Jump to content

User talk:Gamaliel/Archive 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23

A terrible idea

This. Not quite sure what you're playing at. I'm pretty sure any consensus, if you bothered to do something other than a supervote, would firmly be to keep the topic ban in place. Congratulations on releasing a disruptive user from something that was designed to protect Wikipedia. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I thought what I wrote on his talk page was fairly clear. I am acting within well established principles regarding blocks discretionary sanctions and topic bans on Wikipedia. They are not meant to be permanent or punitive, and to keep Mark Bernstein blocked topic banned indefinitely without a chance to return to the encyclopedia would mean that my block topic ban was both permanent and punitive, thus contrary to those principles. He will be closely watched by many people when he returns to editing, so I am confident that if he steps out of line again he will be quickly dealt with by myself or another administrator. I realize that due to his blog posts he is widely unpopular on Wikipedia but if I maintained the block topic ban due to that, the block topic ban would be punitive and contrary to Wikipedia's commitment to openness and neutrality. Gamaliel (talk) 16:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • By that logic, we should all be topic banned to prevent us from behaving badly. On Wikipedia, we give editors second and third and fourth chances all the time. I see no reason why Mark Bernstein should be an exception. Gamaliel (talk) 20:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • No, that's a fallacy, and you full well know it. Mark has proven his disruptive capabilities on Wikipedia (what he's said elsewhere doesn't matter, unless it's a direct statement of intent for his actions here), and he has also proven full well that he couldn't abide by the topic ban in the first place. Your response is to reward the topic ban violation by removing the topic ban. Good job. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Many editors who have been disruptive have been given second and third and fourth chances. If you can make a case that I should treat Mark Bernstein differently than all of those other editors, I will reimpose the topic ban. Gamaliel (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Mark Bernstein has not demonstrated an ability to be productive elsewhere on Wikipedia during the topic ban. Indeed, he was blocked for violating that ban. Last time I checked, users were supposed to prove they could be productive elsewhere for a few months before any topic ban removal would even be considered... not that they would get blocked for violating that topic ban, and yet still get the topic ban revoked. If he wasn't pushing your own POV, then you'd never have let him off the hook. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I was seeing if you had a valid explanation or not, and one that complied with standard practice and policy. You don't, as demonstrated by trying to obfuscate the issue in the first place by talking about blocks, and your subsequent responses. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Huh. Looks like I derped. I've corrected my original message. But in conspiracy land every boneheaded mistake is a deliberate obfuscation, apparently. Look, I've given you a chance to vent your spleen. If you want an honest discussion, you are welcome to stay. If you want to continue to make evidence free accusations, please stay off my talk page. Gamaliel (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It does seem odd to revoke a topic ban while he's currently still serving a block for violating the topic ban. --DHeyward (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

