Jump to content

User talk:Gamaliel/Archive 25

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27

Interested in your thoughts?

@Gamaliel: further to the debate at Talk:Princess Marie of Hesse and by Rhine, do you think it would be a good idea to investigate creating or amending Wikipedia policy so editors are prevented from giving a religion to young children, especially if the children are or were forced to perform religious beliefs and actions out of fear or terror of consequences or punishment (such as in Princess Marie's era)? Paul Austin (talk) 15:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think I know enough about this issue to have an opinion. Gamaliel (talk) 15:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Your suggestion for limiting discussion at AE

I think it's a very good one, and I wanted to mention it here to hopefully reduce clutter -- an to apologize for being part of the problem in the first place. Dumuzid (talk) 23:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

You have no need to apologize, yours was one of the shorter and more sensible statements there. I was tempted to close the request by quoting you: "(1) Masem: Grow up. (2) Dr. Bernstein: Don't be a jerk." Gamaliel (talk) 01:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, looks like I got the opportunity to do just that. Gamaliel (talk) 03:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
While probably not my finest bit of writing, glad I could be of service. And I find it almost poetically ironic that you have to war with an IP over the closure. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 04:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

A comment

"mentioning My Little Pony was sexual harassment". I never said that, at all. I never even said there was "sexual harassment" from MarkBernstein towards me. I said that there was a pattern of personal attacks from MarkBernstein towards me, with the seemingly randoming introduction of MLP (including at one point the issue of sexuality that has been mentioned by the MLP fandom) into the discussion yet another jab towards me. I would really appreciate you at least alter the reason to close because otherwise you are putting words in my mouth that I did not say of any sort toward MarkBernstein. --MASEM (t) 03:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Ack sorry. I did not see Seren Dept's comment before you hatted and now see you are talking at their comment. My bad and my apologies. --MASEM (t) 03:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
No worries. I understand that this is a heated matter for all parties, so such mistakes come with the territory. I wish that we could find a way to settle the problems between both of you without what seems like the entire internet interfering. I admire you for stepping away for the article for a bit voluntarily. I think that is always healthy. As you know, people who are not Mark Bernstein have expressed concern about the ways in which you have been contributing to these articles. Sometimes we (and I put myself at the top of this list) act in ways that aren't helpful or in the best interests of the encyclopedia when in the midst of a heated conflict. It is difficult to realize or admit what you may have or have not done wrong when you feel you are being attacked, and sometimes you think cannot make any admission or concession because you think your opponent will take advantage of it or not do the same. That's when I know it's time for a Wikibreak. Gamaliel (talk) 03:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
And still you avoid addressing Bernstein's issues. If I wade into that article, I can pretty much guarantee you it will become even more of a madhouse than it already is. And I am tempted to wade in because, while Masem probably has faults, they are minuscule in comparison to those of Bernstein. - Sitush (talk) 11:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
I've been dealing with Bernstein's issues for a year. If he was the only issue at Gamergate, we would have closed this matter a year ago and never had to worry about it again. Gamaliel (talk) 12:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Follow up from WP:AE

Hi Gamaliel, Apologies for the interruption. It was my intention to wait for the smoke to clear before following up on a couple of points raised at WP:AE.

I noticed in a few of the comments that you made, here, here, and here, that you were quite disparaging about some of the statements made in that AE request. Given that the comments were not specific about which of the statements they were referring to, I am concerned that this may have led other uninvolved Administrators to look poorly upon all of the statements.

I do not ask that you mention which statements & behaviours you found lacking; or which statements you felt might have been influenced by outside interests - such would be too easily misconstrued as aspersions. I do ask that, if possible, for future AE requests, that you directly engage the editors making the statements for clarification.

I should mention that I have now discovered that I got the Diff numbers wrong in the statement that I made, which is likely to have been confusing to editors reading that statement; for this I make an unconditional apology. If this caused you to doubt the intent or validity of my statement, then I am both truly sorry and deeply saddened. If I had realised before the close, I would have provided a clarifying statement. I would still like to add a brief, NB: Incorrect diff numbers were unintentionally provided, but am not sure if that would be appropriate.

In the case that my statement was one of those that caused you concern, I wish to assure you that, while we may differ, perhaps strongly, on some points, my intent and purpose, as I trust in good faith your own is, is to do what is right for Wikipedia - including supporting our principles & core policies, and contributing to building a better encyclopedia.

Thanks for your time taken in reading this. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 15:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ryk72: I've given your comments some thought today. My intent was to avoid drama, I did not want to put individual editors in the spotlight nor did I want to deal with the angry responses that I thought might result if I did so. I thought such drama would distract further from what was already getting too far away from the reason the discussion was started in the first place. I did not consider that it might influence some observers when it came to good faith contributions. Honestly, I'm not sure what to do about the situation. I'm not sure it would serve Masem, Mark Bernstein, or the encyclopedia if I accidentally started a heated debate with individual editors about their angry and inappropriate contributions. When I merely said that Rhoark's statement mocked MB, he responded with a three paragraph rant, and other editors responded in kind, if not in length. Imagine what would have happened if I detailed the numerous inaccuracies and other problems with his statement. If you have any suggestions about how I avoid casting inadvertent aspersions on good faith contributions without accidentally starting paragraphs of irrelevant drama, I am willing to listen.
None of my remarks referred to your statement in particular, though I did have a few concerns about it. One is the same issue I have with the majority of the statements, which was that it was long on commentary and short on diffs. I was particularly troubled with your response to MB, where you spent several paragraphs attempting to minimize the very real off-wiki harrassment he has endured. I don't think that was in any way appropriate or relevant. It would be a typical response from a couple of the other editors contributing, but you've always seemed one of the more reasonable contributors to that article, so I was a bit surprised to see that. Gamaliel (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Gamaliel, I thank you for your response, and for your kind words. I am time poor at the moment, but will reflect upon what you say. I do agree with you w.r.t long on commentary and short on diffs, and am suitably chastised in that regard. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 21:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Let me be clear about the long and short but, that was everybody's problem, I don't want to single you out in particular. Gamaliel (talk) 21:16, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

What is my recourse?

I directly addressed the problems with the sanctions:

  1. The first part of the sanction affected a topic space which I rarely, if ever, edit, at least not in the last 5 years. Not a single diff was offered in the original AE case to demonstrate any problematic conduct.
  2. The second part of the sanction was regarding the removal of WP:BLP violations for which Wikipedia policies and guidelines directly allow exemptions.

How can I possibly be any more direct?

Marking the closure of my appeal as "minor"[1] gives the appearance of AE trying to cover up their mistakes.

In any case, what is my recourse? If WP:AE isn't the right venue, where should I file my appeal? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Why can you not wait ten days? Gamaliel (talk) 16:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
For two reasons:
  1. I want to clear my name. I realize that this might not be important to you, but it's important to me.
  2. There's a BLP violation in the very first sentence of Anthony Watts (blogger). Per WP:LABEL, we are not allowed to use value-laden labels such as denier unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject. In 10 days, if I should remove the BLP violation, do I risk getting sanctioned? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  • You're right, you should have that opportunity. I will reopen the discussion but I will still advocate against lifting the sanction.
  • For the duration of your topic ban, bring any BLP issues to WP:BLPN and do not remove them yourself. SImply mentioning a possible BLP violation there (as opposed to engaging in lengthy discussion about it) is widely considered allowable for those under topic bans. Gamaliel (talk) 17:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

On the appearance of neutrality

Does it concern you that many on-wiki and off might see this as favoritism? The appearance of neutrality is as important as neutrality itself. This close, while perhaps personally satisfying, is certainly no help to the encyclopedia. Can I ask what motivated it? Several administrators commented; did you not trust them to close reasonably or in a timely manor? 104.200.154.38 (talk) 03:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

