User talk:GorillaWarfare

Archives
August 2014 – present 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

please clean up your mess

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Igor_the_facetious_xmas_bunny_-_NOT_HERE Way out of control. Legacypac (talk) 10:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Someone is 'out of control'. It's not me.Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 11:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Big Mess

As noted above, User:Igor the facetious xmas bunny is continues to be discussed at ANI. The user's behavior is also up for discussion at two seperate threads at WP:AN/3RR (link 1, link 2) and an SPI has been opened here.

With the mess the user has caused (as evidenced by the multiple threads linked above) it might be helpful to know who we are dealing with here. Igor says he/she "confirmed my prior history with" you. Since the user's behavior is less than stellar (ie: edit-warring, socks, gaming the system, ANI thread, 3RR violations, etc.), knowing who they are would be helpful. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The ANI thread has been closed with the following summary by User:Nick: "GorillaWarfare appears to have taken responsibility for this debacle and will presumably clear up the mess left by Igor the facetious xmas bunny when they return online later. I would have indefinitely blocked the account for disruption, in agreement with several of my fellow administrators, but if GW wants to take responsibility for this disruption, on their head be it. Please, can everybody else return to more productive, fruitful editing."

On the SPI, there is a possible, though currently unconfirmed, connection between Igor and globally-blocked User:Operahome. There is behavioral evidence that leans toward Igor being Operahome. Edits by various IPs connected to Igor after Operahome blocks are very curious. Plus, Operahome and Igor both editing the article/draft for Igor Janev (now SALTed after an Operahome SPI) shows a possible connection as well. User:Toddy1 also claims there is "very good evidence that Igor is Operahome".

I believe a response to all of this is needed from you, especially after the ANI thread being closed and the responsibility for Igor's behavior being placed on your head. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

If you are not going to deal with this user can you at least make it clear that at this point enough new edits have been made that you would not consider a reversal to be wheel warring? Your choice to unblock without discussion or consensus has left us hand tied due to wheel warring policies. Chillum 17:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay–have been AFK all morning, and am only briefly around right now, though I'll be back later. I would not consider a reversal of the block to be wheel-warring at this point. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Noting that I haven't had a minute to read through the contribution history since last night, so I can't say whether I agree that my unblock was unwise, but I don't want to hold anything up or have accusations of wheel-warring flying around just because I'm not available at the moment. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

People have occasionally told me that I'm foolish and assume good faith when I shouldn't. To do something unwise, but kind, is not a fault. You tried to help this user and hoped they would do better. We should give your initiative every chance to succeed. I've been asking people to back away from the conflict in hopes that the user will settle down. I recommend people wait a bit longer before deciding what to do. Igor should try to avoid doing anything controversial and see if they can get along. In particular, the soapboxing at User talk: Jimbo Wales should stop. Jehochman ^Talk 22:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

At this diff he claims to have explained to GW his previous identities. He has already stated he has edited under a different account at User talk:Chillum at this diff - "Yes, I have edited previously under another account; I hope that you understand that that is not a cardinal sin". Can GW confirm this? If not it would demonstrate bad faith. Also, any info given might help at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Igor the facetious xmas bunny. --Mrjulesd (talk) 22:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• For better or for worse, Gorilla, you are now the bunny's keeper. :) Good luck with it. I want to echo Jehochman's comment, and I credit you for sticking your neck out. Drmies (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

GW: I think what needs to be explained is under what basis he was granted an alternate legitimate account. I've looked at WP:SOCK and the closest I could come up with, based on his humorous user name, is a humor account. Is this the case? If it could be explained I would be very grateful. --Mrjulesd (talk) 18:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

It sounds like he stopped using the old account and started a new one. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that as long as it is not done to avoid scrutiny. Suggest we leave well enough alone. Jehochman ^Talk 18:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@Mrjulesd: If you're looking for the specific part of WP:SOCK, it's "Clean start under a new name" under WP:SOCK#LEGIT. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Igor

Hi GW. Could you have a look at recent edits by Igor the facetious xmas bunny to see if they are helpful or not? There's been a bit more edit warring, possibly baited by other editors. I've asked Legacypac to back away, but I'm concerned. Thanks. Jehochman ^Talk 19:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Jehochman advised me to 'walk away' [1], so I found an entirely unrelated article to work on, in a cleapup category - Shaiwatna Kupratakul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). A BLP with unreferenced material, tagged as such since Jan 2010. I moved unreferenced claims onto the talk page for possible discussion and potentially adding it with refs [2].

