Wikipedia

User talk:Guerillero/Archives/2015/October

< User talk:Guerillero‎ | Archives
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Guerillero in topic Orphaned non-free image File:VlogBrothersYoutube2013.jpg

Small correction at ANI

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
(but not the 'Orange bar of Doom', I hope!)

Just to say that I didn't open the Sandra opposed to terrorism ANI, as you say in your closure, though I did post many of the later 'proof diffs'. It was opened by Versus001. Pincrete (talk) 07:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about the mix up, Pincrete --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I previously suggested that everyone should stay away from the train article for a while. I even tried that but others didn't listen and took advantage of that.

Thank you for locking up that article. In doing so, you made some other editors' POV stick for a month but I am ok with that.

Thank you again for your wisdom. Some of those editors are following me and reverting everything I do but that shows they are bad. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 15:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

See WP:WRONGVERSION --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
See what I wrote..."but I am ok with that. Thank you again for your wisdom..." See, I am a nice person, not a complainer. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 22:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

War

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2015_Thalys_train_attack&type=revision&diff=683672897&oldid=683668865

This kind of edit is extremely provocative and has the potential to start an edit war.

Editors should not be so aggressive and remove people's talk page contents. At most, they can add "I don't agree with that because...." Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Sandra opposed to terrorism: I suggest you review the talk page guidelines --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

GMOs ArbCom case

Latest comment: 8 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion
We will look over this. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Dear Guerillero, on the talk page about this case, you asked for anyone to leave a message on your talk page if we think another user should be included in the case. I have had extremely bad and difficult interactions with both Pete/Skyring and JzG/Guy in the topic area, in which i found them to both be intractable and willfully obstructionist. I realize that is my estimation of their behavior, from my perspective, but i feel this very strongly, and several other editors have observed and commented on their outlandish behavior toward me as well as other behaviors. I strongly recommend including them as involved parties. SageRad (talk) 13:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Hello Guerillero. When the case opened, I was in agreement that JzG should not be added as a party. At that point, he had limited his involvement to talk page discussion and admin actions. However, since the case opened, JzG has been aggressively editing in article space itself - in fact he has been edit warring and has taken on a battleground mentality over content. please see the edit histories and talk pages of Vani Hari and Glyphosate. Based on JzG's recent edits on those two articles, I too believe that he should be added as a party to the case and can certainly no longer be considered "uninvolved" for purposes of performing admin actions in this topic area. I was reluctant to post this - I feel like I'm tattling, but I do think it's worth you taking a look. Thanks. Minor4th 16:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
That is your interpretation. The talk page of Vani Hari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) tells, I think, a different story - I don't see much evidence of you trying to help improve the article but Brustopher and I have, I think, come to a point of agreement, David Gerard and others are also active there - the article is progressing towards a resolution of a few minor differences of emphasis and interpretation. As for Glyphosate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), it is clear that you and DrChrissy WP:OWN that. Were you going to mention your part in the very brief and already finished "edit war"? Or the serious issue of DrChrissy deciding that Wikipedia should place an effect on fish above glyphosate being classified as a Class 2A carcinogen, but refusing point blank to show any external reference to support the significance of that particular finding in the very large report from which it is drawn? Guy (Help!) 17:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Guy, I am already a party in the case so my behavior is already under scrutiny. Without saying more - I disagree with your accusations, but Arb will draw their own conclusions. As you'll recall I agreed with you about the content and significance of the source in question. This has nothing to do with content - I'm simply requesting that Arbs look at adding you as a party due to your article space edits since the case was opened. Thank you. Minor4th 17:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Note: Guy accused me of OWNing the article Glyphosate, but i have never edited the article.This is the kind of thing that is so pervasive in this topic area, and it promotes an adversarial, battleground atmosphere. Minor4th 17:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
And JzG/Guy also accused me of owning the article when I have clearly invited him to make edits which I will not be able to revert because of my topic ban. It is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that it is a "serious issue" that I choose to make edits about the effects of glyphosate on fish and other non-human animals while allegedly ignoring the human aspects. Glyphosate is a herbicide which is undeniably causing problems for wildlife. I would happily make the edits about it being a Class 2A carcinogen for humans, but this would violate my topic ban. Is Guy trying to draw me into violating my topic ban? - I don't know. If Guy believes the information on carcinogenicity is so significant, why the hell does he not make the edit/s! I totally encourage him to do so. But in the interim, it is clear to me that he should be included as an involved party in the ArbCom case.DrChrissy (talk) 18:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Signpost: 30 September 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Out

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

{{Out of town}} I will be out from 6 Oct 2015 through 11 Oct 2015. I will see what I can do during that time but real life comes first. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 October 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Email

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
 
Hello, Guerillero/Archives/2015. 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.