My initial plan was to wait until the expiration of the block. But once, following extensive discussions with Mark Bernstein, I was satisfied that the disruptive behavior would not reoccur, keeping the topic ban in place for an arbitrary period of time seemed punitive. Plus, I knew that lifting the ban would prompt reactions like that of Lukeno94 above, and I would rather people stamp their feet at me than try to goad Mark Bernstein into further disruptive behavior. Once these initial reactions have passed, he can return to Wikipedia and everyone can move on with their lives. Gamaliel (talk) 03:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
No worries. The date will come when the block is lifted. Feet stomping will either happen or not happen on that date depending mostly on Mark and his topic choice to edit. I am sure he is aware that, topic ban or not, there will be scrutiny and I doubt the reaction will hinge on an in place topic ban when arbcom sanctions are in place. I don't disagree with lifting it, as it's your call. He will either hoisted on his own petard or not and the topic ban won't matter. --DHeyward (talk) 04:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I do appreciate hearing at least one sensible reaction to this. I've made it abundantly clear to Mark that he will be closely watched by a large number of people, including myself, and that I will be the first one in line at the block button should he engage in further disruptive behavior. Gamaliel (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Also not getting this. Of course he's going to tell you he's not going to keep being disruptive, because he wants to continue to be disruptive. What evidence are you seeing that he's actually changed his tune at all? He's still attacking numerous people offsite as of three days ago, and he's shown no ability to separate the two. I'd personally like to see you offer this up at AN/I or AE for further discussion. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Seems WP:ROPE applies. Bringing it to AN/I or AE is pretty much a guarantee of more drama. If he comes back and causes disruption he's going to find himself quickly blocked with a lot less drama. He has enough editors actively following his edits. — Strongjam (talk) 14:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Seems like he exhausted his rope back when he was blocked for a month. The drama comes from the removal of the necessary topic ban, not from wanting to get more input into a clearly controversial action. I get why Gamaliel felt it necessary, but I don't see how this is a benefit at this point. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
How do we prove anyone will not keep being disruptive? Yet on Wikipedia we still give them second and third and fourth chances. All I have to go on is his word and my assessment based on a very, very lengthy discussion. If that is insufficient, then it should be insufficient for all the other editors given second and third and fourth chances. Off-site behavior is not relevant here. Other users not banned or blocked are also attacking me and Mark Bernstein and Ryulong and others. Gamaliel (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
If he had not already been blocked for violating his topic ban (and egregiously so at that), I might agree with you that he deserves what would amount to a third chance. Alleging vast conspiracies on site while violating said ban doesn't seem like the right way to do it regardless of how verbose their argument is, but I do agree with DHeyward that he's likely to just get himself blocked right away again, so I'm merely lodging my point so it's on record. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
If the topic ban violations were instances of the original disruptive behavior, I would agree with you, but they were borderline violations, at least one of which was arguably not a violation at all. So he was being blocked for not being in compliance with the ban, not for engaging in truly disruptive behavior. Topic bans are supposed to prevent disruption, they are not imposed merely to demand compliance of editors. Gamaliel (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • It matters not one jot exactly how gregarious the violations were. The fact is that they were violations, he was blocked for them, and you're rewarding that behaviour by removing the sanction. Mark has proven himself to be a disruptive influence - the topic ban is categorically not to "demand compliance of editors", but it is in place to prevent disruption. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, the topic ban is in place to prevent disruption, and if I am satisfied that the disruption will likely not reoccur, then I am compelled to remove the sanction as the sanction no longer has a purpose. Gamaliel (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Given that I have engaged in weeks of extensive discussion with Mark Bernstein regarding this matter and that pretty much every decision regarding GamerGate has been loudly denounced by partisans regardless of its merits, I'm pretty satisfied that my judgment is sound here. I'm simply doing what we always do here on Wikipedia, give editors second and third and fourth chances. You'll note that multiple parties sanctioned in the GamerGate case on both sides were repeat offenders, so I see no reason not to give Mark Bernstein the same chances that Ryulong and Tarc and The Devil's Advocate have received in the past. And if he resumes disruptive behavior, then he will be dealt with just as those editors were. The sky has not fallen; things are happening as they always have. Gamaliel (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to add my voice here - while you of course have discretion in this matter, it's hard to see this as being in the best interests of the project and I was very surprised to see MB back editing in this topic so soon. It's all very well to say we regularly give second or third or fourth chances; it's hard to think of another example where someone has had a second chance from a topic ban while they are blocked for violating that ban. In fact, where the blocking admin considered that the circumstances warranted an extension to one month, with the next offence carrying a year (though my experience of such things is admittedly slight; perhaps you can offer examples?).
And it's hard to see much promise in what's gone since; of twenty-six edits, all but four have been GamerGate-related, making him now essentially an SPA (if he wasn't already). And I can't see those twenty-two edits as very promising; this needlessly personalises a dispute and fails to AGF; it's hard to see his involvement here as anything but drawing lines on the battlefield; more personalising debate; this edit is not exactly collegial in tone; nor is this; this diff was redacted by another admin as a personal attack; this seems pretty clearly not here for the good of the project; here he (rather bizarrely, in my view) edits another user's comment, on an Arb board, no less; it's hard to see this as part of a collegial effort; and it's hard to conclude that a user who still has this at the top of his talk page has learnt his lesson about collegiality and collaboration.
So, of those twenty-six edits, not only are twenty-two of the GamerGate-related, ten of them are objectionable; of the remaining sixteen, one is not objectionable in itself but is about the redaction of a personal attack by MB (linked above) at the redacting admin's talk page and another five are minor corrections to those already listed. The 'signal to noise ratio' of MB's edits since the topic ban was lifted is down under 40% (ie 10 of 26 have been useful, non-disruptive contributions).
Given then things MB has said publicly (eg on his blog, on his talk page, on Jimbo's talk page) it's hard for me to understand how you could be convinced that he intended to return to collegial, collaborative, constructive editing; given what's happened since, it seems fairly clear that he hasn't and that the topic ban was serving a useful, preventative purpose. GoldenRing (talk) 03:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
PS. note that two of the diffs I've counted as GamerGate-related are 'You've got mail notifications'; given the editors so notified, I'm going with a balance-of-probabilities that they are GamerGate-related, but there's no direct evidence of it. So it might be 20-6, rather than 22-4, GG vs non-GG. GoldenRing (talk) 03:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
@GoldenRing: Discretionary sanctions are not meant to be permanent punishments. I don't feel that it is appropriate for a single administrator to block or ban an established user in perpetuity. While the Committee made some of the sanctions I placed on editors into permanent sanctions, this was not one of them. So I felt I had an obligation to offer Mark Bernstein a reasonable path to policy compliance and the lifting of the sanction. This path was open to any editor. Titanium Dragon was eager to take advantage of it until my topic ban was revoked due to my procedural error. Tutelary challenged her ban on procedural grounds but offered no discussion or explanation of her behavior or how it would change.
Such sanctions are meant to be preventative, not punitive. I imposed the ban to prevent a specific negative behavior, not to stifle dissent. His violations of the ban were, in my opinion, extremely minor, and I was troubled that he was blocked not for negative behavior, but for dissenting comments, and that opposing editors were following him around in an effort to play 'gotcha' and get him blocked. One of these editors was topic banned from discussing Mark Bernstein on Wikipedia because of this behavior.
Mark Bernstein's offsite blog posts are completely irrelevant. I don't believe I am allowed to take them into consideration outside issues of WP:OUTING and other active Gamergate editors are openly posting much more derisive comments about other Wikipedians on Wikipedocracy and Reddit.
I have also spent many hours and dozens of emails discussing this matter with Mark Bernstein. I am completely confident I have done due diligence in this matter. Given all of this, I felt I had an obligation to lift the topic ban. His subsequent comments may be a bit hyperbolic but seem to be within the bounds of reasonable discussion, and certainly trouble me much less than other comments on that page, such as ones where established editors express disdain for policies regarding reliable sources. Gamaliel (talk) 00:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for responding civilly. I had written quite a long screed in response, but have thought better of it. You seem to imply above that there has been extensive communication off-wiki regarding this, between you and MB. I think you need to think hard about what this looks like to someone who can't see that, who can only see MB's on-wiki editing pattern which, as I've clearly described above, doesn't look like someone who's learned his lesson and changed his attitude. Having thought hard about that, consider what it looks like when you say he will be closely watched by a large number of people, including myself, and that I will be the first one in line at the block button should he engage in further disruptive behavior, but then dismiss a fairly clear pattern of disruptive edits because they trouble me much less than other comments on that page. Consider what it looks like to say Mark Bernstein's offsite blog posts are completely irrelevant. I don't believe I am allowed to take them into consideration when you seem perfectly willing to take off-wiki communication into consideration to justify dropping the topic ban.
I don't have a horse in this race; it just looks a bizarre decision to someone who can only see what happens in public. GoldenRing (talk) 01:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
The essential point is that Gamaliel issued a topic ban on 28 November 2014 so it is entirely reasonable that Gamaliel should later decide to remove it on 9 February 2015—the "off-wiki communication" simply provided sufficient assurance for Gamaliel to judge that the topic ban he imposed was no longer required. If someone believes that recent activity either on- or off-wiki warrants further sanctions they should prepare a case for WP:AE. Johnuniq (talk) 02:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Sanctioning an editor for off-site criticism on their blog or Reddit or Wikipediocracy is simply not something that would be seen as acceptable to a large portion of our community. This is a very different thing than having an in-depth private email discussion about relevant on-wiki behavior, something which is routine. Sometimes private conversations are necessary, and they happen often enough that there is nothing unusual about this particular cituation. Obviously, only Mark Bernstein and I have access to our correspondence, so you are forced to rely on my judgement. It is not the ideal situation for a community which values transparency, but if my judgement was sufficient to topic ban Mark Bernstein in the first place, then it should be sufficient to revoke that sanction.
In regards to his post-sanction behavior, we have a different assessment of it. Given that you've included his correction of a typo in your collection of allegedly disruptive behavior, is it really so surprising that others would view it differently than you? Regardless, if you think that my assessment is faulty, then you can, as Johnuniq pointed out, bring the matter to WP:AE where multiple administrators can evaluate your evidence. Gamaliel (talk) 04:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
With sincere regret, and without comment on the appropriateness of the removal of the topic ban; one would be more likely to be comforted by the line of reasoning in the two paragraphs above if the editor in question had not repeatedly publicised the "off-site criticism" on Wikipedia. See: [1][2][3][4][5][6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryk72 (talk • contribs)
@GoldenRing:@Ryk72: For the sake of this discussion, let's assume that I wanted to sanction Mark Bernstein for his off-site criticism. What policy allows me to do that? Why should he be singled out when other active editors have made disparaging comments off-site directed at other editors by name? How can I do this when Arbitrators have stated during the GamerGate case that they do not have the mandate to address this? Gamaliel (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not interested in having that discussion, because I haven't said he should be sanctioned for off-site criticism; it's a pure distraction from the point. I've said he should have remained tbanned because he hadn't shown a willingness to work collaboratively with other editors and I backed that up with an analysis of his edits since the ban was lifted, showing that over three fifths of them have been on the disruptive, non-collegial side of the line. Despite your assertion that you would be first in line to re-ban him, instead you jumped on probably the weakest of them (still a violation of WP:TPO, though, and therefore disruptive) to dismiss the lot.
It is true that some of the diffs I've cited included links to that criticism; I didn't intend that he should be sanctioned for making the criticism off-wiki, but for linking to it in a way that fairly clearly violates WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:SOAPBOX. However, it seems that it doesn't matter what happens on-wiki, because Mark's sent you an email saying he'll be good. Are you really comfortable with an editor who responds to a situation with this?

You will be pleased to know that @PalinFreeborn is cheering you on, @FortunateCat is calling on your vigor, @ED_Updates -- doubtless that same people who were so very eager for you to take action against Ryulong that they needed to tell you all about his religious background (avaricious Jew!) and sex life -- is asking User:Jimbo to stiffen your resolve. All are eager to see that you continue steadily on your course and remain firm in your intention.

