User talk:Gamaliel/Archive 24

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20 ← Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24

Topic ban

Special:Diff/654927319:

I am imposing for a period of 12 months the standard Gamergate topic ban, which prohibits you from editing "All edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed."

That's pretty long, I'm not understanding why you feel the need to do this. Could you please link to the diff in question which prompted this response from you?

You said "accordingly" but according to what? You mentioned I was alerted to sanctions and had time to familiarize myself with issues, but I am unclear which issue I violated regarding the sanctions with BLP.

All I remember doing is quoting tweets from Zoe on the talk page in proposed edits for the article. This was at Talk:Zoe Quinn#Self-tweeting about background, which I can see is now redacted. I was attempting to vet the information and determine its appropriateness, rather than adding it to the article.

I believe I showed forethought and control here. Why is linking to quotes from the person objectionable when discussing the article about them? Tweets are used on references on articles and it helps to expand the background information, which we have a section for.

We regularly discuss the past careers which celebrities have held on other articles, why not here? User:MarkBernstein calls this "bilge" and that it has "not relevance to anything whatsoever" but reporting on past careers is done with BLP. For example Wade_Barrett#Early_life mentions:

He earned a degree in marine biology from the University of Liverpool,[9] working in a science laboratory[10] and as a recruitment consultant

This has no relation to Bad News Barrett's wrestling career at all, but it is done to give a picture of the person and how they got where they are.

User:WereSpielChequers cites this:

Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

I have a regard for privacy: but if ZQ is tweeting about her past career then she obviously does not intend for it to be private. Releasing public statements a celebrity has made is not violating their privacy. I assume you have reviewed what was redacted, I was very conservative in paraphrasing what was in them. I was not being sensationalist or titillating.

BLP is clearly being misapplied here, I would like your opinion on the specifics I have brought up here. Ranze (talk) 22:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

A degree in marine biology is not potentially sensitive or damaging personal information. Your edits also included personal information of unknown accuracy that was not contained in the four tweets you posted to Talk:Zoe Quinn in this edit. You also posted that information to four different disambiguation pages. Discussion of sensitive information is one thing, but using Wikipedia as a tool for disseminating it is quite another. Gamaliel (talk) 23:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Sensitivity seems like a relative issue, can I propose we move toward making an approved list of past careers we are not permitted to mention for BLPs on Wikipedia? People can be hostile to a lot of careers like 'lawyer' or 'priest' or 'telemarketer', not just the one in question. Not being a sysop I am unable to check the redacted edit, but I think it related to linking to a YouTube video regarding an alleged legal action issued by Z against someone which was relevant to other discussion on the page.
If you're saying the background career should only be mentioned on her article and not disambigs since it is not her current career or the one she is most well known for, then I can agree in that regard and will not add it back to any disambigs. I guess at the time I thought it seemed more notable to me, but I should have taken into account how notable it would seem to other Wikipedians. That said, what I added to the disambigs WAS entirely based on the tweets she made (just like her birth year) and not on YT or anything else. I added it in faith that Zoe would not make false statements about her career background. If we do not rely on her tweets to be truthful then I would suggest that if we do add her to any disambigs that we do not list her birth year on them until it is further sourced.
I request this ban be narrowed merely to Zoe if it need be left intact. Banning me from "any gender-related dispute or controversy" seems far too broad. Getting into an argument as to whether Stephanie Brown or Carrie Kelley was the first female Robin would qualify as one of those. Ranze (talk) 02:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
May I suggest following the standard procedure when an issue like this arises, namely that a specific proposal be made focused on a particular article or articles, with an outline of the edits that would benefit the encyclopedia if the topic ban were varied. Johnuniq (talk) 02:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: do you know where this proposal should be made? I'm not sure where to familiarize myself with standard procedure for appealing a topic ban and requesting the narrowing of its scope. Since discussing what changes I'd like to make to an article on its talk page is what prompted this, I'm not sure how to follow your instructions without violating the scope of the ban. Ranze (talk) 04:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I do not see the particular information - specifically an alleged alternative name which I'd prefer not be mentioned here - you added to the disambiguation pages in those four tweets you posted in this edit. Based on this, it seems that either you were including information that was not sourced or you are not being completely forthright in your comments here. Gamaliel (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The reason I listed the alternative name on disambigs pertaining to its surname is because the name already existed as a redirect to the ZQ article so I figured it was okay. If it is not okay to use that name then you could move to delete/salt the redirect, but I don't see why I should be punished for linking to a redirect which was accepted at the time. If it were salted then I would not link to it, as it only makes sense to link to red links which can potentially be created.
I guess I want to clarify here: is the primary reason of your block my linking to a redirected name on disambiguation pages, or is the primary reason my citing of tweets on the talk page? As for the validity of the redirects, they are not sourced by the tweets, but they are cited by the [[Breitbart.com] article by Milo Yiannopoulos published 1 September 2014. I don't recall if I linked to it in the edit summary at the time for those redirects, I am unable to check due to NBSB's strikethroughs, it's been 22 days, I rely on history to refresh details. Ranze (talk) 04:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Seeing how the issue was.with.blp page for zq I would like to request sanction narrowed to avoiding her page or avoiding female.game designer category. Applying it.to anything GG or gender related seems needlessly broad.and outside the bounds of dispute. Ranze (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

As I am traveling, I will consider your request upon my return. Can you provide an example of an article you are prohibited from editing and what kind of contributions you would like to make to that article? Gamaliel (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

You imposed it

Please reopen this Monday if there is any more to add. Gamaliel (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Relvant policy. [1]. My edit [2] as the BBC source provided said 'felt.' Revert/direct edit in violation if Iban[3]. You can lift the Iban or enforce it but it's pretty clear from policy they can't both exist. I'd prefer lifting it. --DHeyward (talk) 23:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

