This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. Feel free to see the Arbitrators' opinions for potential suggestions on moving forward.

For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 13:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am disappointed in you. I had absolutely no involvement in the discussion and Samsara did a clear and acceptable closing. I restored based on Samsara 's closing without reviewing the arguments. As the review is RS, the next question is whether the review is noteworthy. If you feel it isn't noteworthy, post a new RFC. In the meantime you are quibbling about whether you think....... Revert please. – S. Rich (talk) 05:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disappointed that you are participating in Victor's transparent farce. He purposely tailored a very narrow RFC that he knew many would agree with and is now using the results as a mandate for an edit beyond the scope of the RFC. Gamaliel (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, regarding America: Imagine the World Without Her, can you please add references for the reviews that you are quoting? You can use the ((cite news)) template; Edge of Tomorrow (film)#Critical response is a sample section from which you can copy use of the template. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 04:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Erik: I didn't want to do the work of formatting the citations properly if I was going to be immediately reverted by Victor or whoever. I'll add them tonight if the article remains stable. I'm glad you've shown up, perhaps an experienced film editor can help whip this article into shape. Gamaliel (talk) 04:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you expect to be reverted. I have some thoughts about reporting on the critical response, which involves structuring and attributing. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 04:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can make some headway here. The key issue seems to be that Victor attributes negative critical response to a negative political response and can't separate the two. Gamaliel (talk) 04:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that appears to be the case. My thinking is that we could have a traditional critical response section and a political commentary one, and the latter may be a space in which the critics' coverage is commented on. This would work under WP:NPOV, which says to explain the sides, fairly and without bias. I will see what I can put together. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 05:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I also saw this. I ask you to refrain from inconsiderate remarks. If there are obstacles to building the article, we can request input from the WikiProject Film community to determine consensus for different elements. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 04:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not going to be nice to someone who has been treating me like crap for six months. Gamaliel (talk) 04:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's policy to be civil. I know it's frustrating, but the key is to focus on content and to involve additional editors to break stalemates. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 05:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and respect what you're trying to do here, but if you only talk to one person in an uncivil exchange, then what you are essentially doing is asking them to be a punching bag for the other party. Gamaliel (talk) 05:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, focus on content. It really is a thing. :) Animosity is not going to forward any discussions. Stalemates have to be recognized when they happen, and then we can seek out additional input rather than getting frustrated and hostile with one another. In the meantime, any chance you can retract this? If the uncivil exchange continues anyway, I will talk to the other editor. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wikimedians!

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:

• DeGruyter: 1000 new accounts for English and German-language research. Sign up on one of two language Wikipedias:
  • English signup
  • Deutsch signup
• Fold3: 100 new accounts for American history and military archives
• Scotland's People: 100 new accounts for Scottish genealogy database
• British Newspaper Archive: expanded by 100+ accounts for British newspapers
• Highbeam: 100+ remaining accounts for newspaper and magazine archives
• Questia: 100+ remaining accounts for journal and social science articles
• JSTOR: 100+ remaining accounts for journal archives

Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team 23:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).

This message was delivered via the Mass Message to the Book & Bytes recipient list.

Y'all look like fun loving peo...er...beings. I'm not the type to run to admin and tell except in extreme circumstances, but you might want to self revert your last edit since it puts you at 4 reverts within a 24 hour period. 0; 1, 2a 2b, 3,4 You never know what someone else might do.VictorD7 (talk) 03:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea if your warning is sincere or not, because it's hard to gague your sincerity, but I do sincerely thank you for your comment, at least the part of it where you aren't acting like a jackass. I do wish that you would try harder to restrain your baser instincts, if such a thing is possible, and maybe with a slight effort towards maturity on your part this could have been resolved in the summer. That said, I don't believe that first "revert" is in fact a revert. But I will self-revert anyway because it was inappropriate for be to indulging in edit warring, as I was in this case, and I should exercise restraint even when you are unable to do so. I have to set a good example for the children, after all. Gamaliel (talk) 04:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While we'll have to disagree on who's been immature/trollish/jackassish/inappropriately restrained, my notice was sincere. Regarding the first revert, it's my understanding that undoing prior actions is a revert, which is why I provided "0" to show you were restoring items another editor had recently deleted, rather than just adding entirely new material.VictorD7 (talk) 18:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to disagree on that interpretation, but I do believe that is a good faith disagreement, so thank you again for your post. Gamaliel (talk) 20:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I admit to being a bit baffled. I'm not saying that all of my posts were very polite, but then again, so were others, especially one guy did nothing more than troll in reply to everyone criticizing the heavily biased #gamergate wikipedia entry. Maybe you can point out what exactly was so terrible in my posts that they had to be censored? And let me add that I think it is a crying shame that this is happening at all on a "talk" page, as long as I'm not insulting anyone. It shows once again that there is no fair discussion here, when it comes to #gamergate. There is a heated discussion on this page and I can't for the life of me understand why 7 (SEVEN!!) of my posts were deleted. Censorship stinks, especially on a discussion page.Die-yng (talk) 20:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't comment about others on the article talk page, it violates the expected standards of behavior and exposes you to possible sanctions pwer Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate. If you want to talk about others, take it to a noticeboard and follow WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. Also, review WP:NOTFORUM, and confine your comments to the editorial content of the article. Dreadstar ☥ 20:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I only removed one of your posts myself, and in that post you said to another editor "all you have to contribute is trolling". It should be obvious why that was inappropriate. Gamaliel (talk) 20:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamaliel: I'd like to draw your attention once more to Die-yng, who is conducting a slow-motion edit war in the talk page of Brianna Wu. This isn't precisely a single purpose account, but it's nearly one. Since Brianna Wu is young and has been famously the subject of death threats, the username could be subject to an unfortunate construction. On the other hand, the name predates Gamergate by some months and a Google search indicates that a similar name is used elsewhere by a German individual to whom that construction might not immediately occur. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Gamaliel (talk) 22:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

