User talk:GorillaWarfare

Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the GorillaWarfare Room! Archives

August 2020 – present January 2020 – July 2020 April 2019 – December 2019 August 2018 – March 2019 January 2018 – July 2018 July 2017 – December 2017 October 2016 – June 2017 August 2015 – September 2016 August 2014 – July 2015 August 2013 – July 2014 November 2012 – July 2013 April 2012 – October 2012 November 2011 – March 2012 April 2011 – October 2011 December 2010 – March 2011 September 2010 – November 2010 April 2010 – August 2010 November 2009 – March 2010

Dinosaurs

I saw you blocked 2001:2D8:E292:75FE:0:0:0:0/64. Do you know who the LTA is? I've seen those edits for a while now. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies: Not sure if there's a named account behind it, I think it's just a South Korea-based IP user with a focus on dinosaurs. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies: As far as I am aware the user has never had an account, The user has a Dynamic IP on the 2001:2D8:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) range, with the earliest vandalism being on the 9th of December 2019 [1] followed by a several month lull, beginning a persistent pattern of making the same edits since late March. The /32 range has a large amount of non-dinosaur vandal related edits, though the vandal does make a large proportion of the total edits on the range, so it's not practical to permanently block the range. The range was blocked for 3 months back in August, but that didn't deter the vandal, and they came back soon after the range block was lifted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, thank you: I saw the block log, and added to it. GorillaWarfare, I hope that's OK with you. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

No objections from me, hopefully it helps with the disruption. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

IHateAccounts inappropriately collapsing removing talk page comments

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GW, I'm posting this here since IHateAccounts has asked that I not post on their talk page. I've noticed that IHA has frequently collapsed and even deleted talk page comments that they consider to be wp:NOTFORUM. [[2]][[3]][[4]][[5]][[6]][[7]][[8]] (more examples in IHA's edit history). IHA, if other editors have replied to a comment then those edits should only be removed in exceptional circumstances. Even comments by IP editors complaining about bias in an article should be retained as they represent some level of feedback. Even collapsing or marking the discussion as closed should only be done in limited cases. Please take this as constructive feedback. Springee (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Although on occasion they have collapsed discussions that I don't think should have been collapsed, I've found their cleanup on those pages to be generally helpful. A large number of new discussions on those pages are either a) completely duplicating past or existing discussions, or b) entirely non-actionable. Leaving them open in the case of a) results in discussions being split in a way that's confusing for all parties, and in the case of b) tends to waste editors' time.

I would recommend not using another editor's talk page as a way to communicate with IHA after they've asked you to stop editing their talk page. If you think admin intervention is needed, a noticeboard discussion would be appropriate, but I don't particularly feel like being IHA's secondary talk page in this way. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I was told to either close or hat WP:NOTFORUM items rather than deleting them, which I've done. At this point this feels like sealioning from Springee, who I really don't want to deal with unless I absolutely have to. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea when you moved to hatting vs deleting but this was from earlier today [[9]]. I have made no personal comments about you, only a statement that I think you are being too aggressive with blanking talk page comments. The accusation of sealioning (ie trolling) is a personal attack of the sort something valereee warned you about [[10]]. The next time you attack me personally I will open an ANI. Springee (talk) 19:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

FYI on ECP for World War II in Poland

Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland#Antisemitism_in_Poland:_Motion_(May_2020),

The following is added as a remedy to the Antisemitism in Poland arbitration case: 7) 500/30 restriction: All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. This prohibition may be enforced preemptively by use of extended confirmed protection (ECP), or by other methods such as reverts, pending changes protection, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 rule are not considered edit warring.

• • Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by the methods mentioned above.
  • Standard discretionary sanctions as authorized by the Eastern Europe arbitration case remain in effect for this topic area.

(t · c) buidhe 19:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'd forgotten about that change. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Rudolf Berthold

Hey, you beat me to reverting that vandal...but I definitely don't mind. Many thanks.Georgejdorner (talk) 00:31, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Dominion Voting Systems

I think we need to be fairly emphatic in this article about the fact that there is no evidence of the conspiracy theories about Dominion (and plenty of evidence to the contrary, e.g. the Georgia hand recount and Arizona audit). Living people, namely the corporate executives, are being implicated in heinous federal crimes, so we have a responsibility to emphasize the baselessness of the charges in this article, including the lede. (Same as we do with respect to, e.g., Pizzagate). I know that you are on the same page as me here. But I am writing to ask that you, as an admin who is privy to the situation, keep an eye on the article and be prepared to impose suitable sanctions if BLP standards there continue to be violated. CozyandDozy (talk) 03:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@CozyandDozy: I'm not sure, but I believe GorillaWarfare may be considered WP:INVOLVED on the page and that makes it inappropriate for her to use admin functions there. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@CozyandDozy: IHA is correct that I should not impose any sanctions on editors or otherwise act in an administrative capacity with respect to that page, as I have been active in editorial discussions and directly editing the page. However, if I see disruption that I think needs outside intervention I will report it to uninvolved admins at the proper noticeboard, and I would encourage you to do the same. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:43, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:Recentism

Are you sure you and the other admin (Melanie) are interpreting this correct? I take this policy to mean: In a biography of "x" (person, organization, etc), don't apply extra weight to event y, just because it happened recently. Conversely, you guys seem to think it means: don't apply extra weight to "y" (the thing that happened recently to organization or person "x), even if the majority of RS coverage related to x is about y.

