User talk:Gamaliel: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Gamaliel/Archive 27) (bot
Line 71: Line 71:


:::: Thank you. --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 07:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
:::: Thank you. --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 07:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

:::: For [[Template:Did you know nominations/Herbert L. Packer|due process]]: I mentioned this on the talk of The Quixotic Potato. --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 06:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


== [[User talk:Fdaskyvfgbawrt7i3qyrhgk8sa]] ==
== [[User talk:Fdaskyvfgbawrt7i3qyrhgk8sa]] ==

Revision as of 06:13, 25 April 2016


Apoplectic

You used that word (ARCA), which I don't understand, sorry, English is not my first language. I understand, however, that you worded "absent a substantive statement from the editor in question", and have no idea what that means, either. Andy made a substantive statement. To my observation, he is often misunderstood, - is that a reason to restrict him? - There is no infobox war. Look at Bach, Verdi and many operas, these subjects of the case in 2013. All (but one, primary editor's preference respected) have an infobox, achieved in peace, after discussions without Andy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad things have subsided. I am concerned about them starting up again if the Committee takes the wrong step. This doesn't mean I have any specific concerns about particular individuals, it just means I want to be cautious and thorough. I do not feel that a one sentence statement that says basically "I want to be unblocked" is substantive. I'm not looking for any statement in particular, but it should be longer than that. Gamaliel (talk) 17:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why? The case was a misunderstanding, did you know? It was requested because of too many reverts of infoboxes (I counted 59), but the arbitrators didn't look at that problem. A typical discussion of 2013 was The Rite of Spring. Please read it and check for "disruption". Needless to say, the article has an infobox. To still have any restrictions about infoboxes is outdated. - I try to keep things simple. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why the objection him making a simple statement? Why should we make an exception in this case? The statement is one of the main ways we have to judge the future behavior of an editor. It would be irresponsible of me to consider lifting the sanctions in such a battleground area without this basic step. I'll be honest, people objecting to this basic step is raising a big red flag to me, that there might be more to this case than it appears. If it is really so simple, let's have a statement and be done with it. Gamaliel (talk) 17:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of statement? Did you read the discussion on The Rite of Spring? How many more times should I try to tell you that there is no battleground area? His suggestion was taken. Tell me one edit in that discussion that you think was disruptive. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One that addresses why the sanctions should be lifted and what he would do if they were. This is standard and expected in every case. Gamaliel (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Starting over, if I may: we had a talk in 2013. You described the edit correctly, the one and only diff in the infoboces case. It wasn't controversial, it was restoring "my" infobox (which had been reverted in an article I created). All this is past. Start over, please, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am very open to the possibility of amending the restrictions if Andy makes a substantive statement. My feelings about the necessity of a statement have nothing to do with my opinions for or against the underlying issue. Gamaliel (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't know what apoplectic means, but will find out. Miss you, - I praise you as someone who (in Teh Case) can listen and is able to change his mind, - a rare quality. Enjoy what you are doing, - if you return to this place, the cabal of the outcasts might be for you, too. - Best advice I learned: ignore ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 March 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Impact

Impact
Thank you for your impact
in reminding us of
"you've got to be kind"
in memory of a great spirit!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ps: see also, writing about music in memory of my friend, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ps: the first cry --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I now left a formal dedication, including him, on Requiem (Fauré) which became a GA today. - Waiting for a reply for your DYK nom, btw,