The motivation is explained in my closing message: "The person who showed up to claim that mentioning My Little Pony was sexual harassment was the last straw for this admin" I am not particularly concerned about the internet chatter of aggrieved partisans. Gamaliel (talk) 04:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
MarkBernstein's exact words were from the Gettysburg Campaign to the sexual overtones of My Little Pony - specifically sexual and specifically referencing MLP. The claim may not be correct but it's at least debatable. If however you thought it did more harm than good, why not remove it? Allowing what might be considered "trollling" to force an early close sets an unfortunate precedent. 104.200.154.38 (talk) 04:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Early? That went on far too long and made trolling inevitable. Gamaliel (talk) 12:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Neither you nor anyone else answered any of my queries in the AE case, even when pinged. That is appalling behaviour but comes as no surprise given the off-wiki canvassing etc that has gone on and the prejudices of certain people who contributed. Here's the key query: can I start an ArbCom case relating to Bernstein given that some remedies are already subject to AE? - Sitush (talk) 11:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you should ask a clerk? I don't personally know of anything that would prevent anyone from starting an Arb case on any subject. Gamaliel (talk) 12:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Good idea, thanks. But it won't be Liz, although she did at least have the good grace (as you should have done) not to post her comment as an uninvolved admin. - Sitush (talk) 00:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Can we just make it a standard wiki policy that no admin with such a close history with a scrutinize user within a certain topic so as to have been entrusted with their real-life home phone number and cell number, should be able to call themselves "uninvolved?" 71.175.16.25 (talk) 21:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
It wasn't grace, Sitush, I stated in my RfA that I would never act in an administrative capacity regarding Gamergate because I had made my point of view known on the talk page (I have made very few edits to the article itself). I intend to abide by this statement.
While I don't always agree with Masem's approach towards this subject, I do respect the fact that he recognizes his longstanding involvement in editing the article and doesn't take any admin actions regarding this page. As for Gamaliel, I would not consider him involved but experienced in the long dramafest with this article. Gamergate has burned out several administrators who have made honest efforts to remedy problems back when the article talk page discussions were very disruptive, uncivil and included baseless allegations against some very living individuals. At this point, most administrators won't go near the article because of the view that it's a lose-lose situation. I'm glad that there are some admins like Gamaliel and Dennis who are still willing to look at diffs, read arguments and even (shudder!) go through the 40+ page talk page archives to try to bring some resolution to conflicts that occasionally still break out. While this article could be in better shape, considering the toxic atmosphere on Wikipedia back in November 2014 or even March 2015, there is a definite improvement and I hope the passage of time will only help lead to a more clearly-written, better sourced and fairly presented article. Liz Read! Talk! 23:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
They were part of his email signature. This is standard for academics; my work email signature contains my office phone number. I have never spoken Bernstein on the phone at all, nor have I communicated on the phone with any Wikipedian about any administrative manner. Gamaliel (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
My point wasn't to accuse you of having communicated that way, which I never wrote. My point is that the two of you were so close in that topic area that he entrusted you with those personal numbers without batting an eyelash. You don't really think that type of closeness is typical among admins commenting in the "uninvolved" section of scrutinized users' AE cases, do you? 71.175.16.25 (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't know why he sent me his phone number. I never used it and he doesn't have mine. Why don't you ask him? Gamaliel (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
And you still haven't addressed the entirely valid queries that I raised at AE, including the blatant casting of aspersions within the case page itself. This is turning me into a conspiracy theorist, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 00:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "If nothing happens on this occasion, is there anything to stop me starting a full-blown Arbcom case regarding MarkBernstein?" As I said above, I know of nothing to prevent any user from opening an Arbcom case, but again, I advise consulting a clerk of your choice as they are more conversant with Arbcom matters than I?
  • "Would it be considered forum shopping?" I don't think so, but others might disagree. As above, I recommend consulting a clerk.
  • "Would Masem be prevented from participating because of their self-imposed moratorium?" I don't think so, but others might disagree. As above, I recommend consulting a clerk. Gamaliel (talk) 02:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Topic ban violation.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

} Here's the list of diffs you requested. The Sexual Harassment claim is the 3rd NPA request (see 9 and 11 below). If you don't have the time to investigate the complaint but feel compelled to comment and close, perhaps you are a little too involved in the outcome.Sitush let me know if you need this.
1. MarkBernstein soapboxes about some esoteric journalism concept but takes a slight dig by quoting a misspelling [2]
2. MarkBernstein throws out a "My Little Pony" reference while equating certain opinions to holocaust denial (holocaust denial and meaning of My Little Pony have same weight in Mark's jab). He's arguing over what "opinion" means) Masem ignores the MLP dig.. [3]
3. MarkBernstein creates strawman position, implying stupidity, and attributes it to Masem and adds "And a pony" to end. [4]
4. Masem makes a serious reply and also asks Mark to stop personal attack. It could either be the pony reference or the strawman argument as MB is commenting on Masem, rather than content. [5]
5. MarkBernstein denies it was a personal attack and blames it on Masem's lack of knowledge of terminology and the social circles they run in..Not sure if his use of "amazement" is MLP ref?.. [6]
6. Masem explains to a new editor that MarkBernstein is correct about BLP issues (MB had a bitey response that I believe Drmies warned him[7]) and Masem is politely explaining why MB is correct. Uses his proper name "Mark" when agreeing though. Masem urges caution on all sources per Rollong Stone [8]
7. MarkBernstein decides that agreeing but calling him Mark (unless thou was moved to spaketh in a Meeting of a Society of Friends as happened to me) means he should call Masem "M____" (My Little Pony MLP). Also equates the view of Masem depicted as being derived from "Stormfront" (neo-Nazi group) Mark then drives into a long rant about offsite stuff and insinuates Masem is somehow involved with nazis and complicit with nazi strafing of Guernica (??). [9]
8. Masem again notes the personal attacks and asks MB to stop [10]
9. MB again creates strawman about discussion of crimes and sex lives (no discussion took place just a link to Breitbart as far as I can tell) and brings up "sexual overtones of 'My Little Pony'" [11]
10. Another M__ (MLP) reference [12]
11. Masem supplies 3rd warning for NPA and explicitly tells Mark that it was the "sexual overtones of 'My Little Pony'" comment. Apparently Mark stalked his edits as Masem just added that section to an article [13]
12. Mark continues with M___ notation and arguing definitions again. Also opines about "How other editors" are worried about BLP but for the wrong people (implying Masem is protecting the male subject at the expense of female subjects) [14]
13. For the fourth time, Masem requests that MB stop attacking him after above. [15]


--DHeyward (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

So you post this five days after the opening of the request on my personal talk page, accompanied by petulant remarks? This is what AE is for, open another case if you want, I don't object or care. I'm tired of you bringing complaints here like I'm the only person on Wikipedia who can deal with this, and I'm tired of you using the complaints as an excuse to talk shit about myself and others. Stay off my talk page from now on. Gamaliel (talk) 23:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Off to User talk:DHeyward. Gamaliel (talk) 00:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Impartiality of the phrase "conservative media such as Fox"

