbo's page that you've went through on Wikipedia. I'm truly sorry that you've experienced this. Without wanting to lessen those things or their impact do you think it has been magnified by your status of being a woman, an administrator and Arb? Were these things happening prior to you gaining your status to this extent? Do you find it's happening more online then off or an even mix? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think being an administrator particularly affected things, because I was not very "out" as female when I first became an admin. The gendered harassment didn't really start until the WMF used my photo on the fundraising banners, because then there was a face attached to the name, and it was very clear that I was a woman. I do think becoming an arbitrator also increased the amount of harassment I've gotten, but not to the same degree. I do get the sort of "garden-variety" harassment that is unfortunately common for active Wikipedians, but it pales in comparison to the gendered stuff. I'm not really sure what you're referring to when you asking about online and offline harassment... I do get harassed offline by catcalls and the like, but I am rarely harassed in a face-to-face setting beyond that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Mainly the argument that people are online saying things they never would in person. It's a true scenario for the most part it's just not a world I'm familiar with. I'm trying to understand the gravity of the situation really and understanding the difference in what the idiots online say vs real life stuff. Disheartening stuff to think people go through this on a regular basis. I'm not sure how that problem can be solved through policy making that many who express desire to impose that on others. I've always believed stupidity was an asexual thing. I'm sorry my thoughts are all over the place on this subject because I'm trying to understand the magnitude and I'm having a difficult time processing it and how the solutions offered can really effect the problem. I appreciate you answering my questions and again truly sorry to hear you've experienced those things. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * People definitely are more courageous about what they'll say when they're masked by the internet; more so if they're behind proxies. Comments made by street harassers tend to be significantly less personal (for example, they don't tend to know my name, interests, work, etc.) and less severe—there's a lot more "hey baby, smile!" and the like, versus very extreme comments that I tend to get online. That said, that kind of IRL harassment is uniquely scary because you tend to be standing next to the harasser, whereas when I'm reading awful comments on the internet, I at least know (and very much hope) that the person can't and won't come near me IRL. Online harassment tends to come with the threat of destroying your reputation; in-person harassment tends to come with a physical threat. That's not to say that online harassment does not also sometimes physically threaten—that's part of what makes comments that mention my location or workplace so terrifying, particularly when combined with physical and sexual threats. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you think that lowering the percentage required for female applicants as admin would invite more gendered focused harassment? My thoughts, which apparently isn't matching what the reality is suggesting, is that a qualified candidate is qualified irregardless. What do you actually think would be a feasible solution to this problem? Is it a problem because there isn't more women in power here and what would be different if there were? What subjects do you think that are neglected here by the lack of female editors? Regarding a case that I can discuss such as the GGTF was this a result of male dominated editors? What do you think would have changed if there had been a more balanced panel by gender? These are things I think about when weighing the results in this? I do not honestly think the results could have been much different but apparently there is a whole forest there not just one tree. If you need time to do other things you don't have to respond to this quickly ping when you have time but I've defintely found the exchange to be enlightening on a number of levels. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think lowering the threshold for female administrators would particularly affect the levels of harassment they face. I think there are three major issues that stand in the way of shutting down gendered harassment on-wiki. Unfortunately I can't pretend to have the solutions to them.
 * On-wiki response to harassment: The admin corps and functionaries are quite effective at dealing with the overt stuff: "SHOW YOUR TITS" and similar is typically quickly reverted and revision-deleted. But the smaller things—the microagressions like the implications that women need male administrators to help them with enforcement, that women are too emotional for roles such as arbitration, or even the comments that women are not actually experiencing harassment (when they clearly are)—need to be reigned in. This would ideally be a part of an overhaul of the civility policy. It would also need to be enforced, and by people who are versed in actually noticing when these things are happening. This is where I think a larger group of women on the Arbitration Committee and among the admin corps would be beneficial, and ideally these groups would be trained in recognizing and responding to this kind of thing.
 * Technical limitations: A lot of the harassment I've dealt with has not been one editor coming to my talk page, making a crude comment, being blocked, and then disappearing. More frequently, the user keeps coming back under different proxies and throwaway accounts. If my userpage is semiprotected, they'll comment on an unprotected talk page and use the ping functionality to make sure I see it. Or sometimes they'll make a crude username, and then go through my edits and "thanking" me for them so that I'll get the notifications. This is exhausting, both for the victim of the harassment who has no real way of avoiding or escaping it, and for the administrators, checkusers, and oversighters who have to run damage control.
 * Off-wiki harassment: As it currently stands, we are completely unequipped to deal with off-wiki harassment. The Arbitration Committee has attempted it several times, generally with very fumbling results, but often people who are victims of off-wiki harassment are told it's not within the scope of the Arbitration Committee. They'll also hear that it's not something that can be handled on-wiki, and generally requests for help from the Wikimedia Foundation are met with a "sorry this is happening, we'll keep a record in case we ever figure out who's doing this" and not much else. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for your clear, fact- based and comprehensive explanation of the harassment you've received, and your continued service on ArbCom. I hope your story gets attention from a diligent, responsible journalist. I feel confident that it will help inform our efforts to eliminate harassment of women editors in particular, and more broadly, any targeted groups. I am deeply sorry that all of this happened to you. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  07:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Molly, thank you for your comment on Jimbo's talk page. I've seen some of the worst that women have to deal with on Wikipedia, but even I had not appreciated quite the volume (I'm well aware that you'll have had far more than you mentioned there). I'd just like to say, I really appreciate that you stick with Wikipedia and hope that you realise you are making a difference. WormTT(talk) 09:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC) Thanks for sharing your experiences. Like others, I wasn't surprised that incidents like that happen, but I was totally blown away by the sheer volume and intensity. I am particularly troubled by the off wiki harassment – while we are struggling with addressing the on wiki harassment the off wiki seems like a tougher problem. 23 October 2015 (UTC)-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:12,  (I think  signed the wrong comment - hopefully this is right. Spartaz Humbug! 09:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC))   stupid ping Spartaz Humbug! 09:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posting what has occurred to you on Jimbo's page. I can't believe there are still so many dumbshit basement dwellers who don't realize how bad the problem is.--Milowent • hasspoken   12:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)-- S Philbrick  (Talk)  13:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

+1 to all the above. Some of comment on WT:JIMBO saddens me deeply and its unbelievable in this day and age that people expect women to bare their scars before they are taken seriously. I'm sure it was uncomfortable reliving that lot again but daylight is a great disinfectant for trolls and I hope that your bravery will encourage more users to take this issue seriously and shame those who willfully do not. Spartaz Humbug! 09:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above views. I know we haven't seen eye to eye on some stuff but I think we are both here to improve the encyclopedia and nobody deserves the sort of abuse you've had to put up with. It happened to Kathy Sierra (though it shouldn't have!) and I can sadly believe it could happen to somebody else. I don't really have any answer other than use your revdel and block buttons where you can and get the police involved if necessary. Although my other half has occasionally popped onto Wikipedia to write the odd article, she certainly thinks the culture is abusive and unpleasant and it's not really an exaggeration to say she "puts up" with me editing on here more than anything else. On a final note, I would just politely caution you to go easy on Eric, I know he rubs people up the wrong way but he has done a lot of good work; you might be interested to read about the Cottingley Fairies, an article he got through FAC some time back and quite a fascinating story, in my view. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I just read the information at Jimbo's talk, and it made me entirely depressed. What GW and other female editors have gone through is appalling. Just imagine what would happen if the harassers did that sort of thing over their real names, in their workplaces. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I would just like to say that I too was shocked, saddened and sickened by what you had to say. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Molly, you may wish to visit my last revert on Yngvatdottir's T/P and do the necessary block. I think it is the same IP. Regards, Simon. Irondome (talk) 23:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I generally don't like being the one to block those who are being critical of me when there are others who could do it, even when it is obvious trolling. More so in cases like this where a checkuser will probably be needed. Pinging Acalamari, who just blocked the user on a different IP. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's okay, GorillaWarfare, I checked to see if the IP who trolled your talk page had been blocked and SlimVirgin blocked them before I could. :) Acalamari 23:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks to you both! GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * One potential solution to the harassment problem is to have a legal fund where cases of persistent, severe harassment would be referred to a lawyer for action. Anonymity disappears real quick when subpoena's are issued.  Even a clever toll who uses a proxy will slip up once in a while and leak their identity.  A few well-placed lawsuits could deter would-be harassers. Jehochman Talk 16:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I can be a bit of a draconian bastard on some issues myself, as I think you unfortunately might remember, but based on what I've seen I'm wondering whether the easiest way to go would be to extend WP:BLP to explicitly cover editors who are editing under their real life names, or whose identities are public knowledge, and/or to maybe make libellous or similarly grossly unacceptable comments, including harassing user names, subject to the same conditions as those at WP:LEGAL. John Carter (talk) 17:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Online harassment such has this has historically been difficult to handle legally. Many laws are still far behind the current state of technology, and the existence of proxies, Tor, VPNs, and other strategies for anonymizing oneself on the internet can make it incredibly difficult to prove that a harassing comment was made by a specific individual. That said, I have been keeping the WMF's community advocacy team in the loop about the harassment that ventures into criminal territory. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I was shocked, and angry, to read the summary of the harassment that you've encountered on WP on Jimbo's page. I knew we were thoroughly male rather than female-heavy with editors, but I had no idea that being identified as a woman could attract that kind of childish, senseless, only-possible-in-a-patriarchical society kind of offensive nastiness (especially when it gets personally identified with your workplace or similar). This is not right and it's not what we're here for. We're here, among other things, to help move the world towards 50% of the responsibility and power for 50% of the people. I'm not sure that there's anything I can personally do, but please accept my sympathies, and should there ever be anything I can actually do or discussions on treatment-of-women that I should be aware of, or contributing to, please do sing out. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 11:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I, too, echo the other comments above at the horrific conduct you were forced to endure. I can only imagine what other women who remain silent have suffered, as well. At least know that your effort to shine a light on the problem does change minds around here. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 22:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Case and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I was actually wondering about your accepting the apology myself but assumed you were metaphorically trying to take the high road when dealing with someone of a comparatively subterranean perspective. John Carter (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I was at first when I'd read it too quickly and perceived it to just be a sarcastic apology. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Precious again
- even if you probably had no choice ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I promised a while back to recuse on issues relating to Eric Corbett. But thanks nonetheless :) GorillaWarfare (talk) 09:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That's what I meant, - and thank you, and for the "penance" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

