User talk:Guerillero/Archives/2015/February

I agree it's easier if Arbcom pretends this didn't happen.
I question this edit [] as being a way to evade scrutiny of the arbcom decision. Arbcom sure put their foot in their collective mouth so I understand you wanting to hide it but I think the committee already did enough damage all by their lonesome without running scared wouldn't you agree? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no hiding and no coverup; there is a long tradition of workshop and talk pages being courtesy blanked if they contain real names or if the pseudonyms have been tied to real world names. I have purposefully left the part of the case that is potentially embarrassing to the arbs, the Proposed Decision page, up because I feel that there is value to having it immediately visible and it is one of the few parts of the case that is of public interest. The rest of the case pages exist to help the committee make their decision. (I did this as a personal action and I was not acting on behalf of ArbCom or the clerk office) -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  19:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

What is this?
You have just "courtesy blanked" over 1.5 million bytes of community testimony and debate in the Arbcom Gamergate case... On what possible grounds?!?!? LINK. Carrite (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, that's over 1.8 million bytes... How does this square with "Courtesy blanking, history blanking, or oversighting should be rare, and should be performed only after due consideration." ? Carrite (talk) 20:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , everything's still available in the history. In fact, all you have to do is click on the last version before Guerillero's edit and you can see everything, warts 'n' all; you can even link to it—the URL of that version is a permalink. The thing with wikis is that it's damn near impossible to get rid of something completely, no matter how much you want to. The rationale was fairly obvious when I first saw it: among those millions of bytes of text is interminable petty bickering, personal attacks, vexatious allegations, and all sorts of other things that wouldn't be acceptable anywhere else. The allegations that the arbs found to hold water are all on the PD page and in the final decision; the rest I can't imagine a legitimate use for, but it's all there two clicks away for anyone who does have a legitimate use for it. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  20:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This is rare because it happens less than once a year. The last case that was Sexology and the case before that was Fæ. (This has happened a few other times since 2009 1, 2) My full reasoning is in response to Hell in a Bucket above. -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  21:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The Sexology and Fae blanking statements contain clear links to the page history. Please add them to the Gamergate ones you just added. NE Ent 21:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * done -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  22:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Museum hacks and museum edits
 Hello there!

Upcoming events:


 * February 6–8: The third annual ArtBytes Hackathon at the Walters Art Museum! This year Wikimedia DC is partnering with the Walters for a hack-a-thon at the intersection of art and technology, and I would like to see Wikimedia well represented.
 * February 11: The monthly WikiSalon, same place as usual. RSVP on Meetup or just show up!
 * February 15: Wiki Loves Small Museums in Ocean City. Mary Mark Ockerbloom, with support from Wikimedia DC, will be leading a workshop at the Small Museum Association Conference on how they can contribute to Wikipedia. Tons of representatives from GLAM institutions will be present, and we are looking for volunteers. If you would like to help out, check out "Information for Volunteers".

I am also pleased to announce events for Wikimedia DC Black History Month with Howard University and NPR. Details on those events soon.

If you have any questions or have any requests, please email me at james.hare@undefinedwikimediadc.org.

See you there! – James Hare

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 03:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Precious again
  Toil, tools, tradition and trust

Thank you for quality articles such as Toil, Tradition and Jackie Hudson, for knowing about "no justice", for your focus on future, collaboration and tools, for, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (13 February 2011)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC) A year ago, you were the 751st recipient of my  Pumpkin Sky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

ps Thank you for Growth of a Leader! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much Gerda. I missed this -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  22:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Did you see a lovely exchange of flowers regarding another duck? Remember that Smerus and I were (or even are?) believed to be opponents in the socalled infobox wars? I don't know where people looked who arrived at that view, certainly not at an infobox discussion all participants seem to have enjoyed ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 February 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Salvio's oppose
Please consider the merits of Salvio's oppose. I think it's the best idea in front of the committee now for this situation and will help vastly address both peoples complaints. Nothing say it has to be a popular result but a fair result that benefits the encyclopedia that stops disruption is the way to go. Those sanctions of admin boards removal is something that has seemed to work well with Tarc. I would ddefintely sacrifice my pride for such an equitable result. It doesn't address the off wiki issues butI don't follow people on private websites and can easily ignore the attack page. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, the evidence, that I can see, does not line up with the narrative that has been popularized by Salvio. -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  17:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia DC celebrates Black History Month, and more!
 Hello again!

Not even a week ago I sent out a message talking about upcoming events in DC. Guess what? There are more events coming up in February.

First, as a reminder, there is a WikiSalon on February 11 (RSVP here or just show up) and Wiki Loves Small Museums at the Small Museum Association Conference on February 15 (more information here).

Now, I am very pleased to announce:


 * Tuesday, February 17 from 10 AM to 3 PM there will be #WikiTurgy at the University of Maryland. Join fellow theatre enthusiasts for a “mass act of public dramaturgy!”
 * Thursday, February 19 from 10 AM to 4 PM we are hosting the Howard University Black History Edit-a-Thon. We are working in partnership with the Moorland-Spingarn Research Center to improve Wikipedia’s coverage of African-American and African diasporic history.
 * Tuesday, February 24 from 6 PM to 8 PM we have the Black History Month “First Edit” at NPR. Help improve Wikipedia and help others make their first edit to Wikipedia!
 * Finally, our monthly dinner meetup is on Saturday, February 28.

There is going to be a lot going on, and I hope you can come to some of the events!

If you have any questions or need any special accommodations, please let me know.