In an essay, contained in a book published by Syracuse University Press, written by Celia Shallal, she labels the New York Times, CNN, and MSNBC as "liberal media outlets." In articles describing representations in the media of Arab male sexuality and gay sexuality, would it be appropriate to describe these three media outlets as liberal? Can I include in the article on Ted Turner Jon Lauck's characterization, contained in a book published by University of Oklahoma, of the man as a "liberal media mogul"? Biju Mathew, in a book published by Cornell University Press, categorizes the New York Times and CNN as being part of the "liberal media." Enumerating those who opposed school vouchers, Desmond S. King and Rogers M. Smith, in a book published by Princeton University, gives the New York Times as example of opposition from the "liberal media." Christopher A. Bail, in a book also published by Princeton University, lists the New York Times, Newsweek, USA Today, the San Francisco Chronicle, and the Chicago Tribune as examples of "liberal media" which gave extended coverage to MEF's Campus Watch. Anne Rothe, in a book published by Rutgers University, gave Ms., Nation, and The New Yorker, Time, Newsweek, and the Washington Post as examples of "liberal media" which have extended the Frankfurt School critique of mass culture. Kirsty Robertson, in a book published by Oxford University, gives The Guardian as an example of "liberal media." In my opinion, including any of these labels in articles to these media outlets is a violation of WP:IMPARTIAL, just as is labeling Fox as part of the "conservative media". Either all of these labels can be inserted, or none of them can. --HerbSewell (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Note that the uses are not parallel. Though The New York Times is sometimes called "liberal" and though its editorial page has been broadly liberal since the New Deal, the newspaper very much aligns itself with the nonpartisan tradition of Joseph Pulitzer (who published The New York World) that calls for objective reporting in the public service. Rupert Murdoch’s outlets, which include Fox News, are broadly seen as having rejected the Pulitzer precepts in favor of a new arrangement, one more in the tradition of Beaverbrook and Hearst, that embraces open partisanship. That model has been more common elsewhere than in the 20th century US; the US has had no newspaper counterpart, for example, to the position occupied by The Guardian as the voice of Reform, though a related role was played by Harper’s, McClure’s, and The Atlantic. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
There are other examples aside from The Guardian and The New York Times which you have failed to address. Furthermore, the distinction you've made here has no weight in regards to editing content on Wikipedia. See WP:NOR. "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence." Take note that the standard is "prominence," and no disqualification is mentioned on the basis that it's not in accord with MarkBernstein's theory of journalistic objectivity. Notice how my post didn't contain a single opinion of mine suggesting that any of the outlets were more "liberal" or more biased. Your post has no source, not even a reference to Wikipedia guidelines.--HerbSewell (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
The point isn't that Fox News should be labeled conservative or The Nation should be labeled progressive every time they are mentioned. The point is that the source cited in the Jim Inhofe article specifically states that Inhofe is employing conservative media, not media in general, and when we cite a source we should use the information the source provides and not change it or interpret it in the matter we prefer. Gamaliel (talk) 19:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
The point isn't that Fox News should be labeled conservative or The Nation should be labeled progressive every time they are mentioned.
If you are suggesting that I said or implied that Fox News should be labeled conservative or that The Nation should be labeled progressive every time they are mentioned, I never said or implied either of those things and you are attacking an approach I never advocated. In my first two sources, I indicated the context in which either of these sources would be labeled being being part of the "liberal" media and nothing I said or implied could have been interpreted as saying that in every instance where these outlets are mentioned, they should be labeled by their supposed political persuasion.
The point is that the source cited in the Jim Inhofe article specifically states that Inhofe is employing conservative media'
Firstly, the source does not specifically state that Inhofe "employs conservative media," but indicates that Inhofe has ease in "gain[ing] access to conservative media like Fox News," and that this ease "provides yet another means for amplifying the messages of contraian scienstists in the conservative echo chamber."
Secondly, I never challenged that Inhofe has ease of access to conservative media or Fox news. My point is that inserting the source's inclusion of Fox News as "conservative media" is unnecessarily contentious. The statement that Inhofe had ease of access is not contentious. The opinion that Fox is part of the conservative media is contentious and isn't even demonstrated in the source. In the same way that, even if the sources that I cited were used in articles while their labeling of CNN, Newsweek, USA Today, etc. would not be included because the labels are contentious, the source's labeling of Fox as part of the "conservative media" should not be included.
and when we cite a source we should use the information the source provides and not change it or interpret it in the matter we prefer
The "information" provided by that sentence and its main point was not that Inhofe has access to "conservative media" such as Fox, but that the "ease with which Inhofe and his Republican colleagues gain access to conservative media like Fox News provides yet another means for amplifying the messages of contrarian scientists in the conservative echo chamber." The standard you employ of "us[ing] the information the source provides and not chang[ing] it or interpret[ing] it in the matter we prefer" is not consistent with the current state of the sentence which states that Inhofe "spreads his views," (a phrase which the source does not use or "specifically state"), "through his access conservative media such as Fox News." The sentence in the book does not "specifically state" that he "spread[s] his views ... through his access to conservative media such as Fox News." If I said, "John Smith has a dog," that is specifically stating that John Smith has a dog. If I say, "The dog John Smith has makes him happy," it may be inferred that John Smith has a dog but that is not specifically stated by the sentence. You add that he spreads his views through his access, you omit the sentence's point that, according to the author, this "ease ... of gaining access ... provides another means for amplifying the messages of contrarian scientists in the conservative echo chamber," you omit the mention of ease entirely, and you derive "through his access" from "This ease with which ..." With this wording, you are "us[ing] the information the source provides and [...] chang[ing] it or interpret[ing] it in the matter [you] prefer."--HerbSewell (talk) 20:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
If you object to the particular wording that was inserted by other editors, feel free to edit it in a way that makes it hew more closely to the source. Removing the word 'conservative' takes it further away from the source, because, as you mention above, the book directly and repeatedly notes that the media accessed by Inhofe is conservative. Gamaliel (talk) 21:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
the book directly and repeatedly notes that the media accessed by Inhofe is conservative.
The index references only one page connected with his name. Only one other page, excluding the index, contains his name. On page 152, there is a section on the "conservative media", but Inhofe is referenced only in the following section and on page 124. What is the evidence on which you claim that "the book directly and repeatedly notes that the media accessed by Inhofe is conservative"?--HerbSewell (talk) 21:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
The evidence is above. "ease with which Inhofe and his Republican colleagues gain access to conservative media like Fox News provides yet another means for amplifying the messages of contrarian scientists in the conservative echo chamber." Gamaliel (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
because, as you mention above... repeatedly
As as I understand my own words, I dealt exclusively with that one sentence, a sentence which assumes that Inhofe and his Republican colleagues have ease of access to conservative media, from which we may infer that he has access according to the author. Do you consider my analysis of that one sentence to imply that there are direct and repeated notations that "the media accessed by Inhofe is conservative"? Do you consider the author's assumption in that one sentence to be not only direct, but repeated notations? Do you consider a single assumption to be one of repeated notations?--HerbSewell (talk) 22:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
He repeated it twice in the same sentence, emphasizing the importance of that specific connection he wished to make. For you to remove that word is to change the meaning of what the author wrote and to substitute your personal opinion and judgment for that of the reliable source. Gamaliel (talk) 01:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Righwing media such as Fox—that would be more accurate and specific. Tony (talk) 02:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


He repeated it twice in the same sentence
I'm assuming that by "it," you mean "the media accessed by Inhofe is conservative," but I'm unsure what you mean by "repeated," and "twice." To repeat an action twice is do the same action three times, so I should be looking for a notation of the fact three times in that single sentence.
The sentence for reference: The ease with which Inhofe and his Republican colleagues gain access to conservative media like Fox News provides yet another means for amplifying the messages of contrarian scientists in the conservative echo chamber.
From a cursory view, I can see that the words, "conservative" appears only twice and that "media" appears only once. The latter instance of "conservative" is in reference to a supposed "conservative echo chamber," ("echo chamber" being a parenthetical equivalent for "media" that was mentioned in a previous section), which is where the "messages of contrarian scientists" are "amplified," but this is a different point from "not[ing] that the media accessed by Inhofe is conservative." This pertains to the messages of contrarian scientists, not what media is accessed by Inhofe. I also must insist that this isn't noting "that media accessed by Inhofe is conservative," and certainly isn't "directly noting" it.
Note: notice or pay particular attention to (something); remark upon (something), typically in order to draw someone’s attention to it:
I don't see how either of these definitions apply in regards to the relationship of the sentence to conclusion that "the media accessed by Inhofe is conservative." This is assumed to be the case in the sentence in order to make a point of the ease of access of Inhofe and "his Republican colleagues," but isn't stated, so the sentence does not notice, pay particular attention, or remark to draw someone's attention to the fact that "the media accessed by Inhofe is conservative." The adverb, "directly," is ambiguously redundant, but by most examples of notation, this notation is so indirect that fails to qualify as such. Furthermore, if the sentence's mention of "conservative media" and "conservative echo chamber" could possibly be construed as noting "directly and repeatedly" that "the media accessed by Inhofe is conservative," these would be only two instances and therefore only a statement and one repetition. Where would the other repetition be?
same sentence
You originally said that "the book directly and repeatedly notes that the media accessed by Inhofe is conservative," so why are you now saying "sentence"? I did a search through the entire book and looked in the index because I assumed that there were direct and repeated instances throughout the rest of the book because I did not consider that one sentence to have "directly and repeatedly noted" what you claimed the book as a whole noted, only to find that the index had only singe page of reference for Inhofe's name and that the other reference aside from the sentence in question does not even mention the "conservative media" to which Inhofe has access. I would expect that if someone said a book repeatedly mentions something, I would find more than three instances of it and that all of those instances wouldn't be confined to one sentence in the entire book.--HerbSewell (talk) 02:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Righwing media such as Fox—that would be more accurate and specific. Tony (talk) 02:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Using the imparted by Gamaliel that we "use the information the source provides and not change it or interpret it in the matter we prefer," "rightwing" would not be an acceptable equivalent for "conservative."--HerbSewell (talk) 02:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Please raise your concerns at Talk:Jim Inhofe (which has had no comments since February) so other editors can see the discussion, and can refer to it easily in the future. If not satisfied with responses there, try a noticeboard such as WP:NPOVN or WP:RSN. A long and repetitive discussion on a user's talk page is not appropriate for a content issue. Johnuniq (talk) 02:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
In that case, further responses should be posted on the talk page.--HerbSewell (talk) 02:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to subscribe to the edit filter mailing list

