This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I'm preparing to go out on a 14-day wildland fire assignment, and had neither the stomach or time to launch into another ANI thread. Thanks for picking up the torch. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 03:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Appreciate your comments at [1]. Sca ( talk) 00:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

You asked at Talk:Stefan Molyneux about RS that mention him as a philosopher. Seven are used as citations currently in the lead, but there are a lot more on my compiled list I have at User:Netoholic/Molyneux#Book and news sources. Thanks. -- Netoholic @ 22:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll review your list in depth and expand on my RFC comment tomorrow, if all goes well. Gamaliel ( talk) 22:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Was re-reading the talk page and was reminded to check back on your point about how Alain de Botton's article doesn't describe him as a philosopher. It turns out that is actually has, for the last couple of years, up until about one week before you made your comment. Anyway, thought you'd be amused by the timing. (same person that removed that also voted against the Molyneux philosopher RfC - guess poor Alain just happened to be a brief casualty of the same debate) -- Netoholic @ 10:05, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, a friend did that change, I removed it immediately. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imthewinner ( talk • contribs) 19:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I removed nitpicky criticisms of her. There is STILL plenty of criticisms left in the article. Please consider restoring the deletions to both the article & to the Talk sections. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.37.246.31 ( talk • contribs)

I suggest you discuss this matter on the article talk page so all editors can participate. If you identify what specific problems you have with the material, other editors might agree with you. Gamaliel ( talk) 23:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have much more important things to do than bother with Wikipedia. Have been around here virtually none in YEARS. Do the right thing. I've got other things to do. Appreciate it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.37.246.31 ( talk) 00:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't address your concerns if I don't know what they are, sorry. Gamaliel ( talk) 01:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Please restore it at least close to what I did. I cant remember most of the procedures & rules here. Have a blessed day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.178.47.34 ( talk) 01:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I agree with 96.37.246.31. Yes, I realize I have been one of Totenberg's biggest critics here (and elsewhere). Like 96.37.246.31, I agree that SO much of the criticism is nitpicky & doesn't take into account her life as a whole. I also haven't been around Wikipedia editing for so long, so I don't recall a lot of the procedures or rules here. I'm letting go of the fierce criticism of her (I think96.37.246.31's suggestions are on the mark). Please do the same. Thanks.

On 18 June 2014, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Daniel Keyes, which you recently nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

ThaddeusB ( talk) 20:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Any chance you could translate what he said to English so I can follow along? Thank you very much by the way for all your help. Go Phightins ! 20:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Good idea! I'll go do that. Gamaliel ( talk) 20:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, ElNiñoMonstruo user has been harassing me in recent days, leaving threatening messages on my talk, and calling me kid. Please would like to know if this can be stopped? [2]. -- Jorge Horan ( talk) 11:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I get a bit busy on the weekends so I didn't have time to address this until today, sorry. It looks like Go Phightins! already talked to ElNiñoMonstruo but I left an additional message anyway. Gamaliel ( talk) 16:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Books & Bytes recipients: The Wikipedia Library has been expanding rapidly and we need some help! We currently have 10 signups for free account access open and several more in the works... In order to help with those signups, distribute access codes, and manage accounts we'll need 2-3 more Account Coordinators.

It takes about an hour to get up and running and then only takes a couple hours per week, flexible depending upon your schedule and routine. If you're interested in helping out, please drop a note in the next week at my talk page or shoot me an email at: jorlowitzgmail.com. Thanks and cheers, Jake Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

As one no longer a new user, I am perhaps not entitled to an opinion on this. But it would seem to me that, besides the simple mistakes made in ignorance by new users, a second significant category leading to new user difficulties is the failure of experienced users to display the characteristics and make the choices you encourage upon the newest at Wikipedia. Perhaps we need an essay on "Tips for experienced users dealing with new users"?. I can offer you a bakers dozen of positive examples, and one or two negative (which, unfortunately, would provide ample enough counter-examples, by themselves). Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 00:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

That is an excellent idea. A lot of problems arise when we forget what it's like to be unfamiliar with Wikipedia rules and mores. Maybe you should jot some of these examples down and try to assemble an essay out of them? Gamaliel ( talk) 04:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Gamaliel

Many thanks for getting in contact with me. I removed all references to the recent exhibition in Sweden from the TASCHEN page as I'm guessing these additions were made by the artists themselves and are looking to promote themselves and get publicity from being associated with TASCHEN.

the text stated that TASCHEN had been "publicly criticized" which it has not been. the only people to criticize TASCHEN were the two artists themselves, therefore this is not a representation of the global company.

Also, as the links to the museum page were posted in four separate places throughout the page again this shows they are trying to further their own cause.

I have removed the references again and would ask they these edits be upheld.

many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmrkbst ( talk • contribs) 18:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nicholas Wade, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages BA and MA. 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) 08:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to KC Johnson may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• {{NPOV|section}}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 05:03, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

On 14 July 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tom Cushing, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Tom Cushing's 1926 play The Devil in the Cheese features a Greek bandit posing as a priest, an Egyptian god, adventures in the South Seas, and a bit of mummified cheese? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tom Cushing. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 —  Crisco 1492 ( talk) 03:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Please tell me how you are supposed to "cite" the assertion that the "Group of 88" was a "group". It's an asinine request. It is referred to as the group of 88 in the literature. If you or any other editor thinks there is a better word or phrase to use, then use it. I don't have much respect for the sort of editing that comprises "citation bombing", as it is essentially form of attack in the easiest and laziest way imaginable, but at least requesting citation for quotations is reasonable. Asking for a page number to a kindle edition is not only unreasonable, it is impossible. A google books link is the best solution. Asking for citation for normal words is nowhere supported in guidelines or policy, and using citation requests in this way is, IMO, irresponsible editing and a form of editorial bullying. A useful approach would be raise the question of what is somehow wrong with the word "group", if it is deemed to be problematic. That was not done, so the tag is like leaving a template complaining of POV with no explanation. Paul B ( talk) 13:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

