Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:38, 26 February 2016

Archives
July 2015 – present August 2014 – August 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

Voter comment

I like your openness and am in agreement with what you've said. I would like to hear something about WP content in general, not only concerning gender. --lifeform (talk) 00:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

@Lifeformnoho: I'm generally very impressed with the quality of Misplaced Pages's content, although it's interesting how this quality is distributed. There has been discussion of how Misplaced Pages covers some topics (video games, female pornstars, popular culture, recent events) more comprehensively than others. The strengths, unsurprisingly, coincide with the interests of "the average Wikipedian", often leaving articles about other subjects to fall by the wayside. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:45, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, G., for that. I found out I'm almost completely an average Wikipedian. In my subjective (and not very well read) opinion, regarding the articles touching on Humanities/Politics/Economics, Misplaced Pages is not exactly in the front lines of the fight for truth or justice. --lifeform (talk) 06:56, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Misplaced Pages is far too often allowed to be used as a platform for radical socio-political activists. The problem is that it is considered bad faith by the louder voices in the community to do anything about it, especially when such people bad-mouth totally disinterested editors for refusing to be drawn into such discussions. Arbcom should take a firmer stand but can only do so when issues are reported to it by the community. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:35, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages isn't really intended to be on the front lines for truth or justice; we try for verifiability, not truth. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:28, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

(Warning: A speech follows.) Verifiability is certainly not in opposition to truth. Truths which are facts (i.e. events which have happened) are in general subject to verification. "Truths" which are not facts cannot be verified in the same sense (e.g., "justice"). No matter how obvious or right they might seem to some, or even all, or how much power supports them, they are ideas and should not be accepted unexamined. Isn't it "encyclopedic" (and just) to record the diversity of ideas, and the sources of them (that is, the truth - the facts as they exist - "so and so says such and such"), rather than follow Wikipedially correct rules too closely in order to decide what to include? In this sense, as an encyclopedia, WP should be on the front lines. --lifeform (talk) 04:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Case Finland

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

I apologize for that. It was this edit that I intended to revert, but the tool I was using will automatically revert an entire block of edits made by one user. I didn't notice that it had done so here. I've reinstated your edits (minus that last one). GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

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

WP:AN

Misplaced Pages:Administrators noticeboard#Requesting community ban of User:CosmicEmperor

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

Signpost Arbitration interview request

Excuse me. I am lead writer for the Signpost's "Arbitration Report" and am wondering if you would be interested in answering some interviews questions as a newly elected Arbitrator. The questions will be asked through email, unless answering them here would be a more suitable choice. GamerPro64 22:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure. I'd rather answer them on-wiki. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

GamerPro64 03:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I've answered inline. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

	Happy New Year!
	Best wishes for a wonderful 2016!---- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

2016

	Happy New Year 2016!
	Did you know ... that back in 1885, Misplaced Pages editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary blisters.    – Cullen Let's discuss it 02:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

email

Happy New Year, GorillaWarfare!

GorillaWarfare,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 17:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

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

By the way, did you know that this edit was the last edit made in 2015, and this is the first edit of 2016? (Times in UTC, of course). —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 17:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Kurtis 22:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to a virtual editathon on Women in Music

Women in Music
	10 to 31 January 2016 Please join us in the worldwide virtual edit-a-thon hosted by Women in Red.

--Ipigott (talk) 11:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Help decide the future of Wikimania

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

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

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

With thanks,

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

User:Godzilla-warfare

Can't a CU do something about this: User:Godzilla-warfare? It's yet another user:Supdiop sock. I'm told a range block is not possible. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I have to say, I think they've got you beat in terms of usernames. Godzilla is at least 8 times cooler than gorillas. :P Keilana (talk) 17:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The sock has been ironed. Not being a CU, I can't do more. Suggest GW usurp the user name! Favonian (talk) 17:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Kind of have to give them credit for the name. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't concede so quickly. If it is simply godzilla versus gorilla, then Godzilla wins, but gorilla-warfare is clever and godzilla-warfare is meh.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

Thanks for your contribs to Misplaced Pages! Bananasoldier (talk) 05:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

