This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Following a request for comment, F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.
Technical news
When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. (T278350)
Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. (T277803)
Thanks for uploading File:InstituteofCharteredAccountantsinAustralia.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).
As a teacher, I just wanted to thanks you for the time, understanding and thought you put into that post. You may have just given someone an opportunity there to turn themselves around. I hope they take it. Much respect. GirthSummit (blether)18:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Curious if you're going to comment on the ANI thread now? This case is quite sad, honestly. It seems like they got caught up in an ideology that they didn't understand - and which is very successful in manipulating people - yet now that they start to understand it, they've burned enough of their bridges with the community here that they're likely to be sitebanned. (I don't even know what I would like to see happen, to be honest, so I haven't commented, but you've been here much longer so I'm curious what your thoughts are) Elli (talk | contribs) 23:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't commented for the same reasons as you. On the one hand, I'd really like to think he has actually reflected on his actions like he claims, but this is the second time in two weeks this has happened. And this is the second time that he was blocked and then immediately went 180˚, expressing regret for what he said and promising it wouldn't happen again. I worry that he's just saying what he thinks we want to hear in order to get unblocked. My impression is that he is impressionable and impulsive, and it may well be that the best scenario would be for him to come back in a few years with a little more maturity, assuming he still wishes to edit. GorillaWarfare(talk)23:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of neutrality and accuracy in article on 2020 protests and riots
I don’t understand why you removed my revisions. The article as written implies that institutional racism exists in policing though this is disputed by many credible studies. I merely changed it to be neutral and not assume facts not known to be true. It also includes information which is not supported by the articles cited, specifically that police have instigated violence at the protests and that there are examples of white supremacist organizations. The articles cited on the police instigation only imply this without providing any specifics. The article cited with respect to “examples” of white supremacist activity deals with only one very limited incident in Stone Mountain, Georgia which as far as I can tell was not even a significant site of protests last year. I believe my edits significantly improved the accuracy and neutrality of the article. Gregausman (talk) 04:02, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gregausman: As I wrote in my edit summary, this is best discussed at the article talk page. If you would like I can move this comment for you, or you can post a new one there. I will respond in more detail there. GorillaWarfare(talk)04:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you are keeping things happy and well there during this pandemic times. I thought to e-mail you about the things that happened so far are bothering me sadly from last few weeks. Its really very serious. The article I created is available at Draft:Jordan_Nash. Please stay safe. AntheaNash (talk) 00:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(tps comment) - I hate it when I do that. Usually it's me trying to tap on "diff" and accidentally hitting an adjacent "rollback". Oops. :o Antandrus(talk)02:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Peevish
Hi, as I was closing out the RFC I reread my post from last night and realized that it came across as a bit more peevish than I had meant it to. I think I was a bit more tired than I realized. I wanted to clear the air and say sorry for that tone. Hope you have a good weekend,
Because you edit warred in content that Koncorde had already objected to (bug bounty program), rather than engaged in discussion to achieve consensus. You are also apparently continuing the crusade to tar Dominion with negative publicity that has been earned by other companies, later acquired by Dominion, using sources that do not mention Dominion; I have objected to this in the past, as have others. I have not seen Koncorde be abusive to you in the interactions I've observed, but if you feel they have been, you may bring your concerns (with diffs) to WP:ANI or a similar noticeboard. GorillaWarfare(talk)00:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The user group oversight will be renamed to suppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.
Arbitration
The community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure was closed, and an initial draft based on feedback from the now closed consultation is expected to be released in early June to early July for community review.
Hello, sourced information and it's sources are misleading, one sided and have nothing to do with reality. I also added information and its respective sources. This specific individual is by profession journalist in the German speaking realm. His work and of it's contributors is well documented. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crashroom (talk • contribs) 00:13, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In which case you should discuss your concerns with the sources on the article talk page, not remove the statements wholesale with no explanation. I'm not seeing sources that you added, aside from a link to the Ken.FM website. GorillaWarfare(talk)00:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
--Crashroom (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC) Your abusing your administrative powers and that is a fact. I didn't do any disruptive work , personal commentary or analysis. I state facts with their sources. Cheers[reply]
--Crashroom (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2021 (UTC)Yes, you are misuing them. The subject's statements are easily verifiable and if I wanted to pufferise his works I would do a better job than this. Cheers.[reply]
CNN clip
You beat me to it! I just got done watching this clip and was about to remove it too. O'Brien does seem to be paraphrasing the intro, but obviously that's not the same as mentioning Wikipedia. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no written reference to my changes to the Denaʼina language because it is horribly documented. The reason I know this is because I've been to the two villages where this language was spoken. The Nondalton Clinic said one person in Nondalton is left in Nondalton that speaks the language. I talked to everyone in Lime Village when I was there in 2019, and they told me only one person left in town speaks it. "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dena%CA%BCina_language — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.152.127.190 (talk) 17:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oceanside is the only side IS THE OFFICIAL MOTTO of Oceanside, CA. Please fix this. I'm third generation Oceanside and can't believe you've never heard of this. You must not be from Oceanside, sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.217.83.168 (talk) 02:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi GorillaWarfare, I was talking to a few editors about how to streamline a BLP page which had become a bullet list of trivial events and mentions. Given that that was (in part) your concern in our last discussion I wanted to bounce their approach off you and see how it struck you.
Rather than putting every single reference in the history section, the major points could be pulled out to a separate section and summarized. This structures the article in such a way as to make trivia addition less likely since it would need to rise to a theme to add. IE it wouldn't make sense to add a single incident, but only groups of events along a similar topic.
I really like this structure and I think you can see how much cleaner pages like CNN's read that have adopted that approach. I wanted to pick your brain on this before developing a similar structure for the Babylon Bee article.