@ Paul Barlow: In retrospect I should have used a more substantive edit summary, but I was using my tablet and I was lazy. Sorry. In regards to citing the word "group", I concur with the comments of User:Cullen328 on WP:ANI: "There is no such organization as the "Group of 88". Yes, 88 faculty members signed a newspaper ad, and in retrospect, that ad may well have been ill-advised, but jointly signing an ad does not consitute joining a "group" and does not link those 88 people together for life as notorious reverse racists." So if we're going to say in Wikipedia's voice that this was a "group", then we should cite that. Perhaps a different tag or alternate wording would be more appropriate, I will explore that later today, time permitting. In regards to the kindle issue, it's completely reasonable to ask the specific location of a specific fact cited in the article, and whoever added all these citations to that book to this article and related ones had no problem supplying Kindle locations for their other citations. Gamaliel ( talk) 15:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I clarified the edits I made to the Salon.com page. In the contributors section, there was a highlight of one (relatively minor) article by one particular contributor (Alex Pareene) - it looks like it was dropped in shortly after he joined, and wasn't consistent with the treatment in the remainder of the section. So, I removed that portion, and altered the mention of Pareene above in the contributors section to link to his wiki page. BubbaJoe123456 ( talk) 16:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Thanks for explaining that in your edit summary. Gamaliel ( talk) 16:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with sock reporting but there are a-lot of one edit votes here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, now I like to assume good faith but when I see first edit votes by users with names like "Palestinewillbefree" it does raise a red flag. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 23:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Re: [3] (see also [4]) - should I bring this up at AN/I or can you just go ahead and block? Volunteer Marek ( talk) 04:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the fun continued after I went to sleep. I'll keep an eye on this one. Gamaliel ( talk) 12:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Gamallel -

Thank you for your reply and your statements. I certainly do disagree that my additions were "less than neutral" and deserve to be deleted. I made factual statements - namely that George Will had replied to the senators' concerns - and gave a reference. It seems to me biased to state reference after reference of comments stating that they had problems with Will's point of view and then omit his rebutal. Don't both sides, the complete record, deserve to be heard? I request that my statements be reinstated. - Myron Smith — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myronmeister ( talk • contribs) 05:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Even Atethnekos doesn't describe it as a joke. According to him, it is part of his argument. If you're going to close the thread, at least read it first.--v/r - T P 12:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to reopen it, but I advise against it for your sake. One of the reasons I closed it was to save you from further embarrassment. Saying that statement is "equating COI editing to drunken driving" is like saying that using the word "manhole" instead of "personhole" is sexist. Gamaliel ( talk) 14:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd feel different if you were on the receiving end. It is meant to be divisive and insulting.--v/r - T P 14:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I recall that you used to have a photo on your webpage and you looked fairly young. Perhaps you are unaware that people have been using that phrase in a non-offensive way for decades. Gamaliel ( talk) 14:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

That photo was from 2009, and a lot of folks say I look younger than I actually am. Call it good genes.--v/r - T P 20:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the editing rationale of WP:FRINGE when it comes to removing material from America. These are opinions being presented, not theories. The existence of TheBlaze as an article and its founding by Glenn Beck indicates notability. Same thing applies to Andrew Breitbart. Whether or not people like Beck, Breitbart, et al. is a different issue. I think you are improperly conflating the content guideline with what may or may not be minority viewpoints. – S. Rich ( talk) 03:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

( talk page stalker) I agree with S. Rich. I don't think FRINGE applies to opinions on other topics and I also don't think TheBlaze is fringe. This is the problem with NPOV; discerning what "neutral" is in a highly polarized environment is hard. I wish Wikipedia had an "attributable point of view" policy for this reason. Chris Troutman ( talk) 04:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I love to have agreement. Please note that I've parsed the film critics and non-film critics into their own sections. This will serve to defuse part of the contentiousness. – S. Rich ( talk) 04:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I think this says everything that needs to be said about The Blaze and its fringiness: The Blaze Mocks Sexual Assault With A Series Of 'RAPE!' Skits Gamaliel ( talk) 04:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

And now I am disappointed. The link gives (some) criticisms about the rape report (and does so with a bit of sarcasm). Nothing more. It has a different opinion as to how to read the rape data. It is hardly fringe. And this link hardly justifies an edit summary with WP:FRINGE as the rationale. If you think The Blaze is fringe, you ought to post on the WP:FTN. I doubt you will garner consensus for this view. – S. Rich ( talk) 04:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

And here I thought that cross-dressing rape mockery made it pretty much obvious that they were a bunch of fringe loons. Sorry that you are disappointed, but I've seen nothing presented here that convinces me that my judgment is incorrect. Gamaliel ( talk) 04:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

My main concern is with your judgment in citing FRINGE as an editing rationale. Your opinion as to Blaze being fringe simply does not justify the rationale you cited. FRINGE deals with pseudoscience and the like. Not opinion. – S. Rich ( talk) 05:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

There's no difference between a fringe political viewpoint and a fringe scientific one. Fringe political outlets are often the biggest pushers of pseudoscience. Gamaliel ( talk) 12:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

If the Blaze is pushing a fringe opinion on some sort of empirical question (e.g. propounding evolution denial, or a radical/heterodox form of free market economics, and so forth), then it should be labeled fringe. But ridiculing rape/sexual assault victims doesn't make them fringe by how WP defines the term (in a scientific/empirical context). I do agree that they're jerks and bigots, but that's neither here nor there. Steeletrap ( talk) 17:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