undefined I've been watching quietly in the background and am still a little shaken by what I have read. What on earth happened to kindness, politeness, and the Golden Rule so many of us were taught to live by? What happened to humanity? GW, even though I've neither met you nor do I recall ever communicating with you in the past, I must say, it is an honor to have the opportunity to do so. With the utmost sincerity and respect, THANK YOU FOR ALL YOU DO!!! Atsme 📞📧 19:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I might have indicated instead that you more than earned it by your being willing to put up with some of the rather repellent harassment you have been subject to and continuing to be one of our leading contributors, but I can't argue that it is earned anyway. John Carter (talk) 19:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ditto, what others said above. <b style="color:#000;font-size:100%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 19:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for all your efforts. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Many thanks from me too!   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   04:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you all for the support :) GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Vested contributors arbitration case opened
You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 01:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Vested contributors retitled Arbitration enforcement 2
You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. For this case, there will be no Workshop phase. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 12:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Nelle Morton at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with db-g7, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 03:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Your thoughts about running for ArbCom
After reading the op-ed in the most recent Signpost, I'm considering running for the Arbitration Committee. (I already know I have only a slim chance because of the way that historically candidates who were already administrators have been preferred.) I thought I would solicit your perspective on what to expect if I were to win, particularly about how much of my time ArbCom duties would take up, and how much harassment I might potentially receive specifically as a result of being on the committee. Thanks in advance for your input. — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 21:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd first direct you to User:Risker/Thoughts for Arbitration Committee Candidates. As for my own answers: It's a lot of work; much more than it seems just from what you see us put on-wiki. Expect to spend at least one hour a day on ArbCom responsibilities, and more if the caseload is high, you're drafting a case, or you're active on the ban appeals subcommittee. You will certainly be subject to scrutiny, but I can't predict how much harassment you will receive. One note: if you do run, you should probably expect to have to answer some questions about your username. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for responding. Risker's essay was very helpful. I already spend more than an hour a day on Wikipedia, particularly in DYK and the Teahouse; I have the time to spare, so long as it isn't going to be anything like a 40-hour-a-week job. To be frank, the reason I'm considering running is that I agree that ArbCom needs more members who aren't straight white cis men, and I'm decent at proposing compromise solutions that opposing parties are willing to accept, in addition to being neither straight, white, cis, nor a man (I'm physically disabled and neuroatypical, too — I have a very full social justice bingo card). I could already tell it would be a fair amount of work for little appreciation (and speaking of which, thank you for your work on the committee, and please accept my condolences for the reprehensible harassment you received) and am honestly not exactly eager to get the job, as opposed to feeling a responsibility to run if enough other candidates who aren't straight white cis men don't put themselves forward. As for my username, I have had to answer questions about it already, but as I have no fascist beliefs or associations and was just making a play on words, I have no fear of answering more. Thanks for the specific heads up, though, and thanks again for answering my questions. — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 09:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

IP grabbers
Hello. Thanks for adding bvog to the blacklist. I've listed a few others at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist which you might want to consider as well. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 08:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Is it bvog.com, or vog.com? The regexp \bvog should possibly have been \bbvog instead? 67.162.91.170 (talk) 00:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You're correct, but this has already been fixed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Nelle Morton
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Something that could help here

 * Let it be - Giano right now in my view has his back up against an arbcom wall. It isn't helping anything seeing the two of you go at it, if you want to sort things out I suggest another venue. Im not saying you are right or wrong Gorilla but sometimes it is best to just do nothing, and save this discussion for another day. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Signpost email
Molly, I've emailed you on an election matter. Tony  (talk)  04:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Received, will answer when I get a free minute. GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Question about arbitration
Hi, there.

I got a notice about the election today and have had no prior experience with it. I looked at the ballot, and was solely drawn to your user name only because of the humor inherent in it. I read your statement, then randomly looked at edits you've made over time to try to get some flavor of your ability and neutrality. To tell you the truth, I don't think I'll have the time to read much more than candidates statements, as I'm incredibly busy.

This has something to do with the arbitration process, however. I've edited for over nine years and have never been involved in one, so I am an absolute novice.

I made numerous edits to the Rafael Bienvenido Cruz page. The page seemed like a mess, not nearly meeting Wikipedia standards, with extremely extensive quotes in the references section, a muddled chronology, a good deal of unsourced information and some significant and obvious gaps in the content.

I did a huge amount of reading to get a better understanding as to the subject of the article.

A few days ago, another editor seemed to begin savaging the article, in particular my edits. He or she made many edits which I did not feel were disruptive, so I didn't feel any need to change them. On the other hand, however, the editor removed many elements which I felt were significant to understanding the history of the subject and the accuracy of his treatment. I disagreed extensively on the article's talk page, but the response I received was not helpful. Finally, I just started rolling back the reverts. I was met with obstinacy and restorations of the rollbacks and more slashing and burning through the article.

I really don't know what to do at this point. I'm really being soured and frustrated by this experience. Please don't put yourself out on my behalf, if you don't have the time, but I wonder if you could look at the process that's been involved? If you like, I'll also include my latest rather strained attempt and finally a bit testy plea to the other editor to deal with what I've felt was territorialism and indefensible reverts and deletions.

I spent probably an hour composing it, leaving it on the editor's talk page, hoping to reach some resolution. That editor reverted it so quickly, instantly perhaps, that I can't imagine that much if any of my response was actually read.

I'm only asking for your thoughts about this and only if you have the time to do so. I'm certainly not in any way suggesting that I'll vote for or against you, no matter whether or not you are able to look at it, and whether I'll vote at all. That's also whether or not you agree or disagree with me, if you are able to take a look and you might make some helpful suggestions. In fact, on second thought, I just won't vote at all, whether or not you're able to spend a few minutes reviewing this.

I don't have a lot of time to get involved in some really extensive bureaucratic process, but if this can be resolved expeditiously, whether or not it's in my or either of our (myself and "WV"s, the other editor's) favor, that would certainly be useful. I mean we both may be out of line and I don't mind being told that if I am.

Thanks for reading. Activist (talk) 19:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you tried bringing the issue to a dispute resolution noticeboard such as WP:ANI or WP:ANEW? One of those would probably be your best bet. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your advice. It is appreciated. If things don't improve, I'll go to that noticeboard, which "Liz" also recommended. Best of luck with your election! Activist (talk) 13:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Things wouldn't likely go well for Activist at either. He's been stubbornly edit warring and violating BLP guidelines over his insistence on keeping the content in addition to citing unreliable sources.  He hasn't even exercised BRD on the article talk page.  Folliwing BLP guidelines/policy and exercising the 'D' portion of BRD should be his first actions. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  19:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

2015 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election
You are a clever and very beautiful. I voted for you!

Ulugbeck1 (talk) 06:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No disrespect towards anybody; but i hope you voted only for first criteria. Thanks. --The Avengers (talk) 16:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I decided to do numerological readings of all of the candidates' usernames and base my voting solely on whether their number was in sync with those who are already on the arbitration council. It is important for there to be harmony, which is better than cleverness or beauty.
 * Seriously though, I just threw darts against a wall with their names on it to see who was hit. Then, I voted for who I wanted to vote for anyway. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 02:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Trying to be scientific and objective, I have produced two sheets of paper with all the candidates listed, adorned with hundreds of check marks and Xs. The final result after all that study is that I ended up voting mostly for the people I already had positive feelings for. The turnout is heavy. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  03:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's over 2,500 editors who have voted with 9 days left in the voting period. This makes it anyone's guess who will ultimately be elected. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 15:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the mass mailing was a gross error and has turned the entire exercise into a farce. Just imagine what would happen if the same thing were to be done for every RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If the entire group of administrators was elected all at once, I would support a mass notification then too. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * +1. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Forgot how I got here, but among other reasons, your portrait, (how is that a self-protrait), reminded me of a Hogwarts class portrait, so I figured that's a plus for you. :) Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 16:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The over 2,500 votes is going to make a heavy workload for the Scrutineers. They were overwhelmed with less than half that total in other years. The results were delayed, and you can expect a long delay this time. So I hope people are patient and realize that this is a volunteer effort and they are trying to unsure that the people that voted are legal votes, and there is a lot of work that entails that. Dave Dial (talk) 18:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Isn't that the point of the securevote system? Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 18:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The securevote system will ensure that all voters are eligible(the accounts fit the criteria for voting), the Scrutineers go over the voting to make sure no double voting happens and that some voters aren't using masking techniques to disguise themselves. The data will be compared and it's a lot to go through. Dave Dial (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't help wondering how meaningful this election is anyway. I was rather surprised to see that an account I abandoned 9 years ago (last edit: 17:21, 2 February 2006) is eligible to vote. Don't worry, I haven't voted twice, but I dare say quite a few have. Probably not the right place to bring this up, but I'm not greatly interested in watching the election pages. Giano    (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well Giano, that's a somewhat valid concern. In your (example)case, that should be seen even before it gets to the Scrutineers. But if it did slip past, the Scrutineers should pick that up pretty easily. Here is the page that outline the voting process and who is an eligible voter. Here are the instructions(description) of the duties for the Scrutineers. They are pretty thorough, and the instructions are clear. But it is a daunting task, considering the sheer number of votes. Dave Dial (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, Dave Dial, the scrutinizers have been doing their work since the election was open, they don't wait until December 6th before they begin.
 * I still don't understand why some editors think that less active editors will invariably vote for less qualified candidates. We have no basis to judge what criteria they will use (or what criteria any editor uses) and they are just as likely (or more likely) to select an experienced candidate over an inexperienced one. I mean, I trust less active editors' choices more than those editors who decide not to participate at all or decide to just oppose all candidates...at least they are making a choice which is what you want to happen in an election. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 18:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Liz, I didn't realize they start right away. Hopefully that reduces the burden. And I agree that less active doesn't equal bad choices. Dave Dial (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