Legacypac (RV 1) put it back, calling my edits vandalism [3].

My first revert asking for refs. [4] Not 'vandalism' at all. Please see WP:BURDEN. Don't add it back without refs, thansk

Legacypac (RV 2) removed it again. [5]

My second revert [6], Please do not add unreferenced info to this BLP. Please discuss it on the talk page. WP:V WP:BURDEN

Then another user - Titusfox - reverted. After discussion, he undid his own revert. [7].

Legacypac (RV 3) [8]

Legacypac is the one edit-warring. As detailed above, 3 times, he has reverted - calling my edits 'vandalism', and introducing unreferenced info to this BLP, without discussing it on the talk page. [9]

I have not attemted to revert it more than the 2 times specified above.

Please deal with the problem of Legacypac a) harassing me, b) edit-warring, c) accusing me of vandalism, d) adding unreferenced material to a BLP.

I'm happy to discuss possible sourcing of those apparently unref'd BLP claims on the talk page.

BTW, although I disagree that the name "Igor the facetious xmas bunny" was in any way disruptive, I have nevertheless changed it. Best, Igor the bunny (talk) 20:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

It was very nice for you to accommodate others for no reason other than to make them feel better. We have to get everybody's emotions under control so they can think rationally. We need to convince Legacypac to stop bothering you. I started with a friendly request to them. Let's see how they react. Jehochman ^Talk 21:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Fine, and I'm happy to disengage, apart from leaving the large amount of unref'd information on that BLP, per [10]. I won't (for now) undo it, I'll leave it to you to hopefully fix. Igor the bunny (talk) 21:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree that Legacypac's choice to come to that page and begin edit warring with Igor the bunny does give the appearance of hounding. Igor's edits did indeed remove uncited information, and they left a message on the talk page (and edit summary) explaining what they were doing. Legacypac categorizing the edit as vandalism is incorrect, and saying that the material "looks very crediable and is undoubtably sourced in the refs" is not an acceptable form of citation. Given Igor's recent conflicts, walking on eggshells here and not reverting at all (as opposed to just playing by 3RR—it does not always take three edits to make something an edit war) wouldn't hurt, but I do feel that it was Legacypac who was in the wrong here. Legacypac, I strongly recommend that you disengage—your concerns with Igor seem to be clouding your judgment, and are starting to look an awful lot like harassment. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm walking on eggshells - I've not edited it further. I hope others will solve the specific issue of the unref'd text on that BLP.

I'm editing other (pretty random) stuff.

I'm also hoping the ANI will be closed; can't see anything remaining problematic (not ever, really). Igor the bunny (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Hm, I could have phrased that a bit better, I suppose. I meant that, in general, walking on eggshells with respect to reverting might help defuse some of the concerns about your editing, not just with that article. Thanks for stepping off like that—I can imagine this is really frustrating. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, GW, the eggshells Igor is walking on were created by the eggs he himself broke in the ruckus of his not-so-gentle fresh start. In that regard, he's as responsible as anyone else for his situation, if not moreso. I do agree that Legacypac needs to back off and allow things to settle down, but I'm a bit concerned that Igor is being let off the hook here and his role in the entire mess is being downplayed more than is reasonable. BMK (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I think we may actually be saying the same thing (minus that he's being let off the hook). Most people would let slide a few reverts like the ones Igor made at Shaiwatna Kupratakul. I'm saying that because of Igor's rough start, they need to be much more careful than any other user to not give the appearance of edit warring, as opposed to merely abiding by 3RR. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I think bunny owes me an apology for the above comments. Bunny said: "Jehochman advised me to 'walk away' [11], so I found an entirely unrelated article to work on, in a cleapup category - Shaiwatna Kupratakul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). A BLP with unreferenced material, tagged as such since Jan 2010. I moved unreferenced claims onto the talk page for possible discussion and potentially adding it with refs [12]."