after dinner, I see that this has been resolved. Thanks, I also see that, if I'm reading this correctly, a very long user page post that mentions me has been deleted and hidden. That's dandy -- unless there's something there I need to know. I'll trust your judgment on that. MarkBernstein (talk) 03:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He said that you had advised him that his post might be seen as an attack on Brianna Wu, and he responded that it was not his intention, with a bunch of specific references to youtube posts, etc. That's the only mention of you in a very long message. Gamaliel (talk) 03:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could I suggest that you modify the wording of Die-yng's topic ban from 'articles' to 'pages'? PhilKnight (talk) 00:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Thank you for noticing my oversight. Gamaliel (talk) 01:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I notice here and here you lost the <noinclude>...</noinclude> from some of the Signpost boilerplate, which was screwing things up on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single. This week there was also (({1|...))} left in the ((Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-article-start)) invocation, which I had thought was causing trouble but now I realize that seems to have been harmless. Just thought I'd let you know. Thanks! Anomie⚔ 13:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#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 following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Was wondering what was wrong with my edit? See you self-reverted. Glad I wasn't a complete moron.Onel5969 (talk) 02:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, misclick, totally my fault. Gamaliel (talk) 03:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thank you for your work keeping the "Gamergate controversy" article in line with reality. Charginghawk (talk) 02:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When Russavia ([1], [2], he was editing as an IP earlier on the page on other proxies), Loganmac ([3]), and ChrisGualtieri ([4]) are all informing him that I'm wrong and must be dealt with I feel somewhat concerned.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have a right to be concerned. But we are also concerned about your interactions with Auerbachkeller. Also, I doubt Auerbachkeller will be willing to listen to your concerns after you've accused him of threatening him. I will bring your concerns to him as a neutral party if you will stay out of it. Gamaliel (talk) 21:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have reformatted the initial posts where I referred to his message as a threat and notified him of that. The threat concerning RTG also being on ANI is being used against me as well according to Knowledgekid87, when everyone knows that's just a retaliatory version to my own thread requesting he be IBAN'd from me. I am way over my head here. Gamergate is nothing like the nutjobs at WR or ED.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that GG is a complicated issue, but not every incident is about the totality of it. Right now my sole concern is getting you to moderate and disengage from Auerbachkeller and nothing more. Gamaliel (talk) 21:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ryulong, stop seeing everything as one issue and just apologize to Auerbachkeller. Even if he was incorrect in his initial demands, it's because he doesn't totally understand Wikipedia rules and policies. You do. It's not hard to admit when you're wrong, and it takes the pressure off when you do. Everyone makes mistakes. Offer your hand and sincere apology, I think that would do a lot to resolve any left over ill will. Dave Dial (talk) 22:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC) Edited to add, I see you have already done that now. Imma leave this, but wanted to note you had already done as I suggested before I suggested. heh Dave Dial (talk) 22:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I did apologize and he refused, and my reaction to that refusal is apparently evidence enough, but we know all this already. But I have a more pressing issue. Despite the fact that I have requested multiple times that RTG be interaction banned from me, with a still open thread with no real opposition to said ban, he has jumped into the Auerbach tiger pit to continue to find people to be against me [5] [6]. Why is he still allowed to jump into this shit?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TDA also keeps flooding the discussion with every diff I've made to the article that he disagrees with.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I undid your closure at ANI regarding Ryulong and left your comment at the top. The apology wasn't accepted and explicitly rejected. I think that means it is still ongoing. I proposed a topic ban with time frame being undetermined. Jimbo recommended a similar one for Tarc if he didn't voluntarily recuse. Personally, I have doubts about authenticity of the new account and it's possibly trolling but AGF and the reaction to it was not good and it's because of the topic, not the editor. --DHeyward (talk) 00:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He is within his rights not to accept Ryulong's apology, but now that it's been offered, there is nothing actionable to deal with at ANI besides hurt feelings and the stirring up of drama. Gamaliel (talk) 02:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still, there is a call for more aggressive DS to reduce the drama. SPAs are part of the problem. High conflict editors are another. Tarc has already been admonished. I've asked if there is a way to verify the person in dispute with Ryulong but at the same time it doesn't excuse his behavior. It's not the first time either for Ryulong. Reopening wasn't to stir up drama as there is plenty of drama as long as these editors are contributing to GamerGate. There are many other editors (Tony Sidaway for one) that isn't drawing drama to the article. --DHeyward (talk) 03:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He's not a troll or anything, and is the real David Auerbach(look at his Twitter feed). Dave Dial (talk) 04:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aah. I'm twitter illiterate. I knew he was a real person. I knew there was a verified connection to Tarc but not Ryulong or WP. Thanks for the link. --DHeyward (talk) 04:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Was your suggestion to Ryulong that "it would be a good idea for you to refrain from dealing with User:Auerbachkeller or his writings from now on" accepted? (It was, after all, my initial request.) I haven't gotten an answer on this and I am avoiding contacting Ryulong directly. Auerbachkeller (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No, nobody ever mentioned "or his writings', that is incorrect. And as I've told you before, while I think it's a great idea for Ryulong to take a Wiki break right now and stay away from you voluntarily, dictating that editors here do not cite your writings is not going to happen. Period. Dave Dial (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gamaliel did. Why do you think I put that part in quotes? Good lord.

This has the potential to make the GamerGate article dispute even messier than it already is. User:Ryulong, I think it would be a good idea for you to refrain from dealing with User:Auerbachkeller or his writings from now on. I don't think you are handling your interactions with him well and you are blowing things out of proportion. I also think that Auerbachkeller should be wary about who he takes advice from, as he risks being used as a proxy for editors who are inappropriately attempting to drag him into preexisting conflicts. Gamaliel (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Ryulong_accuses_me_of_threatening_him.2C_WP:CONDUCT_issues Auerbachkeller (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then it seems as if Gamaliel is incorrect in his opinion, since it seems as if Ryulong did not incorrectly paraphrase Isquith's article concerning your article. You could answer the questions posed to you on the Jimbo Wales Talk page, specifically the one posed by Anthonycole. Ryulong's interaction with you as a Wiki user was an issue, but it seems after further investigation, he paraphrased Isquith correctly. Unless you have something further to add on Jimbo's Talk page, the issue is now over with. Dave Dial (talk) 21:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo has asked Ryulong to stay away from the article (multiple times)[7]. --DHeyward (talk) 01:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So should I jump off of a bridge if Jimbo tells me to?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the difference between not editing a Wikipedia page and jumping off a bridge, I'd suspect his jump request would come after severe crimes against children and/or nature. I have yet to see the bridge request though, so I presume you are safe. This isn't the place to discuss your overly dramatic personal proclivities, though, so my comment endeth. --DHeyward (talk) 03:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well at least I can say that Mr. Auerbach is being an adult about all of this considering he's tweeting my comments to his 3.5k followers on Twitter.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really am not sure what to do here. Can we take this back to ANI? Gamaliel (talk) 07:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the instruction for your statement in the Gamergate request for a case:

Without exception, statements (including responses to other statements) must be shorter than 500 words.

