Jump to content

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
AQFK (talk | contribs)
217 edits
Line 340: Line 340:


::::::{{ping|Callanecc}} thank you for clearing that up. {{ping|A Quest For Knowledge}} so apparently you can retroactively strike your sanction. But it has been nine days since any administrator commented on your request, so while you may be able to challenge your topic ban retroactively, it seems no one is willing to act, sorry. [[User:Gamaliel|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">Gamaliel</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Gamaliel|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">talk</span>]])</small> 01:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
::::::{{ping|Callanecc}} thank you for clearing that up. {{ping|A Quest For Knowledge}} so apparently you can retroactively strike your sanction. But it has been nine days since any administrator commented on your request, so while you may be able to challenge your topic ban retroactively, it seems no one is willing to act, sorry. [[User:Gamaliel|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">Gamaliel</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Gamaliel|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">talk</span>]])</small> 01:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

:::::::While no admin was willing to overturn the sanction during those nine days, no one was willing to support it either. [[User:AQFK|AQFK]] ([[User talk:AQFK|talk]]) 20:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


== ''Wikimedia Highlights'' from August 2015 ==
== ''Wikimedia Highlights'' from August 2015 ==

Revision as of 20:01, 17 September 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thanks on both accounts! - Location (talk) 03:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The Signpost: 02 September 2015

Interested in your thoughts?

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

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

Your suggestion for limiting discussion at AE

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

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

A comment

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

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

On the appearance of neutrality

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Follow up from WP:AE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is my recourse?

I directly addressed the problems with the sanctions:

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

How can I possibly be any more direct?

Marking the closure of my appeal as "minor"[15] gives the appearance of AE trying to cover up their mistakes.

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

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

Impartiality of the phrase "conservative media such as Fox"

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

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


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

Invitation to subscribe to the edit filter mailing list

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

Wikimedia Highlights from August 2015

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

The Signpost: 09 September 2015

Please comment on Category talk:Al Hirt songs

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

File:Hiramrevels.jpeg listed for deletion

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

Note

Hey Gamaliel,

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

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

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

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

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

Where should I file my appeal?

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

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

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

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

Wikimedia Highlights from August 2015

Here are the highlights from the Wikimedia blog in August 2015.
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe, 21:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gamaliel&oldid=681533305"