User talk:Gamaliel

Topic ban

Special:Diff/654927319:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:WereSpielChequers cites this:

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

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

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

A degree in marine biology is not potentially sensitive or damaging personal information. Your edits also included personal information of unknown accuracy that was not contained in the four tweets you posted to Talk:Zoe Quinn in this edit. You also posted that information to four different disambiguation pages. Discussion of sensitive information is one thing, but using Wikipedia as a tool for disseminating it is quite another. Gamaliel (talk) 23:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Sensitivity seems like a relative issue, can I propose we move toward making an approved list of past careers we are not permitted to mention for BLPs on Wikipedia? People can be hostile to a lot of careers like 'lawyer' or 'priest' or 'telemarketer', not just the one in question. Not being a sysop I am unable to check the redacted edit, but I think it related to linking to a YouTube video regarding an alleged legal action issued by Z against someone which was relevant to other discussion on the page.

If you're saying the background career should only be mentioned on her article and not disambigs since it is not her current career or the one she is most well known for, then I can agree in that regard and will not add it back to any disambigs. I guess at the time I thought it seemed more notable to me, but I should have taken into account how notable it would seem to other Wikipedians. That said, what I added to the disambigs WAS entirely based on the tweets she made (just like her birth year) and not on YT or anything else. I added it in faith that Zoe would not make false statements about her career background. If we do not rely on her tweets to be truthful then I would suggest that if we do add her to any disambigs that we do not list her birth year on them until it is further sourced.

I request this ban be narrowed merely to Zoe if it need be left intact. Banning me from "any gender-related dispute or controversy" seems far too broad. Getting into an argument as to whether Stephanie Brown or Carrie Kelley was the first female Robin would qualify as one of those. Ranze (talk) 02:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

May I suggest following the standard procedure when an issue like this arises, namely that a specific proposal be made focused on a particular article or articles, with an outline of the edits that would benefit the encyclopedia if the topic ban were varied. Johnuniq (talk) 02:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: do you know where this proposal should be made? I'm not sure where to familiarize myself with standard procedure for appealing a topic ban and requesting the narrowing of its scope. Since discussing what changes I'd like to make to an article on its talk page is what prompted this, I'm not sure how to follow your instructions without violating the scope of the ban. Ranze (talk) 04:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I do not see the particular information - specifically an alleged alternative name which I'd prefer not be mentioned here - you added to the disambiguation pages in those four tweets you posted in this edit. Based on this, it seems that either you were including information that was not sourced or you are not being completely forthright in your comments here. Gamaliel (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The reason I listed the alternative name on disambigs pertaining to its surname is because the name already existed as a redirect to the ZQ article so I figured it was okay. If it is not okay to use that name then you could move to delete/salt the redirect, but I don't see why I should be punished for linking to a redirect which was accepted at the time. If it were salted then I would not link to it, as it only makes sense to link to red links which can potentially be created.

I guess I want to clarify here: is the primary reason of your block my linking to a redirected name on disambiguation pages, or is the primary reason my citing of tweets on the talk page? As for the validity of the redirects, they are not sourced by the tweets, but they are cited by the [[Breitbart.com] article by Milo Yiannopoulos published 1 September 2014. I don't recall if I linked to it in the edit summary at the time for those redirects, I am unable to check due to NBSB's strikethroughs, it's been 22 days, I rely on history to refresh details. Ranze (talk) 04:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

You imposed it

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

Relvant policy. [1]. My edit [2] as the BBC source provided said 'felt.' Revert/direct edit in violation if Iban[3]. You can lift the Iban or enforce it but it's pretty clear from policy they can't both exist. I'd prefer lifting it. --DHeyward (talk) 23:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC) My recollection is that BLP violations -- such as implying that the subject only "felt" it necessary to flee her home (emotional women!) -- was explicitly exempted. If not, my understanding is that addressing BLP violations is always implicitly exempt. If not, we nonetheless now have an impeccable source for the longstanding language of the article. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC) The practice with GG bans has been to exempt edits that might reasonably be interpreted as removing BLP violations. That said, please refrain from further reverts of either version and take it to the talk page. Discussing this edit with other editors while not discussing each other would not violate the IBAN in my opinion. As am out of town I won't be commenting on this again until my return. Gamaliel (talk) 02:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC) It's a stretch to claim the BBC (and others) characterization can reasonably be considered a BLP violation. Her own words abourt cancelling the Utah speech use the word "felt" so not sure why "felt" is such an abhorrent word to use [4] - certainly not a BLP violation as it's an attributable quality to virtually all humans and most animals. Only the most disturbed would associate it only with women. In this interview she pretty much tells the mysoginists that think women can't express feelings without being portrayed as hysterical to stick and that she does have feelings, like everyone else.[5] Lift the iban or enforce it. Don't care which. --DHeyward (talk) 03:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC) And the standard for IBANs is obvious violations of the policy about biographies of living persons. The key word is "obvious", that is, cases in which no reasonable person could possibly disagree. It wasn't obvious enough to mention in his revert that BLP was even considered. It's certainly not obvious. --DHeyward (talk) 09:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