Hi, as a user in the edit filter manager user group we wanted to let you know about the new wikipedia-en-editfilters mailing list. As part of our recent efforts to improve the use of edit filters on the English Wikipedia it has been established as a venue for internal discussion by edit filter managers regarding private filters (those only viewable by administrators and edit filter managers) and also as a means by which non-admins can ask questions about hidden filters that wouldn't be appropriate to discuss on-wiki. As an edit filter manager we encourage you to subscribe; the more users we have in the mailing list the more useful it will be to the community. If you subscribe we will send a short email to you through Wikipedia to confirm your subscription, but let us know if you'd prefer another method of verification. I'd also like to take the opportunity to invite you to contribute to the proposed guideline for edit filter use at WP:Edit filter/Draft and the associated talk page. Thank you! Sam Walton (talk) and MusikAnimal talk 18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from August 2015

Here are the highlights from the Wikimedia blog in August 2015.
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe, 00:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 September 2015

Please comment on Category talk:Al Hirt songs

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Category talk:Al Hirt songs. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Hiramrevels.jpeg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hiramrevels.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly hi! 22:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Note

Hey Gamaliel,

I have noticed a huge portion of an article created by me has been removed by you but still when this is standing in the same way. Hope you got my point. DreamSparrow Chat 17:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Mydreamsparrow: I don't know what article you are referring to and I've never edited the Ajit Ravi article, sorry. Gamaliel (talk) 20:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Good for this week's 'In the News'?

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/sep/15/wikipedia-view-of-the-world-is-still-written-by-the-west. Apwoolrich (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Apwoolrich: Thanks! We're swamped this week but we will try to fit it in this week or next. Gamaliel (talk) 15:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from August 2015

Here are the highlights from the Wikimedia blog in August 2015.
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe, 21:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Where should I file my appeal?

Can you please revert the following edit?[16] There was no legitimate reason to issue the topic ban in the first place. I believe that it is well-established within the existing community, that consensus is against edit-warring contentious WP:BLP content into an article. I further believe that the emerging consensus in my appeal affirms that edit-warring contentious WP:BLP content into an article is not acceptable conduct. I'd like to address these key issues as well as the opportunity to clear my name. If WP:AE isn't the correct venue to address these concerns, where should I file my appeal? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I do not believe there is a method or venue for retroactively revoking an expired sanction. You can ask the committee itself at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment or take it to WP:ANI. Gamaliel (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: @Callanecc: @Lankiveil: I've pinged the ArbCom clerks who might be able to answer this question. Gamaliel (talk) 17:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I filed my appeal before the deadline. But thank you for pinging the ArbCom clerks on how to handle the next step with my appeal.
@Liz: @Callanecc: @Lankiveil: I would like the opportunity to clear my name. I do not believe that there is community consensus in favor of edit-warring negative contentious WP:BLP material into an article. In fact, the community has repeatedly ruled against such misconduct. Indeed, there were editors who actually attempted to change WP:LABEL to make it easier to violate BLP. But, fortunately the community rejected this attempt. (I can provide diffs if you like.) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
If this is still about Anthony Watts' website being called a "leading climate denial blog", then I think you're pissing in the wind here. BLP isn't a shield for any & all criticism, nor is it really a contentious claim to call a climate denier a denier, as denialism has been pretty spectacularly debunked and dismissed as junk science. This is the 21st century, y'know. Tarc (talk) 19:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it is about exactly that. We cannot have policies and guidelines which state one thing while simultaneously sanctioning editors for following those very same rules. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi AQFK, (no comment on merits of request) AFAIK there's nothing preventing AE (or the enforcing admin) overturning (striking it) a sanction which has already been imposed whether it has expired or not (it is just VERY rarely done so precedent is against you). If you want to do so, you can appeal to ArbCom by filing an amendment request (of the case the discretionary sanctions where enacted in) at WP:ARCA, listing the sanction as the decision to appeal. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
@Callanecc: thank you for clearing that up. @A Quest For Knowledge: so apparently you can retroactively strike your sanction. But it has been nine days since any administrator commented on your request, so while you may be able to challenge your topic ban retroactively, it seems no one is willing to act, sorry. Gamaliel (talk) 01:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
While no admin was willing to overturn the sanction during those nine days, no one was willing to support it either. AQFK (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Clarifying misunderstanding

User:Gamaliel. Appreciate you feedback here [17] but it is based on misunderstanding. Clarification:- I have been editing Wikipedia for over 10 years years. I have edited many many articles. 99% mentioned in it is not 99% of time on Wikipedia. It is 99% of time in current article. In other words, Out of total time spent on current article, 99% spent on talk-page-of-article and 1% on editing-of-article. Unbiasedpov (talk) 12:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 September 2015

One editor to another

I see several recent comment deletions, hatting, even a topic ban. With the recent unpleasantness I think we'd all benefit from some perspective. Nothing's urgent enough to require immediate attention. Enjoy your weekend, relax. Wikipedia's not so important that any of us should suffer personally. 5.63.146.172 (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by BenMcLean

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_BenMcLean --BenMcLean (talk) 18:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Move request for Gamergate controversy

That was actually a good-faith request trying to suggest a different solution to the article title problem. I did not notice the "page move ban" when I created a new section for the new request. However I would recommend you to seriously consider my proposal, since the use of the word "controversy" in the article title is disputable. sstflyer 14:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I have no doubt your proposal was intended in good faith, but recent page move requests have been disruptive, and the rule must apply to everyone or else disruptive editors will claim favoritism. I will consider lifting the prohibition in a few weeks. Gamaliel (talk) 14:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your understanding. Too bad some people have to resort to trolling to point out their POV… sstflyer 14:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

ARCA appeal

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Imposition of an Arbitration Enforced Sanction against me by Bishonen and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Soham321 (talk) 20:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

FC

Hi Gamaliel. I'm taking a temporary Wikibreak- work seems to be eating up any spare time I've got. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 12:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@Xanthomelanoussprog: Believe me, I know exactly how you feel. I appreciate you letting me know, and I hope you are able to return soon. Gamaliel (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 04:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Good reversion on Daryl Metcalfe

I see you reverted Daryl Metcalfe to changes before mine. This was a very good move on your part. The article did seem very much like puffery but I didn't look at the history at the time I made a small edit to see why it was so fluffy. Reading through the article history, I see many parts were blanked and replaced with promotional copy by an unregistered user. Checking the IP address for that unregistered user, I see it belongs to "Pennsylvania House Of Representatives, Republican" via "pat-cap1.pahousegop.com" so it's obviously not an objective, neutral source on this subject. Woof! Siberian Husky (talk) 15:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Siberian Husky Well done, excellent find! I've watchlisted the article to keep an eye out for this editor. Gamaliel (talk) 15:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 September 2015

Please comment on Talk:Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


If you don't mind me asking. Why is the MGS V page sanctioned with the GamerGate page? I loosely get when Samus Aran] got sanctioned due to Brianna Wu co-writing that wackadoo article on the character being trans. But what does MGS V have to do with GamerGate? GamerPro64 03:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


An argument about a female character in a videogame with the participation of brand new editors smelled like Gamergate to me, with the same potential for disruption. The article does fall within the broad scope of the sanctions even if it isn't directly related. If I was overly cautious and nothing happens, no harm done. I wanted to prepare for the worst. Gamaliel (talk) 13:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 13

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 13, August-September 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - EBSCO, IMF, more newspaper archives, and Arabic resources
  • Expansion into new languages, including Viet and Catalan
  • Spotlight: Elsevier partnership garners controversy, dialogue
  • Conferences: PKP, IFLA, upcoming events

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Op-ed for Signpost

I asked you some months ago about publishing an op-ed in the Signpost. I have finished writing one on the topic I was contemplating, and I think it's near-ready for publication in an upcoming issue. It's here if you want to see it. I feel that it's very much needed in light of the recent decline in promotions. Thanks for your opinion. --Biblioworm 21:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

For your notice, I have posted the suggestion here. --Biblioworm 16:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2015

Help repairing bizarre page moves at Scottish Gaelic

Hello. User:Keven cunha made a series of bizarre page moves. I succeeded in moving most of them back, but made a mistake with Scottish Gaelic...it's still at Help:Scottish Gaelic and I can't move it back to the article name space (I get a notice that only an administrator can move it). Thanks in advance. --William Thweatt TalkContribs 03:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

It's back, glad I could help. Gamaliel (talk) 03:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again for the quick response. But the talk page is still at Wikipedia talk:Scottish Gaelic.  :) --William Thweatt TalkContribs 04:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Ugh, I thought I clicked the box to move the talk page too. Anyway, it's back now. Gamaliel (talk) 04:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you, I think "bizarre" was an understatement.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 04:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The Washington Post archives

Hi, Gamaliel. Feel free to ignore this if it imposes upon your wikibreak.