move
re:. I had also posted a note on this subject at WP:AN (here). If you think it should also be moved/removed, I'm fine with that. — Ched : ?  02:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems fine to me to leave that posting there as well. I have no real opinion on where it's advertised, I just noticed it had been posted to WP:VPT, which I assume was in error. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Moral Support
Is all I can offer as I am not eligible to vote in the arbcom elections. ChemWarfare (talk) 02:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, from one Warfare to another. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Signpost exit poll
Dear Wikipedian, you recently voted in the ArbCom election. Your username, along with around 155 other usernames of your fellow Wikipedians, was randomly selected from the 2000+ Wikipedians who voted this year, with the help of one of the election-commissioners. If you are willing, could you please participate (at your option either on-wiki via userspace or off-wiki via email) in an exit poll, and answer some questions about how you decided amongst the ArbCom candidates?

If you decide to participate in this exit poll, the statistical results will be published in the Signpost, an online newspaper with over 1000 Wikipedians among the readership. There are about twelve questions, which have alphanumerical answers; it should take you a few minutes to complete the exit poll questionnaire, and will help improve Wikipedia by giving future candidates information about what you think is important. This is only an unofficial survey, and will have no impact on your actual vote during this election, nor in any future election.

All questions are individually optional, and this entire exit poll itself is also entirely optional, though if you choose not to participate, I would appreciate a brief reply indicating why you decided not to take part (see Question Zero). Thanks for being a Wikipedian

The questionnaire
Dear Wikipedian, please fill out these questions -- at your option via usertalk or via email, see Detailed Instructions at the end of the twelve questions -- by putting the appropriate answer in the blanks provided. If you decide not to answer a question (all questions are optional), please put the reason down: "undecided" / "private information" / "prefer not to answer" / "question is not well-posed" / "other: please specify". Although the Signpost cannot guarantee that complex answers can be processed for publication, it will help us improve future exit polls, if you give us comments about why you could not answer specific questions.
 * Q#0. Will you be responding to the questions in this exit poll? Why or why not?
 * Your Answer:
 * Your Comments:


 * Q#1. Arbs must have at least 0k / 2k / 4k / 8k / 16k / 32k+ edits to Wikipedia.
 * Your Numeric Answer:
 * Your Comments:


 * Q#2. Arbs must have at least 0 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7+ years editing Wikipedia.
 * Your Numeric Answer:
 * Your Comments:


 * Q#3. Arbs...
 * A: should not be an admin
 * B: should preferably not be an admin
 * C: can be but need not be an admin
 * D: should preferably be an admin
 * E: must be or have been an admin
 * F: must currently be an admin
 * Your Single-Letter Answer:
 * Your Comments:


 * Q#4. Arbs must have at least 0 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7+ years of experience as an admin.
 * Your Numeric Answer:
 * Your Comments:


 * Q#5. Completely optional, as all these questions are completely optional:  which candidates did you support this year, and why?
 * Your List-Of-Usernames You Supported:
 * Your Comments:


 * The Quick&Easy End. Thank you for your answers.  Please sign with your Wikipedia username here, especially important if you are emailing your answers, so we can avoid double-counting and similar confusion.
 * Your Wikipedia Username:
 * General Comments:


 * Q#6. Completely optional, as all these questions are completely optional:  which candidates did you oppose this year, and why?
 * Your List-Of-Usernames You Opposed:
 * Your Comments:


 * Q#7. Are there any Wikipedians you would like to see run for ArbCom, in the December 2016 election, twelve months from now?  Who?
 * Your List-Of-Usernames As Potential Future Candidates:
 * Your Comments:


 * Q#8. Why did you vote in the 2015 ArbCom elections?  In particular, how did you learn about the election, and what motivated you to participate this year?
 * Your Answer:
 * Your Comments:


 * Q#9. For potential arbs, good indicators of the right kind of contributions outside noticeboard activity, would be:
 * A: discussions on the talkpages of articles which ARE subject to ArbCom sanctions
 * B: discussions on the talkpages of articles NOT subject to ArbCom restrictions
 * C: sending talkpage notifications e.g. with Twinkle, sticking to formal language
 * D: sending talkpage notifications manually, and explaining with informal English
 * E: working on policies/guidelines
 * F: working on essays/helpdocs
 * G: working on GA/FA/DYK/similar content
 * H: working on copyedits/infoboxes/pictures/similar content
 * I: working on categorization e.g. with HotCat
 * J: working on autofixes e.g. with AWB or REFILL
 * K: working with other Wikipedians via wikiprojects e.g. with MILHIST
 * L: working with other Wikipedians via IRC e.g. with or informally
 * M: working with other Wikipedians via email e.g. with UTRS or informally
 * N: working with other Wikipedians in person e.g. at edit-a-thons / Wikipedian-in-residence / Wikimania / etc
 * O: other types of contribution, please specify in your comments
 * Please specify a comma-separated list of the types of contributions you see as positive indicators for arb-candidates to have.
 * Your List-Of-Letters Answer:
 * Your Comments:


 * Q#10. Arbs who make many well-informed comments at these noticeboards (please specify which!) have the right kind of background, or experience, for ArbCom.
 * Options: A: AE, B: arbCases, C: LTA, D: OTRS, E: AN,
 * continued : F: OS/REVDEL, G: CU/SPI, H: AN/I, I: pageprot, J: NAC,
 * continued : K: RfC, L: RM, M: DRN, N: EA, O: 3o,
 * continued : P: NPOVN, Q: BLPN, R: RSN, S: NORN, T: FTN,
 * continued : U: teahouse, V: helpdesk, W: AfC, X: NPP, Y: AfD,
 * continued : 1: UAA, 2: COIN, 3: antiSpam, 4: AIV, 5: 3RR,
 * continued : 6: CCI, 7: NFCC, 8: abusefilter, 9: BAG, 0: VPT,
 * continued : Z: Other_noticeboard_not_listed_here_please_wikilink_your_answer
 * Please specify a comma-separated list of the noticeboards you see as important background-experience for arb-candidates to have.
 * Your List-Of-Letters Answer:
 * Your Comments:


 * Q#11. Arbs who make many comments at these noticeboards (please specify!) have the wrong kind of temperament, or personality, for ArbCom.
 * Options: (same as previous question -- please see above)
 * Please specify a comma-separated list of the noticeboards you see as worrisome personality-indicators for arb-candidates to have.
 * Your List-Of-Letters Answer:
 * Your Comments:


 * Q#12. Anything else we ought to know?
 * Your Custom-Designed Question(s):
 * Your Custom-Designed Answer(s):


 * The Extended-Answers End. Thank you for your answers.  Please sign with your Wikipedia username here, especially important if you are emailing your answers, so we can avoid double-counting and similar confusion.
 * Your Wikipedia Username:
 * General Comments:

Detailed Instructions: you are welcome to answer these questions via usertalk (easiest), or via email (for a modicum of privacy). Processing of responses will be performed in batches of ten, prior to publication in the Signpost. GamerPro64 will be processing the email-based answers, and will strive to maintain the privacy of your answers (as well as your email address and the associated IP address typically found in the email-headers), though of course as a volunteer effort, we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will have a system free from computer virii, we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will resist hypothetical bribes offered by the KGB/NSA/MI6 to reveal your secrets, and we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will make no mistakes. If you choose to answer on-wiki, your answers will be visible to other Wikipedians. If you choose to answer via email, your answers will be sent unencrypted over the internet, and we will do our best to protect your privacy, but unencrypted email is inherently an improper mechanism for doing so. Sorry! :-) We do promise to try hard, not to make any mistakes, in the processing and presentation of your answers. If you have any questions or concerns, you may contact column-editor GamerPro64, copy-editor 75.108.94.227, or copy-editor Ryk72.  Thanks for reading, and thanks for helping Wikipedia.  GamerPro64  14:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If you wish to answer via usertalk, go ahead and fill in the blanks by editing this subsection. Once you have completed the usertalk-based exit poll answers,, leave a short usertalk note, and click save.  The point of leaving the usertalk note, is to make sure your answers are processed and published.
 * If you wish to answer via email, create a new email to the Signpost column-editor by clicking Special:EmailUser/GamerPro64, and then paste the *plaintext* of the questions therein. Once you have completed the email-based exit poll answers,, leave a short usertalk note specifying the *time* you sent the email, and click save.  The point of leaving the usertalk note, is to make sure your answers are processed and published (not stuck in the spam-folder).