He might just get away with NPA because he doesn't specifically call any specific editor anti-Semitic or homophobic; but if this is not battleground behaviour, what is? GoldenRing (talk) 00:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Discussions at Wikipedia are best when they focus on actionable proposals because haranguing an admin serves no useful purpose. The conclusion may be that if you were an admin and if you were trying to keep order in the gamergate area, and if you had topic banned the editor last November, you would not have chosen to remove the topic ban in February. Further, you believe the above quote from Mark Bernstein shows some nefarious activity, although I am not sure why it would be unhelpful to inform arbitrators of plans made off-wiki to attack members of the community—the arbs are generally quite clever and able to work out for themselves whether comments are helpful or not. Regarding your last point of what is battleground behavior, my response would be that open belligerence and abuse are easy to handle—a far worse form of battleground behavior is to poison the community by haranguing those with whom one disagrees per WP:CPUSH. It is much better to stick to actionable proposals and abide by the consensus. Johnuniq (talk) 03:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
You raise a fair point, I should not dismiss all of your diffs because of the weakest one. But I think it illustrates the main problem I have with all of your evidence, that it seems to me that you are determined to view his statements in the worst possible light, even the obviously innocuous ones. Take the one you just quoted. If I thought he was calling editors anti-Semitic, I would have blocked him for this comment. (The last user I recall blocking did just that in regards to a non-GG conflict.) However, I think it's pretty clear that he is talking about anti-Semitic comments by non-WP Gamergaters on Twitter.
I have no objection to a discussion of the reasoning behind by administrative decisions, but I'm running out of ways to make the same points over and over again, and I think this has moved from that discussion to you wanting something from me, action, agreement, validation, or something else regarding your assessment of Mark Bernstein. If you disagree with my assessment, why do you bring the matter here? I am not the final arbiter of all things Mark Bernstein. WP:AE is open to you and any other editor. Gamaliel (talk) 03:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I know what you mean. We are just talking across each other now. As you are well aware, I have pushed this in the direction of the committee via ARCA (sorry for the malformed notification template, BTW). I'm happy to leave it in their hands now. GoldenRing (talk) 06:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

If an editor on an arb-board or elsewhere writes, "The admins are perfectly cable of looking at what was said," we can draw a variety of conclusions. On the one hand, the author may have wished to compare himself to a long strand of braided copper, twisted in a counterclockwise fashion -- cable-laid, rather than hawser-laid. On the other hand, the admins may have been perfectly capable. The latter accords with the context and meaning of the sentence; I've edited professionally, and in this era of autocorrection this is not an edit that would give me pause. If Tarc really did mean to compare herself or himself to a cable, Tarc can correct this and I will humbly apologize. MarkBernstein (talk) 03:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: GamerGate and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks,

I've filed the above at ARCA, as likely the best way to resolve this permanently. GoldenRing (talk) 04:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration amendment request archived

Hi Gamaliel, an arbitration amendment request that you were listed as a party to has been closed and archived to the GamerGate case talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 02:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 February 2015

future signpost in the media/news item?

  • Dropping this here in case you can use for next signpost: This twitter account [7] noted by Reddit [8] "automatically tweets anonymous edits to University wikipedia pages from other Universities." Quite amusing.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
This is absolutely hilarious! Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 16:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Signpost

Hi, Gamaliel,

I noticed that the categorization for WP:Signpost articles is a little inconsistent, mostly for the recent period of the past few years. I'd like to bring some order to the archives but I wanted to let you and Go Phightins! know about it before I started in. It's just a matter of filing past articles in the correct monthly categories and topical categories, as modeled on the early years of production of the Signpost. Sound good to you? Liz Read! Talk! 16:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: I apologize for not responding to you more promptly. Drama has demanded much of my time the last few days. I think it's a great idea, thank you for volunteering. Gamaliel (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: I understand. I sort of get on a roll with organizing pages and I've been working on another project today. I hope to get to the Signpost soon and maybe create separate categories that are not only chronological but topical as well. If I make any major changes, I will let you and Go Phightins! know. Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Freedom of Speech

Signpost

I just do not want to be a fall guy for this issue and considering some of what took place, I felt it was best to simply back away. If someone steps up, starts communicating and delegating it would be a lot easier to be involved, but to offer only critique and no assistance or direction, is not really a healthy environment for creativity. I was talked into participation and was really expecting someone to give me a least a "atta boy" rather then the silent treatment and a bunch of BS on my talk page. Took all the fun out of contributing... Good Luck. talk→ WPPilot  20:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

@WPPilot: I regret that we've been to busy with the Signpost to properly commend all of you on the hard work you've been doing to put that section together. I'm sorry this conflict has happened. I'm reluctant to say any more because I have no idea what has happened, but I hope that in the long term we can sort this all out. If you want your name removed from this week's FC, we can discuss that. I'm about to go copyedit that section now, but I haven't yet seen anything egregiously wrong with it that would cause you any embarrassment. I don't want to force you into anything, but I feel that everyone should be credited for their work and to not do so is unethical. Gamaliel (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I understand, and if a communication system that is reasonable and timely it is not a issue for me to contribute. I have a particular distain for being "tossed under a bus" as the saying goes and felt like that is what everyone was doing over the last issue. Publishing a regular newsletter or for that fact any regular publication requires communication and cohesiveness. I have learned over the years of contributing here (well over 1000 photos alone) that when confronted, it is best to just back away. I having jumped right did have a little bit of help from Haffy, but that was it, and when everyone started venting on my talk page, that was enough for me to reconsider my contributions. You can leave it there (my credit) if you like and lets see what happens on the next issues.. talk→ WPPilot  00:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

clean up on aisle 3

[9] can this be obliterated again? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Help me out so I don't have to read that entire link. What's wrong with it? Gamaliel (talk) 23:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Gamaliel - I think the objection was to the host site in general, not the specific page. Not sure if that warrants removal or not. But I'd like to point out this User_talk:EvergreenFir#Ghost_Lourde BATTLEGROUND statement. This user is NOTHERE in my estimation, especially given their past actions and block. Pinging Dreadstar too. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2015

The Signpost: 25 February 2015

Profile

Hey Gamaliel, when you get a chance could you add a quick profile to WP:The Wikipedia Library/Coordinators? Thanks, Nikkimaria (talk) 06:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the reminder! Gamaliel (talk) 05:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Melissa Harris-Perry

Not sure how to send a message on Wikipedia since I've never done it before, so please excuse me if I'm wrong and do correct me.

On the subject of posting the negative comment, it's fair to point out that the user it's for (Sundayclose) falsely implicated me in the previous comments for creating a "sockpuppet", that being highendcouture. It is unfair to leave his/her/its comment without removal. This is a false accusation and should not be tolerated. No excuses.


Thank you, DragonSlayerCzar.

DragonSlayerCzar I will leave a message for the other user asking them to refrain from such comments. Gamaliel (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Point taken, Gamaliel. Thanks for your comment. Have a good day! Sundayclose (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Fold3 Question

I apologize in advance for this, but I can not find the email that has my Fold3 information, and I suspect that it may have been inadvertently placed in my spam folder and subsequently deleted. Is there a way for the information to be retrieved and resent, or would I need to reapply for access to the account? TomStar81 (Talk) 05:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 10

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 10, January-February 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - ProjectMUSE, Dynamed, Royal Pharmaceutical Society, and Women Writers Online
  • New TWL coordinator, conference news, and a new guide and template for archivists
  • TWL moves into the new Community Engagement department at the WMF, quarterly review

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Signpost

Can File:SpaceShipOne_Takeoff_photo_D_Ramey_Logan.jpg be the image on the Signpost's index page this week? It's a really nice example of historical events being photographed by Wikipedians, in this case, our own WPPilot, but there's a lot to cover in the FC, so it could use the prominence. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure who is exactly going to publish today, but I'll email everyone and let them know we want to use this picture. Gamaliel (talk) 16:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 March 2015

Baring

If you are baring me from his talk page, of course you'll be baring him from doing anything further with respect to me and mine, correct? If my comments to him were so distressing that he needs your protection, he's obviously conflicted with respect to me, no? Hipocrite (talk) 22:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I am temporarily forbidding you from digging yourself further into a hole which, if it continues in the same fashion, will result in you being sanctioned by me. Gamaliel (talk) 22:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
you are threatening me with sanctions for what, exactly? Note that dreadstar has promised that if 5 users with 500 main space edits ask him to resign the bit after using it, he will do so. Am I prohibited from being one of those 5 users? Hipocrite (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
If I topic ban you from discussing him you will be. There is ample precedent for this. Or you could, preferably, WP:DROPTHESTICK. Gamaliel (talk) 22:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I voluntarily accept your recommendation that I not Interact with said user for a time period of your chosing, with the following caveats. I may start said 5 user petition, or sign it. I may place required notices, including, but not limited to 3rr, ani and what not. Dreadstar, is, likewise, prohibited from interacting with me. In the event he chooses to interact with me, this agreement is void. Acceptable? Hipocrite (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I can and will not place any restrictions on User:Dreadstar. You can do whatever you want as long as it is away from User talk:Dreadstar. Gamaliel (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe you can place restrictions baring me from his talk page in the absence of him complaining about it. I have no reason to believe he is annoyed or harassed by my comments. I will continue to avoid his talk page until such time as that petition is filed, or I am required to post notice (or noticing is waived), or he approaches me. This seems perfectly reasonable, no? Hipocrite (talk) 23:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Individual administrators do not have the authority to impose bans. This power is reserved to Arbcom and AN/I consensus.
Gamaliel failed to address this question above.
Dear ODear ODear 22:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost:JarEdo Wens