Gerda Arendt Nice work on that article. I haven't forgotten about the DYK, thank you for being patient. My time is being taken up by ridiculous noticeboard drama. Gamaliel (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you have so little time, you may have missed reading the dedication in full (which mentions the appreciated collaboration with Tim riley, which I have enjoyed for years, beginning with Messiah. We don't agree on infoboxes, but that doesn't matter. Spread the news: it is possible.) - Your ping interrupting me laughing out loud, hope you can, too, although the first line making me laugh was "and the Arbs in particular are not blessed with any greater insight". - Returning there, - the DYK can wait, and please excuse me for ignoring noticeboards, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, i'm pretty neutral on infoboxes. If people want to add them, great, if not, I'm fine with that too. RexxS is absolutely right, we don't have any special insight, we just do the best we can. Please do on ignoring the noticeboards, it really is the most sensible approach to Wikipedia. I try to ignore them entirely when someone isn't complaining about me there. which is more often than I would like. Gamaliel (talk) 15:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry for you being called to the Great Dismal Swamp often. I was called there once: I am also pretty neutral on infoboxes but say when I think an article would be better with one, such as Bach on 21 March 2013. Years later, they followed. I also like to add one to an article I create, such as Peter Planyavsky. In 2013, it was reverted, twice, - Andy finally restored it, from (at that point) being hidden undisplayed at the bottom at the article. An arbitrator found that edit a reason to vote for banning. His vote was the majority. (My night was awful.) Well, "we just do the best we can" was not enough then, the arb didn't look at diff and history, nor did his colleagues. I believe that - instead of looking back at past mistakes and who made the bigger mistakes, we could look forward, see that an arb installed my workshop version for Beethoven as the community consensus, and forget all that. - See also ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DYK today Gottes Zeit ist die allerbeste Zeit, BWV 106. No infobox by me under my (kafkaesque former) restrictions, but we improved since. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another GA for GA yesterday ;) - Gott ist mein König, BWV 71. Made a headline in 2013: User talk:Gerda Arendt/Archive 2013#Gott ist mein König, BWV 71. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed an interesting article for DYK, Close case: "... that Judge Guido Calabresi believes close cases lead to slippery slopes?" Think I know one, where a ruling which could have been different (best decline content issues) created a slippery slope ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For due process: I mentioned this on the talk of The Quixotic Potato. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Fdaskyvfgbawrt7i3qyrhgk8sa

Hi, did you mean to disable autoblock on this user? And if you do fix this, can you also revoke their talk page access, thanks! 172.58.33.176 (talk) 03:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Submitting a piece for publishing

Hello, Gamaliel. I've completed my WikiProject Report interview and would like to submit it for publishing by The Signpost. I'm pinging Go Phightins! as well. Thanks, --3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 3family6. @Razr Nation: could you have a look when you have a chance? Gamaliel (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Gamaliel:, sure. I'll take a look later today. → Call me Razr Nation 18:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #202

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

Word count limit

In my amendment request about GMOs, it occurs to me that I'm starting to go over the word count limit. That's happening mainly because I'm answering questions from you and from admins whom you've asked to comment there, so I hope that it's OK. If you agree that it's OK, then could you perhaps wave the ArbCom magic wand so that the clerks allow it? Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tryptofish: The wand has been waved. I've let the clerks know that it's okay for you to exceed the limit. Gamaliel (talk) 06:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I appreciate it. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments at WP:ARCA

I don't think that we want to rehash the old User:Charles Matthews affair of the Wikipedia-related newspaper attack on me.

Suggestions, how I can reword my contributions. are greatly appreciated.

Thanks! Carl (talk) 21:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to pursue sanctions against this user for whatever they may have allegedly done, I will assist you, but it is unproductive and disruptive to mention it in the context of other discussions. We have a saying on Wikipedia: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Please keep that in mind. Gamaliel (talk) 21:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! It seems unproductive to pursue this further since the user has already been sanctioned. As per your suggestion, I have removed my comments about specific other contributors from here.Carl (talk) 12:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John C. McAdams

