User talk:Gamaliel

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

c--- and stuff[edit]

I found some good things in the Signpost article. However, it is badly marred by the front-loaded claim, discussed at length, that Eric called Lightbreather a "cunt" here. Here, I will give a short case demonstrating why this is false. You are of course free to ignore me. Luckily, since you state in the comments that it is not really about Eric, so you can obviously correct this injustice while not changing the point much, if any.

  • There is literally no reason why he would call her a c---. I don't find much, if any interaction between Eric and LB before this. Why would he call a random person a c---? His rude comments are usually reserved for old "enemies". Just the previous message from Lightbreather in the thread was a cordial one which ended in a smiley.
  • Eric is clearly venting at the general idea of civility and Jimbo Wales, who is the object of the previous sentence. There is no indication that he is talking about Lightbreather at all, except for the fact that he was replying to her.
  • Eric is frequently rude/incivil to other people. Have you found any other instance where he called a woman a c---? If Eric goes around throwing sexist insults, it would not be hard to find.
  • In the very long discussion, almost nobody says that Eric called Lightbreather a c---. There is plenty of discussion about the wisdom of using a word which is treated as a gendered insult in the US, but nobody accuses Eric of calling LB a c---. There were a couple of people who confused the matter, but as far as I can see, not many. Even LB, in their reply did not accuse Eric of calling her a c---, but talked about why using that word for anyone is not appropriate.
  • Eric addressed the point himself his reply on 27 July. He says that it is not used as a gendered insult in the UK and he doesn't care if it is used as such in the US. Crucially, he did not refute the absurd suggestion, which nobody made, that he called LB a c---.

I have a weird fascination, probably related to this about Eric's case. I haven't really interacted with him much. Obviously he has been smeared (in my opinion of course) in the Atlantic whose readership is a 1000 times that of the Signpost. But I can't really help what the Atlantic does. Kingsindian  04:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Is there a reason why you keep repeating "cunt" nine times when people have said over and over again that it is an offensive term? I can see using it once to reference Corbett's comment but the repetition seems gratuitous. Liz Read! Talk! 19:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
@Liz: I can replace the rest of the occurrences with "c---" if you wish, though I am not sure if this is what you are talking about. I generally do not use such constructions in my normal typing. Kingsindian  21:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate what you are trying to do here. It is the right thing to do to correct the record when someone is being portrayed inaccurately. But it seems abundantly clear to myself and many, many others that the statement was directed at her. Whether or not he meant it as a sexist insult is immaterial. Many editors, including female ones, have attested to the fact that he is not sexist, and that's good enough for me. But if his comments serve to perpetuate a misogynistic atmosphere on Wikipedia, it is entirely irrelevant what his intent was, and whatever it was, it was not a positive intent in any case. For example, I'm sure you did not intent to offend anyone with what you thought was a clinical discussion of this issue, but it was not necessary to repeat the term over and over again, and you should refrain from doing so when you know it is a term that causes offense. Gamaliel (talk) 22:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Note that I am not discussing the wisdom of using the word in multicultural environment like WP; on that, reasonable people can differ. And many did, even in the original thread. Instead, I am talking about the accusation that Eric called LB a c---, and one should have very good reasons to believe this, instead of assertions. It is of course impossible to argue with an assertion. I gave multiple reasons, coming from different angles, to suggest otherwise. Moreover, the default position here is supposed to be WP:AGF. To believe that Eric indeed called LB a c---, one should actually have a lot of evidence against Eric that he is sexist etc. to believe that he called a random person, with no previous hostility at all, a c---. Of course, you are not forced to respond to my points: I am a random person, and you maybe have discussed this with other people ad nauseum. Kingsindian  22:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
@Kingsindian: You're overthinking it. Was someone offended? Yes. Case closed. We don't have to delve into the specifics of Eric's intentions or regional differences in profanity. Lightbreather was offended. The end. Pursuing it only makes it worse. (talk) 22:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
You don't need to have "evidence against Eric that he is sexist" to "prove" he called Lightbreather that. He called Jimmy Wales that. Does he need to be sexist for that to have happened? He did it, period, end of story. Whether or not Corbett is sexist is a different question entirely. Gamaliel (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Again, if he called Jimmy Wales that, then the comment was not directed at LB, by definition. If you had made the point in the Signpost article that Eric had used profanity at Jimmy Wales, I would not be here. Instead, you say, and the Atlantic article implies, without actually stating it, that Eric called LB a c---. As to the IP, pardon me if you think that I am "overthinking" it. If you had been the target of some scurrilous accusation in an outlet read by thousands of people, I imagine that you would take a rather different line. Kingsindian  22:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
These were two different incidents. Gamaliel (talk) 22:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok, then consider my last point unmade. I did not say that one needs X to "prove" that Eric said that to LB. Proof is only possible in mathematics, and often not even there. What I am asking for is the basic Golden Rule which is the foundation of all morality, indeed, the foundation of empathy towards others, in particular, the opposite sex or person of different race. If someone had made accusation against you that you called some woman a c---, would you be satisfied by the answers you gave on this page? You would state, I hope, that the person making the accusation better have very good reasons to make such an accusation, and you would consider all other intepretations of language, which is inherently ambiguous. Again, you are not forced to respond to my points; you may already have done so ad nauseum elsewhere, and do not wish to do so again. Just say so, and I will not respond here again. Kingsindian  22:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
If you were in a conversation with a person of any gender, and they said that phrase, why would you not think it was directed at you? Would you not think it was inappropriate regardless of who it was directed at? How is this compatible with the Golden Rule? Gamaliel (talk) 23:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
@Kingsindian: - It's impossible to read what EC wrote and not know he was directing his 'suggestion' towards LB.