Seeing how you got re-elected to the Committee its probably for the best to ignore this. Also congrats. GamerPro64 19:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!
Congratulations, GW! One interesting factoid coming out of the election was that you were the candidate voters were the least Neutral about...people had strong opinions about your candidacy but you did receive more "Love her!" votes than "NO!" votes. 65.86% Support is not too shabby! Liz <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 20:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * From the most neutral candidate to the least neutral congrats! Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations

 * Congratulations. Thank you for all your previous and continued service. Mkdw talk 20:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Congrats! :-)  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 21:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Congratulations! Don't get too burned out. Mz7 (talk) 21:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Congratulations GorillaWarfare :). – Davey 2010 Talk 21:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Congrats, GorillaWarfare, and thanks for stepping forward to make this a better encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Congratulations.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Congrats. :) --Tito Dutta (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

 * Aha, we meet again. Last time we met, wasn't that at some hamburger joint? That Obama had visited? All of a sudden I have a craving for a burger, which sucks cause we're eating pasta tonight. Ah well. Hey, I look forward to working with you and Making A Difference™, and I appreciate the time and effort you have already put in. Later! Drmies (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That sounds right, though I forgot the Obama part... See you on-list soon! GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

A cat for you

 * I'm not sure the servers could handle that kind of load if I start uploading all the photos I take of cats. Thank you! GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have the same issues with Pugs. Congratulations on reelection. --kelapstick(bainuu) 00:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Pugs are delightful animals. Thank you! And welcome to the Committee. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have this problem too. I could fill all of Commons with cats (what else would the internet need more of, after all?) Congratulations on being the only one with more supports than neutrals! :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Has the cat-lady population on the Committee really tripled in this election? Or perhaps doubled... I think DeltaQuad may be one as well. Either way, looking forward to working with you :) GorillaWarfare (talk) 08:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm more of a puppy person, but that was more because I was proven to have allergies to cats when I was 2 years old. I haven't tested the theory otherwise since, but I'm probably clear now. GW, welcome back to hell, and Opabinia, welcome to hell. :) -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 09:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We voted for you cat women to make it more bearable ;) - spread the news that a limit of two comments in any discussion by anybody (not only me) might be a blessing, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations! I'm happy for you! --Rosiestep (talk) 03:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Congrats! I knew you could do it and I'm very happy you're reelected. It seems to be shaping up to be a nice ArbCom this year, and I'm pretty happy with the results in general, as several of my top candidates got elected, you included :). Here's to two more good years! Johannatalk to me!see my work 03:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Selection in Arbitration Committee
Hello GorillaWarfare, congratulations on your appointment to the WP:AC. I am sure that you will serve the committee to the best of your abilities. Keep up the good work. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  17:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail!
The  Aven gers  04:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and happy new year
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#FF4646; background-color:lightgreen; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:7px; border-radius: 1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);>

Merry Christmas and happy new year. (: --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#008C3A 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#01796F -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;"><b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#01796F;">✉

Merry Christmas, GW
And may your holidays be [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvfhoWIPoVw merry and bright. . . .] Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
Warmest Wishes for Health, Wealth and Wisdom through the Holidays and the Coming Year! Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 12:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed
''You are receiving this message because you are a party or offered a preliminary statement and/or evidence in the Arbitration enforcement 2 case. This is a one-time message.''

The has been closed, and the following remedies have been enacted:

1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.

3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.

6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07  ( T ) 02:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard


 * May our mouth be full of laughter, a comment from a psalm, with music 290 years old today, Forget Improve arbcom, and celebrate now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Voter comment
I like your openness and am in agreement with what you've said. I would like to hear something about WP content in general, not only concerning gender. --lifeform (talk) 00:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm generally very impressed with the quality of Wikipedia's content, although it's interesting how this quality is distributed. There has been discussion of how Wikipedia covers some topics (video games, female pornstars, popular culture, recent events) more comprehensively than others. The strengths, unsurprisingly, coincide with the interests of "the average Wikipedian", often leaving articles about other subjects to fall by the wayside. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:45, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, G., for that. I found out I'm almost completely an average Wikipedian. In my subjective (and not very well read) opinion, regarding the articles touching on Humanities/Politics/Economics, Wikipedia is not exactly in the front lines of the fight for truth or justice. --lifeform (talk) 06:56, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is far too often allowed to be used as a platform for radical socio-political activists. The problem is that it is considered bad faith by the louder voices in the community to do anything about it, especially when such people bad-mouth totally disinterested editors for refusing to be drawn into such discussions. Arbcom should take a firmer stand but can only do so when issues are reported to it by the community. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:35, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't really intended to be on the front lines for truth or justice; we try for verifiability, not truth. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:28, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * (Warning: A speech follows.) Verifiability is certainly not in opposition to truth. Truths which are facts (i.e. events which have happened) are in general subject to verification. "Truths" which are not facts cannot be verified in the same sense (e.g., "justice"). No matter how obvious or right they might seem to some, or even all, or how much power supports them, they are ideas and should not be accepted unexamined. Isn't it "encyclopedic" (and just) to record the diversity of ideas, and the sources of them (that is, the truth - the facts as they exist - "so and so says such and such"), rather than follow Wikipedially correct rules too closely in order to decide what to include? In this sense, as an encyclopedia, WP should be on the front lines. --lifeform (talk) 04:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Case Finland
Thank you for your comment regarding Finland, first about references and then about biased point of view. I am not sure why you blank out all of the changes, as clearly your comments are related to some specific sentences. Based on your first blank/revert, I reviewed all my previous changes, and added references and changed wordings. All this in good faith, as per Wikipedia policies. Also I did some new changes/addings. However if you categorically blank out everything always, that seems unfair, aggressive and even edit warring. Would it be more appropriate to mark and label the points you consider questionable, eg. if something is missing in references or delete some part of the text you read as personal/biased comment? I have again reviewed the changes, and honestly it is hard to see any personal analysis in there, anything more than what is usually found in the articles. Now when all changes are blanked out, many important facts and references are lost, many which are properly referenced and relevant. When writing about history or current affairs of one country, there are clearly good soil for argument and differences in the points of views. However what I tried to add, in good faith, was just more neutrality, since many parts of the article at the moment are actually rather prejudiced, partisan if not even incorrect. So, with these comments, I kindly would like to propose further consideration on the matter and request revert of the blanking. Thank you, and please do not hesitate to contact to discuss more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.76.73.67 (talk) 11:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I apologize for that. It was this edit that I intended to revert, but the tool I was using will automatically revert an entire block of edits made by one user. I didn't notice that it had done so here. I've reinstated your edits (minus that last one). GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Good that you found such a bug, hopefully in the future innocent edits wont get accidentally flushed away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.76.73.67 (talk) 11:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:AN
Administrators noticeboard

I know you are very busy off-wiki, but please comment there. Requesting your comment only, not your vote. --95.141.31.22 (talk) 02:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Signpost Arbitration interview request
Excuse me. I am lead writer for the Signpost's "Arbitration Report" and am wondering if you would be interested in answering some interviews questions as a newly elected Arbitrator. The questions will be asked through email, unless answering them here would be a more suitable choice. GamerPro64 22:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure. I'd rather answer them on-wiki. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

1.	First off, congrats on becoming an Arbitrator.
 * Thank you!

2.	Why did you want to run for a seat in the Committee?
 * Although it was occasionally exhausting and disheartening, I enjoyed my 2013–2015 term on the Arbitration Committee. I think institutional memory and experience with the processes is as valuable as fresh faces, so I felt that I could be valuable in that sense. I also think the Arbitration Committee has a lot it can improve on in the near future, and I would like to help with that improvement.

3.	How did you feel about the election as a whole?
 * I was pleased with it! I was really happy about the increased voter turnout, and the results included many people that I am excited to work with in the next two years.

4.	What are your thoughts on the outcomes to cases from the previous year (e.g: GamerGate, Lightbreather, Arbitration Enforcement 1/2)? Did you think they were handled the best that they could have? Why?
 * I think some of the cases were handled quite well. However, your examples are cases that I do not think were handled well. In a number of them, the PDs were very incomplete when they were posted. I have found that although many people urge the Committee to do as much work as possible onwiki, they still often see PDs as final, so I think it's best to wait until a draft PD is fairly complete before posting.


 * I also think that in some of the cases, the evidence that was presented did not necessarily accurately represent the issues. This leaves the Arbitration Committee in a bit of a predicament, because the decisions are based off the evidence, and it's not always seen as kosher for arbitrators to go find evidence of their own while drafting.


 * Some of these cases I think did little to address the issues at hand, particularly AE1 and AE2.

5.	Having been part of the Committee in the past, what made you want to run again?
 * I think I covered this in question 2.

6.	What would you say would be the challenges of this position? What do you plan to accomplish from this?
 * The perception of the Arbitration Committee is definitely a challenge. It can be difficult to motivate yourself to work on a Committee that is often reviled. There are also a fair number of people who do not trust the Arbitration Committee, which can lead to a lot of pushback when we handle issues in private, which is unfortunately sometimes necessary. I'm not sure there's much that can be done about these issues, other than for the Committee as a whole to try to handle issues as fairly, transparently, and expediently as possible.

7.	Would there a chance to bring back the Ban Appeals Subcommittee in the future?
 * I hope not. I think it's reasonable for the Arbitration Committee to handle a small subset of block and ban appeals (namely, those involving private evidence, AE blocks, bans based on Arbitration Committee decisions, etc.) However, I think the community is completely able to handle the majority of appeals that the BASC was handling. I'd generally prefer the Arbitration Committee take on as few responsibilities as possible. Furthermore, the BASC appeals were coming in at such a volume that they were overwhelming a Committee that was already slow to handle other matters.