Are you possibly able to do a "check user" on Levazquez76 (talk · contribs)? I believe it is probably the same as the creator of this edit as well as a few of the other recent hopped IPs trying to rewrite that article. If I need to fill out a sockpuppet investigation I'll be happy to do so. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 17:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm involved in editing the article I don't think the rules allow me to run it myself. (I'm a new checkuser so I'm still learning.) I'd fill out an investigation request so everything is above board. Gamaliel (talk) 17:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problem it's here in case you want to add anything or look it over. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 18:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like the big issue is they may actually be meatpuppets sent from McAdams' blog? Should I note that in the SPI page? Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 19:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Has he written about his Wikipedia article and asked people to come here? If so I can't find the post. Gamaliel (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Am I allowed to post here? I apologize for the confusion. I can tell you exactly what I've edited and what I haven't. I've only been here on exactly two dates.Levazquez76 (talk) 21:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The main concern is not who is editing, but the content of the edits. Gamaliel (talk) 22:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense, however, I was also tagged in an investigation involving my IP address. I'm not sure why.Levazquez76 (talk) 23:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is some concern that a single person is editing the article from multiple IP addresses and accounts. It's okay to edit however you want to, logged in or not, but if the same person edits the article in different ways and pretends to be different people, it may unduly influence article content. Gamaliel (talk) 23:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Totally understand. I only edited on two occasions and was signed in. I apologize for my failure to edit according to policy. I'm trying to figure out how to "request edits" until I can figure out what I'm doing. I do live in the same city as this story, so my use of "per" should have been backed by a link to a news story or the like, instead of what I heard in a live broadcast. Just to be clear, I am not John McAdams. I saw that said somewhere on one of these pages.Levazquez76 (talk) 23:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You can edit Talk:John C. McAdams. You can propose, discuss, or object to changes there. We encourage all editors to use talk pages to engage in those kinds of discussions, and everyone is welcome to comment there. Gamaliel (talk) 23:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How long do the "check users" usually take? I'm just curious as to how long the case will be open. I would like to be cleared so I can change my username. Levazquez76 (talk) 19:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April Fools? Nope! Welcome to the Women Scientists worldwide online edit-a-thon during Year of Science

Join us!

Women Scientists - worldwide online edit-a-thon -
a Year of Science initiative

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC) via MassMessage[reply]

The Signpost: 1 April 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This day's This Special Day's article for improvement (day 1, month 4, 2016)

Skvader - Tetrao lepus pseudo-hybridus rarissimus in the wild at Örnsköldsvik
Hello!

The following is WikiProject This Special Day's articles for improvement's daily selection:

Skvader

Please be bold and help to improve this article!

Previous selections: Snipe hunt • Jenny Haniver

Get involved with the TSDAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Share this message with other editors

Posted by: w.carter-Talk 20:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC) using New improved MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of WikiProject TSDAFI • [April Fools!][reply]

Editor editing another's user page without discussion

I would appreciate your help in addressing User:LaserBrain editing my user page.

Thanks!Carl (talk) 03:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #203

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

The Signpost

So I guess The Signpost is one of the best articles on Wikipedia now. GamerPro64 18:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Gamaliel. How much longer until the newest issue of The Signpost drops? GamerPro64 23:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No idea. We're short on writers and my life is long on drama (see below). Gamaliel (talk) 00:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-03-17/News and notes

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-03-17/News and notes, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-03-17/News and notes and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-03-17/News and notes during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ~ RobTalk 19:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Blatant BLP violation and subsequent protection by involved Admin. Thank you. GABHello! 22:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Small hands?

What is the point of User:Gamaliel/Small hands? I have small eyes, but that's not something to be proud of, given that most people view big eyes as more attractive. Usually one uses userboxes to promote positive things about themselves. wbm1058 (talk) 15:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Small hands are a blessing. You can play piano, solder tiny parts, run for president... HighInBC 15:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I suppose, as are my nearsighted small eyes an asset for doing close-up work, though not really useful for anything to do with Wikipedia editing. Still seems rather pointy, given the timing. wbm1058 (talk) 15:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe in the promise of America, where anyone can become president, no matter how small their hands. Gamaliel (talk) 15:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
no matter how big their belly button?
no matter how long their hair is?
no matter their religion?
no matter what their (trans)gender is?
Why not simply, "where anyone eligible can become president"? Are you planning on running for president? If so, you've got some work do do. I wouldn't fancy your chances of getting reelected to the Arbitration Committee right now. wbm1058 (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have a feeling this conversation isn't about my hands anymore. Gamaliel (talk) 17:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I have small hands which is one reason why I never got very far learning to play the guitar. I even looked into getting a guitar with a narrower neck so I could use bar chords. I don't find it embarassing, it's just a physical feature like curly hair, long legs or brown eyes. While body parts don't have anything to do with a person's qualification for higher office, I also don't understand why some editors found it offensive. But in BLP debates, it's the consensus view of what is appropriate, not a single editor's views, that matters. Liz Read! Talk! 15:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus view matters when it's a consensus, and when it's a view. It’s not a consensus here: it's a bunch of canvassed Gamergate fans and a few score-settlers. And it's not actually their view, or anyone’s: Trump himself raised the matter on TV, it's been covered in humor magazines from the New York on down, and nobody anywhere is really upset about it. Notice how many of these people watch the Gamergate cluster of pages, and how seldom (if ever) they've deleted or called for oversight when (as still happens regularly) real BLP issues that do real harm to real people. One of Gamaliel's detractors, for example, recently edit-warred to include a misleading quote indicating that one Gamergate target was a pedophile; the matter in question was an old undergraduate essay that observed that Japanese law differs from contemporary US law in matters like age of consent and argues that Japan has the right to maintain its laws and traditions. I cannot recall a single instance where any of these terribly-concerned editors chose to edit to the advantage of any Gamergate target, and as you know I’ve been reading the topic for some time. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[removing nonsense]