My recollection is that BLP violations -- such as implying that the subject only "felt" it necessary to flee her home (emotional women!) -- was explicitly exempted. If not, my understanding is that addressing BLP violations is always implicitly exempt. If not, we nonetheless now have an impeccable source for the longstanding language of the article. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
The practice with GG bans has been to exempt edits that might reasonably be interpreted as removing BLP violations. That said, please refrain from further reverts of either version and take it to the talk page. Discussing this edit with other editors while not discussing each other would not violate the IBAN in my opinion. As am out of town I won't be commenting on this again until my return. Gamaliel (talk) 02:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
It's a stretch to claim the BBC (and others) characterization can reasonably be considered a BLP violation. Her own words abourt cancelling the Utah speech use the word "felt" so not sure why "felt" is such an abhorrent word to use [4] - certainly not a BLP violation as it's an attributable quality to virtually all humans and most animals. Only the most disturbed would associate it only with women. In this interview she pretty much tells the mysoginists that think women can't express feelings without being portrayed as hysterical to stick and that she does have feelings, like everyone else.[5] Lift the iban or enforce it. Don't care which. --DHeyward (talk) 03:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
And the standard for IBANs is obvious violations of the policy about biographies of living persons. The key word is "obvious", that is, cases in which no reasonable person could possibly disagree. It wasn't obvious enough to mention in his revert that BLP was even considered. It's certainly not obvious. --DHeyward (talk) 09:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I ignored his snark on the talk page. Here's his latest article edit [6]. There really doesn't need to be "false" or "unproven" since these refer to the early hashtag posts about the allegations about Grayson but the direct quote from the source[7] is gamers grew angry over the unproven accusations her relationship with Grayson led to positive coverage of her game. He apparently chooses his own view. I shortened the source quote and paraphrased to remove unnecessary details but "unproven" is the exact word used by the source. BLP is again a specious claim being used to violate the IBAN and actually replaces the sources word with his own. Please revert his edit to conform to the source and lift the IBAN as his edit was a direct modification of mine in violation of the IBAN. "False" was discussed on the talk page and ascribing "false" in a way that ascribes motive was rejected and that section had been rewritten. --DHeyward (talk) 20:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@DHeyward: @MarkBernstein: Given Mark Bernstein's self-revert, even if I examined the issue and concluded that it was not a violation, I would be inclined to let it go assuming that at the time of his edit, it was a good faith effort to ensure BLP compliance. I have opened a section on the talk page where you both can post separate statements solely regarding the content of this edit. Other editors will then hopefully develop a consensus on this issue. If there is any more to add to this issue, either of you can post again here Monday. Gamaliel (talk) 23:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
this edit[8], if it were not for the edit summary that accurately describes his mistake, I would have treated it as petty vandalism. It takes almost two sentences of reading the source [9] to answer his question. From the source: orchestrating a "hashtag campaign" to perpetuate misogynistic attacks by wrapping them in a debate about ethics in gaming journalism.. Please lift the Iban. It's not serving any purpose since it's not being enforced anyway. --DHeyward (talk) 22:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
First, did the perpetuate/perpetrate involve DHeyward? I hadn't realized that. Reviewing another edit, I shrugged and left things for some braver editor; turning to review the paragraph, I noticed an apparent malapropism. Yes, it's in the source, but can it possibly be right? In the source context, as in ours, "perpetuate" makes no sense: nothing is discussed about the longevity of the attacks, which had only just begun. "Perpetrate" makes lots of sense. It's not a direct quote (and shouldn't be); at worst, this is a reasonable precis of the source, and at best it’s what the source intended to say.
In my view, the ban serves an excellent purpose: it was meant to avoid endless returns to AE and it's accomplished that. We just saw what -- four separate filings? -- aimed to get TRPoD by any means possible; this wasted a lot of time, wound up getting a couple of socks banned, and had little or no other result. We want less of that, not more. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I didn't participate in latest AE rounds. This involves me only that it prevents corrections of obvious errors. I'm sorry the language confounds you to the point of misunderstanding, but "perpetuate" is the exact word to describe the transitions of misogynistic attacks to misogynistic attacks through multiple hashtags and themes like #NotYourShield and the "ethics in journalism" phase. That handful of 4chan users kept misogyny alive by transitioning the attacks through different angles. That's "perpetuate." It's the word used in the source, it's the scope of the article and it's the correct word. It was already established that misogyny had been perpetrated long before then and it's easy to find where the inflection points were by when people joined in. Maybe you meant "more perpetrated" or something when it transitioned to NotYourShield and Ethics? You do realize that the article is about the transitions and how some of the transitions were manufactured by a handful of 4chan users to perpetuate their misogynistic attacks as their previous efforts died out through normal hashtag cycles, right? I'm sorry you disagree with the source. Any other user and it would be a snap revert based on sources. A new user would have been vandalism revert. But because it's you and you wanted a more confrontational word or whatever your reasoning is to not use sources or comprehend the article, we're paralyzed. In addition, the battleground mentality is the problem. --DHeyward (talk) 01:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I think I've heard the battleground accusation thrown around more with this article than any other that is on my watchlist. It's hard to judge many editors who participate in editing this article and talk page as dispassionate. Liz Read! Talk! 01:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your insight. I'm sure you found it helpful. I actually have no stake in the article other than it's in WP. I am not passionate about the topic. I dislike attitudes displayed that contradict our principles. --DHeyward (talk) 02:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
No, the 'perpetuate' wording was me, not DHeyward. Not sure why DHeyward is upset about that edit here, especially given that he sees himself as above the 1RR sanction- you'd think that somebody so prone to WP:IAR when it suits him would be willing to extend the same courtesy to others. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Not sure what you are babbling about. There was no 1RR violation as there was no revert. When the edit summary is "'small' not supported by source" and the source has "handful" in the first sentence and "small" in the second, I assumed that editor must have a preference for "handful" and must then see distinction between the two, whence it's not a revert to add different language in quotes from the source that made it. Or he was being purposely obtuse and the edit was vandalism. I chose to AGF and presume he saw a difference. I am here because I cannot revert because of the IBAN. I simply want it lifted. You could help by reverting his edit. "Perpetuate" is the correct language and is used by the source in question (no, really, read the source). "Perpetrate" is incorrect. So if "Perpetuate" is yours, PtF, you correctly took it from the source, sir, and feel free to return to it. --DHeyward (talk) 02:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

RD2

Hi Gamaliel. Please could you take another look at User talk:ClueBot Commons? There is a further revision that needs to be hidden, the one signed by SineBot. Thanks! – Wdchk (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

@Wdchk: Thank you for catching that! I guess I read "SineBot" as "Cluebot" and thought that particular vandal edit had been reverted. Gamaliel (talk) 17:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Signpost

Hi Gamaliel, I noticed that you're one of the editors for The Signpost. I have an idea for an Op-Ed, on WP:DUCK->WP:SOCK blocks; sort of a "pros & cons" of them (with reference to Editor Retention); hopefully with another editor, providing contrasting opinions. But am wondering if maybe this is a little too inward looking. Appreciate any advice you might be able to offer. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 02:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 May 2015

YGM

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.

--Pine✉ 16:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Quixotic plea

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikipediholism test. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 05:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban narrowing appeal

Continuation of April 20 and April 26 prior sections.

Seeing how the issue was with BLP page for ZQ I would like to request sanction narrowed to avoiding her page or avoiding female.game designer category. Applying it to anything GG or gender related seems needlessly broad.and outside the bounds of dispute. Ranze (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
As I am traveling, I will consider your request upon my return. Can you provide an example of an article you are prohibited from editing and what kind of contributions you would like to make to that article? Gamaliel (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

As an example, Afterlife Empire is up for deletion and I would like to contribute references to that article to establish its notability, so that the page can remain and cover the topic. The April 9 article was followed by an April 29 article, establishing ongoing coverage by GamePolitics.com, a notable news source.

This article relates to video game designed for health-benefitting charities and does not directly relate to ZQ or anything potentially negative about her. I can't see how this could in any way harass women for me to edit there. The slight relation is because one character in the game was chosen to represent a consumer movement critical of select games journalists as a reaction to a narrative that gamers did not want female characters in active roles. Ranze (talk) 00:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@Ranze: FYI I've added those two sources to the discussion. Although I think it's still a case of WP:TOOSOON. — Strongjam (talk) 01:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

A second example is if I wanted to make a mainspace article about "TechRaptor". It has completely non-GG related news coverage by notable websites:

But because of TechRaptor having made articles relating to GG, creating the article would fall within the broad grounds. Even though those reports have been acknowledged by other notable news sites:

So the broadness of the restriction prevents me from building an article for a news site (even though the 2 prime sources are unrelated to ZQ or even to GG and focus solely on games) but also from properly referencing its notability (by cutting in half the references I can incorporate, even though they have no focus on ZQ).

Would also like to remind that this topic block happened in response to me citing a tweet from a twitter account that is already cited as a reference for establishing personal data... and on a talk page, to vet its reliability, not even on the article itself. Ranze (talk) 03:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I will officially modify the topic ban to exclude the articles Afterlife Empire and TechRaptor, beginning immediately. If work on those articles is uneventful and productive, it would be for me acceptable evidence to justify narrowing the topic ban significantly. Gamaliel (talk) 03:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

3RR

Thanks! I was about to tag it myself. - Location (talk) 02:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 May 2015

The Signpost: 03 June 2015

Please comment on Talk:Zeitgeist (film series)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Zeitgeist (film series). Legobot (talk) 00:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

The Wikipedia Library

Call for Volunteers

The Wikipedia Library is expanding, and we need your help! With only a couple of hours per week, you can make a big difference in helping editors get access to reliable sources and other resources. Sign up for one of the following roles:

  • Account coordinators help distribute research accounts to editors.
  • Partner coordinators seek donations from new partners.
  • Outreach coordinators reach out to the community through blog posts, social media, and newsletters or notifications.
  • Technical coordinators advise on building tools to support the library's work.
Sign up to help here :)

Delivered on behalf of The Wikipedia Library by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

March against Monsanto

I wonder if you would be prepared to clarify your opinion on the March against Monsanto RfC. You say, 'Keep if used as an indicator of motivation of the founder of the movement that this article is about, not if used as a statement of scientific fact'. As the proposer of the RfC and one who wanted the statement removed, I agree with you. The statement is fine so long as it is given in the right context. Unfortunately, because of the way that RfCs tend to work, your comment is likely to result in the statement being retained (along with 7 other similar quotes) without any change to the text.

Would you mind clarifying that the quotation should only stay if it is 'used as an indicator of motivation of the founder of the movement that this article is about', otherwise it should be removed. If you look at the article you will see that this statement, and the 7 others, are clearly being used to promote fringe science. Martin Hogbin (talk) 07:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from May 2015

Here are the highlights from the Wikimedia blog in April 2015.
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe, 19:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 June 2015

YGM - Just a question

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.

EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Arb Enforcement

Please take your complaints to WP:AE. Gamaliel (talk) 22:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Note that I am not participating or commenting on the super-verboten topic in any way, just finding an active admin familiar with the page and informing that there is currently an edit war going on at WP:AE. Tarc (talk) 20:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I've semi-protected the page and I will try to sort it out. Gamaliel (talk) 20:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


Further pointy edit-warring, after Strongjam (I think) redacted. [10]. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
@MarkBernstein: 'Twas I. I wouldn't say that rises to edit warring, they've at least tried to re-work it so it wasn't so egregious. — Strongjam (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

That editor continues to imply that http://www.markbernstein.org/Jan15/Infamous.html or its sequels were false, which they were not.

