User talk:GorillaWarfare

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

Quick edit on Project Sunroof?

Molly, could I ask you to remove this line from Project Sunroof? It's uncited, and more important, just wrong (the page was never down since launch), but I work on this, so probably shouldn't. --GRuban (talk) 15:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Defeatism?

I will happily stop informing other women that Wikipedia is not a safe place for them once it stops being unsafe. Until then, I will not in good faith encourage other women to participate unless they are fully aware of what can come with it.. What if we had told all the women who flew the 1000s of new Spitfires, Wellingtons, and Hurricanes from the aircraft factories to the air bases; the women who 'manned' the Chain Home stations, the women who decoded at at Bletchley Park, and the women who worked in the munitions factories not to do it because the war is not a safe place? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Let us not forget Lydia Litvyak, who not only faced the danger of air combat, but also endured the boorish behavior of the male pilots with whom she shared her aircraft, who would throw away the flowers with which she used to adorn the cockpit. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Kudpung, I think you're minimizing the end of the quote: "...unless they are fully aware of what can come with it." The women you mention did what they did after being informed of the risks. They effected change because they were willing to do the work anyway. It's not that we shouldn't encourage women to edit. It's that we shouldn't encourage women to edit without telling them what they're getting in to, so they can make an informed decision. And I wish you'd come up with a different example; using WWII imagery comes with the unspoken implication that explaining the downside of Wikipedia editing is somehow "unpatriotic"; an implication I'm sure you didn't intend, but is certainly there. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

(more) Indeed, I don't encourage men or women I know to edit WP without telling them that it's anarchic and filled with obnoxious people. Most people I know think I'm nuts to spend time here. They're not wrong. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that the women who served in WWII were aware of the danger. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

This Friday: Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Cambridge, MA

You are invited to join the Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Cambridge, MA on October 16! (drop-in any time, 6-9pm)--Pharos (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Involved party

Hello, I would like to be acknowledged as an involved party in this arbcom case. I say this for a few reasons. Firstly, three other users, Beyond My Ken, AlbinoFerret, and Ivanvector, all named me in their preliminary statements as being an involved party, due to several unresolved AN/I cases involving me[1][2]. Secondly, Guerillero accepted this case partly because of "the urging of Floq and Dennis". However, Dennis Brown only listed one AN/I case in his preliminary statement, and it involved me and Hijiri88, not Catflap08. In fact, Dennis Brown has stated that he will not discuss the issues between Hijiri88 and myself any longer, precisely because of the fact that he basically considers it the job of Arbcom now.CurtisNaito (talk) 17:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Not knowing the current rules for who can and cannot be included in the proposed decisions, there might be a few other people involved who aren't yet listed as parties who might be found to perhaps merit having their behavior addressed. It used to be, at least as I remember, the committee could issue rulings on "all those involved" or similar phrasing. I don't know if that is still the case, but if it isn't, there might be cause to add a few others as possible parties as well. John Carter (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I will ping TH1980 to determine how he views his own situation.CurtisNaito (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Just noting that I've seen this request. I need to go to class and then look through the evidence, etc. before I get back to you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, it looks like you are going to be the sole drafting arb in this case. My apologies in advance for a lot of what you might see here, both in terms of prior history and conduct in the pages themselves. John Carter (talk) 19:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Yep, we're stretched pretty thin right now so for now it looks like I'll be going solo. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I have unfortunately been deeply connected to this case. Beyond My Ken, AlbinoFerret, Ivanvector, and Blackmane all referred to me as an involved party. I was part of a recent AN/I case which was closed bascially on the grounds that Arbcom should deal with it.TH1980 (talk) 23:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Um, who are you? It looks like you forgot to log in here. John Carter (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry John, it has been a bit of a hectic day for me.TH1980 (talk) 23:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@CurtisNaito: @TH1980: I have asked the clerks to add both of you, as well as Sturmgewehr88 (talk · contribs), as involved parties to the Catflap08 and Hijiri88 case. I'd do it myself, but the clerks are basically magicians when it comes to ArbCom case formatting, and I'd rather not get in their way. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Wading in to this one ...