So it's okay to make fun of people on Wikipedia, unless they are a rich and famous politician? If you all would like to make fun of Dr. Bernstein, Reddit is thataway ----> GamerPro64 and MONGO, you are welcome to visit my user talk page at any time, but please do not use it this way. Gamaliel (talk) 04:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not make fun of anyone.--MONGO 05:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I looked at the diffs and you did not. Allow me to rephrase in your particular case. Maybe "poke the bear with a stick"? Gamaliel (talk) 12:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To settle the record

I didn't return from retirement just to bash you and I haven't suddenly taken a position opposed to you. But I do think you dun fucked up here. Hope we're still friends after this settles.--v/r - TP 23:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to listen. I'd like to be able to discuss a disagreement with a civil editor. It would be a nice change from the last two days. Gamaliel (talk) 23:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything you said (so far) about me or this issue on ANI terrible offensive. I do think your snap at Jytdog, whoever they are, was unwarranted, however. Also, welcome back. I saw you editing a day or so ago but I wanted to see if it wasn't a fluke before I said anything. Gamaliel (talk) 23:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit pissed at Jytdog for something unrelated. So I'll give them a little heat for a few days before I completely let it go. I'm back off and on. I'm going to hit up a library here this weekend to dredge up whatever I can find on the USS Arizona Memorial and try to get it to GA class.--v/r - TP 23:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Kittens don't care about the size of your hands.

Strongjam (talk) 13:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I and Legacypac

Since you commented at the thread, I think someone needs to cut through the pointy B.S. and revert this "close" by Legacypac. I tried, but was reverted by him. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note for him. Someone else reverted his closure. I asked him not to close again. Gamaliel (talk) 19:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I continue to be disturbed by his insistence on referring to me and Ches as sockpuppets/meatpuppets/proxies of each other. It's been going on for days (over a week) now. I know he's doing it to get a rise out of us, but when is enough if that kind of provocation/poking going to be enough with an admin making an impression on him that it needs to stop? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look at the existing thread at ANI if you put some relevant diffs in there about this specific issue. Gamaliel (talk) 20:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the ANI report started by MaranoFan (you're welcome to look there): "Ches & WV are essentially joined at the hip, to the point I wonder if one is not a sock of the other." 06:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC); "this is just another attempt by WV's meat puppet to attack an editor they disagree with. 04:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC). And now, today, with this underneath the now closed proposal he put up at ANI regarding Ches: "Ches and his proxy did." at 20:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC) found here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

500/30 Restriction on "Brianna Wu"

