User talk:The Wordsmith/Archive 7

Hi there Wordsmith,

I'm not sure whether to post these questions at the RfC talk page or here. It can be moved if you'd rather.

Two things:

1) Is there a time limit on new proposals? Since RfC responses are based on comparing and contrasting, responses that don't include all submissions are somewhat invalid. Editors will have to revisit the RfC to included new proposals in their responses. Did we figure a way to alert all editors who've weighed in when new proposals are submitted, or how do we go about that?

2) The "default" statement (the one we are replacing) never went through anything like a formal acceptance process. In fact, it came about after the last RfC when all editors were exhausted by the process and only two were left arguing. Essentially, this one stuck because there was no one left besides the original author (Jytdog) and David at the talk page.

Of more immediate importance: most of the proposals are not aligning with the stated goal. The way that most of them diverge (apparently taking cues from Proposal one, and not the actual RfC guidelines) can be seen as OR/SYNTH.

Purpose of this RfC is to replace these words: There is general scientific agreement that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food, but should be tested on a case-by-case basis.

It speaks to: a) human health and b) case-by-case testing. It does not go into bans, regulations, or public vs scientific perception. However, it seems most proposals have added these issues.

Since this is already an intense RfC by asking editors to look at up to 18 sources, the fact that another one or two issues have been added is a problem. These issues are not the goal of the RfC, so I am not sure how this will weigh on judging proposals and arguments, but it will make this an even tougher RfC to judge.

More problematic is the fact that adding something like "Nonetheless, members of the public are much less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe" is OR in that the editor made the connection between the language of the default statement, and public perception/bans. I would suggest that this OR/SYNTH leap is a very subtle argument discounting or minimizing for example the 64 countries which ban GMOs, or the 90% of Americans who want GMOs labelled. It could be seen as a subtle way of saying anti-GMO attitudes and bans are unsupported by science. Subtle arguments like this are the reason OR is disallowed on WP, in my undersatnding.

I hope my questions are clear: how do we alert editors to reform their responses when new proposals come in; and, how do we deal with the fact of OR additions to the clearly stated goal of the RfC? petrarchan47คุก 21:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

With major RfCs like this, the general precedent is that new proposals can be added at any time, but eleventh hour additions are unlikely to be successful. Typically editors who give statements are not alerted to further developments; most put the pages on their Watchlist or come back to check if they're actually interested. However, in this case I wouldn't be against breaking precedent to notify all contributors a few days before it is to close and invite them to update their comments.

Regarding your thoughts on scope creep, the original scope is loosely defined as "How do we express the scientific consensus about GMO safety?". I understand that some proposals have exceeded that. However, since this is a Request for Comments, if the Commenters think the statement should be more comprehensive then that is their opinion, and for the closing administrators to interpret. I'm here to enforce user conduct, so as long as everyone is behaving (which I'm pleasantly surprised to see) my hands are somewhat tied. I can't weigh in on what types of content are appropriate as long as it is relevant to the question and not an obvious policy violation; if I did it would essentially be an administrator "supervote". My advice to you would be to be active on the talkpage and express your opinions on limiting the scope of the statement to your fellow editors. They seem receptive enough to new ideas. Regards, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 00:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you kindly for the response. If I agreed with the creep from the specific, hotly contested sentence named in the RfC goal (reprinted in my comments above) to the "loosely defined" goal you have just penned, I would instead write: "How do we express the scientific community's positions on GMO safety?". In my opinion, if you really knew how contested this statement was, you would never have considered making such a leap, nor would you claim that a scientific consensus exists. The problem we covered in the first RfC was not what language to use when referring to a SC, but whether there was support for this claim at all. The result of the RfC was "no, so you better change the language". You have twice mentioned being surprised that all hell hasn't broken loose. You have been fed some stories that don't align with the facts, apparently. If you go back to the first RfC, it was exactly like this one. We discussed sources like adults, no cat fights. It seems from your comments that whatever you were told about the history of this dispute was simply not true. I wonder how impartial you can be when you already believe that a SC exists and have been told stories that aren't true. petrarchan47คุก 05:28, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

About notifying editors to come back, Coffee has said on the RfC talk page that he is considering whether to have a watchlist notice during the last week of the RfC. If you and he decide to do that, there would be nothing wrong with indicating in the notice when the RfC is going to end. That would remind editors in a neutral way. But I don't think it is necessary. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The RfC asks editors which proposal best satisfies the somewhat narrow goal. If an editor only weighs in on half of the proposals, the entire answer is null since s/he cannot claim to have chosen the best of all available options. Wordmsith is right about alerting everyone at some point. petrarchan47คุก 05:28, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@Petrarchan47: I agree that notifying towards the end would be a good idea. On an unrelated note, I've noticed that several of your comments on the RFC Talkpage are straying into the territory of commenting on editors rather than content. I would appreciate if you would please tone your comments down a notch. As far as questioning my impartiality, I don't really care about GMO foods and I'm not a biologist. Honestly, I find the whole topic boring. I assure you, I'm completely impartial. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Wordsmith, I'll take you at your word. However, on the note that you believe there is a consensus on the safety of GMO's, that isn't science-based or true. What I think has happened is that editors have talked about the GMO drama, and about the GMO issue in general, but the retelling of the story over time doesn't appear to match the facts. Please allow me to expand on this:

• The second RfC on the GMO safety statement (the famous one that resulted in the ArbCom1) came about when editors questioned a very obvious misquoting of the W.H.O. that was being used to support "scientific consensus". We tried to change it, and the talk page blew up with drama which only ended when/because the RfC was launched that same week. The misuse of the source was brought to light in the RfC by Sarah (SV) in her comments; no one argues that sources were in fact used incorrectly, however the problem of misuse of sources has been ignored.

• The second RfC found there was no consensus that the sources supported the strong statement we had been using. It was recommended that we find language that did have support. (As you know, this controversial statement never included anything about public perception or bans, nor does this third one, officially. IMO, the accidental extension should be remedied by Admins, it isn't an official addition, but is weighing in heavily according to editors' comments. This RfC doesn't need added issues; it is a very complex topic and very controversial claim.)

• The present RfC, it would seem, has morphed in another dangerous bit of scope creep:

From "What do the sources allow us to say about science and GMO safety?"

To "How do we express the scientific consensus about GMO safety?"

I realize your duty is to make sure we behave, however you have had a good deal of control over the design of the RfC itself, in my view, so I do have some concern. It is difficult to want nothing more than to be friendly and polite, and it is not polite to question you. But please hear me out. The safety statement about GMOs, especially with the idea that it will be somewhat fixed on a good number of pages, is a very serious thing given the controversy. Monetarily speaking, I cannot even begin to imagine what a nice statement would be worth to what is one of the most lucrative industries on the planet, one that is struggling a bit with much of EU banning their products after the W.H.O. announced recently that the herbicide used on GMO crops is a probable carcinogen.

Having seen you override serious questions by GF editors in the final days of your RfC discussion page, and decide that we would forge ahead ignoring, it seemed, most of the issues we raised, and when I see that the scope creep from a safety claim to an argument including public perception vs science was allowed without any discussion, and that you seem to believe the question is how do we say there is a consensus, rather than if one exists, I have to override the desire to be what is considered polite, in lieu of pointing out the facts.