Your statement is at 673 words, so is over the limit. I see several statements are over, and I am contacting anyone who is over 500. Please recall that this statement is not intended to be a full exposition of all evidence, which occurs at the next step, but simply a statement requesting a case. Please trim back your statement. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 20:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will cut it down to 500 by the end of tomorrow. Gamaliel (talk) 07:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on In the media this week. Was really crisp and fun to read :) Jake Ocaasi ^{t | c} 03:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Gamaliel (talk) 07:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An item for the next edition? -- Euryalus (talk) 03:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This will almost certainly be the lead story of the next ITM, but I'll be honest, I'm not sure what to say about it besides the basics. Gamaliel (talk) 07:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Off to bed and out all day tomorrow, I'll answer on Wednesday. Dougweller (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I filed a request in regards to DungeonSiegeAddict's behavior on the Gamergate articles [8], and the editors there cast doubt on my evidence because I'm simply an IP address. I have no desire to create an account at the moment, so is there another place where I can present my evidence where there is more good faith?--137.111.13.200 (talk) 00:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Creating an account, even if it is one you do not intent to use for the long term, would be by far the simplest way to address this situation. Gamaliel (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gamaliel, I was wondering if I could contribute an article to the "In the Media" section of the next issue of the Signpost. (In particular, this article piqued my interest in doing so.) Everymorning talk to me 16:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Everymorning: Yes, please do! We need all the help we can get. The next ITM will run in the November 26 issue, so there's no rush. Gamaliel (talk) 23:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your about the gender gap for the current arbitration committee elections is one that I would prefer not answer since I am currently a clerk in the ongoing arbitration case over the matter. If you insist on an answer I would be happy to answer in private, but I think it would be best for me to not speak on the matter while the case is ongoing. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and commend your prudence and I personally won't hold the lack of an answer in this case against you. Gamaliel (talk) 20:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is the right thing to do about a talk page edit like this: [[9]]? Ignore it? Delete it Report it to AN or AN/I or someplace else? MarkBernstein (talk) 15:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty clear cut disruption, so I made it go and the IP addresses go away. Since he's been hopping IPs, I semi-protected the talk page for a day and the article for a week. Let me know if he appears again. Gamaliel (talk) 16:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Without comment about whether the early September REVDELs are justified, they are inconsistent. You deleted revisions which add — material in questionable taste, at best — without deleting following edits where the material is still present. If a term (pseudo-victim?) is to be considered a WP:BLP violation, then all version of the talk page which contain that must be REVDEld. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have revision deleted many, many edits on the GamerGate articles. I'm afraid I'm unable to recall these particular edits, sorry. Gamaliel (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at [[10]]. I think it's a big deal (obviously), and will accept any number of tasty trout tif need be, but have no idea how best to proceed. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:MarkBernstein, me neither. Discussion is ongoing, as distasteful as some of it might be, so I guess we'll see where that goes. Gamaliel (talk) 05:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the page protection. Goodness me! MarkBernstein (talk) 17:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gamaliel, I am just learning ... so I use this method to contact you, forgive me!. You deleted - due to a legal threat - a user page of "Helpsome". This user seems to have deleted several criticism of leaders of a certain Buddhist sect. May I know what the legal threat was? Thanks, Otaku00 (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Otaku00, I'm sorry, I don't think I can reveal the contents of deleted edits. Gamaliel (talk) 04:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --DSA510 Pls No H8 21:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC) [reply]

I know we've had our differences in the past and this didn't help. I'm very sorry about lashing out at you yesterday, and I hope that you might forgive me. --DSA510 Pls No H8 02:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gamaliel. Did you mean to put this article under PC protection on 22 November? Given that the full protection is still in effect I wonder if it could be removed. And what would you think of adding a padlock symbol such as ((pp-dispute|small=yes|expiry=22 April 2015)). Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes couldn't hurt, I suppose. No big deal either way, in my opinion. Good idea about the notice, I've added it. Gamaliel (talk) 22:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Cobbsaladin (talk) 23:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sent you email with details of what I know. My first glance doesn't suggest urgent need for police. If I'm wrong, please forward to appropriate authorities, OK? Meanwhile, See sanctions page and Gamergate page, where the usual suspects are muddying the waters for their allies and co-conspirators. I'm SO done here. You have my home and cell phone numbers. MarkBernstein (talk) 04:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to question in good faith the notion of linking me to an essay about obvious sockpuppets as a response to my comment. What was the implication that was meant of that? Tutelary (talk) 20:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 11, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been critical of you this week, and I appreciate you taking the moves you did to help the situation along. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Thargor Orlando: Thank you for your note, I appreciate it. Gamaliel (talk) 23:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your closure of my topic ban discussion is confusing.

• 1. Hasteur clearly stated 'no less than 30 days' yet I suddenly get an indefinite topic ban? Where did you garner that level of 'long term disruption' from me, additionally? The users only used the example of the WP:ANI as the only example, and didn't cite any other edits relating to GamerGate, and therefore, no diffs. They also just claimed I was 'disruptive' in some fashion without providing any proof, yet they get the full support of the !vote?
• 2. The consensus of uninvolved editors is that this user has been a source of long-term disruption regarding this matter Where does it say in WP:CONSENSUS that administrative actions are to take only uninvolved users' opinions into account? That's really ridiculous because I thought each and every user had the same amount of weight in a discussion. And if you counted the IP which I tagged as an SPA in article Social Justice Warrior's afd, then why wouldn't you count the supposedly involved editors?
• 3. Objections are from involved editors or are largely procedural in nature, which I discounted since the sanctions give administrators wide latitude in these matters. Why does it matter that they are procedural, and under what authority did you use to discount them? THey are still an oppose !vote. You were supposed to be assessing consensus, not using discretionary sanctions, since it was a community action, not a discretionary sanctions one.
• 4. I see exactly 10 and 10 support and oppose !votes, if we're counting every single person (including the IP and myself) Where was the clear consensus?
• 5. Particularly BoboMeowCat and Sonic and the IP were not 'uninvolved' editors. BoboMeowCat has had a long history filled with animosity towards me on a lot of articles. Sonic is the same. The IP I tagged as an SPA in Social Justice Warrior which I can see that they took to a point to try to tag on extra !votes. Not 'uninvolved'.
• 6. I don't consider you an uninvolved administrator regarding this action, since you were just yesterday claiming that I was the reason that nothing could get done, and you linked me to the essay WP:DUCK (which you still haven't responded to as above) and you hat warred my comments. This topic ban seems like an action to punish me for yesterday.

What I would like to happen as a result of this in different choices.

• 1. An overturn of my topic ban
• 2. Euphemizing it to 60 days (especially since Hasteur only proposed 'less than 30 days') or some variant.
• 3. A reopening of the discussion and temporary rescind of topic ban for a better consensus.

Thanks. I also claim WP:BANEX's #3. Tutelary (talk) 19:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, hello? You've been editing other articles. Tutelary (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, most of those who supported a ban are also "involved", as is Gamaliel. Awful close. —Xezbeth (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tutelary: This was not a closure, this was an imposition of general sanctions. As I noted, those sanctions give me wider latitude. Your comments here all address procedural matters that are irrelevant in light of that latitude. In my judgment, you have engaged in long-term disruption and the dissatisfaction with that disruption expressed by the wider community, as represented by the uninvolved editors participating in the ANI thread, was a factor in my decision. I would be willing to reconsider the length of your topic ban if your comments addressed how you would moderate your behavior, but since your comments do not express any desire to moderate your behavior or any awareness at all that it has been disruptive, then there is nothing currently here for me to consider. Gamaliel (talk) 23:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support.. Gamaliel, you made a couple of difficult decisions recently and I am thankful for them. Drmies (talk) 01:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright Gamaliel, just one more minor clarification, I was topic banned by you specifically under discretionary sanctions, not by the community via WP:ANI, right? Tutelary (talk) 05:14, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliel, your response to everyone on your talk page except me looks bad; I will ask again the same question as well as new ones:

• How is Ryulong explicitly related to GamerGate sanctions?
• Why did you see fit to impose general sanctions, hijacking a community process thread to do such? The community doesn't lose the ability to impose sanctions just because there is general sanctions.
• Where was my explicit warning about my conduct relating to GamerGate, as mandated by the sanctions text itself?