Minor4th 10:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

evidence to be transferred

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Guerillero thank you for letting me write this out. it's 1473 words. I can trim it to 1000 words by taking out all the edit summaries I wrote out, and deleting my repeats of violated policies. otherwise I am ending here. I focused on diffs of 3 editors, didnt rebutt any accusations. --Wuerzele (talk) 05:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • August 2014 Agent Orange removed content based on unverifiable sources (references were too brief to find). wrong. ref was complete, even archived, ref name="va-03-2010""Agent Orange: Diseases Associated with Agent Orange Exposure". Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Public Health and Environmental Hazards. March 25, 2010. Archived from the original on 9 May 2010. Retrieved May 4, 2010. the other ref had been orphaned in an edit war; one just needed to search for it in prior versions. ref name="last-ghost"{{York,Geoffrey; Mick, Hayley; "Last Ghost of the Vietnam War", The Globe and Mail, July 12, 2008}}
  • 2/2015 add USDA when in fact there was an extensive copyedit, most importantly removing "due to the increasing prevalence of glyphosate resistant weeds" with its WP:RS.
  • 8/15 on Monsanto"fine dont care" for deleting whole paragraph, and next diff "simple fact instead of any kind of story" for replacing detailed sourced content with sales figures +ref.

WP:Incivility mostly to WP:BAIT,WP:Civil POV pushing

  • wrongly accused Jrtayloriv‎ on Agent Orange. editor restored information backed by reliable sources, which had been removed without explanation. After jytdogs first reversal he started eloquent discussion. Since counterarguments were false, wrong accusations WP:Copyvio, "removing almost a year of work by other editors", he reinserted them, but was reverted twice more with help of Kingofaces and warned. exchange shows many hallmarks of jytdog:false accusation, pushing to the point of breaching civility and tag team reversal. editor even started Rfc. He left WP since.
  • wrongly accused, reverting and belittling me you seem to be confusing the reference name with the reference itself. there is no in-line reference here was plain wrong. there was an inline ref and it was from "Industry Task Force II on 2,4-D Research Data". 24d.org (Dow AgroSciences, Nufarm Ltd. and Agro-Gor Corporation. he appeared to prevent me from tagging that.
  • wrongly accused user:EllenCT to be disruptive about neonicotinoid ANI didn’t go anywhere, but she stopped editing there.
  • wrongly accused and angered longtime respected chem editor user:DePiep on glyphosate, sought a block for violating WP:NPA by making unfounded accusations of COI 26 March 2015. De Piep got blocked x48h [1]
  • accused me 13 April 2015 of "misconstruing" and wrongly attacked me w "stupid editwarring"(I did not – another user editwarred, I reverted the addition of an error) on my user page, then on article talk page correcting his false attack by writing "others editwarring". I asked him to retract the incivility by mixing in inaccurate information he provokes responses. Instead, reverted "restored back to last stable version", an inaccurate editsummary, was a simple revert i.e. he never discussed why he wanted sourced statements gone, no WP:FOC.
  • Vindictive, opposing Montanabw RfA 23 sept 2015 after she posted preliminary evidence on this page about him.
  • Banned from numerous user pages (Coretheapple, Dr Chrissy, Viriditas, mine and likely more that I am unaware of)

WP:PRIMARY Dogmatic removals, never tagging

WP: PRIMARY allowed when serving his WP:POV

WP:COI and WP:COIN

Kingofaces43

Diffs below cannot be separated into categories usually showing more than one of these behavioral problems:

  1. WP:disruption by removing statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style. #WP:Tendentious editing
  2. using misleading edit summary, presumably to dodge scrutiny
  3. overusing shortcuts to policy and guidelines eg WP:NPOV, WP:COATRACK, WP:WEIGHT.WP:AGF, avoiding to focus on content,
  4. judging content, such as WP:fringe, without providing evidence

JzG

poor decorum for an administrator.

