User talk:The Wordsmith

WIKIPEDIA FOREVER

Please note that if you post something for me here, I'll respond to it here.

If I posted on your talk page, I have it watched so you can reply there. Please do not put a talkback template here.

It just makes for easier reading. Thanks.

This user has been on Wikipedia for 19 years, 8 months and 28 days.

“ In light of the following considerations:

• That the core principles of the policy on biographies of living people—in particular, neutrality and verifiability—have been set forth by the Wikimedia Foundation as a mandate for all projects;

• That the policy on biographies of living people, and this Committee's ruling in the Badlydrawnjeff case, call for the removal of poorly sourced and controversial content, and places the burden of demonstrating compliance on those who wish to see the content included;

• That unsourced biographies of living people may contain seemingly innocuous statements which are actually damaging, but there is no way to determine whether they do without providing sources;

• That Wikipedia, through the founding principle of "Ignore All Rules", has traditionally given administrators wide discretion to enforce policies and principles using their own best judgment; and

• That administrators have been instructed to aggressively enforce the policy on biographies of living people.

The Committee has determined that:

• The deletions carried out by Rdm2376, Scott MacDonald, and various other administrators are a reasonable exercise of administrative discretion to enforce the policy on biographies of living people.

• The administrators who carried out these actions are commended for their efforts to enforce policy and uphold the quality of the encyclopedia, but are urged to conduct future activities in a less chaotic manner.

• The administrators who interfered with these actions are reminded that the enforcement of the policy on biographies of living people takes precedence over mere procedural concerns.

”

Trout

Can you point to the edits of mine that were uncivil? I don't want to be disruptive, but WP:CIVIL policy is a dead letter. If I did something to violate actual WP policy, I want to know what. Felsic2 (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you violated any policies, or else I would have succested sanctions. The trouting is a lighthearted reminder that we should all probably be a bit more polite to each other, especially in contentious areas where tensions can run high.The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

OK. Where was I impolite? Felsic2 (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

1, 2, 3, 4 (Plain White T's song)

Ironically there is no consensus fo this, and you say nothing about it. Thanks for waisting a week of my life. No need to reply. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 02:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

GMO RfC

Once again, thank you very much for your gracious comments about the GMO RfC request at ArbCom. The discussion there seems to be slowing down, with an emerging consensus that it would be best for the community to try to make it work without involving ArbCom, so I would like to discuss some things with you here, in order to see if we can pin down some details to make this work. I'm also pinging Laser brain, who has also offered to help with some of the adminstrative stuff. I'd like to see if we think that the following ideas are workable. If we agree that this is promising, then I'll leave a message about it at the Arb page.

I think I would be comfortable that the RfC would work well if we could do all of the following:

1. Preparing the RfC: Editors need to discuss the nuts and bolts of setting up the RfC – what the RfC page would look like, how it would work, what the rules would be. You have said that you might help with mediating something like this, and I hope that you will. Would you agree to mediating it and making sure that DS are followed during that discussion?
2. Keeping the RfC orderly: Both you and Laser brain have said that you might be willing to strictly enforce DS and the RfC rules while the RfC is in process, along with any other uninvolved administrators who might come along. Would you each agree to do this?
3. Determining consensus: I think that we need to have a panel of three (3) completely uninvolved admins or experienced editors to evaluate the consensus after the RfC has ended. I think some editors will consider anyone mediating or enforcing DS to be involved. I suggest that we recruit the 3 users through a request at WP:AN, and I want them to be announced before the RfC opens. Does this sound reasonable?
4. Making sure the consensus does not get disrupted: I like the idea of making a rule, under DS, from the beginning, that the only way the RfC consensus can later be altered is by way of a regular RfC, open for at least 30 days. This rule should be posted as a notice on the talk page of each affected article. It should be strictly enforced under DS. Any editor may revert a non-consensus change, and such reverts need to be exempt from the 1RR rule. Will this work?