This is an outright lie used to paint me as someone doing the harassment. The walk away comment was made by User:Jehochman 15:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC). The unrelated article edit was made by bunny at 9:58, 28 December over 5 hours earlier, not after the walk away comment like he claims. My second revert was on 10:25, 28 December 2014‎ still over 5 hours before the walk away comment. Bunny went on to pester another editor into reverting their revert. I indeed walked away after I was asked to except to deal with the ongoing SPI and ANi etc. Later, when I restored the article today, bunny has reverted me again even though above he says he will not do that. I could care less about a retired Thai physicist, but I don't like another user disrupting and making false claims about me. Legacypac (talk) 23:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

"after the walk away comment like he claims" - I never claimed any such thing. I walked away before being asked to do so. That's not a bad thing?

I have not 'reverted' anything. I hope GW (or other admins) will see who is telling the truth here, and deal with it accordingly. Igor the bunny (talk) 23:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I indeed walked away after I was asked to except to deal with the ongoing SPI and ANi etc - yep, he(she) walked away from everything involving me, except for all the things involving me?!

I restored the article today, bunny has reverted me again - nope, I did not. Check the history. I did not perform any such edit today.

P.S. In concluding this issue, please consider my complaint that there remain unreferenced claims on the BLP, (re)inserted by Legacypac [13].

I have no wish to re-engage with any articles he's battled me over, but I'm concerned about leaving a BLP with unreferenced claims.Igor the bunny (talk) 23:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd also like you to consider his/her accusation that I made an "Outright lie" [14]. I've complained repeatedly about harassment here, and I can understand a certain amount being tolerated, and being told to 'let it go away'. But this has gone on for too long.

Legacypac has accused me of many things, and I'd like something done about it. If nothing can be done right now, please direct me to the right place to seek appropriate action - RFC/U or arb or whatever? I'm sick of the harassment, and it's gone too far to ignore it and walk away. Igor the bunny (talk) 23:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Igor, drop the sticks, all of them, walk away from all the articles which have been the bone of this contention, resist the temptation to get retribution or "justice", go somewhere else completely unrelated to anything you've done before and anywhere Legacypac has been --Wikipedia is a very big place. If Legacypac follows you there, then we'll know what's what. If, on the other hand, he stays away and the response to your editing in the new place is another ruckus, then we'll know who's responsible. If, instead, everything is peaceful, then there will be joy in the Wikiworld. BMK (talk) 23:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Legacypac: My concern here was the choice to follow Igor to that article, not whether this happened before or after the two of you were advised to walk away. Igor did not revert you today, he added a refimprove-blp template. Do you feel that template is in error?

You blindly accepted his false charge against me, that I've now demonstrated to be based on a lie. You should admit you wrong. I can't understand how you can't see his behavior as disruptive when so many Admins and Users disagree, but hey, you have the big hammer and he's your pet so its your problem. If he comes near me again or accuses me of any more problems I'll deal with it appropriately. I only followed him in an effort to minimize damage to various articles as he ran around causing trouble. I make constructive edits, not destroy stuff and anger good editors. Legacypac (talk) 00:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Please point me to where I said anything that indicated that I agreed (or even cared) that the edits to Shaiwatna Kupratakul came after the advice to walk away, and I will strike them. If by "have the big hammer" you mean I am an arbitrator, I don't see how I used that to influence anything here. The only mention I've made of the Arbitration Committee in this whole incident is below, where Igor asked if that was the correct place to go, and on ANI, where I affirmed that I was not acting as an arbitrator. I stated above that I would not consider reversal of my admin action to unblock to be wheelwarring, and I stated on ANI that I was completely open to review of the block. I'm not sure what more you think I can do, short of resign from the Arbitration Committee, to make this seem equivalent to review of any other administrator's action. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@Igor the bunny: If you want outside comment on the behavior here, WP:ANI would be the place to go. WP:RFC/U was recently closed down, so the next step would be arbitration, but I doubt this issue would be considered "ripe". That said, you are welcome to file a request if you disagree. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