WP:Tendentious editing = disruption

  • removed WP:RS which he orphaned, instead of correcting it with arrogant (don't see where it was nuked, feel free to bring it back with the original if it's reliable edit summary)

WP:Civil POV pushing =misrepresenting others or other discussions, labeling, to incriminate or belittle and discredit their opinion. uses pluralis maiestatis like jytdog, kingofaces

WP:Primary argument

  • on Glyphosate 5 Oct 15 re-reverting. "Reverted to revision 684268644 by Kingofaces43: Yes, actually they are, because the article is bvecoming bloated and we need to start using broader and more summary statements. (TW)). no vandalism. And [4] "Reverted to revision 684275942 by Kingofaces43 (talk): So you go for one older primary source? No.(TW)"
  Done --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_3/Proposed_decision#General_Prohibition

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

There is a serious issue with this proposal. ArbCom's responsibility on Wikipedia is to resolve disputes when all other methods of resolving the dispute have failed. ArbCom does not and can not create policy. This prohibition is the creation of policy. While smaller in scope than the ACTRIAL debacle, it is doing effectively the same thing; preventing the editing of a wide swath of articles. While ArbCom has the authority to apply discretionary sanctions, and apply sanctions directly against individual editors, ArbCom does not have the authority or scope to apply sanctions across the board to a class of editors. There is a distinct difference here, a line in the sand if you will, that makes this a case of policy rather than a case of sanction or remedy. Let's take two cases here, scaled up, to help illustrate the difference. I'm not attempting a reductio ad absurdum argument here, but rather highlight how this remedy is actually a policy change:

  1. A disruptive editor disrupts 100s of articles in a topic area. We have a multitude of options; topic ban, interaction ban, site ban, etc. If we scale such a remedy, we pick up more editors who are disruptive. This is a good thing.
  2. We apply this general prohibition to the same topic area. We scale it to cover many topic areas, perhaps all of Wikipedia. We've now blocked all new editors from editing any articles.

In the former case, we deal with disruption. In the latter case, we upend the very basis on which Wikipedia was founded.

One might argue this sanction has already worked on Gamergate, so therefore it is probably good. If that be the case, then surely it would work on all of these as well? At what point do we declare this bad? One topic area? 10? 100000? Scale from 1 disruptive editor to 10, to 100000 and we're still ok. Scale general prohibitions and we're talking a shutting down of the project. The difference is stark.

I will state this as plainly as I can; ArbCom does not have the authority to put in place a remedy such as this. ArbCom could make a recommendation that the community consider such a prohibition, but it is up to the community to decide if that should be done, NOT ArbCom. Even so, the community's decision to do so would likely be shot down by the WMF, just as ACTRIAL was.

I'm engaging you on this as I believe you are the author of the general prohibition. Do the right thing. Take it down. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The question isn't can arbcom pass remedies like this it is should arbcom pass remedies like this. In 2009 all of scientology was banned and in 2011, administrators were granted the right to bar editing from an IP address from any page about abortion. There is nothing in the arbcom policy that restricts us from doing this. As for the WMF, from the informal feelers that I have sent out about this, there wouldn't be any issue from them. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • There is a distinct difference between banning a type of editor based on their behavior and banning a class of editor. This prohibition falls into the latter. That's making policy, not remedies. Applying sanctions to people who have done nothing wrong is flat out unconscionable. That something similar has been done in the past is absolutely no excuse, and every experienced editor knows such an assertion is false on the face of it. Where would you suggest drawing the line? Just this area? What about other controversial areas? Why not all areas? There's a reason we do not ban IP editors from editing the featured article of the day, even though we KNOW vandalism happens to every featured article of the day. If any experienced member of the project can't understand why that is important, they shouldn't even be on the project. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
(Hammersoft:) There's a reason we do not ban IP editors from editing the featured article of the day, even though we KNOW vandalism happens to every featured article of the day. If any experienced member of the project can't understand why that is important, they shouldn't even be on the project.
I have just checked you contributions. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia project and not a political project. I brought more content than you will ever bring in your whole life. You came on this case and made your comments without even reading the evidence, without even trying to understand the issues, without an once of empathy for those who suffer the situation. We all understand why the 500/30 is a complex issue but you clearly don't. You just complain.
If somebody "shouldn't even be on the project", it is clearly you. Pluto2012 (talk) 21:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Mail

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
 
Hello, Guerillero/Archives/2015. 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.

at ArbComL. Cla68 (talk) 01:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cla68: I got it and I am looking over it. -Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Toil

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hello - I moved the wiktionary link to the top because "toil" is a common English word, and even though we do not have an article on its meaning (because WP is not a dictionary), people can be expected to be looking for that meaning. So having a wiktionary link at the top of the page makes sense. I don't know how many GAs have one there, but it seems fairly usual for articles and disambiguation pages overall when the title is a common word. And bottom line, why not if it's helpful to our readers? Would you consider reverting your revert? Dohn joe (talk) 17:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@Dohn joe: There is already a disambiguation hat note at the top of the page that links to more traditional meanings of the term as well as wiktionary. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay, that's fine, although I see that another editor is challenging the existence of the dab page. If it gets deleted, maybe revisit? Dohn joe (talk) 02:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
We can discuss it then --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit conflict