I have my email disabled since my e-mail address isn't confirmed yet, but you are free to post the questions about the hoax article for The Signpost on my talk page, I have mo problem with that. Thank You. Snowager-Talk to Me! 22:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Question 1: I found the article while patrolling CAT:SHA. I often go through the articles and prove that they are true by using Google (or The Wayback machine if the sources no longer exist). One day, I decided to nominate Jar'Edo Wens for deletion since it might have failed notability, while others pointed out that the article was a hoax created "9 years and 9 months ago". The link to the AFD that resulted its deletion and archival can be found on that blue link (Yes, right before teh "can"). Snowager-Talk to Me! 23:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! That's pretty much it, I was mainly interested in how you found it. If I think of anything else before next Wednesday, I'll ask on your talk page. Gamaliel (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Trimmed your post

[10]. While I personally don't care it's likely gonna be offensive to some folks. You're welcome to revert if you feel strongly it's a necessary part of your message. NE Ent 01:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I have zero objection to your edit. Typing what was literally the first thing to pop into my head (yes, that was my actual reaction) is not always the best way your express yourself. Gamaliel (talk) 04:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

FC

You know, I'm always kind of proud that, so far as I know, I've always managed to remember the southern hemisphere when writing Signpost articles that discuss holidays. =) Do yell at me if I ever forget. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


The featured content is ready for review up to the featured pictures section. I'm working on copyediting the FPs still. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Think we're done. Also, I am totally stealing that Bandit's Roost image that appears when you edit this page as my next FP restoration. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

GG AE

I really do not think you (and I also advised DHeyward as well) should make any decisions involving GG stuff. Run away from it Gamaliel! Don't even look back!--MONGO 01:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I would love to. I thought I had once I divested myself of the Mark Bernstein topic ban, but I got dragged back in wanting to support User:Dreadstar on his no good, very bad day, and here I am. (Not that it's his fault, mind you.) Gamaliel (talk) 04:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
We may disagree a lot but this GG stuff is a black hole. I can't control what others do but I'm going to encourage DHeyward and anyone else that wishes to retain their sanity to just avoid that arena.--MONGO 13:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
MONGO, it's a black hole because ArbCom wrote the manual for anonymous trolls to conduct harassment and smear campaigns while banning the established editors who intervene to uphold basic tenets of policy. Until that failure is addressed, it will remain a black hole, because there are still devoted off-wiki-coordinated campaigns being waged to disrupt the project. 166.177.248.200 (talk) 16:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I used to think I was one of the few with my finger in the dike trying to keep 9/11 conspiracy theorists from over running the website....I stepped back from it and others filled in the void. I recognize that if an editor is being smeared its something we should not allow, but I think anyone in that situation is better off if others are alerted and come to bat for them and they can step away.--MONGO 16:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
We're not talking about "stepping back," we're talking about a decision that banned editors who stood up to anonymous trolls to defend the encyclopedia's integrity at significant risk to themselves. The ramifications of that decision are not so easily wished away as you might like. 166.177.248.200 (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
What would you like to see happen now then? Arbcom could modify decisions or clarifications might exonerate some sanctions, but that's rare.--MONGO 18:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Anything else would have been to open the floodgates to those here to right great wrongs. That the cause is right doesn't justify treating wikipedia like a battleground; fighting fire with fire doesn't help. Curiously enough, since the removal of most of those fighting hardest anti-GG, the article has, somehow, not become the swirling den of vice and BLP-violation that was predicted. Edit waring, personal attacks, battleground behaviour and tendentious editing in general don't help make the encyclopaedia better, even when they're on the side of right and good. There is no need, as some have loudly alleged, for Wikipedia to choose between them and the trolls; it is possible to have both a non-BLP-violating article and civility on the talk page. Who'd've thought? GoldenRing (talk) 00:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 March 2015

Topic ban appeal

I have appealed your topic ban here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

wording

One Another thing that came up was wording. In one of your notifications I saw: "restricted from opening and noticeboard discussions or enforcement requests related to MarkBernstein" and wondered if "restricted from opening and participating in noticeboard discussions or enforcement requests related to MarkBernstein." might be better. I have some things to do in real life (been saying that for an hour now) and will get back to everyone later. I noticed that you hadn't even closed the AE thread when this new one showed up, so I'm content to wait until the ink is dry (and others have a chance to comment) before I continue on the one other thread. And thanks for the clarification. (although there really wasn't any question in my mind as to what you were saying). Good luck with the Signpost stuff. Cheers. — Ched :  ?  21:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I seriously mangled the ban wording due to cut and paste errors. I've fixed in on everyone's page and the sanctions log. Gamaliel (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Specifically mentions Thargor Orlando and me. MB specifically uses the same derogatory term[11] that the offsite link uses for us. Either that violates your specific topic ban about discussing us or you have no intention of enforcing it against MarkBernstein. May I comment at the AE request? --DHeyward (talk) 14:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Bernstein's link contains no editor usernames from what I can see? — Strongjam (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Self-reply, Oh I see, Pt4 comment does.. I have to be honest that's stretching it a bit thin to apply that to Bernstein. He should have replied off-wiki, but this seems like a lot of drama for a comment on his own talk page. — Strongjam (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

PNAC in Jan 2015

[12] had

George W. Bush wikilinked four separate times.
Dick Cheney wikilinked twice
William Kristol thrice
Robert Kagan four times
Richard Perle four times
Paul Wolfowitz seven times
R. James Woolsey only twice
Elliott Abrams five wikilinks
John Bolton four times
Rumsfeld six times, Zoellick thrice, Schmitt four wikilinks, Donnelly thrice, Cohen four times etc. etc. etc. All are wikilinked for every list they appear in - and not even counting the mentions in the ref "quotes."

Note on the AfD case Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_PNAC_Members_associated_with_the_Administration_of_George_W._Bush at issue, the current state of the list has the initial sentence with twenty cites with extended quotes in footnotes, and (oddly enough since there is no actual need to iterate names in footnotes to such an extent per MoS) the quotes and cites mention "Bush" 24 times etc. Do I think a "merge" of this interesting sort of page makes sense? No. Thank you. Collect (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:OVERLINK, those names should only be linked on their first appearance in the article, but that is an MoS issue and has nothing to do with a potential merge. Gamaliel (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Reconsider logging it as it is beyond the scope of GG sanctions.