That said, I like BMK's suggestion better than ANI or arbitration. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Either the underlined statement by bunny is the truth or its a lie. The time logs don't lie. Legacypac (talk) 00:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@Legacypac - It could also be a simple misapprehension based on when Igor learned of the various statements. You, too, should let it go. BMK (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Christ. Jehochman told you two to walk away at 21:56, 28 December 2014. Igor first edited Shaiwatna Kupratakul at 09:54, 28 December 2014. You are correct that Igor edited an unrelated article before being asked to walk away. I do not see why this matters. Both of you, please disengage with one another. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@G In 6 years here, I've yet to see anything good come from ANI. I'll "consider the options".

(I'll ignore what Legacypac posted here as obviously incorrect) Igor the bunny (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@Igor - Could you indent your comments in the normal fashion? Thanks. BMK (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Any in particular? Sorry, not sure which you mean; feel free to indent my comments; I'll shout if I object. Thanks, Igor the bunny (talk) 00:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, did you mean this where I put a semi-colon instead of a colon? If so, sorry; it was a genuine typo. Igor the bunny (talk) 00:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@Legacypac: I've changed your edit to your comment to strike the bit you removed, rather than remove it completely. Considering it's been replied to in detail here, removing it makes the following conversation pretty confusing, so striking is much more appropriate (per advice at WP:REDACT). GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - I misspoke, and realized looking more closely it was a tag not a revert today - I assumed it was a revert based on things bunny said and seeing he was the last person to edit the article. Not my core point anyway, he just brushed off my core point that the whole complaint was based on an incorrect characterization of the timing of events. I don't like your conclusion that "but I do feel that it was Legacypac who was in the wrong here. Legacypac, I strongly recommend that you disengage—your concerns with Igor seem to be clouding your judgment, and are starting to look an awful lot like harassment." because it immediately follows what I've demonstrated to be a false accusation and mischaracterization of what happened. Did I hound bunny? Maybe I did for a while. He started by tagging my new article for deletion inappropriately, then slapping a BLP on a guy that has been dead for 170 years, then cut out work history on a retired scientist, and other stupid stuff. I took him for a facetious vandel out to make a WP:POINT and dealt with his activity as he piled on more and more stupid actions, taunting people all the way. My view of him and his activity was and is shared by many other editors - so kindly don't look at one or two of my actions on one article in isolation based on a false timeline presented by bunny. I would never suggest you give up an elected position over this, but its pretty obvious that Admins defer to an Arb Com member pretty quick around here. Legacypac (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

You keep making apparently baseless accusations.

he piled on more and more stupid actions, taunting people all the way - diffs, or it didn't happen. Igor the bunny (talk) 01:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I have no intentions to make any actions based on the interactions with you two, so I'm not sure continuing this conversation is terribly productive. I would rather find a way forward from here, rather than continue to rehash what happened when or why. Perhaps you and Igor the bunny would agree to a voluntary IBAN? GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll accept an IBAN, iff Legacypac undoes their edit which adds unreferenced material to a BLP [15]. Igor the bunny (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:Co-op

Hey Molly. I think I only briefly talked to you about the Co-op at Wikimania this past summer; we're looking to get our pilot started late in January 2015, and we're looking for folks who might be interested in mentoring one or two people during the month o' piloting. I figure it's a long shot to ask knowing you have commitments to ArbCom and elsewhere, but I wanted to pitch it your way in case you were interested and had the time. I also just generally feel like you would be a good fit for mentoring. If you're interested, you can sign up here and check out / ask questions about how the Co-op will work. Thanks a bunch, I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 03:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Yeah, between the Committee and going back to classes, I don't think I'd be able to dedicate the time or energy to mentoring. Thanks for thinking of me, though, and I wish you the best of luck. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Kudos