Hm, can you clarify what you're proposing when you say Rather than putting every single reference in the history section, the major points could be pulled out to a separate section and summarized? Looking at the CNN article, much of the article is in subsections under "History". What would you change in the structure of the Babylon Bee article? GorillaWarfare(talk)18:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I think the best contrast is the difference between CNN and The Onion. The latter reads as a bullet point list of every notable event in the site's life span. The former has broad categories with narrative. IE Gulf War, September 11, etc that tie into how they affected the network rather than something more akin to 'on X date, Politician Y said CNN is bad.'
For example, the Gulf War section is not a list of every ponderous detail about CNN's coverage of the war, rather it is a narrative highlighting the theme that this was a critical moment in the network's history because they had more indepth coverage and kept pace with events. All of the sub-points within that section support that overall theme.
Tying that into the Babylon Bee page, I think we need to consolidate the various sections relating to media interaction into a section with that label and tie it into the wider evolution of journalism's understanding and dealing with fake news. That, I think, is the broader topic that ties a lot of the sub-topics together (Snopes, NYT, Trump, etc) on the page. The media's (broadly speaking) attempts to address a growing onslaught of misinformation and the site's attempt to push back and clarify its role.
This, I hope, will address the concerns during the RFC as well, as it makes it less likely that a random twitter spat will end up there. Those don't really fit into the theme.
I'd be curious to see a draft of your ideas, because I'm still not 100% sure I've got an accurate picture of what you have in mind (particularly with broadening the section to discuss the wider evolution of journalism's understanding of fake news). It could definitely make sense to pull the Snopes section up and into the history section, but I'm not sure it makes a ton of sense to deviate from the standard chronological format to try to categorize everything under subheadings.
Will do. I'll write up a draft and post on the talk page there. I wanted to run it by you first to see if I was way off base before investing in the writing. Give me a couple of days and I'll put it over there next week. Thanks, Squatch347 (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IRC
I've a very poor connection (thus not even trying to post at AN) and must log off, but I hope that you or one of your friendly talk page watchers will put a notice at WP:IRC regarding the Freenode issues. Cheers, BlackcurrantTea (talk) 19:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing that Tweet/Youtube video to my attention. Good stuff, but I guess that just shows the extent to which the public doesn't understand this thing of ours. ‡ Єl Cid of Valenciatalk20:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The way the media world works is that if a defamatory comment is made about someone, every news paper and media organization comments on it and rarely anyone defends the person being slandered. Quoting from Acosta, "We all get put through the meatgrinder in this town". And that is a major problem in today's world. Few will standby a loner if he gets crushed by the media which is why we need journals, and historians of different political leanings to take the opinion away from inflammatory articles and focus on the facts. That is also why blanket trusted sources (as in every article sourced to that org gets a 100% trustworthy ranking) does not work. For instance years ago Wikipedia would have reported that Sir Cliff Richards sexually abused children only for that to be proven as fake news years later. Putting unproven allegations on a person's page(or on the company that they own's page) is wrong in itself as it makes the reader assume they have done the alleged offense. TheeFactChecker (talk) 23:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I said repeatedly on the talk page, take it to WP:RSN. It's not clear to me still if you want to contest this specific source or CNN's general reliability, since your examples have nothing to do with the piece on Gab, but either way RSN is the place to go. GorillaWarfare(talk)02:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as harassment. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nousername46000 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I made it clear from the very beginning that the edit that was in the Nick Fuentes article made no sense at all and that it did not deserve to be in the final article. You then undid that and I did too, saying this needed to move to the discussion page. At this point I didn't assume bad intentions. However, when User:Jorm undid this for no reason when the conflict had seemingly been resolved, that was totally uncalled for, so I undid that aswell. Then, when you hit back and put a warning on my page, it was clear that neither you or him are interested in actually finding common ground and a good solution to the dispute, I had to respond with a level 2 harassment warning. I have added to the Nick Fuentes discussion page so I hope this can be sorted out thereNousername46000 (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BRD is pretty clear: you made a bold edit, I reverted, so you should have started a discussion then, not continued to revert. I think You then undid that and I did too, saying this needed to move to the discussion page. may be the basis of the misunderstanding: the onus is on you to make a case for new edits which have been changed; not on other editors to maintain the status quo.
I already replied on the article talk page to agree with you that more probably ought to be added about the show, so I don't know what it was clear that neither you or him are interested in actually finding common ground and a good solution to the dispute is about. Asking you to stop edit warring (which three reverts in just over 24 hours absolutely is) with a templated warning is by no stretch of the imagination harassment. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for the previous block. If you can ban my IP address and the entire range permanently that'll be great. Thank you and sorry for the trouble.
Can you also extend the block on IP 74.104.130.117 to permanently as well? Thank you so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B062:AA2F:4113:A723:EAA8:99A6 (talk) 21:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ADL documenting and warning of antisemitism on social media
The ADL said it has documented antisemitism on Facebook, Twitter, TikTok and Instagram, with messages including explicit praise for Hitler, promoting tropes about Jewish control and demonizing all Jews.
The ADL says it found more than 17,000 tweets using variations of the phrase, “Hitler was right” between May 7 and May 14, 2021.
I would recommend beginning a discussion on the talk pages of those articles, so that editors who actively edit them can review whether it ought to be added. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, GorillaWarfare. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
If you block that IP simply over their disruptive editing of NPOVN, I will defend your actions as a reasonable exemption to the cited policy to my dying breath.
If, on the other hand, you believe that's not a review you want to have, I fully intend to ask another admin directly to do so. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.16:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MjolnirPants: It's been a pretty protracted dispute, and I don't think I would defend it as an exemption to WP:INVOLVED. While I agree that their edits have been increasingly tendentious, it should not be my block to make. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:04, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm letting you know in advance about a meeting I'd like to invite you to regarding the Universal Code of Conduct and the community's ownership of its future enforcement. I'm still in the process of putting together the details, but I wanted to share the date with you: 27 June, 2021. I do not have a time on this date yet, but I will let you soon. We have created a meta page with basic information. Please take a look at the meta page and sign up your name under the appropriate section.