Your long description didn't provide any diffs. Any comment quoted me on is in arbitration enforcement space which is typically handled by clerks and you could have asked for redaction if you found them problematic. You didn't bring any diffs where this sanction would have stopped a single thing that happened. MarkBernstein is also being discussed again at AE by yet another editor. I agreed informally to your request and without evidence and diffs, per Ed Johnston, there is nothing you cited that warrants the sanction. You didn't delineate who made what comments. I don't believe you followed the consensus of the other admins that asked for evidence. Please undo your sanction as I have agreed to not do (and didn't do) what your sanction says. --DHeyward (talk) 18:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

if you really want to avoid drama, undue your sanction. It will only drag out an appeal per EdJohnston's comment. If your interest is getting back to building the encyclopedia, that type of sanction is unhelpful and the continuing AE requests regarding MarkBernstein shows that your solution didn't solve anything. --DHeyward (talk) 19:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

BTW, here is MB's response to the AE request brought by "NE Ent." Note he repeats a lot of stuff not related to the AE request and, quite openly, repeats the statement that led to his topic ban [13] (see item 10). If you really want the drama amped down, dealing with that kind of stuff is necessary. How successful has all this been in removing that kind of continued rhetoric and agreeing with your sanction proposal? --DHeyward (talk) 19:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Considering that you still won't stop commenting on Bernstein, maybe that is evidence enough that an iban is warranted. In fact, this discussion might itself be considered a violation. Liz Read! Talk! 01:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Liz I see you've been following me around. Welcome. And no, I am not violating any policy by asking the implementing admin to consider lifting a sanction and presenting evidence. This is three user talk pages today where you've injected your opinion to questions, comments and issues which do not concern you. I don't understand your interest. --DHeyward (talk) 05:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring my statement

I have no interest in what specific objections anyone has to the word, building, or idea of the Reichstag. I want to discuss the behavior of MarkBernstein (talk · contribs) and the merits of his topic ban, which is the purpose of the section in which I am writing. Admin or not, would you kindly not edit war on my arbitration statement without clear justification. Rhoark (talk) 19:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Seconded. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 20:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't mind the redaction but would like if you also removed Strongjam's BLP accusation.

Here's the well-reasoned essay by the only author credible as a source and I just repeated what she said. [14] I think you understand the problem with aggressive BLP enforcement vs. ignoring or answering by not answering. I don't need to hash that out on the AE page but also don't need the lingering BLP accusation from Strongjam. It's unnecessary and I wouldn't have added it except for that. --DHeyward (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused. I thought I had redacted the accusation already. Gamaliel (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
@DHeyward: Done. — Strongjam (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I missed part of it. Thanks, Strongjam. Gamaliel (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Fold3 activation

Is there any kind of timetable for approved accounts to receive advanced access in Fold3? I was approved, signed up, and followed all of the steps on the WP:Fold3 page but I still only have basic access. Deadbeef 02:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

There was a significant delay getting the information to Fold3 due to my error, but your account was on the list I sent them. We're waiting to hear back from them. I'll ask and try to find out what's going on. Gamaliel (talk) 03:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, just wanted to make sure it wasn't lost in space somewhere. Deadbeef 03:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

RSN post

Hi Gamaliel,

Just for reference, I was just trying to assume good faith when I posted this at RSN. Any encouragement I might have given that IP was completely unintentional. The same IP also made some other edits to threads on RSN page which probably should be looked into as well. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Southern Strategy Edits

The issue is not that I'm trying to add a New York Times article to the intro, it's that others are not engaging in honest discussion regarding the validity of opposing views. The article is heavily slanted towards one political POV and the few editors who seem to be tending the article are refusing (and in the past have removed) information from legitimate sources that add some balance to the article. The

tag in the title is clearly needed and a number of talk pages in the past have said as much. --129.59.79.123 (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

You can put NPOV banners on talk pages? I'm not sure if I can be trusted with this information. Rhoark (talk) 02:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 March 2015

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

.

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!--Getoverpops (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Gamaliel. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Getoverpops (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Southern Strategy revert

@Gamaliel:Your recent reversion is unwarranted. It is not proper to suggest the Democrats were the ones pushing for the 1964 and 1965 laws given the GOP was more unanimously behind the bills and were the driving forces behind the bill. I will ask that some change is made to indicate this was a bipartisan change. Please justify your change in the talk section. --Getoverpops (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

FC

Hi,
Looks like already delay for FC to publish, eh? Articles and lists are done. FPs are left a bit to fix and maybe I can pitch in..-The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 03:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's not FC's fault, we're running behind on everything. Thanks for pitching in. Gamaliel (talk) 03:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Done it..Just need a copyedit..-The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I think I can pitch in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-03-25/Special report also..-The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 05:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost – Volume 11, Issue 12 – 25 March 2015

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

User page protocol

Hi, Gamaliel,
I was wondering what the protocol is about appropriating another editor's user page and copying it wholesale into your own. The editor who created the original page is Becritical (who has not been active in 2015) and the new user is Namecheapblues. I blanked the page and left them a edit note to create their own user page but I am unsure if this imitation is considered more than just bad form. Liz Read! Talk! 16:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC) (Nice job on the Signpost!)

Honestly, I'm not sure. I've skimmed Wikipedia:User pages but I don't see anything. Copying a page to mock someone is not appropriate, obviously, and we'd put a stop to that. Using other user pages as a template or inspiration is okay. But copying it wholesale, down to the exact same quotes, seems weird and also inappropriate. Maybe they copied it meaning to change the specifics later but keep the formatting? Gamaliel (talk) 16:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Do I smell of SOCK..??.-The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 16:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, I note this post by the latter to the former's talk page, which indicates it is some sort of message/movement, probably related to Wikipedia:WikiProject OWS. This doesn't seem to be a case of socking or impersonating, but rather a carrying onward of "the message", whatever that may be. IMO, the blanking of Namecheapblues' page should be undone. Tarc (talk) 17:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, Becritical is not blocked and had edited for years so I don't know why he/she would create a new account with an identical user page if he/she just wanted to start editing again.
The only reason I noticed this appropriation is that I was looking at Namecheapblues's user page and noticed, despite it being a recently created account, they had been awarded barnstars. When I looked at what they were for, it indicated that they were given to Becritical so that led me to check his/her page. Let that be a lesson, if you are going to "honor" another editor by imitating their user page, do not include personal information that applies to them and not you.
Thanks for checking, Gamaliel! Liz Read! Talk! 18:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the concern, but as long as they aren't using my username or something, I think that the content of my userpage makes it pretty clear that I don't mind copying :P Seems a compliment (: And anyway, it's just code and text, and under the licensing of WP, I don't see why they should not be able to copy it, or use and attribute it or whatever. Be——Critical 23:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and it's not me, and I don't know who the user is that copied my page. Be——Critical 23:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I just thought "borrowing" your barnstars was uncool, Becritical. But I guess we can put the matter to rest. Liz Read! Talk! 02:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Reckoning

You must realize it was your removal of Mark Bernstein's topic ban that led to Dreadstar's resignation. The project lost a good admin today because you put partisanship before your admin responsibilities. At the very least I hope this serves as a wake up call - start taking your responsibility seriously or put down the tools. The project is more important than any ideological bullshit. 107.77.76.61 (talk) 00:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to leave this comment here so everyone can see how stupid it is. Gamaliel (talk) 01:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
This is a ridiculous claim. I found clashes between Dreadstar and other editors a few weeks ago. If anything, it was the Laurence Olivier article unprotection that was the straw that broke the frustrated admin's back. Liz Read! Talk! 02:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
It was stand out a lot better if you'd archive the top part of your really long user talk page. NE Ent 10:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Racism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I strongly suggest that you remove your edit summary from here. If you're going to accuse me of racism I take that very seriously. I have no idea what race you are, neither do I give a monkey's left testicle. It was meant simply as Sacha Baron Cohen says with "giving a monkey a gun", a loose cannon. I'm British, we don't call black people monkeys, and how would I even know what race you or others are. Blocking somebody like Cassianto for a week over calling somebody stupid is bad enough, but to accuse me of racism is bang out of order whether you disliked the criticism or not.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion: If you don't want to accidentally insult someone, don't purposefully insult someone. Gamaliel (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