Just this afternoon, Gamergate has (a) stated that Zoe Quinn voluntarily participated in the Gamergate controversy, (b) argued that because someone outed a former Wikipedian who Gamergate hates as gay, there's no gender harassment, (c) published a link to a sexual libel about a current editor who could not ready respond, (d) edit-warred to prevent that editor's bringing the matter to the attention of AE, (e) claimed, falsely, that I published a falsehood in a major newspaper, and (f) claimed, falsely, that I published a falsehood that was repeated in a newspaper. Is that everything? Good grief!

Meanwhile, the Gamergaters continue to clutch their pearls over my effrontery in mentioning that new, zombie. IP, brigaded, and sock accounts are what we all have long known them to be. Enough of this. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Is there a specific action you'd like to be taken? Gamaliel (talk) 20:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes.

  • As I've urged before, you all might supervise these pages tightly to prevent these pestilential outbreaks.
  • I suggested an alternative approach at AE this morning which I believe you're all going to have to adopt someday, in some form, though clearly you all hate the idea.
  • In addition, you could discourage this new outbreak of socks and snerts by semi-protecting everything in or near the Gamergate core, including talk pages, for an extended period -- six months at least -- and extending 30/500 to all the most problematic pages, including AE unless a special dispensation is sought and granted.
  • Enforcement of 30/500 is being left to people like myself, which is wrong; if we do it well, Gamergate has a fresh grievance, and if we should err, well, hell hath no fury.
  • And, on a personal note, the pearl-clutching over my supposed "personal attacks" is getting really, really old: contrast my very mild and indirect rebuke of a Gamergate fan's improper and snide use of first names to Gamergate's claiming directly that I published a falsehood. (That lie ought to be sanctionable, but that's for you to decide.) MarkBernstein (talk) 21:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I can't or won't unilaterally take most of these actions without going through AE. I will do what I can when I spot violations of existing bans and rules. Gamaliel (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
@MarkBernstein:, you don't get to have it both ways. If you insist on proclaiming far and wide that "ALL of Gamergate is involved in harassment", for example, you can't then turn around and act coy about referring to Rhoark (and, apparently, me) as "Gamergate" as you did above, or Masem as a "Gamergate fan" (again, above) as though that's not a personal attack. Have you ever considered that the unfavorable reaction people not uncommonly have to you may in fact be a result of your own behavior? However tiresome you find the complaining about your personal attacks, I assure you the personal attacks are even more tiresome to their targets. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your support

South Beach Miami

talk→ WPPilot  03:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Productivity

I can agree that the conversation went in an unproductive direction. I for my part regret being baited, and I don't begrudge Mark Bernstein defending himself after the bell. I think we can agree though that the unproductive portion is limited to that which deals with "Infamous". Editors should not be dissuaded from, for example, expressing their reservations about the reliability of TechCrunch, potential fringe claims, or other productive collaboration. Rhoark (talk) 23:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Gamaliel, I concur with Rhoark here. While we can all agree that there were aspects of the discussion which went decidedly "off piste", there are also aspects which are clearly on-topic.
I would also note that there appears to be a disturbing pattern of discussions being derailed with off-topic comments (WP:FORUM, WP:NPA & "Meta" discussions) resulting in the whole of the discussion being closed. While one would certainly hope that this is not a deliberate tactic by involved editors, it does appear to be a frequent occurrence. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
If either of you wants to identify a specific point in the discussion where I should move the top of the hat to instead, let me know and I will consider it. Gamaliel (talk) 02:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Alter my third bullet point to remove mention of MB, with "Unreliable sources can not be used as a source of material, but they can be used to guide editorial decisions about how to use sourced material. Reactions and republications of minor reliable opinion pieces in unreliable media could easily help determine which ones are most representative of significant viewpoints." and start the hat where MB says "I stand behind Infamous..." Rhoark (talk) 02:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Done. Gamaliel (talk) 17:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you; very much appreciated. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 21:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Assistance with an uncommunicative IP

So, sorryto bother again. I'm channeling my activities towards what I hoped was a more calm topic area.... reality tv, but have encountered a belligerent IP editor who is hellbent on ignoring a pretty clear MoS section, i.e. MOS:JOBTITLES on several US Big Brother articles, and ignoring a call to discuss at Talk:Big Brother 17 (U.S.)#Occupation titles and formatting. User has also been reverting another editor as well just now. What do you think? Semi-protect a swath of articles? Tarc (talk) 00:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I've watchlisted a couple of the articles and will try to keep an eye on things. Gamaliel (talk) 01:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. Looks like it has cooled off for the moment. Tarc (talk) 01:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Query, Re: Mark Bernstein

Considering your relationship with Mark Bernstein could you be specific on on what rules he has to break for you to allow him to be sanctioned? Since has routinely been allowed to break all manner of rules to date with what appears to be actions on your part to shield him from his responsibilities it would certainly reduce the paperwork going through Arb if you could be more transparent regarding your viewpoint. 77.97.24.152 (talk) 23:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Could you specify what my "relationship" is with Mark Bernstein? I'm curious, because I wasn't aware there was one.
Also, if you want somebody sanctioned, bring it to WP:AE. There are 1,347 administrators on Wikipedia, surely it's not solely up to me to save Wikipedia from the menace of this single editor! Gamaliel (talk) 23:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
It is the case that your relationship is one where you have chosen to reintroduce Mark Bernstein to an article, against the judgement of other Administrators, with your commitment that any foul play, such as displaying battleground behaviour, would be dealt with by yourself and promptly. Remarkably, as you note, despite 1,347 administrators on Wikipedia, you have taken an exorbitant amount of time to close down AE requests where this battleground behaviour has been displayed by the editor. Perhaps you should consider inviting an experienced administrator, such as Salvio Giuliano, or Roger Davies to help provide external perspective and to give you space to both enjoy your holiday and from having to engage so frequently in the antics on display. 77.97.24.152 (talk)
Any one of those 1,347 administrators, including those "experienced administrators", both of whom became administrators after I did, could reinstate that topic ban at any time, and I could do nothing to prevent it or lift it. That none of them have done so is powerful evidence that this editor is not a menace to Wikipedia, merely a menace to partisans on the other side of the issue. Gamaliel (talk) 23:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
That's an interesting confession that you are claiming they are being allowed on the page because they are partisan on the issue; as you are aware, here we do not debate personality or individual editors as much as can be avoided: rather articles. Therefore the editor is being allowed to break the rules because they push a certain politic. Fascinating and thank you for your time, I think I've learned everything of value available here. 77.97.24.152 (talk) 23:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
It has been fascinating to have yet another conversation with someone who comes here with a pre-packaged conclusion that has no relationship to anything that is actually said on this page. Gamaliel (talk) 23:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Excellent example of hearing what you want to hear instead of listening to what the other person is saying (or writing in this case). Liz Read! Talk! 05:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Three weeks to save Freedom of Panorama in Europe

London Eye

fyi: I've started a new article at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-06-17/Three_weeks_to_save_Freedom_of_Panorama_in_Europe, ideally for inclusion in this week's Signpost.

More content to follow. Any help or assistance would be very welcome. Jheald (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

We already have an op-ed scheduled for this week. Would running it next week be a problem? Gamaliel (talk) 23:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
The sooner this goes out the better. We only have three weeks before the final vote in the European Parliament to build a coalition to stop this, and communications with MEPs can be glacially slow.
I think the draft is complete as far as I am concerned, and User:Tony1 has done a nice copy-edit job on it. I'm hoping our campaign team in Brussels will do a final fact-check on it tomorrow morning, then it should be good to go. Jheald (talk) 03:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Dimi in Brussels just gave it the thumbs up, so it's good to go. Jheald (talk) 12:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! We'll be including it in this week's issue. Gamaliel (talk) 13:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Warren

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MarkBernstein&curid=9146316&diff=667430183&oldid=667429592

Good grief. How on earth is this appropriate? MarkBernstein (talk) 01:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I've had a word with him. Gamaliel (talk) 01:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
To which he's responded with a legal threat (against you, not me, as far as I can tell). MarkBernstein (talk) 02:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I have not made a legal threat. I have learned only in the past half-hour that it is also recommended to avoid the use of the word "libel" to avoid the appearance of a threat, so have redacted my comment accordingly. I was surprised to learn this is a policy, since I have been accused of libel by Mark Bernstein at least three times today. By a similar token, it would also seem inadvisable to accuse someone of fraud. Rhoark (talk) 04:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
The "DARVO" in your proclamation "The will be no DARVO today" appears to be an acronym of "Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender" which refers to the behavior of perpetrators, especially sexual offenders. In what way have you been victimized and who are the "offenders" in your scenario? --SonicY (talk) 13:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
An example of DARVO would be to quote that definition of DARVO and, hypothetically, use it to imply I am making wild accusations of sexual misconduct. Rhoark (talk) 15:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Urgent Media Inquiry - Your Comment Sought

Cross post from Rhoark's page. @Rhoark: and @Gamaliel: Hi there Gamaliel. By way of introduction I am a UK blogger and journalist. No socking here - my real and pen name are shown clearly on my user page. I consider that you may have been too hasty and mistaken on policy when you warned Rhoark.