Invitation to participate in discussion on Talk:LBRY
Hi Molly! I just wanted to invite you to have a discussion about some of the wording in the lead of the LBRY article that you've added. I've set-up a starting point here. I definitely don't mean for this to be critical of your contributions to the article, I only want to pursue NPOV. Thanks for all of your hard work here on Wikipedia! Brian Reading (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the notification, I've responded there. I have the page on my watchlist, so no need to ping or notify me here for future replies. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the page to my watchlist. I see they've been advised to begin an RfC on the latest disputed content, so I would like to give them a chance to do so before taking any action. As for the pattern of POV-pushing, I think ANI is a better place for that—I am not super familiar with the topic area. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Henanton, no, it really does, because we've told you, time and time again, and there is ample documentation: the "Syrian Orthodox Church" was historically used to refer to the Church of Antioch, also headquartered in Syria, and this precisely explains why the source says what it says, but you just can't hear us over your own walls of text.Elizium23 (talk) 06:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just search, "Syrian Orthodox Church" on google and see the results. None of them say anything about the Greek Church and F. Murray Abraham never said his paternal grandfather was part of it. He said he was part of a church similar to the Russian and Greek Antioach. That's it. This is embarrassing at this point. Henanton (talk) 06:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Henanton: This is really a conversation that ought to be had at Talk:F. Murray Abraham. I would recommend also including in that discussion an explanation of why Abraham's grandfather's specific church is something that ought to be included in the article at all, as it is unusual to include that much detail about extended family in biographies unless those family members are themselves notable. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eugene Gu
Let the record show I tried my best, but with the conversation on my talk page and the discussion on Talk:Eugene Gu, I believe that AsianAmericanAdvocate and the IP are incapable of a rational policy-based discussion together. AsianAmericanAdvocate actually reverted my removing personal attacks against them because they wanted a record to paint the other person in a bad light. However you choose to intervene, the discussion isn't helping anyone–I'll start an actual RfC once they're out of the picture. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 09:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: I am watching the talk page, though I apologize for being slow to intervene in this most recent blow-up (I was offline). I have shut down the disruption on the talk page and given the IP a last warning. I didn't see the conversation on your talk page until you mentioned it; I see you don't wish for it to continue and so I didn't reply there, but I have replied at User talk:AsianAmericanAdvocate#Regarding the conversation on Theleekycauldron's talk page. It's intensely frustrating to try to have a content discussion when various individuals insist on slinging mud (as you aptly put it), and I appreciate your attempts to do so regardless. I'll try to keep a close eye on the page. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.
Hello ma’am, there’s a group of trolls in the middle of attacking Kim Reynolds. It’s getting very severe and we need help. Could you please protect the page and/or block the IP vandals? Thanks, Helen (let’s talk) 20:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the Winston Boogie Smith protests, should the library in Wikimedia Commons be renamed? Are you able to do that? There are several photos here[2] that are really about Winston Boogie Smith protests, not the actually killing of Winston Smith. Or should the Commons category should just be "Winston Boogie Smith" to cover the broader topic area? Just pointing this out as you appear to be an expert for these matters. Kind regards, Minnemeeples (talk) 20:42, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, GorillaWarfare. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Can you please explain to me why you reverted an edit made on Ideological bias on Wikipedia despite a factual justification for that edit being provided?
I'm not talking about a warning. A cut and paste warning followed by banning someone for making a justified edit is merely an abuse of power, not an explanation. I am talking about an explanation for your revert. You still have not justified that, nor responded on the talk page of the article itself despite three separate opportunities to do so (and, I might add, a growing consensus on the issue itself). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.87.12.34 (talk) 03:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are certainly entitled to your own opinions about templated messages, but they are widely used and well accepted as sufficient warning before a block. You were warned about edit warring, you continued to edit war, and so I blocked. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 11:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Help with page protection please.
Hello, I noticed you previously added a page protection template for the Miloš Obilić article. Is there any way you can please help restore the template, possibly for a longer duration? As soon as the protection expired there was an act of vandalism which started a cycle of edit warring again. The culprits try to add unsourced content, without any discussion. Your help would be greatly appreciated.Spirit Fox99 (talk) 07:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
@Cameronnewland: If you are holding off on your report because you were concerned I might not be properly notified of the American politics discretionary sanctions, there is no need. If you are alerted of discretionary sanctions by an editor, that editor can automatically be considered aware of the sanctions. I also was an arbitrator in one of the cases in which the sanctions were authorized, so I think I can probably be safely assumed to be aware of them... GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:59, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
LBRY
I stumbled across the LBRY talk page. So much projection! At the moment I use my real nickname in the parentheses after my sig. Now I will use my pronouns instead and find another place for 'Phil'.
Thanks for the note. There is a lot of material on the talk page about this (most of it from me, but see in particular the quotation from Daily Nous for the insider view). Over the past year I have been editing the article toward increasing accordance with the original and virtually exclusive academic use of the term "the trolley problem". The nonacademic use is sometimes different but there are few if any RS that clearly use Trolley Problem to refer to individual scenarios, rather than for brevity after stating "the" problem in the conventional academic terms. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your work on the article. It is best to state the problem in the caption; your edited version seemed to imply support for one answer to the dilemma. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:29, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem statement (which is "why do different 5-vs-1 sacrificial dilemmas elicit different judgements", not "should you divert the train") does not logically require any indication of what the particular judgements were, but is surprisingly hard to describe readably at image-caption length that connects to the diagram without stating the judgement of the illustrated case. I wrote "often considered permissible" to avoid a Wikivoice statement that it is generally permissible, and there may well be a reasonable phrasing that is even more neutral, but...
... in the original papers by the formulators of the problem, Philippa Foot states that it is so seen and Judith Thompson says that every single philosopher she asked said it is permissible (if not required), and (as touched on in the article) surveys of philosophers and of the general public found a large majority on the side of permissible. So the caption could be rewritten in a more sterilized form, but indicating the permissibility consensus for that particular scenario is actually part of every explanation of the trolley problem outside of Wikipedia. To not say it may actually be misleading.