A mild insult considering your sanctimonious holier than thou attitude towards Cassianto and unwarranted block, especially given that you're involved. However, accusing me of racism, or even inferring it was meant as a racial insult I consider harassment and a gross personal attack. Remove the edit summary please.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Involved? Ludicrous. I've never edited that article. Do not post on this page again. Gamaliel (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Gamaliel, I think you over-reacted. The use of the word "monkey" is not always a racist slur. You probably know that. Please think again about your approach to this. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course. But it is one easily avoided by not using it to refer to others at all on an encyclopedia which, supposedly, has a rule against personal attacks. And those using it have not been punished for its use, no matter how much they may think they suffer in the face of mild admonishment. Gamaliel (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Sure, but sometimes people will react and use phrases but not directly, I think that's really the case here. A "monkey admin" most certainly refers to the fact that there's a perception that many admins act without full human sentience. It was a kneejerk reaction and certainly wasn't a directed personal attack, just frustration. It's not right, but it's not worth going down the route of accusations of racism, real or percieved. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
And no accusation was made, only a caution to refrain from using an insult in a way that may be misinterpreted, especially since one should not be using an insult at all on the encyclopedia. Gamaliel (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
As I said, sometimes others can perceive things differently. I'm done here, I would hope that you could work to lighten the situation, and realise that your actions have done more harm than good, but it seems apparent to me that you are determined. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Given the hostility which has been exhibited by certain parties well before the comment being discussed here was made, I believe your pleas to lighten the situation are misdirected. Gamaliel (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
As you like. It's a shame you can't be the better person here. And for what it's worth, they're not "pleas", it's simply good advice, misdirected or otherwise. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I see you have made an attempt to calm them down, so I attempted to retract this comment before you responded to it. I would be willing to discuss addressing their concerns if they would be willing to do so in a manner that is both civil and not one-sided. Gamaliel (talk) 21:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Nothing I've suggested has been one-sided, I'd just like you to acknowledge that interpretation or misintepretation, or misunderstanding or some other miss has happened here. Frustration at perceived poor admin actions has escalated stupidly. Let's cool it down. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely. Both sides in this matter should rightfully acknowledge that comments, especially those said in the heat of the moment, are prone to misinterpretation or misunderstanding. Gamaliel (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I think there's some indignation from the misunderstanding, it may be beneficial just to clarify your position, in so far as you were not, in any way, claiming any kind of racist remarks. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
If it's any help, when taken at face value, Blofeld's and Cass' comments do come off as racist. I'm sure they weren't meant as such, but such words ought to be used carefully. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Well I disagree, but then perhaps it's just a regional thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

"refer to people of minority races as monkeys". Where exactly did I refer to a minority race as a monkey?? Is it an American thing to call people monkeys? I don't honestly think I've ever heard anybody call somebody a monkey racially in south Wales. My mother used to call me a cheeky monkey when I was a kid, that's the only place I've heard it. If Gamaliel is himself of a "minority" race and has been called that or subject to racial abuse himself then I can at least understand a bit more why he perceived it that way, but it really looks bizarre to even mention race to me. I've used several Sacha Baron Cohen references in relation to wiki administration in recent days. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

In the US, yes, it is quite insulting, e.g. Obama Monkey Picture Shows Racism Is Alive and Well in America and Zach Braff apologizes after 'racist' tweet comparing Pharrell's Grammy outfit to the flying monkey in The Wizard of Oz. Tarc (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Historically speaking as well, e.g. [15] Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Ed and I are Americans, so there's definitely cultural differences at play here. I realize that things that are incredibly offensive here, like blackface, are not considered such overseas. I'm sure you are sincere when you say that your insult was not intended to be insulting in that particular way, but on a global encyclopedia we should all be more careful when it comes to cultural differences. Gamaliel (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
So many things can be perceived as racist these days though. I used a Sacha Baron Cohen reference the other day on Admiral General Alahdeen's regime in which it seemed several admins sympathetic to Andy's infobox cause turned up in quick succession. Again I used the reference to giving a monkey a gun or flying a plane to what I perceive to have been a rather long block, and it was light hearted in tone, about expecting to find myself blocked by an eager admin for the slightest thing. Please just remove the remark from the edit summary and I'll remove the post from my talk page. Somebody like Cassianto doesn't appreciate being lectured on civility, so in all honesty your earlier comments directed towards him I think inflamed the situation. I didn't see his edit summary but his comment itself was mild I thought.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
That is the second time you have referred to "somebody like Cassianto" as if he should be treated differently than any other editor. He made quite a few absolutely bitey and unacceptable comments both to admins and to other editors and I was surprised he wasn't blocked a day sooner. No matter what someone's contributions to the project are, such hostility towards others shouldn't be tolerated. I'm surprised you are so upset by Gamaiel's edit summary (and monkey is a racial insult in the U.S.) but you lament that Cassianto was held responsible for his incivility. Liz Read! Talk! 18:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
{tps} Dr. Blofeld, if you check out list of ethnic slurs, you'll find multiple ethnic slurs that include "monkey". A relevant one from the US is "porch monkey", but looking over that list it appears other countries/cultures use "monkey" as an ethnic slur as well. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
That may well be the case, but none of you have answered how I would possibly know what race Gamaliel is or what he looks like. If there was a photo of an African American on his user page I might at least see more where you're coming from. Have you never heard the phrase "to give a monkey a gun"?? It simply means a loose cannon, in this case a light hearted response to what I thought was a pretty heavy block from an admin. And anyway, had there not been an edit conflict in the removal of the comment I was about to post a link to this and say that perhaps Clouseau is a better comparison than to the minkey. Then I'd have been perceived as racist to the French. Sigh... You cannot be serious!♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Dr. Blofeld - If you somehow didn't know the racial undertones of that term, you do now. I would assume most people, upon learning that their words have racist meanings, would apologize and vow never to use them again lest they offend others and promote racism... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Dr.B, did you intend "monkey admin" to be complementary?...I dunno, but it seems a lot of these misunderstandings could be avoided via just general civility. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Dr. Blofield, to call another editor, a human collaborator here, a monkey, a donkey, a dog, a frog, or any other animal -- that's never OK. We collaborate on the internet, but we don't know one another personally as to our personal characteristics or sensitivities. There are plenty of folks here whom you might think are hypersensitive about any number of subjects and factors -- race, gender, religion, politics and dozens of others. Your comments give the impression that you're turning the situation backwards. If I accidentally step on a fellow passenger's foot in the subway, I don't start disputing with them how it happened. I apologize for their discomfort and keep a bit more distance. SPECIFICO talk 23:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I think that many of us Europeans are sick to death of being expected to conform to the worst kind of American excesses of sanctimonious bullshit. Eric Corbett 17:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
When the defense is, essentially, "I was just being a jerk, not a racist jerk" then that's probably a sign that one is in a hole and it's time to stop digging. Tarc (talk) 23:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Tarc said it better than I would have. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, to be late to the party and manufactured drama fest, but on this side of the Atlantic (that's the European side), generally speaking, calling someone a monkey does not have any racist connotations. "Stop being a little monkey" is said by thousands of mothers to thousands of children of various origins as a very mild admonishment with no racist connotations (it means endearingly playfully naughty). Were that mother to say "Stop behaving like an overzealous Yank on Speed"; that probably would have a racist connections, but that isn't what User:Dr. Blofeld said . Giano (talk) 16:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
"..calling someone a monkey does not have any racist connotations" is a lie, as I noted above. Tarc (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
So many straw men!
Sadly, you you, Tarc, that is not the case, it's even a verb and seems to have dozens of meanings - none of them racist. I've even used a monkey wrench, does that make me a racist? Giano (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
... and of course there's the infinite monkey theorem. Is that also racist? Eric Corbett 17:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I think it might be better, in the long run, if Americans stopped editing Wikipedia; it;s obviously far too stressful for their delicate sensitivities. Giano (talk) 17:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't want to tar all Americans with the same brush, but there does seem to be a significant minority who believe that their world-view is the only correct one, and that any word they take exception to must be purged from the lexicon. Eric Corbett 18:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
No I wouldn't tar (can't that a racist term too?) them all, there's a lot here who are very sensible, good editors - mostly of Italian descent, I suspect. Giano (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Stop this nonsense. Using idioms containing the word monkey are not necessarily racist (though some are). Calling an individual a monkey is an insult and has racial undertones to it (even in the UK... images of apes were used to lampoon the Irish for years). If you can't refrain from calling people monkeys, collaborative efforts like Wikipedia might not be the place for you. Now stop trying to stir up shit. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Why are you addressing that remark to me, and therefore implying that I've called another editor a monkey? Attempting to propagate misinformation such as that would certainly come under my definition of "personal attack", even it apparently doesn't for yours. Eric Corbett 18:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps then we should campaign to censor the apparently racistly-titled video game Gun Monkey. Or we could behave like reasonably intelligent adults and honor the editor's request to redact the edit summary. 169.57.0.214 (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I think the word definition you all (Mr. IP, Corbett, Giano) need to need to brush up on is context. As in, "Dr. Blofeld used monkey in a racist context when speaking to Dreadstar." Tarc (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) And yet another "personal attack" from the effortlessly impolite Tarc. Eric Corbett 18:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