I am wondering if you might be able to verify through a Lexis/Nexis(?) search the title and authors of a November 23, 1986 article in The Washington Post that appears to begin: "National security adviser John M. Poindexter assured a top British diplomat..." This version of the article in GNews, attributed to Walter Pincus and David B. Ottway, appears here on The Washington Post's website. I prefer the online version because it is not truncated, however, it does not indicate the authors and I question whether the title is noted correctly because there is an identically titled article by Bob Woodward with the same date. Thanks! - Location (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

All L/N provides is the text (which I just emailed you), and that seems to be the same as the online versions. I wonder if "U.S. Covert Influence Still Sought in Iran" was a large headline which had two separate stories under it, each with their own titles. If this was the New York Times, there'd be a scan of the print edition available to confirm my theory. Gamaliel (talk) 22:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for checking on this. I agree with you. I imagine that this was a big enough story that there were multiple aspects to it being reported on all at once. Thanks again! - Location (talk) 22:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again for the emails. I noticed that each article appeared on A1 and had a separate secondary or sub-title. - Location (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 October 2015

Please comment on Talk:Wardrobe malfunction

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Wardrobe malfunction. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Signpost

Hello, Gamaliel. 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.

All the best, --Frank Schulenburg (Wiki Ed) (talk) 00:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Unsigned closure

Hello Gamaliel. You may want to add your signature to this closure. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks! Gamaliel (talk) 19:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

For 'In the Media'

Robert Wilonsky gives a thorough history of the Flag of Dallas in The Dallas Morning News this week, taking a moment in the article to call out Wikipedia on getting the image of the city's original flag wrong. (I'm hoping a bit of light from the Signpost will inspire an editor with graphics skills to fix this mistake.) - Dravecky (talk) 20:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I love stories like this that get (hopefully) historical errors corrected. Gamaliel (talk) 20:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from September 2015

Here are the highlights from the Wikimedia blog in September 2015.
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe, 23:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Bachnell

I think, for formality - as much as I hate to suggest this - you should re-template the TBAN notice. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 04:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

COINTELPRO

Hi, Gamaliel. The idea that Fred Hampton was assassinated is a view held by those generally sympathetic to his cause or those who might be considered to be anti-FBI/anti-CIA. The official findings indicate that the city, county, and federal governments settled a wrongful death lawsuit, but that is not the same as admitting to an assassination. Fixing COINTELPRO, Fred Hampton, and the awful copy/fork Assassination of Fred Hampton are not high on my priority list, but I have started to address this in User:Location/Sandbox16.
Regarding the restoration of the deleted sources,[18] one of those appears to have linked to the Church report. The Church report indicates that the FBI used various local police department to screw with the Black Panther Party, but it doesn't state that the FBI attempted to assassinate Hampton.[19] Swearingen is a very problematic source in that 1) he is a conspiracy author and 2) the quote attributed to "Gregg York" - which incredibly multitudes of websites and books have now repeated as fact; check out this guys shirt! - is actually something Swearingen said someone named "Gregg York" said (i.e. hearsay).[20] It would be one thing if there were a shred of evidence that an FBI agent named "Gregg York" actually existed, but he only appears to exist in the hearsay of Swearingen. Haas represented the families of Hampton and Clark so it's not surprising that he would posit the argument that they were assassinated. The source I removed doesn't even mention the FBI or COINTELPRO.[21]
Sorry to inundate you with this. I can always take it to the talk page. - Location (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I trust your judgment with this stuff, it's not an area I know well. The Haas book seemed like a reliable source, I had no idea he had a personal connection. Gamaliel (talk) 23:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Gamaliel. I just wanted to give you a heads-up that I may remove some of the above sources, but I will try to post explanations on the talk page. Cheers! - Location (talk) 20:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2015

WP:AE

Hi, Gamaliel. You've commented on the caste article request at AE. EdJohnston said on October 10 that he was ready to close it with general approval for admins to place caste articles under a 500/30 restriction as well as article restrictions for Nair, Jat people, Vanniyar, Bhumihar, and Talk:Nair.[22] He hasn't done so, however. I've reminded him on his page once and got no answer, so I don't like to ask again. Perhaps Liz's comment on October 14 bothered him somehow — I guess it's beyond me if it did, but never mind what I think, I'm involved. The point is it's been dragging on, or rather just sitting there, for a long time without any new input. What do you think, would you be prepared to close it? The discussion was already archived once, on 10 October, and fished out of the archive by SpacemanSpiff.[23] Bishonen | talk 18:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC).

@Bishonen: I'll close it if that's all I have to do, I don't have time to do much more than closing and logging it. Gamaliel (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Gamaliel, feel free to do that. I sometimes let the slow-moving cases sit for a while when there isn't much admin participation, but there's no special reason for further delay. The 500/30 restriction (if imposed) will be appealable to AE itself or to Arbcom if people are not happy with it. EdJohnston (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

@Bishonen: @EdJohnston: Which articles are we restricting exactly? Or is this just a general statement that admins can restrict them to 500/30? And would we have to template every article in the caste category accordingly? Gamaliel (talk) 19:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

We would restrict the four articles and one talkpage I mentioned above — Nair, Jat people, Vanniyar, Bhumihar, and Talk:Nair — and permit uninvolved admins to place any other caste articles under the restriction, on their own discretion. I foresee this permission being used conservatively, see the discussion at User talk:SpacemanSpiff/sandbox2 — but you probably don't have time to read all that stuff. In a nutshell, I for my part think you can't do better than use Ed's well-thought-out proposal on AE. Bishonen | talk 19:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC).
I'll second Ed's proposal but I don't think it's appropriate for me to close until I get up to speed on the issue. I'll try today or tomorrow to read everything. Gamaliel (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

The Barnstar of Awesomeness
You're indispensable. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 October 20#File:Peniston Finally CDS.jpg

The image that we discussed is nominated for deletion. I invite you to improve consensus. --George Ho (talk) 05:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

FYI

On [24] at the VG Newsletter, I redacted all the edit changes from the IP up to yours to actually redact out the IP's BLP comments (they were still visible in your diff and intermediate edits from others). --MASEM (t) 17:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 01:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Possible Feature cross-post

This Feature has been in development for a while for the Video Game Newsletter. The subject matter may personally leave a bad taste in your mouth but I'm wondering if this can be crossposted to the Signpost. I think its grand. GamerPro64 21:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I like that you asked me about this instead of assuming I'd hate the idea. We're going to get along. We'd have to go over this with a fine-toothed comb on our end, so I don't know what kind of deadline you had in mind. Is our October 21st issue too late? Gamaliel (talk) 21:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Anytime is all right. The Feature was made by Thibbs so maybe his input might be needed. GamerPro64 21:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I just came here to say the same thing. Maybe the summary of editing on the Gamergate article would be the best to use as some of the interview subjects are blocked or topic banned on the subject. Liz Read! Talk! 21:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Never mind, I missed this disclaimer. Liz Read! Talk! 22:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah I was going to bring that point up but I wasn't fully sure if that was what you meant. But at least its all cleared up now. GamerPro64 22:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the suggestion, GamerPro64. By all means if The Signpost can use this then please do. I think the article would do well with a fine-toothed-comb-over. There are a number of errors still left in it that should be cleaned up, not the least of which is its title (a spooneristic word order fault caused by copy and paste from multiple semi-drafts). I give full permission to anyone who wants to make obvious grammar, spelling, word order, etc. edits to the text. Let me know how I can be of any assistance. -Thibbs (talk) 12:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Naturally we'll have to secure the permission of the interviewees as well since I only asked them for a WP:VG Newsletter publication. I'll send out emails after work tonight. -Thibbs (talk) 13:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Update: I've received permission for a reprint now from all interviewees. One of them has asked me to re-work his response in light of intervening events that now render his Oct. 10 response inaccurate. The response I received from the one Arb I contacted leads me to believe that a reprint would still be equally acceptable, but I appreciate and share the sentiments of those like Liz who get nervous when we're talking about publishing (and now perhaps re-publishing) the words of banned editors so I'd like a second opinion. Gamaliel, would you be willing to provide that opinion confidentially if I forwarded to you the clarifications I received? I've also noticed a number of little grammar, word choice, etc. corrections that should be made, and I was thinking about expanding the conclusion a little in light of some of the constructive criticism I've been receiving. Does The Signpost have a draft page to which the article should be migrated some time prior to the 21st? Let me know how to proceed. -Thibbs (talk) 12:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
        • @Thibbs: sorry for the late reply, got sidetracked and missed your comment here. The Signpost editorial board has discussed the issue of publishing contributions by banned editors before in other contexts, and we feel confident that this will not violate any rules. But please share with me any concerns you need to with me privately and we can discuss the specifics. I've set up a draft page for you here. Please don't feel that this has to be ready for the October 21st issue (which will likely be published October 23 at the earliest), it can take as much time as you feel you need. We also need to go over it on our end. Thanks! Gamaliel (talk) 02:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
          • Ok thanks. I'll migrating the article over to the draft tonight. I'll try to get most everything done by the 21st and then maybe just tweak until it's published. So no need to seek an official "Now I'm done" from me if publishing after the 21st. Just grab it.
            Regarding the email, I think I'll hold off for now then as I don't have any specific concerns in this case. Naturally I'll keep the note from the Arb on file in case it's needed at a later date. -Thibbs (talk) 13:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Just a note to you (Gamaliel), Tony1, and The ed17 that I'm really appreciating the edits to the special report. The WP:VG Newsletter staff is so much smaller that we really can't afford the same level of peer editing so I really feel like I'm being given the royal treatment here. Thank you all for your help. One issue I wanted to to bring up is that the title of the article is correct, but the title in the Signpost series template is wrong. Through sloppy editing I had accidentally transposed some of the words of the title for the WP:VG feature and the correct title should be "how I learned" rather than "how I stopped". I've got the title properly worded in the draft but the title as listed in the Signpost series sidebar is wrong and I couldn't figure out how to fix it. If any of you know how please help me change that. Thanks again. -Thibbs (talk) 23:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Thibbs thanks for your comments. Not everybody appreciates our sometimes less than gentle touch but I'm always glad when people realize that we're out to improve the article for everyone. This was the first chance I'd really gotten to read the piece carefully and it is quite good. You have a talent for a distinctive turn of phrase and I hope you'll be able to write for the Signpost again. I'll see what I can do about the sidebar. Gamaliel (talk) 01:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Random question