The fundamental error was in adding civility as one of the pillars, as it's impossible to define and therefore to enforce. To give you just one example, it's my opinion that one of the most incivil people on WP is Jimbo Wales, and very few would have the balls to block him. Added to which incivility as it tends to be invoked here on WP more often than not simply means saying something I don't agree with, or upsets me. Besides, the easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one. EricCorbett 4:14 pm, 24 July 2014

I've made the instance EC was referring to Jimmy smaller, while bolding the portions where he breaks away from talking about Jimmy. It should be obvious to anyone who doesn't have a bias already that EC is suggestion that if LB doesn't want people to 'upset' her, she needs to not act like a c---. Any other reading defies credibility. Dave Dial (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you all should consider this: the short-eared owl is somewhat unique among owls, as it is one of the few species that is not completely nocturnal. Sometimes, when its preferred prey (small mammals like voles) is active during the day, the short-eared owl will hunt during the day. It is also sometimes active at dawn and dusk. The short-eared owl is one of the most widespread birds around the world! Its chicks are also very fuzzy and cute.

Short-eared owl chick.jpg

Keilana (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict) @Gamaliel: So, if I snub my toe, and say "fuck", is it equivalent to saying "fuck you"? Or I say to you that "X keeps bitching", where X could be male, is it equivalent to saying that "you are a bitch"? How can one even talk about a sentence without determining the object? Notice again, that I am not talking about the wisdom of using "b----" or "c---" or whatever. I am talking about the accusation that you call a person a "b----" or "c---".
  • @DD2K:, if you can respond to my points I can reply further. You again simply assert that since it was a different sentence, the object is no longer Jimmy Wales (a legitimate reading), so it must be LB (how did you get there?). Again, Eric has used "c---" many times on WP, always at men, and this is how it is used in the UK. Why would one jump to the conclusion that this was used at LB, with no prior history of sexism from Eric, and even the absence of hostility from Eric to LB. Eric barely knew LB at that point. The previous comment by LB to him was a totally cordial one, which ended in a smiley. Am I supposed to believe that Eric goes around calling random people names without any reason? Kingsindian  23:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
You admit that he's used the word many times before directed at people. Why is it so hard to believe that he did so in this particular case? Gamaliel (talk) 23:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I'd rather not. I shouldn't even have responded. I'll just say that I agree with Gamaliel, almost to a point. I don't believe EC is really sexist, but the manner he handles himself makes that distinction moot. If you called someone 'retarded' and someone walked by with their mentally challenged child, and they asked you not to use that word, would you keep repeating it over and over? Insisting that you don't mean it against their child, so it shouldn't matter? This is all very common sense stuff. Human decency. Dave Dial (talk) 23:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Did you know that only approximately 1.5% of ostrich eggs survive to 1 year of age? However, if they make it that long, they can be incredibly long-lived: the ostrich's lifespan can be up to 60 years!