You have the patience of a saint. — Ched :  ?  01:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

True :-)

Just want to point out that all I asked of GW was a confirmation of my ID - that I am not breaching any sock policies. That is all. And it was because a) arb member, b) knows me personally. Nothing else about GW's involvement in this debacle is due to me. I only wanted her to confirm I wasn't doing anything naughty (sock), not to deal with anything else.Igor the bunny (talk) 02:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for the clean up of 64.134.234.63. Seasons Greetings to you. Pvpoodle (talk) 04:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

he has popped up again with another IP 64.134.101.117, could you perform an RD2 on his offensive, racist edits and edit summaries? thanks Pvpoodle (talk) 08:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks like someone else beat me to it, but thanks for the heads-up. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi GW

- just a quiet ‘’all the best’’ to you for 2015 and I hope you’ll continue to be around on Wikipedia for a long time to come without the work load in that 'special' place wearing you down. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Kudpung. All the best to you too! GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

YHM

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.

Regards, Manul ~ talk 19:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Anti-Flame Barnstar
		For your recent coolness in conflict.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  05:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

IdeaLab proposal

There is a proposal at the IdeaLab that may interest you. Lightbreather (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Cheers, Manul ~ talk 10:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Test Kaffeeklatsch area for women-only

Since WikiProject Women as proposed at the IdeaLab may take some time to realize, and based on a discussion on the proposal's talk page, I have started a test Kaffeeklatsch area for women only (cisgender or trans-woman, regardless of sexual orientation).

It is a place where women can go and be sure they'll be able to participate in discussions without being dominated by men's advice, criticism, and explanations. If interested, your participation would be most welcome. Lightbreather (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Details

This is my Twitter account; this is my website. GorillaWarfare (talk) 08:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Recusal in GamerGate

While you may not feel that your tweets on GamerGate show bias [(See [16], since deleted), my observation is that they evince a significant personal involvement in the substance of the dispute, and hence represent a serious conflict of interest, and cause for you to recuse yourself.

Apparently, at one time you also felt that you had a conflict of interest - which lead to you recusing yourself at the beginning of this arbitration. Yet, you changed your mind.

There is no ArbCom policy, that I can find, which supports the notion that, once an arbitrator has recused, they can change their mind.[17] In fact, I can find no such concept in any body of ethical standards applicable to arbitrators. While ArbCom has the right to define Arbitration Policy, it has not, in the past, done so by fiat. And it should not do so in this case.

Unfortunately, your unilateral reentry into the case, both by voting on the proposed decision, and attempting to influence the opinions of other arbitrators, has irreparably prejudiced the case. Any sanctions which ArbCom might now impose on involved parties will be open to question.

I'm contacting you here, on your talk page, pursuant to ArbCom policy [18], and requesting that you recuse yourself, and redact all of your comments and votes in the case. While I don't believe that this will substantially change the outcome of the case, I do believe it's necessary to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest.

This is, by any definition, an extraordinary circumstance, requiring action irrespective of the fact that the case has already entered the voting state. So, while I will await your response here, I believe the issue must also be referred to the full Arbitration Committee.