If this wasn't so serious, I would leave you with an emoji and some wikilove instead. But if this encyclopedia is being used to misrepresent science, I would imagine even Jimmy Wales would rather editors speak up. None of this is personal for me, and I also don't care about GMOs. I care(d) about Wikipedia and I used to love the process of building articles. My intention now is to expose where facts and PAGs aren't being applied evenly in the hope that there will be a proper response. going forward, I will try to avoid talking about other editors, thanks for the head's up. petrarchan47คุก 02:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I have one request, some editors on the RfC talk page have made comments that aren't 100% clear, but I'm experiencing pushback when asking for clarification. The subject is sources used in the proposals, and statements made about sources on the RfC talk. If you could encourage editors to be more specific and to clarify if needed? This falls under PAGs I believe, in that it is a misuse of the talk page by virtue of being disruptive, though I may be wrong. petrarchan47คุก 02:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll take a look after I've had my morning coffee. My activity has been very limited here the past few days; the recent terrorist attack against my community has made serious demands on my time and emotional investment. Rest assured I'll review the comments you asked about today. Also, it might just be my sleep-deprived and undercaffeinated brain, but I can't quite parse PAG. I'm assuming you're not talking about the Pan-Arab Games.The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 13:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Just a quick note on the above comment. Petrarchan has already been told they aren't getting responses to these repeated questions because they have already been addressed either in previous discussion on the talk page, or in the actual RfC comments. We already know from past discussions that the minds of involved editors aren't going to be changed at this point, so there's no point in rehashing those arguments on the page again and again. Especially since we don't want another set of walls of text like every other time us involved editors try to figure something out amongst ourselves, I'm mainly focused on responding to comments or questions by RfC respondents at this point, as that's what the RfC was intended to bring in. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The Wordsmith: I think "PAG" means "policies and guidelines" (although as a neuroscientist, I'm used to thinking of the periaqueductal gray, not that that has anything to do with this discussion). And I also want to say from the bottom of my heart how much my heart goes out to everyone in Orlando and their loved ones, and to LGBTQ people everywhere. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

It looks to me like people are answering your questions on current threads. If I'm missing something, please point out diffs and I'll review. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, would you mind looking at the editing activity of Grammers little Helper ^Talk on the article above on the talk page? I saw your discussion on his talk page. He is a very difficult person to engage in any kind of positive way, in my opinion. As Slade Farney he is more or less a public figure essay writer and he takes a strong position on anti Semitic issues. He has taken a very active pro Zeitgeist the first movie stand in his editing career [1] to the point where I think his participation in the article is that of a special interest agenda type of an editor. Also I think his user signature is designed to annoy people because it is like a really bad optical illusion brain hurt-er. Earl King Jr. (talk) 09:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@Earl King Jr.: I'll take a look after I've had my morning coffee and fully awake. Do you have any specific diffs or talk threads to look at? The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 13:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Slade Farney or Grammers Little Helper used to sign his posts to Wikipedia as "Slade Farney". [2] I think the same Slade Farney who [REDACTED]. His comments on pages a few days ago that "if you insist on historical factuality about the Nazis, some Zionists will call you a Nazi" [3] makes me wonder. He started a lot of editing on the Zeitgeist movement and film series in a very aggressive, tendentious way. I happened to see an issue on his talk page that kind of filled in the blanks of why he might be doing what he is doing from a special interest point of view. If you look at the talk page of Zeitgeist movement and make a review randomly of the page itself I think his edits convey that he is not here to cooperatively improve the page. That is my opinion which is born out I think by his actions. His last few talk page comments seem particularly aggressive in a very very negative way. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I've redacted a portion of your post, because it comes dangerously close to WP:OUTING. As to his edits, yes many of them come off as aggressive. I'm not going to issue a sanction at this time, but I'll speak with the editor and see if we can work things out peacefully first. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

A clarification request in which you were involved has been archived at WT:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms#Clarification request: Genetically modified organisms (June 2016). For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 14:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Thanks for the cookie, but I'm not sure if getting into a fight with another admin is a good idea. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

None of the things worth doing are ever a good idea. You probably should back down from this particular editor since it looks like people are getting carried away, but that's no excuse for an admin to be rude to you for trying to help. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I just focused for a moment on the wording of the sitenotice on the ongoing RfC. As you know, the notice reads, "You are invited to participate in a discussion regarding the safety of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) for human consumption...." I understand what is meant there, but the way it's worded makes it sound like there is going to be a general open-forum discussion about the pros and cons of GMOs. In actuality, of course, what is meant is that editors are invited to participate in a discussion regarding Wikipedia's coverage of the safety of GMOs.

Is it worth modifying the sitenotice to make that change, or am I being unduly literal? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I think people interested will probably get the general idea, but I don't see any harm in making it more specific. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. In any case, I know nothing about editing sitenotices, and if I tried to do so I'll probably break the wiki. Do you know where I would make a request for such a thing? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

  Done Please refrain from breaking the wiki. Or at least wait until I have other things to distract me from work. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Just to point out, you recently posted a request on RS:N arguing that Milo Yiannopoulos, a journalist who has been heavily involved in Gamergate, was a reliable source on the Alt-right, a movement that is intimately connected to it (arguing that 'there has been a concerted effort to keep this information off the page', which shows strong feelings about this). You unequivocally became WP:INVOLVED with regards to both topics at that point; clearly your posts there showed strong feelings about Milo Yiannopoulos, the Alt Right, and Breitbart in general, and the debate over which sources to rely on and to what extent (especially as it regards Breitbart and Milo in particular) is central to many of the arguments on both pages. You also called the current article a steaming pile of excrement. (Remember, a huge part of involvement is about whether you've expressed strong feelings regarding the conflict at hand; given that one of the other primary arguments on that page is over whether or not the current version is good, that edit clearly made you involved.) After weighing in so heavily on the page's core arguments, I'm fairly surprised you would suggest that you could still act as an impartial administrator in those areas, especially given your fairly lengthy arguments with ‎Gamaliel on topic of involvement in that subject. --Aquillion (talk) 05:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you understand WP:INVOLVED. Gamaliel railed against Gamergate for more than a year while administering the topic. As his recent Arbcom case and the previous ARBGG case confirmed, personal beliefs (even if Wordsmith expressed them) are not sufficient to make one WP:INVOLVED. Opinions on the state of the article and even who and how to best improve it clearly don't disqualify - they're what we'd hope for from an administrator concerned with improving the encyclopedia. Your issue is either with policy or the Arbcom's interpretation of policy. I suggest you look there for clarification. James J. Lambden (talk) 06:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Personal opinions do not necessarily make someone WP:INVOLVED; but engaging in a dispute over a topic on Wikipedia (as The Wordsmith did when they went to WP:RSN to argue that 'there has been a concerted effort to keep this information off the page' and request changes to Alt-right, or when they directly argued that the current state of the Gamergate controversy article is a "steaming pile of excrement") clearly does. In both cases, they were not just expressing an opinion about the topic, they participating in an ongoing dispute about article content (and making an effort to change that content in a way that was, in both cases, clearly controversial.) Once you've done that, you can no longer administrate things related to that dispute -- that's both the spirit and the letter of WP:INVOLVED. --Aquillion (talk) 07:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@Aquillion: Arguing reliability of sources or observing the state of excrement is not "involved." Breitbart and Milo have been discussed by many administrators, on many topics including other uninvolved admins because they are media and sources, not the topic. Arguing that they are an reliable authority on a specific topic is not advocating a position. Your logic would conclude the anti-brigading page restriction 500/30 that was implemented to stop "'... a concerted effort...'" is an involved action as it expresses a strong response to a specific viewpoint. But that's nonsense. Observing concerted efforts that thwart WP objectives and policy, observing problematic editor behavior, including behavior regarding sourced material, that skews and distorts articles into excrement, and commenting on source quality is not in any way becoming "involved." That definition has not been applied to any administrator in that area, or any other, and no one has ever expressed a belief that the whole gamergate topic isn't a steaming pile of excrement. Every admin knows this and avoids the topic like the sewer. It was practically a finding of fact in the GG arbcom case and admins were thanked and encouraged to wade into the excrement to help sort it and enable content editors to improve it by removing concerted efforts to thwart the goals of WP. Your observations are so tangential an argument of INVOLVED that it violates AGF. You have not even highlighted an admin action that would be subject for complaint and reads like an attempt at Poisoning the well. Please stop. --DHeyward (talk) 12:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh lord, here we go again. I understand that there is a connection between Milo and Gamergate, but Milo is not Gamergate and my sourcing issue had nothing to do with Gamergate or gender. I also didn't express any "strong feelings" about Milo (and besides, I'm clearly not his type). The question was whether or not Milo (and Breitbart, by extension) was a reliable source for his own views on a movement he has given significant coverage to. That movement was not Gamergate, and has little to do with Gamergate. At the talkpage there are thread after thread of keeping it out because "Breitbart is not a reliable source for anything". As RSN agrees, they are reliable for their own opinions. It is not related at all to Gamergate, except for being about a political pundit who has written articles about both the Alt-Right and Gamergate. I take an interest in American politics, so there are occasionally going to be edits within a few degrees of separation. Moreover, The Milo Yiannopoulos talkpage does not have the Gamergate discretionary sanctions notice, nor does Alt-right.

