Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:38, 20 October 2014

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

24 December 2024
News and notes: Responsibilities and liabilities as a "Very Large Online Platform" Op-ed: Beeblebrox on Wikipediocracy, the Committee, and everything Opinion: Graham87 on being the first-ever administrator recall subject In the media: Delhi High Court considers Caravan and Ken for evaluating the ANI vs. WMF case From the archives: Where to draw the line in reporting? Recent research: "Misplaced Pages editors are quite prosocial", but those motivated by "social image" may put quantity over quality Humour: Backlash over Santa Claus' Misplaced Pages article intensifies Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols Traffic report: Was a long and dark December
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Village pumps

policy

tech

proposals

idea lab

WMF

misc

• A request for adminship is open for discussion.
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

• view
• edit
• history
• watch
• archive
• talk
• purge

Hello, welcome to my talk page. To leave a new message, click here. Please try to keep it relatively organized by signing your posts, posting new topics on the bottom of the page, making relevant headings about your topic and using subheadings, not new headings, for replies. I will almost always reply on this page to messages. I reserve the right to make minor changes of formatting (headings, bolding, etc.) but not content in order to preserve the readability of this page. I will delete without comment rude and/or insulting comments, trolling, threats, comments from people with a history of insults and incivility, and comments posted to the top of this page. Also, I'm much more informal than this disclaimer implies. Thank you.

Before you rant, please read tips for the angry new user and remember the most important rule on Misplaced Pages.

Archives: 3-8/04 | 9-11/04 | 11/04-2/05 | 2-4/05 | 5-7/05 | 8-10/05 | 11/05-2/06 | 3-7/06 | 8/06-1/07 | 2/07-12/07 | 1/08-5/08 | 6/08-2/09 | 2/09-09/09 | 10/09-2/10 | 3/10-2/11 | 2/11-6/11 | 7-11/1-13 | 2-13/06-13 | 6-13/11-13 | 12-13/5-14 | 6/14-10/14

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 33.5 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III.

Question regarding BLP

Just a doubt

Here https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Gamergate_controversy#Conflicts_of_interest.3F_Were_there_any.3F user TaraInDC posted unsourced accusations against a The Escapist staff member, specifically stating his position (making him identifiable) and said he had "financial interest" to a subject of a recent interview (among many others inerviewed), as well as hinting at some sort of sexism with "vehemently pro-GG editor who published their recent article about 'what Game Devs think' about gamergate (that is, the *real* game devs, the male ones, to contrast with their previous article about what the *female* game deves think)"

For some reason I can't access the diff here https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/TaraInDC

In my opinion this should be redacted but he's been pretty vocal about me for some reason, so I'd like to be sure it's a BLP violation to avoid stupid drama, thanks! Loganmac (talk) 04:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll be unable to look into this for at least 12 hours or so. Maybe you could inform one of the more active administrators watching this page, like User:Dreadstar? Gamaliel (talk) 05:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

you appear to be back in action

Folks at the federalist article defied your statement to let the deletion stand until the discussion finished (which is raging away at BLPN); the content has been edit warred over and is back in the article, and i have also gotten lovely mocking notes like this. Would like you to have a look and enforce discretionary sanctions if you have time and the inclination. I've been looking for you to come back; if you don't intend to please let me know and I will probably go to AE, but want to do proceed stepwise. I also requested page protection and pinged you when i did that. I will have to wait for that also. Will strike that if you think I should do. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 18:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

fyi, have struck the page protection. Jytdog (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

professionalism

Gamaliel, you may or may not remember -- because I was an insignificant newbie -- but I have positive memories of my interactions with you from 5+ years ago, and I wanted you to know that I respect your work as an editor and administrator. That having been said, I believe that WP:BLP is being abused on a partisan basis in the present NDGT RfC and The Federalist/BLP talk page discussion. You don't know me, and you have undoubtedly made assumptions about my personal politics based on my participation, but my professional political background and former party affiliation would probably surprise you. For the last five and a half years I have calculatedly and intentionally avoided any political content discussions in Misplaced Pages, partly because of the silliness associated with such discussions and my low tolerance for partisanship outside the partisan arena -- even less so when that partisanship is informed by a shallow understanding of the issues and/or crackpot fringe theories -- and partly because I believe I am a more effective editor if I avoid being tagged and labeled politically. I sincerely believe that Misplaced Pages should be objective, apolitical, nonpartisan. I am also a believer in fairness in process.

In five and a half years, The Federalist BLP discussion is the first and only political content discussion in which I have participated. I got involved not because I particularly cared about the content -- it's a small matter in the grand scheme of things -- but because I was appalled by the blatant partisanship and the self-evident manipulation of BLP policy to achieve an obvious partisan outcome. In my worldview, and my own politics notwithstanding, that is a very bad thing for Misplaced Pages and its public reputation. The last 24 hours have only reinforced my assessment: personalized comments, baiting, taunting, thinly veiled personal attacks, stonewalling, and unsubstantiated accusations of inappropriate on-wiki conduct (see, e.g, below). And there were several other previously un-involved editors who were attracted to the discussion for the same reason and with the same reactions. None of that group are right-wing POV-pushers; they are believers in procedural fairness and non-partisanship in Misplaced Pages.