Struthio camelus - Strausskueken.jpg

Keilana (talk) 23:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: Because it makes no sense, whichever way you look at it. My very first point. I do not want to reiterate it, having done just that to DD2K. If anyone can give me a halfway plausible reason why Eric would call someone who he barely knew, the previous message from them being cordial, a c--- for no reason at all, I might reconsider. Kingsindian  23:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I can't explain the motives of another human being, but I can't deny what I and many others see clear as day. Gamaliel (talk) 23:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I think the conversation has reached a natural end. I note that you started with assertion, and you ended with assertion, there is nothing at all in the argument which isn't assertion. It is of course impossible to argue with assertion. If it is "clear as day", why do so many people feel otherwise? I will end with the main point again. If, as you state in the Signpost editorial, it is not about Eric, but the general culture, one could easily remove the accusation without changing the point any, if at all. The same could be done by the Atlantic, though I doubt that they will remove such juicy clickbait - which is why they chose to lead with it. I will leave it to you to do whatever you think best. Kingsindian  00:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The claims that Eric directed the c-word at LB are entirely mistaken. The key to interpreting Eric's comments is to not interpret them—just take them at face value. Many valid criticisms can be made regarding the style Eric has used in the past when posting, but claiming he was attempting to comment about LB is just wrong. Here is the diff showing when the comment was added. LB opened the section saying there should be a civility noticeboard, and Eric's comment is focused on the proposal, starting with an opinion on "civility" (impossible to define/enforce), then an example of the difficulty using his view of Jimbo, then an observation that a complaint of incivility on Wikipedia often simply means the recipient disagrees with the statement. Eric finished by using the disputed sentence to comment about the need for a civility noticeboard. Such a noticeboard would be for the scenario where editor X says something bad about Y, and someone complains about X at the noticeboard. Eric's point is that it would be easier for Y to stop doing whatever it was that X complained about. The gratuitous use of the most offensive English word was extremely unhelpful, but Eric's point, while an over-generalization, is hard to argue with because many incivility complaints are attempts to knock out opponents. Some interesting comments occurred here. In one, Eric said "In fact despite what Lightbreather and others are claiming I've never called a woman a cunt, either here or in real life, and I can't imagine a situation in which I'd be tempted to do so; it's a word I reserve for particularly stupid or obnoxious males." Another interesting comment occurred here where Eric said "America is a strange place, a mystery to many of us. I have never seen or heard a woman being called a cunt; if that's something you routinely do in the US then you should indeed stop it." Eric's famous statement should be criticized for a variety of faults, but the statement was directed at the proposal for a civility noticeboard, not at LB. Johnuniq (talk) 11:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't buy it. Making a general statement that is really directed at a single person is a common rhetorical tactic, and one that offers a figleaf of deniability if one chose to go that route, but is not particularly plausible deniability. I was a teacher for some time and if a student offered this excuse it wouldn't fly, so I'm not sure why I should accept the same excuse from a grown man. Corbett is, or was, fond of using that word here, directed at numerous individuals. There was briefly a section in the new ArbCom case titled "Instances of Corbett calling people cunts". If he reserves this term solely for men, then I commend his chivalry, but I'm not sure why it is plausible that all of a sudden, in this instance, he wasn't calling someone that. Gamaliel (talk) 22:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
At this point, one can ask the question of whether there is anything at all which could change your mind. If not, you could ponder about what this means about your belief. Kingsindian  22:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I try to keep an open mind, and I try to be comfortable with the fact that intelligent people I respect like Johnuniq have different opinions than I do. Sometimes I am not always comfortable with that fact and in my frustration I have been known to resort to snide comments when my arguments are unpersuasive. Gamaliel (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, I do not see any evidence that you have an open mind here. Regarding "deniability", has Eric ever resorted to deniability about calling someone a c---? In all the examples given in your link, he openly calls people c---s, and never backs down. But, as I said, it is useless to argue if no amount of evidence could change your mind. Respecting differing viewpoints is commendable, but not relevant to my question. At the end of the day, the allegation remains in a public place - the Signpost editorial - it is irrelevant whether you respect different viewpoints or not. Kingsindian  22:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Apparently I have been too subtle. If you are going to insist on repeating the idea that not agreeing with your evidence is the same thing as not being open to any evidence, all you are going to do is annoy me and embarrass yourself. While I am open to continuing this discussion, it must actually be a discussion and not merely you repeating this canard. If you cannot resist the temptation to repeat this a third time, I see no reason for you to continue to post here. Gamaliel (talk) 00:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