I hope this can work, and I want to make sure everything is in place from the start. Thanks again! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: Yes, I am willing to assist in keeping the RFC orderly and in ensuring the consensus that emerges is respected. I have never edited in this topic area, nor have I been involved with anyone who does, to my knowledge. I'll leave 1 and 3 to those setting up the RFC, but I think 4 is a bit of over-litigation. The normal process of enforcing consensus applies and I don't think we need to create any special rules for new RFCs or 1RR. If a non-consensus change gets reverted and the person restores it, my tendency would be to remove them from the situation anyway. --Laser brain (talk) 21:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Tryptofish:@Laser brain: I would like to begin moving with all deliberate speed. In order to proceed, we need to firmly establish the following information:

1. The locus of the dispute and its history.
2. Any users that may potentially be interested in participating, from all sides of the dispute. We can put notices on the relevant article talk pages, but I find that the personal touch in reaching out to editors establishes a more courteous atmosphere.
3. How to choose the 3 admins that decide it. If we post to AN and get more than three responses, we need some sort of criteria. Obviously experience with dispute resolution and consensus building is important, as is having admins who are uninvolved and respected so as not to cast a cloud on their consensus. That said, a little boldness is preferable, as the RFC will certainly be complex.
4. Precise rules of conduct. This needs to be posted clearly at the top of the page, for all to see. It can include things like word limits in statements, civility standards, enforcement measures, and a timeline for the RFC.
5. The RFC format. I would suggest a 2-stage RFC: First, to solicit statements and opinions from the community on the nature of the problem, and second to narrow them down into workable proposals. For an example, please see WP:BLPRFC1 and WP:BLPRFC2, which was a FAR more complex and tendentious issue than I'm anticipating here. The 2-stage format worked, and the most rabid BLP Inclusionists (one of which currently sits on the Committee) and the rabid BLP Deletionists (including several prominent and polarizing community members) were able to more or less come to a consensus. The ultimate result is that the community's frustrations were released in BLPRFC1 and my closure of BLPRFC2 was much more productive and able to establish a framework that still exists, largely unmodified, 6 years later. I have yet to see another RFC this contentious that had a stronger or more productive result, so I'm a firm believer in that format.
6. Assuming the RFC results in consensus, a Discretionary Sanction could be issued stating that it should not be overturned without an equally strong consensus. I would recommend establishing a review in 6 months; see WP:BLPRFC3 for how that worked.

The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both very much! I am happy that each of you agrees to be involved in those ways. (And I'm watchlisting here.)

About points 1 and 5 in The Wordsmith's list, please see Talk:Genetically modified crops. I'm quite confident that all the editors who have strong feelings about the dispute have been participating in the discussion there, and editors have already prepared 5 proposals for the exact text and sourcing. It seems to me that we already have consensus among the disputing editors about what we want to change in the existing content, and the question is what to change it to – and the 5 proposals already capture the range of editor opinions. Although of course I believe that the community should be free to make further proposals during the RfC, what we really need is an RfC focused on choosing among the proposals. I think we are ready to go right to setting that up.

About reaching out to editors, I agree. I can start by posting at the ArbCom page, to draw attention to our discussion right here. I'm just waiting to make sure that we are settled on something that I believe can work, before I effectively tell ArbCom that they can bow out and leave it to the community. I think we can then draw up an editor list from the editors who have been commenting recently at the affected article talk pages, and that will be a straightforward process. And about agreeing ahead of time about precise rules of conduct: amen!

About getting the 3 closers at AN, I figure we should accept the first three who volunteer and who are not objected to by editors. I'm not worried about getting too many volunteers.