Regarding my personal views on Gamergate, I haven't expressed any. Frankly, I don't have any strong opinions on the topic, since I'm not much of a gamer and don't tend to pay attention to gaming journalism or indie developers. I have, however, expressed my opinion that the current state of Wikipedia's coverage of the topic is an embarrassment, which is not a sign of involvement and probably matches the opinion of most editors who stumble across it. I don't think I've proposed any specific changes to it, or even expressed an opinion on content decisions other than giving my interpretation of what policy allows on occasion.

I'll also note that I've only taken a small handful of administrative actions in the topic area, and you haven't pointed to any that you think was wrong or non-neutral. If you still believe I am Involved (which would basically leave no administrators patrolling the topic area), I have no problem with asking for clarification at ARCA. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The question of the quality of the article's current state is central to nearly every dispute on the page (after all, that's what we spend much of our time there discussing -- this version vs. that version, does it require major changes or is the current version good, etc.) Arguing a position on that by saying "the current version is an embarrassment and everyone agrees with that" and asking editors to make changes based on that is involving yourself in that dispute. (For the record, I don't agree, and I suspect that you wouldn't find the level of agreement you expect, as witnessed by the extensive years-long conflict over just that issue. While there is always room for improvement, I think that all things considered, the current version does a fairly excellent job of covering an inherently complex and hard-to-grasp subject.) Likewise, the issue isn't simply Milo Yiannopoulos; the issue is that your position that there was a concerted effort to keep him off the talk page amounts to arguing a side in one of the main content disputes on both pages. I think that part of the issue here, of course, is that to you, your position on these issues (especially your feeling that the current version of the page is "steaming pile of excrement") feels like simply common sense to you, so you're not seeing how it potentially biases you. (Though, if you think it's obvious that the page is a steaming mess, I'd assume you feel that anyone who doesn't agree with you on that is unreasonable, or at least, well, wrong!) But you can't repeatedly argue a side on a page's content disputes like that while also trying to argue that you're capable of serving as a neutral administrator in those disputes. If you're worried about the page having too few administrators looking at it (which I agree is a legitimate concern), we can post on WP:AN asking for more attention there from uninvolved administrators, which I think is probably the best step forwards in any case. --Aquillion (talk) 15:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it is perfectly possible to disagree with me about article quality and still be reasonable (and also open to the possibility that I might be wrong). I don't think you're unreasonable, we just have a difference of opinion. The quality has improved somewhat over the last few months, and the talkpage is more focused on content than contributors, which I consider to be a very good thing. The article (and the whole topic) is leaps and bounds ahead of where it was before the Arbitration case. Still, I see problems inherent in any article that has been a battleground for so long. I still haven't taken any sides on any content issues, nor will I. I haven't (to my knowledge) touched any article under the Gamergate sanctions except for reverting vandalism and enforcing BLP. That's what really matters. I don't know what your stance on Gamergate is, nor do I care. I'm here to keep the peace while other people write the content, and I've done so very fairly. I've only handed out one sanction; most of my enforcement has been mediation rather than lowering the banhammer. The fact remains that asking for advice on sourcing for an article about a political movement outside the GG topic area does not constitute a breach of WP:INVOLVED. Thinking an article needs significant improvement (without endorsing any particular plan for improving it) also does not violate WP:INVOLVED. I still don't have any strong feelings about or conflicts of interest regarding Gamergate. I have never engaged in a content dispute in the Gamergate topic area. I have interacted with this area purely in an administrative role. Your argument that I'm ineligible to patrol doesn't hold up to WP:INVOLVED or what Arbcom has actually said, though I'm happy to ask for clarification at ARCA. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• I'm probably overly cautious when it comes to INVOLVEment, but I think you're toeing, if not crossing, the line in this topic area. I mean, you explicitly offered to run interference for a GamerGate editor, and to set up an partnership whereby you clear the area administratively while he inserts his preferred content ([4]). (Ironically, this is exactly what Gamaliel was accused of doing—without much convincing evidence—in tandem with Mark Bernstein. You are going twenty steps further and actually explicitly creating such an arrangement, which is sort of mind-blowing). MastCell ^Talk 18:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

  The amount of bad faith required to read that comment in the manner you are, is the mind-blowing thing here. Arkon (talk)

  (ec) I have quite a different read on the above-linked statement. I suppose it's fair to call Masem a "GamerGate editor" as he was party to the Arb case, but I see The Wordsmith offering to "keep the area free of disruptive influence from all the factions". In my opinion we as administrators should all be doing that where we can. "[A]ll the factions" implies POV pushing and non-neutral editing from anyone. I don't even know what the "factions" are in GG, or whether Masem is perceived to be part of one of them, but I do know that he was not listed in the Findings or Remedies of that case. Neither has Masem been subject to DS since the case closed (as Mark Bernstein has) so it's hardly fair to compare them. Masem in my opinion is an excellent content contributor, and I would not hesitate to offer to help keep troublemakers away from him if I thought he would improve a difficult article. --Laser brain (talk) 19:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

  My intent is more or less what Laser Brain said. I specified "all the factions" for a reason, because pro-GG editors had been causing significant disruption. Also, give me a little credit. I've been around long enough that if I wanted to set up a policy-violating partnership with a partisan editor, I wouldn't do it publicly on a user talkpage that's been Watchlisted by 232 people. I also never said anything about his preferred content, nor did I even know anything about his preferred content as I had only been active there for 3 days. I will say definitively that there was no arrangement made. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

  I would add that while Wordsmith had stated what they did on my talk page, the only edit I've made to GG was a NYtimes-backed statement in regards to GG and the Gawker-Hogan case [5], which I felt was non-controversial (and Wordsmith even checked back to make sure I had the right source to back that statement). I recognize there is no way I could implement the needed changes to make the article more neutral (as I and others see it) without concurrence on the talk page, which still hasn't happened yet but situations like this demonstrate the hostility and assumptions of bad faith of several editors there. --MASEM (t) 22:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

FWIW I do not believe you took Wordsmith up on his offer, and will not be pursuing any action against you. I think we all understand that this would be a much more serious situation if you had, and really Wordsmith did you no favors by making the offer in the first place. Artw (talk) 23:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight...