A last thought: I am a fan of WP:3O as dispute resolution technique. It of course does not cover conduct disputes or disputes with more than two editors. But the idea is sound. I suggest, if you have the time/inclination, to show this conversation to an uninvolved person, maybe female, and see what they say. Kingsindian  23:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

No joke, I happen to have an uninvolved female person right here in the room with me and I actually did as you suggested. Their response to your argument: "You've got to be kidding me." Gamaliel (talk) 00:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, then. I am glad that my suggestion worked. I hope that she read my argument in full, and evaluated it fairly. I do not see any reason to continue this discussion. Kingsindian  01:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: There are students and editors who would "disguise" an attack behind a veneer of plausible deniability, but Eric is not one of them—if he had wanted to abuse LB he would have done so directly. As my above comment explained, every clause in Eric's statement was directed at the proposal that there be a civility noticeboard. Eric posted his comment in July 2014. Here is the same text with the last sentence replaced with a polite equivalent:

The fundamental error was in adding civility as one of the pillars, as it's impossible to define and therefore to enforce. To give you just one example, it's my opinion that one of the most incivil people on WP is Jimbo Wales, and very few would have the balls to block him. Added to which incivility as it tends to be invoked here on WP more often than not simply means saying something I don't agree with, or upsets me. Besides, the easiest way to avoid being called something uncivil is to behave in a reasonable manner.

My equivalent sentence is banal, and the famous aphorism was substituted. Eric did not direct the c-word at LB but I oppose his gratuitous use of offensive language—if someone cannot accept that the term is considered deeply offensive, they should leave. However, the argument to oppose such language needs to be based on the need for collaboration. Sarah expressed the issue clearly (diff): "And for a lot of women, it's not only an insulting word to hear from a man, but a threatening one, because it's likely to be the word you hear just before being punched or raped."

The reason these discussions get nowhere is that those wanting to sanction Eric always pick weak cases to pursue—it was very unhelpful to try a month-long block for a pathetically technical breach of a tban where any reasonable person would acknowledge that Eric was behaving in an exemplary manner—he made very mild comments about misrepresentations in a discussion about him. Johnuniq (talk) 10:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

All cases against EC are weak, by definition. All sanctions are excessive. Long bans for correcting errors at userTalk:Jimbo are for little people, which is to say for editors who have not yet recruited their gang and who lack the support of a chorus or PR agency.. MarkBernstein (talk) 12:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I keep thinking about what would have happened if Corbett had said, "If you don't want to be called an n*****, don't act like an n*****." Or replace it with any other racial, ethnic or gender slur. The impasse seems to believe that some folks think c*** is a perfectly fine word to use while other find it extremely offensive.
But I think focusing on an offensive term barely scratches the surface of gender bias on Wikipedia, most of which does not involve using profane language. Liz Read! Talk! 12:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

You're invited! Women in Red World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Science[edit]

You are invited! Join us remotely!