Note: Quite a lot of comments on this matter, both here and in the Proposed Decision talk page, have been getting rather quickly deleted. Not by you, but by apparently well meaning people. That's probably a bad idea. Fearofreprisal (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

This is getting circulated on Twitter Imgur compilation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd not seen that. My issue about conflict of interest in this matter has nothing to do with what GorillaWarfare's particular point of view might be. It's that GW is *personally involved*. But, beyond this, recusing then changing your mind about it is procedurally unconscionable. Fearofreprisal (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

If Gorilla honestly thinks GamerGate is just about defaming and threatening women or that Mozilla allowing a female supporter of GamerGate to express her views on the issue was "legitimizing the abuse of women" then she should recuse. Seems clear that Gorilla has the "neutrality is not acceptable" take on GamerGate. Being an editor on the topic would not be a big deal, but there is no way in hell someone should be acting as an arbitrator when they have such an attitude on the subject.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

But, looking over the proposed decision page, the case findings don't concern the subject of GamerGate itself (pro, con or neutral) but focus on whether an editor has been disruptively editing and interacting with other editors. They are looking at editor behavior which can be judged regardless of what one thinks of the subject of the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but the fact that GorillaWarfare has decided to be recused due to being considered involved in other GG matters seems to indicate that this is not an appropriate exception to make. Again, it is not a failing or moral weakness to lose neutrality over an issue where you and people you care about have been ridiculed and targeted. I know I wouldn't be neutral after that if that happened to me. Peanutenvelope (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, I don't think you will do it, but just in case you're even thinking about, please don't let these guys pressure you into recusing yourself. Love. Lightbreather (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

If you saw the request on the PD talk page, I imagine you also saw my response. I do not intend to recuse at this stage. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The statement you link to is dishonest. Were you really just condemning doxing and harassment that would be one thing, but your comments on Twitter are clearly more extreme. I have never seen anything to suggest Georgina Young doxed or harassed people, yet you retweeted someone who suggested that letting her provide a pro-GamerGate perspective was legitimizing abuse of women. You also made comments to someone about GamerGate as a movement by saying a legitimate movement doe not threaten and defame women. Clearly, you are not simply condemning parts of GamerGate that have doxed and harassed but the whole thing. As to what Liz says, there is no way being of this mindset on the subject can allow someone to be neutral about the conduct of editors in the topic area. The evidence in this case covers POV-pushing and misrepresentation of sources. If Gorilla is of the mindset that neutrality is not acceptable on GamerGate then she cannot make an objective evaluation of such conduct.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I retweeted someone who spoke against a piece that Mozilla published (and later took down). I did not accuse Young of doxxing or harassment.

saying a legitimate movement doe not threaten and defame women I stand by that.

As for my neutrality, we obviously disagree on the "clear" meanings of my offwiki statements, as well as the effect they have on my ability to neutrally arbitrate user conduct. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

They took down both pieces, the one that was anti- and the one that was pro-, so there is no significance to them being taken down. Nothing about Young's piece was there for "speaking out against" other than it being a woman expressing an opinion that you apparently think it is not proper for a woman to express, which was basically that women such as herself have been harassed for expressing an opinion on GamerGate different from yours. In fact, that is something your views would expressly prejudice regarding this case as one of the main concerns I raised are the comments and edits editors such as Tarc, Ryulong, Red Pen, and Baranof, have made regarding harassment of GamerGate supporters, particularly those who are women or minorities.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

If what your reply said were 100% the case, I don't think there would be a problem. ("Regarding my tweets, I don't think that condemning parts of Gamergate that doxxed or harassed women is reflective of my bias (or even particularly controversial)")However, multiple uses of the Twitter hashtag "#StopGamerGate2014" shows that it was not just a condemnation of particular persons' actions, but everyone in GamerGate as a whole—of which this ArbCom case is partially deciding whether to "stop" to an extent with possible block and ban actions on the table for many known GG-editors. The hashtag system on Twitter is used for advocacy, and I don't think your use of it on Twitter was an exception. It is not a moral failing or weakness to not be neutral in a situation where people have ridiculed and targeted you and people you care about, and is quite understandable, and I know I would be the same way. It just isn't appropriate for a delicate case like with GG, however. Peanutenvelope (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@Peanutenvelope: If you could put your messages below previous ones, that would be super helpful. I've moved your last one. ArbCom is not making any statement on how the GamerGate group should continue—saying that ArbCom is deciding whether to stop GamerGate is ridiculous. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Heads up that Peanutenvelope has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Chillum 19:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Could you clarify why you chose to recuse in the first place and what made you change your mind? Bosstopher (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