RE

How can a sock appeal a block? Shouldn't the master have appealed? Should this be considered a successful appeal by banned user G-Zay, of who Brayden96 was a proven sock? What does this entail for other blocked socks? Did BASC have any reason to completely discount the evidence presented in the SPI and' copied to the user's talk when he appealed the block? Is it customary for BASC to not consult the blocking admin? If the account does make other edits that evidence sockpuppetry of a ban user, will reblocking lead me to a desysop for wheel-warring? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 07:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• The last question is definitely not rhetorical; right after being unblocked he went back to editing Motomu Toriyama, in the same manner as previous G-Zay socks. Previous edits by Brayden96 to the same article were also reverted as being made by a sock of G-Zay by two other editors very familiar with this LTAer and who helped clean up his messes. We're talking about an LTAer who has made lengthy, ranty blogposts about maintaining multiple personas and social media accounts, so this is not "unexpected". Please advise on whether you would consider reblocking per the new evidence to be wheel warring. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 07:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @Salvidrim: Brayden96's appeal was granted because we've determined that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that he is a sockpuppet of G-Zay; his successful appeal should not be regarded as having any effect on G-Zay's standing ban. As far as re-blocking is concerned: unless Brayden96 engages in conduct that is disruptive in and of itself (without reference, in other words, to your assertion that he is a reincarnation of a banned user), a re-block will be viewed as a deliberate attempt to interfere with the implementation of a Committee ruling, and will be responded to accordingly. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 17:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
    • I understand that BASC determined that at the time of the original block, not enough evidence supported a sock block. If after the unblock, new and sustained evidence is produced that this is in fact G-Zay, why should the BASC decision make the user "immune" from sock blocks? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
      • New evidence may be considered if it's substantially different in nature from the evidence that we've already dismissed. In particular, evidence that merely shows two accounts having a shared interest or opinion (where such an opinion might reasonably be held by more than one person) is unlikely to be convincing in the absence of other corroborating evidence. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
        • Thank you. And just to make sure, if there ever is reason to seek a reblock, what should be done? SPI, AN, contact ArbCom (since BASC is dead)? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
          • I would recommend that you ping us if something comes up; depending on the specific nature of the evidence in question, we may ask that you take it to SPI/AN/etc. or consider it ourselves. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 19:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
            • Thanks a lot for taking the time to respond, and apologies (particularly to GW) if my initial post felt a bit "aggressive". I remain unconvinced but will stick to monitoring quietly. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to this Kirill. I was volunteering at an event this weekend and so my time was fairly limited. As this block (and subsequent unblock) were not based on checkuser evidence, I don't think it's necessary to treat this differently than you would any user who was unblocked via a request on their talk page or UTRS. That said, courtesy pings to let us know what's going on are never unwelcome. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Still have not learned anything

With this vote, it shows you still haven't learned anything since Gamergate. You claimed you did before WP:ACE2015, but this shows you have not. Dave Dial (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Dave? Any chance you could rephrase this to more specific and constructive and less combative? Criticizing an Arb for their vote is certainly allowed, but specifics such as "I think that was wrong because X; you should instead do Y" would probably be more useful. "You still haven't learned anything" doesn't really tell anyone much, and is more on the offensive side. I had to go and look at your edit history, and to see if you had made any comments on that page to see what your point of view was - and, honestly, still haven't figured it out despite that. Don't know if you've noticed, but this page is semi-protected. That's because the Gorilla has been flamed by IPs quite recently. That might well make her less interested in trying to get the kernels of usefulness out of a wrapping of insult. Clearly she won't fold to a bit of harsh language, but she might not pay attention to it either. In fact, I would not be shocked if someone outright deletes this section as a personal attack if it doesn't get more constructive. --GRuban (talk) 16:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, of course it was purposely a bit hostile. Listen, I like GW and think she is smart. I am disappointed that after outside agitators brought about the GG case, harassed and caused untold drama, and had many long time editors sanctioned or banned, that she would allow another outside agitator to do the same here. The new Arbs seem to get that ArbCom should be here to reduce drama and help the project run smoothly. GW seemed to get that too, but her current vote seems to put having a case filled with more drama over a common sense motion. Dave Dial (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I do appreciate your point, and I gave my vote quite a lot of thought for quite this reason. In the end, I decided that a full case would be preferable to a hasty motion just to get rid of the case request. That said, my opinion was in the minority. Hopefully my judgment of the motion was wrong, and it will help the issues in that area. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I'm not going to change my wording or anything, because I meant what I wrote. But I will point you to the ACE results. I don't know of a time in ACE that so many people voted and members received so many votes. So just keep doing what you think is right. Your colleagues should also keep that in mind when they are getting the kind of flack from some editors that are consistently and devotionally here to stir shit. Dave Dial (talk) 02:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I see no need for you to change the wording. Thank you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to an online editathon on Black Women's History

Invitation
	Black Women's History online edit-a-thon 1 to 15 February 2016 Hosted by Women in Red Sponsored by AfroCrowd Supporting Black WikiHistory Month

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Women in Red events by removing your name from this list.)--Ipigott (talk) 12:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Rolling OS/CU stats

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

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

Towards a New Wikimania results

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

Women's History Month worldwide online edit-a-thon

You are invited...
	Women's History Month worldwide online edit-a-thon Host: Women in Red Sponsor: Art+Feminism 1 to 31 March 2016

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)
--Rosiestep (talk) 20:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Re timeline

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

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

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

Thanks for your work there. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks likewise. The reorg timeline is also relevant: creating CE, refactoring engineering. – SJ + (who would preorder a bio titled "the stepwise rise of Maggie Dennis")

Great catch on Nik Everett. I've added an entry for him and James Douglas, who apparently left simultaneously. I will be sure to check out the Maggie thing (and keep an eye out for preorders of the book Sj mentioned...) I've also added CE and the engineering reorg per other requests. Many thanks for your suggestions! GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I’m not quite so convinced that “the stepwise rise of Maggie Dennis” belongs on the timeline. I did a quick review so apologies if I missed any but the timeline includes departures from WMF and additions to WMF from outside, but no promotions or reassignments within WMF. Presumably, most of the departures from WMF have an associated reassignment or promotion. If you add Maggie you have to look into adding every other such change which I think would be cluttering the timeline, not to mention a staggering amount of work.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

There is a small amount of it, for example "Wes Moran becomes Vice President of Product". GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Thank you for this timeline. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Thank you

		The Original Barnstar
		Although it was necessarily presented off-site, the impact of your beautifully crafted timeline in exposing the dysfunctional situation in the San Francisco office and accelerating the resolution of the problem can not be overstated. It was a fantastic piece of work and a brilliant political document — devastatingly effective without being polemic. Thank you for your efforts. Carrite (talk) 15:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)