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the topic space of Gamergate controversy broadly construed, if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. This may include, but is not limited to, page banning, topic banning, semi protection, Pending Changes enabling, or blocking any editor with an interest other than that of the Wikipedia community and without regard for compliance with content rules. Sanctions may be appealed to the administrator who placed them, the administrators' noticeboard, or the Arbitration Committee

Oh and notifications don't count as warnings, Gamaliel, per the official notification requirements. Consider this my appealing of the topic ban to you; due to you imposing it out of process, without warning as mandated by general sanctions requirements. Tutelary (talk) 20:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tutelary: You're totally wrong, here. That "warning" is referring to "notifications". It is reference to the point in time when notifications and warnings were the same. They're different now, but this phrasing is referring to the "notifications". Note the text of the WP:GS/GG sanctions, which uses the modern language "Any uninvolved administrator may, at his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor that edits pages related to the Gamergate controversy, if, after being notified of the existence of these sanctions, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process". RGloucester — ☎ 03:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've filed Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Gamergate/Requests_for_enforcement#Tutelary_violation_of_ban for admins not named Gamaliel (hint) to evaluate. (While you're not WP:INVOLVED it's just better from a wiki-image-political perspective to have other admins deal with it at this point). NE Ent 20:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tutelary: I apologize for not responding to your request in a manner which you consider timely. I was sidetracked yesterday by an ANI thread and a request for assistance, and both of those matters exhausted by daily allotment of Wikipedia time and energy. It seems based on your comment here ("your response to everyone on your talk page except me looks bad") and your repetition of the frivolous charge of involvement on the ArbCom case page that you are likely to interpret my response in the worst possible manner and so any response I offer will either be useless or exacerbate the situation. Given that, I will take the advice of User:NE Ent, whose council I've found quite accurate and useful lately, and leave the matter of appealing and enforcing your topic ban to others for now. I apologize for any inconvenience you feel this causes you. Gamaliel (talk) 20:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other administrators cannot remove said topic ban, only you, ArbCom, or a consensus at WP:AN can. Now, do you decline my topic ban appeal as denied? Tutelary (talk) 20:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing here that addresses your behavior on these articles, so there is no basis for me to consider overturning your topic ban. I decline this appeal, though you are welcome to bring to this page another appeal that addresses your behavior and not procedural matters. Gamaliel (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

discussion
Thanksgiving to you, "more informal" veteran admin with a background of Library and information science, for quality article contributions to biographies, including Barbara Bel Geddes and Lee Harvey Oswald, for tips for the angry new user and the reminder of the most important rule. for "discussion would be the first thing to come to mind", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were the 676th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Thank you! This is much appreciated, and well timed for maximum appreciation on my part. Gamaliel (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The timing is due to the election,of course. You may remember last year's 3 questions, this year I asked only one and felt supported. Next year (if arbcom still exists) I may ask: Would you ever ban a person? Would you do that without your own reasoning? Would you call it "a solution"? Would you call it "the only solution"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Gamaliel; but I'll interject it's a little known fact that there is, in face, no requirement to participate in a bogus ANI AN thread with your name on it. NE Ent 23:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion moved to WP:AN#Gamaliel, since ANI isn't really meant for this kind of thing. Nyttend (talk) 23:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are getting to know me well, or at least well enough to deliver some well-timed and necessary advice. Gamaliel (talk) 23:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I received your message. Recently a page was deleted titled SAPTASWA BASU (a filmmaker from India). It was based on the discussions by Cirt. There were less reference links. I was not the creator of that page. I am a publicist from Bengal and I have supplied with numerous more reference links to the page, and confirming that the person is a notable filmmaker in India, specially in the state of Bengal. Since I am not a pro writer in wiki, I was repeatedly asking for help and advice as to how to restore a deleted article. Please help me in this. Cirt has been replying in a very rude manner. He was very enthusiastic in deleting an article but is being very rude when am asking for help. Please look into the matter in an unbiased way and kindly reply to me. Roon100 (talk) 05:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I looked into the deletion of the article on Saptaswa Basu. It appears it was done appropriately because the article lacked sufficient sources. This article, specifically about film-related articles on Wikipedia, should help you with what kind of sources you need and what kinds of topics are appropriate for Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Notability (films). If you feel your subject and your sources meet those criteria, then my next suggestion would be to visit Wikipedia:Articles for creation, where specialists can help you through the process of creating your article. Thanks! Gamaliel (talk) 05:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roon100 was blocked as a sockmaster, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Roon100. — Cirt (talk) 06:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The arbs are leaning toward a doubling of the usual limits on evidence for this specific case. I am still waiting for final sign-off, but it seems likely that most participants will not need to trim evidence. Three relevant points:

• Given the substantial increase in limits, the usual acceptance if counts go a bit over will not be granted. Treat the limits as absolute.
• The limits apply to both direct evidence and rebuttal to others.
• Despite the increase, it is highly desirable to be as succinct as possible. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 17:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bethany Joy Galeotti albums, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading some of your recent "In the news/media" sections on Signpost, and it occurs to me that readers would love to see a short list of "the best books and articles about Wikipedia". Just a thought. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of making this case more easily manageable, it is likely that we will prune the parties list to limit it to those against whom evidence has been submitted. Therefore, if anyone has anything to add, now is the time to do so.

See the list of parties not included in the evidence as of 8 Dec 14.

Please note that the purpose of the /Evidence page is to provide narrative, context and all the diffs. As diffs can usually be interpreted in various ways, to avoid ambiguity, they should be appended to the allegation that's being made. If the material is private and the detail has been emailed to ArbCom, add [private evidence] instead of diffs.

The /Workshop page builds on evidence. FOFs about individual editors should contain a summary of the allegation made in /Evidence, and diffs to illustrate the allegation. Supplying diffs makes it easier for the subject of the FOF to respond and much easier for arbitrators to see whether your FOF has substance.

No allegations about other editors should be made either in /Evdence or in the /Workshop without supporting diffs. Doing so may expose you to findings of making personal attacks and casting aspersions.

Also, please note that the evidence lengths have been increased from about 1000 words and about 100 diffs for parties and about 500 words and about diffs for non-parties to a maximum of 2000 words and 200 diffs for parties and 1000 words and 100 diffs for non-parties. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC) Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk)[reply]

I don't know if you're familiar with HES. It is quite distinct from Harvard College. It is an open enrollment/continuing adult education center that is segregated from the rest of the university. Its classes have open-enrollment; and anyone who gets a B in three of them can enroll in a full-time degree program. See: http://www.extension.harvard.edu/degrees-programs/undergraduate-degree/getting-started-admission . (See "additional admissions criteria; other than not being in financial trouble etc there are no other criteria.)

The Wikipedia page for HES keeps being vandalized. I'm trying to add information to the lede about the admissions standards (open enrollment+3 classes with Bs or higher). And it keeps being inexplicably reverted (see here). The current version is a fraud. It implies that there are admissions standards and an admissions committee. As you can see by the website, there is no such thing. There are some nominal additional requirements but according to the HES website (cited above), admission is automatic if you get the 3 Bs. You do technically have to fill out an "application" but calling this nominal paperwork filing an "application process" is misleading at best.