World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Science

Love Heart KammaRahbek.SVG
Women Science.png
  • Dates: 8 to 29 November 2015
  • Location: Worldwide/virtual/online event
  • Host/Facilitator: Women in Red (WiR) in collaboration with Women scientists: Did you know that only 15% of the biographies on Wikipedia are about women? WiR focuses on "content gender gap". If you'd like to help contribute articles on women and women's works, we warmly welcome you!
  • Sponsor: New York Academy of Sciences
  • Event details: This is a virtual edit-a-thon hosted by WiR in parallel with a "phyisical" event during the afternoon of Sunday, November 22 in New York City. It will allow all those keen to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women in science to participate. As the virtual edit-a-thon stretches over three weeks, new participants will be able to draw on the assistance of more experienced editors while creating, translating or improving articles on women who are (or have been) prominent in the field. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome.
  • RSVP and learn more: →here←--Ipigott (talk) 10:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

5 Million: We celebrate your contribution[edit]

Wikipedia-logo-v2-en 5m articles.png
We couldn't have done it without you
Well, maybe. But the encyclopedia would not be as good.


Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 October 2015[edit]

Hello Sir.[edit]

How would I be able to help work on a signpost? I think it is a fine publication, and would like to help it out. ThisGuyIsGreat (talk) 19:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Help wanted: Signpost, Personnel and recruitment[edit]

Hi Gamaliel, I read this week's Signpost, and this position interests me: "Personnel and recruitment: We need a people person. This role will be responsible for the care, upkeep, and recruitment of contributors and dealing with any issues." I've been a corporate recruiter since before dirt was invented. In RL, I work in the People Services division of a publicly-traded international healthcare company. Can you or some other Signpost editor give me any more info about the position's responsibilities, what an ideal candidate's qualifications would be, and estimated time commitment? Thanks, --Rosiestep (talk) 19:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Help wanted: Signpost, Publication[edit]

Hi Gamaliel, I'd like to put my hand up for the following spot: "Publication: This person will coordinate with the content editors to set a publication time and will be the person responsible for performing the publication process. A bot does most of the work; the primary tasks are organizing the front page each week (writing snippets and choosing an image) and cleaning up whatever the bot missed when it skips a step. This person will have to be comfortable enough with wiki-markup to cut and paste whatever is missing from the publication instruction page to the appropriate Signpost pages.
I think I have a good enough handle on markup, and the process of churning through the technical aspects of the publication process probably suits best. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 20:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


Hi Gamaliel,

I would like to ask if it's possible for me to resume duties with the Signpost? Not as an active contributor, but perhaps as part of the editorial team? I was previously the writer of the Arb Report. I'm posting this on your talk page in the interests of full transparency, but if this is a discussion which you would like to have in private, you are free to email me :)

Regards, James (TC) • 8:27 AM • 21:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

A cookie for you![edit]

Choco chip cookie.png Awarded for somehow managing to get your "English Wikipedia reaches five million articles" article into the most recent issue of the Signpost even though it was published only a few hours after the 5 millionth article was created. I thought I was going to have to wait a week to read about the 5 millionth article, so I appreciate your speed in getting the Signpost article published. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Signpost - Help Wanted: Publication or Social Media and Outreach[edit]

I've trying to figure out how I could best help with the Signpost for awhile now. I'm open to "Publication," though it looks like you might have help there. I'm probably also game for Social Media and Outreach. My work schedule can be tricky, especially on the weekends, but I should have time to help put things together or post some statuses or whatever else is entailed. Thanks, --3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 06:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #182[edit]

Arbitration evidence[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has asked that evidence presentations be kept to around 500 words and 50 diffs. Your presentation is 643 words. Please edit your section to focus on the most relevant evidence. If you wish to submit over-length evidence, you must first obtain the agreement of the arbitrators by posting a request on the /Evidence talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 21:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Amortias: Where specifically on the page should I post this request? Gamaliel (talk) 21:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

New section in the evidence talk page and one of the arbs can pick it up or the clerks will alert them. Amortias (T)(C) 21:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Done, thanks. Gamaliel (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Request to revisit evidence[edit]

