Jump to content

User talk:Gwen Gale/archive19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Signpost: 22 November 2010

The Lidz off

Hello Gwen. I can stand the heat, which is why I'm in the kitchen. Please remove your block of this person (a block of which I hadn't been aware when I restored and responded). Really, this is pretty mild stuff; he's only identified me as a different species of primate, not a body organ or evacuated product thereof. -- Hoary (talk) 05:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

And so wittily, too. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

point

i have always made useful contributions only. u may go through rajesh khanna history page each and every line has been put by me only... my personal attack has been only after her act of tarnishing my image by writing everywhere unexplained and unconstructive edits by me when the fact was i spoke truth in the articles with references as a support. . my attack was only a reaction to all her atrocities on me. just because she is a administrator , that doesnt mean what she is says is right. be true to yourself. eg...genaic had reverted in rajesh khanna main article ...to """"He appeared in many romances and social melodramas, costarring with Sharmila Tagore, Asha Parekh, Mumtaz, Hema Malini and Tina Munim. In the 1980s, he costarred with Shabana Azmi, Smita Patil and Poonam Dhillon""""" and quicklight have explained how there is no copyright problem or violation of wiki policy ... see the discussion between good editors like Moonriddengirl,.Quicklight and bonadea ...it says there is no problem in writing the sentence as .."He formed popular onscreen pairs with with Sharmila Tagore, Asha Parekh, Mumtaz in the seventies and with Hema Malini, Tina Munim, Shabana Azmi, Smita Patil and Poonam Dhillon in eighties in many romances and social melodramas and films from a range of different genres""

but genaic has not bothered to revert it.

plus see this """u still have not responded to her completely baised act in artciles like -- bewafai,insaaf main karoonga and sitapur ki geeta. i showed you how in-spite of being well referenced she removed the informations i posted. like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sitapur_Ki_Geeta&diff=cur&oldid=398008379""""

do not worry, iam not afraid to speak truth .Shrik88music (talk) 14:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

That would be a worry, since en.WP is is not about truth, it's about verifiability. It's also about consensus. Lots of editors would take the above for a personal attack, for which you've already been blocked. Don't comment on other editors, comment on content. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Saturn V

"Three Saturn V vehicles launched on Earth orbital flights. Two of the three (Apollo 4 and 6) were unmanned tests of the command and service modules, and the third was a manned flight, Apollo 9, testing the lunar module. Nine Saturn Vs launched manned Apollo missions to the Moon, including Apollo 11. It was also used for the unmanned launch of Skylab. "

I'm confused by this also, because it seems to show four Saturn V's put into Earth orbit. Apollo 4,6,9, and Skylab. What am I missing?Asher196 (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
The article and the sentence are only about Apollo, not Skylab. Readers could be quickly misled into thinking the article says only 4 SVs were ever launched. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Jarvis Island

Check the source. It mentions nothing about freshwater lenses (or Ghyben-Herzberg lens) or anything that might be specifically defined as such. It simply states: "no natural fresh water resources" under the Environment section. Other sections omit mention of water resources. Perhaps a word used in common English could be used to replace lens, if you feel that it should remain. --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 18:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the source. In the future be more careful about telling people "don't do that again", when they are only following what the current sources say. --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 18:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
(ec) I've added a citation. Freshwater lenses are what give atolls fresh water, if they have it.[1] There should be an en.WP article on the topic, but there isn't. There's no need to skive verifiable content from an article for the goal of dumbing it down for readers, that doesn't help them at all. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
You used the word nonsense in your edit summary, freshwater lens is not a nonsense term, please be more careful next time. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Its not dumbing it down. Its OR without the proper sources, you know that as an admin. Not all areas dry have freshwater lenses. Anyhow thanks for helping improve the article. Cheers! --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 18:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Not OR in any way, not nonsense, but verifiable content which somehow was not thoroughly cited, which is now cited. Cheers back :) Gwen Gale (talk) 18:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Maybe you would be interested in collaborating on an article about Lens (groundwater) so that readers can find out more about the topic at hand. The current terminology, now cited, is not commonly used in layman English. --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 18:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
You know, I'd say the term freshwater lens is likely used a lot more than you might think amongst English speakers in the Pacific. Wells on atolls are dug in hopes of hitting a lens. If it's unstable or small, the water will be very brackish. If it's not there at all, any water found will be salt water. Historically, this has been a very big deal on small atolls. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Nsaum75/Lens_(hydrology) - Would you be interested in helping me expand it before I move it to the mainspace? --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 18:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Wonderful! Please put it in the article space with a stub tag :) (I mean, I don't see a need to keep it in your space, but you can until you're ready) I'll watchlist it and as I have bits of time, I'll be happy to help out with it. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I've watchlisted both Lens_(hydrology) and your draft. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Iloveredhair

I have now opend the ANI (though I am wonderinjg if an RFC is more apporpriate3).Slatersteven (talk)

Yeah, I see your intersecting contributions with the blocked editor. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Your point is?Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I answered you at ANI. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

point

i have always made useful contributions only. u may go through rajesh khanna history page each and every line has been put by me only... my personal attack has been only after her act of tarnishing my image by writing everywhere unexplained and unconstructive edits by me when the fact was i spoke truth in the articles with references as a support. . my attack was only a reaction to all her atrocities on me. just because she is a administrator , that doesnt mean what she is says is right. be true to yourself. eg...genaic had reverted in rajesh khanna main article ...to """"He appeared in many romances and social melodramas, costarring with Sharmila Tagore, Asha Parekh, Mumtaz, Hema Malini and Tina Munim. In the 1980s, he costarred with Shabana Azmi, Smita Patil and Poonam Dhillon""""" and quicklight have explained how there is no copyright problem or violation of wiki policy ... see the discussion between good editors like Moonriddengirl,.Quicklight and bonadea ...it says there is no problem in writing the sentence as .."He formed popular onscreen pairs with with Sharmila Tagore, Asha Parekh, Mumtaz in the seventies and with Hema Malini, Tina Munim, Shabana Azmi, Smita Patil and Poonam Dhillon in eighties in many romances and social melodramas and films from a range of different genres""

but genaic has not bothered to revert it.

plus see this """u still have not responded to her completely baised act in artciles like -- bewafai,insaaf main karoonga and sitapur ki geeta. i showed you how in-spite of being well referenced she removed the informations i posted. like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sitapur_Ki_Geeta&diff=cur&oldid=398008379""""

do not worry, iam not afraid to speak truth .Shrik88music (talk) 19:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