Did you confuse me for being an administrator? Reading your comment on the GamerGate Feature, "As administrators, if we witness such behavior we should feel obligated to act, not demand the victim do so.", kinda has me thinking that. I wouldn't blame you seeing how a lot of people think I am and are shocked when they find out I'm actually not. GamerPro64 02:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

@GamerPro64: I owe you an apology. I thought your RFA passed last year, and I thought I voted for you, but it turns out neither one of those things actually happened! I'm very sorry. Gamaliel (talk) 02:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
One year later and it still burns. GamerPro64 02:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 October 2015

A barnstar for you!

The Signpost Barnstar
For your important and well-written article in the Signpost this week. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Gamaliel,

Thank you for writing: "Women and Wikipedia: the world is watching" -- the editorial in this week's edition of The Signpost, 21 October 2015.

Your writing style is clear and concise.

The piece is insightful, enlightening, and thought-provoking.

I hope it causes more debate and leads to positive long-term change on Wikipedia. — Cirt (talk) 19:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Please address

[25] NE Ent 02:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 28 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! 13:14, 29 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) 10:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

c--- and stuff

I found some good things in the Signpost article. However, it is badly marred by the front-loaded claim, discussed at length, that Eric called Lightbreather a "cunt" here. Here, I will give a short case demonstrating why this is false. You are of course free to ignore me. Luckily, since you state in the comments that it is not really about Eric, so you can obviously correct this injustice while not changing the point much, if any.

  • There is literally no reason why he would call her a c---. I don't find much, if any interaction between Eric and LB before this. Why would he call a random person a c---? His rude comments are usually reserved for old "enemies". Just the previous message from Lightbreather in the thread was a cordial one which ended in a smiley.
  • Eric is clearly venting at the general idea of civility and Jimbo Wales, who is the object of the previous sentence. There is no indication that he is talking about Lightbreather at all, except for the fact that he was replying to her.
  • Eric is frequently rude/incivil to other people. Have you found any other instance where he called a woman a c---? If Eric goes around throwing sexist insults, it would not be hard to find.
  • In the very long discussion, almost nobody says that Eric called Lightbreather a c---. There is plenty of discussion about the wisdom of using a word which is treated as a gendered insult in the US, but nobody accuses Eric of calling LB a c---. There were a couple of people who confused the matter, but as far as I can see, not many. Even LB, in their reply did not accuse Eric of calling her a c---, but talked about why using that word for anyone is not appropriate.
  • Eric addressed the point himself his reply on 27 July. He says that it is not used as a gendered insult in the UK and he doesn't care if it is used as such in the US. Crucially, he did not refute the absurd suggestion, which nobody made, that he called LB a c---.

I have a weird fascination, probably related to this about Eric's case. I haven't really interacted with him much. Obviously he has been smeared (in my opinion of course) in the Atlantic whose readership is a 1000 times that of the Signpost. But I can't really help what the Atlantic does. Kingsindian ♝♚ 04:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Is there a reason why you keep repeating "cunt" nine times when people have said over and over again that it is an offensive term? I can see using it once to reference Corbett's comment but the repetition seems gratuitous. Liz Read! Talk! 19:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
@Liz: I can replace the rest of the occurrences with "c---" if you wish, though I am not sure if this is what you are talking about. I generally do not use such constructions in my normal typing. Kingsindian ♝♚ 21:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate what you are trying to do here. It is the right thing to do to correct the record when someone is being portrayed inaccurately. But it seems abundantly clear to myself and many, many others that the statement was directed at her. Whether or not he meant it as a sexist insult is immaterial. Many editors, including female ones, have attested to the fact that he is not sexist, and that's good enough for me. But if his comments serve to perpetuate a misogynistic atmosphere on Wikipedia, it is entirely irrelevant what his intent was, and whatever it was, it was not a positive intent in any case. For example, I'm sure you did not intent to offend anyone with what you thought was a clinical discussion of this issue, but it was not necessary to repeat the term over and over again, and you should refrain from doing so when you know it is a term that causes offense. Gamaliel (talk) 22:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Note that I am not discussing the wisdom of using the word in multicultural environment like WP; on that, reasonable people can differ. And many did, even in the original thread. Instead, I am talking about the accusation that Eric called LB a c---, and one should have very good reasons to believe this, instead of assertions. It is of course impossible to argue with an assertion. I gave multiple reasons, coming from different angles, to suggest otherwise. Moreover, the default position here is supposed to be WP:AGF. To believe that Eric indeed called LB a c---, one should actually have a lot of evidence against Eric that he is sexist etc. to believe that he called a random person, with no previous hostility at all, a c---. Of course, you are not forced to respond to my points: I am a random person, and you maybe have discussed this with other people ad nauseum. Kingsindian ♝♚ 22:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
@Kingsindian: You're overthinking it. Was someone offended? Yes. Case closed. We don't have to delve into the specifics of Eric's intentions or regional differences in profanity. Lightbreather was offended. The end. Pursuing it only makes it worse. 107.150.94.5 (talk) 22:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
You don't need to have "evidence against Eric that he is sexist" to "prove" he called Lightbreather that. He called Jimmy Wales that. Does he need to be sexist for that to have happened? He did it, period, end of story. Whether or not Corbett is sexist is a different question entirely. Gamaliel (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Again, if he called Jimmy Wales that, then the comment was not directed at LB, by definition. If you had made the point in the Signpost article that Eric had used profanity at Jimmy Wales, I would not be here. Instead, you say, and the Atlantic article implies, without actually stating it, that Eric called LB a c---. As to the IP, pardon me if you think that I am "overthinking" it. If you had been the target of some scurrilous accusation in an outlet read by thousands of people, I imagine that you would take a rather different line. Kingsindian ♝♚ 22:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
These were two different incidents. Gamaliel (talk) 22:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok, then consider my last point unmade. I did not say that one needs X to "prove" that Eric said that to LB. Proof is only possible in mathematics, and often not even there. What I am asking for is the basic Golden Rule which is the foundation of all morality, indeed, the foundation of empathy towards others, in particular, the opposite sex or person of different race. If someone had made accusation against you that you called some woman a c---, would you be satisfied by the answers you gave on this page? You would state, I hope, that the person making the accusation better have very good reasons to make such an accusation, and you would consider all other intepretations of language, which is inherently ambiguous. Again, you are not forced to respond to my points; you may already have done so ad nauseum elsewhere, and do not wish to do so again. Just say so, and I will not respond here again. Kingsindian ♝♚ 22:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
If you were in a conversation with a person of any gender, and they said that phrase, why would you not think it was directed at you? Would you not think it was inappropriate regardless of who it was directed at? How is this compatible with the Golden Rule? Gamaliel (talk) 23:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
@Kingsindian: - It's impossible to read what EC wrote and not know he was directing his 'suggestion' towards LB.