Could you lift the 500/30 restriction on Brianna Wu or cite a policy you followed in making your decision? As one of the editors to the article appears to have a conflict of interest with the subject, I would think less invested editors would help scrub a few of the broken links and inconsistent sources. Thanks in advance.--Runescrape (talk) 17:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What possible conflict of interest could Gamaliel have with Brianna Wu? The page has been the frequent target of scurrilous vandalism by inexperienced and anonymous posters and has been a magnet for trouble. Gamaliel will doubtless give you the chapter and verse on policy.MarkBernstein (talk) 18:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think he meant one of the other editors currently editing the page? Gamaliel (talk) 18:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe they're talking about this. It's a pretty thin complaint. — Strongjam (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you believe the current state of the article is acceptable?
I will note what I said earlier WRT one claim concerning the subject: Inc. magazine writes "[the subject] left school the first time to start her own video animation company, came back, and dropped out for good in 2001 after getting swept up in the excitement surrounding George W. Bush's election as president." However, the Boston Globe, one of the sources cited by this article, claims the subject is "a graduate of the University of Mississippi". The article presents the latter claim without challenge: "[the subject] later returned to college to finish her degree in investigative journalism".
In the article's current state, the claim that the subject has a university degree is presented unchallenged, while interviews with the subject contradict this statement. At best this contradiction should be noted in the article, at worst any claim of a degree should be scrubbed until the contradictory articles are somehow resolved.--Runescrape (talk) 22:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Based on this discussion I believe the 500/30 restrictions are still needed. You can use the talk page to raise concerns about this article. Thank you for your concern about this article, but in the meantime please direct your efforts towards some of the five million other articles on Wikipedia. Gamaliel (talk) 22:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How would this discussion suggest the "500/30 restrictions are still needed"? I seem to be the only person affected by these restrictions, which you claimed are justified by some conspiratorial reddit post or something? I'm having a bit of trouble following your rationale here.--Runescrape (talk) 22:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A new user focusing on a single topic targeting an existing editor who is often the target of offsite harassment by those interested in the topic area with a frivolous complaint is exactly the type of editing this restriction is designed to prevent. You are welcome to challenge the restriction at WP:AE. I'm sorry you find these restrictions unwarranted but there are five million other articles which you may edit unrestricted. Gamaliel (talk) 22:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So you'd rather not actually provide any concrete evidence then. Very well, I see no point in continuing this conversation. I encourage you to forward whatever evidence of harassment you have collected to the appropriate authorities, as there is no reason why death threats or stalking should be tolerated through any outlet. All the best.--Runescrape (talk) 22:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hello, Gamaliel. Could you please delete the edit summary visible here, which is a personal attack directed at me. Thanks. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, sorry I missed that when I deleted the other one! The dangers of multitasking.... Gamaliel (talk) 23:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Case notice

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

Thanks, NE Ent 23:54, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #204

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

Maunsell Bradhurst Field

I went and looked up the actual letter that Maunsell wrote to the NY Times and this is what the letter states:

Death in this case was a mere cessation of breathing.The fact had not been ascertained one minute when Dr. GURLEY offered up a prayer. The few persons in the room were all profoundly effected. The President's eyes after death were not, particularly the right one, entirely closed. I closed them myself with my fingers, and one the surgeons brought pennies and placed them on the eyes, and subsequently substituted for them silver half-dollars. In a very short time the jaw commenced slightly falling, although the body was still warm. I called attention to this, and had it immediately tied up with a pocket handkerchief. The expression immediately after death was purely negative, but in fifteen minutes here came over the mouth, the nostrils, and the chin, a smile that seemed almost an effort of life. I had never seen upon the President's face an expression more genial and pleasing.

Anyway, thought you might find it interesting.

During my research, I also found the same misapprehensions (missing last name, clever editing of the original quoted material) at the Simple WP's article on the assassination. Field's actual letter to the NY Times can be found in its entirety at The House Divided Project at Dickinson College: "Maunsell Bradhurst Field to Editor New York Times, Letter accounting the Passing of President Abraham Lincoln, April 16, 1865". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.81.230 (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the link! This is definitely interesting. I'll put it back in the article if you haven't already. Gamaliel (talk) 18:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, this is the long-term UK Kennedy/Lincoln/Titanic IP, who has a tendency to mix good edits with pointless or just plain wrong edits. I've blocked the IP. They seem to have become more active in recent weeks, using a couple of ISPs. Acroterion (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gamergate involvement

Hello Gamaliel, I see a lot of editors accusing you of being involved on the topic of Gamergate. I've seen that used as a tactic to remove an admin someone he or she doesn't like, but I've seen enough editors say it that it is worth asking the question. How have you interacted with the topic area in the past? Do you see yourself as fully impartial and uninvolved? Do you think your position on the Committee might affect your ability to properly enforce?