I recently wrote a series of articles about an ArbCom case in which a Wikipedia Administrator and CheckUser accused a prominent politician of sock puppeting and editing his own page. However it transpired that the administrator in question had been an unpaid volunteer for and supporter of a rival party. ArbCom removed the administrator's privileges, finding WP:COI.

My articles were the source of followups in every major UK publication and cited by Breitbart.

The ArbCom ruling sounds correct to me. Politicians usually have paid staff and volunteers. I do not see how a politician could escape CoI just by getting a volunteer to make changes. Even if the volunteer acted independently as in the ArbCom case, would the politician's opponents and rivals feel comfortable with an avowed supporter doing edits? ArbCom were pretty clear. I (and others) are very concerned about the failure to address WP:WikiBullying and other adverse issues associated with some editors. There are also concerns about the contact of some editors with the Guardian newspaper.

It looks to me like Rhoark was correct on policy. Gamaliel's enthusiasm for this topic may have strayed over the line - doubtless in good faith - into WP:WikiBullying so I invite Gamaliel to reconsider whether there is an issue here and whether in fact on mature reflection Gamaliel would like to apologise to Rhoark and withdraw the warning.

I will be producing a video on this topic soon and invite Gamaliel to get in touch via the email address on my blog so I can send him some questions I have. As I have observed, my work gets read by a lot of people. Vordrak (talk) 12:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

You mention the wide audience your work receives, then you insist that I have taken an incorrect course of action and suggest that I correct it in a particular way. I'm sure your message had the best of intentions, but I'm sure upon reflection that you can see how such a message might be seen as an effort to intimidate an editor into taking your preferred course of action or else face negative media attention. Please take this into account when leaving messages for editors in the future. While I am willing to participate in neutral journalistic efforts, it is my impression based on this message and your email to me that you already come to a conclusion regarding this matter, so I'm sorry, but I see no point in participating. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 13:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
@Gamaliel: I have not come to a pre-determined conclusion and I am aware, for example, that you have previously taken action against MarkBernstein. Parking the media inquiry, in my capacity as an editor I ask you to reconsider your description of Rhoark's COI concern as 'fraudulent' as opposed to 'mistaken' and invite you to reword as a possible violation of WP:CIVIL as the word, 'fraudulent' imputes malice.
I also invite you to consider whether COI can be breached by an activist commenting on a favoured politician or opponent. As ArbCom appears to find it can, Rhoark may be correct. Generally, MarkBernstein in his writing exhibits the WP:RGWish zeal that is common to many political activists and has been involved in many, many disputes in which he is the common factor. This suggests he is not helpful to the project in terms of his edits on this topic. Finally, your suggestion I have pre-determined the content of my article(s) and videos on the topic again implies I am not acting in good faith and I invite you to reconsider. Vordrak (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I will not quote your email to me without your permission, but in that email you told me your conclusions, as you have told me here your opinion of the Rhoark issue repeatedly. That does not square with your contention that you do not have a conclusion in mind. Regarding Mark Bernstein, there are many thousands of editors here, and all of them have opinions about something - political candidates, issues like Gamergate, sports, etc. To suggest that Mark Bernstein has an impermissible COI based on merely having a preference or an opinion is an impossibly broad standard that would leave no one able to edit Wikipedia. I also note that you and Rhoark raise COI concerns about one editor, but do not raise similar concerns about any other editor or issue on Wikipedia, including the obvious and even more exuberant zeal displayed by some editors who support Gamergate. Gamaliel (talk) 14:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh believe me Gamaliel I completely agree that some 'pro-GamerGate' editors are exacerbating matters and will refer to it in my video. Please also do not take the email amiss. I often paint a dark picture in my emails to ensure people reply. However, you are mistaken that I have not criticised editors on other topics. I made extensive contributions to the Proposed Decision ArbCom page in relation to the UK political matter referred to above. I had edited Wikipedia law articles anonymously in the past but was not motivated to create an account until the political scandal.
I have never attempted to edit the GamerGate controversy article. I am put off by the conflict and sadly the common thread is Mr Bernstein. In any event I am aware you are busy. I invite you once again to reconsider your comments to Rhoark. I will drop you a note when my video is up a a courtesy. Vordrak (talk) 15:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Rhoark has said he considers the matter resolved, so I have nothing else to say on the matter, only to encourage all editors to focus on the content of edits and not on personality conflicts. Gamaliel (talk) 17:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: Conflicts of interest can be hard to identify, since most editors are pseudonymous. If there's any particular situation that needs more review, I'd be happy to comment. @Vordrak: I appreciate your sentiment, but I would prefer you not try to intercede on my behalf. I echo @MarkBernstein:'s concerns about blurring the lines between reporting the news and making it. Doing so would surely reflect poorly on the legitimacy of your publication. Rhoark (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

If there are believed to exist COI issues, it may make more sense to address them on the appropriate noticeboard than to attempt to change a single person's mind. --TS 17:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Well put, Tony. I am always confused when editors come here to challenge my opinions as if I am the final arbiter on such matters. If they disagree with my opinion, they should solicit others on the appropriate noticeboards. Gamaliel (talk) 17:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Given your username I find this oddly funny. — Strongjam (talk) 17:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 June 2015

Had Nothing Better to do

https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=09MPduE_g1AC&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=%22scott+hennen%22+conservative&ots=E9X1YUFUNZ&sig=-BWZzaPtUlXa5TwybCebKZDX-g0#v=snippet&q=conservative&f=false

This book written by Scott Hennen, on page #2, says "Rush, of course, is a genius without peer, and the ultimate role model for all of us in conservative talk radio". So, at the very least, there is a source stronger than a web-article that speaks to Hennen being a self-proclaimed conservative or, at least, a "conservative talk radio host". Like I said, got bored, thought I'd look into some sources to contribute in the dispute.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:23, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Meta at GGC Suggestion

@Zad68 and Gamaliel: Maybe just create a ggc/metatalk page and put meta conversations there in sections, instead of creating a new page for each move meta. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's probably more sensible. If somebody doesn't do it by tomorrow I'll do it. Gamaliel (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I created a new page (for a new meta discussion). I dunno if I dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's. FYI. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 23:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I've watch listed it. Gamaliel (talk) 18:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Gamaliel & Zad68, Once again apologies for the interruption. I think there's the potential for some, albeit slight, misunderstanding with the new "Meta" Talk page; whihc I think can be easily cleared up by either of you.

As I understand it, any discussion not directly related to Article content should be held on the new page; with the original page reserved strictly for such discussion. The questions that I think could be addressed a priori are:

Housekeeping - would it be best to include a brief note at WP:AC/DS/Log, logging this as a formal discretionary sanction? - this would enable editors to be referred somewhere for the authorising decision.

Implementation - how should the restrictions on "Main" & "Meta" Talk page discussions be enforced? I can think of the following options, but there are, of course, others:

a. Removal of off topic comments by editors (incl. non-admins) - similar in implementation to the current 30/500 restriction.
b. Migration of off topic discussions to the other page by editors (incl. non-admins) - slightly more complex, but preserves the discussion.
c. Hatting of off topic comments by editors (incl. non-admins), with a note to raise the discussion on the other page - also preserves the discussion; but may lead to discussion forking, or hatting which includes on-topic material.
d. "Call an Admin" to implement one of the above; request at User Talk, WP:ANI or WP:AE? - seems burdensome on Admins.

I think if we have an approved mechanism, we're less likely to see editors troubled that their discussions have been closed down; less likely to have meta-meta-arguments.

I appreciate your continued efforts in this difficult space, and your consideration of these particular questions. Regards - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 08:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Gamaliel, I wondered if you'd had a chance to consider the questions above. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 08:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Gamaliel, Just a heads up to let you know that I added a notice to the top of the "Main" GGC Talk page similar to the one added to the "Meta"; based on no objections at the meta page for over 1 week. Please feel free to amend as required. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 07:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the rude edit

Hello, just letting you know that it wasn't me doing the editing on Barack Obama's page. My brother hacked my account and put that on there. I'm so sorry he caused the rude harm to Wikipedia and I won't let it happen again Dyoungblood974 (talk) 21:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kill 'Em All

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kill 'Em All. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Signpost in the news

Hey there, not to toot my own horn or anything, but there was some local coverage in Aus that aired today here and I thought I'd show you it, in case you were interested in covering it/adding it to the article (it's on content diversity among other things).

Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 12:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi there - I noticed you removed this from a signpost piece a few weeks ago that the other editor added stating you'd possibly write about it later - it's sort of big here in Australia so was wondering if you were still considering this? Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 11:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Steven Zhang. Gamaliel is busy currently, but I just discussed this with him, and we agree: It is an editorial decision week-to-week on what warrants coverage in ITM, and this week, other stories warrant attention. Thank you as always for bringing content to our attention, and for understanding we can't always run everything that is submitted. As a side note, the best place for suggestions is at the suggestions page. Thanks. All the best, Go Phightins! 13:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 June 2015

In the media

I've dropped in an item to the top of the In Brief section of the In the media page about the coverage on Freedom of Panorama this week in the UK press.

Hope that it's all right to have done this on the live Signpost, or at least that you will forgive me this once. With luck it may still have been in time for most readers to see it. Jheald (talk) 11:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

In the future, we'd very much prefer that new material not be placed in already published editions of the Signpost. Next time please let us know first. Gamaliel (talk) 13:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Review Draft Article

Hi Gamaliel, I have a small request, if you have a spare few minutes. In response to the challenge set on Jimbo's Talk page, I undertook to create a draft Article on Bonnie Ross, Head of 343 Industries, a notable woman in the video games industry. I have completed a rough draft, and am now seeking advice from experienced Wikipedians on potential improvements. It is only short at this stage, and will not be the best Wikipedia article, but neither do I think it the worst. If you have time, could you please look it over here. Any advice is greatly appreciated. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 01:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I will have a look, just a bit swamped at the moment. If I don't make it over there by Monday, please ping me and remind me. Gamaliel (talk) 01:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Gamaliel, Thanks for the reply. I empathise with the "swamped", and hope that everything is going well. On the Bonnie Ross article, I have had good & constructive feedback from a couple of editors; and the article has progressed to mainspace, where it has already been linked to other articles. Very encouraging, and I will be progressing with other articles in the same "influential women in video games" vein.
If you do have a spare couple of minutes, it would be appreciated if you could have a look over the questions raised in the "Meta at GGC Suggestion" section above. I do apologise if this seems like harping, but we are still seeing a number of editors using the Talk pages for WP:FORUM, WP:SOAPBOX, "Meta" and other off topic discussions. It would be good for editors to understand how, if at all, they should respond to such behaviours. Many thanks for any advice you can offer, and best of luck with the off-Wiki endeavours. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 09:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
@Ryk72:, I just had a look at Bonnie Ross. I'm not sure I have any feedback to offer you as you've done an excellent job. It has high-quality sources and covers all the pertinent issues. Gamaliel (talk) 23:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Gamaliel, Thanks for the positive feedback; appreciate it. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 01:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
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.

A bowl of strawberries for you!

This is Support Your Local Administrator Day! Liz Read! Talk! 21:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration enforcement

By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

  1. The case is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
  2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
  3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

= Censoring my clarifying post

You clearly censored my post. The entire description of the word Democrat as a ruse is based on nothing. A lot of words and all but it is entirely opinion. AntiScreed (talk) 01:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Your post belongs on the talk page of the article, not in the article itself. Gamaliel (talk) 03:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
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.

Signpost Single Issues

Hey, Gamaliel,
I had thought there were single-page issues for most Signpost editions but discovered that there were actually quite few. So, I created single page issues for each week from 2011-2015 (see Category:Wikipedia Signpost Single archives). I'm not sure if these pages will be useful to you, other editors or anyone wanting to do research on Wikipedia. I just know that frequently, when there isn't a single-page issue, some editor comes to the Newsroom or Suggestion page to see why there isn't one. It does mean that you don't have to open each article to view what stories were published that week. Liz Read! Talk! 01:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Mentioned you on arbcom evidence page

Just to inform you, I mentioned you on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration_enforcement/Evidence, specifically in this section. This is just a courtesy notification. Cheers. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Again?

There's a clear baiting going on here starting on Mark's talk page. This perpetual harassment of Mark and other editors will not stop; these folks have limitless summer vacation time and an axe to grind.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#MarkBernstein

24.252.22.174 (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


And I just spent a half hour writing a witty and (I hope) humorous response, only to find the whole thing is rained out -- at least for the moment. All dressed up and nowhere to go. But seriously... MarkBernstein (talk) 22:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Don't delete it. Another one of these is bound to appear soon. Gamaliel (talk) 23:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Is this editor's first edit *ever* to revert Bishonrn's hat at AE because it needs more consensus? [11]Is consensus something you can have more of? Quaker colleges teach one about consensus, but I must have missed that one, Wikipedia constantly amazes me with its whimsy. MarkBernstein (talk) 03:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Change from announced time table for the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case

You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

ITM

I think that that's my draft for ITM now done.

But it should probably have a fairly rigorous editorial go-over, since I have been quite close to the story; so without an editorial hand it could well assume either (a) too much existing familiarity, or (b) too much fascination with the story. Jheald (talk) 01:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Looking back at it this morning, I wonder if I've written a wall of text that not even I would get to the bottom of. Please do sub it, or add some more helpful guide-rails for readers, if you think that would help. Jheald (talk) 07:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 July 2015

Handpolk at AE

Hi, Gamaliel. I've just blocked Handpolk for 48 hours. You're probably more active at WP:AE than I am; do you think I should unblock them for the purpose of taking part at AE? I've asked here as well, but I'm not sure how diligently people watch the page. Bishonen | talk 13:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC).

I'm not sure I see the point. His request has been there for a while, and he's already made his case in depth. I doubt it will be closed in the next 48 hours, so he can return to it then. Gamaliel (talk) 14:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I was thinking, since I mentioned his block in the admin section, that he might want to comment in his own section on how unfair it was. ;-) But I'll be ruled by you; if he asks on his page to be allowed to post at AE, I might consider it. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 14:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC).

Your edit, [12]

Just to note, the lines that read:

----
<center>'''''This ''Signpost'' "Featured content" report covers material promoted from START-END MONTH.'''''</center>
----

...really needs to stay in the article in future (with appropriate dates, which may be checked by comparing the content with the archives at WP:GO). We got yelled at in the comments for not including an image that was always scheduled to be in next week. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you can't expect me to keep filling in those dates for FC on a regular basis. Once in a while is fine, but I've found myself having to put them in quite frequently lately. Have Resident Mario add it to the bot if you don't want to do it. Gamaliel (talk) 13:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
And that's fine, but it'd be nice if you said something instead of just cutting it. A note somewhere reminding people to fill it out - or even just saying in advance it was going to get cut if it wasn't filled out - would have been better than an invisible removal that no-one would notice, but which played a part in upsetting a new featured content contributor by removing the notification that explained why their things aren't there. I'm happy to put in the work to make a date-formatting template, but I need to know it's an issue first. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
There are a million things to do before publication, and I have six to nine sections a week to review each week. I can't be expected to continually notify people about unfinished sections when they never communicate with me during the week, and I'm very busy for significant personal reasons offsite which I can explain to you privately if necessary. If something is necessary for publication, it should not repeatedly be left for others to finish before publication. I see where you are coming from, but please see it from my perspective, I am getting quite overwhelmed with the number of things people are leaving for me to finish on the Signpost. Gamaliel (talk) 16:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Motion passed in AE arbitration case granting amnesty and rescinding previous temporary injunction

This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.

On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:

  1. Paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Arbitration Committee's motion of 29 June 2015 about the injunction and reporting breaches of it are hereby rescinded.
  2. The Arbitration Committee hereby declares an amnesty covering:
    1. the original comment made by Eric Corbett on 25 June 2015 and any subsequent related comments made by him up until the enactment of this current motion; and
    2. the subsequent actions related to that comment taken by Black Kite, GorillaWarfare, Reaper Eternal, Kevin Gorman, GregJackP and RGloucester before this case was opened on 29 June 2015.