8.	Any additional comments?
 * Nope. Thanks, and good luck with your article!! GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

GamerPro64 03:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've answered inline. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year, GorillaWarfare!
<div style="border: 3px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAF0; padding:0.2em 0.4em;border-radius: 1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);" class="plainlinks">

Happy New Year! GorillaWarfare, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. — k6ka  <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁 ( Talk ·  Contributions ) 17:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year 2016}} to send this message


 * By the way, did you know that this edit was the last edit made in 2015, and this is the first edit of 2016? (Times in UTC, of course). — k6ka  <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁 ( Talk ·  Contributions ) 17:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Kurtis (talk) 22:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Help decide the future of Wikimania


The Wikimedia Foundation is currently running a consultation on the value and planning process of Wikimania, and is open until 18 January 2016. The goals are to (1) build a shared understanding of the value of Wikimania to help guide conference planning and evaluation, and (2) gather broad community input on what new form(s) Wikimania could take (starting in 2018).

After reviewing the consultation, we'd like to hear your feedback on on this survey.

In addition, feel free to share any personal experiences you have had at at a Wikimedia movement conference, including Wikimania. We plan to compile and share back outcomes from this consultation in February.

With thanks,

I JethroBT (WMF) (talk), from Community Resources 22:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Godzilla-warfare
Can't a CU do something about this: User:Godzilla-warfare? It's yet another user:Supdiop sock. I'm told a range block is not possible. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have to say, I think they've got you beat in terms of usernames. Godzilla is at least 8 times cooler than gorillas. :P Keilana (talk) 17:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The sock has been ironed. Not being a CU, I can't do more. Suggest GW usurp the user name! Favonian (talk) 17:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Kind of have to give them credit for the name. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't concede so quickly. If it is simply godzilla versus gorilla, then Godzilla wins, but gorilla-warfare is clever and godzilla-warfare is meh.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

RE
How can a sock appeal a block? Shouldn't the master have appealed? Should this be considered a successful appeal by banned user G-Zay, of who Brayden96 was a proven sock? What does this entail for other blocked socks? Did BASC have any reason to completely discount the evidence presented in the SPI and' copied to the user's talk when he appealed the block? Is it customary for BASC to not consult the blocking admin? If the account does make other edits that evidence sockpuppetry of a ban user, will reblocking lead me to a desysop for wheel-warring? ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  07:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC) Thanks for responding to this Kirill. I was volunteering at an event this weekend and so my time was fairly limited. As this block (and subsequent unblock) were not based on checkuser evidence, I don't think it's necessary to treat this differently than you would any user who was unblocked via a request on their talk page or UTRS. That said, courtesy pings to let us know what's going on are never unwelcome. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The last question is definitely not rhetorical; right after being unblocked he went back to editing Motomu Toriyama, in the same manner as previous G-Zay socks. Previous edits by Brayden96 to the same article were also reverted as being made by a sock of G-Zay by two other editors very familiar with this LTAer and who helped clean up his messes. We're talking about an LTAer who has made lengthy, ranty blogposts about maintaining multiple personas and social media accounts, so this is not "unexpected". Please advise on whether you would consider reblocking per the new evidence to be wheel warring. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  07:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Brayden96's appeal was granted because we've determined that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that he is a sockpuppet of G-Zay; his successful appeal should not be regarded as having any effect on G-Zay's standing ban. As far as re-blocking is concerned: unless Brayden96 engages in conduct that is disruptive in and of itself (without reference, in other words, to your assertion that he is a reincarnation of a banned user), a re-block will be viewed as a deliberate attempt to interfere with the implementation of a Committee ruling, and will be responded to accordingly. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 17:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand that BASC determined that at the time of the original block, not enough evidence supported a sock block. If after the unblock, new and sustained evidence is produced that this is in fact G-Zay, why should the BASC decision make the user "immune" from sock blocks? ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  17:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * New evidence may be considered if it's substantially different in nature from the evidence that we've already dismissed. In particular, evidence that merely shows two accounts having a shared interest or opinion (where such an opinion might reasonably be held by more than one person) is unlikely to be convincing in the absence of other corroborating evidence. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. And just to make sure, if there ever is reason to seek a reblock, what should be done? SPI, AN, contact ArbCom (since BASC is dead)? ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  19:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I would recommend that you ping us if something comes up; depending on the specific nature of the evidence in question, we may ask that you take it to SPI/AN/etc. or consider it ourselves. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 19:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for taking the time to respond, and apologies (particularly to GW) if my initial post felt a bit "aggressive". I remain unconvinced but will stick to monitoring quietly. :) ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  19:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Still have not learned anything
With this vote, it shows you still haven't learned anything since Gamergate. You claimed you did before WP:ACE2015, but this shows you have not. Dave Dial (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Dave? Any chance you could rephrase this to more specific and constructive and less combative? Criticizing an Arb for their vote is certainly allowed, but specifics such as "I think that was wrong because X; you should instead do Y" would probably be more useful. "You still haven't learned anything" doesn't really tell anyone much, and is more on the offensive side. I had to go and look at your edit history, and to see if you had made any comments on that page to see what your point of view was - and, honestly, still haven't figured it out despite that. Don't know if you've noticed, but this page is semi-protected. That's because the Gorilla has been flamed by IPs quite recently. That might well make her less interested in trying to get the kernels of usefulness out of a wrapping of insult. Clearly she won't fold to a bit of harsh language, but she might not pay attention to it either. In fact, I would not be shocked if someone outright deletes this section as a personal attack if it doesn't get more constructive. --GRuban (talk) 16:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, of course it was purposely a bit hostile. Listen, I like GW and think she is smart. I am disappointed that after outside agitators brought about the GG case, harassed and caused untold drama, and had many long time editors sanctioned or banned, that she would allow another outside agitator to do the same here. The new Arbs seem to get that ArbCom should be here to reduce drama and help the project run smoothly. GW seemed to get that too, but her current vote seems to put having a case filled with more drama over a common sense motion. Dave Dial (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I do appreciate your point, and I gave my vote quite a lot of thought for quite this reason. In the end, I decided that a full case would be preferable to a hasty motion just to get rid of the case request. That said, my opinion was in the minority. Hopefully my judgment of the motion was wrong, and it will help the issues in that area. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. I'm not going to change my wording or anything, because I meant what I wrote. But I will point you to the ACE results. I don't know of a time in ACE that so many people voted and members received so many votes. So just keep doing what you think is right. Your colleagues should also keep that in mind when they are getting the kind of flack from some editors that are consistently and devotionally here to stir shit. Dave Dial (talk) 02:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I see no need for you to change the wording. Thank you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to an online editathon on Black Women's History
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Women in Red events by removing your name from this list.) --Ipigott (talk) 12:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Rolling OS/CU stats
Hi. May I trouble you to correct the exhibit. I did not step down until February 2, so I am covered by the exemption through January and should have the note applied to my February numbers. Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh shoot, you're right. Good catch! Should be fixed now. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Towards a New Wikimania results
Last December, I invited you to share your views on the value of Wikimedia conferences and the planning process of Wikimania. We have completed analysis of these results and have prepared this report summarizing your feedback and important changes for Wikimania starting in 2018 as an experiment. Feedback and comments are welcome at the discussion page. Thank you so much for your participation. I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources, 22:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Women's History Month worldwide online edit-a-thon
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Rosiestep (talk) 20:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Re timeline
I think that there would be value in putting the (stepwise) rise of Maggie Dennis.

The other arrival / departure that I saw of note was Nik Everett, and his building of CirrusSearch, then his disappearance, unheralded, especially when search and discovery were of importance.

Wikimania decisions and the biffo that came through those decisions, and the determinations outside of real consensus. Just snap open and close.

Thanks for your work there. — billinghurst  sDrewth  13:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks likewise. The reorg timeline is also relevant: creating CE, refactoring engineering.  –  SJ  +   (who would preorder a bio titled "the stepwise rise of Maggie Dennis")

Great catch on Nik Everett. I've added an entry for him and James Douglas, who apparently left simultaneously. I will be sure to check out the Maggie thing (and keep an eye out for preorders of the book Sj mentioned...) I've also added CE and the engineering reorg per other requests. Many thanks for your suggestions! GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I’m not quite so convinced that “the stepwise rise of Maggie Dennis” belongs on the timeline. I did a quick review so apologies if I missed any but the timeline includes departures from WMF and additions to WMF from outside, but no promotions or reassignments within WMF. Presumably, most of the departures from WMF have an associated reassignment or promotion. If you add Maggie you have to look into adding every other such change which I think would be cluttering the timeline, not to mention a staggering amount of work.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a small amount of it, for example "Wes Moran becomes Vice President of Product". GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I missed that, but recent events have probably made the need for substantial back-filling moot.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  17:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Kudos, although it was discouraging reading. -- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I echo the comment by, above. Thank you. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 04:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Your recent explainer timeline
Thanks for your careful exposition of what must be very painful events. ggatin (talk) 16:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * +1, outstanding work! Best regards, --MBq (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Jennifer Childs-Roshak
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

ARCA
I remember that I was determined not to appeal my sanctions. It took this to break my pride. - I archived the whole case when 2016 came and wish others would do the same. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to our April event
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Sent by Rosiestep (talk) 13:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC) via WP:MassMessage

April Fools? Nope! Welcome to the Women Scientists worldwide online edit-a-thon during Year of Science
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC) via MassMessage

Cla68 block
I'm inferring the block of Cla68 was made in your role as admin/oversight, not as a committee action. Could you verify that for me? Thanks. NE Ent 10:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it was a Committee action. GorillaWarfare (talk) 13:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh ... ya'll had a discussion and a vote and all that and decided to block? NE Ent 13:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. GorillaWarfare (talk) 13:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe next time use ArbComBlock instead of OversightBlock, if for no other reason than avoiding answering stupid questions on your talk page? NE Ent 14:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Shhh! Invitation to Women in Espionage
--Rosiestep (talk) 03:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC) via MassMessage

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

Thanks
Thanks for telling me.