Now about what I said in my point 4, where Laser brain is concerned about too much formality, and The Wordsmith said point 6, I feel like this is now the one issue that may still be unsettled. One of the Arbs just said (I think) that they may in fact be open to ArbCom requiring their review of subsequent changes, but I've just asked for clarification, and I want to see what they say. I don't think a time period (such as 3 years) really matters, but I want something in place that will not be gamed, because believe me, people will try. If we get what Laser brain calls a non-consensus change being reverted and restored, or what The Wordsmith calls "an equally strong consensus", there will be all kinds of arguments about which version was really consensus and which was non-consensus, and about how strong is "equally" strong, which is why I think that we need to define a minimum criterion to establish that consensus has really changed, and not leave it to admins to try to figure it out after the fact. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC) The Arb replied while I was writing this, and ArbCom does not want to enforce that. I misunderstood. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia seems to have eaten my edit, so I'll announce that I've begun setting up a skeleton at User:The Wordsmith/GMORFC. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me}

I've seen and watchlisted the draft RfC, and I am happy with your wording about the issue of the conditions for subsequently revisiting the consensus. I have plenty of other suggestions, and just let me know when you are ready for those. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Please, feel free to add to it or edit it. It is still a Userspace Draft now, so Arbcom sanctions are not yet in place. Best to have things planned out before putting it before the wider community. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I just want to chime in and say I like the framework being set up here, especially the combination of 500 words initial statement and 250 for small responses to editors. The only thing I could see adding right now is a few additional pages to the Policies, etc. to keep in mind section. One would be WP:RS/AC policy since that deals directly with when we use the term scientific consensus in articles. WP:MEDRS also applies since we are talking about food safety in terms of reliable sources. That should cover the bases in that area. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

While this is in my Userspace for now, I'm not expressing Ownership of it. Please, feel free to add things you feel are necessary and propose bigger changes on the draft talkpage. Boldness and collaboration are welcome. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Sounds great, and I'll do some bold stuff shortly. I greatly appreciate the way that you have really listened to me, so thank you very much for that.

But there is one part of it that I'd like to discuss, especially because it's already been mentioned just above. I think that we can actually be a lot more generous with respect to the word limits. Editors may need to explain some complex content matters, and that's OK. If the RfC were to have been set up with the typical threaded discussion, then tl;dr would be a fatal flaw. But if someone chooses to filibuster within their own section, then all they are doing is rendering their own views tl;dr. If the DS are strict about NPA and no off-topic anything, then also having an AE-style requirement of each editor in his/her own section helps a lot with the problems I anticipate. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The thing is, even a tl;dr statement is one that the closing admins are going to have to read carefully and take into account. By compressing their statement down to a word count, it forces brevity and requires editors to stay on topic. That makes it much easier for the closing admins to see their point and weigh it accordingly. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

As I dope-slap myself for misunderstanding something, I realize that I misinterpreted how the draft page is set up, so: here is something else worth discussing. There are two ways for editors to make their comments about the individual proposals in the RfC. (1) One is like at WP:RFC/J, where there is a section for each draft, under which editors register themselves as supporting or opposing. I now realize that's what you intended for the sections about the proposals at the bottom. And thus, the sections for editor statements, above those, are for general statements as opposed to for proposal !votes. I misinterpreted the statement sections as also being where everyone would state their preferences among the proposals. (2) But there is a second way to set up the RfC, which is what Laser brain proposed here: [1]. In other words, make it entirely like AE, with each editor having just one section, and no threaded discussion anywhere (except the talk page). So, in "Tryptofish's section", I would have to say what I want to say about each proposal, say anything else permitted at the RfC, and make any responses to other editors. I think that second way is a really good idea. That's what I was (mistakenly) talking about above. It would allow enforcement much as at AE, and make it pretty much impossible for one editor to get in the way of what another editor tries to say. We should not need separate sections for people to make grandiose statements, because they will. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm open to altering the format. Let's see if we can get some other editors in here to give their opinion. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm in favor of Tryptofish's approach (I hadn't realized what Trypto noticed either). It should keep things much more orderly to avoid blugeoning, which is why we're looking for this help in setting up the RfC. I share similar concerns about the word limits in that it could impede explaining complex topics, but I think we also need them to prevent disruption. I'd be open to raising the response word limit potentially, but I'm not going to push that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I've added the proposals to the draft RfC page, and I also boldly edited it per what KofA and I said just above. In my individual opinion, I think it's in pretty good shape, and perhaps ready to start notifying involved editors and to request closers at AN.