	your mamma grizzly bear IRL is concerned
	OK, daughter, you've made your point. We have pretty well exhausted the remedies within the organization and online. It is time to take this situation offline and into the real world of adults. I live in DC and will do what I can to advocate for you. It will not be easy or produce immediate results, but it will be a step in the direction we need to go. Djembayz (talk) 23:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "take this situation offline". GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

It is time to start some serious conversations here in DC about what is going on with this organization, and the risks to which its volunteers are exposed, especially the women. In other words, advocacy, preferably of the quiet but persistent variety. People of a certain age have seen all this before-- we've seen cults, we've seen dorms go co-ed with no rules, we've seen the civil rights movement, so there isn't anything particularly new going on here, though it is a bit annoying that we have to go through it all over again ... :) It is not the 1970s, and the US is not a totalitarian country, so there is every reason to believe that this situation could be greatly improved. Carry on, maintain course and speed! and best of luck. --Djembayz (talk) 00:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for explaining. I thought you were suggesting pursuing legal action against harassers, which is unfortunately rife with its own many problems. Thanks for the support, and for your work. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Your history

I was fairly surprised with that accounting of things you listed on Jimbo's page that you've went through on Wikipedia. I'm truly sorry that you've experienced this. Without wanting to lessen those things or their impact do you think it has been magnified by your status of being a woman, an administrator and Arb? Were these things happening prior to you gaining your status to this extent? Do you find it's happening more online then off or an even mix? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think being an administrator particularly affected things, because I was not very "out" as female when I first became an admin. The gendered harassment didn't really start until the WMF used my photo on the fundraising banners, because then there was a face attached to the name, and it was very clear that I was a woman. I do think becoming an arbitrator also increased the amount of harassment I've gotten, but not to the same degree. I do get the sort of "garden-variety" harassment that is unfortunately common for active Wikipedians, but it pales in comparison to the gendered stuff. I'm not really sure what you're referring to when you asking about online and offline harassment... I do get harassed offline by catcalls and the like, but I am rarely harassed in a face-to-face setting beyond that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Mainly the argument that people are online saying things they never would in person. It's a true scenario for the most part it's just not a world I'm familiar with. I'm trying to understand the gravity of the situation really and understanding the difference in what the idiots online say vs real life stuff. Disheartening stuff to think people go through this on a regular basis. I'm not sure how that problem can be solved through policy making that many who express desire to impose that on others. I've always believed stupidity was an asexual thing. I'm sorry my thoughts are all over the place on this subject because I'm trying to understand the magnitude and I'm having a difficult time processing it and how the solutions offered can really effect the problem. I appreciate you answering my questions and again truly sorry to hear you've experienced those things. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

People definitely are more courageous about what they'll say when they're masked by the internet; more so if they're behind proxies. Comments made by street harassers tend to be significantly less personal (for example, they don't tend to know my name, interests, work, etc.) and less severe—there's a lot more "hey baby, smile!" and the like, versus very extreme comments that I tend to get online. That said, that kind of IRL harassment is uniquely scary because you tend to be standing next to the harasser, whereas when I'm reading awful comments on the internet, I at least know (and very much hope) that the person can't and won't come near me IRL. Online harassment tends to come with the threat of destroying your reputation; in-person harassment tends to come with a physical threat. That's not to say that online harassment does not also sometimes physically threaten—that's part of what makes comments that mention my location or workplace so terrifying, particularly when combined with physical and sexual threats. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you think that lowering the percentage required for female applicants as admin would invite more gendered focused harassment? My thoughts, which apparently isn't matching what the reality is suggesting, is that a qualified candidate is qualified irregardless. What do you actually think would be a feasible solution to this problem? Is it a problem because there isn't more women in power here and what would be different if there were? What subjects do you think that are neglected here by the lack of female editors? Regarding a case that I can discuss such as the GGTF was this a result of male dominated editors? What do you think would have changed if there had been a more balanced panel by gender? These are things I think about when weighing the results in this? I do not honestly think the results could have been much different but apparently there is a whole forest there not just one tree. If you need time to do other things you don't have to respond to this quickly ping when you have time but I've defintely found the exchange to be enlightening on a number of levels. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think lowering the threshold for female administrators would particularly affect the levels of harassment they face. I think there are three major issues that stand in the way of shutting down gendered harassment on-wiki. Unfortunately I can't pretend to have the solutions to them.