Unlike me, you are relatively open about your personal politics. I also believe that you are among the few nominally "pro-deletion" editors in the present discussion who is doing your best to maintain a certain professional objectivity. I would ask you to consider carefully: is what we are doing in these discussions really in the best interests of Misplaced Pages? Is the partisan trench warfare to achieve a desired outcome worth the collateral damage? Should the personalized behavior in these discussion be acceptable? These are rhetorical questions; there is no need to actually respond. I only ask that you consider -- consider this an appeal to the administrator I met and whose work I admired five years ago. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

this is unfortunate. dirtlawyer has evinced a lack of understanding of what BLP actually says (ie his list of 6 questions about the content at BLPN, all based on whether how the content fits in the federalist.com article) and has consistently claimed that no one was articulating a clear reason under BLP, which I and others have done several times, and even repeated ourselves for his benefit. Not listening, not working toward consensus. Basically, an antagonistic, disruptive presence in the discussion. (not to mention making 3 reverts in the article over BLP subject matter as of yeserday). Not good. Jytdog (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog, your compulsion, as evinced by your need to comment on a private talk page discussion, speaks volumes. "Antagonistic" would be an ironically accurate description of your behavior, here and elsewhere. I urge you to critically review your own conduct. I would also suggest that you check your arithmetic before making inaccurate accusations in the future: you have an apparent difficulty with the concepts of two and three. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Again you evince an ignorance of Misplaced Pages norms and guidelines; nothing is "private" anywhere in WP. As for three:

1. revert 11:24, 13 October 2014
2. revert 11:57, 13 October 2014
3. editing section to add contested material which under WP:EDITWAR "counts" as reversions. (again, you don't know policy/guideline yet you keep making these strong statements) 15:34, 13 October 2014

I have nothing more to say on this. Jytdog (talk) 14:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• Common sense and common courtesy both suggest that you should have had nothing to say on this page from the git-go. Your interpretation of WP:EDITWAR is yet another stretch, Jytdog. The content you are now mischaracterizing as a "revert" was an edit made at the request of a pro-deletion editor, Mr. Swordfish, to remove the word "fabricate" and was a good-faith attempt at creating compromise language and thus resolve the dispute (please see talk page discussion). If you feel strongly enough to make such accusations here, please feel free to make a report at the 3RR/Editwar noticeboard or ANI. Just be prepared for the boomerang consequences -- your "battleground" mentality is on full display for everyone to read. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Gamaliel, I apologize for the back-and-forth comments that follow my original 3-paragraph post above. I attempted to transfer the discussion initiated by User:Jytdog to Jytdog's user talk page, but he simply deleted it with the edit summary "not interested in having this conversation further. i wrote my last on gamaliel's page." Apparently, he did not want to clutter his own talk page with the back-and-forth he left here. This is exactly the intentionally provocative and personalized conduct which I referenced above in my original post. These are crystal-clear attempts to browbeat, intimidate and silence another editor involved in a content dispute, and it's a very sad commentary on the conduct of the editor in question. I don't know what else to say. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It disturbs me to see two people who appear to be well-meaning and conscientious Misplaced Pages editors at such odds. I need a no Misplaced Pages day to focus on my personal and professional obligations; I will attempt to respond to both of you in depth after that. In the meantime, please remember WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Gamaliel (talk) 17:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• Frankly, Gamaliel, it disturbs me as well, but contrary to several assertions above, I'm not the one stoking the flames (pun intended) of an adversarial relationship.

Enjoy your no-Misplaced Pages day. There's nothing going on here which urgently requires your attention. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement

Please see this report and comment where appropriate. Viriditas (talk) 04:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 October 2014

• Op-ed: Ships—sexist or sexy?

• In the media: College player falsely linked to sports scandal by Misplaced Pages; the Nobel Prizes

• Arbitration report: One case closed and two opened

• Featured content: Bells ring out at the Temple of the Dragon at Peace

• Technology report: Attempting to parse wikitext

• Traffic report: Now introducing ... mobile data

• WikiProject report: Signpost reaches the Midwest

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages article falsely links player to college sports scandal for six years

Good work! GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Gamaliel (talk) 16:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

removal from public archives

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

I will be objecting to your actions here. It will be helpful in defending my words if I have access to them. Will you supply this?

I will not re-add these edits to the page in question unless they are deemed unobjectionable. Andyvphil (talk) 12:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no objection to any complaint or review of my actions, but such a review should not serve as another soapbox to discuss negative, evidence-free theories about a living individual, and I fear that providing you with those offensive comments would lead to this, so I must decline your polite request.