Here is a list of editors who have been commenting recently (and of course omitting the topic-banned), and I think it can be the list of editors you might want to reach out to. (It's possible however that I accidentally left someone out.) I'm not linking or notifying any names, so that you can proceed as you choose. In addition to me (Tryptofish): Aircorn, David Tornheim, Dialectric, Kingofaces43, Lfstevens, Petrarchan47, RAMRashan, Sunrise, Tsavage.

Thanks again, --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, looks good to me. I'm going to seek some additional input, then begin initiating the proper RFC procedure. I hope to have it in Project space and officially open by Monday at the latest. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

That sounds excellent. Thank you very much. Please let me recommend having the three closers lined up before the RfC goes live. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment/Observation: I have been away from Wikipedia for a few weeks. I have a number of comments to make about the construction of the rules, but will need a few days to collect my thoughts. I do appreciate that The WordsSmith and Laser Brain have stepped forward. I will discuss issues about neutrality when I come back.

The most important observation for now: Very few GM editors are aware this discussion is taking place, and hence have not commented here. IMHO, there should be notices at a minimum on the GM crops article, but also the other affected articles, notifying and requesting editors to comment here on the proposed Rules of the RfC. (I regret I do not have time to help right now, as I did in the past.) So far there are only two editors who have spoken here who have worked on GM articles in the past and both have a strong bias that favors using the words "scientific consensus"--the pro-industry language. Before the rules are set for RfC #3 on whether Wikipedia will call it a "scientific consensus", I suggest we have an equal number of voices of those who opposed this language at the massive 2nd RfC on this subject--the RfC that caused that language to be changed to "general scientific agreement"--to have a chance to comment. Perhaps everyone who commented there and on the first RfC should be invited to discuss these proposed rules? --David Tornheim (talk) 10:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

David Tornheim, your comments conflate the "rules" of the RFC with the wording of the proposals. If you have a problem with the term "scientific consensus", you are free to add a proposal with your preferred wording when the RFC opens. Participating editors can comment on it as they see fit. The rules themselves are of course open to comment, but ultimately are being specified under WP:AE authority. I will advocate strongly for rules that prevent the use of WP:BLUDGEON and keep participant commentary to neat, concise sections. Once consensus is established by the RFC, I will be assisting in swift enforcement actions (to include blocks and topic bans) upon editors who attempt to contravene or relitigate the RFC question out-of-process. The Wordsmith, where are we on the timeline for posting? --Laser brain (talk) 11:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about the revert

Hi, The Wordsmith, sorry for my revert at AE. I didn't realize you were a reviewing admin, and thought you were just a well-meaning passerby. I'll self-revert if that's what you'd prefer. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The personal attack was directed at you. While I don't believe it has any place on Wikipedia, if you wish it to stay then I'll respect that. Thank you for your politeness. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

AE

Hi The Wordsmith, Apologies for the interruption. Looking at a couple of things at the current WP:AE discussion: Firstly, and most importantly, could I ask you to check in with Spartaz; they seem upset by the hatting of their comments in the uninvolved admin section. Secondly, I note that your comment indicates a belief that the concerns of administrative involvement have not be demonstrably shown. I would ask that you read over my statement updated a few hours ago, particularly the section directly addressed to you. I believe that the diffs in that section evidence an administrator 30/500 protecting a Talk page to prevent discussion of a potential conflict of interest by another editor; who had deleted that discussion themselves. If this does not appear as clear to you as it does to me, I am happy to answer any follow up questions. If you are still searching for evidence for the main matter being discussed, please also review the whole of my statement, which contains copious diffs. I am also happy to trim these or point out the more serious breaches. Thanks in advance for your time. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 19:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Spartaz appears to have gone on wikibreak. If he thinks anything I said or did was improper he is more than welcome to discuss it with me; I'm perfectly willing to listen to a reasonable argument why bickering belongs in that section. Perhaps I misunderstood. As to your other request, I'll review your statement again and reexamine the evidence, and respond here in a few hours. Of course, anything you could to to separate the wheat from the chaff is helpful. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Wordsmith, I have no idea what you're talking about with "sniping"--Mark Bernstein made a comment about a comment I made, and I explained. I'd appreciate if you patronized me on my talk page rather than in a public forum. You can remove your comment any time you like. Drmies (talk) 00:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll redact my statement at your request. The Enforcement request will be closed shortly anyway. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 00:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Request to conclude a report at WP:AN/EW