Disambiguation link notification for July 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Edward Buck (lawyer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Samuel Hubbard. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from June 2015

Here are the highlights from the Wikimedia blog in June 2015.
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe, 01:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 July 2015

Editor MONGO and bot archiving

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

Hi. Per recommendation from MONGO here, I'm discussing this issue with you. The bot for the Arbitration Enforcement Requests page archives sections that have had no comments in them for a while. Occasionally, this includes cases that have not been closed- I had assumed that unarchiving these is uncontroversial, per this and this example. However, MONGO has reverted my efforts to unarchive it twice, and displays absolutely no willingness to discuss this issue beyond accusing me of being an SPA and talking about ways he believes I am acting improperly that are irrelevant to this issue. How should I solve this issue with MONGO's conduct? I believe he's displayed a willingness to continue edit warring to remove this request. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 10:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't have an issue if Gamaliel reopens the AE complaint...but I stand by my suggestion that an interaction ban between you and DHeyward is badly needed. If you're not an SPA, then alter your signature and I dunno...maybe write some unrelated articles since this is like an encyclopedia. A novel concept perhaps.--MONGO 10:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
My signature is as it is because it deterred the people who continually added the SPA tag after my old signature. MONGO- if you have no issue with anybody else unarchiving it, why have you twice reverted my attempts to unarchive it? Is there an issue with me unarchiving it, but not if somebody else does? PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 10:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Gamaliel is an administrator and previously commented on the thread. When are you going to stop HOUNDING DHeyward?--MONGO 10:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
@PTF: Please drop it, and please stop acting as a clerk at WP:AE. Adopting a pragmatic approach at Wikipedia is best—the discussion concerning the case you are trying to re-open does not show any likelihood of an outcome you might want, and everyone is sick of gamergate, so fighting the archive bot is unlikely to help you. Bickering over this topic will lead to sanctions regardless of merit. Johnuniq (talk) 11:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Thats pretty much my thinking but I am suggesting Gamaliel make a final decision as to whether this things stays archived or he can reopen it for further review.--MONGO 11:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree. It's not unusual for an AE case to be retrieved from the archives in order to close but looking at the past three months, when it has been retrieved, it's been the action of an administrator who could act on the complaint. Liz Read! Talk! 11:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: When you say the request "does not show any likelihood of an outcome you might want" I'm not sure that's true. The two administrators who did comment on the case both supported sanctioning DHeyward. I'd like to stress that I'm not trying to re-open the request (and it's improper to suggest that's what I've been doing), simply unarchive a case that hasn't been formally closed. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 11:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: You should step back from this matter and be drastically less involved in the affairs of Dheyward from now on. @MONGO: I understand why you reverted him, but maybe next time you should let someone less connected to Dheyward do it instead?

I've already said that I was not going to impose a sanction in this matter, and if no other administrator is inclined to impose one, then I think this matter should just disappear into the archives. I hope that Dheyward is honoring his stated intention to stay away from these articles for a short time. For all the grousing about how allegedly unsanctioned certain Chief Scientists have been regarding Gamergate, Dheyward has received a remarkable number of warnings about these articles yet has avoided serious, long-term sanction. I will keep that in mind if he ends up back at WP:AE again. Regarding PeterTheFourth, while this may be a case of Wikihounding, I'm going to WP:AGF here. I'm certainly not going to impose an interaction ban or sanction on him for this without imposing one on Dheyward as well. Gamaliel (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I just saw this. Pings don't work when the username is misspelled. I have not edited any GamerGate related article or discussion in over a week (it's actually more than a week since your suggestion and more than a week since I voluntarily offered it). No, I haven't received a remarkable number of warnings. I have an overturned block and some editor generated "warnings", and repetitions of falsehood in places like here that will be taken as fact if I don't respond. PTF's AE filing in March for 1RR was specious. He said the specious AE request was a result of his slow typing. I am rather concerned about comparisons being made here, though. Whomever is grousing about our Friend from Swarthmore, 'tis not I and thou must have me confused with another as my silence rivals Meeting. Nor am I involved in TRPoDs topic ban. Yet thou hast mentioned both as if thou art keeping some kind of scorecard related to my humble contributions. Neither of those editors' current problems are related to this gentle editor. To wit, the Emeritus member from our Society of Friends continues to battle Voldemort and the Armies of Mordor on his talk page with nary an ill word written by me in four months. Our readers would not get the impression that the sex lives of female software developers are in any way relevant from our articles and rightly so. Yet our Friend stuffs beans up his nose and cannot, it seems, go a day without crying Havoc along with its allusion regarding the meaning of such a command. And whilst it's unclear as to whether gentle Masem represents Voldemort, Sauron or perhaps a different mythical beast from gaming fantasy worlds or maybe just considered the forerunner of the Tleilaxu and their Axlotl tanks, our Friend's battle lies beyond any pithy statement authored by this humble editor.
As for PtF, I am perfectly fine with an IBAN and even a 2-way IBAN as I have no interaction with him that is generated by me. My complaint stems from his wikihounding, reverts and actions regarding noticeboards. IBAN, including 2-way IBAN, solves all problems. If he simply didn't revert me, follow me, comment on me or act as the AE clerk, we'd never cross paths. All of our interactions are generated by him, including his decision to restore the AE request.
  • [13] Asked to stay off my TP
  • [14] Violates BLP, disregards request. See Mattress thread below. These are POINTY as well as BLP violations.

  • [15] Asked not to comment on my talk.

  • [16] Asked not to comment on my talk

  • [17] Files AE request for 1RR even after 1RR was resolved in previous discussion and filed 20 minutes after resolution. blames "slow typing." Vexatious complaint tossed.

  • [18] 9 minutes after I created a new Talk Page section in Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight), PTF comments and repeats the BLP violation in WP:POINTy fashion.
  • [19] Restores BLP violating material.
  • [20] Restores BLP violating material redacted by reverting Bosstopher; even restores Bosstopher's self-redacted comments; apparently upset that Bosstopher agreed that Bosstopher's comment should be redacted. Eventually the BLP violation was redacted throughout the talk page. The ANI complaint was archived before it was closed (ironic that PTF apparently didn't think the ANI request needed to be resurrected due to lack of formal close; more ironic that he didn't think anything of editing Bosstophers comment while he constantly complains about having his talk page comments redacted)
  • [21] Again restores his BLP violation, though kindly decides that other editors can redact their own comments. Note: while he is free to comment anywhere and he had edited the article before, his 9 minute fire alarm response to a new talk page section that didn't concern him, nor did I know he had even edited the page before, is troubling. Like the Chris Kyle reversion, it seems his only interest was to antagonize with a POINTY response to a BLP question. Had this been a question about redacting the name of a GamerGate victim, such pointiness of repeating the redaction request multiple times and in multiple places would have (and has been) dealt with swiftly and harshly.

  • [22][23]First contribution to this entire meta page is reverting me (I redacted bitey hat comments that were unattributed after an admin page move).
  • [24] PTF notes that subpages are under same restriction as other pages and removes 500/30 vio by other editor...
  • [25] PTF reverts again to restore previous bitey comments.
  • [26] After removing other editors 500/30 vio comments, leaves note on my page to not edit bitey hat comments by other editors
  • [27] Warned for 1RR violation.
  • [28][29] Within moments of arguing that the page is under the same restrictions as other pages through inheritance, he argues that 1RR doesn't apply to him on that page. It's gaming the system to remove other editors comments by applying rule inheritance and then denying the rules are inherited when his owm violation is pointed out. Even IAR supports removing bitey comments. No objective review would see my redaction as anything but neutral with no content removed, just tone difference.

  • [30] My edit (long history before that on that article)
  • [31] PTF shows up for first time to simply revert my edit (after I was supported by other editors - NBSB was sole opposer when PTF showed up to tag team, NBSB also followed me there creating a multiple editor harassment campaign)
  • [32] PTF makes second ever edit to article and it's his second revert of me to restore the same material. Ironically calls out edit warring. His first two edits were to edit war with multiple editors in order to just revert me.


This wasn't an isolated "I didn't know the rules," it's a systematic effort to hound me. He's already seen noticeboard archival without a formal close (i.e. the request against him ended that way). He knows that I've asked him to stop hounding me and even filed an ANI request to delete a page I created to document his hounding. In short, everything has failed and a 2-way IBAN would hardly restrict me and if that's the only way to get him to stop, please implement it. --DHeyward (talk) 10:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


Gamaliel, please check out what @MONGO: actually did during the revert war. MONGO didn't revert the Dheyward section back to archive, they deleted it entirely. Go to archive 176 and you will see it isn't there. I will AGF and assume it's a mistake but this needs cleanup. 98.210.208.21 (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Noted and fixed. Case is back in the archives. — Strongjam (talk) 20:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Strongjam...I would have done so myself but surely various trolling entities might assume I have a COI as to the matter. One wonders who is worse, the GG trolls or the anti-GG trolls. Hence my rationale for avoiding that hell hole.--MONGO 20:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