I agree that it is difficult to represent the topic in an image-length caption—it might be best to just caption it "An illustration of the trolley problem" or similar and leave the reader to read the article for the additional context.
Regarding the deletions, they seem well-explained in the summaries, so I would recommend taking it up on the talk page or with Drmies directly if you think any of them ought to be undone. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will wait to see what, if anything, happens with the DrMies deletions before modifying the caption. "Illustration of one of the scenarios included in the trolley problem" (then mention the runaway train, switch, 1 vs 5, and if space allows, the scenario-dependence of judgements as "the" problem) would be both neutral and correct. Thanks for raising the issue. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I made a minimalist fix to the caption compatible with both my concerns and yours. The edits have taken a different direction since the DrMies removals so rather than perfect the caption I left it in an OK state that doesn't contradict article or academic literature and can be left as is indefinitely. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 20:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sunshine
Sunshine!
Hello GorillaWarfare! Interstellarity (talk) has given you a bit of sunshine to brighten your day! Sunshine promotes WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day better. Spread the sunshine by adding {{subst:User:Meaghan/Sunshine}} to someone else's talk page, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. In addition, you can spread the sunshine to anyone who visits your userpage and/or talk page by adding {{User:Meaghan/Sunshine icon}}. Happy editing! Interstellarity (talk) 14:29, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't. It may be nicknamed that, but that is not the name of the city. All of this is already described in the article, with sourcing. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
July 2021 at Women in Red
Women in Red| July 2021, Volume 7, Issue 7, Numbers 184, 188, 202, 203, 204, 205
Hi,
Could you please remove these edits from the public history logs? I was inadvertently logged out when I made them, and consequently exposed non-public information.
@BrxBrx: I have done so. But Elli is right that it's best to request oversight following the instructions at the top of WP:OS to avoid delays and drawing additional attention to the private information. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Little help
Hello Molly, thanks for taking the time with my case. I have a few questions and I don't know the proper venue to ask, Wikipedia Bureaucracy is quite confusing. The first is what are the potential sanctions of my topic ban? And could you please clarify the wording "This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators". I'm not trying to suggest anything but I certainly don't know where to ask, again thanks for your time. --Loganmac (talk) 19:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing, happy to try to answer any questions. Enforcement of restrictions imposed in an arbitration case is explained at the given case, so in this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Enforcement: Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.
Regarding "This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators", I assume you know what an administrator is; "involved" is explained at WP:INVOLVED. It means that anyone who is not an administrator, or who is involved in the dispute, needs to post in the "Statement by [username]" sections. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Do you personally see me as disruptive? I was thinking of taking the 30 days ban voluntarily if this is the case. I'm starting to feel unwelcome and for quite ironic reasons. I'm sure you understand as a woman in your field what it's like. As a Latino editing a second-language Wiki it's exactly the same. I hope you see how stuff like this [10] is extremely degrading and if I defend myself it would be seen as battleground, there's no one way that is a better path for me Loganmac (talk) 20:11, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The battleground conduct has been disruptive, yes, and I don't buy that you didn't realize that Yaniv would've been covered by your topic ban. Looking at some of topics you've edited since the ban (Jessica Yaniv, Aimee Challenor, Tillie Kottmann) it's like I'm reading down a list of the trans people who are targeted by sites like KiwiFarms or some of the less savory Reddit communities.
It doesn't seem you do very well editing in contentious topic areas; I wonder if you might have a better time if you stayed away from the DS topics in general. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:13, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality on Liz Wheeler page
I don't think Snopes is an objective fact-checker. There is no transparency as to the methodology behind Snopes' fact-checking, which is why it's my belief that references to Snopes should be removed from Wikipedia in general as political commentary or opinion under the guise of "fact-checking." They claim it is objectively false that the California bill to ban conversion therapy is tantamount to banning the Bible--when there is enough room in the CA bill for a judge to claim that the Bible is a tool of conversion therapy and therefore must be banned. This is why I removed Snopes and replaced it with "critics" claim that Wheeler's interpretation is false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:642:C401:990:95F9:807E:D254:68D (talk) 04:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This comes up often enough that we have a shortcut WP:SNOPES that informs editors that consensus is that Snopes is generally considered reliable although attribution in the text is sometimes required. Do not edit against established consensus, although you can try to change the consensus with a well reasoned argument. Cullen328Let's discuss it07:34, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I take it you are referring to this edit? I reverted it because you removed two sourced claims, including one which was sourced to Snopes and also properly attributed per WP:SNOPES, as well as introduced what appears to be your own personal opinion. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:50, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, you have recently posted on a social media website which links to your administrator account on Wikipedia, a public accusation that Seth Dillon intentionally incited violent threats against you. It’s become clear that you have, or have the appearance of, a conflict of interest in editing the article regarding the organization Seth Dillon runs, now that you’ve publicly accused him of victimizing you in a potentially criminal act. Do you intend to continue editing The Babylon Bee article? 199.241.231.199 (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please familiarize yourself with WP:COI. I have no COI with The Babylon Bee. Poor decisions by their site's executives to attack volunteer Wikipedia editors does not introduce a COI; that would be a weird policy that would probably encourage people to attack Wikipedians they dislike to have them removed from editing articles. And any suggestion that Dillon is involved in criminal acts was yours, not mine. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello GorillaWarfare. Sorry to trouble you, but could you please let me know which section of the Talk Page you were referring to in your edit summary? I would like to understand the background and continue the discussion there. MrsSnoozyTurtle22:12, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've said so before, but just in case I haven't: you're a brave ... anthropoid, GW. Sarah (User:SlimVirgin), whom I admired greatly, and who used to make some similarly hard edits years ago, is gone now, but I think you're a worthy heir. --GRuban (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