It was just one example of many that I could have chosen. Apparently I chose the wrong one to make my point, but I wasn't about to post a dozen links here and write it up. The burden of proof lies with those who wish to include The Blaze as a reliable source of facts or an appropriate source for opinions. Gamaliel ( talk) 18:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Are people actually saying it should be used as RS? Steeletrap ( talk) 18:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:America_(2014_film)#The_Blaze. Gamaliel ( talk) 18:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Well I agree with your edit there. The problem is that Blaze isn't an RS for film. Steeletrap ( talk) 18:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not even really opinions, but a fact based segment that's undisputed. No one, including the professional film critics, dispute that the film received an A+ audience CinemaScore grade and that such grades are rare. MOS guidelines specifically endorse using CinemaScore to cover movie receptions and the segment had multiple sources. The "fringe" rationale shows a gross misunderstanding of basic policy. VictorD7 ( talk) 22:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Strawman. Nobody has or wants to remove the CinemaScore grade. Gamaliel ( talk) 22:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually it was a battle early on for editors to even get that in over objections from your ideological comrades, but if you reread my above post you'll see I also pointed out that the historical rarity of an A+ grade isn't in dispute. That audience reception was overwhelmingly positive isn't in dispute. It can't be dismissed as "fringe" if no one disagrees. VictorD7 ( talk) 22:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

If everyone agrees with this, then surely you can find a better source than The Blaze. Gamaliel ( talk) 22:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure they're "better", but the sources Box Office Mojo (confirming America's ranking) and the The Hollywood Reporter (providing the "only 52 A+ grades" over the decades stat repeated by The Blaze) were used. The Blaze just comments specifically about America receiving the grade. The strong audience response isn't in dispute, so it can't be "fringe" to point it out. VictorD7 ( talk) 23:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The audience response has never been in dispute and remains in the article. The significance assigned to it by The Blaze is what is in dispute. Gamaliel ( talk) 23:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

What about the significance assigned to an A+ rating by The Hollywood Reporter? Since both sources agree that an A+ rating is particularly noteworthy, do you still object to its inclusion on "fringe" grounds? If so, do you have a contrary source? VictorD7 ( talk) 23:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I reposed our last comments on the movie talk page. Feel free to reply there rather than continuing a discussion on multiple pages. VictorD7 ( talk) 23:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Excellent idea. Gamaliel ( talk) 23:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Gamaliel. Back in December 2013, I had requested access to this article on Business HighBeam on the Resource Request forum. You sent me the file too, but unfortunately I seem to have lost it. Do you still have access to the service? Would you be able to send me the article again, please? Ryoga ( talk) 16:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

No problem! I've sent it to you via email. It's just a capsule review, so there's only a few sentences. Gamaliel ( talk) 16:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again, Gamaliel! Ryoga ( talk) 10:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Msnicki ( talk) 23:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

This diff shows my report. Msnicki ( talk) 23:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Dear Sir:

I served under LTG William B. Caldwell, who is featured in a Wikipedia entry. I have begun to notice a few Wikipedia edits which mischaracterize his service. Is there any way I might be able to discuss these inaccuracies with you? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrispinBurke ( talk • contribs) 23:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

@ CrispinBurke: I'm about to go offline for a bit, so I suggest you bring this to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard where a number of editors can assist you. Of course, I'm always willing to take this up tomorrow as well. Gamaliel ( talk) 23:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

If the EW board discussion gets moved to ANI, as S. Rich suggested, please leave me a note. I consider this a closed issue and will repeat that at ANI if it gets moved there. Both of us spent way more time on it than needed and I could have handled it better. Niteshift36 ( talk) 00:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. We both could have handled this better. I do not wish to reopen this issue and I suggest you stop provoking Cwobeel before s/he asks me to do so. Gamaliel ( talk) 03:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind efforts of refactoring these comments. Just to let you know that I understand your motives from doing that, but that in my experience, unless the editor itself refactors, it does not really help in a dispute. I have disengaged from that article for a while. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your note. It is frustrating that there is so much resistance to actually enforcing what we claim to be a core value. Feel free to let me know of any future civility issues with any editor and I will try to handle the matter more competently. Gamaliel ( talk) 03:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of albums considered the best 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/List of albums considered the best 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. Laurent ( talk) 05:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

You recently indeffed a VOA. Please see User talk:Stephenkollenborn20000. Johnuniq ( talk) 08:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

That is hilarious. Thanks for letting me know, I've blocked his talk page access. Gamaliel ( talk) 13:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Gamaliel.

Thanks for your note. I just received it on not including a source for the edit I suggested on the "America..." review. I thought I did provide a source reference, Amazon, in the first sentence. And the second sentence is simply a reference to an A+ grade noted already in the article listed right below the suggested change; it's from CinemaScore [19] [20]. OK what else did I do wrong? Do I need an Amazon link? I'm not sure how to do that? Its link is, www.amazon.com/America-Imagine-World-without-Her/dp/162157203X

Your editors noted a need for balance in this review. I realize I am new here, but if you want this balance added to a very biased article, How do I do it?

Thanks for your help,

GoWikiSV ( talk) 21:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC) GoWikiSV

@ GoWikiSV:, thanks for your note. On Wikipedia, Amazon reviews are considered a primary source, and Wikipedia articles should generally only employ secondary sources. Compiling primary sources usually falls under the category of original research and is generally discouraged or not allowed. Historians and journalists use primary sources in their work, encyclopedia writers use the secondary sources created by historians and journalists. Gamaliel ( talk) 21:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Gamaliel, OK, I read your policy docs on Primary and Secondary sources. Primary's write about themselves, Secondary's reference Primary's. I think the data table I am referencing by Amazon is a perfect definition of a Secondary reference of reviewers, not authors of "America..." It tabulates observations, just like the CinemaScore ratings do. i.e., there is no opinion written by an original author, there is just a score rated in stars (1 to 5, 5 being high). Therefore, I have written below one more revision as an attempt in good faith to get you the balanced information you said you wanted as an editor. If this is good, just drop it into the document to help get this information included.

