Revision as of 03:50, 13 March 2014 editGorillaWarfare (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Oversighters, Administrators118,938 edits unused← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:35, 14 March 2014 edit undo84.127.80.114 (talk) →Arbitration case request assistance: May I request the case?Next edit → | ||
Line 88: | Line 88: | ||
The arbitration requests page is protected. Being an IP user, this venue is denied to me. Therefore, I request to celebrate the arbitration case in a page I have permission to write, such as the ] for my IP. Please indicate whether this is acceptable and I will proceed to make the case request. ] (]) 01:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC) | The arbitration requests page is protected. Being an IP user, this venue is denied to me. Therefore, I request to celebrate the arbitration case in a page I have permission to write, such as the ] for my IP. Please indicate whether this is acceptable and I will proceed to make the case request. ] (]) 01:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC) | ||
:I'm not sure that an arbitration case is actually what you want here. The issue seems to be primarily a content dispute, which is not under the Arbitration Committee's remit. I think Guy Macon's suggestion that you try an ] might be a wise next step. ] <small>]</small> 02:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC) | :I'm not sure that an arbitration case is actually what you want here. The issue seems to be primarily a content dispute, which is not under the Arbitration Committee's remit. I think Guy Macon's suggestion that you try an ] might be a wise next step. ] <small>]</small> 02:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC) | ||
:: I am sure an arbitration case is actually what applies and what I want here. I want what I should have gotten from day 0: a formal answer that Misplaced Pages will never accept this content. Misplaced Pages will never admit that it rejects the content not because of lack of reliability or verifiability, but because of the topic. This is why there has never been discussion. ] did not discuss either (I know it is a volunteer job). | |||
:: I am not asking for the material to be accepted. I am asking for discussion. Quoting {{oldid2|598765596|RfC}}, "Before using the RfC process , it always helps to first discuss the matter". Quoting the {{oldid2|595912699|Dispute resolution noticeboard FAQ}}, "Repeatedly refusing to discuss changes, especially controversial ones, is considered a conduct issue". I am the one who discusses but also the one who gets blocked for an edit war excuse, is that a content issue? | |||
:: Perhaps I will file all those requests for comments. Why does not the Arbitration Committee help, reject my arbitration case request and state that this is really a content issue? ] (]) 01:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:35, 14 March 2014
Support cast of thousands
I have mentioned you here because it is an interesting question, isn't it? I think you've had long enough to think up an answer. Giano (talk) 18:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- I've responded there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
FYI
GorillaWarfare(user). --kelapstick 17:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Just as a general note, K et al., there seem to be other impersonation accounts following this pattern; I've blocked one for Acroterion, too. So be on the lookout. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
The "clone"
You're welcome, my pleasure to help :-) ... Anyway, my doubt that GorillaWarfare(user) could be you was only "formal", just the time to wait the obvious response: malicious account impersonating a WP admin. And... the nick was quite identical (so as to make superfluous) with that "(user)", the edits were a copy of your UP and, rotfl, talk page, you were away on IRC, the account was not identified by you and was not marked as patrolled. Lol, not so sly as vandal :-D . Regards. --Dэя-Бøяg 22:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Admin's Barnstar | |
Thanks for your good work. Pine 19:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC) |
Welcome
Welcome to Misplaced Pages into darkness. Regarding the XX thing:
- Although you didn't campaign on it per se, some of the AC2013 voter guides explicitly mentioned your gender, so complaining about the negative effects is a
witbit lame. - Given the multiple meanings of White knight as indicated by the fact that it's a disambig page, including some, e.g. White knight (business), with no sexual / romantic content, it was a lack of good faith to call out Writ Keeper for using the term without first inquiring what their intent in using the term.
- The most important thing to understand is that you were not attacked for your actions in the KG case because you are a woman, you were attacked because you got in the way of someone's political theater, and the gender thing was an excuse. Last I looked I have 1 K WQA and about 2 K ANI edits, so I've lots of experience in wiki pissing contests; folks in wikibattle will find and use any excuse for an ad hominem attack on those they disagree with, ranging from gender to race to country of origin to wiki project to whatever. For good or bad, you've chosen to edit fairly publicly so you're likely to get all sorts of nonsense. (Personally, if I was going ad hominem you I'd use the Python thing; everyone knows real programmers use C) NE Ent 23:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
References
- Yes, this is a joke, no one in the right mind would use C instead of C++ and anyone is says one language is "best" for all situations doesn't know what they're talking about.