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

@DHeyward: @MarkBernstein: Given Mark Bernstein's self-revert, even if I examined the issue and concluded that it was not a violation, I would be inclined to let it go assuming that at the time of his edit, it was a good faith effort to ensure BLP compliance. I have opened a section on the talk page where you both can post separate statements solely regarding the content of this edit. Other editors will then hopefully develop a consensus on this issue. If there is any more to add to this issue, either of you can post again here Monday. Gamaliel (talk) 23:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

this edit[8], if it were not for the edit summary that accurately describes his mistake, I would have treated it as petty vandalism. It takes almost two sentences of reading the source [9] to answer his question. From the source: orchestrating a "hashtag campaign" to perpetuate misogynistic attacks by wrapping them in a debate about ethics in gaming journalism.. Please lift the Iban. It's not serving any purpose since it's not being enforced anyway. --DHeyward (talk) 22:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

First, did the perpetuate/perpetrate involve DHeyward? I hadn't realized that. Reviewing another edit, I shrugged and left things for some braver editor; turning to review the paragraph, I noticed an apparent malapropism. Yes, it's in the source, but can it possibly be right? In the source context, as in ours, "perpetuate" makes no sense: nothing is discussed about the longevity of the attacks, which had only just begun. "Perpetrate" makes lots of sense. It's not a direct quote (and shouldn't be); at worst, this is a reasonable precis of the source, and at best it’s what the source intended to say.

In my view, the ban serves an excellent purpose: it was meant to avoid endless returns to AE and it's accomplished that. We just saw what -- four separate filings? -- aimed to get TRPoD by any means possible; this wasted a lot of time, wound up getting a couple of socks banned, and had little or no other result. We want less of that, not more. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't participate in latest AE rounds. This involves me only that it prevents corrections of obvious errors. I'm sorry the language confounds you to the point of misunderstanding, but "perpetuate" is the exact word to describe the transitions of misogynistic attacks to misogynistic attacks through multiple hashtags and themes like #NotYourShield and the "ethics in journalism" phase. That handful of 4chan users kept misogyny alive by transitioning the attacks through different angles. That's "perpetuate." It's the word used in the source, it's the scope of the article and it's the correct word. It was already established that misogyny had been perpetrated long before then and it's easy to find where the inflection points were by when people joined in. Maybe you meant "more perpetrated" or something when it transitioned to NotYourShield and Ethics? You do realize that the article is about the transitions and how some of the transitions were manufactured by a handful of 4chan users to perpetuate their misogynistic attacks as their previous efforts died out through normal hashtag cycles, right? I'm sorry you disagree with the source. Any other user and it would be a snap revert based on sources. A new user would have been vandalism revert. But because it's you and you wanted a more confrontational word or whatever your reasoning is to not use sources or comprehend the article, we're paralyzed. In addition, the battleground mentality is the problem. --DHeyward (talk) 01:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I think I've heard the battleground accusation thrown around more with this article than any other that is on my watchlist. It's hard to judge many editors who participate in editing this article and talk page as dispassionate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your insight. I'm sure you found it helpful. I actually have no stake in the article other than it's in WP. I am not passionate about the topic. I dislike attitudes displayed that contradict our principles. --DHeyward (talk) 02:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

No, the 'perpetuate' wording was me, not DHeyward. Not sure why DHeyward is upset about that edit here, especially given that he sees himself as above the 1RR sanction- you'd think that somebody so prone to WP:IAR when it suits him would be willing to extend the same courtesy to others. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what you are babbling about. There was no 1RR violation as there was no revert. When the edit summary is "'small' not supported by source" and the source has "handful" in the first sentence and "small" in the second, I assumed that editor must have a preference for "handful" and must then see distinction between the two, whence it's not a revert to add different language in quotes from the source that made it. Or he was being purposely obtuse and the edit was vandalism. I chose to AGF and presume he saw a difference. I am here because I cannot revert because of the IBAN. I simply want it lifted. You could help by reverting his edit. "Perpetuate" is the correct language and is used by the source in question (no, really, read the source). "Perpetrate" is incorrect. So if "Perpetuate" is yours, PtF, you correctly took it from the source, sir, and feel free to return to it. --DHeyward (talk) 02:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Email