Please get this taken care of as I'm tired of edit warring. It appears that a lot of HES alumni are committed to misrepresenting the nature of their institution on WP, so additional protection and/or sanctions may be needed. Steeletrap (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that there is an "admissions process" seems to be premised on the fact that you have to submit an application with an essay and a fee in order to be admitted. But this is a nominal requirement. The website clearly stats "[e]arn at least a B in three courses, and you qualify for admission." I suppose if one wrote about his admiration for Hitler or taste for human flesh, he'd be "rejected." But short of that you're in. Steeletrap (talk) 22:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've protected the page and warned the other user about edit warring. If he doesn't show up to the talk page and continues to edit war after the protection expires, let me know. Gamaliel (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You. I should take it easier on the reverts as well, even though I am trying to stop vandalism. Steeletrap (talk) 23:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steeletrap's edits are factually incorrect and I have pointed out why, citing information from Harvard Extension School's website. I have invested great time and effort over the past several years keeping the page factually accurate and as free as possible from subjective bias. All of the information regarding admissions to HES is contained within the body of the article; this organization makes the most sense since the different degree programs offered by HES have different admissions criteria. Moreover, this admissions information does not belong in the the lede. I attempted to find consensus with Steeltrap by citing factual sources within the lede but he/she reverted the changes then requested that you lock the page. If you read the history of the article you will see that the lede has remained consistent for at least two years. Steeltrap is a recent contributor to the article and has instituted changes that, due to the pages locked status, cannot be changed. Please advise. Finelinebilly (talk) 18:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss the matter with Steeletrap and other editors on the talk page of the article. If you cannot come to an agreement, then perhaps seek assistance at Wikipedia:Third opinion. Gamaliel (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, ([[User talk:Gamaliel|. I have attempted to reconcile with Steeletrap as well as reach out to other editors on the HES talk page but I have gotten nowhere. I will follow your third suggestion and reach out to Third Opinion. Finelinebilly (talk) 18:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We should reach out to other editors. The misleading information about "admissions" (when, as the link I provided clearly establishes, there is only a nominal admissions requirement following the attainment of 3 B grades in the open enrollment classes) has to go. HES grads need to stop misrepresenting the nature of their institution. HES was founded so Harvard U could play a role in educating the general public. Steeletrap (talk) 04:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wikimedians!

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:

• Elsevier - science and medicine journals and books
• Royal Society of Chemistry - chemistry journals
• Pelican Books - ebook monographs
• Public Catalogue Foundation- art books

Other partnerships with accounts available are listed on our partners page. Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team.00:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).

This message was delivered via the Mass Message tool to the Book & Bytes recipient list.

Per WP:BANEX I'm allowed to ask you whether you consider X article to be covered under GamerGate sanctions under WP:BANEX's #2. Would you consider Hatred_(video_game) to be such an article? Tutelary (talk) 01:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any objection if I raise this issue at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate/Requests for enforcement to ask other admins? Gamaliel (talk) 01:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Tutelary (talk) 01:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's done, what about Cultural Marxism? Someone slapped the GamerGate banner on the talk page and I don't want to get blocked. Tutelary (talk) 17:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gamaliel? Tutelary (talk) 17:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will raise the issue once the discussion on Hatred has concluded. Gamaliel (talk) 04:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015 !!!

Hello Gamaliel, May you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New year 2015. Happy editing, The Herald : here I am 14:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding ((subst:Seasonal Greetings)) to user talk pages with a friendly message.

The Wordsmith just closed my request against Cla68 because Guerillero's interaction ban only covers arbitration pages despite the fact that his behavior extends beyond the case at this point. What should I do?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If he continues this behavior, submit another enforcement request and I will consider extending the IBAN to all GG-related matters. Gamaliel (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Gamaliel, first of all I want to appreciate the way and manner you've been mediating issues regarding information on my talkpage. A user recently removed two userboxes from my userpage. I want to request that you kindly look into it and let me know your personal opinion about them. I want to know if they also fall under WP:Polemic. If you think there is something wrong with them then I suggest they are deleted entirely from Wikipedia so that another editor like me will not use them in the future. Thanks. Darreg (talk) 11:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know I added the Daily Kos to sources on the RFC you just commented on. I wanted to let you know.Casprings (talk) 22:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Gamaliel. I thought I saw somewhere that some users might have access to the archives of certain papers. I'm looking for someone who might have access to a 1977 issue of The Washington Post so that I can fact check a citation in an article related to one of the Kennedy conspiracy theories. If this is true, are you able to point me in the right direction? Thanks! - Location (talk) 04:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request is always a good place to ask for such things. My Lexis/Nexis access says it goes back to 1977, so if you tell me what to look for I will give it a try. Gamaliel (talk) 04:30, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The last sentence in CIA Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory lists five references, including The Washington Post, December 13, 1977 (but no page number!), to support an assertion that LBJ believed the CIA was involved in a conspiracy. The memorandum is here, but Marrs and Summers almost certainly take it out of context. Cartha DeLoach was questioned about it by Richard Schweiker in the Church Committee hearings here; DeLoach seems to say that LBJ's comments were speculative. I have a mainstream source here stating that LBJ didn't believe in the CIA-Cuba theory. I am skeptical that whatever is in The Washington Post actually supports the claim, so I was wondering if someone with access to the paper could search it and verify. - Location (talk) 04:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The citation provides zero information, but I c&p-ed the quote into Lexis/Nexis and it found the article with a full text search. If you enable your email in preferences or email me, I will send you the article. Gamaliel (talk) 04:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Awesome! Thanks! - Location (talk) 05:24, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks again! - Location (talk) 17:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the paragraph here. Not sure where this really belongs in the article, if at all. It does have minor relevance to the subject, however, I think its a bit of stretch to call LBJ a "proponent" of the theory. Some CTs state the LBJ was in on it, but here the implication is that LBJ believed the CIA did it. Which is it?! Sheesh! - Location (talk) 02:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, G. If it's not too much trouble, could you verify that this article is from the July 10, 1979 issue of The Washington Post and on what page it is located? I have used it in this edit. Thanks! - Location (talk) 06:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I can't find that article at all in Lexis/Nexis. That doesn't mean it wasn't in the WP; L/N's coverage can be spotty sometimes, especially going back that far. Gamaliel (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for going to the trouble. I'll see what I can find elsewhere on it. Cheers! - Location (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been forced to comment at Arbcom in the wake of Auerbach’s Christmas-night attack, of which you are already aware. But, as I've mentioned you by name, and as I complained that I had not been notified of this last-minute, post-close attack (though I am not a party to the case), I thought it best to notify you. You've got my email if you need me for anything. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I am glad that you closed this thread with no action,[11] I am disappointed that you didn't address the key issues (as I see them):

• BLP applies everywhere on Wikipedia. It does not apply off-Wikipedia.
• The general sanctions on GamerGate authorizes admins to rigorously enforce WP:BLP, but it does not authorize admins to invent novel interpretations of BLP (i.e. applying BLP where it does not apply).
• If we sanctioned every editor who ever posted a living to non-reliable source regarding a living person at WP:BLPN and WP:RSN, there would be hundreds of editors needing to be sanctioned.
  • Indeed, we should probably close WP:BLPN and WP:RSN as it's not possible for them to function under this novel interpretation of BLP.