You already posted this on my talk page and I answered. You can see this here: User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive19#point Gwen Gale (talk) 19:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

note

That 88.104 vandal's range and the photo posted are consistent with the M.O. of the banned user "Light current". Earlier this year, a broad-ranging and fairly lengthy range block was imposed. It might be getting to be time to do that again. Please consult user "Ten of all trades" for more details, as he's kept closer watch on LC than I have. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Copivios

GG, I'run into an IP user who is adding copyvio material to the Cabinet Secretary (India) Article. The source is http://cabsec.nic.in/rti_powerduties.php . Copyvio parts include this "gem":

"In case of power failure or sudden Computer break-down,, taking appropriate steps to re-load the system and ensure the recovery if Data Files, if any. Assist the Maintenance Engineers whenever hardware problem occur, maintaining the security and integrity of the Data base files as well as software (system/application) stores in the Main Computer, attending to the Network user problems pertaining to the hardware and software wherever applicable, maintaining the backup tape registers and other registers including the generation of Computer log times/audit reports including the analysis etc., to assist senior systems personals in computer programming and implementation of applications, ensuring the security in the Computer Room etc and assisting the senior officers and any other work assigned by the senior officers."

Not all af the article is a copyvio (yet!), so I'm unclear how to tag it. Can you advise? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 12:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

If there are meaningful copyvios in the article, the whole text should be swapped out with the {{subst:copyvio | url=insert URL here}} tag straight off. See WP:Copyvio for more. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
That's where I came here from! :) Anyway, I've found another source at Googlebooks that the bottom sectionof the article is taken from. I'll add the tags to the article now. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 12:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
After looking it over, most of the text is copy-pasted from http://cabsec.nic.in, which has a copyright notice, so I've deleted the article as a copyvio. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
...and I've restored the non-copyvio stub that was there before the IP went on the copy-paste spree. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks! - BilCat (talk) 12:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Um...?

Jonathan? LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

http links take but one bracket, LHvU, not two :) Gwen Gale (talk) 14:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Aw, you fixed it! Gwen Gale (talk) 14:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Why will Gwen Gale not read the sources?

I have just posted a section by this name about you at ANI.Wm5200 (talk) 17:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Question for Gwen Gale

mostly copy pasted thread from an article talk page
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Gwen, I'm asking you this question mainly because of your frequent participation at this article and its talk page. Would you consider material presented from this source acceptable and helpful if used in a proper context? Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

My question was asked in good faith. Perhaps you could find some time to answer it. Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
The only answer I can give to an open question like this is, please do see WP:RS (it's where I'd look first if I had a broad question about a source). If you'd like further input on a given citation, lots of editors other than myself watch this page, you might want to post it here and see what that stirs up, that's what article talk pages are all about. You can also try Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, which at least may sometimes give one something akin to a further take on neutrality. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Gwen, for getting back to me. Obviously others are welcome to give further input concerning the source I asked you about. I was curious as to what your opinion was regarding The Sun as a reliable source. I read an interesting article given by Rochus Misch there. Dr. Dan (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Misch himself didn't see everything and recall can get way fuzzy after six and a half decades, but he saw a lot nonetheless. Could you post a link to that article here? I'd be happy to read it. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, Gwen, for the delay in getting back to you. I actually was hoping for your opinion about "The Sun" rather than about Misch. If I decide to add the information at some later point we might be able to discuss its relevancy at this talk page. For now, your opinion regarding using The Sun as a source would be appreciated. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I had missed this. I would need to see the article itself. That said, I'd be wary of citing anything from the Sun without knowing who wrote it and how it was sourced by them. Moreover, if I found something in the Sun I'd tend to dig deeper and find a source on which one could more steadfastly lean. It's not that tabloids get things wrong (all newspapers botch details, all the time) so much as tabloids tending to over-spin stuff for entertainment, which is their slice of the market, in much the same way the Times and the Guardian spin heavily for politics in some topic areas. It all makes for sloppiness, through which a cite may, say, be ok as to WP:V but then skids into the ditch owing to WP:UNDUE. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I wonder if this relates. I would think it would be wrong to reference, edit, or dispute sources which are not at hand to be checked. Perhaps a person should only use information that they have read and can understand.Wm5200 (talk) 01:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Wm, I doubt that only "using information that they have read and can understand" would be the best criterion to use and be the most appropriate and helpful method in referencing an encyclopedia. Being partial to an exopedian version of this project (I do err from time to time myself), I think the inclusion of "quotes" and anecdotal reminiscences gleaned from border line tabloids should be avoided. Dr. Dan (talk) 15:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I lost you, but I’m confused myself. It appears as though the person with the least information available is most influential on the article.

The U.S. is big on free press, and it works. My very low budget suburb is in a system which serves 225,000 people with 4 MILLION titles (numbers approximate, thanks Carol). That’s on the next shuttle van. Most of the rest of the assets of a state with 12 million people are a couple of days away by mail. The specialty stuff on AE from Radcliffe took maybe a week. And I am an amateur. Dan, you are over three million people higher in the food chain, you must be “world class”. Kierzek has clearly read and analyzed everything, reviewed most of it, and as far as I can tell, every word he says is accurate and informed.

Kershaw, Joachimsthaler, Thomas, Trevor-Roper, Beevor, Shirer, Ryan, Toland, Eberle/Uhl, Lehmann/Carroll, O’Donnell, Victor, Petrova/Watson. (Vinogradov hit a snag, reordered). These are books which I have had in my possession and read parts of since Aug 2010. I can understand if others do not have access to the same resources, but I think that should be addressed. If someone does not have access to two footnotes which are critical in a discussion, that also should be addressed.

I think maybe that “using information that they have read and can understand” means that if you only read and have access to the “Sun”, that is all you should use as a source. But I think you should get them right. And I don’t think that you should dispute or ignore works beyond the "Sun", they are outside your understanding.

I know that this is P.O.V., and that I am personally involved. But I can not help but believe that this article has problems with it’s process.Wm5200 (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Wm5200 (talk) 01:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Why will Gwen Gale not read the sources?

lots of text copy pasted from this closed thread
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

On 01:27, 5 August 2010 I posted a section on "Talk: Death of Adolf Hitler" titled “Random Questions” which started “I am not a scholar, I read Wiki but would not think of editing it. But I was disappointed in this article, and many points in the discussion, so I am asking some questions. Perhaps someone else will read and address them.” The section went on with several rethoritical questions, and ended with “As to sources, the last books I have read are The Murder of Adolph Hitler by Hugh Thomas (sort of shaky) and The Last Days of Hitler by Anton Joachimsthaler (English translation, I buy much of this).”