Regards,

James Hare

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 18:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

GA Review on "Imagined Contact Hypothesis"
Hi Guerillero, thank you for looking at my GA nomination. I have made changes based on your review and comments. If you can continue with the process that would be much appreciated. Best, Npalt123 (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have replied -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  00:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Question re: sockpuppet block
Hi - I had a quick question about. In light of Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality/Workshop, I was reviewing this account's history in a bit more detail. This is obviously someone's alternate account (I can go into more detail about the reasons why I think this is obvious, but you've probably already picked up on them). The account has, equally obviously, been used to follow and hound Roscelese by reverting her edits: in addition to targeting Roscelese's edits at Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism, shortly after this account was established s/he followed Roscelese to a number of other articles to revert her edits, including Care Net, crisis pregnancy center , Norma McCorvey , and Noel Treanor , among others. There is no other credible explanation for this pattern of edits besides intentionally tracking and reverting Roscelese's edits. In my view, this is an alternate account which was established to hound another editor (other admins, such as, have also picked up on this). So here's my question. Ordinarily, I would just block an account like this, since it's forbidden to create new accounts to stalk others' edits. But this account is a party in an active ArbCom case. Should I proceed as I normally would, using my administrative judgement? Or should I wait for the case to conclude? I was going to do the latter, but it sounds from your comment at the workshop like the Committee views this as a matter to be handled through outside processes. I just wanted to check in before doing anything potentially rash. Thanks. MastCell Talk 18:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no strong feelings on this subject, but I ask that you contact the drafting Arbs before you block because I don't know how much of this is on their radar. I did run a CU on and I can tell you that the range that they use is clean. The block will need to rely on behavioral evidence alone. -- Guerillero  &#124;  My Talk  23:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. In order to avoid repeating myself, I'll try this: what do you think? Feel free to respond on my talkpage or by email if you'd rather not clutter up Guerillero's page. Thanks again. MastCell Talk 23:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Richard Withers
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 February 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you
For reconsidering your vote on the site-ban in the Wifione case. A unanimous decision sends a much clearer message, and you have my respect for being willing to look again. Begoon &thinsp; talk 12:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Your welcome. It was a hard switch but I think the outcome is for the betterment of the project. -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  21:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry made mistake
Sorry, I didn't know that my addition to the "Sources" section of the Punk rock article needed a prior reference (I did not realize that it had to be exclusively a "works cited"). Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Secret
You protected, but you can just unsubscribe him from the mass messages. I removed him from one here.  Enigma msg  19:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There are a multitude of reasons that a full protected Secrets talk page. Mass messages was only one of them. (It would take hours to figure out all of the distribution lists that I have accumulated since 2009, I can't imagine how much time it would take to figure out all of the list another person, who has an older account than me, is on.) -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  22:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I was just going by your summary. It usually is pretty simple. I look at the history and see which bots are leaving messages and then I go unsubscribe from those lists.  Enigma msg  00:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Small aside but I wanted to list User:Secret/Thurman Munson for MFD and notify him (it's a five year old fake article of Thurman Munson). While I as an admin can likely override your protection, I'd ask that you remove it first. I'm not sure it's warranted. Also User talk:Secret (renamed) is unprotected which I believe is the same editor. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks like an abandoned draft to me, not a fake article. I would personally, IAR G13 it because there is nothing in that draft that can be merged into the main article. If you want to bring it to MFD, then bring it without notifying Secret. The notice won't help the project any. As for removing my full protection, I am not going to do that for reasons I will not go into publicly. -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  19:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, to stop all newsletters etc, you can just add the page to Category:Opted-out of message delivery. Obviously if there are other reasons to prevent it being edited, that won't help; just ... FYI. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There are. -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  17:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think G13 is only for Articles for Creation articles, not every draft. I'll do it without the notice. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hense the IAR part. There isn't a draft for someone to take under their wing here. -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  17:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 February 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Just FYI
The edit you reverted was an attempt at a compromise solution. I agree with you, but there has been some misunderstanding over the meaning of the summary. You might care to weigh in on the talk page if we're to avoid more people getting the wrong end of the stick and going round in circles. Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  12:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What part of Bold, Revert, Discuss do people not understand? "I think I am right so I am going to keep on edit warring (which is kinda Wheel Warring) without letting a discussion happen" is a really good reason for someone to get blocked. I honestly don't get why people who don't have access to the OS interface and can't use those reasons for RevDeleting per policy are jet set on changing something that has stood since 2007 under a consensus. I will deal with this after I get off of work. --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  19:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for your reversion on the DS policy page. There are a number of different ARBCOM talk pages so I'm often worried that a comment on one of them won't be seen. I was surprised in following this matter up that the editor who didn't understand what DS were is actually an admin! It's not a comforting thought that an admin who has the power to impose sanctions doesn't understand what they are but I guess education is an ongoing process. But I appreciate your response to the conversation. Liz Read! Talk! 22:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

On userpages
Sometimes in the past I'd edit other users' userpages, spruce them up as it seems. Sometimes they go on to do great things, like manage the Signpost, and somethings they go on to do some other pretty ok things too, like sit on ArbCom.#|joking And the skills I picked up doing that allow me today to come up with some really fancy template tricks of use to others today. But also sometimes I end up on these users' pages and I just have to say to myself, "Wow it's been four years and they're still rocking that technicolor monstrosity!?!".

Hope it's been well, Res</b> Mar 04:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, this is embarrassing&mdash;on the point of editorial management I...confused you with another administrator. My apologies! <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:#333333; font-size:small;">Res</b> Mar 05:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You didn't make a mistake; userpage was designed by you back in 2012. It looked pretty different then but the blue and orange color scheme remains. I should probably rework it, but it just isn't at the top of my todo list. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  18:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you have the wrong link there! But I definitely know what you mean. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:#333333; font-size:small;">Res</b> Mar 18:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed I do have the wrong link -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  19:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thesis break
--In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  18:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2015
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2015
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The Center Line: Winter 2015

 * —MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of 18:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)