These are serious issues that cannot be ignored. I will continue to defend the integrity of the WP:BLPN and WP:RSN process. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's getting sanctioned for a link posted in good faith. I don't really know what else there is to say about this matter other than that sentence. Gamaliel (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've had me thinking the last couple days over the exchange at the workshop. You're right that I am frustrated with a lot of what I see here, and as much as I felt I was holding you responsible for what I'm perceiving, I realize too that my views are shaded by how I've seen other admins and users handle hot-button, political issues, and that I may be projecting a bit more frustration onto you than I intended to and certainly more than you deserve. If I've caused you to start thinking there's some grand conspiracy or something, I do apologize. If I've unintentionally hurt you, you have my apology as well. I'm really just more interested in seeing this sorted, and if we've learned anything from this debacle it's how easily good faith gets thrown out the window. You've done nothing to earn that sort of ire or disgust, and I regret ever coming across that way. I hope you can understand and accept this for what it is, and I understand completely if I've inadvertently poisoned the well. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Thargor Orlando: I apologize for the incredibly late response to your message. I wanted to mull it over and give it the response it deserved, or at least a reasonably thoughtful one, then it slipped my mind with the New Year. Thank you for your message, it is very much appreciated. Your comments remind me of conversations I've had with User:TParis about bias and perception and so forth here on the encyclopedia. I think it's easy for all of us to get caught up in contentious disputes, especially when there's bad actors involved stirring up trouble, and for those of us with good intentions to forget about AGF and perceive each other as bad actors when we're on opposite sides of a disagreement. I'm not sure what the solution is - besides booting the bad actors more quickly, but that's a pipe dream - but whatever it is it starts with times like these when the people with good intentions take stock of what's happening. Gamaliel (talk) 23:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Inayity keeps removing my use of the term "conspiracy theorists" to describe adherents to and theorists of 9/11 truth. He calls my assertion that 9/11 truth is a CT an "opinion" that violates NPOV. His inability to understand NPOV presents a serious WP:Competence issue; I encourage you or another admin to have a talk with him. Steeletrap (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll watchlist the article. Gamaliel (talk) 19:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, Why not take it to the Talk page? Are you at all familiar with how Wikipedia works? Now if you are adding information the burden is on you, not me. You are adding this opinion to the article. And now someone puts an edit war warning on my page? Let me see if the warning is also on Steeletraps page if not, I will come back to you.--Inayity (talk) 19:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you should take it to the talk page. Gamaliel (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me the warning on his page with the threat of getting blocked. I have a proper history of using the Talk page, esp on this article. Look at who started adding the content to tarnish the movement. No one agreed to this, after being reverted he has to use the talk page. --Inayity (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me the discussion you are engaging in on the article talk page regarding this matter and I will remove the template. Gamaliel (talk) 19:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at the talk page and the history? Have you not seen this guy came in after a discussion was going on about content in the lead where I did a request for comments (this is evidence of my editing habits vs his). Yet he decided to add the word Conspiracy theory to their name. Where did that come from? According to RS (he said), well RS also say they are not. So he flys by and drops in this word without discussion. You warn me, and leave him. --Inayity (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now please show me where you warned him for blatant Edit warring against the stable lead? The way it looks is he comes here to you, and you favor him and his version. I see no discussion from this edit anywhere on the Talk Page.--Inayity (talk) 19:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going assume good faith and attribute your hostility here to frustration over an edit war and not as evidence of a battleground mentality. Now that you've started a section on the talk page about the matter you were edit warring about, my goal of getting both parties to discuss this matter has been at least halfway achieved. Gamaliel (talk) 20:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I bypassed discussion and brought this issue to an admin's attention because I think the argument that 9/11 truth is not a conspiracy theory is clearly tendentious and erroneous. Thus, those advancing this argument are engaged in misconduct; if they insist on editing 9/11 truth to remove references to CT, they should be banned. Steeletrap (talk) 20:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 conspiracy theories are plainly called "conspiracy theories" by reliable sources. This includes, but is not limited to, The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry,[12] The Telegraph,[13] Popular Mechanics,[14] LiveScience.com,[15] BBC News,[16] The New York Times,[17] The Washington Post,[18] The LA Times,[19] FOX News,[20] PBS,[21] Time Magazine,[22] and even Rolling Stone magazine.[23] I could probably find another hundred reliable sources which plainly call these conspiracy theories, but I don't think that's necessary. If reliable sources all agree that these are called conspiracy theories, it's a violation of WP:NPOV not to do the same. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, AQfK. This is why I brought this to the attention of an admin (Gamaliel) rather than the talk page. Removing "conspiracy theorist" or "conspiracy theory" from 9/11 truth is WP:TE and therefore, a policy violation. Steeletrap (talk) 21:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think at this point article talk page discussion should suffice. If Inayity is unable to dispute your sources or provide any of his own, I imagine that should settle the matter. Gamaliel (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't meant to imply that you had something to answer for, merely that you should at least be given the opportunity to defend yourself if you thought it necessary, which of course requires one to be aware that one is having mud slung at their back. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have nothing to apologize for. I apologize if you interpreted my response as a snipe at you, that was not my intent at all. Gamaliel (talk) 00:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, im worried the article might be confusing two different oliver jovanovics, because the one who was convicted and then exonerated was a phD bioscience student at columbia. It may be that he also did game designing, as the article says, but that could be mistaken identity and a BLP problem. thanks,2601:7:6580:5E3:A531:5C07:9FCF:EB40 (talk) 18:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This New York Times article cited by Wikipedia identifies the Columbia student as the same person working on RuneQuest. Gamaliel (talk) 19:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mail call. Go Phightins! 20:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Gamaliel, I noticed that with the edit linked above you accidentally removed an edit by Adam Cuerden. Could you please reinsert it? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Ed fixed my mistake already. See Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost#op-ed. Gamaliel (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Thank you for chiming in when needed. Bearian (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliel, you know as well as I do that no one is going to do anything about TRPoD's acid tongue at least until after the the ArbCom case is concluded. By all means tell me to go and pound sand with my civility complaints, but don't pretend to me that there's a credible avenue for getting them addressed at present.