The fundamental error was in adding civility as one of the pillars, as it's impossible to define and therefore to enforce. To give you just one example, it's my opinion that one of the most incivil people on WP is Jimbo Wales, and very few would have the balls to block him. Added to which incivility as it tends to be invoked here on WP more often than not simply means saying something I don't agree with, or upsets me. Besides, the easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one. EricCorbett 4:14 pm, 24 July 2014

I've made the instance EC was referring to Jimmy smaller, while bolding the portions where he breaks away from talking about Jimmy. It should be obvious to anyone who doesn't have a bias already that EC is suggestion that if LB doesn't want people to 'upset' her, she needs to not act like a c---. Any other reading defies credibility. Dave Dial (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you all should consider this: the short-eared owl is somewhat unique among owls, as it is one of the few species that is not completely nocturnal. Sometimes, when its preferred prey (small mammals like voles) is active during the day, the short-eared owl will hunt during the day. It is also sometimes active at dawn and dusk. The short-eared owl is one of the most widespread birds around the world! Its chicks are also very fuzzy and cute.

Keilana (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict) @Gamaliel: So, if I snub my toe, and say "fuck", is it equivalent to saying "fuck you"? Or I say to you that "X keeps bitching", where X could be male, is it equivalent to saying that "you are a bitch"? How can one even talk about a sentence without determining the object? Notice again, that I am not talking about the wisdom of using "b----" or "c---" or whatever. I am talking about the accusation that you call a person a "b----" or "c---".
  • @DD2K:, if you can respond to my points I can reply further. You again simply assert that since it was a different sentence, the object is no longer Jimmy Wales (a legitimate reading), so it must be LB (how did you get there?). Again, Eric has used "c---" many times on WP, always at men, and this is how it is used in the UK. Why would one jump to the conclusion that this was used at LB, with no prior history of sexism from Eric, and even the absence of hostility from Eric to LB. Eric barely knew LB at that point. The previous comment by LB to him was a totally cordial one, which ended in a smiley. Am I supposed to believe that Eric goes around calling random people names without any reason? Kingsindian ♝♚ 23:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
You admit that he's used the word many times before directed at people. Why is it so hard to believe that he did so in this particular case? Gamaliel (talk) 23:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I'd rather not. I shouldn't even have responded. I'll just say that I agree with Gamaliel, almost to a point. I don't believe EC is really sexist, but the manner he handles himself makes that distinction moot. If you called someone 'retarded' and someone walked by with their mentally challenged child, and they asked you not to use that word, would you keep repeating it over and over? Insisting that you don't mean it against their child, so it shouldn't matter? This is all very common sense stuff. Human decency. Dave Dial (talk) 23:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Did you know that only approximately 1.5% of ostrich eggs survive to 1 year of age? However, if they make it that long, they can be incredibly long-lived: the ostrich's lifespan can be up to 60 years!

Keilana (talk) 23:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: Because it makes no sense, whichever way you look at it. My very first point. I do not want to reiterate it, having done just that to DD2K. If anyone can give me a halfway plausible reason why Eric would call someone who he barely knew, the previous message from them being cordial, a c--- for no reason at all, I might reconsider. Kingsindian ♝♚ 23:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I can't explain the motives of another human being, but I can't deny what I and many others see clear as day. Gamaliel (talk) 23:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the conversation has reached a natural end. I note that you started with assertion, and you ended with assertion, there is nothing at all in the argument which isn't assertion. It is of course impossible to argue with assertion. If it is "clear as day", why do so many people feel otherwise? I will end with the main point again. If, as you state in the Signpost editorial, it is not about Eric, but the general culture, one could easily remove the accusation without changing the point any, if at all. The same could be done by the Atlantic, though I doubt that they will remove such juicy clickbait - which is why they chose to lead with it. I will leave it to you to do whatever you think best. Kingsindian ♝♚ 00:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


The claims that Eric directed the c-word at LB are entirely mistaken. The key to interpreting Eric's comments is to not interpret them—just take them at face value. Many valid criticisms can be made regarding the style Eric has used in the past when posting, but claiming he was attempting to comment about LB is just wrong. Here is the diff showing when the comment was added. LB opened the section saying there should be a civility noticeboard, and Eric's comment is focused on the proposal, starting with an opinion on "civility" (impossible to define/enforce), then an example of the difficulty using his view of Jimbo, then an observation that a complaint of incivility on Wikipedia often simply means the recipient disagrees with the statement. Eric finished by using the disputed sentence to comment about the need for a civility noticeboard. Such a noticeboard would be for the scenario where editor X says something bad about Y, and someone complains about X at the noticeboard. Eric's point is that it would be easier for Y to stop doing whatever it was that X complained about. The gratuitous use of the most offensive English word was extremely unhelpful, but Eric's point, while an over-generalization, is hard to argue with because many incivility complaints are attempts to knock out opponents. Some interesting comments occurred here. In one, Eric said "In fact despite what Lightbreather and others are claiming I've never called a woman a cunt, either here or in real life, and I can't imagine a situation in which I'd be tempted to do so; it's a word I reserve for particularly stupid or obnoxious males." Another interesting comment occurred here where Eric said "America is a strange place, a mystery to many of us. I have never seen or heard a woman being called a cunt; if that's something you routinely do in the US then you should indeed stop it." Eric's famous statement should be criticized for a variety of faults, but the statement was directed at the proposal for a civility noticeboard, not at LB. Johnuniq (talk) 11:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't buy it. Making a general statement that is really directed at a single person is a common rhetorical tactic, and one that offers a figleaf of deniability if one chose to go that route, but is not particularly plausible deniability. I was a teacher for some time and if a student offered this excuse it wouldn't fly, so I'm not sure why I should accept the same excuse from a grown man. Corbett is, or was, fond of using that word here, directed at numerous individuals. There was briefly a section in the new ArbCom case titled "Instances of Corbett calling people cunts". If he reserves this term solely for men, then I commend his chivalry, but I'm not sure why it is plausible that all of a sudden, in this instance, he wasn't calling someone that. Gamaliel (talk) 22:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
At this point, one can ask the question of whether there is anything at all which could change your mind. If not, you could ponder about what this means about your belief. Kingsindian ♝♚ 22:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I try to keep an open mind, and I try to be comfortable with the fact that intelligent people I respect like Johnuniq have different opinions than I do. Sometimes I am not always comfortable with that fact and in my frustration I have been known to resort to snide comments when my arguments are unpersuasive. Gamaliel (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, I do not see any evidence that you have an open mind here. Regarding "deniability", has Eric ever resorted to deniability about calling someone a c---? In all the examples given in your link, he openly calls people c---s, and never backs down. But, as I said, it is useless to argue if no amount of evidence could change your mind. Respecting differing viewpoints is commendable, but not relevant to my question. At the end of the day, the allegation remains in a public place - the Signpost editorial - it is irrelevant whether you respect different viewpoints or not. Kingsindian ♝♚ 22:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Apparently I have been too subtle. If you are going to insist on repeating the idea that not agreeing with your evidence is the same thing as not being open to any evidence, all you are going to do is annoy me and embarrass yourself. While I am open to continuing this discussion, it must actually be a discussion and not merely you repeating this canard. If you cannot resist the temptation to repeat this a third time, I see no reason for you to continue to post here. Gamaliel (talk) 00:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

A last thought: I am a fan of WP:3O as dispute resolution technique. It of course does not cover conduct disputes or disputes with more than two editors. But the idea is sound. I suggest, if you have the time/inclination, to show this conversation to an uninvolved person, maybe female, and see what they say. Kingsindian ♝♚ 23:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

No joke, I happen to have an uninvolved female person right here in the room with me and I actually did as you suggested. Their response to your argument: "You've got to be kidding me." Gamaliel (talk) 00:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, then. I am glad that my suggestion worked. I hope that she read my argument in full, and evaluated it fairly. I do not see any reason to continue this discussion. Kingsindian ♝♚ 01:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


@Gamaliel: There are students and editors who would "disguise" an attack behind a veneer of plausible deniability, but Eric is not one of them—if he had wanted to abuse LB he would have done so directly. As my above comment explained, every clause in Eric's statement was directed at the proposal that there be a civility noticeboard. Eric posted his comment in July 2014. Here is the same text with the last sentence replaced with a polite equivalent:

The fundamental error was in adding civility as one of the pillars, as it's impossible to define and therefore to enforce. To give you just one example, it's my opinion that one of the most incivil people on WP is Jimbo Wales, and very few would have the balls to block him. Added to which incivility as it tends to be invoked here on WP more often than not simply means saying something I don't agree with, or upsets me. Besides, the easiest way to avoid being called something uncivil is to behave in a reasonable manner.