Hi. Recently you've expressed willingness to step into the Gamergate topic area. This is great! We've been pretty (understandably) scarce on active editors with the ability to issue sanctions. I'd like to ask that you look into a report I've made on the edit warring noticeboard here that concerns the GG topic area. It's been sitting there for over a week now. If you don't feel you can decide either way, that's fine, but it'd be nice for the report to have a result, regardless of what that result might be. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm willing to take a look, but a) I'm expecting a shitstorm shortly due to the sanction I recently imposed, and b) I'm about to go to bed. If it can wait until tomorrow afternoon, I'd be happy to look into it for you. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 04:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

That'd be fine. Thanks! PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

You aren't neutral in GG. You should defer to actually uninvolved admins like Gamaliel. Please overturn and restore Mark's rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.49.0 (talk) 15:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that I'm not neutral? I honestly don't care about GG one way or another; I just want the chaos to end and I see a lot of bad behavior on both sides. I don't recall participating in the topic area other than enforcement and giving an occasional interpretation of Wikipedia policy. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

You're going to get this sort of stuff with increasing regularity. I regret that it's become part of the background noise in the general topic area. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I knew that would happen even before I issued the sanction. I'll probably be getting it from both entrenched sides; it won't be the first time I've stepped in to police a controversial area, and this topic looks like a polite disagreement compared to Scientology, Climate Change, Eastern Europe or Unsourced BLP mass deletions. That doesn't mean I should ignore criticism of my actions. Previous enforcing admins did exactly that, and look where we are now. I'd like to think that I'm resilient enough to handle the flames without getting burnt out. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 00:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for resolving the case. Not the outcome I agree with, but far better than stagnation. I'm sorry for not taking it to AE- I legitimately didn't know that was the preferred venue. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

No worries, now you know. And it is entirely possible for two editors to have a polite and reasonable disagreement on matters of policy, contrary to what many in this topic area believe. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 00:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Question regarding conduct

Since you were dealing with DHeyward's 3RR, I figured I should ask you. He has made some questionable edits in the past few days, which were mostly reverted by other editors. I'm not sure if it is something that should be ignored since they were reverted or if they should be dealt with, since the reversions were not by DHeyward. They include him referring to Gamaliel as a "Minister of Propaganda" and a cancer (which was reverted by a clerk). He also edited Gamaliel's infobox (reverted by Starke Hathaway), claiming vandals had removed {{user dem}} (The userpage history show no edits from anyone but Gamaliel for several years). Is this something you can (or would even want to) deal with, should it go to ANI or does it matter anymore since it has been removed? Torven (talk) 01:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll look into it and see if anything is improper and sanctionable. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 01:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I've looked your diffs over. The first two are impolite, but getting heated over an Arbcom case is hardly a new phenomenon. Also, that page is outside of my jurisdiction. The Arbitration Clerks are the ones who determine what is suitable for that page. As to the infobox...well, I'm not sure what's going on there. I'll follow up with DHeyward, but on the face of it the edit doesn't seem malicious, just odd. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 13:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I'm overly formal, but I think any examination of DHeyward's behavior under ArbCom discretionary sanctions should happen at AE, with notification to him, rather than here without notification. Also I notice that Torven does not meet the 500/30 requirements to even edit in the GG topic area, so it is at the very least questionable whether it is proper for them to bring enforcement requests pertaining to that area in any venue. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 13:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Torven or anyone else is perfectly free to bring up a case at AE and have his diffs fully examined. However, as I interpreted his comment, he was merely asking my advice on whether or not there was something worth following up on. My opinion is that there isn't. An informal request for a second opinion doesn't need to go through the frankly Byzantine AE structure. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the GG sanctions came into this discussion. The comments were far from civil, but I didn't think incivility, alone, was covered by any arbcom decision. The reason I mentioned the user page edit was because DHeyward commented on how Gamaliel was outspokenly partisan and displayed his party on his profile...then added it to the info box when he discovered that wasn't the case. Its not really an attack, but it seems like there is an unhealthy fixation on painting Gamaliel in a specific light. Torven (talk) 22:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