An additional note: I acknowledge your "stern admonishment" to be civil with other editors, and I defy you or anyone else to point to a diff where I have been anything other than polite even while disagreeing. You might as well go ahead and sternly admonish me against committing acts of terrorism as well-- there is about as much evidence that I ever have or would. Starke Hathaway (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the ArbCom case, I'm certainly not going to impose any serious sanctions on anyone without a case formally presented on the sanctions page, and User:HJ Mitchell and I are doing our best to deal with the complaints that are presented there. The fact that an action you prefer will not be coming in a time frame that you prefer without you having to take any action does not give you license to snipe at other editors, and such sniping helps poison the atmosphere required for collaborative editing. In particular, your comment that Tony Sidaway's good faith action was "obnoxious" was what prompted my admonishment, but such an admonishment doesn't mean that I believe there has been a pattern of such behavior. I have no idea, I simply disapproved of your behavior on the sanctions page. Gamaliel (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the most common definition of the word "obnoxious" is "extremely unpleasant," [24] I don't know where you are finding incivility. It is indeed extremely unpleasant to have one's unobjectionable words removed while another's response to them is allowed to stand. Is it uncivil it say so?

I am also at a loss as to what you mean by "sniping." If by that you mean pointing out TRPoD's bad behavior in mild, polite terms, that is exactly what I am advised to do by the essay "How to be civil." [25] If I have misunderstood any of this I invite you to bring an enforcement action against me as I stand by every one of my edits utterly. Starke Hathaway (talk) 18:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If all you are doing is pointing out bad behavior in a civil manner, then I encourage you do keep doing so. However, I thought your comment to TS was uncivil, yes, and in my opinion your objection could have been phrased differently and better, in a manner more befitting collaborative editing. But I don't think that comment is a particularly egregious instance of incivility nor do I think it is actionable. We all make mistakes, everyone breaches civility at one point or another. Certainly I have. I am not at all concerned about your initial comment, but what does concern me is your vehement objection that anyone would think it was less than congenial. Do you feel I am equating you in with other editors whose behavior you believe is worse than your own? I assure you that it is not my intent to do so in any way. Gamaliel (talk) 18:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do feel your edits to the enforcement page equated my conduct to that of another editors. I further put it to you that this is a reasonable interpretation given that your admonishment made no distinction between me and other editors. I appreciate you saying that wasn't your intention. Starke Hathaway (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was not imposing sanctions I didn't feel the need to spell out in my response the specifics of who I thought did what wrong when. I am not the sort of person who believes in lumping everyone together, so when I do take serious actions I make sure I don't do anything of the sort and examine the matter carefully. Gamaliel (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I explained to an arb that the delays to the GamerGate case leave things "in limbo" in terms of enforcement, but their response was essentially "you've got the community sanctions; use them". While that's not anything close to an official mandate in the way that ArbCom-authorised discretionary sanctions will be (I'm not privy to ArbCom's deliberations, but I'd be astonished if DS weren't authorised at the end of the case), it suggests to me that arbs expect, or at least don't object to, admins carrying on almost as if the case weren't there. Given that the final decision could still be some weeks off and no arb has, to my knowledge, said that an open case supersedes pre-existing community sanctions, my attitude is this: if somebody presents a compelling case, with diffs showing recent and persistent or serious misconduct, preferably on the enforcement page, I will evaluate it and impose any sanctions that seem to me to be necessary. @Starke hathaway: you're not the first to complain about TRPoD's tone, so it might well be that a case can be made and sanctions are necessary, but we can't make that sort of decision unless somebody lays out the diffs, so consider this an open invitation to make such a case. Consider it also a promise that I (and hopefully Gamaliel) will evaluate it thoroughly. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I'm saying it's happened in this case, I haven't looked, but the issue of discussing other editors on article talk pages is inappropriate per WP:TPNO, WP:CIV and WP:NPA. Instead, WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE should be followed. Continual comments about about other editors on the GamerGate related article talk pages puts one at risk of being sanctioned per Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate, which is very clear about strictly following WIkipedia Conduct policies and The Purpose of Wikipedia. Dreadstar ☥ 21:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gamaliel, it was announced today that the Wikipedia community has won the prestigious Erasmus Prize (See 1 and 2). Sounds like a great item for the Signpost's In the news section.--Wolbo (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also reaction by Lila Tretikov on the [Wikimedia blog].--Wolbo (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite a birthday present! Gamaliel (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "America: Imagine the World Without Her". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 24 January 2015.

I put the question on my talk page but I'll put it here as well. You blame me for starting an edit war, which as I've said was accidental, as a result of me unintentionally hitting the enter key. I'm sorry for even doing it, I'm not completely accustomed to how editing works. And you blame me for writing disparaging comments, which I have stopped writing. Someone has warned me twice of being blocked and so I stopped. Why would I STILL be banned even though I followed the warning given and stopped making any more comments. Heck I stopped editing the talk page entirely when I was told that those comments were inappropriate. I really hope that this ban didn't come as a result of me making my user page.

So please, again, an answer as to why exactly I was banned even though I have listened to all warning people gave me. If you want me to apologize, I'm sorry. I've read the sanctions page and I've read the disparaging comments page as people have told me to do so. What else must I read? Singdavion (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned "redacting of uncivil comments" by non-admins in the GG enforcement thread. Could you explain to me how a non-admin should use such a power, and under what circumstances? Ries42 (talk) 23:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call it a power, just something that any editor can do when appropriate. When is it appropriate? That's a judgment call, and on the GamerGate articles specifically, I would say instead of revert warring about it, take the matter to ANI if editors differ on whether or not something was an appropriate comment. Usually, when someone feels strongly enough to redact something, it's probably not a good idea to restore it. Gamaliel (talk) 00:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does this user's recently imposed topic ban extend to comments bemoaning the state of the article on other users' talk pages? To me it looks like a grey area, so I think clarification would be helpful. --TS 16:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will officially warn the user. Gamaliel (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for that. I deleted and restored a large section. You can hide any edit I made as you like without removing material. You have my permission to revdel any edit I made that you objected to. I choose not to mention what it was but will back your actions if questioned. I didn't realize that was sensitive. --DHeyward (talk) 05:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

--DHeyward (talk) 05:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I did get your email, but Signpost work has taken over my day and I wanted to give you a substantive response. Gamaliel (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've neatened up the images, and added a note about the Portal:Featured content thing. How's it look to you now? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks fantastic! Thank you, I really appreciate it, it now looks like a coherent article instead of a choppy collection of sentences and pictures. The sole downside is that I don't care for that picture of the Jordanhill bridge. But then all the available pictures are not exactly aesthetically pleasing either, and the bridge is the lead pic in the article... Gamaliel (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's better than the sign, at least. I'm kind of tempted to hop a train there tomorrow and get some photos, but I'm not quite sure it's worth the two-and-a-half hours round trip, particularly in winter when the light's going to be a bit terrible at the best of times. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please don't do that. It's been our millionth article since 2006 and it's been just fine with passable pictures since then. It can wait a little longer. Gamaliel (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

- Protonk (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It took my wife reading the news to inform me that the proposed decision of the Gamergate arbitration was pretty harsh for you. After looking through the PD and the diffs I felt like the situation was akin to the difference between a beat cop who walks the neighborhood and interacts frequently with the local people, and a S.W.A.T.-type cop who swoops in suddenly to arrest people who are strangers. I think the beat cop strategy you adopted was a good one, helping to keep new editors apprised of the policies and guidelines, but the Arbs apparently agreed with those who said you were "involved". I'm sorry it worked out like that. Binksternet (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'm always gratified to hear from editors I respect at times like these. Also, thank you for the very apt analogy, which I plan on stealing. I feel that is exactly what I was trying to do, and the problem was both that administrative culture these days tends to favor the latter, and that I sometimes did a poor job of making clear what role I was trying to play with editors. Some things I posted were too blunt or not sufficiently thought out and severed to blur the lines, though I have no doubt that some of the complainers purposefully misunderstood what I was doing as a tactical move. I think that much of the Committee understood what I was trying to accomplish, though they disagreed on the appropriateness and effectiveness of it, obviously. Gamaliel (talk) 22:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to use the analogy.