oh hey look! I still stay away from GamerGate but take a look at my shadow who follows me to a brand new article 5 hours after my edit [33]. I guess he was feeling lonely with all my attention on the Victoria Taylor article and AfD so he felt the need to chime in. Probably coincidence. --DHeyward (talk) 13:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Considering I know he's a reddit user, it probably is a coincidence. — Strongjam (talk) 13:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
This falls within the penumbra of Gamergate in my opinion. Were we talking about a user with a topic ban, I'd consider it to be within the bounds of the ban. Gamaliel (talk) 13:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
How did you make that leap? She's not connected to GG and her employment/termination was not gender related. What did you possibly imagine is the connection? --DHeyward (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
News reports and commentators are making frequent connections between the recent Reddit controversy and Gamergate. Reddit CEO Ellen Pao is already under the scope of the Gamergate DS, so it's hardly a "leap" to include the employee that Pao allegedly fired and was the catalyst for a controversy that directed significant criticism towards Pao. Gamaliel (talk) 18:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I think given the diffs supplied by Dheyward that an interaction ban between himself and PeterTheFourth could be implemented. The goal is to reduce site acrimony so we can all edit most arenas without having to worry about constant battles between editors...in other words, we already have battles over content so this helps reduce tensions. Where should Dheyward go to seek a mutual interaction ban?--MONGO 19:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I've already admonished PetertheFourth for American Sniper, and I don't see how Victoria Taylor is an issue for the reason stated above, so I consider this matter closed unless some compelling new evidence of current conduct is presented. I would prefer that evidence be presented formally at WP:AE and not here. I am really trying to get away from being perceived as the solo Gamergate cop, hence my not imposing sanctions on Dheyward and others at WP:AE. In any case, I will not personally consider the matter of sanctions on anyone until after the 20th due to personal and professional commitments. Gamaliel (talk) 19:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm unaware of Victoria Taylor being linked to GG in news links. That would be something to add to her article if you have a source. Also, Pao didn't fire Taylor (Alexis Ohanian did and took full resonsibility[34]) though it escalated where Pao, the CEO, had to comment and eventually resigned. It's not gender related. Pao isn't tagged with GG notice and that only link is that her lawsuit with a company completely unrelated to GamerGate or Reddit was gender related and popped up on GG radar - has any other admin made this connection besides you? There is nothing gender related or gamergate related about Victoria Taylor's time at Reddit or her termination unless you have a source. Are you suggesting that redditors criticizing Pao are gamergate supporters that are also criticizing Pao? "Broadly construed" doesn't extend to 6 degrees of separation. Is Kevin Bacon off limits too? --DHeyward (talk) 22:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not going to sanction him for going to the same related article you did, no matter how tenuous the connection may be. In my opinion, the connection to Pao makes it clearly within the scope of GG, and it's certainly within the scope of a 'gender related controversy' as there are a raft of articles alleging a misogynistic reaction to Pao. Additionally, I just did a search for threads containing her name at r/kotakuinaction on reddit, which is basically GamerGate HQ, and I stopped counting at twenty full screens worth of threads. In any case, even if you get me to agree that it was a completely unrelated article, I've already said, repeatedly, that I wasn't going to sanction anyone myself (just like I didn't sanction you at WP:AE) at this point, I wasn't going to involve myself right now due to other commitments, and I wasn't going to sanction anyone without a WP:AE report, so I have no idea what you hope to accomplish here. Given that, I'm closing this and I formally ask you that you not bring this matter here again without first bringing it to WP:AE. Gamaliel (talk) 00:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Books and Bytes - Issue 12

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 12, May-June 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - Taylor & Francis, Science, and three new French-language resources
  • Expansion into new languages, including French, Finnish, Turkish, and Farsi
  • Spotlight: New partners for the Visiting Scholar program
  • American Library Association Annual meeting in San Francisco

Read the full newsletter

The Interior 15:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 July 2015

Vordrak

I realize you probably don't want to read his blog, but I wanted to let you know you've been mentioned there. Liz Read! Talk! 20:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. It seems we probably should have blocked him long before this, it was inevitable he was going to escalate in this way. Gamaliel (talk) 21:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

This is fun: Vordrak receives a primer on effective socking. [35] MarkBernstein (talk) 21:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors are so helpful! Gamaliel (talk) 21:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Vordrak wanted to be blocked. Looks like he already had his latest blog piece written, doesn't it? Only, he obviously expected you to be the one to block, Gamaliel — his piece is a little unfocused, now that actually Floquenbeam did. Vordrak will need a little time to research Floq's contribs and prove he's part of the conspiracy too. Look for it on his blog, say, tomorrow. Bishonen | talk 21:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC).
Excellent point. It definitely leaves the impression that I was the one who blocked him. For all his pretensions to journalism, he doesn't practice the most basic of ethical behaviors for that profession. Gamaliel (talk) 21:31, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

You knew this day was coming to GGC

a new way around 500/30 on GGC unsurprisingly about the lede and bias. @Zad68: just so I'm only putting this in one place, a ping for you, too. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, if nothing else, the rule has created a bunch of useful Wikignomes.... Gamaliel (talk) 18:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 July 2015

Signpost op-ed

Hi Gamaliel,

How do you write an op-ed for the Signpost? There is a certain topic that I might want to write about in a future edition. --Biblioworm 23:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

You can create a proposal on this page. Let me know if you need any help with it. Thanks! Gamaliel (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Signpost piece and BLP

I noticed the bit you wrote about Steve King's page being vandalized and would remind you that BLP applies everywhere. The statement in the piece about his history of remarks is not backed by the nearby source and the phrasing is not supported by the two reliable sources that allude to this history in other parts of your piece. Neither source explicitly claims his past remarks as "offensive or racially-charged" as you describe them. One merely describes his past statements as "controversial" and another states those comments were seen "by many Latino and immigrants" as being "at least insulting and to some . . . racist or bigoted" rather than stating anything as fact in the editorial voice. Personally, I would question the need for it at all as his history has no bearing on the Wikipedia vandalism.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

MSNBC: "Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), one of Congress’ fiercest anti-immigrant voices, has cultivated a reputation for offending a whole lot of people with racially charged rhetoric". Gamaliel (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Leaving aside that this source is not one of the ones included in the piece, I really don't think you should be cherry-picking partisan sources such as the The MaddowBlog to justify your characterizations when they have no bearing on the actual Wikipedia-related issue. If you wish to keep it I would suggest using Politico's more tepid description of "controversial" when describing his past remarks.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Take your pick of sources. I just grabbed the first of many google hits. Gamaliel (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Only ones I can find that support your usage are blogs, opinion pieces, or partisan rags. Most made no characterization of his comment and past characterizations included a ThinkProgress piece that also favored "controversial" over any other qualifier. I think you should use that one.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

You are in the news

I was wondering if you'd seen this article and what your response to the claims in it is. Everymorning talk 15:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

If this was on-Wikipedia writing, it would be dismissed on synthesis grounds, as the writer has taken bits and pieces of half-assed conjecture and strung it together into a vast net of conspiracy. Bloggers and fringe "news" sites are important within their own echo chamber only, not out in the real world. Tarc (talk) 16:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I've seen it, and I'm pretty indifferent. It's not the first time someone's written an angry blog post about me, sputtering inaccuracies. Tarc is absolutely right about it. Note that it talks alot about what I said, but only quotes me saying two words. It is full of inaccurate paraphrasing and spin. If they actually quoted me, they wouldn't be able to spin it the way they wanted. Gamaliel (talk) 18:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Article is of value only in highlighting why Breitbart fails WP:RS. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
A failure of WP:RS, indeed.Scoobydunk (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Signpost Barnstar
For this week's excellent "In the media" piece in the Signpost. --Andreas JN466 10:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Finally (CeCe Peniston song)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Finally (CeCe Peniston song). Legobot (talk) 00:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Yale Obits

I noticed you've been adding some PD text from old Yale obits. It's might be a good idea to include the year that you've taken the text from, similar to the text that {{PD-old-text}} generates. That should make it clear that the older ones are clearly in the PD. Also, maybe have the {{yaleobit}} template put the article into a hidden category like what {{EB1911}} does. I might take a crack at it later when I have some more free time. — Strongjam (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Good ideas, thanks! I'll try to work them into the template. Gamaliel (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Ugh, this template stuff reminds me of computer programming, which I haven't done since high school. I'm working with the parameters now and having some success, but I think the category might be beyond me. Gamaliel (talk) 18:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Some of these obits are not notable. I would consider being more discriminating. As importantly, they need to by copyedited for the 21st century to maintain the quality of wikipedia. Perhaps upload fewer and spend the time to make them read properly (and consider deleting non-encyclopedic references to things like their unnotable trip to Europe). I don't mean to sound negative, keeping adding to free knowledge base - just do so wisely.--Lucas559 (talk) 01:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, many of them are borderline, but I feel I'm doing a reasonable assessment before I choose to import an obit. I consider three things: WP:GNG, whether the subject appears in a reference work that turns up in Google Books or the web, and whether or not his name is already in one or more Wikipedia articles. I already edit them with those things in mind, but while the tone may be odd to our modern ears, it's not so bad that I feel the need to rewrite them more drastically. I chose to import them because these obits fill small holes in the historical record: obscure politicians, scientists, authors, academics, etc. who are notable enough to be part of an encyclopedia but who likely will not attract the attention of a modern encyclopedia editors. And, I'll be honest, most of them are largely uninteresting, and not interesting enough to write or rewrite articles about. Gamaliel (talk) 03:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Samuel Dorr Faulkner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dansville, New York. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 July 2015

DHeyward

Hi Gamaliel. Apologies for bringing up something about a topic area you (very understandably) don't want close involvement in- the only other admin who's had prior experience in this matter is Zad68, and I believe they're on hiatus for a while. A while ago there was an AE request regarding editor DHeyward, and I brought up quite a bit of evidence about him, most of it related to what I believed was his incivility. This was eventually archived without action. I believe that part of the willingness to let it slide this time was due to DHeywards stated intentions to step away from the topic area. Very recently, DHeyward has filed something on the edit warring noticeboard about two of my edits to the GGC page. He believes they're a violation of 1RR- I don't, as they're consecutive edits.