I had doubts about why it had been erased but its been helpfull that someone told me the exact reason why.

I appreciate it.

Whith all my respect.

Bye

Pd: i dont know if it is possible for you to help about this, but wikipedia gives to many problems when used in an ipad and in my opinion it should try to be changed.

--Danitorres64 (talk) 07:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)danitorres64

Jadeveon42
Sock of Jadeveon41? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems to be. Blocked. Thanks! GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

ANI
See this.

Gamaliel and others arbitration case opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others. The scope of this case is Gamaliel's recent actions (both administrative and otherwise), especially related to the Signpost April Fools Joke. The case will also examine the conduct of other editors who are directly involved in disputes with Gamaliel. The case is strictly intended to examine user conduct and alleged policy violations and will not examine broader topic areas. The clerks have been instructed to remove evidence which does not meet these requirements. The drafters will add additional parties as required during the case. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Evidence.

Please add your evidence by May 2, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. ''This notification is being sent to those listed on the case notification list. If you do not wish to recieve further notifications, you are welcome to opt-out on that page.'' For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

IDK
I have no idea if you even remember me at all. If you do - I'm guessing you were a bit surprised to see me sticking up for you at all. :-) — Ched : ?  03:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You're a familiar face, in that I run into you around the wiki fairly often, but had you not brought it up I would not have gone back to try to remember what you are referring to :) Though in my searching I found your first ever post on my talk page, which was quite nice, though I have no idea what the context was. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Photography
--Rosiestep (talk) 12:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC) via MassMessage

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

A Dobos torte for you!

 * Ooh, fancy! Ever since seeing them make them on The Great British Bake Off I've wanted to try baking one... GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * They are deadly delicious. Enjoy!  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 20:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for the HELP in IRC and the Page Protection -- Cameron11598  (Converse) 06:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Anytime! GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Women artists of Middle East / North Africa... a WiR & Guggenheim collaboration
--Rosiestep (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

You've got mail!
Liz <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 23:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail
 Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 17:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't believe I got a message from you. Can you please resend it? You can email me via Special:EmailUser/GorillaWarfare or directly to ; they both end up in the same place. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the email i sent to ARBCOM and since you are on the list, i thought i should notify you so you can check it at your earliest convenience.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 18:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah thanks, we did receive it. Because it was sent to the -b list (because of a current case involving recused arbitrators, of which I am one), there was a bit of a delay in it being forwarded to the full committee. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * So, i did not receive any reply to that email, no confirmation that whether its being reviewed or not, so i was wondering what is the process like going forward. How long it can take for ARBCOM to review it? Or when would i get any response? Could it happen that ARBCOM might never reply?  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 18:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sheriff, I'm disappointed: do my emails not count? :) Drmies (talk) 00:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

That was sent before I sent the case to ARBCOM but I saw it afterwards so technically it does not count as a confirmation of an ARBCOM case.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 01:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I was starting to feel slighted and sad already, Sheriff. Well, in that case GorillaWarfare, who is a much better spokesperson, will just have to respond. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 01:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Just noting here that I've responded. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your response and consideration for this matter. Thank you.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 18:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Spotlight on women entertainers!
--Rosiestep (talk) 02:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC) via MassMessage (To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

Hiya!
I have a question about your comment on Engleham's talkpage: did you mean block instead of ban? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 01:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure did. Thanks for the catch! GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I noticed you are not addicted to userboxes like some Wikipedians are (I have seen collections of over a hundred userboxes on a single userpage!!!) but you may like this userbox I have created based on a joke I found online. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 02:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hah, cute. To be fair I'm probably more likely to be found in a cape than some dress that flares straight out from my shoulders... GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I love Noel Fielding, and he has some awesome capes! Please check the latest developments over at Engleham's talkpage; we talked about it and Engleham agreed to change his tone. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 10:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's unlikely to change your opinion, but at least it may be interesting to you. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * He also suggested my username made me a sexual harasser, referred to me as a "young chick", said that I was immature and making ArbCom worse for it, etc... I don't really care to follow that conversation. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Your name reminded me of Penny Patterson's work (real name Francine). I've always been interested in human-animal communication (but I am a pretty sceptical person). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWxCM6llL60 The Quixotic Potato (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Esoglou socks
You recently blocked an account and tagged it as a sock of Esoglou. I'm curious whether this action was from observed behavior or from checkuser tools. In either case, I think another account should be investigated. See Sockpuppet investigations/Esoglou. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 06:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks like Bbb23 already handled the new reports. I did run a CU on Theodoxa and decided that between the CU data and the behavior they were a ✅ sock, though Bbb23 seems less confident of this link and calls it "possilikely". GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with your conclusion and the block. It think it's a matter of semantics. For me, "confirmed" requires a greater degree of technical similarity, that's all.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, sounds good! GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Admin The Wordsmith's comments re: "...the ineptness of many current Arbs..." is certainly casting aspersions
Given the seriousness of this Rfc at User talk:The Wordsmith/GMORFC the ongoing threats to sanction participating editors seem to ring hollow in light of supervising admin The Wordsmith's astonishing comments regarding ArbCom members. The comment, which by any definition "casts aspersions," raises a number of questions that call for immediate answers, given the self-created deadline for comments.

The questions, which I hereby put directly to The Wordsmith, are as follows:


 * Exactly which ArbCom members are you referring to, when you describe them as "inept?"


 * In what way are these current community-elected ArbCom members, as you term them, "inept?"


 * Do you have diffs to support this sweeping claim, and can you produce them? If not, why not?


 * Since the thrust of this extraordinary Rfc seems to be to prevent "casting aspersions," in the Talk pages of GMO articles (as well as precedent-establishing proposed "locked in" multiple article wording regarding GMO safety) is this not exactly what you are doing in the past 24 hours towards members of the Arbitration Committee? Does this not disqualify you immediately from further participation?

To all concerned: I will post the above subsection on the Talk pages of current ArbCom members, per The Wordsmith's declaration, despite substantial objections, that they will be locking down the page a few hours from this posting, making further timely discussion on this page impossible. Jus da  fax   11:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've seen the responses from other arbs to your messages on their talk pages, so I'll keep this brief to avoid splitting any discussion further. In the future, please consider posting things you wish the ArbCom to see to one of the several arb discussion boards, or just using the ping functionality. Spreading this across so many talk pages is confusing as hell, not to mention brushing up against admin shopping (arb shopping?) With respect to calling the ArbCom inept, that strikes me much more as criticism of the Committee (which is of course allowed) than as some sort of personal attack or aspersion. I also see that some of my colleagues disagree with me on this somewhat. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I definitely assume you mean "allowed" rather than "disallowed" there! :) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:28, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I could pretend that it was some sort of dry humor, but... yes. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:53, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others closed
An arbitration case regarding Gamaliel and others has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted: For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Gamaliel is admonished for multiple breaches of Wikipedia policies and guidelines including for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, removing a speedy deletion notice from a page he created, casting aspersions, and perpetuating what other editors believed to be a BLP violation.
 * 2) DHeyward and Gamaliel are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with or discussing each other anywhere on Wikipedia, subject to the usual exemptions.
 * 3) is admonished for engaging in incivility and personal attacks on other editors. He is reminded that all editors are expected to engage respectfully and civilly with each other and to avoid making personal attacks.
 * 4) For conduct which was below the standard expected of an administrator — namely making an incivil and inflammatory close summary on ANI, in which he perpetuated the perceived BLP violation and failed to adequately summarise the discussion — JzG is admonished.
 * 5) Arkon is reminded that edit warring, even if exempt, is rarely an alternative to discussing the dispute with involved editors, as suggested at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.
 * 6) The community is encouraged to hold an RfC to supplement the existing WP:BLPTALK policy by developing further guidance on managing disputes about material involving living persons when that material appears outside of article space and is not directly related to article-content decisions.
 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Hi
Hi, are you an arbitrator? 108.162.157.141 (talk) 02:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:16, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I have seen your email. So only registered users at least 4 days old and 10 edits can request for arbitration? Will I be considered a sockpuppet if I create an account to request for arbitration?108.162.157.141 (talk) 03:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you only 4 days old? Just checking. Irondome (talk) 03:27, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It is fine to move from editing as an IP to editing as an account, so long as you do not use both the IP and the registered account in a way that violates the sockpuppetry policy (see WP:ILLEGIT for specifics). If you are uncomfortable with doing so or concerned about being able to follow that policy, I can also move a request to the case page for you, although you may continue running into similar issues when adding comments/etc. to the request. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:29, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions Question
Hey GW, I had a quick question on ArbCom's Discretionary Sanctions Regarding Mohammed broadly construed. Would you say Jesus in Islam qualifies under those sanctions? I was thinking yes but thought I'd double check before I advised someone one way or another. pinging as this is related to a discussion I was having with him. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 06:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The Jesus in Islam article falls under the discretionary sanctions authorized in Muhammad images, given that (according to that article) "Jesus is believed to have been the precursor to Muhammad". GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Cameron11598 (Talk) 06:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for reverting vandalism on my page and such! Leggomygreggo8 (talk) 20:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course. Sorry that's happening to you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Hall of Fame!
--Rosiestep (talk) 09:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC) via MassMessage (To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:39, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Basilica of Our Lady of Mercy (Yarumal), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Clappers. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

 * And thank you for your cleanup on that page! Yes, they increase my paycheck by 25% for holidays and weekends GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I kind of figured. Any further help you can provide at Lawrence Billy Jones III will be appreciated. It looks like an autobiography, and I'm at the point of not knowing whether to report the editor for vandalism, COI, or just go bowling. Thanks! 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah yeah, I'll take a look. Bowling is never a bad option though! GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've opted for AIV for more rapid response, but at this point any noticeboard could do. Growing tired of restoring templates to the thing. Cheers 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:54, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, the subject of the article does seem notable, and I'm working on cleaning up the article a bit. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:11, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes; I didn't challenge notability, but wanted to take the COI account out of the picture so it could be cleaned up a bit. It's worth watchlisting for further activity and IP socks. And thank you, and several other accounts, for helping out. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

heads up
Hi GorillaWarfare, you might want to do something -- damage control if nothing else -- re the User:Jytdog thing, where you've been asked to comment at Wikipedia talk:Harassment (there's a special section "Arbs, etc." which remains empty).