Submit:

Amazon, ^[1] reports 935 reviews for this book and film as of 19 August 2014, showing ratings of 821=5-star; 50=4-star; 11=3-star; 4=2-star; and 49=1-star. This correlates with the highly unusual A+ grade the film received from its audiences by CimemaScore,

Thanks, GoWikiSV — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoWikiSV ( talk • contribs) 23:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@ GoWikiSV: ( talk page stalker) You misunderstand. Only reliable sources are considered secondary, as they perform analysis of the primary source. Your described edit is original research of a primary source. Regardless, Wikipedia has repeatedly affirmed that Amazon reviews are not reliable. Chris Troutman ( talk) 00:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for volunteering as a potential coordinator for The Wikipedia Library. We have a brief questionnaire here for you to complete. Please try to have this done within the next week if possible. Thanks! Nikkimaria ( talk) 03:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello,

In the event that your message to me was not automatic, I am not certain how I am able to assume good faith when there is evidence of bias present in the editor in question (Euchrid). It's a friend of hers manipulating the rules to make her Wikipedia page appear favorable, and there are plenty of his replies on twitter (please see http://i.imgur.com/rkREn2P.png) that demonstrate this. I am just uncomfortable with the truth being slanted in this way. Please advise.

I hope you are having a good night. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7:1500:462:112A:3B8E:9674:2373 ( talk) 04:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Please limit your comments to the content of Euchrid's edits and avoid commentary regarding your personal perception of his or her bias. In regards to your allegation that Euchrid is a friend of the subject of the article, do you have any reason beyond personal perception to make this statement? Otherwise, please refrain from further such comments. Thank you. Gamaliel ( talk) 04:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

My reasoning is that I am concerned over the lack of objectivity in the article because of such edits. As an example, the harassment portion of the article states it as if the harassment were an accepted fact. This was never proven - it was only the subject of the article stating that such had happened, and there is a body of evidence proving she fabricates such harassment and attacks to garner sympathy. I do apologize for the commentary reflecting my personal perception, but I am not familiar with wikipedia - I just don't think it's right for friends to have control over their friends articles. It throws objectivity out the window. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7:1500:462:112A:3B8E:9674:2373 ( talk) 04:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Why do you keep referring to this editor as a friend of the subject of the article? If you do not substantiate this claim, I'm going to have to remove these statements. Gamaliel ( talk) 04:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I am simply going off their interactions, but I can't prove anything beyond this - I'm not certain how I would. In any event, I understand if you have to remove the statements; do what you have to do, but please just keep an eye on the article. I fear the protected access to edits is not supporting the objectivity of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7:1500:462:112A:3B8E:9674:2373 ( talk) 04:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

You can raise your concerns about the content of the article without making unsubstantiated allegations about the identity or motives of other editors. You think the article is crap? Go ahead and say it! But keep your opinions about other people to yourself, just as they should keep their opinions about you to themselves. Gamaliel ( talk) 04:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Understood, although I don't think the article is 'crap', just that one part of it is slanted and unsubstantiated, and the talk history has him defending that particular change. That's the only reason I mentioned that person. But I will drop it now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7:1500:462:112A:3B8E:9674:2373 ( talk) 04:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

If you mean me, i.... i.... GRR!!! Night Wolfsister ( talk) 18:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

I don't know what to do with your {fact} tags in the parallel novel article. The claim is that those two books in the examples section are examples of parallel novels. Both book titles are wikilinks and when you click on them there are entire articles about those books being parallel novels - sources included. What more do you want? Gronky ( talk) 08:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

What is needed is reliable sources which indicate that they are parallel novels. Neither article for those books cites that fact. If can't just decide on our own to label it as such, as that would be original research. Gamaliel ( talk) 14:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Nope. I hope this doesn't sound rude, but you just need to read the two articles. Or even just read the intros. Or even just read the second sentence of the intros. From start to finish, those articles document alternative/parallel versions of pre-existing novels. Gronky ( talk) 10:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Parallel novel is not a phrase that appears to be in wide usage among literary scholars, where we could just look up the definition in The Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms or wherever and apply that definition to an obvious example. We should not be assigning a new and not-widely used term to books based on our own interpretation of the term and how it may or may not apply. Gamaliel ( talk) 18:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The article describes an idea/concept/topic. Those two books are obviously clear examples of what is described in the article (do you dispute that?)

The issue you're now raising is about whether "parallel novel" is the name Wikipedia should use for this topic. Fine. What name change to you propose? Gronky ( talk) 09:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It would be one thing if we had a clearly defined concept supported by high quality reliable sources and an obscure work with few sources discussing it, so we could clearly apply one to the other in the absence of reliable sources. But here we have the opposite, a concept not supported by high quality reliable sources and a prominent work like The Wind Done Gone, which is the subject of probably thousands of journalistic and scholarly articles. I don't need a reliable source to define The Color Purple as an epistolary novel, but I can also find ample reliable sources backing up that definition. If none of the thousands of articles discussing The Wind Done Gone define it as an example of this concept, then that should make us pause and consider what we are doing. We shouldn't engage in original research and do it ourselves. Gamaliel ( talk) 17:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you really saying the scholarly articles don't describe The Wind Done Gone as having a relation to Gone With The Wind? I find that impossible to believe.

We need two things, a concept and a title. The concept is novels retold from an alternative point of view. Are you arguing this concept doesn't exist?

The current title is "parallel novel". Are you saying this is a bad title for the concept? What do you propose to change it to? (One possibility is "paraquel" book source)

(I still don't understand the purpose of the "fact" tags you placed - do you want citations to say that this concept exists - in which case the tags shouldn't be on the books but on the article's sentences, or do you want citations for the obvious fact that these two books are retellings of existing novels, or do you want citations for the term "parallel novel"?) Gronky ( talk) 10:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

All I am saying is that if we are to call The Wind Done Gone (or any other book) a specific thing using a specific phrase, we need a source identifying The Wind Fone Gone as an example of that specific thing using that specific phrase. That's it. Gamaliel ( talk) 13:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Gamaliel. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 03:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{ You've got mail}} or {{ ygm}} template.