• You are an active member of a community that is a hotbed of offsite coordination on this subject, are on freindly terms with them and share some of their beliefs, such as the existence of an "anti-GamerGate"
• You have offered admin support to an editor who also shares those beliefs while encouraging them to go further in their edits relating to this subject.
• You endorse a source that is generally considered low quality that also shares those beliefs, in matters relating to this subject matter.

And, given all the above, you do not consider it possible that admin actions in that subject area might be seen to be any kind of conflict of interest and have no intention of voluntarily avoiding taking any such actions? Artw (talk) 19:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

There are so many leaps of logic and bad faith assumptions there, I'll try to address them one by one:

• I'm not an active member, I made a few posts on Reddit when my own actions were being discussed.
• I don't think I could be characterized as "friendly" with any of them, though I was certainly polite.
• I never said anything about sharing their beliefs, nor have I expressed any beliefs about Gamergate anywhere to my knowledge.
• If there are editors who support Gamergate, then of course there are editors who oppose Gamergate. That's basic logic.
• I offered no specific support, just to keep out disruption from all sides. I must also point out that Masem is the single most qualified content creator on video game related articles, having gotten 45 pages to GA or Featured status.
• I endorsed the fact that Milo Yiannopoulos is a reliable source for his own views on an article unrelated to Gamergate.
• Yes, given all of the above I conclude that I have no conflict of interest and see no reason to step aside. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

So your contention is that these are misinterpretations of perfectly normal admin behaviors in three seperare cases and that there's nothing to see here? Can you point to similar cases of admins endorsing an editor like that or taking it upon themselves to act as an ambassador to the subject of articles they are administering? Artw (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Again with the words in my mouth. I endorsed nobody, and was an ambassador of nothing. I was alerted that my own actions were being discussed, so I went to comment. Actually, there's a ton of precedent for admins discussing their actions off-wiki, even among people that are hostile to Wikipedia as a whole. On another note, if you're going to come to my user talkpage, I'd ask that you please drop the accusatory tone and assumption of bad faith. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I believe I have what I need. Artw (talk) 20:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean you have what you need? Are you a lawyer? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 10:48, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

As someone who would describe himself as a roadblock to Masem (because I believe he is wrong), it seems to me I have ample reason to doubt your good faith when it comes to the Gamergate controversy page. But I guess since Masem has 45 GA pages, my opinions don't matter . Have a nice evening. Dumuzid (talk) 22:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

No editor should see themselves as a roadblock to any other editor in good standing - that's the definition of WP:BATTLEGROUND editing. Rather than take offense I suggest you reevaluate your approach. James J. Lambden (talk) 04:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I can assure you no offense has been taken nor any coals carried. I used "roadblock" since it is the operative language of the moment. Beyond that, I have no desire to clutter up another user's talk page more than is necessary, so I will simply say: cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 10:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Artw (talk) 22:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Granted that I am very new to this medium, I am utterly astounded by the effort so many take regarding one sentence. I have my own studied/educated opinion regarding this topic, but do not care to enter the fray. I was invited by the website to participate, but I have better things to do with my time than read all these comments by persons uneducated on the topic. Patently ridiculous! However, I would enjoy a correspondence with you, should you so choose. Best regards Sfruss (talk) 20:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome to email me here, but I don't plan on having any part in making the decision on content. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Just a heads up, Topic bans are not usually clarified with 'pages' due to the problems it causes. A topic ban on economics prevents an editor doing anything related to economics. A topic and PAGE ban on economics means the editor is restricted from any 'page' that contains economic material. Even if the page is not substantially about the topic. See the current AE requests for why that is not often used. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I see your point. What wording would you suggest instead? The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Generally topic banned from the subject of economics broadly construed would be enough. If it gets pushed it can be tightened later. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

That looks good to me. Hopefully further restrictions are not necessary, so I'll update it. Thanks for the advice. Regards, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:31, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Well apparently I was wrong. See AN. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

You've been helping manage the RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms. The opening of the RfC says that it's under a discretionary sanction including a zero-revert rule. Wouldn't it be the usual thing to log the sanction at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log/2016#Genetically modified organisms? I ask because AE is now considering some kind of an article-specific sanction about the lead of Jerusalem. The wording of such a sanction might benefit from any precedents we can locate. My guess is that you consider the rules listed here to be part of the sanction. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I see, I must have missed that bit of bureaucracy. I'll take care of it as soon as possible. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston:   Done Logged on current ACDS Log page with the following wording: "A moderated RfC is being held at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms to determine how to phrase the safety of GM foods across all relevant articles. Whatever consensus is decided shall not be modified or overturned without an equivalent RfC. Additionally, the RFC is under further restrictions listed on that page and in the editnotice, including WP:0RR." I hope this helps. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, just wanted to tell you that there is a ANI case about you. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I figured this would be coming, but it looks like I missed it by an hour. Hopefully this puts the issue to rest. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 05:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Looks like you're on your own for a bit again. I just noticed a few instances that need some moderator input. When word limits are imposed for things like ArbCom cases, editors cannot create a further in-depth post on the case talk page and link to that talk section in their main comments to bypass the 800 word limit. Basically, one needs to present their evidence within the word limits. I'm seeing at least two instances of this in David Tornheim's posts here and here and one instance in Tryptofish's comments linking in "not geographically restricted".