1. On-wiki response to harassment: The admin corps and functionaries are quite effective at dealing with the overt stuff: "SHOW YOUR TITS" and similar is typically quickly reverted and revision-deleted. But the smaller things—the microagressions like the implications that women need male administrators to help them with enforcement, that women are too emotional for roles such as arbitration, or even the comments that women are not actually experiencing harassment (when they clearly are)—need to be reigned in. This would ideally be a part of an overhaul of the civility policy. It would also need to be enforced, and by people who are versed in actually noticing when these things are happening. This is where I think a larger group of women on the Arbitration Committee and among the admin corps would be beneficial, and ideally these groups would be trained in recognizing and responding to this kind of thing.
2. Technical limitations: A lot of the harassment I've dealt with has not been one editor coming to my talk page, making a crude comment, being blocked, and then disappearing. More frequently, the user keeps coming back under different proxies and throwaway accounts. If my userpage is semiprotected, they'll comment on an unprotected talk page and use the ping functionality to make sure I see it. Or sometimes they'll make a crude username, and then go through my edits and "thanking" me for them so that I'll get the notifications. This is exhausting, both for the victim of the harassment who has no real way of avoiding or escaping it, and for the administrators, checkusers, and oversighters who have to run damage control.
3. Off-wiki harassment: As it currently stands, we are completely unequipped to deal with off-wiki harassment. The Arbitration Committee has attempted it several times, generally with very fumbling results, but often people who are victims of off-wiki harassment are told it's not within the scope of the Arbitration Committee. They'll also hear that it's not something that can be handled on-wiki, and generally requests for help from the Wikimedia Foundation are met with a "sorry this is happening, we'll keep a record in case we ever figure out who's doing this" and not much else. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your clear, fact- based and comprehensive explanation of the harassment you've received, and your continued service on ArbCom. I hope your story gets attention from a diligent, responsible journalist. I feel confident that it will help inform our efforts to eliminate harassment of women editors in particular, and more broadly, any targeted groups. I am deeply sorry that all of this happened to you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Molly, thank you for your comment on Jimbo's talk page. I've seen some of the worst that women have to deal with on Wikipedia, but even I had not appreciated quite the volume (I'm well aware that you'll have had far more than you mentioned there). I'd just like to say, I really appreciate that you stick with Wikipedia and hope that you realise you are making a difference. Worm^TT(talk) 09:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for posting what has occurred to you on Jimbo's page. I can't believe there are still so many dumbshit basement dwellers who don't realize how bad the problem is.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your experiences. Like others, I wasn't surprised that incidents like that happen, but I was totally blown away by the sheer volume and intensity. I am particularly troubled by the off wiki harassment – while we are struggling with addressing the on wiki harassment the off wiki seems like a tougher problem. 23 October 2015 (UTC)--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:12, (I think S Philbrick signed the wrong comment - hopefully this is right. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)) sphilbrick stupid ping Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