Nikkimaria ( talk) 03:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Was the IP editor a vandal? I don't think so, and I also would like you to revert your edit under WP:TPO. You shouldn't remove/edit talk page comments when they've been replied to. Tutelary ( talk) 20:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

The talk page is a space for the discussion of article edits, not a space to permanently preserve the drive-by rantings of non-participating editors. Gamaliel ( talk) 20:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for tagging Red Tornado's origin section -- that was a mess! How does it read now? Aristophanes68 (talk) 20:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! That makes a lot more sense now. Gamaliel ( talk) 18:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

		The Signpost Barnstar
		For single-handedly producing a great "In the media" installment in this week's Signpost. -- Andreas JN 466 11:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! It was a lot of fun, but there were stories I regret not having the time to fit in. Gamaliel ( talk) 18:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Why the hell is Breitbart not allowed as an RS on the Zoe Quinn page?? There are a ton of biased sources, like Vice, The Escapist, and The Marysue, that are acceptable as RSs. Bias doesn't mean unreliable. Between this, and arbitrarily semi-protecting the talk page, I don't get what's going on here. 72.89.93.110 ( talk) 17:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

RS requires sources "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", a reputation which Breitbart does not have. I can't speak to the other sources as I am not familiar with them. Gamaliel ( talk) 18:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: Thanks for redacting that nonsense (how to find an attack video) at Talk:Zoe Quinn. I was composing a plea for ANI when I saw you had acted. Johnuniq ( talk) 05:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Gamaliel, you wrote that one of four individuals at Wikipediocracy was indef blocked. Was the user blocked here or at Wikipediocracy? And on what grounds? I'm asking because there was a serious canvassing incident on Reddit a few days ago where the user admitted that he started the Reddit thread and the Wikipediocracy article has some interesting info in that regard. -- Sonicyouth86 ( talk) 23:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Before you answer, it should be noted that the edits of the Wikipedia user outing himself were oversighted. You -cannot- give specifics because that would be repeating oversighted information, per WP:DOX If the previously posted information has been removed by oversight, then repeating it on Wikipedia is considered outing. Tutelary ( talk) 23:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

One of the users, assuming they are not two people using the same name, was indefinitely blocked on Wikipedia in 2009 for outing. I'm not familiar with the incident so I can't give you any details beyond that, but it's probably in the archives of WP:ANI. Gamaliel ( talk) 23:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh okay, I appear to have misinterpreted your comment. I thought that the editor was blocked because they co-authored the Wikipediocracy article. As it turns out, they were blocked a long time ago for on-wiki misconduct. @ Tutelary: Huh? I am well aware that you had the user's admission oversighted. My question has nothing to do with the user, nor am I repeating any specifics about him or the incident. -- Sonicyouth86 ( talk) 23:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

No trouble or further comment, then. Tutelary ( talk) 23:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure. But I'll admit that my interest is piqued now, especially after edits like this one. -- Sonicyouth86 ( talk) 23:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Wow, what a shittastic category. I just nominated it for deletion. Gamaliel ( talk) 23:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Meh, the category and its shittastic offspring categories were nominated for deletion in June. They were kept due to the more or less impassioned appeals by Tutelary and others. Now that they exist, they apparently need to grace as many articles as possible. -- Sonicyouth86 ( talk) 23:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your response on the doxxing incident. I know there isn't a whole lot which can be done about it apart from blocking whichever of them were left on Wikipedia, but I appreciate your support nonetheless. Titanium Dragon ( talk) 05:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Just wanted to tell you thank you for the help you have been so far. I am butting heads a bit trying to figure out all of the WP guidelines, so thank you for being patient and helping me out. PseudoSomething ( talk) 00:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Many new users respond to such help in an adversarial way, I'm glad you're taking it in the spirit it was intended. Gamaliel ( talk) 04:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey Gamaliel, I see on ANI you are considering discretionary topic bans to some editors based on the continuing problems. I was contemplating starting a new proposal for at least one of them, but I don't want to get in your way. Obviously, I support the measure, and it appears the current community discussion isn't going to find consensus, which doesn't bode well for future discussions.-- Cúchullain ^t/ c 13:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@ Cuchullain: Whatever you propose, it won't interfere with me in any way, so please don't let me stop you. Right now, it's not so much a plan I have as much as a vague idea that I'm going to bring the hammer down in some non-specific way if there's more irresponsible behavior from certain parties. Gamaliel ( talk) 18:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:GamerGate&diff=625840570&oldid=625840336 I've got a suspicion as to why, but just to confirm: why did you remove that? MicBenSte ( talk) 17:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I was just about to leave a message on your talk page. Please keep that particular slur about a certain food chain off the article talk page. Thanks. Gamaliel ( talk) 17:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Someone asked re history. I noted it. The fact that it got coined by someone that way wasn't my decision, while it's relevant for an background understanding. Simple as that. MicBenSte ( talk) 17:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Then you can make a note of the reliable source that mentions its relevance without naming to the slur itself. Gamaliel ( talk) 18:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Clarification needed

So, no one is allowed to refer to the polemic statements being posted even when acknowledging that they're polemic statements?— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜) 19:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why the specific slur needs to be mentioned on the talk page. Gamaliel ( talk) 19:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

This is the C-word shit on WT:AN (or wherever it was) all over again except now it's regarding a phrase that isn't a slur in any other context.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜) 22:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Obviously it's only a slur in this particular context, it's not like I'm removing it from pages unrelated to Quinn. Gamaliel ( talk) 22:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

But if I'm not using as an attack on her but simply a reference that the attacks exist why redact me?— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜) 22:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Because we shouldn't use it at all unless absolutely necessary, and because even a well-intentioned use encourages those will ill intentions to employ it as well. Gamaliel ( talk) 22:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

a slippery slope over simply referring to a negative word association? That's a stretch. Anyway, do you think you could get the talk page on a faster archiving rate because it's at 700k and there are ancient threads that people keep responding to, thwarting the 10 day limit currently in place.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜) 07:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

deadline today Kmccook ( talk) 11:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I want to know if I was the one who was Doxed so I can prepare myself for what could be an onslaught. Simple yes or no will do. Zero Serenity ^{( talk - contributions)} 12:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes. As far as I know, it was only the Twiiter link which I believe you've alkready seen. Gamaliel ( talk) 12:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh. I thought it was serious. Oh well. Still him being a real jerk about it. Zero Serenity ^{( talk - contributions)} 12:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@ Zero Serenity: He voluntarily deleted the tweet, so I have unblocked him. If he acts up again, let me know. Gamaliel ( talk) 22:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

My statement

I am attempting to extricate myself from this matter for the rest of this week, so hopefully this will be my only statement on this issue for that time. Anything requiring a more immediate response should be taken to WP:ANI.