...I checked out that Twitter thread. Yikes. Conservatives and intentional humor don't seem compatible. I never remember the Onion going after people like this, at least. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You presume too much about my intent. I'm a Twitter user; I have no idea what I'm doing here on Wikipedia. I tagged you on Twitter (you openly advertise your Twitter handle on your Wiki page) to draw your attention to my concerns about what I see happening with this new line of attack on satire in general, and the Bee in particular. You are, after all, the editor who inserted a statement of opinion as if it were fact, and that statement is damaging to us in light of Facebook's new position on satire. I had no intention of sending a mob your way. I'm sorry you took some heat from that. I do wish you well, not harm. And I mean that sincerely. I think you and the other editors have done a pretty great job of keeping the page balanced up to this point. Keep it up, and just do your best to be objective. That Slate piece is hot garbage, though. Just sayin'. Beechief (talk) 22:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also advertise my email address, and various other ways to get in contact with me that a person with 80,000 followers, many of whom apparently like to direct hatred at people on Twitter, could avail themselves of. Thank you for at least acknowledging the results of your action, and maybe consider it next time you think of tagging someone. If you want to discuss the contents of the Wikipedia article, feel free to join the discussion at Talk:The Babylon Bee. Thank you for your kind words on our work at the article thus far, I'm glad to hear you're at least partially satisfied with it. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think Ds303 is socking using IP addresses; see his edits on this article. I requested its protection, but it went in vain. You think it needs protection? Kailash29792(talk)03:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The page was protected for a period of 1 month, what more are you looking for? If your concerns are regarding sockpuppetry, please report to WP:SPI... - Adolphus79 (talk) 06:18, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus has been reached to delete all books in the book namespace. There was rough consensus that the deleted books should still be available on request at WP:REFUND even after the namespace is removed.
An RfC is open to discuss the next steps following a trial which automatically applied pending changes to TFAs.
Technical news
IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.
Arbitration
The community authorised COVID-19 general sanctions have been superseded by the COVID-19 discretionary sanctions following a motion at a case request. Alerts given and sanctions placed under the community authorised general sanctions are now considered alerts for and sanctions under the new discretionary sanctions.
Hi—saw your edit here and just wanted to ask ... am I missing a bit in WP:BLPPRIVACY that mentions names of family members? Not disputing that your edit was the right call, but I just wasn't aware that we thought there were BLP considerations around names of family members when those names are published in online sources. For example, I write articles about a lot of baseball players, and the team bios tend to list the name of their spouses and/or children, and that information makes it into a lot of baseball bios. Wasn't sure if we should think about that differently or if perhaps this is just a context-specific thing given the trolling/campaigns against Levine. Thanks! GoPhightins!18:47, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Go Phightins!: That was my bad, I get the sections mixed up. I should've linked to the section slightly further down, WP:BLPNAME. The names don't really add value to the article (neither is notable in their own right) and it doesn't seem to me that they are widely known. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For what its worth, the IPs edit wasn't really that far off. Last month another IP made a unilateral change that isn't reflected in the sources given and somehow nobody noticed until today. I changed it back to that previous version. Notfrompedro (talk) 23:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to drop a note to say, as a member of WikiProject Hawaii, that I really appreciate the time and work you put into cleaning up/expanding this article. Aoi (青い) (talk) 10:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive
Hello GorillaWarfare:
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.
Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 1900 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!
I'm amazed at how adroit, welcoming and professional you've remained while dealing with new editors at a specific article even in the face of significant, and sometimes vicious, off-Wiki harassment. Chetsford (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I saw this edit of yours, assumed it was a revert of some IP's vandalism and spent 5 minutes trying to figure out whose attack on that page you thought you'd thwarted, and why it was bad enough that you'd call them an incel and announce their geoloc in an edit summary before it occurred to me to actually read the content you "restored". Even then, it took me another minute or two to recognize that you were just adding some new content.
Along the same lines, I feel like it bears repeating to thank you for your work in the whole manosphere realm of articles, both in creating the content and protecting the content from, shall we say, the less neutrally-minded. I have to imagine it's draining, but you're fighting the good fight (so to speak). Writ Keeper⚇♔17:50, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to echo Writ Keeper here; I think you're the bee's knees, Molly, and I hope my admiration and appreciation for you and your work is apparent. You are a kind, generous, and patient person and I endeavor to inhabit those traits as well as you do. Jorm (talk) 17:53, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On an amusingly similar note, I saw your section heading here and immediately assumed I had engaged in some insufficiently caffeinated editing! I have only had one cup of coffee today...
Apologies if this is obvious and I'm just not looking in the right place, but how do I put pronouns in my talk page signature? Thank you. HadesTTW (talk) 23:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HadesTTW:WP:CUSTOMSIG has instructions. If it's helpful, the wikimarkup I use for my signature is:
Thank you so much! I always like having my pronouns readily available no matter where I am, and I'm glad doing so is possible on Wikipedia. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 02:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cool! You might put a link to the article at Talk:Incel. I'll try to give it a read sooner rather than later and see about incorporating info from it into our article, but if you link it from the talk page it might give someone else the opportunity to do it sooner (or you could always make the edits yourself). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I've read it and it's a decent read with some good info. There might be some complaints about the sourcing here, but the only mention of the site I found at RSN archives was one or two editors decrying think tanks in general, and about four times that many saying that it depends. This article seems particularly well-cited, so if there are any objections, the original source of any given claim can be referred to. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.21:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just finished reading it myself, and found it very interesting. I'm not really concerned with the reliability so long as it's attributed; we use publications from the Centre for Analysis of the Radical Right elsewhere in the article and it seems a pretty similar group. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:27, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC is open to add a delay of one week from nomination to deletion for G13 speedy deletions.