No I did NOT use it in a racist context Tarc. Please stop. A "monkey admin with a gun" means "a loose cannon shooting people down". If you think that was used in a racist context then it is you who needs to brush up.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that Tarc and Gamaliel know quite well that you meant no racist insult, and we have others like EvergreenFir jumping up and down with excitement like a child in a playground, shouting "Fight! Fight! Fight! Thinking your comment was in anyway racist is totally absurd - and they well know it. I would have use the term "cowboy admin" doubtless they would claim that was insulting white Americans. Giano (talk) 18:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think anyone seriously thinks that Dr. Blofeld was intentionally racist. The point was that he shouldn't be using that slur against anyone, simply because he shouldn't be insulting people at all on the encyclopedia, and I'm surprised that point has been the subject of so much vehement objection and misrepresentation. Since everyone seems to have had their say at length, I'm going to close this discussion now. Gamaliel (talk) 18:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dr. Blofeld, wikistalking and trolling

Gamaliel, could you weigh in on a matter stemming from both the "Racism" topic above and the infobox arguments elsewhere? Our Mr. Blofeld here has followed me to an unrelated article and continued to deliberately toss the "monkey" slur around. Then, a jab about infoboxes in an article that has never had an infobox debate. By any rational observation, this is trolling. Tarc (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, at the very least it's a bit of Wikihounding. I've reverted his comments. Hopefully, that will be the end of it. Gamaliel (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

No it isn't. Pathetic. I have better things to do than stalk a troll like Tarc. Ask Ritchie333, if you doubt my involvement with Beatles albums articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I think Blofeld was just having a humorous joke about why I added a new section to Talk:The Beatles (album), because too many users have changed the "Genres" bit on the article's infobox without discussion. So to stop any edit warring, I added that. Blofeld is right that if an admin came across lots of reverts without anything on the talk page, without any of them looking like vandalism, everyone would be edit warring and not trying to get a consensus. He probably uses "monkey" because of this, meaning a laid back admin being the straight man to Johnny Vegas' edit warrior. That's the trouble with humour, it doesn't travel well. When somebody mentions Poldark, I think of this and everyone else in my house thinks I'm weird. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I came across it via Ritchie and found it amusing that I saw a comment by Tarc on heavy handed admins and couldn't resist the joke. That Tarc thinks he's worthy enough to be stalked is most amusing, I only check the contributions of actual content contributors. I'm interested in Beatles articles believe it or not. Again, more unfounded accusations...♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Once again; lying, and pretty obviously this time. Tarc (talk) 12:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
All this tension is making me sleepy....

Oh my word. Don't call other editors liars, don't remove talk page comments unless they need to be redacted, don't offend admins if you know they will be offended. Doing otherwise just aggravates the situation and ends in tears. Now, I need to do some work on Piccadilly and North Circular Road, so I'll leave you with this nice picture of a cat so you can all go "aaaaawwwww" and forget about it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost, 1 April 2015

Comments
I absolutely adored your April's Fool articles. Thanks for the effort to put some smile on our faces. werldwayd (talk) 03:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk back

Hello, Gamaliel. You have new messages at User talk:The Herald/Talkback.
Message added 05:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Signpost: 01 April 2015

AN discussion

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Gossip_on_signpost NE Ent 21:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

If "the human interest angle has made it go viral on social media, and national media attention has repeatedly highlighted the Wikipedia connection." the reasonable thing would to be to add references supporting that contention. I think no one has because they don't exist -- I searched for them before commenting. What I'm seeing are unsupported assertions and irrelevant refs, such as (on the AN thread) this one, which make no mention of Wikipedia. The references provided thus far might arguably be suitable for content edits to Wiki-PR_editing_of_Wikipedia, but do not support the concept the Wikipedia angle is significant in generating the cover. The simplest resolution is for you to remove the statements from the Signpost. NE Ent 13:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I have never seen that Uproxx story. Links previously provided by Ed and myself to other stories substantiate that fact that the Wikipedia connection has received national media coverage, such as these: [16] [17]. Gamaliel (talk) 16:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Problem with Signpost archives

Hey Gamaliel, as I mentioned a month or so ago, I wanted to spend some time organizing the Signpost archives so that readers can easily find stories in previous issues.

However, I ran into one anachronistic problem. For Category:Wikipedia Signpost archives 2011-02, Category:Wikipedia Signpost archives 2011-03 and Category:Wikipedia Signpost archives 2011-04, there was some aspect of a template that assigned every single recipient of the Signpost during those two months into those categories. So, rather than these two categories containing 30-40 articles published during that month, it contains 700-800+ user pages as well (see Category:Wikipedia Signpost archives 2011 for the numbers). I've tried looking into the templates but I'm really no expert in this matter and I'm not sure if a assigned category can be retroactively deleted from an old template. But there shouldn't be any user pages in these categories.