I'm not unsympathetic to your notion that recent events should not define an individual or organization that has done a lot of important things. But, again, this strikes me as an editorial judgment on your part, rather than a product of policy.

Regarding Dominion, if the "recent" events (i.e. its role in the 2020 election, and the erroneous conspiracy theories that arose from it) constitute the large majority of RS mentions about the firm, aren't we obliged to weight accordingly? CozyandDozy (talk) 05:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're replying here rather than on the article talk page; it splits the discussion and also makes it harder for other editors to weigh in. But yes, I am aware of what the WP:RECENTISM essay says. See the portion on "article imbalance" and "articles ha[ving] an inflated or imbalanced focus on recent events". I am quite aware that much of the sourcing around Dominion is covering recent events, but looking at the lead you'd barely know this company existed since 2002, there is no mention of the systems' widespread use in Canada, etc. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Pkeets

What is the protocol for reporting someone clearly WP:NOTHERE for good purposes? [11] [12] [13], and some WP:POVPUSH items like this too [14] IHateAccounts (talk) 15:37, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Typically a report at ANI is the way to go. I think you saw my Bus stop report, which you could perhaps use as a model. There is also WP:AE if you wanted to go that route, although ANI will probably reach more eyes and an AE topic ban can still be imposed at ANI. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I might be able to work on it tomorrow, today has been tied up with limited family and trying to stay offline for mental health. IHateAccounts (talk) 04:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I created a draft [15], I would appreciate any thoughts or feedback you have. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts: I've read over it briefly, and would recommend adding to it their behavior at Talk:Sidney Powell if you're not already planning to. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the input! I've included items from Talk:Sidney Powell and also Talk:Dominion Voting Systems, would you be ok giving it another look? IHateAccounts (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Good timing! I just finished my evening chores and sat down with a fresh cup of tea for some Wikipedia time, so I'll go take a look now. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts: I've made a few edits, mostly to make links a little clearer and to add timestamps. I've also removed some mentions of behavior that isn't particularly problematic (for example, adding redlinks before creating Sidney Powell and adding her to lists of notable alumni). Feel free to revert any or all of my edit if you disagree with it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:31, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your time looking at it and your expertise in the writing! I'm going to file it in a moment. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:34, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts: One more thing: I would avoid suggesting a NOTHERE sanction. NOTHERE is generally for folks who show no intention of positive contributions to the encyclopedia. Although Pkeets has been quite disruptive in recent weeks in this topic area, they are a highly active editor with a long editing history, and so NOTHERE does not likely apply. On the same note, I'm not sure what "Their 7th edit was the creation of Sidney Powell" means—they've been editing since 2007, long before the Powell article ever existed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

That was a misreading on my part. I clicked for older edits on their history and was taken to not the oldest set of their edits. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Ah, makes sense, that's easy to do. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh Joy. Of course right-wing PackMecEng shows up, they never miss a chance to cast aspersions on me. [16] IHateAccounts (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts: I would recommend removing "I am well aware that, as a right-wing editor, PackMecEng dislikes me (especially since I am nonbinary)." without some strong evidence. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

They just claimed they "had no way of knowing". My pronouns are literally on my user page. I call bullshit. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. But as far as I've seen, PackMecEng has made no comments about your pronouns or gender, hence why I'd recommend either producing diffs or removing the comment—otherwise it is indeed casting aspersions. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

December with Women in Red

Women in Red | December 2020, Volume 6, Issue 12, Numbers 150, 173, 178, 182, 183 Online events: New: Women who died in 2020 | Philanthropists Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman | BLM/Anti-discrimination Contest (Oct-Nov-Dec): Women in Asia Other ways to participate: Help us plan future events Join the conversations on our talkpage Become a member Opt-out of notifications Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Re: Bus stop

Sorry to ask, I just saw that Bus stop appears to have decided their new task is tagging individuals as Jewish on Wikipedia [17]. I don't know if it's close enough to the scope of their topic ban but it's... disconcerting to see. IHateAccounts (talk) 21:42, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe this is new for them; see the ANI archives. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

At this point does this qualify as hounding? PackMecEng (talk) 22:29, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

No, I don't think it does. It's a legitimate concern, and IHA asking about it (or Bus stop's previous behavior, which was problematic enough to earn them a topic ban) is not hounding. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Following them around to articles to complain about the same user over and over trying to get them sanctioned by a preferred admin is problematic. You encouraged them above to try one of the various drama boards but here we are again. I understand you two have an issue with them, but at this point you two should probably just let it go and move on to something productive is all I'm saying. PackMecEng (talk) 22:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