Technical news
Last week all wikis were very slow or not accessible for 30 minutes. This was due to server lag caused by regenerating dynamic lists on the Russian Wikinews after a large bulk import. (T287380)
If people wish to "document" this individual on outside sites, that is their prerogative, and certainly not under the purview of admins on this site. But Wikipedia is not the place for entirely negative, extremely detailed "documentation" of private, non-notable individuals, and attempts to do so (in mainspace or in other locations like drafts) can and should be deleted as harassment. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Oh no. I'm very familiar with Chris-chan, and there's simply no way WP could ever write up a neutral BLP on her. Even if there are enough RSes, there's not a chance in hell that more than a tiny handful of them have done a halfway decent job of neutrally documenting her. There's simply not enough unbiased information out there to do so. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.20:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Chiming in once again in this talk page- I also followed Chris for multiple years and I agree that it would be virtually impossible to actually and currently follow WP:NPOV with her. That being said, I wouldn't rule out Chris as being permanently too controversial or non-notable for an inclusion as an article. There exists the possibility of much more reliable and properly edited neutral sources picking up on her life- which is rather abundantly clear is not just limited to a single incest charge. I know the Wikipedia admins have long despised the constant attempts to have an article written about her for decades by now, but who knows what might occur in the future for it to be a necessity. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 22:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While Mjolnir and I agree on the general point (that the article ought not to exist), I disagree on the point about NPOV. If there were sufficient reliable sources to show that she meets the GNG, then we would write an article about her in the same way we do about other BLPs: by reflecting various viewpoints in proportion to their weight in reliable sources. It certainly wouldn't be the first BLP on this project to be almost entirely critical of its subject, if that's how RS described her, though those that are require a high level of sourcing. And I disagree that any living person is permanently ineligible for an article—I do think she is unlikely to become so, but who knows what the future holds.
Regardless, this is all extremely hypothetical. That particular incarnation of a draft article about her had been rejected three times for poor sourcing and lack of notability, and had nowhere near the kind of sourcing that would justify a BLP article. There's a reason policies like WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME exist.
I'm not sure what the thought process was here of the people working on this draft. Many, many people get arrested on suspicion of all kinds of heinous crimes, sometimes repeatedly or for multiple crimes. Very few of them meet the notability threshold here. That this particular person was also harassed and extensively "documented" online in forums and wikis does not somehow change that. Like I said above, we have no control over what people decide to do on other websites, but we don't engage in that kind of "documentation" (something most reasonable people would describe as serious harassment) of private individuals here. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My objection is rooted in the current situation. After a year or two of investigative journalists working to uncover the actual biography behind it all? Then hell yeah, we could write up an article. I should have made it clearer that I'm talking about the current context, where all the RSes will be covering the recent arrest, and the rest of the sources based pretty much entirely on Kiwifarm and other dens of trolls. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.12:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why is there not enough credible sources on this individual? Just a quick Google search showed me numerous international, national, and local sources in regards to Chris Chan. We keep people every day in AfD with far less coverage. I don't believe I have ever seen on Wikipedia before such hesitancy to create an article as I have with this person. The notion that there is some sort of BLP or NPOV issue with a Chris Chan article because sources don't have a lot of nice things to say about her is ridicules. We have plenty of articles that are critical of the subject, there's not a lot of good to say about Ted Bundy, but its giving due weight. I completely reject the notion that its a NPOV issue. I think deleting the draft was poor judgement, I think it should at least be allowed to be developed more in draft form to see if it reaches a more solid GNG status. I think with this incest allegation we will be seeing this subject reach GNG, if she hasn't already. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So it was deleted for being an attack page, negative, or unsourced? Unless someone vandalized the page before you viewed it, none of this is true. The article was meticulously sourced and of a neutral viewpoint, using sites like Newsweek, Yahoo News, NBC, etc. Again, did you view a version of the draft that had been vandalized by someone?Hoponpop69 (talk) 04:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way to view the content you deleted? I insist you take a second look at it and breakdown which parts were written from a POV or came from unreliable sources. Now that there is another draft that is less thorough, that content should be merged into it.Hoponpop69 (talk) 13:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. The content has at this point been suppressed (not by me), and I cannot provide you with suppressed content. As for your questions around whether the page had been vandalized when I deleted it, it had not. I will elaborate further at the ANI discussion, but TL;DR your claim about the draft being "meticulously sourced" to those publications is misleading at best. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hoponpop has now filed a "grievance" against you: WP:ANI#Grievance against User:GorillaWarfare. I figure you almost certainly don't really need to be told, but starting a new subsection explicitly complaining about you is probably close enough to "starting a thread on ANI" to require mandatory notifications, and The Forms Must Be Obeyed. Writ Keeper⚇♔14:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In light of a FOX New's segment on Christine Weston Chandler's legal troubles, and the responses it is garnering from media figures (both positive and negative), I believe that a case may be made for Christine passing this site's notability guidelines, and that an encyclopedic article may be written about her. I believe she represents a notable figure in that she is being cited by political pundits in regards to gender identity in the criminal justice system. I would be willing to write a working draft for this article, one which hopefully satisfies your concerns around WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME. Christine has appeared in articles from reliable sources prior to the current allegations, and has even been noted for her contributions to Shrek Retold, and so while Christine is only now receiving wide media coverage, she may be called a notable figure for a variety of reasons.
Assuming I follow Wikipedia's policies and standards, would I be within my rights to create such a draft? If this would be inappropriate for me, who would be responsible for assessing if Christine's mainstream coverage constitutes notability?
I'm not GW, this isn't hard policy here, and I know it's not entirely in keeping with AGF, but I personally would say that nobody who makes this their first edit ever should be writing this specific article. I'm sorry, but we have seen a *ton* of either brand-new or previously-long-inactive accounts come out of the woodwork to try to write this article, and I can't help but be suspicious of their motives when this kind of article is the exact vector of harassment that has been inflicted on this person for over a decade. Writ Keeper⚇♔04:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have a point, Writ Keeper. It would be a great undertaking to make an article which would satisfy those who just want Christine left alone, and it is likely premature treating her as a public figure after a single segment on cable news. I will abstain from drafting an article at this time, and leave the matter to those more qualified. I am glad to know that the issue with creating an article about Christine is not that she is a banned subject matter, but that drafts have historically been inadequate and in bad faith.