Gwen Gale was apparently assigned me as an administrator, because at 09:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC) she replied with: ”As the article lead says,...This said, this talk page isn't a forum for talking about personal views or questions on a topic, it's meant for talking about sources and how to echo them in the text. I say this because the article seems to already cover, with thorough citations, most if not all of what you've brought up...dodgy. Gwen Gale (talk)”

By this reply it appears that Gwen Gale is NOT FAMILIAR with the work of Joachimsthaler, who I have just referenced, and thinks that I am asking a personal question, not a rhetorical one. At that time I apologized, tried to explain myself, and restate my questions.

At 17:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC) I posted” If I had read Kershaw's Nemesis Chapter 17 note 156 and Epilogue note 1 I wouldn't have wasted your time. You can't get much clearer than that. Should be required reading. Perhaps someone else should read them, and possibly edit the article. Thank you for your time.99.41.251.5 (talk)”

At 16:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC) I posted “I would like to direct people to the work of Ian Kershaw Hitler, 1939-1945: Nemesis ISBN 0393322521. Chapter 17 and the epilogue relate to this article. Please pay attention to his notes and sources. Be warned, his book Hitler: a Biography is a kind of digest which does not include these resources....The source Joachimsthaler is basically an English translation of a German's analysis of 1950's post-Soviet interviews of bunker survivors. The original transcripts must be available somewhere. There are many other bunker interviews, some with questionable intent, and not all agree. Wm5200 (talk)“

Since those posts I have posted a huge amount on the talk page, virtually all of which Gwen Gale has disputed. Much of the material I have posted I have later deleted, often because I felt that the endless conflict between Gwen Gale and myself is counterproductive to the article.

Anyone who is Wiki can probably bring back any of those posts. Was I sometimes rude and argumentative? Absolutely. Was I making legitimate points which related to the article? I thought so. Did I receive effective support and encouragement by my administrator? I think not, but you judge.

My main point was that Joachimsthaler had reviewed the information, and had made a solid case for positions which Kershaw backed. I repeatedly begged anyone, especially Gwen Gale, to read Joachimsthaler and Kershaw, specifically, two footnotes, I even told the pages of the footnotes. Gwen Gale clearly had not read either source.

18:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC) I posted, under the heading “Question for Gwen Gale” , the following: ”I lost you, but I’m confused myself. It appears as though the person with the least information available is most influential on the article.

The U.S. is big on free press, and it works. My very low budget suburb is in a system which serves 225,000 people with 4 MILLION titles (numbers approximate, thanks Carol). That’s on the next shuttle van. Most of the rest of the assets of a state with 12 million people are a couple of days away by mail. The specialty stuff on AE from Radcliffe took maybe a week. And I am an amateur. Dan, you are over three million people higher in the food chain, you must be “world class”. Kierzek has clearly read and analyzed everything, reviewed most of it, and as far as I can tell, every word he says is accurate and informed.

Kershaw, Joachimsthaler, Thomas, Trevor-Roper, Beevor, Shirer, Ryan, Toland, Eberle/Uhl, Lehmann/Carroll, O’Donnell, Victor, Petrova/Watson. (Vinogradov hit a snag, reordered). These are books which I have had in my possession and read parts of since Aug 2010. I can understand if others do not have access to the same resources, but I think that should be addressed. If someone does not have access to two footnotes which are critical in a discussion, that also should be addressed...I know that this is P.O.V., and that I am personally involved. But I can not help but believe that this article has problems with it’s process.Wm5200 (talk)'"

On 22:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC) Gwen Gale posted “For starters, the Russian autopsy bore overwhelming evidence he not only shot himself, but bit down on a cyanide capsule. Gwen Gale (talk)”. By this post it is clear to anyone familiar with either Joachimsthaler or Kershaw that Gwen Gale is still not familiar with either work.

At 02:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC) I posted, under the title “Gwen Gale’s sources”, the following: “I think the rest of us in this discussion would benefit from knowing what Gwen Gale is using as sources, which sources that are on the article and the rest of us are familiar with is she NOT familiar with, which sources she has access to, and when she last familiarized herself with the ones which she is currently using. It appears that we are talking about a person who is "informationally challenged" relative the others in this discussion. Perhaps some arrangement might be made so she has a level of knowledge that could make her be an asset. I have both Kershaw Nemisis and Fest Hitler which I will donate, if it will bring her up to speed so this article is not impeded any more.(User:Wm5200)”

At 04:59, 12 November 2010 Kierzek deleted my post “per Wiki talk page guidelines”. Okay, how do I address this continued refusal to read the source material? I have offered to mail Kershaw half way around the world so that Gwen Gale can read two crummy footnotes. But my offer is not only not taken up, but is apparently not in good faith, and even “snarky”. What can I do to get my administrator to read the source material?

I would like to bring up two Wiki terms which I do not understand. It appears that Gwen Gale and I have a different “P.O.V.” about the usage of these terms.

Assume Good Faith. I first thought that Gwen Gale would be a good administrator, after what I have been through, would YOU assume she is acting in good faith?

Original Research. I have never been to Berlin, read any original documents, or talked to any eyewitness. The ONLY information I have about the subject is what I have read in published works. How is it that Gwen Gale finds so much of my work “O.R.”?

Am I the only person who has had problems with Gwen Gale? Not if you read her contribs, and certainly not if you Google her name.

Wm5200 (talk) 02:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Read this: Continued posturing is becoming disruptive and further discussion is best to take place on the talk page. Possibly an WP:RFC if further editor input is needed. Within that, "the talk page" means the article's talk page, not here. But interested parties have read all this already. Your tendency to repeat yourself does not make what you say any more persuasive. -- Hoary (talk) 02:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Now, for those who won’t read, let me try once more.

more text, again copy pasted from that closed thread
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

1. Gwen Gale has dominated the article “Death of Adolf Hitler” for years.

2. Gwen Gale is not informed about the “Death of Adolf Hitler”. She refuses to acknowledge the work of Sir Ian Kershaw, about who Wiki itself (no books needed) says “He is regarded by many as one of the world's leading experts on Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany and is particularly noted for his monumental biography of Hitler, which has been called "soberly objective." . She continues to use Bezymenski, a 1968 admitted fraud, as a source over numerous other authors.

3. Any time anyone will keep Gwen Gale away from “Death of Adolf Hitler”, serious scholars will fix it and get stars or whatever, Wiki will be accurate, and proud.

4. Any time anyone will keep Gwen Gale away from “Death of Adolf Hitler”, I and all my posts become moot. All I have ever wanted was to get the “popular press” out of what I consider a serious subject.