Titanium Dragon, in my judgement you are simply unable to refrain from making inappropriate and unsubstantiated allegations regarding Zoe Quinn. You were warned about that specifically, you did it again several days later, and you did it a third time while arguing your topic ban should be lifted. This is on top of a history of problematic editing about this issue discussed on ANI and elsewhere, and the high number of edits you have made that have required revision deletion. It is not fair to other editors or to the subject of the article to have to constantly vet your frequent talk page posts for BLP violations. This appears to be a hot button issue for you and if you are unable to exercise self-restraint with this issue, you should concentrate your efforts elsewhere on Wikipedia.

Those who are asking me to topic ban other editors for the same reason: If you demonstrate how other editors are violating WP:BLP (posting a link to a Cracked article written by Quinn is not a BLP violation) I will look into the matter. If you wish them to be banned for reasons unrelated to BLP, please make this request on WP:ANI.

Those who are asking me to unban Titanium Dragon so he can combat other editors at these articles: Please read WP:BATTLEGROUND and reevaluate the reasons you are participating on Wikipedia. If you are here to fight culture wars instead of create an encyclopedia, please take your fight to message boards or social media.

Thank you. Gamaliel ( talk) 16:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

How about the request to lift the topic ban for the open dispute resolution, will you not pronounce on it? Titanium Dragon has provided valid insights about the topic, and having more perspectives should enrich the debate and help finding a richer and well-informed consensus ("addressing legitimate concerns held by editors"), which should be the goal there, not favouring one side or the other to WP:WIN.

For what I've seen TD has stayed for the most part in the good side of civility even in a heated discussion; in the controlled environment of the DR noticeboard it should be less likely that he makes BLP violations, mainly because providing references that might go to unreliable sources is not required there, and discussion is being held at a high level unlikely to need posting specific details about living persons. Diego ( talk) 17:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Even there, I and other editors would still have to vet his contributions for BLP violations. I will consider such a request next week if there are no further topic ban violations, accidental or otherwise, in the meantime. Gamaliel ( talk) 17:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@ Gamaliel: It has been a week. Have you reconsidered the ban? Titanium Dragon ( talk) 00:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I simply don't have time to address the matter right now because I keep getting dragged into GamerGate ANI threads, and I only have a finite amount of Wikipedia time currently. Not exactly fair to you, I know, but any sort of monitoring or mentorship system that would allow you to re-edit these articles would require a significant amount of time for me to examine your edits, and I would have to do so in a timely manner since sensitive BLP issues are involved. Even before that could happen it would require some sort of awareness and assurance from you that you know what line you have crossed and you won't do so again, and honestly, I'm not sure what that would entail. If you have any suggestions about what we could do besides lifting it entirely, I encourage you to offer them. Gamaliel ( talk) 01:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

	The Civility Barnstar
	For putting up with the crazys. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Heartily endorsed. I watchlisted the articles but haven't got the strength to even look at them let alone follow the repetitive cluelessness. Johnuniq ( talk) 02:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• I would endorse this, but apparently that would make you an involved administrator. So'll I'll not-endorse it. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 03:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I am undoing the tag that you added to the top of the "Criticism" section of the story, not because it quite possibly still shouldn't be there; in other words, maybe you're right... maybe it should be there, maybe it shouldn't. But I'm irritated that you thought it was something you should do without even bothering to discuss it on the article's TALK page...

...a page where, if you had bothered to read the comment I left when I expanded the "Criticism" section, you would have found that I had documented and opened the discussion of my changes on the Alessandra Stanley article's TALK page as item 10, there.

I now invite you to go to the Alessandra Stanley article's talk page, read item 10, there, and then please express whatever are your concerns, as Wikipedia wants us to do before we do something as drastic as your tagging.

It isn't that I'm upset with you, or anything like that. Don't worry that we're going to argue or anything like that. I will respect whatever are your concerns. I just wish you had done as the system wants us to do and talk it out first.

So, let's please now do that. Please. Then, whatever we all agree to do, we can do... together.

Thanks!

Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) ( talk) 14:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I understand why you removed the tag. I was on my way to an appointment and I simply did not have time to engage in discussion at that moment. I am going to edit the article now to address my concerns, however. Thanks for your note. Gamaliel ( talk) 16:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. -- The Defender of Light > Grand Warlock Danzathel Aetherwing Inventory 15:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Thefederalist.com 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/Thefederalist.com 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. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure but is this guy's claims that Zoe Quinn is lying about being harassed a BLP vio?— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜) 23:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, but Dreadstar got to it already. Gamaliel ( talk) 00:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I just wanted to express my thanks for your warm welcome to the Wikipedia community and the helpful links for getting started in the Wiki World. I am already starting to chip away at a new article entry of my own, and look forward to making contributions to the Wiki in any way that I can.

Thanks again!