+1 to all the above. Some of comment on WT:JIMBO saddens me deeply and its unbelievable in this day and age that people expect women to bare their scars before they are taken seriously. I'm sure it was uncomfortable reliving that lot again but daylight is a great disinfectant for trolls and I hope that your bravery will encourage more users to take this issue seriously and shame those who willfully do not. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above views. I know we haven't seen eye to eye on some stuff but I think we are both here to improve the encyclopedia and nobody deserves the sort of abuse you've had to put up with. It happened to Kathy Sierra (though it shouldn't have!) and I can sadly believe it could happen to somebody else. I don't really have any answer other than use your revdel and block buttons where you can and get the police involved if necessary. Although my other half has occasionally popped onto Wikipedia to write the odd article, she certainly thinks the culture is abusive and unpleasant and it's not really an exaggeration to say she "puts up" with me editing on here more than anything else. On a final note, I would just politely caution you to go easy on Eric, I know he rubs people up the wrong way but he has done a lot of good work; you might be interested to read about the Cottingley Fairies, an article he got through FAC some time back and quite a fascinating story, in my view. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I just read the information at Jimbo's talk, and it made me entirely depressed. What GW and other female editors have gone through is appalling. Just imagine what would happen if the harassers did that sort of thing over their real names, in their workplaces. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I would just like to say that I too was shocked, saddened and sickened by what you had to say. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Molly, you may wish to visit my last revert on Yngvatdottir's T/P and do the necessary block. I think it is the same IP. Regards, Simon. Irondome (talk) 23:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I generally don't like being the one to block those who are being critical of me when there are others who could do it, even when it is obvious trolling. More so in cases like this where a checkuser will probably be needed. Pinging Acalamari, who just blocked the user on a different IP. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

It's okay, GorillaWarfare, I checked to see if the IP who trolled your talk page had been blocked and SlimVirgin blocked them before I could. :) Acalamari 23:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, thanks to you both! GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

• One potential solution to the harassment problem is to have a legal fund where cases of persistent, severe harassment would be referred to a lawyer for action. Anonymity disappears real quick when subpoena's are issued. Even a clever toll who uses a proxy will slip up once in a while and leak their identity. A few well-placed lawsuits could deter would-be harassers. Jehochman ^Talk 16:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• I can be a bit of a draconian bastard on some issues myself, as I think you unfortunately might remember, but based on what I've seen I'm wondering whether the easiest way to go would be to extend WP:BLP to explicitly cover editors who are editing under their real life names, or whose identities are public knowledge, and/or to maybe make libellous or similarly grossly unacceptable comments, including harassing user names, subject to the same conditions as those at WP:LEGAL. John Carter (talk) 17:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• Online harassment such has this has historically been difficult to handle legally. Many laws are still far behind the current state of technology, and the existence of proxies, Tor, VPNs, and other strategies for anonymizing oneself on the internet can make it incredibly difficult to prove that a harassing comment was made by a specific individual. That said, I have been keeping the WMF's community advocacy team in the loop about the harassment that ventures into criminal territory. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I was shocked, and angry, to read the summary of the harassment that you've encountered on WP on Jimbo's page. I knew we were thoroughly male rather than female-heavy with editors, but I had no idea that being identified as a woman could attract that kind of childish, senseless, only-possible-in-a-patriarchical society kind of offensive nastiness (especially when it gets personally identified with your workplace or similar). This is not right and it's not what we're here for. We're here, among other things, to help move the world towards 50% of the responsibility and power for 50% of the people. I'm not sure that there's anything I can personally do, but please accept my sympathies, and should there ever be anything I can actually do or discussions on treatment-of-women that I should be aware of, or contributing to, please do sing out. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 11:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Block of Eric Corbett and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I was actually wondering about your accepting the apology myself but assumed you were metaphorically trying to take the high road when dealing with someone of a comparatively subterranean perspective. John Carter (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I was at first when I'd read it too quickly and perceived it to just be a sarcastic apology. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Precious again

Precious again, your not supporting to loose the valuable admin service of Yngvadottir!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

- even if you probably had no choice ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I promised a while back to recuse on issues relating to Eric Corbett. But thanks nonetheless :) GorillaWarfare (talk) 09:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

That's what I meant, - and thank you for your help here, and for the "penance" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