I don't know the answer to these and I won't presume to judge, but it may be worth examining if the topic area might benefit from you focusing on other things for a bit. Respectfully, The WordsmithTalk to me 02:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, Gamaliel is not involved. I'm sure he will correct any mistakes in my comment, but here is a quick response. The gamergaters hate him because he was the only admin who, reluctantly, was willing to monitor the topic and the frequent WP:AE requests. I don't know the current state of play, but in the past there were off-wiki hate pages dedicated to knocking out the half dozen editors who prevented the gamergaters from taking over the topic, and Gamaliel was on such lists. Anyone wanting a quick explanation of what gamergate is about can read the first few paragraphs at the RationalWiki's article. It would be great if more admins were available to monitor the topic but quite a bit of time would be needed to get the backstory. I just glanced at WP:AE and the statements are from the regulars. Johnuniq (talk) 03:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that Gamaliel is involved, and i'm not saying that he's done anything wrong whatsoever. Like I said, i've seen the tactic used before with varying success. All i'm saying is that since i'm stepping into an active role and the allegation has been made, I would be negligent if I didn't look into it. As far as getting more admins in to monitor the topic area, I'm fully prepared to carry the flag. I'm just following up on the allegation that was made and asking Gamaliel to ask himself those questions. The WordsmithTalk to me 03:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, due process is good, and thank you. One more point in case you are willing to take a look. There is a strange phenomenon in this topic which I have never seen before, namely that the gamergaters have an astonishing ability to be perfectly civil while repeating previous arguments indefinitely. That is why the few neutral editors sometimes crack and become excessively sarcastic or abusive. The community has no way to handle the situation and the current procedures merely train the participants about how to survive for more civil POV pushing. Johnuniq (talk) 03:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Be careful, you might summon one of them a la Beetlejuice. Gamaliel (talk) 12:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll chime in, just so you aren't only hearing from editors looking to ditch their chaperone. I've been following this circus for much longer than I have been registered here, and I don't recall any involvement in the topic by Gamaliel that wasn't in his role as an admin. He has probably dropped some kind of deserved sanction on the bulk of the pro-gamergate crowd, but I'd say that has less to do with his being involved and more to do with his being one of the few admins willing to wade into this mess and put up with the resultant off-wiki shenanigans. As for Gamaliel asking himself those questions, this is not the first time this accusation has been leveled against him...probably by much the same crowd as before. I imagine his response this time will be the same as then. Torven (talk) 03:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've been policing the Gamergate topic area since it started in August 2014. I don't think being on the committee has anything to do with participating in Gamergate admin actions, as I would recuse myself from GG matters because my admin actions were discussed during the GG arbitration case. I welcome the participation of more administrators in this topic area so I may focus on it less. The less I have to do with Gamergate, the better my life will be. Gamaliel (talk) 11:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the interest of being fully responsive to The Wordsmith's question, I think it should be indicated that the discussion of your admin actions in the Gamergate case resulted in the committee being split 6 to 8 about whether you needed an official "reminder" about WP:INVOLVED. That motion did not pass, of course, but I think it does give an indication that there were concerns. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 12:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That answer is satisfactory. Given that the accusations were made without evidence, I see no reason to pursue further unless somebody actually provides me with a solid reason. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So you think so many editors, including administrators, saying he is involved are all lying, simply because he is skilled at deflecting that accusation, which he hears constantly? By far his biggest level of involvement is with MarkBernstein. If not for Gamaliel, he would have been topic banned long ago. When asked why he allows him to get away with so much and is always defending him, he repeats the same attacks on 'Gamergaters' that Mark does. He believes Marks behavior is justified because they share the same POV in the topic area. This is not my opinion, he has openly admitted this on numerous occasions. I don't know how he could possibly be more involved. 172.6.238.220 (talk) 06:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See, this is exactly the sort of battleground mentality Mark was sanctioned for. Either express yourself properly and provide factual evidence to AE, or I strongly suggest you drop the stick. Smear campaigns such as this will no longer be tolerated. The WordsmithTalk to me 08:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He is an admin and on ArbCom, all the while being main admin in the Gamergate topic area and guilty of at least most of the accusations you've read recently. To quote A Few Good Men: "You don't get to that position without knowing how to sidestep a few land mines." He deftly handled your inquiry. He would easily refute any diffs I could provide. I'm not asking you to find him guilty of anything based on what I'm saying. I just ask you, for the good of the project, to at least keep an open mind. Your initial suspicion was correct. There is a lot of smoke for a reason. 2602:30A:C06E:EDC0:4D8F:A54D:4770:EA3D (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For my money (which isn't worth much!) Gamaliel has navigated this ridiculously vicious and petty donnybrook as well as humanly possible. Dumuzid (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion here is likely unwanted, but I do feel an obligation. Gamaliel and I have had many disagreements, some of them strenuous, over his handling of Gamergate. He has, in my view, made a number of mistakes, and some of those errors have been costly to the project. He has not always done as much as might have been done to help editors who required assistance; that is the project’s failing, not his alone, but he bears his share. Notwithstanding these disagreements, he has mastered the large and complicated history of Gamergate, a history obfuscated, as Johnnyuniq observes, by the extraordinarily prolific, repetitious, and numbing mountain of text Gamergate has created. He has dealt swiftly and intelligently with a steady stream of delicate and sensitive issues that Gamergate has imposed in the project, any one of which might, if mishandled, have led to disastrous consequences; we may think Gamergate a “petty donnybrook” but for some of its victims, Gamergate has been a life-changing catastrophe. He has been prudent and patient, yet he has also been commendably unwilling to sacrifice decency for the sake of quiet and convenience. Trying to “fix” Gamergate without understanding Gamergate’s schemes and shenanigans (and its broader off-wiki context) led Arbcom to infamous disaster -- a disaster which Gamaliel did try to avert. He has brought a scholar’s mind to bear on the matter and has displayed extraordinary patience and exemplary tolerance in the face of bitter provocation, some of it mine. Yes, there are indeed entire attack pages and lengthy image board threads devoted to the crusade to dislodge Gamaliel from Wikipedia by fair means or foul. He deserves better from the project. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Highlights from March 2016

