User talk:Gamaliel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Barnstar of Reversion Hires.png

Topic ban[edit]


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 [[] 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 designer category. Applying 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)

Nomination of William Henry Porter for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article William Henry Porter is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Henry Porter until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 15:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

regarding media bias[edit]

Hello. I don't agree with you that my edits were "disruptive". They obviously weren't vandalism, they were just being descriptive. I also added sources per that other user's objection. I really don't think what you did to me was fair; I think my edits should be restored. I really don't see how they were "disruptive": I was just saying that MSNBC is a liberal outlet (and a self-described one at that), and that NewsMax is a conservative outlet. Bleedingheartconservative (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Oops, my bad, you didn't undo my edits, just my edit summaries. My edits (which I believe are perfectly reasonable) are still there. You can ignore the statement I just posted above. Bleedingheartconservative (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 April 2015[edit]


This isn't a "suggestion" so I'm not sure where to post it so, it's on your talk page! Any way, I hope the Arbitration Report returns. I thought it was an excellent summary of what can be an overwhelming amount of content posted to active cases. Liz Read! Talk! 23:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

We hope that HJ Mitchell will soon return to writing the Arbitration Report, he does an outstanding job. We covered this matter in ITM this week because of all the media coverage, but we plan to include future coverage of that case in AR. Gamaliel (talk) 23:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, HJ Mitchell does a great job and I hope he returns to Signpost! Liz Read! Talk! 13:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey that was my scoop![edit]

Note my comment on the Pascal-Sony item. I mentioned it on my talk page back in December. I did nothing with it, but you guys really ran with it, expanding it beyond Pascal. Great job! I could never work in the news business. Coretheapple (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Me neither, but its a fun hobby. Gamaliel (talk) 03:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Very interesting article, I was moved to start Draft:Charles Sipkins as a result. — Brianhe (talk) 01:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. In case you haven't seen it, thiis his current job: Gamaliel (talk) 03:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Is it OK for me to link The Signpost piece to Charles Sipkins (now a full-fledged article)? I'm not sure of the etiquette, maybe a Signpost staff person should do it? – Brianhe (talk) 04:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
No problem if you want to do it, we welcome tweaks like that to our articles. I've gone ahead and done it myself since I have the article open in another tab. Gamaliel (talk) 16:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban issue[edit]

Hi Gamaliel! I'm not sure as to the current status in regard to User:Ranze's topic ban, but I'm afraid you may need to check some recent edits. I'm not sure whether you will regard edits to A Voice For Men as being gender-related, although I would, however adding information about a Gamergate group being evicted from Calgary Expo does seem to fall under the ban [1]. I've reverted on the assumption that it does fall under it, but as I had previously edited the article I'm assuming that I'm involved. Unfortunately, that means I need to drop the problem on to you, as the person who placed the ban. - Bilby (talk) 06:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@Bilby: I did not mention anything about GamerGate in the CalEx article, I just said a booth was evicted and it was covered by papers. I do not personally consider the group that was evicted to be a 'gamergate group'. Those allegations are mentioned in the title of one of the articles but from what I heard it was due to allegations of disrupting a panel, so I did not interpret that way. But I can't change the title of a reference just to avoid the issue coming up. I was only using the reference to support that newspapers are covering a booth being evicted, that is all, no further interpretation. I explicitly avoided elaborating to avoid breaking the topic block. Ranze (talk) 06:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
With respect, when one of the two references you use is titled "Rumours of #GamerGate booth at Calgary Expo have fans up in arms", and you add the quote "We did not give GamerGate a booth" I'm hard pressed to see how you could have missed the connection. - Bilby (talk) 08:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Gamaliel, I didn't realise that the A Voice For Men issue had been raised at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. I'm happy to take the Calgary Expo issue there as well, if you would prefer. - Bilby (talk) 09:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello Gamaliel. Can you log your topic ban, imposed here, in WP:ARBGG? Also, when you issue bans under ARBGG it does a more complete job if you use the nifty template at {{AE sanction}}. This template expands to include instructions on how to appeal the ban. In the AE thread Ranze stated he was not aware of how to appeal. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: Facepalm3.svg Facepalm Thank you. I'll correct my mistakes today. Gamaliel (talk) 14:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh, it turns out I did log it, here. Since it was a DS, it should go there instead since Ranze wasn't part of the case's sanctions. Gamaliel (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Oops, you're right. I forgot about the new DS log format. EdJohnston (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Muse awards 2015 from the AAM[edit]

Hi. I've added a brief ("Openly GLAM awards") to the In the media page for this week's Signpost, but it could probably use some copyediting for style, plus I also have a fair CoI, having done a lot of the co-ordinating for the "Mapping the Maps" project which took the silver, so you should probably take a look before publication. Cheers, Jheald (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jheald: Thanks! I'm always glad when we can highlight things that we might have overlooked. Gamaliel (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 April 2015[edit]

Books and Bytes - Issue 11[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library


Books & Bytes
Issue 11, March-April 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - MIT Press Journals, Sage Stats, Hein Online and more
  • New TWL coordinators, conference news, and new reference projects
  • Spotlight: Two metadata librarians talk about how library professionals can work with Wikipedia

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case request withdrawn[edit]

The WPPilot arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to, has been withdrawn. For the Arbitration Committee, -- Liz Read! Talk! 21:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Signpost archives[edit]

Now, with my editor's hat on, I wanted to let you know I've been busy categorizing Signpost articles and so far I've finished 2011, 2012 and 2013. I'm going to tackle 2014 and 2015 next and then go backwards from 2010 because it seems like there was some organization when the Signpost first began.
The categories are pretty self-explanatory but I decided to put all "other" articles that do not make a regular appearance in the Signpost into the Special reports category (see Category:Wikipedia Signpost Special report archives).
When I get the entire project done, I'd like to create topical categories, like Category:Wikipedia Signpost Coverage of women. For instance, I was surprised to see how many articles have been written about paid editing/COI over the past few years and it might be nice to have them gathered in an easy-to-find category in case future authors want to review the Signpost coverage of the subject.
All of the recent upheaval in the FC area is unfortunate. It's good to see you have other editors pitching in there and this important piece of the weekly edition will continue. Liz Read! Talk! 22:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 May 2015[edit]

The proper place for "meta-talk page" discussion[edit]

It seems to be your belief that the proper place for discussions of ways to improve article talk pages is not on the article talk page in question. Is that correct? Chrisrus (talk) 05:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

You imposed it[edit]

I ignored his snark on the talk page. Here's his latest article edit [7]. 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[8] 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[9], 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 [10] 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)

Signpost -- Magna Carta embroidery[edit]

Hi. I've added a long image of Magna Carta (An Embroidery) (40-foot reproduction of its wiki page) to Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-05-13/In_the_media

Other alternatives are available at c:Category:Magna_Carta_(An_Embroidery); or we also now have clearance to use other images of the work from [11] & [12] that I haven't had time to get uploaded yet. ("The embroidery, and photographs of it, are available for reuse on the same terms as Wikipedia content" -- Tom Johnson, British Library, 15.05.2015).

Also cc'ing User:Go_Phightins!, but I'm not sure which of the two of you are supervising the Signpost this week. Jheald (talk) 18:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 May 2015[edit]


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. Kirill [talk] 12:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


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)


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[edit]


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[edit]

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

Topic ban narrowing appeal[edit]

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 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, 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)

Meta at GGC Suggestion[edit]

@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)