Since we're being polite and not in the heat of an argument or an editing conflict, I will ask you to reconsider the things you have said about the subject of the article. You have repeatedly suggested that a prominent and successful academic of color was a failure as an academic and only succeeded as a result of affirmative action, despite ample evidence of his achievments in his field. This is incredibly offensive and racist, even if you do not mean it to be, and I find it particularly offensive personally as an academic who is a racial minority myself. Gamaliel (talk) 16:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Gamaliel, I suspect you will also wish to see this AN/I thread started by Andyvphil: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Participation by Admin Dreadstar in edit war at The Federalist (website) AFTER fully protecting the article. Prioryman (talk) 16:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 16:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

"You have repeatedly suggested that a prominent and successful academic of color was a failure as an academic and only succeeded as a result of affirmative action..."

No, I have not. He washed out at UTA, but succeeded in getting degrees at Harvard (with honors) and Columbia, and I have not suggested otherwise. Nor have I ever said that he succeeded "only" as a result of affirmative action. I have inquired of the new editors at NGT if they have seen evidence of material on help that Tyson was given because of his race that the group of editors previously in control of the page might have thought inappropriate to mention, as they had in the case of Tyson being kicked out of the UTA PhD program. If the material exists but has been, like the UTA failure, suppressed or minimized, it will be entirely appropriate to evaluate whether the judgement of the previously resident group of editors should be overruled.

This correction to your characterization of what I said is, I believe, similar to what I said in response to someone else who mischaracterized what I had written, and which was part of what you deleted. That I can reproduce similar material at will is obvious, and makes your claim that supplying me with the text you deleted will somehow empower me to repeat sentiments you find offensive, in a way that I would otherwise be unable to, obviously absurd.

The mischaracterization of what I had written was preceeded by the expression, "Bullshit!" Part of what you deleted was my response, not in kind, listing various incivilities to which I had been subjected in the course of this discussion, including your use of the exact same term in a revert edit comment. It was particularly inappropriate of you to removed this.

Inasmuch as your refusal does not serve your stated puirpose, I renew my request for access to the deleted text. Andyvphil (talk) 04:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I have reviewed your deleted comments again and I believe you are not accurately or not completely summarizing them here. Nor do I feel you grasp the substance of my comments to you given that you have largely focused on the single word "only". It's immaterial whether you assert that someone only succeeded because of an racist assumption unsupported by evidence, or in part because of a racist assumption unsupported by evidence. Gamaliel (talk) 04:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm certainly not claiming to "accurately completely summariz" comments I cannot examine. The observation that, if Tyson benefited from assistance because of his race, that certain editors may have decided to suppress mention of that fact is not a "racist assertion", and the clearly overboard insertion of "only" in your mal-description of my words is something you are responsible for. You are WP:INVOLVED. I suggest you seek a second opinion. Andyvphil (talk) 05:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

If you make an assertion about someone with no evidence to back that assertion up beyond the color of that person's skin, then that is, by definition, racist. If you wish to expound further on this matter, find somewhere else to do so besides my talk page. Gamaliel (talk) 05:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

That is of course nonsense unless you exclude assertions about probability from the category "assertions". For example, if I assert someone is more likely to carry the gene for sickle cell anemia with no evidence other than the color of his skin that is a true fact, and truths are by definition not racist. Falsehood is the part of the definition of racism that you are omitting.

You're claim that I repeatedly made a "racist assertion" implies that you can supply an actual racist quote from my writings that one hiding revert will not have deleted. Please do so.

As to communicating with you on your talk page, you have an obligation to be responsive in relation to inquiries about your admin actions. I can't offhand supply the shortcut to the relevant paragraph , though I read it recently, but I assume you know which one it is. Something about ACCOUNTABILITY, maybe? Andyvphil (talk) 14:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I do not have the obligation to repeatedly engage with someone who insists on making blanket racist assertions. I will ask you a second time, politely, to drop it because I find your comments personally offensive, for reasons I have already explained to you and you choose to ignore, and in violation of Misplaced Pages policies. I will also ask you a second time, politely, to take this conversation elsewhere. The third time I have to do either one in regards to my talk page will be the last, and will not be polite, and may involve blocking and/or profanity in multiple languages. In case you do not get the hint, I am also archiving this conversation. Gamaliel (talk) 16:54, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Putting a box around our conversation to date does not relieve you from your duty as an administrator to " promptly and fully to all good-faith concerns raised about administrative actions." In addition to concealing the content and existence of my response to a personal attack, you have mischaracterized what I have supposedly written on multiple occasions both as to its exact content and character ("racist") while refusing to produce any examples to which those mischaracterizations can be compared. Your threat to further clown yourself by using still more abusive language and/or a block to respond to what you have previously admitted was a civil inquiry is noted. Andyvphil (talk) 00:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)