The media have commented on the chilling effect for admins; how the PD is likely to keep an admin from feeling confident that ArbCom has their back. That analysis seems spot on to me. Binksternet (talk) 04:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The request can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case Casprings (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gamaliel, this is just a courtesy note to let you know that this case has been declined. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, do you have any information regarding the Fold3 All-Access Membership? According to the Step 3 of the "TWL account processing" it should take "as long as two weeks", and it's the 6th week now. --StanProg (talk) 11:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@StanProg: Sorry about the delay! There was a misunderstanding about procedures on my part which is responsible for the long wait. I'm trying to get things going on my end, so hopefully the accounts will be ready for everyone soon. Gamaliel (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Protonk told me that you had fixed his block last night so that I wouldn't be blocked too. Just wanted to say thank you :) Kaciemonster (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you message on "my work creating articles on topics Wikipedia has so far neglected". I do appreciate it. However, when you consider how lousy we are at keeping records here, an indictment, for coming to the party late, would have been more appropriate. Ifeanyi Uddin (talk) 05:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you have a look at my comments there? One of the gallery images is up for deletion, so... Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam Cuerden: thanks for the heads up. As you can see there, I've changed things up a bit to put off what to do about the Paddington image. Gamaliel (talk) 19:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please offer some suggestions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention#Draft for a Signpost Op-Ed article. As User:Isaacl has advised me, it may not be an Op-Ed, but this is what I have created based mostly on the discussions over the past week or so. Thank you. . Buster Seven Talk 15:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is your authority for placing a one-sided IBAN? The policy states that bans may be made by the community after a showing of consensus. Individual administrators are not empowered to make bans.

Also, you failed to respond to my comment about your punitive block on my talk page, even though you were editing. Please explain yourself.

is a 07:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fitzwilliam Museum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Panther (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2015/02/wikipedia_gamergate_scandal_how_a_bad_source_made_wikipedia_wrong_about.single.html

It's an important one, I think. Still time to cover it in ITM? Andreas JN466 21:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I'll make sure it's in the next ITM. There's another one too I want to write about: http://adland.tv/adnews/wikipedia-perpetual-native-ad-machine/255028968 Gamaliel (talk) 23:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another press article (not Gamergate) for next week: [26] Andreas JN466 01:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I really should drink my coffee before editing. Next time you are in Victoria, BC Canada I will buy you a beer(or another treat if you don't like beer). Chillum 18:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! It's been a while since I've been in Canada, not since I briefly lived in Toronto. Should I return I will take you up on that because I enjoy Canada and I enjoy free beer. Gamaliel (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Except you didn't lift a block, you lifted a topic ban that categorically was preventative. As such, your comment above is 100% inaccurate. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• If you weren't going to accept any explanation except the one you made up, why did you post here? Gamaliel (talk) 03:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• However, very few other people would be satisfied that the disruption will not occur, and that is why your judgement in this case is clearly clouded at best. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: [27][28][29][30][31][32] — 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

((subst:Arbitration CA Notice|Amendment request: GamerGate))

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

What if there was a javascript based tool that allowed you to list words, phrases, or people that you do not wish to see. The tool would search the entire content of a talk page and if it finds a person or word/phrase you did not wish to see, it would simply remove that entire block of text from your view. It would have a toggle switch in case you wanted to find context, but otherwise, you'd be completely unaware of what people say. Sure, it would allow certain parties to continue saying whatever they want, but it'd be the ultimate way to ignore someone and they'd have to suffer with not being able to get to you. What do you think?--v/r - TP 23:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

People will always find a way to call each other naughty or offensive words and invent brand new ones. It would be of limited usefulness in that respect, though it would catch a bunch of them. I imagine that its greatest utility would be to filter out particular users. If even arbitrators are unwilling to deal with temperamental man-children, this could be a powerful tool for the community to use to stand against them. Maybe even public shaming by having a list of the most ignored users? The noticeboards would be open to everyone once again, not just the drama mongers. Gamaliel (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking each person could control their own list of users and words they wish to ignore. I must have a default set of words, but the users list would be blank. Basically, adding the ignore functionality to Wikipedia that every other internet-based community has. I would try to avoid creating statistics with a top 10 list of ignored users :D--v/r - TP 23:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But the most ignored users list was my favorite part. :( I think this would raise objections with free speech advocates, but we do after all have a way to turn off pictures of Muhammad, and that's encyclopedic content and not just talk page blather. Gamaliel (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how it could be a free speech issue. While users have a freedom to say what they want, no one is obligated to read it. If I chose to, and if you chose to, run a tool that automatically scrubbed someone's comments from my browser upon reading the page, it is no one's right to object. The tricky part is hiding the comments in the edit box and then returning them upon hitting submit. So the user doesn't have to see it, but it also doesn't remove it from the source.--v/r - TP 23:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I just anticipate some will see it that way. After all, a lot of our incivility stems from users who value making people listen to their invective over the rules of decorum and the encyclopedia and frame that as "free speech". Gamaliel (talk) 23:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. But those people's arguments fall flat because this tool doesn't restrict their speech. It automates my ignoring their speech.--v/r - TP 00:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now we just have to get someone to invent this. Gamaliel (talk) 00:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am a programmer, but this would take some level of regular expressions that is a bit out of my current experience.--v/r - TP 00:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We could apply for a WMF grant. That might be an incentive to get up to speed. Gamaliel (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gamaliel, since you published the September article about the attack on Neil deGrasse Tyson, I just wanted to notify you that I've reverted edits by user User:Adam Blitz that added his self-published blog to the article Charlie Hebdo shooting, which discussed his problems with Wikipedia. I was concerned that this could have similarities to the Federalist's edit warring that lead to doxing - but it might be a legitimate mistake. I've made a comment on the COI noticeboard, and I'd just like to notify you since you dealt with harassment over the NDT issue. -- Aronzak (talk) 05:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gamaliel, thanks for reaching out to me about Edina. I'd love to chat about the Edina edits. Feel free to keep leaving messages on my talk page, or it it would be more convenient, shoot me an email. Juno (talk) 08:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Gamaliel reported by User:TBSchemer (Result: ). Thank you. TBSchemer (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Valentine Greets!!!

Hello Gamaliel, love is the language of hearts and is the feeling that joins two souls and brings two hearts together in a bond. Taking love to the level of Wikipedia, spread the WikiLove by wishing each other Happy Valentine's Day, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm love on the eve, Happy editing,  - T H (here I am) 12:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding ((subst:Valentine Greetings)) to other user talk pages.