This kerfluffle doesn't seem to be going away soon. You're also not doing so well on the RfC, although you have a slim lead.

I'm contacting you in particular because you blocked User:Jytdog. I don't know him and it seems quite possible that he was a long-term tendentious editor with whom you and/or the admin corps just lost patience. If that's it then you should say so, I would advise.

Whether or not that's it, whatever you have to say would be of interest, I'm sure. Herostratus (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi . Thanks for the heads up—I've also just seen your ping over at WT:Harassment. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting it, but if "which remains empty" is a criticism of my slowness to respond, please know that the chances of me responding between 16:03 and when you left this note at 23:36 on a weekday (so 12:03–19:36 EST) are slim to none given my working hours. I will respond over there shortly, once I've had a chance to catch up on the discussion.


 * You're also not doing so well on the RfC, although you have a slim lead. Can you explain what you mean by this? I have commented very little on the subject as of yet, so unless there's some RfC about me that I don't know about, I'm not sure what you're referring to.


 * If I was going to block someone as a tendentious editor, I'd have said so. There were no secret plots to get rid of Jytdog here; I blocked for exactly the reason I gave: violation of the outing policy. When I informed the oversight team shortly after placing the block, they endorsed the block. Another oversighter has verified this if you don't want to take my word for it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not criticizing you, relax, I assumed you weren't even aware of that thread. It's not a matter of taking your word or that of other functionaries, at this point I think people are thirsting to know in more detail what happened exactly. "Violation of policy X" is insufficiently detailed at this point. You don't have to release any identifying information to explain in more detail.


 * Don't answer me here, rather make your point over there, at your convenience of course.


 * I'm not accusing anyone of secret plots, for goodness sakes. For my part, I'm fine with "last straw" as justification for blocking bad editors who seen uninclined to reform, even if the particular offense is not itself that bad. AFAIK this happens from time to time, and fine.


 * In fact I'd be happier if that was it. You say it's not, so here we have a good, very involved, very long-term, heroically prolific editor, who is terminated and probably without realistic recourse to appeal.


 * He must have done something very very bad. Tell us what it was! I'm sure once we know the facts people will understand.


 * In saying You're also not doing so well on the RfC, although you have a slim lead, I jumped the gun and made a false inference (for which I apologize) that you were not a fan of our policy "Posting links to other accounts on other websites is allowable on a case-by-case basis". I made this inference because some people have suggested that Jytdog was blocked for some harmless technical violation, such as showing a link between an account here an an account on a commercial-editing site, or something, in which case the policy "Posting links to other accounts on other websites is allowable on a case-by-case basis" would come into play if it's ever to be operative.


 * On reflection I realize that that can't be true. I know it can't be true because I know you wouldn't mess up the life of a good editor, an editor who has many more edits (and almost as much time in harness) as you or I, unless he had done some really terrible. I know how much of ourselves people like him pour into the project, and how very depressed editors like him must feel on being summarily banned, because I know how very depressed I would be and how much it would mess up my life.


 * I believe in you and I know you wouldn't do that to another person, and a good editor on the Wikipedia which you are sworn to protect (if he is, which I guess so), unless the person had done so very much more than a technical violation of a policy which even has a specific exception built in (not even counting WP:IAR).


 * You don't have to release any confidential information! I'm sure that if you explain that he dug up and released the name and home address and phone number of another good editor, or photoshopped another good editor doing some bad thing and posted it on the internet, or whatever he did, that people will rally to you. Herostratus (talk) 01:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Just noting I've seen this reply. I'm typing up a big ol' response to go on the WT page, and will append my responses to your points there as you've requested. Apologies if I misinterpreted some of what you are saying; I do appreciate the assumptions of good faith that you're making towards me and will be more careful to do so to you in return. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I imagine you're watching there, but just for completeness, noting that I've responded at WT:Harassment. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

In case you didn´t notice
There´s a misplaced usercomment at the top of this page. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gråbergs Gråa Sång! I did see the message, though I forgot to move it from the top of the page after reading it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

(moved) message from Gschofer
Being Jewish is a religion not an ethnicity. Calling Jewish people an ethnicity is like a racial slur. You would never describe a Christian person as ethnicity Christian. Let me put it this way. If a Christian converted to Judaism that would not make them ethnicity Jewish. Their religion is Jewish but not their ethnicity. I don't think any of you are Jewish and old enough to understand this fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gschofer (talk • contribs) 10:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia and United Nations Women Project
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) Delivered by Rosiestep (talk) via MassMessage 04:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

FYI
Noticed that you had commented about a previous action involving a certain editor, so thought you may find this discussion to be of interest:. Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk) 18:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Indigenous women & Polar women editathons
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC) via MassMessage

Question
Hi, can you please tell me why this page was locked? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PartyNextDoor

can you please check the source on the date of birth, it is false and not a good source. You are being tricked by vandals into believing a gossip site

here his correct date of birth is listed http://www.thefader.com/2015/04/21/partynextdoor-cover-story-interview from a reputable source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zbb12345 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello GW. I took the liberty of adding a section header so this wouldn't get lost on your talk page. I would add to Zbb123445 that someone born on July 3, 1993 is now 23 years old so your source either has a misprint or it was written three two years ago. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 05:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks MarnetteD. It was locked because of the constant edit warring and vandalism. Please discuss this change on Talk:PartyNextDoor so an agreement on the wording can be achieved. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I just added a comment there. I hope this gets cleared up soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zbb12345 (talk • contribs) 05:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Another year of this place? You need all the kittens you can get.

Gamaliel ( talk ) 02:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC) <br style="clear: both;"/>
 * Ehh what's one more :) GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:27, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Legal threats from recently blocked
Is revision deletion possible (hide the edit summary and the content) as a result of this user's recent contributions? He called the Wikipedia contributors "sexist". This is likely to be insulting to other contributors.  Eye snore  02:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have removed a few revisions that were direct attacks on various people. I haven't seen any legal threats, can you please link me to them? GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What you missed seems to be the edit summaries to the edits made to the Jimmy Wales page. They each have the edit summaries containing the words "sexism" or "sexist". Also, could you please unhide my cleanup edit? That removed all of the insulting material.  Eye snore  02:36, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I accidentally got one too many revisions when I was deleting. As for the Jimmy Wales edits, I don't see the mere inclusion of "sexism" or "sexist" as warranting revision-deletion, and the comments are not directed at any particular person. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * And finally, the four revisions    should be hidden as a result of the page containing offensive content.  Eye  snore  03:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't really feel those contain much that meets the RD criteria. Accusations of "trolling" are fairly benign and commonplace, and the sexism comments don't really fall under "grossly offensive", etc. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Caribana
Hi Gorilla ... I am a feminine identified drag queen with a black boyfriend, we are both wondering what was wrong with the submission. Yes I went to Teachers College & Employment Counselling Schools where people learn their values from what challenges them: inclusion maybe is very controversial. Soyer plus precise, svp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven Iwanow (talk • contribs) 02:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello. Your addition (as well as the one you made to 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting ) does not meet our Neutral point of view policy. As you'll see in that policy page, Wikipedia is not a place to express your own opinions. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikisource admniship again
You're again up for reconfirmation on Wikisource. It's going quite smoothly, however. Just thought you might want to know. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:13, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, thanks for the heads up haha. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:00, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Just to draw your attention
I saw your recent statement on my WP:ARC case. I have pointed out some relevant things in my section of the thread. I thought I'd draw your attention to it. If this is not necessary, or if this is a breach of protocol, please let me know. Debresser (talk) 13:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Should have used subst?
I admired the way you made a footnote in User talk:Jytdog, but I notice that you used which keeps updating for everyone who views it. Was it perhaps your intention to say instead?  &#8212;jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  06:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oops, thank you! GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Please enforce the word limits
Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy/Evidence --Guy Macon (talk) 02:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Why are you vandalizing the Margaret page
? Danoppo86 (talk) 00:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * GW actually protected the page and reverted unsourced, controversial claims about a living person. That's not vandalism. GABgab 00:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have also replied to your question on the talk page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I am not a page stalker nor is that grounds for anything the page is written with a humourous spin and she can be directly quoted as being transgender Danoppo86 (talk) 00:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The tps template refers to the poster, not others on the talk page. If Wambui has been quoted in a reliable source identifying herself as transgender, please provide the source and the information can be added to the page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

http://www.runnersworld.com/olympics/why-the-womens-800-will-be-the-most-controversial-race-at-the-olympics

http://press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jc.2012-3893

http://www.letsrun.com/news/2014/09/brief-history-intersex-athletes-sport/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danoppo86 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You claimed that "she can be directly quoted as being transgender". Where are the quotes in those links? Two of them are authors speculating about her with zero proof; one doesn't mention her at all. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I genuinely apologize for the confusion/bothering you, i misread a quote on one page and thought that the research paper was using her as a foil to the hyperandrogenous athletes and wanted her to get recognition. When i came on the page it was over curiosity over her gender and when i read it it said transgendered athlete. Then a minute later it didnt. The first edit was not me. When it was deleted i mistook it for someone trying to hide the fact that she was transgender (i understand it is uncertain) and wanted her to recieve recognition. That said, its important to have discussions like this even though this was a waste of time. Have a good day, i will avoid doing this on my phone to combat making poor decisions based on not being able to read small type. Have a good day.Danoppo86 (talk) 01:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, "uncertain" is generous, given that from what I can see neither she nor reliable sources even discuss that she might be trans. Thank you for understanding the reverts. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Upcoming editathons: Women in Nursing & Women Labor Activists
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC) via MassMessage