My equivalent sentence is banal, and the famous aphorism was substituted. Eric did not direct the c-word at LB but I oppose his gratuitous use of offensive language—if someone cannot accept that the term is considered deeply offensive, they should leave. However, the argument to oppose such language needs to be based on the need for collaboration. Sarah expressed the issue clearly (diff): "And for a lot of women, it's not only an insulting word to hear from a man, but a threatening one, because it's likely to be the word you hear just before being punched or raped."

The reason these discussions get nowhere is that those wanting to sanction Eric always pick weak cases to pursue—it was very unhelpful to try a month-long block for a pathetically technical breach of a tban where any reasonable person would acknowledge that Eric was behaving in an exemplary manner—he made very mild comments about misrepresentations in a discussion about him. Johnuniq (talk) 10:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

All cases against EC are weak, by definition. All sanctions are excessive. Long bans for correcting errors at userTalk:Jimbo are for little people, which is to say for editors who have not yet recruited their gang and who lack the support of a chorus or PR agency.. MarkBernstein (talk) 12:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I keep thinking about what would have happened if Corbett had said, "If you don't want to be called an n*****, don't act like an n*****." Or replace it with any other racial, ethnic or gender slur. The impasse seems to believe that some folks think c*** is a perfectly fine word to use while other find it extremely offensive.
But I think focusing on an offensive term barely scratches the surface of gender bias on Wikipedia, most of which does not involve using profane language. Liz Read! Talk! 12:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

5 Million: We celebrate your contribution

We couldn't have done it without you
Well, maybe. But the encyclopedia would not be as good.

Celebrate

Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 October 2015

Hello Sir.

How would I be able to help work on a signpost? I think it is a fine publication, and would like to help it out. ThisGuyIsGreat (talk) 19:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Help wanted: Signpost, Personnel and recruitment

Hi Gamaliel, I read this week's Signpost, and this position interests me: "Personnel and recruitment: We need a people person. This role will be responsible for the care, upkeep, and recruitment of contributors and dealing with any issues." I've been a corporate recruiter since before dirt was invented. In RL, I work in the People Services division of a publicly-traded international healthcare company. Can you or some other Signpost editor give me any more info about the position's responsibilities, what an ideal candidate's qualifications would be, and estimated time commitment? Thanks, --Rosiestep (talk) 19:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Help wanted: Signpost, Publication

Hi Gamaliel, I'd like to put my hand up for the following spot: "Publication: This person will coordinate with the content editors to set a publication time and will be the person responsible for performing the publication process. A bot does most of the work; the primary tasks are organizing the front page each week (writing snippets and choosing an image) and cleaning up whatever the bot missed when it skips a step. This person will have to be comfortable enough with wiki-markup to cut and paste whatever is missing from the publication instruction page to the appropriate Signpost pages.
I think I have a good enough handle on markup, and the process of churning through the technical aspects of the publication process probably suits best. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 20:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Signpost

Hi Gamaliel,

I would like to ask if it's possible for me to resume duties with the Signpost? Not as an active contributor, but perhaps as part of the editorial team? I was previously the writer of the Arb Report. I'm posting this on your talk page in the interests of full transparency, but if this is a discussion which you would like to have in private, you are free to email me :)

Regards, James (T • C) • 8:27 AM • 21:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Awarded for somehow managing to get your "English Wikipedia reaches five million articles" article into the most recent issue of the Signpost even though it was published only a few hours after the 5 millionth article was created. I thought I was going to have to wait a week to read about the 5 millionth article, so I appreciate your speed in getting the Signpost article published. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Signpost - Help Wanted: Publication or Social Media and Outreach

I've trying to figure out how I could best help with the Signpost for awhile now. I'm open to "Publication," though it looks like you might have help there. I'm probably also game for Social Media and Outreach. My work schedule can be tricky, especially on the weekends, but I should have time to help put things together or post some statuses or whatever else is entailed. Thanks, --3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 06:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #182

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Arbitration evidence

The Arbitration Committee has asked that evidence presentations be kept to around 500 words and 50 diffs. Your presentation is 643 words. Please edit your section to focus on the most relevant evidence. If you wish to submit over-length evidence, you must first obtain the agreement of the arbitrators by posting a request on the /Evidence talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 21:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Amortias: Where specifically on the page should I post this request? Gamaliel (talk) 21:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

New section in the evidence talk page and one of the arbs can pick it up or the clerks will alert them. Amortias (T)(C) 21:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Done, thanks. Gamaliel (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Request to revisit evidence

Would it be possible to review your evidence you've submitted with reference to the note regarding evidence about non-parties. There appear to be some statements that aren't linked to a party in this case. Amortias (T)(C) 22:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not interested in sanctions against non-parties. I'm making a case that administrators are subject to harassment regarding this issue from both parties and non-parties and measures are required to deal with this. Gamaliel (talk) 22:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
The clerks have been advised that evidence about non-parties must be removed and this will be carried out by a clerk if nessecary. Please consider revisting your evidence to bring it in line with the Committees requirements. We would prefer editors are given the chance to present their own evidence in line with requirements rather than requiring a third party to remove sections that breech guidelines. Amortias (T)(C) 12:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
As I said, this has nothing to do with non-parties. The evidence is clearly and directly related to the case. Gamaliel (talk) 13:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Per instructions from the arbitration committee, I have removed evidence in your section that concerns non-parties on the AE2 case Evidence page. Liz Read! Talk! 23:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk page location

Andy Dingley's talk page is here, not hereNE Ent 01:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-see-what-you-did-there Gamaliel (talk) 01:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
@NE Ent: My response was overly glib. I get what you are trying to do, but I have no desire to slug it out with Andy Dingley there or anywhere else, ever. I merely want an Arb clerk to remove legal threats from her own talk page regarding an open Arb case. Gamaliel (talk) 01:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
They aren't legal threats. A legal threat is of the form "I am going to sue you" or "I am going to have you arrested". Stating that a comment is slanderous does not imply that legal action is pending. You would be better served by trying to de-escalate the dispute, rather than upping the bets. Jehochman Talk 02:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I love Wikipedia, where they put the onus on deescalating a dispute on the person who doesn't start it or threaten anyone. Will you leave a message for Andy Dingley asking him to deescalate? If not, why not? What does that say about your approach to dispute resolution? Gamaliel (talk) 02:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Him doing wrong doesn't justify you doing wrong also. I started to untie the knot by tugging the first string -- your accusation of a legal threat. Please tell me what bothers you most about Andy and I will go talk to him about it. Jehochman Talk 02:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Isn't it obvious? Threatening me and making serious accusations over something that he misunderstood that I would have gladly clarified immediately if he had managed to actually make a civil remark directly to me about it. It took me quite a while to understand what he was actually complaining about because his actual complaint was surrounded by so much invective. Is this really so hard to understand why a normal person should not be subjected to this behavior and might object to that? Why do you think it is appropriate to characterize that objection as "doing wrong"? Gamaliel (talk) 02:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I understand that you are upset about the way he has mistreated you. That is reasonable. But you need to resist the urge to strike back at him. I will ask him to re-read his remarks and refactor them to be more factual, less heated, supported by diffs and to seek clarifications from you before shooting off accusations. Jehochman Talk 02:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Signpost

Do you still need more volunteers? I may try to help when I have time... sst✈discuss 16:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, please! Thank you for working on FC. Before your edits, I was considering cancelling it for this week since no one had contributed. Gamaliel (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
How else should I help? sst✈discuss 17:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm preparing a message later today to send out to new volunteers. I'll send it to you also. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 17:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 November 2015

AN/I

Please discuss the block of DHeyward if you wish here.--MONGO 22:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Can you post the interaction ban discussion where it was determined to implement a oneway in interaction ban between DHeyward and Mark Bernstein? I assume its at AE archives or something.--MONGO 22:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it was at AE. I imposed it unilaterally, it was immediately seconded by a number of other admins. Gamaliel (talk) 22:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gamaliel/Archive_25&oldid=1166787774"