I do take issue with Jéské's comments about my character, presuming that I would like to create the article purely to harass the subject. I have explained that I had no intent on creating this page before Christine began being covered in national news, and that I meant only to cover a noteworthy figure. Your suggestion that you would block me for even raising the idea is precisely why I felt so intimidated as to ask GW permission before even drafting the page; it is though even having the thought is forbidden on this site. I understand that Christine is a much-tormented figure, and likely did not satisfy notability guidelines in the past, but if the national conversation around Christine continues to grow as it has this past week, her absence from this Wiki will become increasingly conspicuous. I know you are just trying to protect her, but what kind of example does that coarse language and casual threat of banning set? JayBogdweller (talk) 06:33, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I genuinely do not know what you mean by that. Yes, I've followed Christine's misadventures through the years. No, I have never tried to get her a Wikipedia article before she appeared on Tucker Carlson's show. I just thought that, if she's going to be talked about on national news, she should have an article on Wikipedia. Does simply asking if that's okay warrant these personal attacks? JayBogdweller (talk) 06:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have never tried to get her a Wikipedia article before she appeared on Tucker Carlson's show. - Considering the JayBogdweller account was created yesterday and considering the almost-15-year history of harassment-via-Wikipedia attempts here, I'm not buying that you're a naive new user. —A little blue Boriv^_^vJéské Couriano07:08, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not naive, I am aware of the history of harassment of Christine, and how bad-faith submissions to Wikipedia have played a role in it. This is why I explained my motivation for making the article, i.e. that she had become noteworthy thanks to the media buzz around her legal troubles. I registered this account only today because I do not edit Wikipedia much, but figured that if I were to write a draft for such a controversial figure, I would not want it associated with my IP address. Your incredulity that I would register an account to write about a topic I am passionate about is not my problem. I just wanted to know if I would be penalized for writing a draft on Christine, but as you are demonstrating, I should have feared even asking for permission. JayBogdweller (talk) 07:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am just returning from a weekend away and catching up on my notifications, but I don't think I have anything to add that hasn't been said already. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have skimmed throught the above conversation. I guess I understand the situation a little bit better. I believe my edits were in no way harassment and can never be considered as such. The idea that for some reason Chris Chan should never have an article on WP even if RSs cover her and she is not famous for only one thing is ridiculous to me; it looks almost like a hidden, unvoted WP policy in itself. Is Chris Chan holding Jimmy Wales a gun point or a CIA agent that such measures are to be taken? Veverve (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano: I take your word for it when you say most of the time an article on her has been written it's been done to harass her, and attempts at it have been going on for over a decade. However, I believe creating a WP article is not harrassment in itself; David Bawden, who is also mocked by some, has a WP page, and Christine W.C. has an article on ru WP. I do not appreciate the fact you are implying my draft article is a form of harrassment (which is implied in every single time, with no exception), although I may be misinterpreting your words. I agree that the sources I used, while reliable may not have been the best, and on WP:1E. Veverve (talk) 13:54, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Veverve: There are many different types of harassment, and not all harassment takes the form of writing things like "Jane Doe is a terrible person and you should do terrible things to her". The vast majority of people in this world are not public figures and do not meet our notability guidelines, and generally expect a greater level of privacy. An article one of the 15-most-visited websites that describes a private individual's date of birth, location, developmental disorder, and deadname, and includes detailed descriptions of alleged crimes and directions to a forum where people can view and join in heinous harassment against her, is itself harassment, and if you can't understand that then you probably ought not be writing about BLPs at all. It has nothing to do with a "hidden, unvoted WP policy" and everything to do with one of our most prominent policies: WP:BLP. There have been several recent discussions about this person's notability (or lack thereof), and consensus has been that she is not a notable individual. Consensus can always change, but until it does, you need to stop trying to create drafts and sandboxes including this information. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:46, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, saying things like Is Chris Chan holding Jimmy Wales a gun point or a CIA agent that such measures are to be taken kind of undermines your assertion of innocence. Writ Keeper⚇♔15:51, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GorillaWarfare: All those information were taken from RSs - granted not the best, but they are still RSs. All my information were sourced from those; I do not believe Insider or ABC News is harassing this person. If those sources are culprit of harassment - regular harassment in the case of Insider since they published numerous articles on the subject -, they ought to be removed from the RS list.
The article in my sandbox was deleted, I do not see who would have been able to look at it outisde of a few people who were present when the information was given here on your talk page, especially since nothing in the title of my sandbox may indicate it is where such information can be found, thus I do not see why you wanted to memory-hole my work.
That Chris Chan apparently has less notability than Anthony Cekada, Clarence Kelly or Daniel Q. Brown, I can more or less agree on despite being quite surprised by this fact. I can also agree that citing someone's disabilities may not be pertinent in all BLP, but again, this was written in a RS. I can also admit that, since BLP is not my speciality on WP, I may have made a few mistakes here and there.