Mlcorcoran ( talk) 04:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I didn't want to get into a back and forth with you (or anyone for that matter) on that page. I understand the good faith assumption concept, but that doesn't mean that when we see vandalism (as a different example - definitely not saying this is vandalism), we don't call it vandalism. And in this instance, I shouldn't have used an all inclusive statement, since clearly some of the editors who advocate deletion are doing so without any clear animus. I'll be editing my comment (I assume that it's okay to do that), but wanted to give you a heads-up that I would be doing that, in case it makes your comment look out of context. Onel5969 ( talk) 04:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Great work with "In the media" this week. Ed  [talk]  [majestic titan] 19:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know the policy against outing and "doxxing" people, I haven't done that on Wikipedia. Ryulong and The Devil's Advocate are asking me to apologize for something I did outside Wikipedia, if that's so Ryulong should apologize for far more things like calling me derogatory names on twitter. I don't want to go into specifics since like I said, I don't know the policy for outing people, like Ryulong did with me and several others. If you tell me it's fine to post the specefics with sources I'll post it right away. I personally think he's made a drama out of nowhere just to get me topic banned from the article, but I really can't believe he's still allowed to edit the article, when he shows a very strong bias (again, I can prove it) Loganmac ( talk) 21:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The outing policy is here. I'm unaware of any outing allegations against you. If you feel that a particular user should be banned under Wikipedia policy, you can make your case at WP:ANI. Gamaliel ( talk) 21:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello:

I am editing my husband's page. I am Anne Smith and my husband is William Kennedy Smith. We own the www.william-kennedy-smith.org url and we authored the content that I used as updated career information on Wikipedia. I got your message and your change, and I am happy to rewrite original content for the wikipedia page, I just wanted to clarify that it is our own source material, I was not copying from a website that I have no relationship to, as I don't want to get in trouble for plagiarizing.

Many thanks! Annehenrysmith ( talk) 12:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Gamaliel, I may be missing it but I can't find where Titanium Dragon ( talk · contribs) was " aware" of the BLP discretionary sanctions. Being "aware" or "alerted" is required before a sanction can be imposed. Regards, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 02:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

There were general notices posted at the top of Talk:Gamergate controversy and Talk:Zoe Quinn. Gamaliel ( talk) 02:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Not enough I'm afraid the discretionary sanctions procedures require that {{ Ds/alert}} is placed on the talk page of the editor in question (as as a couple special cases). Given that the original ban was invalid it's probably going to need to be listed, an alert given then the user can be rebanned if they continue. It's annoying but with something like this, which gives admins pretty broad powers it is important that the procedures are followed. The other opinion is to start a discussion on AN or ANI asking for a community topic ban or to ArbCom (at WP:ARCA) asking them to allow given the procedure wasn't followed. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 02:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Have you looked in his talk page history to see if any notice was left?

I respect the need for proper procedures to be followed and I take responsibility for fucking it up if I did so. However, two things: First, the instructions aren't exactly clear and readily accessible so if the Committee is going to invalidate bans on technicalities, then it should do a better job of making sure those technicalities are known. Second, the priority should be insuring that living individuals are protected, not that technicalities are followed.

I simply do not have the time right now to take the steps that you outlined as I have a great deal of personal and professional responsibilities right now, and I'm already over my limit. I've taken a great deal of my time over the last several weeks attempting to prevent Wikipedia from being used as a forum to harass living individuals as a result of the biggest internet harassment shitstorm I've seen in quite some time. The Committee should consider the limited time available to the limited number of administrators on Wikipedia to combat a near limitless amount of internet trolling and harassment before it undoes necessary preventative actions based on technicalities. Edit: please don't take anything I've said or my tone as a personal criticism or attack, I know you've got to insure everything is aboveboard and none of my frustration is personal. Gamaliel ( talk) 03:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: I have looked Ds/alert is designed to trigger and edit filter and is recorded this way and the warnings issued under the old WP:BLPBAN weren't for discretionary sanctions so don't apply to BLP discretionary sanctions (and they would be extremely difficult to find any way). The way they have taken it into account it to make the process of alerting, and checking if someone has been altered (with the template) easy. If you go to the talk page history of an editor and in the box next to "Tag" write 'discretionary sanctions alert' it will bring up a list of alerts or nothing if they haven't been alerted that way. When you try and place Ds/alert on a talk page is brings up a box where you can check.

Where do you think it could be better explained, if you let me know I might able to to do it with this hat on or ask to the Committee to do it if not.

Given they've requested that the ban be lifted (and it would be struck had they appealed to WP:AE) how does this sound: we remove the topic ban. I'll issue an alert and keep an eye on them then TBAN them if they keep going. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 04:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@ Callanecc: So basically we're going to allow a user with a history of repeated and blatant BLP violations about a person who has been the subject of intense harassment to go right back to tendentiously editing articles related to that person because one bureaucratic box wasn't ticked somewhere. Utterly and completely absurd.

I intend to immediately file an ArbCom case related to this debacle. Wikipedia must not be used as a platform to continue a vicious campaign of misogynistic harassment, and that's exactly what has been going on here. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 04:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@ NorthBySouthBaranof: You are welcome to take this to either AN or ANI and ask for a community imposed topic ban, take it to ArbCom or wait until they muck up again (if you're sure they will) after being "alerted". But officially and technically (in the face of discretionary sanctions procedures) Titanium Dragon was never topic banned. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 07:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@ Callanecc: he was aware. see his response to the notice [6] as well as on his page [7] and his respons [8] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

( edit conflict) @ TheRedPenOfDoom: There was going to be an option on the list of what makes someone "aware" which stated "through their actions, clearly demonstrated that they are already aware that the area of conflict is under discretionary sanctions". However this was removed during discussions with the community and between ArbCom members. Now there are much more restricted ways of being "aware" (as I linked above) the primary one is being alerted with {{ ds/alert}}. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 04:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@ Callanecc: Do the comments here : User_talk:Gamaliel#GamerGate_contributors or this action [9] give you any confidence that the user understands, cares about or will actually follow BLP if the ban is removed? What, other than an open season to make BLP attacks, do you think those encouraging him to continue the "battle" will take away from an reversal of the topic ban? Preventing further harm to the encyclopedia WP:IAR and to a living person WP:BLP would seem to adequate reason to be tied to specific red tape WP:NOTBURO-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