Wm5200 (talk) 02:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

So say so on the article's talk page, or make an "RFC" on the matter. Meanwhile, I suggest that you stay away from this user talk page: you've said your piece, the object of your scorn has read it; enough. -- Hoary (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2010

Calling edits "vandalism" with no good reason

Hello, Gwen. Could you please take a look at this? Thanks in advance. Ninguém (talk) 02:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Someone has done. If it happens again, you can let me or any admin know about it. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Gwen. As you may have noticed, the user has erased the notice from his talk page. Ninguém (talk) 13:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
They can do that and either way, it means they've seen it. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Mentorship page

Sorry for my comment. Missed the tag. Buster7 (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

That's ok :) Gwen Gale (talk) 21:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
also, I changed the tag so it can't be "missed."Malke 2010 (talk) 11:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
It wasn't a big deal Malke, an editor may now and then mistakenly post there, trying to help out somehow. It's very easy to quietly undo the edit and let them know the page is only for you three. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for removing the "comment." Malke 2010 (talk) 11:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.

Seriously. Now I'm off to bed. — Gavia immer (talk) 09:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

This diff about the Charles Whitman thing does say most of it. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

TY

Thanks Gwen. [2]. Malke 2010 (talk) 10:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

question

Is there a process for appealing an AfD that editors are claiming has allowed a merger of an article that was not the subject of the AfD?Malke 2010 (talk) 13:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe WP:DRV. What's the AfD/article? Gwen Gale (talk) 13:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
The AfD was for Roman Catholic Mariology. An editor believes that this article Catholic views on the Virgin Mary became part of it and merged. The article talk page is still there. Go see the discussion on the talk page which still exists. Find it on my contribs. Sorry I didn't make a link first.Malke 2010 (talk) 13:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Link here.Malke 2010 (talk) 13:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
The consensus for the merge seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roman Catholic Mariology was overwhelming. Catholic_views_on_the_Virgin_Mary was added to the merge list soon after the AfD opened, so that merge was supported by the AfD. Talk:Catholic_views_on_the_Virgin_Mary#Call_for_Consensus_to_Restore_Catholic_views_on_the_Virgin_Mary shows no consensus to unmerge. Taking this to WP:DRV would be a waste of time, the outcome would be the same. I don't see any consensus for what you want there and consensus is the only way to make it happen. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
But if a new consensus develops, can we unmerge ourselves or do we need to go to WP:DRV?Malke 2010 (talk) 14:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
If consensus to unmerge were shown on the talk page, there would be no need for DRV. The article was only created on 8 October and there are meaningful worries that it is, or will wind up as, a PoV fork (forks can get started in good faith, they can also get quickly out of hand). I think it's unlikely you're going to get straightforward consensus to unmerge so soon after the AfD. MRG and LHvU may have more input for you on how to handle this. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Good to know about the DRV. I asked you because you do deletions so I figured you'd know the proper process. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep it all there on that talk page for now, don't go hopping around with it, that will be seen as forum shopping and could end any talk about it at all for now. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely agree. It has to be resolved on the talk page. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
To get more input without forum shopping (so to speak), you could ask for a content RfC on that talk page, but truth be told, you might not be too thrilled with what others may have to say, anything that even looks like a PoV fork tends to yield short shrift here. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to phase anybody at AfD. And the multitude of Marian articles with the exact same content and ownership issues doesn't seem to bother either. Of course, the exact same editors keep showing up to support keep, etc. so an RfC would no doubt yield the same editors, same comments.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't often cite WP:OWN myself, but it mostly has to do with the behaviour of a single editor trying to shepherd their own edits, keeping an article to themselves. All encyclopedias have flaws, because the sources they're built upon have flaws, even the so-called peer reviewed sources. The en.WP database, one way or another, will likely still be on networks in 100 years, but a lot of what's in it now will be digital dust, buried in the contrib histories, if those even make it through. Wikipedia, like any encyclopedia, is only a starting point for learning about a topic. Taken as such, it can be very handy. Taken as more than that, one will find mostly woe sooner or later and lots of readers are smarter than lots of editors think.

However, topics on faith and politics not only stir up editor and reader emotions, their sources are mostly muddled, botched, spun and worse. That's what you have to work with, so do what you can within that. Sometimes, you won't be able to do very much. It will most often be a slow, inching slog. You can't speed it up by commenting on other editors or trying to snow them under in what you may hope is a clever blizzard of policy citations. Editing in those topics takes even more heed to consensus and dealing with others in a peaceful way and that's the pith. If you want to spend gobs of your volunteer time in those topics, wonderful, but by now you should know, sometimes consensus is not going to go your way. On the bright side though, if editors learn they can trust you not to stir up a kerfluffle whenever you don't get what you want, over time they may tend to begin trusting you enough to open up their minds. The worthwhile outcomes of this can wind through topic areas by means which you may not foresee and can take years. In this way, lots of Wikipedia's core content grows rather like the Pitch drop experiment. Only you can know if your time is worth dealing with that, or if this website is even worth your time and what you have to give. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

User:174.7.111.158

Hi Gwen,

Two years ago the article on [alcoholics_anonymous] was vandalised continually for a few months by one person using several IP addresses and various sockpuppet accounts. I wrote to you and you very helpfully blocked the user here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gwen_Gale&diff=prev&oldid=245551241

And logged his sockpuppets: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_MisterAlbert

THe guy is back again and is posting nonsensically and ignoring the consensus of the other editors. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alcoholics_Anonymous&action=edit&section=4

His new IP address is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/174.7.111.158 (Its the same location, Vancouver Canada, as the one from two years ago)

And his new sockpuppets are Jayseer and Johnh677: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jayseer&action=edit&redlink=1 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Johnh677&action=edit&redlink=1

Any help you can give will be appreciated. Thanks

Mr Miles (talk) 00:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked User:Johnh677 as a sock. User:Jayseer has already been blocked for edit warring. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Also left User:Jayseer a note. If he can cite sources and use the talk page(s) I guess he can stay, it's been awhile. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Water fluoridation controversy

As you reverted my change on this article, I was hoping you could join the discussion on the talk page about how/if to properly use this source and what information from the editorial to use. Thanks! Yobol (talk) 18:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's an editorial. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree that it is an article, not an editorial, but there were other changes made. TFD (talk) 18:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
As I said in the edit summary, I thought verifiable content was removed from the article with that edit. I also saw hints of strong spin and original research. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Whether it's an editorial or not (journal classified it as a research article, authors themselves called it a "commentary" so /me shrugs) I explained the rationale for the changes on the talk page, and would appreciate any further comments there. Yobol (talk) 18:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok, done. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Garside article

Before an edit war begins, I was wondering if I can get an unbiased opinion on Robert Garside. Specifically the Afterward section and the event that never occurred in 2004. Trying to discuss it also on the talk page. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

It's fluff. Moreover, it smacks of autobiography. COI in a BLP is allowed, barely, but unencyclopedic COI isn't allowed at all, since it tends to quickly go over the top. There is an off-wiki dispute going on about this, but even so, my take is, the autobio editor may not understand that by muddling things up, they've likely done more harm to themselves than help. It's always sad to see BLPs get mucked up like this. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Re Editing Issues

I have had user handles in the past, none are active as the names and passwords are long forgotton. At this time I have one user handle only and I mean only one. John677 is not my user handle, and I am not posting under that user name. I have sent him a message in his talk page to use sourced references , sign his name , take his issues up with the talk page.