"It is a principle of natural justice that no person can judge a case in which they have an interest. The rule is very strictly applied to any appearance of a possible bias, even if there is actually none: 'Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done'."[19]

Whether you are neutral or not is immaterial: There is an appearance of possible bias. Fearofreprisal (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I can confirm that the appearance of possible bias exists. -Pollinosisss (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

1) Will you similarly ask whether every other arbitrator has a position ("interest") on this subject matter? Have you checked all of their Twitter accounts as well?

2) There are a large number of active arbitrators on this case (14 is more than I'm used to seeing) and I doubt that any one arbitrator will have the deciding vote in the proposed decisions. What I'm saying is that even if GW decided to recuse, the outcome would likely be the same. It doesn't look like these are remedies that will come down to 7/7 or 8/6 voting decisions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@Bosstopher: I initially recused because I was concerned that people would, as they are currently doing, perceive comments I've made about feminism and GamerGate elsewhere as indicative of a conflict of interest in this case. I thought about it quite a lot, and realized that it's silly to feel obligated to recuse because I have opinions on feminism, and did not choose to hide them. It's easy to make arguments for my recusal, or that of any other arbitrator's, on many cases—maybe I should have recused on Interactions at GGTF because I am a woman, a feminist, and I believe that the gender gap is an issue; maybe I should have recused on DangerousPanda or Kafziel or Nightscream or any other case involving sysop conduct because I'm a sysop; maybe I should have recused on Media Viewer RfC because I'm a software developer, or because I've contributed to MediaWiki, or because I personally prefer the old way of viewing images; maybe I should have recused on American politics because I'm an American, and have opinions (which I've also publicly stated) on political and social issues in the U.S. The point is that it's a judgment call for each arbitrator each time, and arguments can be made for or against recusal on just about any case, but without a significant conflict of interest, I choose to remain active. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Shockingly, the appearance of possible bias can be construed through any number of potential scenarios, but the actual level of bias in this situation is negligible at best. Thanks for remaining active, GW—you made the right call. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

If you are set on this, I'd recommend seeking a resolution of the full Arbitration Committee. That way, if it blows up, you've got coverage. Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't intend to do that any more than I would on any other case in which I choose not to recuse. I'm not going to increase the workload of the rest of the Committee with a procedural vote when no one else on it has expressed concern to me about my decision. If another arbitrator believes I should recuse, they are of course welcome to suggest this resolution, and with no hard feelings from me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

People have opinions on a lot of issues, but here you are once more not being completely honest. Your opinions about feminism are not being raised as especially relevant and it is not merely having opinions on GamerGate that is an issue. Rather, the problem is that your opinions are indistinguishable from those of the people you are supporting in the arbitration case and those opinions are quite extreme. You have a partisan take on the issue and your actions as an Arb here are partisan in nature.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

So you feel that I can arbitrate on cases to do with issues on which I have opinions, as long as I only vote to sanction people who hold similar opinions...? GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

No, this is relatively straightforward. If you feel so strongly about an issue that you think even allowing the other side to be heard is a bad thing that should be stopped, then you should not be an Arb on a case concerning that issue.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

TDA, that screed is nothing more than personal attack. Accusing somebody of dishonesty because you disagree with them on a procedural issues is absolutely outrageous and under normal circumstances I'd block you for something like that. Make no mistake: if you accuse anyone, anywhere in Wikipedia of being dishonest, especially if it is intended to have a chilling effect on that person's participation in matters of policy enforcement, I will block you. The only reason I haven't already is that it would inhibit your participation in the case at this critical juncture. Parties to arbitration cases have a lot of leeway to defend themselves, but that leeway is not infinite. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Has the ridiculous bureaucracy of Wikipedia, with its love of procedure over substance, come to such a point where an editor cannot state the obvious when the evidence is compelling? "Personal attacks" are legitimate if the substance of said "attack" is to state the obvious, that there is a biased and involved individual . It is scandalous that certain admin/sysop's have refused to recuse themselves, despite being biased, involved and obviously motived by factors other than creating a great encyclopedia. Making tedious reference to obscure policy, in an effort to shut down discourse is wrong. 67.97.90.189 (talk) 01:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