I'm going to ping @Go Phightins!: and @The ed17: in case they have some idea about what to do. I've found one or two other things that need some technical fixing from 2013 but right now I'm concentrating on 2011. Thanks for any help you can provide! Liz Read! Talk! 12:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I've determined where the problem is but I don't like the idea of fiddling with a major template that the Signpost might use. For example, there is Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/2011-02-14 which automatically includes Category:Wikipedia Signpost archives 2011-02 on every user page where the 2-14-2011 issue is posted. Similar information is posted on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-02-14 so I'm not sure if we need the first archived page as well. So far, I've found this problem in February, March and April 2011 Signposts but not January. Liz Read! Talk! 14:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
For what it's worth, here's what the contents of a monthly archive category should look like: Category:Wikipedia Signpost archives 2011-01. Also, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/2011-04-18 is a page without the assigned category while Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/2011-04-18 has the automatically assigned category. If you could just check the template for issues between 02/07/2011 and 4/11/2011 and adjust them, I'd greatly appreciate it. Liz Read! Talk! 14:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Pinging our resident template expert, @Resident Mario: Gamaliel (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
The categories are such a mess. If I remember correctly the categorization simply stops at some point, and someone went through and partially tagged "Signpost stories relating to women" in a cat as well (see the gender gap tag for that). I'll look at it again later today. ResMar 17:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
You are correct. Fixing it requires wrapping the issue cat in <noinclude></noinclude> tags. Liz, can you go back and do that? They're your cats... Unless you have a regex editor installed on your browser there's no non-laborious way to fix this issue, or to insert the cats going forward, either (HotCat doesn't provide noinclude functionality). You might want to look into WikiEd for this. ResMar 22:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
@Liz: Or better yet drop this categorization silliness (it can be done by a bot if need be) and conserve your energy for the truly massive tagging task that'll come once the research index scripts are fully rolled-out. Here's a beta result for gender-gap, for instance. ResMar 22:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
@Resident Mario: I don't understand, the problem lies in the issue templates (like on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/2011-04-18) so isn't there a way to change the template so that it doesn't automatically assign categories to each page where the template is placed? I've done this before in instances where the template creator thought it would be helpful for each page that contained the template to be assigned to a certain category but it just caused a lot of confusion, usually like this, with user pages being categorized in subject categories that should only contain articles. If the template was only used a few times, it was simpler to remove the automatic category assignment and then add the category on to the relevant articles that should contain it.
I don't think that categorization is silliness, I've made 6K+ edits to categories. It's how readers and editors find articles. Plus, the WikiProject Signpost articles are already categorized, so why shouldn't the other subjects be categorized? Unless it was a WikiProject article, the original articles from 2011 were not categorized at all so it would be just about impossible for a reader to find specific Arbitration Reports or Opinion pieces. Now, you can go to Category:Wikipedia Signpost Arbitration report archives 2011 and Category:Wikipedia Signpost Opinion content archives 2011 to find out what was going on during that year rather than having to look through each individual issue which is what I've had to do in the past. With 52-ish issues each year, that is a lot of time wasted searching for information.
Plus, the only area of trouble are these monthly categories, like Category:Wikipedia Signpost archives 2011-08, which contain these specific articles (like Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/2011-08-01) that are causing the problem. Also, I don't understand the sense of inserting <noinclude></noinclude> which would make the categories pretty much useless, if I understand it correctly. Plus, I brought up the idea of doing this in February and got the okay. Even if categorization is only, say, 85% useful, rather than 100%, I think it is a worthwhile pursuit. Liz Read! Talk! 19:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
P.S. I don't fully understand the research index scripts but that looks like a very useful list. If you need a human being, rather than a bot, to tag articles, I could help out with that after I've finished this task. Liz Read! Talk! 20:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
@Liz: To fix this issue: go to one of the issue indexes, for instance, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-02-14, and look at the cat, in this case [[Category:Wikipedia Signpost archives 2011-02|14]]. Whenever a page which contains a category is transcluded that category is trascluded as well, which causes pages containing deliveries, to list themselves in this category as well. You can fix it by wrapping the cat in the "noinclude" tag, which prevents the category from being transcluded, the result being that while the archival page is in the cat, any transclusions of the archival page remain un-categorized. At least, that's what I think the issue is. Delivery and storage of Signpost articles is so damn complicated, and it's never been fully uniform.
With regards to cats, yes, ok, this would be the best way to do this but I and User:Mr. Stradivarius have spent a lot of time and effort coming up with a better system, one we're currently actively working on that doesn't use cats at all. If you want gender-gap, here it is; if you want all op-eds, here you go. All news and notes would be here. The system isn't perfect because it's still being refined. True accuracy will require readers manually going back through the archives and tagging stories. Strad is working on scripts that'll allow us to do just that. Cats just aren't flexible enough for our purposes in this case, and you're duplicating a lot of much more technically sophisticated efforts on our part in a not-smart way. Once these tags are implemented fully I doubt anyone will take a second look at categories again. I've been trying to tell you about this for ages :(! ResMar 20:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Fair use in Signpost

Hi Gamaliel. Near the bottom of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-04-08/In the media, you use the non-free image File:Action Park looping water slide.jpg. Normally, per WP:NFCC#9, images used under a claim of fair use are only permitted in article space. Has any kind of exemption been granted to the Signpost? --B (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

For some reason I thought I'd gotten it from Commons. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Gamaliel (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 April 2015

Layout

This is how I would have made the layout. User:Hafspajen /Layout. If anyone would have asked me to do it. Hafspajen (talk) 22:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@Hafspajen: Do you feel you are unable to contribute to FC? There seems to be some conflict between regular contributors to FC. Is there anything I or the other Signpost editors can do to help address this? Gamaliel (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Please ask Go Pingins to arrange some kind of contact. 15:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)Hafspajen (talk)
I think he is offline for a few days but when he returns we will make arrangements. Gamaliel (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Also, Gamaliel, please, move parts of this this discussion to internal. It is not honoring us. Hafspajen (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


  • I am having trouble with something I started - before him, that was going great. And something I enjoyed, that gradually is getting worse, because of this editor, and I am feeling responsible for involving him, and feeling responsible for all the mistakes. Hafspajen (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

A new reference tool

Hello Books & Bytes subscribers. There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called Citoid. It is designed to "auto-fill" references using a URL or DOI. We would really appreciate you testing whether TWL partners' references work in Citoid. Sharing your results will help the developers fix bugs and improve the system. If you have a few minutes, please visit the testing page for simple instructions on how to try this new tool. Regards, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

GG question

Hi, Gamaliel,
I wanted to place a GamerGate DS notice on a user talk page and I've gone through all of the categories about sanctions and templates but I can't find ones that are topic specific. I know that you just can't cut and paste the notice, you need to use the template in order for the notice to be logged. If you could either tell me the code or show me where I can find it, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 22:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

It can be tough to find. Just cut and paste this: {{subst:alert|gg}} ~~~~ Gamaliel (talk) 22:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Gamaliel. Now that I'm an ArbCom clerk, I'd like to try to recategorize some pages so these templates wouldn't be so difficult to locate. Add that to my to-do list. Liz Read! Talk! 15:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Congrats by the way. They need the help. I know I've bugged poor Callanecc about a million little things. Gamaliel (talk) 15:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

How is pointing out edit "over the line" and the original edit not?

So it's fine to say a Native American media outlet is by it's very nature "partisan," and delete it from the sources,[18] but pointing out that someone did this is "over the line" and should be redacted? I don't get it. There are actual personal attacks going on on that page.[19] I don't think pointing out another user's diff and edit summary is the problem here. - CorbieV☊ 20:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for brining that to my attention, I have redacted the personal attack. Gamaliel (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chauncey Bulkley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Germantown, Pennsylvania. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

I re-read each of the refs at Plame affair. I largely agree with your assesment as to their nature. Until and unless an unambiguous news account covers it I will follow your guidance. Thank you for your comments at talk. Sincerely. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Net neutrality

Note today's debate in the Indian media: [20], [21] and many others. Andreas JN466 15:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPA applies to all of the pages on Wikipedia.

If that's true, then what the fuck is, "I hope they'll note it's a poor article - one-sided, superficial reporting, barely worthy of a college freshman", son? - 50.144.2.143 (talk) 02:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

NPA applies to people, not their writings. Gamaliel (talk) 03:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

FC this week

FC is ready to roll out..-The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 07:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 April 2015

I've just spotted this. Comment

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/21/grant-shapps-accused-of-editing-wikipedia-pages-of-tory-rivals

In view of Britain's impending general election, this is of relevance, I suggest. Apwoolrich (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of William Henry Porter for deletion

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

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

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

regarding media bias

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

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

The Signpost: 22 April 2015

Signpost

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

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

Hey that was my scoop!

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

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

Muse awards 2015 from the AAM

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

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

The Signpost: 29 April 2015

Topic ban issue

Hi Gamaliel! I'm not sure as to the current status in regard to User:Ranze's topic ban, but I'm afraid you may need to check some recent edits. I'm not sure whether you will regard edits to A Voice For Men as being gender-related, although I would, however adding information about a Gamergate group being evicted from Calgary Expo does seem to fall under the ban [22]. I've reverted on the assumption that it does fall under it, but as I had previously edited the article I'm assuming that I'm involved. Unfortunately, that means I need to drop the problem on to you, as the person who placed the ban. - Bilby (talk) 06:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Books and Bytes - Issue 11

The Wikipedia Library

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

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

Read the full newsletter



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

Arbitration case request withdrawn

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

Signpost archives

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

The Signpost: 06 May 2015

The proper place for "meta-talk page" discussion

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

Signpost -- Magna Carta embroidery

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

Other alternatives are available at c:Category:Magna_Carta_(An_Embroidery); or we also now have clearance to use other images of the work from [23] & [24] that I haven't had time to get uploaded yet. ("The embroidery, and photographs of it, are available for reuse on the same terms as Wikipedia content" -- Tom Johnson, British Library, 15.05.2015).

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

The Signpost: 13 May 2015

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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Kirill [talk] 12:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gamaliel/Archive_23&oldid=1125491218"