What are your thoughts on this? Usually when someone says something to the effect of, "see my talk page post for more details" that either is removed or closers are told to ignore those links entirely. I'm ambivalent about linking new respondents to specific talk page sections too. If you could clarify what the expectations are for this, that would be great. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:52, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I'll look at it and respond once I've had my morning coffee, since my morning Coffee is unavailable. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 13:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll have no objection to unlinking if that's what you decide. No problem. A few other things that I've noticed, none of which is urgent: there may be some comments that go over 800 words, and there are a few postings about Prop. 8 being changed that might not be according to format rules. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

It's a bit late to complain about this. Opabinia regalis did this over 2 weeks ago here, and you have been very active in all the discussions on both the RfC and its talk page, so you should have been aware of it. No one has complained about this to my knowledge. If somewhere it violates the rules, I'd like to see the exact rule where it says this. In fact, it seems the rules ENCOURAGE discussion to the talk page, which is WHY people like me linked there: "Editors are encouraged to discuss and collaborate with one another on the RfC Talk page, where threaded discussion is permitted and there are no word limits." --David Tornheim (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I quite frankly haven't tracked every single edit there like a hawk as I don't have that much time to spend on it (and I already made my main comments). I just noticed these now obviously. I do suggest changing your tone about "complaining" though. These are basically the same rules that applied to us in the ArbCom case, and it was already made clear to us that the closers here would not be considering talk page discussion, only comments on the main page. The general understanding at the beginning was that the talk page would be used for source discussion or crafting new proposals, but would be otherwise disjointed from the main comments page. Talk page discussion has no limit, but it also can't be used as a work-around of the 800 word limit on the main page. That's why I'm asking for clarification now so editors that have made these links can amend their comments if need be. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

After looking at it, I believe we should not be using the talkpage to dodge the word limit. However, this is not Arbcom, and I don't have an army of clerks to constantly count every statement and delete the 801st word. The talkpage should be used for discussion and analysis of the proposals and discussion about each person's statement, including responding to questions and explaining further. Editors are free to strikethrough and amend their statement for minor changes, or hat and add a new one if there is a major change. Closing admins will be instructed to disregard and struckthrough, hatted or talkpage statements. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to how you are left doing this on your own, but I've been thinking about the word limit, and there's something I'm concerned about. I agree with you about not sweating over a few words over the limit, but I do think that editors should be prevented from going significantly over. Otherwise, we will have gaming. Right now, I'm at 799, and I'll be sorely tempted to go a lot over if I come to believe the limit is not being enforced. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

If you go significantly over the limit, the excess commentary will be removed. If you deliberately go over the limit with the intent of making a point, your excess will be removed, you will be banned from further participation, and possibly sanctioned further depending on how disruptive you are being. The same goes for any other editor. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Good! I'm glad that you are taking note. (And no, I don't have any intention of doing anything pointy or disruptive.) What is key is the need for enforcement in cases of statements that are more than just a few words over. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

You probably know this without me needing to tell you, but there's a link in the Rules section to a Word Count Tool, the same one used on ArbCom pages. I noted that you said that you felt like a lot of work is falling on you, without any clerks etc., so I just want to point out that it's quick and easy to copy-paste editor statements into that tool. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I also have a non-urgent question about when, exactly, the RfC will be closed. By my count, it's probably around July 5 or 6, but I might be incorrect. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

30 days will be July 5th, but I will leave it up to the closing admins to determine if it should be closed immediately or needs more time for consensus to develop. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Scientology R2-45: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 06:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

An abusive Scientology agent user Sfarney has been posting to people's Talk: pages trying to get them involved in his Scientology activities. From what I read a few minute ago, he's topic banned and knew he was and yet he persists. I would like to see about getting a perm ban for that use and his Laval sock, if possible. BiologistBabe (talk) 23:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm aware of it, thanks. He filed a Request for Arbitration and it was declined, he thought it was an exception to his ban. Since he has been informed otherwise and hasn't continued, I'm not going to issue a block at this time as it was a misunderstanding. Also I believe Laval is not a sockpuppet, but if you have evidence showing otherwise you may want to contact a Checkuser. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you for putting so much work into a topic that you had no real interest in. I honestly believe it is going to make editing this area a lot easier, and as a long term editor (if recently infrequent) in this area that means a lot to me. All the best for any future endeavors. AIRcorn (talk) 02:24, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. I hope to never have a GMO dispute come across my desk again. Of course I know that's unrealistic; I'm still dealing with the occasional Climate Change dispute 7 years after I started helping. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

That's very understandable, and I suspect you probably also hope never to hear from me again. But nonetheless, there does seem to be a dispute at Coffee's talk page, and also, I think the DS log is going to need to be updated.--Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 23:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Something tells me it isn't over yet, but somebody has to make the difficult decisions. On a related note, spending several hours pouring through many thousands of contribs of multiple accounts to be absolutely sure my findings were on solid footing is exactly as thrilling as it sounds. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC) I just came back to WP after being busy.. And HPV just retried. It's sad that this happened in the first place. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Since your the admin who has had some contact relating to the frivolous WP:AE report filed by Kautilya and co against Tripwire you need to know that socks of Darknesshines are being let of as it where by Kautilya he is not stupid he knows the ip range of DS by now yet they both comment on Tripwires edits to tag team against him. He is one user fighting off tag teaming from various users who heavily indulge in pov pushing on Pakistani articles. The above comment by banned user DS is another example of trying to dig up mud and fling it at Tripwire because they failed yet again at topic banning him. Its unfair that Tripwire is constantly dragged into WP:AE by pov pushers liek Kautilya and then socks come up and protest the outcome. Kautilya himself is not entirely innocent and has pushed a fair amount of pov into articles related to Pakistan. You should consider topic banning Kautilya and range blocking his sock friend DS. 141.241.26.20 (talk) 11:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

FYI. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

[6] Here is my response to accusations of admin shopping. 141.241.26.20 (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The IP posting here is Nangparbat. 06:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:11C0:9:794:0:0:0:3 (talk)

I have added an update to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Statement_by_Debresser in reaction to further recent tendentious editing by Nableezy.[7] Since you might not notice it, I though I'd draw your attention to it. Debresser (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I noticed at AE you mentioned that the diffs for tripwire were, well, not so bad. I shall point out a few edits. reverts to an article version in which a BLP is called a terrorist. But not restoring the source at the same time in which the BLP denied association with the BLA. restores an article to his preferred version, which was not "sock free" as claimed, it did restore copyvios, and further removes India's response to the allegations of spying and supporting terrorism. When asked on another article to add India's rebuttal of the espionage charges, he says, Article is not about Yadav. Minimum required info has been added which should suffice. Thus skewing npov in a very certain was 2A00:11C0:9:794:0:0:0:5 (talk) 15:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

The Wordsmith Sir, after this comment by a banned sock I am sure you would be able to understand what is happening here. It seems that there's a group of editors both banned and active who are hell bent on getting me off WP so that they can freely push their nationalistic POV. See, how this IP (which was blocked several times) and Kuatilya at the AE report have pushed half of the truth to present me as a tendentious editor while the fact remains that it's been them who does not hold a NPOV. Allow me to explain how and why:

The sock-IP (DarknessShines2‎) was trying to push POV by removing a statement attributed to Musharraf saying that it was a BLP violation because it was not sourced to him.

• But the fact was that a wrong 'citation tag' was added by another sock namely Curro2 to the BLP text. It was wrong as the text was already sourced and the citation was present at the end of the paragraph which the tag-adding-editor did not check/see.

• This sock-IP did not bother to check the source, instead build-up upon the false 'citation needed' tag and pushed his POV not only by removing the statement over and again [8], [9], [10], [11], but also changing the content to meet his POV under the grab of BLP-Vio. (this fact can be seen from the edit itself).

• Ymblanter upon seeing an edit-war between two socks protected the page. And then also seeing that the statement attributed to Musharraf was not sourced (as a false citation-needed tag had been added to it), he removed only that portion while reverting other POV edits by DS' sock-ip.

• Now, while I was following the edit-war between IPs (I logged in later once the page had already been protected), and visited the IP's talk page, I found that @Smsarmad: had provided a source to the sock-ip to support Musharraf's statement and have asked him to stop removing the statement, which the sock rejected.