Would it be possible to review your evidence you've submitted with reference to the note regarding evidence about non-parties. There appear to be some statements that aren't linked to a party in this case. Amortias (T)(C) 22:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not interested in sanctions against non-parties. I'm making a case that administrators are subject to harassment regarding this issue from both parties and non-parties and measures are required to deal with this. Gamaliel (talk) 22:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
The clerks have been advised that evidence about non-parties must be removed and this will be carried out by a clerk if nessecary. Please consider revisting your evidence to bring it in line with the Committees requirements. We would prefer editors are given the chance to present their own evidence in line with requirements rather than requiring a third party to remove sections that breech guidelines. Amortias (T)(C) 12:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
As I said, this has nothing to do with non-parties. The evidence is clearly and directly related to the case. Gamaliel (talk) 13:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Per instructions from the arbitration committee, I have removed evidence in your section that concerns non-parties on the AE2 case Evidence page. Liz Read! Talk! 23:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk page location[edit]

Andy Dingley's talk page is here, not hereNE Ent 01:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC) Gamaliel (talk) 01:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
@NE Ent: My response was overly glib. I get what you are trying to do, but I have no desire to slug it out with Andy Dingley there or anywhere else, ever. I merely want an Arb clerk to remove legal threats from her own talk page regarding an open Arb case. Gamaliel (talk) 01:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
They aren't legal threats. A legal threat is of the form "I am going to sue you" or "I am going to have you arrested". Stating that a comment is slanderous does not imply that legal action is pending. You would be better served by trying to de-escalate the dispute, rather than upping the bets. Jehochman Talk 02:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I love Wikipedia, where they put the onus on deescalating a dispute on the person who doesn't start it or threaten anyone. Will you leave a message for Andy Dingley asking him to deescalate? If not, why not? What does that say about your approach to dispute resolution? Gamaliel (talk) 02:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Him doing wrong doesn't justify you doing wrong also. I started to untie the knot by tugging the first string -- your accusation of a legal threat. Please tell me what bothers you most about Andy and I will go talk to him about it. Jehochman Talk 02:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Isn't it obvious? Threatening me and making serious accusations over something that he misunderstood that I would have gladly clarified immediately if he had managed to actually make a civil remark directly to me about it. It took me quite a while to understand what he was actually complaining about because his actual complaint was surrounded by so much invective. Is this really so hard to understand why a normal person should not be subjected to this behavior and might object to that? Why do you think it is appropriate to characterize that objection as "doing wrong"? Gamaliel (talk) 02:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I understand that you are upset about the way he has mistreated you. That is reasonable. But you need to resist the urge to strike back at him. I will ask him to re-read his remarks and refactor them to be more factual, less heated, supported by diffs and to seek clarifications from you before shooting off accusations. Jehochman Talk 02:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


Do you still need more volunteers? I may try to help when I have time... sst✈discuss 16:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, please! Thank you for working on FC. Before your edits, I was considering cancelling it for this week since no one had contributed. Gamaliel (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
How else should I help? sst✈discuss 17:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm preparing a message later today to send out to new volunteers. I'll send it to you also. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 17:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 November 2015[edit]


Please discuss the block of DHeyward if you wish here.--MONGO 22:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Can you post the interaction ban discussion where it was determined to implement a oneway in interaction ban between DHeyward and Mark Bernstein? I assume its at AE archives or something.--MONGO 22:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it was at AE. I imposed it unilaterally, it was immediately seconded by a number of other admins. Gamaliel (talk) 22:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Some thoughts re GamerGate[edit]

I'm going to leave an identical comment for both HJ and Gamaliel on their respective talk pages.