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Guerillero - I apologize but it appears that just as I was adding a little light-hearted humor to the Workshop TP, my edit conflicted with what you were trying to accomplish. I will stand in the corner for the next half-hour, so please don't be upset with me. Atsme📞📧 17:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@Atsme: no harm, no foul --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day Quality Title Content Headings Images Links Sources Tagged with…
776   Undergraduate education (talk)     Add sources
419   Gone Home (talk)         Add sources
5   Oberlin Student Cooperative Association (talk)       Add sources
180   Monday Night Wars (talk) Add sources
2,565   Yemen (talk) Add sources
550   Post-hardcore (talk) Add sources
3   History of St. Mary's College of Maryland (talk) Cleanup
8   Gisela Valcárcel (talk)       Cleanup
4,185   Scientology (talk) Cleanup
97   Video game journalism (talk) Expand
11   Scouting in North Carolina (talk)       Expand
1,174   The Prodigy (talk) Expand
44   Boston hardcore (talk)       Unencyclopaedic
210   Black supremacy (talk)       Unencyclopaedic
134   Boy Scouts of America membership controversies (talk) Unencyclopaedic
1,525   Cleveland (talk) Merge
839   Tuna (talk) Merge
117   Virtua Fighter (talk)   Merge
37   Punk zine (talk)       Wikify
18   Greater St. Louis Area Council (talk)     Wikify
162   Masculism (talk)   Wikify
193   Taylor Lianne Chandler (talk)         Orphan
1   Edward L. Athey (talk)         Orphan
2   Sameh El Torgoman (talk)           Orphan
26   Shea Taylor (talk)           Stub
20   Decorticator (talk)           Stub
3   Guri Solberg (talk)           Stub
22   A→B Life (talk)         Stub
11   Monkland Village (talk)         Stub
60   Hookah (song) (talk)       Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Guerillero, you topic banned me from all gender-related disputes for an edit I made to the Rape On Campus page. If you take a look at the edit, you can see that it is not inflammatory, nor is it a personal attack. Yes, I added some flair to the sentence, and I should not have done that. I apologize and it won't happen again. Secondly, I have not made ANY edits to the GG article in nearly 6 months. I understand the need for some accountability, but don't you think an indef ban is a bit strong? I'm hoping you will reconsider, because I AM interested in gender related topics, but I will agree to stay away from them for the time being. I just feel the ban you've given me is a bit heavy handed, and if you really look at my edit history, you will see what I am talking about. Please at least reconsider the length of my punishment. Very truly yours, Cavalierman. Cavalierman (talk) 19:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cavalierman: I'm not reversing or reducing your topic ban. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
OK understood. Not sure why I've been handed such a heavy punishment, but it looks like I've made my own bed and I'll have to lie in it. Cavalierman (talk) 21:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 October 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thank you

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Reading through the case you cited. I was, and still am, upset over what happened, but having some context is useful. I still think desysopping Yngvadottir over something so trivial was not right, nor was the block placed on Melleus/Eric in the first place. Neither one was "harming the project". It seems, in honesty, like the type of cruelty that springs from having power. I expected better of all of you. Kafka Liz (talk) 09:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@Kafka Liz: whether you, me, or the prophet Muhammad agrees with the original block is neither here nor there. The blocking policy explicitly states that unilaterally reversing an enforcement block of an ArbCom decision "may lead to sanctions for misuse of administrative tools—possibly including desysopping—even for first-time incidents" and the discretionary sanctions policy states "Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped". Yngvadottir knew this and it has been policy general since before she joined the project. There is an appeal process and if there was a general agreement on AE or AN we would have been fine with the unblock.

The reason that the arbitration process "works" is because it is final, for better or for worse. If people could reverse decisions or parts of a decision, the point of a final forum for dispute resolution would be null and void. I do not like pulling people's tools but when they knowingly violate one of the very few bright lines, there are few choices. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Peace be upon him. I wasn't being sarcastic, although I can certainly see how it might have seemed. I do stand by my original statement. I believe that the strength of this project lies in people, not beaurocracy. WP:IAR was written for cases just like this. Kafka Liz (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:VlogBrothersYoutube2013.jpg

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
 
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:VlogBrothersYoutube2013.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

De orphaned --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Guerillero/Archives/2015/October&oldid=1181798692"