• Upon going through the source provided by Smsarmad, I researched further and found that not only the citation-needed tag was false but that Musharraf's statement has been quoted by many RS. So, obviously I corrected it and re-added the statement by mentioning in the edit-summary that "Wrong "citation needed" tag was added. The info is sourced in the ref provided at the end of the paragraph. Adding more ref in next edit'. Now, the funny thing is that this gang quotes the same edit against me exactly how Kuatilya has formatted his AE report against me. In the next edit I then added one more ref. I then even went to the extent of informing Ymblanter at his talk about the edit and asked him if I was correct.

Now, I dont understand how else should WP work? I see a sock pushing POV and registered editors supporting him, I catch the falsehood being used to push it, I then research, inform the Admin, add the content/ref, go back again to the Admin, ask him if I was correct, what else? Why is it that a chronic sock can get away with his POV by getting support from experienced users like Kuatilya and that editors like me have to even justify every legit edit of theirs and even then face admonishment?

Lastly, as regards to this IP's second claim that I restored a 'sock-free' version of article which was not sock-free, well after restoring the sock-free version, I immediately got busy with filling an SPI again him to prevent any further edit-war and that he could be stopped before his vandalizes any other articles. Please note that it was my first SPI ever and I did take sometime to file it. The moment I got free from filing the SPI, I turned to the article to check it had any other issues as being claimed by the IP vandalizing it, but before I could do it, Future Perfect at Sunrise took care of it and informed me of the same (the same link which now is being quoted against me by IP). Just see the reply I gave to FPAS; I thanked him for his effort and acknowledged the fact that the article was indeed poorly sourced (most of these poor sources, by the way, have been added by Kuatilya alone as already pointed out by me at the AE), and that I would have done what FPAS has already, provided I did not get held up with the SPI. As per FPAS' advice, I improved the references and then I even requested FPAS AGAIN to review the changes and advice further. What else am I supposed do?!

Sir, I just saw that Kuatilya had already approached you regarding the AE, and now this IP. It isnt hard to see how this is working and what's happening. I have also tried to explain above how even my normal unrelated edits are being cherry-picked and pieced together to present something which I am not. Same was the case with the previous two AE's against me. The fact that Kuatilya and this chronic sock are employing similar tactic speaks of something. I would humbly request you to proceed ahead while keeping these points in mind so that WP is not systematically made into something which it is not. I also humbly suggest that a Boomerang will go a long way in this regards. Thanks.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 18:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, hum. It is not a good idea for the AE discussion to overflow on to here. The discussion of this thread is about edits to Balochistan Liberation Army, which was never mentioned in the AE case. Moreover, Ymblanter pointed out that the sock had quite valid points and Smsarmad is able to deal quite honourably even with socks, something TripWire is unable to do.

I have hardly ever edit that page and there is no reason for TripWire to drag me here. I really need him to stop mentioning my name in all kinds of places and attempting to throw dirt at me. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Sir, it was you who dragged the AE here, not me. Also, the discussion of this thread is about Baloch Students Organization too which you have heavily edited and was repeatedly mentioned in the AE case. And I precisely did what Ymblanter pointed out and what Smsarmad was trying to when he probably left (only he can explain why). Now, if I did what Smsarmad was suggesting and what Ymblanter had instructed, then how am I at fault and how is it that you are having a problem with me? Bad-faith, I guess? And you are being mentioned here because DS have been approaching you regularly and you have been towing his line with keenness. Allow me to find some diffs.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 19:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

See how innocent DS acts with you. Then how he is asking you to restore his version. How he pleads you to get his deleted article restored. And how you gave him space to let this cat and mouse game to extend over a considerable period of time [12], [13]. Like they say, it takes two to clap.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 19:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

DS and I never co-edited anything, and I wouldn't know who he was even if he stares me in the face. Please stop wasting everybody's time with your meaningless accusations, and take it to WP:ANI if you have evidence of foul play. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

For the future: I'm sure many of us have encountered web sites where if you want to make an entry that is word or character limited, the editing box simply stops receiving words/characters when you have reached the limit. This would eliminate the need for clerks or other editors to do word counts and does this totally objectively. Why can we not use this at e.g. Arbcom? I suggest this Wordsmith in case you decide to offer feedback to relevant persons once your time is a little more available. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I would think that would require cooperation from the software staff at the WMF. It's something that could be requested the next time they have their annual call for requested feature additions (whenever that will be, I don't know). --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh I'm sure it will require expert attention. Does the annual call get widely advertised - I have never heard of it before. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I stumbled on a previous one, but I'm not sure that it is. (The next time I become aware of one, I'll leave you a note on your talk page.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I think this is one, although it is not stated by the company. I don't use twitter, but isn't that character limited? DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I tried pasting a very large amount of text into it, and it let me paste the whole thing, so no, I don't think that's an example. But I am familiar with what you mean. I don't use Twitter either (you mean there are two of us?!), but it's well-known for limiting to 140 characters. There are also many websites where one fills out a form, and each field has a word limit: that's really what we are talking about here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I don't think that would be viable, while you can limit the characters in a text box, being able to post multiple entries makes this function pointless. (Hopefully I am not intruding, was watching this page coz I'm interested in the GMO debate) Darwinian Ape ^talk 22:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

But that would be one of the advantages. At Arbcom, you have your own section to edit and you are not allowed to edit in other editor's sections. You could still make multiple edits in your own section, but not above the word limit. DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Yea, you're right. I thought of making separate sections which would not be permitted anyway. If someone were to edit their section they would be restricted. Editing the whole page would be tricky though, either having the same restriction which would make it impossible to edit it as a whole, or exemption which would create a loophole, perhaps only exempt to clerks and admins... Darwinian Ape ^talk 00:03, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I would support exemptions for clerks, but not admins - I think for obvious reasons. DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

To answer one question November 2016 is the next Wishlist survey. While I understand the motivation, I am opposed. I think it chews up valuable developer time for very little benefit. Happy to elaborate if desired.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the link! I watchlisted it, and I appreciate knowing where and when to find it. Myself, I have other ideas besides this one, that are higher priorities for me. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Why should the ARCA discussion about this be taken into account when deciding on sentencing length when I was not made aware of it until now? Ranze (talk) 06:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Because ARCA clarified the Arbcom ruling you are subject to. From modern times to ancient tradition, most systems of governance have held that ignorance of the rules is not an excuse. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 08:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

From what I looked into though, the ARCA case had multiple admins there voicing that topic bans could be localized to portions of articles and didn't apply to an entire article just because the topic came up in some portents of it.

Anyway with special:diff/729781495 with the original being months expired, if your advice is accepted would that mean I'm now utterly free to edit GG things? Even if that were the case it'd feel like walking on egg-shells. I think I would want to first discuss the validity of the material that initiated all this (since I don't think it's a BLP violation) but I would be uncertain where I would be allowed to discuss it without fear of this recurring, since talk pages are included.