- It's "a bit lame" for me to mention that someone is being sexist because some voter guides mentioned I was female? What? I don't see why people knowing that I am female should stop me from acknowledging when people are using that fact to insult me. I'm also a bit offended at the implication that I somehow was elected to ArbCom due to my gender, regardless of whether or not you think I campaigned on it.
- Perhaps you are right about Writ Keeper's use of the term "white knighting," although I don't think it was too bad-faith of me to assume he was using the gender-related term in a conversation relating to sexism. Either way, he already explained his use of the term here, so I think we're on the same page.
- I was not under the impression that I was being attacked because of my gender; I'm fully aware that it was the block and events surrounding it that led to the dispute. My comments pertaining to my gender were simply me expressing my distaste at it being used as a basis for attack. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- *headscratches*. So, GorillaWarfare is not allowed to have or voice opinions about anything where...someone else has already had an opinion? Does this apply universally? Because I have some strong opinions about C++. Mostly they're good, but still. Arguing over whether it was sexist or not sexist is perfectly viable, but arguing that GW is unable to mention or discuss the negative effects of gender transparency on the internet because other people have, outside of her control, mentioned it, is simply trite.
- Also, Python is a terrible, terrible language. Give me strict typing or give me death. Ironholds (talk) 23:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- Of course she's allowed to have opinions, and of course she's "allowed" to voice them. Surely I'm allowed to voice my opinion (once, in a respectful non-disruptive way)? Not all that is permitted is wise, however, and I've seen multiple editors become trollbait because they've tipped that a particular type of comment gets under their skin. NE Ent 00:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- I do appreciate your advice. Regardless, I'd rather become trollbait than ignore sexist remarks. I'd like to think our community won't allow any future bigoted comments that my reaction provokes. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- Wiki as it should be: Simple civility principle
- Wiki as I'd hoped / urged : Notes on civility
- Wiki as it unfortunately seems to be: the real problem is English Misplaced Pages does not have a functional civility policy; as evidenced by the the arbcom case and the technically open but moribund civility enforcement RFC. NE Ent 02:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Arbitration request motion passed
An Arbitration Clarification request motion passed. You contributed to the discussion (or are on the committee or a clerk)
The motion reads as follows:
- By way of clarification, the formal warning issued by Kevin Gorman was out of process and therefore has no effect. The provisions of WP:BLPBAN will be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee and where necessary updated.
For the Arbitration Committee, --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Arbitration case request assistance
Being one of the 13 active members of the Arbitration Committee, selected randomly, I ask GorillaWarfare for assistance. I would like to make an arbitration case request, since I have exhausted the last available avenue.
I would love to believe that I have been given a fresh start, as a volunteer advised, and that I can bold edit normally, like any other user. But I know the facts and what the opposing users actually stated. Thus, I must try arbitration before performing my last leap of faith.
The arbitration requests page is protected. Being an IP user, this venue is denied to me. Therefore, I request to celebrate the arbitration case in a page I have permission to write, such as the talk page for my IP. Please indicate whether this is acceptable and I will proceed to make the case request. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 01:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that an arbitration case is actually what you want here. The issue seems to be primarily a content dispute, which is not under the Arbitration Committee's remit. I think Guy Macon's suggestion that you try an RFC might be a wise next step. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- I am sure an arbitration case is actually what applies and what I want here. I want what I should have gotten from day 0: a formal answer that Misplaced Pages will never accept this content. Misplaced Pages will never admit that it rejects the content not because of lack of reliability or verifiability, but because of the topic. This is why there has never been discussion. Guy Macon did not discuss either (I know it is a volunteer job).
- I am not asking for the material to be accepted. I am asking for discussion. Quoting RfC, "Before using the RfC process , it always helps to first discuss the matter". Quoting the Dispute resolution noticeboard FAQ, "Repeatedly refusing to discuss changes, especially controversial ones, is considered a conduct issue". I am the one who discusses but also the one who gets blocked for an edit war excuse, is that a content issue?
- Perhaps I will file all those requests for comments. Why does not the Arbitration Committee help, reject my arbitration case request and state that this is really a content issue? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 01:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)