^{(talk page stalker)} I've been watching quietly in the background and am still a little shaken by what I have read. What on earth happened to kindness, politeness, and the Golden Rule so many of us were taught to live by? What happened to humanity? GW, even though I've neither met you nor do I recall ever communicating with you in the past, I must say, it is an honor to have the opportunity to do so. With the utmost sincerity and respect, THANK YOU FOR ALL YOU DO!!! Atsme^📞📧 19:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I might have indicated instead that you more than earned it by your being willing to put up with some of the rather repellent harassment you have been subject to and continuing to be one of our leading contributors, but I can't argue that it is earned anyway. John Carter (talk) 19:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Ditto, what others said above. Minor4th 19:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for all your efforts. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks from me too! petrarchan47คุก 04:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you all for the support :) GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Vested contributors arbitration case opened

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Vested contributors retitled Arbitration enforcement 2

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. For this case, there will be no Workshop phase. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Nelle Morton at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 03:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

You're invited! Women in Red World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Science

You are invited! Join us remotely! World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Science

Dates: 8 to 29 November 2015 Location: Worldwide/virtual/online event Host/Facilitator: Women in Red (WiR) in collaboration with Women scientists: Did you know that only 15% of the biographies on Wikipedia are about women? WiR focuses on "content gender gap". If you'd like to help contribute articles on women and women's works, we warmly welcome you! Sponsor: New York Academy of Sciences Event details: This is a virtual edit-a-thon hosted by WiR in parallel with a "phyisical" event during the afternoon of Sunday, November 22 in New York City. It will allow all those keen to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women in science to participate. As the virtual edit-a-thon stretches over three weeks, new participants will be able to draw on the assistance of more experienced editors while creating, translating or improving articles on women who are (or have been) prominent in the field. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome. RSVP and learn more: →here←--Ipigott (talk) 10:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Your thoughts about running for ArbCom

After reading the op-ed in the most recent Signpost, I'm considering running for the Arbitration Committee. (I already know I have only a slim chance because of the way that historically candidates who were already administrators have been preferred.) I thought I would solicit your perspective on what to expect if I were to win, particularly about how much of my time ArbCom duties would take up, and how much harassment I might potentially receive specifically as a result of being on the committee. Thanks in advance for your input. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 21:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd first direct you to User:Risker/Thoughts for Arbitration Committee Candidates. As for my own answers: It's a lot of work; much more than it seems just from what you see us put on-wiki. Expect to spend at least one hour a day on ArbCom responsibilities, and more if the caseload is high, you're drafting a case, or you're active on the ban appeals subcommittee. You will certainly be subject to scrutiny, but I can't predict how much harassment you will receive. One note: if you do run, you should probably expect to have to answer some questions about your username. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for responding. Risker's essay was very helpful. I already spend more than an hour a day on Wikipedia, particularly in DYK and the Teahouse; I have the time to spare, so long as it isn't going to be anything like a 40-hour-a-week job. To be frank, the reason I'm considering running is that I agree that ArbCom needs more members who aren't straight white cis men, and I'm decent at proposing compromise solutions that opposing parties are willing to accept, in addition to being neither straight, white, cis, nor a man (I'm physically disabled and neuroatypical, too — I have a very full social justice bingo card). I could already tell it would be a fair amount of work for little appreciation (and speaking of which, thank you for your work on the committee, and please accept my condolences for the reprehensible harassment you received) and am honestly not exactly eager to get the job, as opposed to feeling a responsibility to run if enough other candidates who aren't straight white cis men don't put themselves forward. As for my username, I have had to answer questions about it already, but as I have no fascist beliefs or associations and was just making a play on words, I have no fear of answering more. Thanks for the specific heads up, though, and thanks again for answering my questions. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 09:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

IP grabbers

Hello. Thanks for adding bvog to the blacklist. I've listed a few others at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#IP_grabbers which you might want to consider as well. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 08:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Is it bvog.com, or vog.com? The regexp \bvog should possibly have been be \bbvog instead? 67.162.91.170 (talk) 00:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)