I know of no rule that prevents me from creating a draft of something not notable. Wikipedia:Drafts#Speedy_deletion states Drafts that are copyright violations, vandalism, disparage or attack their subject, are tests, or unambiguous advertising or promotion will be speedily deleted, and my draft was in no way any of those, and even then there is no mention of memory-holing the entire draft. I could understand memory-holing past versions if those were unacceptable and violated policy. Veverve (talk) 16:47, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Writ Keeper: There is also the fact that I have seldom seen so much attention given to a BLP within the three years I have been on WP, and I have the articles of the current and past popes on my watchlist. Veverve (talk) 16:51, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, your hostility is directed at the subject of the article, who has nothing to do with those measures, rather than any of the Wikipedia editors who do. Curious. Writ Keeper⚇♔16:52, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you disagree with the "memory hole"-ing of the draft, a completely standard practice for BLP violations, feel free to make a[nother] complaint at WP:ANI. But it is you who is misunderstanding policy here, not me, and consensus has already been reached on the notability of this individual and whether articles/drafts about her ought to be permitted. My strong recommendation would be to stop this campaign of yours to write a Wikipedia article about this person, because you are clearly having trouble understanding BLP. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:54, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You've received the same answer at three or four different venues now, from a wide array of editors, including a sitting former Arbitrator. We're not going to have an article on her, full stop, because the mere existence of an article on this subject - who's been relentlessly harassed for over a decade at this point - would only serve to further the harassment, with the only people who've shown any interest in editing it being those who want to harass her. Drop it. I cannot be held responsible for what happens should you refuse to listen to what me, Writ Keeper, GorillaWarfare, and all the other established users have said; we routinely indef users for attempting to use Wikipedia to harass people. —A little blue Boriv^_^vJéské Couriano02:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question regarding the scheme Ohm's Law with Voltage source.svg
It's a direct duplicate of File:Ohm's Law with Voltage source.svg, just using a variant of the resistor symbol and some slightly cleaner formatting thanks to CircuiTikz. The lowercased letters are explained in the description of the original: "This diagram shows the current in and voltage across are resitor being driven by an independent voltage source as functions of time (rather than phasors, as a capital letter suggests)." GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi GorillaWarfare, I was wondering if I could get your advice on what I think is a possible sockpuppet. This is not the first time I've noticed this behavior from this user, but this is the most blatant.
Given the edit summary in this edit it seems they may just be working off the other editor's revision for some reason. That said if you've noticed this happening before it might be worth digging into further. I'm just signing off for the evening but you can use WP:SPI to get another set of eyes. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:36, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know any Russian speaking users on ENWP who can help us speeding up the deletion discussion? The article have been marked for deletion for months now --Trade (talk) 10:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of her response to that tweet, but saying "yeah" to "You ok with putting the picture under a Creative Commons license?" is not sufficient. She needs to very explicitly state that she agrees to release the file under a specific CC license (there are many, not all of which are compatible with Commons), and a few other things. We have the WP:CONSENT form or the release generator at WP:DONATEIMAGE to make this as easy as possible, but unfortunately it does have to be a little more formal than her post on Twitter. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:36, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then, I DMed her. I'll follow up here once I hear back from her.
Cool! I've got access to the email queue where those permissions releases are processed so if you hear from her and need someone to fish the release out of the queue feel free to let me know. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:52, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, just circling back. Nat and she said she'd DM you about adding the photo. Did you talk to her any about that?
On 14 August 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tenacious Unicorn Ranch, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that residents at the queer community known as the Tenacious Unicorn Ranch carry firearms and wear body armor while tending to their alpacas due to threats from right-wing militias? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tenacious Unicorn Ranch. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Tenacious Unicorn Ranch), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hello, GorillaWarfare. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
A editor who you recently blocked for violating a GG topic ban (and who came here to you asking for clemency) has decided that calling you out on Reddit for your request to rename the GG page is an appropriate thing to do. While that is off-wiki and not covered by our sanctions and enforcement policy, I feel that you should be aware this is occurring and should perhaps be taken in advisement the next time they come calling for advice. Jorm (talk) 22:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can't say I'm shocked. I had to laugh that their foremost criticism of me is apparently that I don't like men who are complete strangers being creepy towards me on the internet; I hope that their apparent belief that women in tech typically love it when you finish up your software-related emails to them with unsolicited opinions on their appearance is purely academic and not something they've been putting into practice 🙄 GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Q
Since I've noticed you try this (lengthy explanations introducing editing fundamentals to SPAs in contentious topics) a lot... Have you ever checked up on these editors a few months after the conversation? How often are they still editing and are converted into active editors? Really I'm just curious whether the 'try engaging collaboratively' approach leads to different results than the more typical 'short responses with WP:SHORTCUT and quickly close the discussion' approach. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:44, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, occasionally. My experience has been almost universally that they are not interested in improving the encyclopedia, only in pushing their particular POV, and so they don't become long-term editors. My goal in making such responses is less to convert that particular individual to a productive contributor, and more to communicate the fundamentals to other readers like them who are also watching the page. In this particular case (and in many others where you've see me respond like this), there are quite a few people off-wiki who are reading the talk page and lamenting the "bias and inaccuracy" in Wikipedia, and perhaps they will at least understand a little better that we don't write articles based in KnowYourMeme posts, Reddit-esque "research", and RT op-eds. But perhaps I am too much of an optimist. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:50, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You've got mail
Hello, GorillaWarfare. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Michael Crofts 16:30, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
@力: Can't see any reason not to. The only content there is stuff that's in the current article (save for the outdated YouTube statistics). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
September 2021 at Women in Red
Women in Red| September 2021, Volume 7, Issue 9, Numbers 184, 188, 204, 205, 207, 208
Hi Molly, I hope all is well with you. As you're probably aware, the WMF has opened nominations for its Movement Charter Drafting Committee. I hope you'll consider applying – we desperately need people with your experience, skill, and community standing to stand for the committee. Out of all the strategy work going on right now, this committee will be the most important by a significant margin. My personal take is that the Movement Charter, whether intended this way or not, will result in a considerable consolidation of power in the WMF (and out of the project communities). If you're seated, regardless of whether you agree with my take, I'll rest easier knowing you're on it. Best, KevinL (aka L235·t·c) 06:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for thinking of me. I don't think I've got the time or energy to devote to such a committee this year, but I do hope that other qualified candidates do. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can't help but wonder
...what that professor was thinking. But yes, while you were tagging it I was pondering whether to just delete it outright, or blank out the name and revdelete it--but in an article that short that really doesn't make a lot of sense either, and your tag confirmed my first option. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:10, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
.jpg)