Here are the highlights from the Wikimedia blog in March 2016.
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe, 19:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 April 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-04-14/Gallery

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-04-14/Gallery, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-04-14/Gallery and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-04-14/Gallery during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Fram (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes - Issue 16

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 16, February-March 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - science, humanities, and video resources
  • Using hashtags in edit summaries - a great way to track a project
  • A new cite archive template, a new coordinator, plus conference and Visiting Scholar updates
  • Metrics for the Wikipedia Library's last three months

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

In general appreciation of your work as both admin and arbitrator.

Ratatosk Jones (talk) 20:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well said

This was a great statement, and I'm glad you released it. Zad68 03:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AfD vote

Hi Gamaliel, I hesitate to even bring this up, but I'm concerned about how your !vote at the Auerbach AfD will be construed. In this comment, you give the impression that your opinion in the AfD might be regarded as an attack on Mr. Auerbach, but having seen your !vote I doubt that anyone could rationally characterize it as an attack. I'm quite confident that you haven't changed your !vote as some kind of shady quid pro quo (with this as quid and this as quo), but without proper context that's exactly how I think it will be characterized by those who wish you ill. Could you perhaps rephrase or expand on (reframe/contextualize) your comments a bit to avoid that negative association? Sorry to trouble you, and thanks in advance.

Keep your chin up, Gamaliel. -Thibbs (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I find it awfully hard to believe that anyone would think Auerbach and Gamaliel are in cahoots... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't be the first time an unbelievable characterization was made. I'm just saying that it pays to be scrupulous when you find yourself under the microscope. -Thibbs (talk) 22:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The text is written clearly and I don't see how anyone could misunderstand it. However, I will spell out what it says. There are two editors, say X and Y, who do not get along. X tries to avoid Y because any comment X makes (even something positive) may be seen as poking or meddling. Y also avoids X. X wants to add keep to an AfD regarding Y but does not because that action may be regarded as some kind of "I'm keeping an eye on you" or other weirdness. However, Y makes a comment that gets X off the hook and X does what he wanted to do all along. I guess you are correct to think that malcontents will interpret anything as a sign of evil, but WP:AGF is a policy that must be followed, not a fuzzy essay. Johnuniq (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Johnuniq. I assumed that was Gamaliel's train of thought as well, and I think that your clear explanation should put any unquiet minds to rest. It's a true shame that these days a !vote by X in support of Y would be regarded as an attack rather than an olive branch. Maybe I'm a pessimist, but it seems like AGF is given less and less heed these days. -Thibbs (talk) 02:33, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Moore