Thank you.
I sincerely appreciate your help yesterday re: the Wayne Dupree draft. I made one edit which was removing my feedback to the editor who had declined the article on the 22nd of August at the very top of the page. I don't think it affected what you did. Again, thank you so much. Cllgbksr (talk) 02:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Glad I could help! I saw your changes today, as I've added the page to my watchlist. They don't seem to have changed any of the edits I've made, but certainly feel free to make changes if you see any inaccuracies or omissions. I look forward to seeing how the AfC review turns out! GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Me too! Can't wait! I'm hoping the next notification I get is that the article has been moved into the Wiki encyclopedia. I think its been 4-5 days now since I resubmitted. Again thank you so much. Cllgbksr (talk) 20:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello GW. Hope you are having a great Labor day holiday. Question, I believe I submitted this on the 24th and today is the 5th of Sep.... does it normally take this long?  Wanted to make sure it wasn't hung up in the system.  Thoughts?  Cllgbksr (talk) 19:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Not more hung up than is normal, I guess. It's successfully been submitted, but there are 660 submissions waiting to be reviewed, so it can sometimes take a bit of time. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * 660 submissions to review...wow... Understand. Appreciate the reply... All the best... Cllgbksr (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello GW. Hope all is well..Thought I'd say hello and was wondering how Wikipedia is doing with their backlog?...its been 3 weeks since we visited last...are submissions worked oldest to newest?...again appreciate all your help.... Cllgbksr (talk) 19:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The backlog is still huge, but yes, many reviewers prioritize the older submissions. It's taking a pretty long time though, so I'm just going to go ahead and move it myself. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much GW... Many thanks....  Question, I saw this on the header today of the article and wonder what it means?  "This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; try the Find link tool for suggestions. (September 2016)" Do you know?Cllgbksr (talk) 16:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:ORPHAN goes into a lot of detail about it, but it basically means that there are no other Wikipedia articles that contain wikilinks to the Wayne Dupree article. This isn't the end of the world, and I'm not sure there's a particularly organic way to de-orphan this article right now without introducing unnecessary links from tangentially-related articles. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 * gotcha GW... appreciate that input... Cllgbksr (talk) 03:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Removing comments
The person I responded to is some suspected sockpuppet account that's been dormant-- or so it seems-- for six or more years. I very much doubt that they'd see my comment in response in the first place.

With that being said, I do otherwise take issue with the removal. What I said about Eidelberg or whatever his name is seems to fit the bill. What I said about the guy defending a rabid Palestinian-hating fanatic and his fanaticism and hatred at that, fits the bill as well.

It wasn't overly uncivil, it was just calling it as it is. That shouldn't be a problem. 70.27.162.84 (talk) 22:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I see that the account has been blocked, so that's a non-issue now. Generally speaking, sometimes Wikipedia does have to include information about and from people who hold controversial and even hateful opinions in order to satisfy neutrality and due weight policies. Keep in mind that people arguing for this information to be included do not always support those views. I am not familiar with the user you were responding to, so I'm just speaking generally. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I wasn't arguing against the posting of scribblings by some vile little Palestinian-hating Jew pretending to be a professor or a "credible academic". Barring the fact that the comments in question are related to the talk page only and not even the official article, the point of my entire post was to call the "professor" and his supporters out as what they clearly are. Semantics, at best, when you consider that it's a dead account. I just couldn't not see that kind of rubbish and not respond to it.


 * This is further semantics, but it's pretty clear that the banned user in question agrees with or otherwise is fine with the warped and evil mindset of the "academic" in question. That's why he's defending his character and his "right to his opinions". 70.27.162.84 (talk) 23:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Regardless of the opinions of this person, attacks like you've just made on him and on Wikipedia editors are completely unacceptable. I've just removed your latest comment; don't re-add similar commentary. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * What "attacks"? Name one example of an "attack". As in a baseless and insulting accusation or whatever an "attack" might be defined as. 70.27.162.84 (talk) 00:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Civility. "ill-bred and malevolent person". "execrable scribblings". GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Uris has been dead 13 years. It's fairly clear why I'm calling him those things and what I'm referring to in the context of his literary "work". It's not really a personal attack or harassment, nor is it slander or anything of that nature. But this is semantics again; I've posted indisputable evidence--as quoted from the source by N. Finkelstein-- that the man was a racist of the worst kind, for the talk page. Hopefully that'll settle the matter. 70.27.162.84 (talk) 00:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Evidence suppression at TRM's Arb case
GW,    Please advise why this evidence was suppressed? Is it because the author is an IP, a formatting issue, other reason? Thank you in advance for your consideration. 2600:8806:4800:5100:44EC:E58:960F:420A (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, Bugs called it trolling and I can see his point. It's really up to a clerk to make those calls, though. Drmies (talk) 00:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep, should have noted here that I've brought this up with the clerks for review. in the future it's best to let the clerks know if you think there's a post that should be removed, rather than removing it yourself. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:RailWorks 3.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:RailWorks 3.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:05, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for helping me get back some of the cited info on my author page. I really appreciated your help. Bonniegrrl (talk) 04:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure thing! Glad I could help. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to bother...
Hello, I saw your name in the arbitrator list and randomly decided to contact you because my posts/messages to the community are repeatedly being deleted with the technicality of 'sockpuppet' being used as a justification. This means that I am not actually able to address a disagreement through the proper channels and is, I would think, in total contravention of the intention of the wiki policies. Any new account that tries to address the blatant vandalism of several pages that would fall in the category of 'osgoode hall law school alumni' is deemed 'sockpuppet' so that no dissent is possible or even visible. Several of these pages (pages about alumni of this law school) have had recently added category tags ('osgoode hall law school alumni'), as well as other constructive contributions, repeatedly reverted. Anyone who tries to revert the vandalism is then told that THEIR contributions are not constructive and blocked...because some of the people involved in this destructive editing behaviour are actually administrators! Obviously this also puts them at fault for abusing their admin powers in addition to engaging in vandalism. Please make this matter known to arbitrators/other admins if you can...I have tried to address the issue but just find that posts/messages disappear and that I am not even able to post in the dispute resolution boards. You should be able to see an attempt for a reversion dispute resolution request that was deleted about the page Malcolm Archibald Macdonald on the arbitration request page history. This Macdonald page is just one which is being abused by these people: they remove tags about the law school alumni pages. I know you may be busy but even if you do not want to participate in this please let people know about this abuse. Not only is claiming 'sockpuppetry' not a valid reason to a) prevent any posting about a dispute resolution issue or b) protect vandalism, but it is difficult to imagine how this behaviour could be undertaken in good faith. I'm sure that if I try to add something constructive to certain pages of this law school's alumni I will find myself soon blocked and the contributions reverted...reverting the alumni tag?...that's appropriate? Please allow these contributions to remain. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.243.183.67 (talk) 04:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Looking at the Macdonald article, I would guess the original edit adding that category was undone because it also unnecessarily removed links elsewhere. Subsequent accounts did not fix that error, they simply reinstated the edit. Given that the article had not been edited in quite some time before these three accounts came along to make the same edit, it's pretty clear that they are sockpuppets.


 * I also see from the dispute resolution request (not arbitration, to be clear) that there were concerns in 2015 about promotional editors trying to insert more content about this school into the encyclopedia, which could explain why people are wary of edits such as these.


 * I see from your contributions that this is not the IP you've been using to edit these articles, so it's hard for me to help you specifically. If you have not created an account already, it would be very helpful if you would do so, as IPs often change and it can be very confusing to know who is who. If you have already created an account, please don't edit without logging in. If you can't edit from your account, please appeal the block on the account instead of editing through other accounts/IPs. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Kittens
--Cameron11598 (Talk) 06:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Nice doing business with you! GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science
Hi there. Your revert of my revert on Reference desk/Science reinstated the personal details vandalism / spam. I have reverted you. You may wish to revdel the remaining bits there. Murph 9000 (talk) 00:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all that you are doing in dealing with this jerk. Your efforts are much appreciated. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 00:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up, Murph9000. Not sure how that happened, but I've fixed it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

FoodNotBombs logo now PD
Hi,

as the original uploader of File:Food Not Bombs (emblem).png i wanted to let you know that the original author, Keith McHenry released it into the public domain now. See my edit at. Could you help and replace the non-free media template accordingly? We can also upload it to commons and use it on any wiki now. Thanks Mutante (talk) 00:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Mutante. It looks like you already added it to Commons, so I've just deleted the version of the file that was stored on the English Wikipedia and made a couple fixes to the Commons page. Should be all set! GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:11, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


 * That's great, thank you very much GorillaWarfare. Mutante (talk) 17:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to 	 Women in Architecture & Women in Archaeology editathons
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC) via MassMessaging

A banana barnstar and a little monkey business
Had to admit I always thought you were a guy. But I truly believe that the site deserves people like you especially those who handle arbitration. Arbcom decision are a prime example of consensus building so keep up the good work. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 11:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)