You've both been doing yeoman's work in the GamerGate topic area, and I thank you for that. I have regularly looked in on the activities there (but not participated), and I think that you've each made many good decisions on many occasions; however on the whole, it's been the two of you most of the time dealing with much of this, at least for quite a while, and it's clear this particular case has become quite a burden for both of you. An occasional other admin will pop in here and there when something's blatant, but that's not quite the same thing, I know. So...thank you for your work in this very contentious area. On the other hand...emails? It's probably not the best way to handle arbitration enforcement, since other admins can't back you up or point out that there's something you may have overlooked. I know there aren't a lot of admins willing to work on AE - it can be corrosive - and I know this is a pretty esoteric topic area anymore. In fact, it's at risk of becoming something of a walled garden, with the same editors working on the same articles and carrying the same arguments back and forth, and unfortunately only a few admin eyes keeping watch. There have been times when I thought the solution that would be best for the project would be to kick everyone off the topic area with the hope of drawing in fresh perspectives, but my years on Arbcom have taught me that there's a very low success rate for those types of interventions. I've encouraged DHeyward to step away from the topic area, and I'd probably encourage a few other editors to do the same. To be honest, I wouldn't blame either of you if you said "okay, out of here for good this time" and remove the primary combatants (and I use the word advisedly). I don't think either of you made particularly outrageous administrator decisions in this specific episode - although if you're going to delete something to enforce AE sanctions, you do need to be explicit about that - and I hope that both of you will continue with your work on arbitration enforcement, although it may do you both good to take a break from this particular topic area. It's not like there is a dearth of disputes to work on. Once again, thanks for your work in a difficult and challenging area. Risker (talk) 04:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@Risker: Thank you for your message. I think we need to hear more of this on Wikipedia; we are quick to be vocal when we have complaints, but when things go well, there are a lot of silent unseen nods of agreement. I'm trying to spread myself around a little more on AE and not focus solely on GG, but people keep bringing their complaints directly to me for a variety of reasons. Email has been effective in trying to squelch loud public conflicts, but it does create a host of side issues I didn't appreciate until know: the lack of transparent, the fact that it looks suspicious to third parties, and the fact that neither DHeyward or MarkBernstein can see how much effort I've made to keep both of them from each other's throats and from being blocked. I fear this unblock has undercut efforts to make DHeyward play nice with other editors. If he keeps down this path, a topic ban is inevitable. His friends would do well to encourage him to moderate his behavior, as I've been encouraging both of them to do behind the scenes. But I think it's time for someone else to try to find a resolution to this feud. Gamaliel (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #183[edit]

Wikimedia Highlights from October 2015[edit]

Here are the highlights from the Wikimedia blog in October 2015.
Wikimedia Foundation RGB logo with text.svg
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe, 20:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello again[edit]

Hi there, I believe we met in person at Wikiconference USA after my talk on Afrocrowd and that you gave me your card. I am happy to discuss collaboration with the Signpost. Let me know what you had in mind.

Best, ---Aliceba (talk) 23:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Not a prank?[edit]

[1] - Cwobeel (talk) 23:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

It's harmless, hilarious, and most importantly, accurate. Gamaliel (talk) 23:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I think it is very amusing and doesn't detract from the article in any way. Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
This is indeed hilarious, I am tempted to apply WP:IAR even though it doesn't quite apply. Kingsindian  04:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


I have nominated List of cetaceans for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. sst✈discuss 18:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

VimpelCom pays millions for text from Wikipedia[edit]

(Potentially material for In the Media)

A corruption investigation is ongoing regarding VimpelCom Ltd., which allegedly paid some 30 million dollar to Talikant Ltd., a firm owned by Gulnara Karimova, a controversial daughter of Uzbekistan's president Islom Karimov, for two reports largely consisting of text ripped from Wikipedia. The former CEO of VimpelCom was arrested last week in Norway. The case is mentioned in our VimpelCom article, but not the use of text from Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the only news sources I found are not in English. Here is a news article in Norwegian:; Google translate gives a good impression.  --Lambiam 22:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


I didn't remove email or talk page access. — Ched :  ?  20:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought this had happened based on Kevin Gorman's comment in the discussion. I have corrected my error. Gamaliel (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 November 2015[edit]

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
For a level-headed approach on ANI. GABHello! 01:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Hope you're doing ok.[edit]

Here's a cookie.

Hi. Saw your note about stepping away for a bit form your Editor-in-Chief gig, and wanted to say hope all is ok in your world. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #184[edit]

A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thank you for all the work you do getting the Signpost out each week. I hope those new recruits enable you to share the workload soon! Liz Read! Talk! 17:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Your arb thoughts[edit]

You offered many good ideas in response to my questions, not always answering the questions but leading further. Your comment "If you are topic banned from something, you generally had to do a lot of work to get there." makes me ask if you perhaps happen to know what the "lot of work" was that made me topic banned. I only know that a case was requested because too many reverts of infoboxes happened (for example 1, 2), it was accepted and I kept arguing that way, but in the end those who had added infoboxes were restricted, not those (very few) who reverted. At that point, I lost all trust in arbcom, so much so that I didn't appeal. By now, major operas (all by Verdi and Wagner) have an infobox. The arbitrators had the idea to go article by article, another waste of time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