There are some issues concerning wiki veriabilty on sources and references on a page I have recently edited and I would like to discuss these with you on another day. RegardsJayseer (talk) 03:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm still looking into this, it may take a little more time to sort out. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Gwen re primary sources, yahoo talk pages

The Alcoholics Anonymous page under AA Data has sourced Loran Archer using a refererence source that links to a yahoo talk page , I have addressed Archer on talk not being a reliable source for he has been called for misinterpreting research data , see talk page of alcoholics anonymous , and holds pointed biases. Regards Jayseer (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Primary sources are ok, but must be cited with care. If you're worried about the reliability of that primary source, you might seek input at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Another sock you may, or may not already know about,

In regards to Jayseer (talk · contribs), you should check out Jayseerer (talk · contribs), which I'm quite certain, due to the fact they use the same username, and edit the same topic area, are the same person.— Dædαlus+ Contribs 06:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hadn't seen that one yet, there may be more. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

That is not a sock puppet , it is a expired user name simply because I lost the password, the only solution I had was to log on as close to the original name as I could... you can see it has not been active.

I have only being using this name. Jayseer /jayseerer lost password. Jayseer (talk) 11:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It's called a sockpuppet because you're believed to be User:MisterAlbert, who was blocked about two years ago for disruption in the same topic area. That's a long time ago for a website and hence, so long as there is no further socking or disruption now, I haven't seen a need to block you (for block evasion). Gwen Gale (talk) 11:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
This is the second time I have seen that you have mentioned having a past username; to avoid any possible misunderstandings in the near future, I suggest you give us all of your past usernames. Just so we're clear, because as Gwen said, you must stick to one account. Besides, if you aren't using them, there should be no problem.— Dædαlus+ Contribs 12:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Sarah_Palin#Environment The entire section on predator control, that was 95% percent me, I was mastering the art of posting images, in fact they are all there, the only change is someone has swapped out the polar, overall that section of the article the section has been preserved as I left it, I went back in the edit archives and found that was A Mister Albert posting.

That is why John 677 is not me, he is a newbie because he edits like one.

Jayseer (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll take that as meaning you're User:MisterAlbert, as we've believed. I wasn't talking about User:Johnh677, that's been handled. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 December 2010

AA

REFRENCE MATERIAL on the effectiveness of alcoholics anonymous page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effectiveness_of_Alcoholics_Anonymous#cite_note-THREEAMIGOS-13 NUMBER 14.

there it is , unpublished, three unnamed authors, questionalbe math, and pov

Jayseer (talk) 17:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Offhand, at least, that citation looks like it could be reliable. As I told you earlier, primary sources can be ok, but such sources must always be handled carefully so the reader can easily understand where what they're reading came from. If that one's to be handled as a secondary source, are the authors at all notable in the field? Have they or the source been cited elsewhere? How can it help the reader? You should bring this kind of thing up on the talk page and wait to see how the consensus goes. If you want wider input, you can also post something at WP:RSN. Keep in mind, sourced PoVs which disagree can (and often should) be carried in an article like that one.

need assistance

Gwen in the alcoholics anonymous talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alcoholics_Anonymous two editors were in a dispute , one sought a third opinion, the opinion has been added and the overall is clear the source material does not mean the burden of proof has gave recommendation for the material to be removed.

As I am very new to this I do not know which next level is appropriate or how to go about it. it. I suggested the notification board and another editor said a third source. First I am not sure how to hyper link to to the talk page a notification that I have done so, nor how to correctly invite a response for the from the opinion I am seeking to respond to the board. You also gave me two wiki pages for capturing and grabbing information and unfortunately I did not copy and paste it and our discussion has been removed. Could you please repost those links. Jayseer (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

First, you've been edit warring on the article. I counted at least three reverts in the last day. See WP:3rr, you're close to being blocked for edit warring.
The article is not meant to echo any editor's outlook on AA. It's meant to echo what the sources say. On a topic like AA, there will be many and sundry sources with PoVs that don't agree. Lots of them can be cited. As to the reliability of sources, be wary of calling sources you agree with "reliable" and sources you don't agree with "unreliable." It's not always easy to find a consensus as to source reliability on en.Wikipedia and consensus is not a vote. Slow down, way down and try reading WP:DR.
All pages have a contribution history (click the history tab), nothing is ever lost. If you're looking for something I posted here earlier, you can find it either by clicking the history tab or, like many but not all user talk pages, mine is archived by a bot for easier browsing. You'll find the links to my talk page archives towards the top right of this page. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

TFM unblock review

[3] I just want it clarified for the future - so when one admin has placed an unblock request on hold and discussion is ongoing, it is perfectly acceptable for another admin to review and decide the unblock request? Gimmetoo (talk) 11:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

With that level of taunting disruption stirred up by the blocked user on their own talk page and the consensus seems to support a block? I think so. However, there is nothing to stop further input about this at ANI. TFMWNCB is indef blocked for now, but not yet banned. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I would say consensus in this case is still a little unclear, and the situation is still being discussed. Gimmetoo (talk) 12:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I would say there is a consensus to keep him blocked until (or if) a consensus is reached as to how this will be handled (say, with editing restrictions of some kind). Meanwhile, he was doing himself more harm than help. Could be that if he'd been allowed to keep on trolling his own talk page, a community ban would have come sooner rather than later. So as it stands, he's not banned, only indef blocked whilst this is sorted out. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Zabriskie Point (Film) edits

Hi Gwen,

You removed my edits to the plot section of Zabriskie Point (Film) and I would like you to reconsider. My edits were all factual (to the plot) and anyone familiar with the film will see their merit. Is this the proper way to address my request for reconsideration? Would you like me to send you a more lengthy annotated defense of my changes? You say (I believe)"too much original research by good faith IP." After repeated viewings and study of the film I believe all the edits can be authenticated by dialog transcripts and descriptions of individual camera shots.