As I said above there technically never was a topic ban and it could not have been enforced as a topic ban. Also as I said above you are welcome to take this to either AN or ANI and ask for a community imposed topic ban, take it to ArbCom or wait until they muck up again (if you're sure they will) after being "alerted". Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 07:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@ TheRedPenOfDoom: Note re: WP:BLP: Going back through the history of the WP:BLP policy, it appears that the bit about talk pages was a revision of the original text, which stated that it applied to all articles (which is what the citation notes). The problem here is that this creates an enormous issue; according to the reading of the policy that you, me, and literally every other editor who has ever made any sort of judgement value on any living person in any article talk space, ever, would be in violation of WP:BLP because of WP:NPOV. Remember, according to that policy, WP:NPOV applies even to talk pages which pertain to living persons. Enforcing this would, obviously, be enormously disruptive to Wikipedia, because most every talk page is in violation and people routinely express their points of view on talk pages or elsewhere. Worse still, it actually contradicts the policy articles in question, as WP:NOR, for example, explicitly notes that it only applies to article space, not to talk space, for fairly obvious reasons - talking about statements to add to articles happens all the time in talk space and would be very difficult if we couldn't have such discussions. However, I don't think this is directly pertinent here; that is more of a RFC issue, I think, because I don't think the policy is at all adhered to or functional as written on talk spaces, and if it needs to be, then we need to have a discussion about what that would entail. Indeed, it could even lead to the (fairly ridiculous) note that, as written, any incivility directed at another user would be a BLP violation as we are all living persons (well, other than the bots) and you'd need a reliable source for that. If you have a complaint about that, we can discuss it elsewhere, possibly in a RfC. Titanium Dragon ( talk) 06:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@ TheRedPenOfDoom: I ended up starting an RfC on it; I'm pretty sure that the intro is just poorly worded, and that the actual policy is that WP:RS applies to talk space for BLPs while the other policies do not. If not, then it needs to be discussed, because the policy as a whole is not applied to BLP talk pages and, frankly, I don't think that WP:RS is at all consistently applied to BLP talk pages. But that is a separate issue. Titanium Dragon ( talk) 06:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@ Titanium Dragon: The way I've always thought of it was that BLP applies everywhere however the content policies it references apply to their respective areas (articles) within reason. The 'within reason' being that it isn't an excuse to make unsubstantiated claims on talk pages. Those discussions should be of the information appearing in reliable sources, and discussing how much to include in the article, limited to the extent that that discussion is required only. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 07:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• Gamaliel, I've struck and removed the topic ban from the WP:BLPLOG as it technically and officially didn't exists and wasn't able to be enforced. I've also told Titanium Dragon that they should expect a low bar for any further sanctions which can now be imposed based on actions as of the alert. Thank you for the huge amount of time and effort you've put into these articles, I know I was remiss in thanking you before but please accept it now. Kind regards, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 07:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to get on you, Callanecc, since you're just the messenger, but this is exactly the kind of thing that prevents Wikipedia from dealing with its problems effectively. More stock is placed in the procedure than in the result. It simply shouldn't be this hard to channel patently disruptive editors away from areas where they cause repeated and demonstrable damage.-- Cúchullain ^t/ c 17:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@Cucullain, I find extremely disturbing that experienced administrators could make such claims. Admins have what essentially amount as super powers that put you above the rest of us plain editors, and "with great power comes great responsibility". Administrators are not expected to act as judges and jury; following process is what keeps you in check (plural you, as in the body of admins) so that you only exert that power within approved community consensus. Diego ( talk) 23:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

If you think it's "community consensus" that created this arcane process, you're kidding yourself. What's disturbing is that in overturning good editors for breaching a technicality in a byzantine process, we're allowing a demonstrably disruptive editor to continue breaching a much more basic and crucial policy. Again, we've made it too difficult to deal effectively with blatant disruption. And again, no offense to Callanecc, the dysfunction does not lie with them.-- Cúchullain ^t/ c 01:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Cúchullain it's not a "byzantine process" it requires a warning before admins can exert wide ranging powers on other editors. And if you look though WP:AC/DSR you can see that whilst it wasn't community consensus it was a fairly long and in depth community consultation. The other option is to block, and the blocking policy still states that we should try to educate editors before blocking them. A block can be overturned by pretty much any other admin a discretionary sanction can't so it makes sense that there be a requirement that editors be appropriately told about discretionary sanctions, especially since the DS process doesn't require "education" just the alert. I think we've probably hijacked Gamaliel's talk page enough now, if you want to keep talking about it probably best to move to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee where others who know the process can weigh in. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 02:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Apologies, Callanecc - my comments speak more to a general frustration with our chronic difficulties in responding to pervasive disruption. There are certainly other venues for this discussion besides Gamaliel's talk page.-- Cúchullain ^t/ c 02:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who has contacted me about this, here and privately. Due to other obligations I will be unable to respond or discuss further until likely Sunday or Monday. My apologies to everyone affected by my inadvertent procedural error. Gamaliel ( talk) 23:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 04:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if this is the wrong place for this, but I wanted to talk to you more directly since you have been involved in both articles. Was the determination against inclusion in the Clawson case a strong one where there was a consensus it did not merit inclusion, or more a lack of consensus for inclusion? Do you still hold the views you held in that discussion? Chester Lunt ( talk) 20:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@ Chester Lunt: I try to differentiate my personal views with the general consensus of Wikipedia and bring my editing in line with the latter. I'm more of an inclusionist for things like this, but I've seen in recent years the general shift towards excluding such incidents. Personally, I would lean towards putting both incidents in, but if consensus is against such things these days, then it should apply to Tyson as well. Gamaliel ( talk) 21:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@ Gamaliel: At most I see the lack of a consensus in that article, as opposed to a consensus against including. After becoming more familiar with that case, I agree with you and lean towards including a mention somehow. I'm trying to restart some discussions on the talk page here: Talk:Curt_Clawson#How_to_present_neutrally. Chester Lunt ( talk) 16:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)