BLPTALK

Hi Wordsmith, re: your comment at the Gamergate page, please don't encourage editors to post those allegations on the talk page. BLPTALK allows links to RS, but advises that the problematic text not be posted, for obvious reasons. I don't know whether you're there as an uninvolved admin, but if you are, I'd appreciate it if we could work together on this and not against each other. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Slim. Been ages since I've seen you around. Yes, I'm there as an uninvolved admin giving my opinions on matters of policy and enforcement. I would like very much if we could work together on that.

What I'm confused on is what part violates the policy. Since I first got my mop I've been one of the most zealous BLP defenders, but I just don't see it. Maybe you see something that I don't. My interpretation of WP:BLPTALK hinges on the sentence "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate. (emphasis mine)" I get that the allegations made are contentious and controversial, and if it were citing a marginal source I would agree with you that RevDel is appropriate. However, the source given is the Washington Post, one of the most reliable and reputable newspapers I know. And since they're discussing whether or not to incorporate it into the article, it does seem related to making content choices. So, I don't see how the use of RevDel is appropriate here. If you'll notice, I didn't reinstate the edits; I just gave my opinion on them.

Of course, its entirely possible that my understanding is wrong and I'll listen to a reasonable argument to that effect. Can you please explain why you believe that the allegations are unsourced, poorly sourced, or not related to content decisions? The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi WS, WP:BLPTALK is the relevant part of the policy. It says (my bold):

"When seeking advice about whether to publish something about a living person, be careful not to post so much information on the talk page that the inquiry becomes moot. For example, it would be appropriate to begin a discussion by stating This link has serious allegations about subject; should we summarize this someplace in the article?"

The editors on the page have decided (so far) not to add the claim to the article, because the target is non-notable, and the claim is damaging and perhaps false. So there is no need for an editor to write: "The paragraph from [journalist] (which talked about [claim]) has been redacted, and it is very confusing to follow the discussion." The editors there know what is being talked about; they are not confused. And the editor who posted this said he had no intention of adding it to the article, and indeed opposed doing so, so it seemed POINTy.

When handling difficult BLP issues, the aim is to minimize the spelling out of things. That only works if everyone is acting in good faith. It takes only one to makes things wobble. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I see where the discrepancy is. I'm focusing more on the sentence immediately preceding the one you quoted. It's a tough call. I still disagree with you that it is a violation, but to err on the side of caution I won't revert your RevDel. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 03:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Gamaliel and others arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in 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/Gamaliel and others. The scope of this case is Gamaliel's recent actions (both administrative and otherwise), especially related to the Signpost April Fools Joke. The case will also examine the conduct of other editors who are directly involved in disputes with Gamaliel. The case is strictly intended to examine user conduct and alleged policy violations and will not examine broader topic areas. The clerks have been instructed to remove evidence which does not meet these requirements. The drafters will add additional parties as required during the case. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Evidence.

Please add your evidence by May 2, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. This notification is being sent to those listed on the case notification list. If you do not wish to recieve further notifications, you are welcome to opt-out on that page. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Appeal notice

I have appealed to the recent sanction you imposed on me. STSC (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)