IHA is perfectly aware that I am WP:INVOLVED with Bus stop, and cannot (and would not) take administrator action against them. This is not IHA asking for me to sanction Bus stop. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, a better way to put it would probably be trying to get you to take them to a notice board again. You encouraged them above to try one of the various drama boards but here we are again. I understand you two have an issue with them, but at this point you two should probably just let it go and move on to something productive is all I'm saying. PackMecEng (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: I had a reasonable concern when I saw a tendentious person going around appearing to start flagging pages of notable people with the word "Jewish". I asked for GorillaWarfare's perspective and advice because she is much more experienced than I am. Nothing more. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Why was my protection request of my signature page declined?

Why was my protection request of my signature declined? Best regards, 4thfile4thrank {talk} :? 22:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

See WP:UPROT: "User pages and subpages within their own user space may be protected upon a request from the user, as long as a need exists. Pages within the user space should not be automatically or pre-emptively protected without good reason or cause." GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes. The reason I requested it is that it is like a high risk template. Everything on that page is directly transcluded to all my signatures in all the talk pages. If someone edits it, it change will show on all my signatures. Is that a valid enough reason? Best regards, 4thfile4thrank {talk} :? 00:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@4thfile4thrank: If the page proves to be a common target of vandalism, then you can re-request it be protected. But we generally don't protect pages that might be vandalized before it actually happens. I imagine you could reduce the risk of vandalism further by removing the link to the signature page from your userpage; then most people won't even know you're using a template in your signature that could be vandalized.

Furthermore, high-risk templates are generally considered as such because they are transcluded on many pages (that is, the current content of the template is what shows up on the page, regardless of when the template was added) and not substituted (that is, the content of the template at the time of save is substituted into the page, and effectively capturing a "snapshot" of the template at that point in time), or because they're substituted by many different users (like the common warning templates; not the case for a signature). I imagine you will be substituting, not transcluding the template in your signature, which effectively limits the risk only to signatures you leave after the vandalism occurs, rather than to all pages your signature exists on. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

As per the guidance on signatures, transclusions are not allowed and substitutions discouraged, for the very reason you are citing as well as others. isaacl (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Champ and Major

On 28 November 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Champ and Major, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Major will be the first rescue dog to live in the White House? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Champ and Major. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Champ and Major), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Exchange of Opinions about the Corrective Tone, re. My Bitchute addition, I Hope, Welcome.

Hello. Whenever one joins an organization, one has, I accept, to defer to those whose personal efforts, and imaginative endeavours, preceded one's own, unless one joins those who are influential, in a project's evolution. But it's not about that I write. As others I've read elsewhere, on other topics, the need to express a disappointment with the tone of the correction has arisen. To be advised to "Take it up with...", and, startlingly, to speak of grades of "Warning", is really quite unnecessary. Surely, this is meant to be a mutually enjoyable, friendly, collective effort, where one doesn't expect to have a mortarboard, or piece of chalk, seeringly propelled into the eye?; and, as one who's made to feel that next time, the summary sentence shall be that a spell standing outside the classroom door, without appeal, shall be passed? Anyway, I felt that for the voiceless, and for myself, I owed the truth the same liberty of expression as I allow my critics. I'm sure that this exchange has stimulated the same entriguing philosophical stimulation within each of us, which listening to others often creates. I'll contact, as you advise, the American website that you recommend, as I feel that to misdescribe their political status that way, could only be the too-suuccessful use of irony, convincing their critics of the rightness of their suspicions, and themselves of the impossibility of trying to rationalise with the bitter. I feel that they are doing themselves a disservice. If I receive a reply, I'll let you know. Thanks. Heath St John. Heath St John (talk) 14:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@Heath St John: The edit summary you're referring to said, "this is the same description agreed upon at InfoWars. Take it up at Talk:InfoWars if you think it ought to change". This was a perfectly civil and polite explanation of my reversion, and your description of it as having "a mortarboard, or piece of chalk, seeringly propelled into the eye" is bizarre exaggeration. I am not sure why you feel the need to dedicate this long comment to perceived issues with my tone rather than discuss your actual concerns about the article on the article talk page, but I am not particularly interested in engaging with it any further. I also don't know what you mean when you say I have "startlingly, to speak of grades of 'Warning'".

As for the actual advice, you have misunderstood me. I suggested you raise your concerns with the description of InfoWars in the BitChute article at the talk page of the InfoWars Wikipedia article, not with the InfoWars company themselves. This is because the BitChute article is simply reprinting the description that has been agreed upon at the InfoWars article, and so any issues with that description should be discussed where it originated. You are certainly welcome to contact InfoWars themselves about anything you wish, but I don't see how it will change anything on Wikipedia. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:20, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Heath St John (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)