Thanks in advance, CEHenderson CEHenderson (talk) 04:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Your edits had little to do with plot and shots, but much to do with your interpretation of things you believe underly the plot and character motivations, which are not put forth in the dialog or plot as such. Although a straightforward, clean plot summary can be sourced to the film (as can the credits), your edits were interpretive and hence can't be sourced to the film itself: Your own study of the film can't be cited in the article, that's original research. Also note that the only two even mildly interpretive bits of text in the plot section are cited to film critic Vincent Canby. Lastly, if the article were to carry sourced crit (interpretation) about the film, it might very likely be more helpful in a section other than that for the plot. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
My edits Gwen: Please show me in the first paragraph what you mean... I changed "direct political action" to "direct violent political action in response to racial inequality" -- that is absolutely what the student discussion is about (non interpretive - I can show you the dialog). I then quote Mark's statement "but not of boredom" because he says this and subsequently infuriates the group of radicals and indicates that he feels ready to actually confront police with violence (again non-interpretive). Then I say he and his roommate are "anxious to confront the police with arms" because that is why they buy the hand guns (again not interpretive). CEHenderson (talk) 07:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
You can quote dialog, you can describe straightforward action ("steals plane... paints graffiti... is shot by police") and cite the film, but that's about it. When they go to the gun shop, they don't tell each other or anyone else they're purchasing the guns because they're "anxious to confront the police with arms." That's your interpretation. It might not be too far off, but it might not be spot on, either. By the way, in movie production, the screenwriters may have had one interpretation, the director another, the actors others altogether. Interpretations must be sourced and verifiable, you're welcome to find and source published critical interpretations of the film. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Read this and then tell me if we can safely say that they're purchasing the guns because they're "anxious to confront the police with arms."
Marks drives friend to school to participate in demonstration. The two converse... here's the meat of their conversation:
…
Mark “Look man, the day you don't count on losing is the day I'll join the movement
Friend: “For lots of people it's a matter of survival”
Mark “That's what I mean”
Friend: “What?”
Mark: “It's serious, it's not a game.”
pause while driving down street
Mark: “I'm tired of it man. Kids rapping about violence and cops doing it. That chick at the meeting said people only act when they need to. But I need to sooner than that.”

…

Mark drops friend off at school amidst demonstrators.
Cut to new scene
Mark is now at the police station to see about the release of his friend who was arrested in the demonstration.
After being roughed up and arrested himself for asking about his friend, Mark and his friend together buy guns.
CEHenderson (talk) 06:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
The dialog and action in the film through those scenes show that the motivations of Mark and his friend may not be 1:1 and that both may be shifting. The jail lock-up scene does not show that Mark was "arrested himself for asking about his friend," it shows only that he was arrested after he asked about his friend. He may have been arrested because of how he looked, or behaved, or because he wanted to be arrested, or because the cop was in a bad mood, or "identified" Mark with the arrestees, or something else, or all of the above, or some mix of that. Given how Antonioni directed films, along with the collaborative way films are put together and moreover how this one was written and produced, motivations in ZP if anything will be even sketchier to deal with, from any editorial outlook. Either way, whatever these character motivations (if any) may have been meant to be, our talking about them is original research unless an independent, reliable source is cited. Editors aren't here to write about (or publish) their own analysis of a film, they're here to write about what the sources say. That's what tertiary sources like encyclopedias are meant to do. All one can cite from the film itself are dialog and visible action. Only to help you understand, you can write a secondary source carrying your own analysis of ZP, please do if you like, but you can't do it here (I can't either, no editor can). Gwen Gale (talk) 08:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Zabriskie Point (film) could indeed be helped by its own crit section, carrying published analysis of the film. The hitch there is, published, in-depth crit on ZP has been way light, seeing as how it bombed so bad with audiences and critics at the time (never mind things like the later aftermaths of the two leads' lives, which didn't stir up much heed from folks who publish such crit). Moreover, the movie's stalled production/release timing was awful as to the market and Jim Aubrey (with his own management outlook) showed up at MGM whislt post was still winding up (one of his inputs was the Orbison tune synched onto the end credit roll, some say jarringly so). As with most Antonioni films, ZP has aged beautifully, I glark meaningful published crit could begin showing up... someday. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
You understand many of the subtleties of ZP... and the need for credible published crit - thanks. Mark's suspect weightlifting accident in prison notwithstanding, Daria has lived under the wing of her mother and teaches dance through their Kentwood studio in Marin County, CA. The dismal box-office was more likely, in my opinion, a recoiling from the polished mirror Antonioni showed up to his American audience. Only now can we watch these frames and see how harpooned both hip and straight cultures were by his lens. Studying the film in detail has left me aghast at how even the basic understanding of the plot is malformed in the eyes of those who dare to critique. Yeah, Orbison's ballad not only distorted and deflected the real thrust of the film but it shows how even Roy didn't get it, didn't see that the radicalization of Daria with every American icon now destroyed in her young evolving consciousness was the take-away. I'm going to try to massage the plot one more time in the hopes that I can adhere to your stringent non-interpretive standard without burning down the house. CEHenderson (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Roy Orbison had nothing to do with the production and Antonioni had nothing to do with the song "So Young" being tacked onto the end of the movie, that was Aubrey, hoping to get some promotional leverage for both the movie and Orbison, who was on MGM's record label at the time, that's the only link. The song had been written by Orbison, Mike Curb and Roger Christian.
Your last edit still added your own original research to the article. Nothing in the film's dialog or action shows whether or not Mark's character shot the cop (this kind of "existential ambiquity," so very wonted of MA, could be one of the reasons US audiences at the time seem to have been left cold by the movie). Likewise, the meeting of stirred-up students in the film's opening shows them talking about their sundry opinions and outlooks and not in all that much agreement. I don't have time to watch that scene now but as I recall there are no straightforward calls for "violent" political action as such.
The sources I've read on the film's ending hark much to Daria's grief (the water running down the rocks, in which she soaks herself, as in tears) and anger over Mark's death (blowing the whole house up in her mind's eye). There are likely lots of "takeaways." The pith is, bringing up any of them in the article would need a source. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your illumination on the Orbison debacle.
You need to watch the film again (or ready my plot summary). Mark clearly does not shoot the cop. The film reveals this clearly and the subsequent dialog to Mark's roommate and Daria also. No ambiguity on the part of MA. The student discussion is all about taking up arms, about taking violence to the man.
I'd like to engage with you about these edits. Are you totally opposed to any edits? Do you have an opening in you mind that could possibly accommodate a change in the current plot summary? Would you be willing to watch the film again to resolve our disagreements re: the plot summary? Please bear in mind that I have studied this film in detail, it's open right now on my desktop and I can scrub to any frame in the film and review it. I have studied the original script, have spoken with the Halprins about the film, have Italian contacts that are co-researching the film with an eye to out-takes and other historical artifacts, have a list of film locations that are being visited and verified, and have studied the music score in detail. I would enjoy you being the editor of changes and additions I plan to make to this wiki-page. Can we work together?
CEHenderson (talk) 06:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Vincent Canby's 1970 NYT review is very straightforward: Mark (Mark Frechette), a young man who may or may not have shot a policeman during a strike in Los Angeles, steals a small plane and flies up to Death Valley... Keep in mind, student protests were often called "strikes" by writers back then because the protests often had to do with strikes against going to class, they would occupy campus buildings and so on (note that the inline link I gave may bring you to the password wall at NYT, but the article can easily be had without a password through a search engine).
I'll try to watch the opening scene later, sometime today.
The question "Are you totally opposed to any edits?" doesn't mean anything here. Any editor is welcome to edit an article, but in doing so the policies must be followed. Please read the policies.
As I've said, you can't put your own usourced outlook into the article, that's original research. You'll need to start citing sources.
If you have anything further to say about edits to the article, you should do this on the article talk page so that other editors can have input. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Canby may be very straightforward but he is also very wrong. Watch the film.
My most recent edits were all clearly straight reportage directly from the film - that's my source and it should be yours also.
CEHenderson (talk) 16:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Please read this very carefully. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Closed thread at ANI