A disagreement on the policy is not the basis of my statement. She states "I thought about it quite a lot, and realized that it's silly to feel obligated to recuse because I have opinions on feminism, and did not choose to hide them." No one here is saying her opinions on feminism are the issue, but her opinions on GamerGate specifically. She then suggests that having opinions on GamerGate is like having an opinion on admins or opinions on politics. Unfortunately, it seems increasingly that the default response of admins when questioned regarding this type of issue is to make an absurd remark about a much broader subject than the topic under discussion. It is not even just that she has an opinion on GamerGate. I would hardly expect someone to not have an opinion on an issue, but what matters is the nature of that opinion and how strongly it is held.

When someone feels so strongly about an issue that they think presenting both sides is "legitimizing the abuse of women" and thus anyone attempting to present both sides of an issue should be criticized severely until they stop presenting the "bad" side, then it is an entirely different matter. Another Arb has made some comments regarding GamerGate on Twitter, but from what I saw in that case there are far fewer comments and they are much more tame. Her having an opinion is not a big deal in itself, but when her opinion is essentially that there is something inherently immoral about presenting more than one side of the issue, then that is a problem. By no means is she unaware that the issue is more than simply her having an opinion on the subject and she would certainly be aware that having an opinion on a far more broad issue is not the same as having an opinion on a much more narrow issue.

The Huffington Post brought on numerous female GamerGate supporters to discuss their feelings regarding GamerGate. Aljazeera America talked to various different supporters regarding their feelings on the issue, including female supporters. Numerous major media have sought out and covered various sides of the issue, including the Washington Post. GorillaWarfare's endorsement of a position that is diametrically opposed to allowing such alternative views is damning. How can someone believe she is going to be neutral regarding this case when she apparently thinks people should not be neutral regarding the subject at all?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Well I suspect you know exactly what I'd say if you'd spoken to me the way you've spoken to Molly (I find it excessively formal to refer to someone by their username when they disclose their first name on their userpage, but that's just me.)—I'd suggest that you went elsewhere, but I wouldn't use quite so many letters. I'm not going to get into a lengthy and unproductive discussion with you about why Molly should or shouldn't recuse, both because it would be lengthy and unproductive and because it would be impolite to discuss Molly in the third person on her own talk page. My warning wrt personal attacks, accusations of dishonesty, and chilling effects stands. You can either heed it or be blocked. The choice is entirely yours. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Apologies if I misinterpreted what you said—I've been getting a lot of accusations from all angles in the last 24 hours, and sometimes it's hard to tell who's taking issue with what. We could go back and forth here for a long time about whether I'm biased, but I'm going to end this conversation now in the interest of focusing on both the case and my schoolwork. To repeat what I said above: I don't intend to recuse from the case. If another arbitrator wishes to bring it up for discussion among the rest of the Committee, that's fine, but I don't intend to do so myself. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!

I wish I could buy you a real-life beer or cup of coffee or whatever you prefer. Hell - even dinner and a night on the town. You've earned a trip to a tropical island for the unflappable way you handle crap. Lightbreather (talk) 20:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

+1 Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

+2 ..... quite. The Land (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Life is better with tea! Best wishes! MONGO 22:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Another cup of tea for you!

You're great, the haters can't hold a candle to you. <3 Keilana|Parlez ici 22:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Because chocolate is the answer for every situation. Liz Read! Talk! 00:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Stay the course

I usually don't do cute pictures (or Python), but I'd annoyed if you let the naysayers talk you on of doing the job you were elected to do. Also, feel free to ban folks from your talk page, no one will think less of you. NE Ent 01:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)