Is there a place other than the talk page where I can safely discuss this without fear of reprisal? Like somewhere on policy or project? Basically the whole 'Star Wars' career statements. Ranze (talk) 04:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

If I were you, I would wait until the AE request was closed with a definite result before editing in that area. However, if the result is that the ban is seen to have expired, and you are not under any other sanctions, then you would be free to edit in any topic area subject to the same restrictions as any other editor. Of course, if you were to abuse this privilege then the prior ban would be noted and it would likely result in an indefinite topic ban. I'm confused by what you mean when you say "where I would be allowed to discuss it without fear of this recurring". Do you have something to say that would potentially be a BLP violation? Also note that there has been a change in the admins enforcing in this area, so degrees of leniency may have changed as well. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 13:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Wordsmith, I suppose you have noticed that TripWire's response in the ARE case is way over the word limit. Cutting him some minor slack is fine by me. But I find it rather distasteful that he is using the leeway to make accusations against me and deflect attention from himself. (I have advised him numerous times to take it to WP:ANI if he had a case, and RegentsPark did as well, e.g., here. He never did.) I hope you will be stricter with the word limits. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Wordsmith, the ARE has been archived without any feedback from the admins. Would you like to reinstate and do something to get the attention of admins? Or should I assume that it has been closed without any action? I am afraid the latter is likely to increase tensions within the India-Pakistan space. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 08:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I've rescued it from the archive and commented on it. The bot made a mistake in archiving it before it had been closed. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Considerations on the Causes of the Greatness of the Romans and their Decline, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sack of Rome. 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) 10:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

So, despite the fact that the affected editor does not currently have a topic ban, I'd like to have the scope of the GamerGate topic ban clarified around People v. Turner and other rape cases. You suggested ARCA as the forum for this, but I wasn't sure if you were going to go forward with raising the issue there.

Without rehearsing my whole argument, I'm concerned both about controversial cases of sexual assault, and with patterns of editing designed to describe rape cases in ways that (imho) exemplify victim blaming (generally a BLPCRIME issue), disrespect anonymity (BLPPRIVACY) and attempt to re-investigate concluded cases (OR). This editing need not be in the part of the article that is "about gender" (if one thinks rape is not about gender) or "about controversy." I think these issues fall under "gender-related controversy, broadly construed," but then again I never imagined administrators would say that they didn't at AE, so what do I know?

In any case, I've never interacted with arbitration at this level before, but I will go forward with making a request if you're not going to.--Carwil (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

This has already been discussed here, Carwil, where the consensus was that it 'obviously' fell under the topic ban. If you feel it's necessary, it's fine to start another discussion about it- it may nip the consternation by obtuse editors in the bud. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:18, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I think it's necessary, especially given that Wordsmith voiced an opinion that differs greatly from the opinion of Arbitrators and is an active administrator in an area where this decision should absolutely be applicable. Like Carwil, I have no experience with the proper procedure (I'm pretty new here), but I feel very strongly about getting this clarified. Perhaps Wordsmith (or you, PeterTheFourth) can point us in the right direction and make sure we have what we need to raise the issue constructively/fairly. 107.77.218.54 (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Given Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Carriearchdale, specifically, Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant is Unrelated to the above accounts. is there an reason this editor should not be unblocked?--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, because it shows nothing. It proves that Fouette is not related to that random sock drawer that was uncovered, and that Carriearchdale is not related to that sock drawer. It says nothing about whether or not Fouette and Carriearchdale are related. Indeed, Checkuser cannot say anything about a link between Fouette and Carrie are the same person, because Carrie was blocked well over a year ago and Checkuser data contains nothing past 90 days. That's why I never requested a CU before blocking. Aside from the WP:DUCK, one would think the behavior and harassment alone would be more than sufficient to sustain a block and I'm not sure why anyone would want them unblocked. I will not be overturning it. However, if you still believe I'm mistaken you can take it to WP:AN for review. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know the whole story. All I know is I placed a request at WIR for someone to write an article and Fouette stepped up and created it. I was chagrined when it was deleted, and when I saw the SPI, I wondered if Fouette had been swept up by accident.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Re this warning. While I support the removal, the user did provide a source. Their edit included an improperly formatted inline citation to the NYT. Properly better to just direct them to discuss on the article talk page. — Strongjam (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I double checked, and you're right. When I looked at the diff the first time, it only bolded the first half of it and didn't show the second half with the link to the NYT article. I'll leave a note on the IP's talkpage correcting myself. Thanks for the heads up. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I have filed two actions at WP:ARCA of which you are named party: action 1, action 2 --David Tornheim (talk) 04:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I have some further evidence re the matter you investigated here, which I would like to send via email. My email is enabled but yours doesn't show up for some reason. Oculi (talk) 07:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

That matter is considered to be closed; if you have further private evidence please contact the Arbitration Committee. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 13:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi. If it's possible, could you please send me the article? There's a lot of useful info in it. AcidSnow (talk) 21:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

If you're going to use it for personal reasons, or plan to substantially rewrite it, I have no problem with doing that. However, edits made by banned users should not be reinstated without thoroughly verifying their content. This banned user in particular has a habit of inserting factual errors into articles such as these. If you still want it I'll send it to you, just be careful of its accuracy. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:14, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I am aware and would greatly appreciate it! AcidSnow (talk) 21:22, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Alright, you want the raw text sent to Special:EmailUser/AcidSnow? The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

If that's where it's post to be sent, then yes. AcidSnow (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

The article was not machine-translated. The wiki tool did not even offer the option to do so. Probably the quality of the original point was not perfect but the deletion is pretty random.--QuasiPerlach (talk) 10:41, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

You're right. I took a second look, and I was mistaken in its deletion. I've restored it. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Will you be willing to permit me to file a public ARCA ? Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 18:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

About what? The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The topic ban.[14] Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 22:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, an appeal at ARCA is explicitly allowed as per the terms of WP:ACDS. I don't see any reason you shouldn't be allowed to appeal there. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 06:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

A couple of hours ago you erased that article which i've translated from hebrew, your reasoning was that it was poor machine-translation. That's wrong. It may be a low quality article, but it was not machine-translated. --melo kol haaretz kevodi (talk) 20:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Thanks, Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 20:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Can you articulate what exactly it is that I should be sanctioned for? I haven't done anything. Your proposal for the 0RR restriction is straight out of the blue.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to start a separate side-discussion here, but when I have the opportunity I'll expand my statement over at AE. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

A clarification request in which you were involved has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms#Clarification request: Genetically modified organisms (1) (August 2016). For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 13:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

A second clarification request in which you were involved has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms#Clarification request: Genetically modified organisms (2) (August 2016). For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 14:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm not sure if you remember but you were the admin who ruled to keep the alt-right article. There is an editor on the alt-right article who insists on having an in-article description of a media outlet when it is already wikilinked, so I was wondering if you could give an opinion on this or if there's a manual of style with this type of thing?

The dispute is about having:
"Benjamin Welton, writing for the neoconservative opinion magazine The Weekly Standard..."
instead of just:
"Benjamin Welton, writing for The Weekly Standard..."