@Bbb23: Look, you two and I have had our differences regarding politics. But this article is clearly one of the most representative white washing that proves my argument that Wikipedia leans left. There is plenty of criticism of Michael Moore available. Like, boatloads. I've read the article and it's nothing but praise for Michael Moore. There is not a single sentence that criticizes him. The closest it comes is the sentence about calling GW Bush a deserter, but even that spends more text defending his comments than it does explaining the criticism. That, and movies criticizing him aren't even mentioned in the article. This article needs some serious balance.--v/r - TP 18:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, I read the article MoveOn.org and I'm certainly satisfied with it's level of criticism with respect to RealClearPolitics. Wish we had that kind of thoroughness in Michael Moore.--v/r - TP 04:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP policies consulting

First of all, thanks for your response to my WP:RFC here. I found more information regarding the PED use allegations from the New York Times so I think I could created a main page for the documentary, but I don't want to clash with the WP:NPP and give' em tons of explanations as it happened in Talk: Peyton Manning. I'm new creating WP pages so I don't know the more practical way to do it. Snow Rise was helping me but he told me he was very busy and he can't response right now, so I'll look for help anywhere else until he's able to answer. Leo Bonilla (talk) 21:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Help talk:Citation Style 1

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Help talk:Citation Style 1. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Length of statement at WP:RFAR

Hi Gamaliel, I currently make the length of your statement in this case to be over 1600 words, where the instructions make it clear that "Without exception, statements (including responses to other statements) must be shorter than 500 words". Can you please reduce the length of your statement to be in line with this standard? If the case is accepted, as it looks like it will be, discussion can take place through the evidence and workshop sections. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

@Lankiveil: Are you including in your count the addition that Drmies made on Gamaliel's behalf? Since an Arb added that bit, I don't think it should count against Gamaliel.--v/r - TP 06:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@TParis: No, just text added directly by Gamaliel themselves. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:25, 16 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Gamaliel. With reference to your statement at RFAR this is currently shyowing at over 1600 words in length, please reduce this by 13:00 UTC April 19 otherwise the statement will be reduced as necesscary by a clerk as a clerk action. Clerk actions canot be reverted without the explicit permission of the Arbitration Committee. Amortias (T)(C) 10:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Gamaliel, because the Arbitration Committee has authorized the clerks to open the case immediately, the case will be opened with the first 600 words of your statement showing and the remainder hatted. You still have until 13:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC) to modify your statement, and you are explicitly allowed to modify your statement on the main case page until that time. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 12:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed arbitration temporary injunction

The Arbitration Committee is considering enacting the following temporary injunction with respect to the case request of 10 April 2016:

For the duration of this case DHeyward (talk · contribs) and Gamaliel (talk · contribs) are prohibited from interacting with or discussing each other anywhere on Wikipedia. An exception is granted for the main case page, evidence and workshop pages, but not for any case talk page. This injunction is to be enforced with blocks of up to one week, any blocks made are to be logged on the main case page.

Temporary injunctions may be enacted 24 hours after achieving four net votes. Your comments are welcome at the arbitration case request. For the Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliel and others arbitration case opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others. The scope of this case is Gamaliel's recent actions (both administrative and otherwise), especially related to the Signpost April Fools Joke. The case will also examine the conduct of other editors who are directly involved in disputes with Gamaliel. The case is strictly intended to examine user conduct and alleged policy violations and will not examine broader topic areas. The clerks have been instructed to remove evidence which does not meet these requirements. The drafters will add additional parties as required during the case. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Evidence.

Please add your evidence by May 2, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence gathering

Gamaliel, I noted this vile attack on yourself and BLP violation by DHeyward in reviewing information on the newly initiated arbitration.[1] (diff [2]). Also, I need both of you guys to choose characters and suggest who else should be represented in my new comic strip for coverage of the arbitration.[3] Cheers.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: it's going to be rather hard for Rob to respond here given the interaction ban. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #205

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

Arbitration temporary injunction enacted

The Arbitration Committee has enacted the following temporary injunction, to expire at the end of the Gamaliel and others arbitration case:

For the duration of this case DHeyward (talk · contribs) and Gamaliel (talk · contribs) are prohibited from interacting with or discussing each other anywhere on Wikipedia. An exception is granted for the main case page, evidence and workshop pages, but not for any case talk page. This injunction is to be enforced with blocks of up to one week, any blocks made are to be logged on the main case page.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 15:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Page mover

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Page mover. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 April 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gamaliel&oldid=717014254"