That comment "a lot of work" was not directed at you, but at the other topic ban case you were referring to. Gamaliel (talk) 17:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I knew that, but I am still curious about my case, which I think is kafkaesque (and I worked on Kafka, the most successful TFA so far. Here you think you help Wikipedia, and wake up to find yourself restricted. "in ein ungeheures Ungeziefer verwandelt" - transformed to a monstrous bug - is the phrase in The Metamorphosis.) At times, laughing helps. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
If anyone wants another wall of text, see my reply to Gerda in June 2013. My comments at an ANI section pointed out that an editor has belligerently pushed infoboxes for years, and that has caused extreme distress to the group of excellent editors who have built and who maintain classical music articles. My point is that in a collaborative project it is not always possible to achieve perfection—it may be that infoboxes are wonderful, but as they are not compulsory the huge disruption caused by forcing them into articles is not worthwhile. @Gerda: Please stop pushing pushing pushing. Johnuniq (talk) 01:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Mini pumpkins.jpg
Shout for joy
Did you know that you can opt out to see an infobox if you don't want to see one? I do what I think is good for our readers. You speak as if I was not part of this "group of excellent editors who have built and who maintain classical music articles". In 2015 I wrote two featured articles which appeared as TFA, and more good articles than I can count ;) - As I said, at times laughing helps. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Signpost inquiry[edit]

Hi, I've emailed you on a matter related to your election candidature. Tony (talk) 06:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Categorizing pages that can be transcluded[edit]

Hello. It was a good move to create the [[Category:Wikipedia_Arbitration_Committee_Elections_2015_candidate_questions]]. But when assigning the Questions pages to that category, it is better to protect the categorization by a pair of noinclude.../noinclude, since some people prefer to transclude these pages into only one great page in their userspace. I have changed that. Pldx1 (talk) 00:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that. I didn't realize that people were transcluding those pages, thought it was just the statements. Gamaliel (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 November 2015[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #185[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #114

Jim Sterling[edit]

Thanks for stepping up and helping to explain the BLP philosophy and policies on Wikipedia. I've been editing from a tablet and it is very difficult to write those long explainations. My hands thank you greatly :) Prodego talk 03:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Nota bene vox populi[edit]

Any chance you could swing by the errors page and add an explanatory comment for the {{N.b.}} you added here, just so that other editors know what's up? No hurry, I'm sure, but when you have the time I would appreciate it. --Xover (talk) 18:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@Xover: I removed it. I just added it as a reminded that I'd skipped over it back when it was part of the numerical group I was working on. Gamaliel (talk) 18:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rebel Heart Tour[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rebel Heart Tour. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 November 2015[edit]

The New York Times[edit]

Hi, Gamaliel. Hope you are doing well! I am wondering if you have access to old issues (i.e. April 1968) of The New York Times. I can take this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request if you prefer. Thanks! - Location (talk) 23:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I have access to the complete run of the New York Times. Let me know what you need. Gamaliel (talk) 02:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Cool! I am following up on this material. I've seen the article sourced in a book by Alfred McCoy as "S. M. Mustard, letter to Senator Ernest Greuning (March 9, 1968); The New York Times, April 19, 1968, p. 11." I don't know if McCoy, the NYT, or both spelled "Gruening" incorrectly. If McCoy is correct, the following quote also appears in the article: "Col. Ky took advantage of this situation to fly opium from Laos to Saigon." (The relevant names here are Ernest Gruening and Nguyễn Cao Kỳ/Nguyen Cao Ky.) Hope this helps. - Location (talk) 02:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Shoot me an email and I'll send you a PDF of page 11. There's an article about the allegations and a small article below it about denials of the allegations. Gamaliel (talk) 03:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
You've got mail! - Location (talk) 04:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Weird. Nothing yet. Gamaliel (talk) 05:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Hmmmm. I tried again. (I tried a third time, too, bypassing the Wikipedia e-mail function.) - Location (talk) 06:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)