Gwen, could you consider reversing your closure of the thread "Requesting review of my removal of talk page access of TFM?" This is because i do not feel that people who may have a reasonable objection to my action have had the opportunity to comment. Specifically, Gimmetoo (who is discussing a related issue with you above) has some reasonable objections to my action. I would like for Gimmetoo (and anyone else who has objections) to have the opportunity to air his objections in a public forum, so that they may be evaluated against my own position on the matter. Short-circuiting the discussion isn't really helpful. People have objections, and these need to be addressed. If, after a day or so, either the discussion has reached a consensus one way or another OR it has clearly degraded to silliness, then it can be closed. But its only had a few hours, and many people have not had the chance to weigh in with their opinions about my conduct here. --Jayron32 19:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand, happy to do it. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for doing so! --Jayron32 19:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
:) Gwen Gale (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Need Advice

This user has been adding large swaths of unsourced and largely unnecessary information to radio and television pages. One page, WBIR-TV, had some 20 edits, all could be considered OR and unsourced. I left a small note on the user's talkpage, but an admin (like yourself) could probably put it in better terms. Mind taking a look? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Taken care of by Xeno. Thanks though. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I've now left a note, too. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Kwork2

I am assuming that at some point the user had a talk page, but I can't find any meaningful history. I wanted to move it to the right place. I'm happy to talk about this via email if you prefer, obviously he's been in touch via OTRS and it's clear to me that he is unable to let this drop while there is still a link to his RWI. It's extremely easy to rebut his accusations against Wikipedia with the single exception that we seem to be intent on perpetuating the consequences of his ill-judged use of his real name. Guy (Help!) 19:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you have email. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

TFM

Hi Gwen, can you forward me those portions of the emails which TFM asked to be made public? I think that should be OK and I do not intend to publish them myself, I'd just like to make my own evaluation. I think you already have my address somewhere. Regards! Franamax (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Ping! Gwen Gale (talk) 20:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Zxoxm's article William Marcus

Thank you. For some reason, water fluoridation really upsets people; there is an ongoing campaign against Wikipedia's articles in this area. User:Zxoxm created an article that should probably be nixed: William Marcus, the article advances User:Zxoxm's agenda of antifluoridation. I assume that articles created by sockpuppets are removed automatically, but am not sure.--Smokefoot (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It's ok to cite sourced criticism on the topic. Socking and badgering over PoV, whatever the PoV, is not on. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

RFD nomination

Hi. I've nominated Wikipedia:KERFLUFFLE, a redirect that you created, for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 December 13#Wikipedia:KERFLUFFLE. HeyMid (contribs) 11:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, saw it, skived. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, and I've seen an admin decline an unblock request by referring to the consensus of a WP:PITCHFORKS thread. In fact, it is the same as the more usual abbreviation (WP:ANI). At least WP:PITCHFORKS is a joke. HeyMid (contribs) 11:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
That was joke too, spot on the same kind. Something brought it on but I forget what (which tells me it was very short-lived and never came up again). Gwen Gale (talk) 11:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Whitewater111

Sorry about that, I must have fat fingered right over your comment.... --Nuujinn (talk) 11:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Coulda been a split-second cache glitch, an odd brush over short-cut keys, anything. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Carbon fails more often than silicon, and I've still not had coffee..... --Nuujinn (talk) 11:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh. The coffee-lack glitch. I know about those :) Gwen Gale (talk) 12:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 December 2010

Pile-on

Gwen, one of the reasons I dislike the various alert pages is that they're something of a trap. The moment an editor goes to report bad behavior, they face the risk of being ambushed by editors who are uninvolved in the matter at hand but see this as an opportunity to pile on the reporting editor and turn the tables on them. Essentially, it's the old "blame the victim" trick, and this is not the first time it's happened to me. It was bad enough when Collect started tossing out unrelated (and, to be frank, meritless) complaints, but now his partner in crime, THF, is joining in the fray, and has created a sub-heading with my name on it. This has become ridiculous.

At this point, what I would normally do is move our conversation about "sophistry" up above the fold, and then hat the entire reversal attack. However, you have asked me not to refactor other editor's words. Therefore, I'm asking you if you would be willing to move your own words (and mine) up after the fold. I will then politely ignore Collect and THF until the main issue is resolved. How does that sound? Dylan Flaherty 12:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

What needs to be resolved and what resolution do you seek? Gwen Gale (talk) 12:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
What needs to be resolved is my complaint against Bonewah. The resolution I seek is the redaction of his personal attack and some appropriate form of censure. Dylan Flaherty
I don't see a personal attack there, only mild incivility (I never use the word sophistry myself, by the way). Censure doesn't much fit in with how things are done on en.WP. You might have a look at Wikipedia:Don't make a mountain out of a molehill. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to repeat the dictionary discussion here. Suffice it to say that I do see a personal attack, and that should be sufficient for a reasonable person to change their comments to use a less insulting word. The fact that I have not been allowed to remove the offensive term appears to me to be a violation of WP:TPO, so I do not believe that I am inflating this matter. I would also suggest that you keep in mind that I had no interest in taking this to WQA. My goal here is to remove the insult and move on. Dylan Flaherty 13:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I think you should drop it altogether and learn from this, that when editing high traffic and/or controversial topics, one must be very careful and heedful with one's edits and in dealing with other editors. See also WP:Battle (hint, it takes two). If you keep going at this, I don't think you'll be happy with the outcome. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

So, let me understand this. An editor calls me a liar, clearly violating WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL and most likely WP:NPA.