It seems to me that the wikilink exists to provide that type of information where it's relevant, but there's an editor consensus supporting the inclusion of the description as The Weekly Standard is supposedly an unknown outlet and needs to be described. Sorry if this is irrelevant here but I thought I'd ask. Zaostao (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I do remember that AFD,and have followed that discussion. While I agree with you that describing the outlet is unnecessary and likely an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of it as a source, an administrator cannot override editor consensus outside of a few very specific exceptions. Further, I do participate in content discussions in this topic area, so even if I were inclined to do so I'm recused from acting as an administrator on that article due to WP:INVOLVED. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:00, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Do you know of any alternate courses? I was recommended to start a RfC in another case where editor consensus (made up of the same few editors) went against me over something similar to this but doing that seems like it would set a precedent of having to create a RfC every time there's a disagreement between me and this band of editors, so I opted against it. Zaostao (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

An RFC is always a good choice; if published in the right places it can get a wide variety of editor input. For smaller-scale solutions, WP:3O or informal mediation might be better The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the response and the advice. Have a good weekend. Zaostao (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi! Anybody can add options to an RFC, yeah? PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:RFC suggests that it is proper and even encouraged to "add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template", so I don't see any reason it wouldn't be allowed as long as it is free from disruption, POINT and the usual pitfalls. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: Please note that I specifically said that additional proposals are welcome if they are not WP:POINTy. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The wording of the RFC was "The current lede to the Gamergate controversy article is frequently criticised as being rambling and overly long. I therefore propose that we replace it with the following in the interest of clarity." - it makes no mention of a second option and was not intended as multiple choice. The proposed lede was in a seperate section in order not to make the RFC question overlong - NOT to allow other editors to mess around with it however they like. I am disappointed that you have opened the way to this behaviour. Artw (talk) 00:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

You own neither the article, the talk page, nor the RfC. If you are disappointed by others contributing, I imagine you experience a lot of disappointment on this website. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 00:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

A cynic might see this section as an intentional effort to grow a list of diffs showing "escalating personal conflict" with The Wordsmith, rendering his administration of GG WP:INVOLVED. Violating WP:GAME and WP:NOTHERE in a topic covered by DS would be a risky move! Lucky there are no cynics here. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

The Wordsmith has far more to worry about from scientologists than from nerds like me. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

This seems to get more silly with each passing comment. Can we put this one to bed? I think we all have more productive things to do (though I'd be lying if I said I didn't giggle a tiny bit when I saw your "proposal". The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

You were added to a mass-message list because of your displayed interest in this case. The Arbitration Committee will periodically inform you of the status of this case so long as your username remains on this list.

You were recently listed as a party to and/or commented on 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/Michael Hardy. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 25, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 17:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to be clear in my understanding to avoid similar mistakes. Scope is limited to content that addresses Gamergate, the people involved or gender-related controversies rather than articles that address Gamergate, the people involved or gender-related controversies - is that how you're interpreting it? If so: noted. And solely for the purposes of understanding, would this meet your definition of a GG topic ban violation? James J. Lambden (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Its a very fine line. Articles that are related to Gamergate or gender controversies do count, but I see "related" as more than just a casual namedrop. That sentence from the Alt-right article really doesn't belong there anyway, it seems very out of place as a passing mention unconnected to anything. To me, it isn't enough to make the entire article off-limits. As to your diff, that's very close to the line. A credible argument could be made that it is a violation, but I wouldn't say that conclusively without input from other editors and uninvolved admins. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Alright, now I'm clear, thank you. I actually support this extremely narrow interpretation, it seems to minimize disruption. As I understand it, for as long as Gamaliel policed the area he made the argument that a broad interpretation was necessary to minimize disruption. As long as it's consistent I can't object. I'm not qualified to edit the article yet but in preparation: is there any procedural protection from admins who might interpret the scope more broadly, i.e. a reversion to Gamaliel's interpretation? James J. Lambden (talk) 21:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The basic "protection" from overzealous admins is that this topic area is controversial enough that admins aren't going to act unilaterally in anything but the most obvious of cases. Enough rouge admins have gotten stomped on here that where there's room for debate, we're likely to discuss things at WP:AE before jumping to action. I won't comment specifically on Gamaliel's style, except to say that the participants in this topic area were very different from now and I don't see a return to overzealousness being likely. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Rouge? MarkBernstein (talk) 21:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Reasonable. "rouge admins", ha, clever.James J. Lambden (talk) 21:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something even subtler, WP:Rouge admins are a deliberate typo probably due to the speed in which they act, they can't be bothered with qwerty keyboards designed specifically to slow down their typing from the Underwood days. Just be thankful that typewriter guy didn't invent the piano and try to reduce the number of notes played. --DHeyward (talk) 23:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• Hey. Uninvolved editor/admin here. Why would this diff be a GamerGate violation, or even close to one? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

• My reading of the edit is that the book is about "an extensive discussion of Sanger’s feminism and its impact", which could arguably fall under the "gender-related dispute or controversy" or people related to it section of the GG topic ban. I'm not saying that it does violate the ban, since I tend to construe things like that less broadly than other admins, but the argument could be made. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 04:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Notability is expressly stated as Not a reason for speedy deletion. Nor was speedy deletion requested. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WikiConference North America 2016 and read #5 Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Non-criteria. There are other sources as well, I just haven't added them yet. --DHeyward (talk) 23:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

If there is another reason, just restore to my user area and I'll work on it. No biggie. --DHeyward (talk) 00:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Articles about organized events that make no credible claim of significance are eligible for deletion under CSD A7. Additionally, you've been around long enough to realize that an article with literally zero coverage outside of Meta and the ticket sales page can't possibly pass muster. I couldn't see any secondary sourcing when I gave it a check either. If there is something somewhere that makes a credible assertion of importance, let me know and I have no problem restoring it. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't listed under A7. I have other sources including university calls for contributions and other notable mentions.. Please restore it to my user area as I requested. --DHeyward (talk) 04:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

  Done I've moved it to User:DHeyward/WikiConference North America 2016 for now, so that you can work on it. As usual, I retain the prerogative to proceed with the deletion process if it will never be fit for inclusion. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

An amendment request in which you were a listed party has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Amendment request: Scientology (August 2016). For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 13:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I just blocked IamNate (talk · contribs · count) as a   Confirmed sock of Markus1463 (talk · contribs · count), the master of a group of accounts that were promoting Alex Deans. IamNate was the last person to vote at the AfD before you closed it. It was a rather lengthy keep vote. If I had noticed it earlier, I would have reverted it. I don't know how much that vote influenced your closure, but I thought I'd bring it to your attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I did read that argument and take it into account. I'll have to give it another readthrough to see if anything changes without that input, but I don't think losing that one !vote would push it into delete territory. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

After giving it a second read, the close was still the right decision. Nothing that I'm going to overturn. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I was a bit concerned about this as well. Both the keep and delete arguments were interesting (with a numerical majority of deletes). I'm a bit interested to know why is this a "clear" keep (instead of a "delete" or "no consensus"). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

When closing, I checked the sources for myself and saw they were clearly strong enough to meet GNG. The promotional language had been removed, and the multiple awards in multiple years weakens the BLP1E argument. Those 3 reasons were the only significant ones given for deletion, and with the changes made to the article those arguments were significantly weaker. I didn't count the !votes numerically, I went by the strength of the arguments made. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 11:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

You got my changes caught up in the removal of that vandalism (which I was just about to remove myself.) Maybe intentional but I'm leaving this message in case not. James J. Lambden (talk) 01:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

No, your edit just got caught in the crossfire. I have no objection to restoring it. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 01:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! James J. Lambden (talk) 01:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Right Stuff (blog), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Right Stuff. 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) 09:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

  Hello! Your submission of The Right Stuff (blog) 2 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 02:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

  Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review the essay Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humour. Best wishes. jps (talk) 20:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)