Hello, Gamaliel. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Kirill ^[talk] 12:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

RD2

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

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

Signpost

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

The Signpost: 20 May 2015

• From the editor: Your voice is needed: strategic voting in the WMF election

• In focus: The awful truth about Wikimedia's article counts

• Traffic report: Inner Core

• News and notes: A dark side of comedy: the Wikipedia volunteers cleaning up behind John Oliver's fowl jokes

• Featured content: Puppets, fungi, and waterfalls

• In the media: Jimmy Wales accepts Dan David Prize

• WikiProject report: Cell-ebrating Molecular Biology

• Arbitration report: Editor conduct the subject of multiple cases

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, Gamaliel. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

--Pine^✉ 16:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Quixotic plea

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikipediholism test. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 05:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)Template:Z48

Topic ban narrowing appeal

Continuation of April 20 and April 26 prior sections.

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

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

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

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

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

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

• VG247 on 9 Oct 2014 about a Steam (software) game sale
• BleedingCool on 8 May 2015 about a Turok remake.

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

• Breitbart (website) on 24 Nov 2014 (no mention of ZQ)
• Reason (magazine) on 4 May 2014 (only 1 sentence mentions ZQ, solely to mention as the focus of Boston Magazine writer Zachary Jason's story)

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

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

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

Meta at GGC Suggestion

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

Yeah, that's probably more sensible. If somebody doesn't do it by tomorrow I'll do it. Gamaliel (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I created a new page (for a new meta discussion). I dunno if I dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's. FYI. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 23:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I've watch listed it. Gamaliel (talk) 18:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

a. Removal of off topic comments by editors (incl. non-admins) - similar in implementation to the current 30/500 restriction.

b. Migration of off topic discussions to the other page by editors (incl. non-admins) - slightly more complex, but preserves the discussion.

c. Hatting of off topic comments by editors (incl. non-admins), with a note to raise the discussion on the other page - also preserves the discussion; but may lead to discussion forking, or hatting which includes on-topic material.

d. "Call an Admin" to implement one of the above; request at User Talk, WP:ANI or WP:AE? - seems burdensome on Admins.

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

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

3RR

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

The Signpost: 27 May 2015

• News and notes: WMF releases quarterly reports, annual plans

• In the media: Scrubbing Parliamentary biographies; Wikipedia's invisible history

• Discussion report: A relic from the past that needs to be updated

• Featured content: When music was confined to a ribbon of rust

• Recent research: Drug articles accurate and largely complete; women "slightly overrepresented"; talking like an admin

• Traffic report: Summer, summer, summertime

• Technology report: MediaWiki blows up printers

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 June 2015

• News and notes: Three new community-elected trustees announced, incumbents out

• Blog: How Wikipedia covered Caitlyn Jenner’s transition

• Discussion report: The deprecation of Persondata; RfA – A broken process; Complaints from users on Swedish Wikipedia

• Featured content: It's not over till the fat man sings

• Technology report: Things are getting SPDYier

• Special report: Towards "Health Information for All": Medical content on Wikipedia received 6.5 billion page views in 2013

• In the media: Anonymous Australian editing targets football player, shooting victim

• Traffic report: A rather ordinary week

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Zeitgeist (film series)

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

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

The Wikipedia Library

Call for Volunteers

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

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

Sign up to help here :)

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

March against Monsanto

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

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

Signpost in the news

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

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

Wikimedia Highlights from May 2015

Here are the highlights from the Wikimedia blog in April 2015.

• Meet the Inspire grantees working to increase gender diversity on Wikimedia
• A dark side of comedy: John Oliver asks TV viewers to vandalize Wikipedia articles on U.S. politicians
• Fundraising made in Germany: lessons learned by Wikimedia Deutschland
• Editing the Uzbek Wikipedia: Kamarniso Vrandečić
• First ever WikiArabia conference gathers Wikipedians in Tunisia to connect and share experiences
• Wikimania and the differences between online and offline cultures

About · Subscribe/unsubscribe, 19:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 June 2015

• News and notes: Chapter financial trends analyzed, news in brief

• Traffic report: Two households, both alike in dignity

• In the media: Arbitration case attracts media coverage; Wikipedia in Israel

• Featured content: Just the bear facts, ma'am

• Technology report: Wikimedia sites are going HTTPS only

• Blog: Making Wikipedia’s medical articles accessible in Chinese

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

YGM - Just a question

Hello, Gamaliel. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

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

Arb Enforcement

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

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

Further pointy edit-warring, after Strongjam (I think) redacted. [10]. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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