I don't believe DHeyward has stepped away from the topic area or interacting with me, nor do I believe he had any intention of doing so when he said that he would. Would you be willing to enact the topic ban you initially suggested in the AE request? If not, what would be the best option for me right now? If it's to keep my mouth shut and continue enduring this, I'll accept the advice, but I do hope there's something that can be done. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I know this situation is frustrating. While this particular report has been resolved with no action, the underlying issue remains unresolved and I have no idea what to do about it. My only advice is to studiously avoid following him to non-GG articles and if this does not resolve the matter, then request an interaction ban at WP:AE. Gamaliel (talk) 00:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Alright, thanks. I'll just keep doing as I'm doing for now. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 August 2015

Disambiguation link notification for August 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Dennison Russ, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pompton, New Jersey. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Do you really want notifications on your talk page? If not, say so.

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.

EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Writing for The Signpost

I'm fairly new to Wikipedia - I'm set to become autoconfirmed today. This will be my 150th edit and I've been on the wiki for just under four days. I recently came across The Signpost and it's something I'd definitely be interested in contributing to. Could there be a spare place for me in the Featured content section? I understand that you may not feel I'm experienced enough yet - is there any particular requirements? I've read Volume 11, Issue 31 already though I plan to subscribe just in case I miss an issue. I also wouldn't mind to help out in the wikiproject report, however for now my preference would be to help the featured content section. Thanks, Leeds United FC fan (talk) 15:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Please go ahead- I can't devote much time to it this week, and there are lots of FAs etc. Even a rough draft is useful. Maybe start with the pictures and move upwards (or whatever you find congenial ). Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
@Leeds United FC fan: Featured Content is a great place for a new editor, because you don't have to know anything in particular about Wikipedia, we just try to write interesting and funny things about the new articles and pictures that were promoted via FC. Unlike some of the other parts of the Signpost, FC is not closely coordinated or edited. The list of articles and pictures is automatically generated and whoever is available just goes in and adds descriptions and captions. You can reach the draft in progress through our Newsroom and here is a direct link to the current one. Let me know if you have any questions along the way. Thanks!
WikiProject Reports are a bit more organized, and they are coordinated here. I think Go Phightins! will know who the best person to put you in contact with if you want to contribute there. Gamaliel (talk) 16:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick reply. Is there any precautions I should take about copyright when adding descriptions? Leeds United FC fan (talk) 16:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Just paraphrase rather than copy and paste. Sometimes it's difficult to find an alternative- I use a quotation "and put the quote in" a pair of those. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to wait until I'm a little more experienced with Wikipedia before starting. I'm also quite busy generally, but I'll be happy to become a contributor after a while. Leeds United FC fan (talk) 14:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
No problem, feel free to jump in at any time. You can always find the current FC draft in the Newsroom. Gamaliel (talk) 14:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I think I'm going to make my userpage. Are all templates free to use? I'd like to use Template:Userboxtop for some userboxes. Leeds United FC fan (talk) 14:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, anything on Wikipedia is fair game. Gamaliel (talk) 14:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
So I can use any template on Wikipedia on my user page, without having to credit anyone? In particular the template I mentioned. Leeds United FC fan (talk) 14:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. The credits are on each template page already, and that is considered sufficient. Gamaliel (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:I'm Coming Out

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:I'm Coming Out. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Civ 3

re: [36]—my edit removed video game trivia and completely unsourced material that has languished there for years. I actually read through the garbage and trimmed it to something reasonable. (The whole section is in need of a complete rewrite anyway.) Please revert your edit. – czar 04:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that a lot of it should be removed, but your edit removed too much. It's basically a long stub now. There's not even a list of Civilizations, which I think should be a key piece of information for a game called Civilization. Gamaliel (talk) 04:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
So add a list of civilizations if you want, but the previous list had way too much trivial (gameguide) detail. Makes no sense to revert the whole cleanup. – czar 04:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm about to go offline, but tomorrow I will take a close look at the edit and re-remove the stuff the worst of it. Gamaliel (talk) 04:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Here's your list of civs:

Playable civilizations include Aztec, Babylon, China, Ancient Egypt, England, France, Germany, Ancient Greece, India, Iroquois, Japan, Persian Empire, Ancient Rome, Russia, United States, and Zululand.

When one cleans up the cruft, yes, there's nothing left but a stub. Hopefully someone will feel welcome enough to add encyclopedic coverage now. – czar 04:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from July 2015

Here are the highlights from the Wikimedia blog in July 2015.
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe, 20:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

You got mail, Gamaliel

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.

Liz Read! Talk! 21:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I have removed anything that might be considered promotional content and inappropriate external links. Do you think the tone of the writing is suitable now? Can you please remove the advert tag? If you think it's still written like an ad, can you please tell me where exactly do you see a problem? Thanks! ShkdShkd (talk) 11:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 August 2015

Timeline of the John F. Kennedy assassination

I've encounter a new editor/IP in Timeline of the John F. Kennedy assassination that keeps inserting uncited material in place of cited material and refuses to engage in dialogue on the talk page. Is this something that qualifies for page protection? Thanks! - Location (talk) 22:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

It might, but since it appears to be a stable IP, they might refer you to WP:3RRN instead. Gamaliel (talk) 00:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm at a loss for what to do when someone doesn't follow the rules (i.e. cite the material they added), so I put up a request for a third opinion. - Location (talk) 03:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
It can be frustrating. I'll keep my eye on the situation and help if I can. Gamaliel (talk) 03:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks on both accounts! - Location (talk) 03:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
FYI, the page was protected (Thanks, CambridgeBayWeather!) which prevented the IP from editing, but the version with the registered name skirted that and reverted anyway. I've gone through the formality of tagging both with {{uw-3rr}}. Unfortunately, I cannot do anything since I abide by the rules and I'm pushing the 3RR, too. Ironically, my third opinion request was denied because he refuses to engage in discussion (diff). - Location (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Location:. Based on the edits being the same I assumed the IP and the logged in editor were the same. So I've blocked them for 48 hours. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 16:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather: Thank you! That saves me time in drawing up a 3RR complaint. Would you be able to revert his last edit to your last version (diff) or Gamaliel's (diff)? - Location (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 August 2015

re "Bogus Wikipedia page"

Your article ends with citing Murphy: "If there’s an innocent explanation for that, I’d love to hear it". I provided one in the Signpost talk page. Care to expand your article? Staszek Lem (talk) 18:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that you raise an extremely likely possibility. I will try to track down some of those sources and see what I can find. Gamaliel (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome message

Nice to meet you, I appreciate you taking the time to notify me of the issue with editing the Gamergate page. Are you aware of how to tell when these requirements for posting have been reached? I understand that the 500 edits and 1 month created times are only intended as a programmatic recognition of new accounts, and this restriction's true intention is the prevention of new inexperienced accounts causing issues. However, I wouldn't want to accidentally breech the requirement again without checking first that my account is eligible. Misterpaul1 (talk) 04:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

If you go to your preferences page, which you can reach by clicking on "preferences" at the top of the screen on most pages, it will show you the age of your account and the number of edits you have made. Gamaliel (talk) 12:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Great Signpost this week

I gave some personal thanks to Bryce, but I wanted each of you Signpost board folks how much I appreciated this issue. Not only was the op-ed outstanding and thought provoking, the news section was well above average and Tony's travelogue was distinctive and fun to read. For my part, I'd like to see more profiles like that which appeared in the blog. It's impossible to cover every noteworthy event, but the statistical analysis seemed to line up with my anecdotal recollection of the event as it unfolded. Having the opportunity to see such an event analysis on an occasional basis may prove to be a different cross section of exactly how we function in real time. I'm taking the liberty to copy this to each of your board members; please pass my good wishes among your entire team. Outstanding reading. BusterD (talk) 04:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! It's always great to hear when people enjoy the Signpost. Gamaliel (talk) 01:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Gamaliel. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 09:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC). 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.

Keilana (talk) 09:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 August 2015

Animated gif

I fear you may get complaints that the present one might adversely affect epilepsy sufferers. Would it be possible to get one that is less flickery? Andreas JN466 17:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm rather fond of the thaumatrope, being an early film buff and interested in Persistence of vision toys that were precursors to film. But you're right, I'll see if I can find something else usable in the twitter stream. Gamaliel (talk) 18:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 September 2015

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gamaliel/Archive_24&oldid=1166787762"