And your suggestion is... that I shrug it off and go away? How could this course of action possibly do anything other than motivate abusers to continue? Dylan Flaherty 13:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The editor didn't call you a liar. If you think that happened, you're mistaken. I should also say, this post by you was indeed uncivil. As Doc said elsewhere, beware the boomerang. I'm trying to help you when I say, drop it. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOBOOMERANG

If I know you, then you're thinking, "That Dylan, he just doesn't tilt at enough windmills. Maybe he should try something bigger, like a meta-windmill."

If my guess was right, then you'll be thrilled about my new proposal. Note that, while inspired by recent events, it is independent.

I would appreciate any feedback you would like to give regarding User:Dylan Flaherty/NOBOOMERANG, particularly in terms of next steps. Dylan Flaherty 18:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

See WP:POINT, WP:STICK. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Also WP:HEAR. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm a bit slow, but I don't see how these relate. Dylan Flaherty 19:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
You've been uncivil, have edit warred, refactored talk and project pages outside the bounds of policy and have failed to listen to others trying to help you. This untowards behaviour will draw heed, WP:Boomerang, however you may write about how you don't like that. I told you to drop it, I said you'd be unhappy with the outcome if you did not. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Without necessarily agreeing fully with your summary, I genuinely appreciate your effort to help. Nonetheless, as I am the one held accountable for my actions, I must make my own choices and accept the consequences.
For what it's worth, I have, in many ways, followed your suggestions. Among other things, I have avoided refactoring talk pages, even where I believe policy supports it, and I have walked away from the WP:WQA report, as it is now hopelessly muddled. I'm doing my best, but that has to include fighting for what I believe, rather than keeping a low profile and hoping nobody ever notices me. You may be right that I will be unhappy with the outcome of submitting WP:NOBOOMERANG, but I am certain that I would be happy with the outcome of not submitting it. Dylan Flaherty 20:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Just an observation, but things don't generally end well at Wikipedia for editors who come here to "fight" for something - WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. Speaking for myself, if I find myself getting emotionally invested in political articles, I generally take a long Wikibreak or go off to do something boring and uncontroversial, like working with images or gnoming talk page headers and archives. Kelly hi! 23:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Noting a page created in your user talk space

User talk:Gwen Gale/barn has recently been created by the banned Whitman/McCoy editor, no doubt because your main talk page is semiprotected. Just letting you know, since you may not have been aware of it and I don't care to mark it for deletion without calling it to your attention. I don't have any further comment on the contents of the page. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow, can IP users create pages in userspace? I didn't know that. Kelly hi! 05:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
IP users can generally create pages in every talk namespace. I hadn't thought of this specific implication myself until I saw it in action. I've got some code on my main user page to list every page in my user space, and I had to adjust it. — Gavia immer (talk) 06:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to all for looking at and taking care of that :) Gwen Gale (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Palin and Dylan

I note the banning, and don't understand it.

Dylan has been one of the better behaved, better mannered posters there. Others post tangentially and irrelevantly most of the time, and have been very rude. I abandoned the page for a while because of others' poor behaviour.

Your action appears one sided to me given what I have seen.

Hence, a private "why Dylan?", and why no criticism of others?

HiLo48 (talk) 11:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not done. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Not on my talk page

(ec) It's not a block, it's a two week topic ban. If you want to keep posting about this at the ANI thread, you may do so. You can also appeal this ban there. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

methinks his behavour is a bit uncivil... Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 11:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Gwen, have you ever done customer service or tech support work? Dylan Flaherty 12:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Why do you ask? Gwen Gale (talk) 12:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, because I have, and the two share a common principle that's relevant here. When someone comes in with a complaint, the most important thing you can do as the representative of your company is to "shut up and listen". If you do anything to prevent them from making their complaint in full, they will immediately change from a customer with a problem to an ex-customer with an ax to grind against you. Shutting people up is the surest way to infuriate them, to assure them that their concerns don't matter and they will be treated poorly. Dylan Flaherty 12:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Does that mean you see yourself, a volunteer editor, as a customer of en.Wikipedia? Gwen Gale (talk) 12:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I see that you missed the point here. Dylan Flaherty 12:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
What point is that? Gwen Gale (talk) 12:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
You know, if that's how you want to play it, we don't have to do this. I can simply declare this conversation stalled and re-list on WP:AN/I. Dylan Flaherty 12:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
What do you want? Gwen Gale (talk) 12:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I thought that was entirely clear: I want the ban removed, and I want jaes warned about posting on my talk page after being asked not to. While I'm at it, I'd also like a large stack of unmarked bills in mixed denominations, a bus to take the hostages to the airport, and a fully-fueled jet to take me to Cuba. Dylan Flaherty 12:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
What, you'd be going to Cuba for their yummy ice cream? Gwen Gale (talk) 12:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot to read WP:NOTPLOTOFDOGDAYAFTERNOON. Strike the second sentence. Dylan Flaherty 12:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that kind of thing can spin out rather unhappily. Sort of like going on about something, for which you don't have consensus, without end on the talk page of a high traffic, controversial, political WP:BLP about which almost every source to be had is dodgy spin (and that one is one of the highest traffic and most controversial ones on the site). Never mind the article is under sanctions. Consensus doesn't mean "right" or "wrong" by the way and Wikipedia is not about truth. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Did you by any chance notice what happened with ErrantX? Dylan Flaherty
What about it? Gwen Gale (talk) 12:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
ErrantX came in to the discussion with both guns firing:
"Ugh, just read the proposed content. The usual badly sourced BLP mud slinging content. I suggest as a resolution an admin leaves Dylan a strong but polite note to drop the stick and back away slowly, there is no way the content (at this stage anyway) is able to pass BLP concerns. Sourcing is pants (mostly news from the time as far as I can make out with nothing but trivial coverage). Significance is not established (no indication of the relevance or significance). etc."
A few minutes later, his position softened to:
"I looked at the sources you suggested and did a bit of digging; I agree, there is content here. On the other hand the "Africa gaffe" is a minor part of that, worth probably less than a sentence as part of the overall story. (but this is not the place for such a discussion really - we should figure out if admin action is needed, and if not then move on)"
Here we have someone who came in dead set against it and wound up agreeing to move forward in that direction. He would clearly be willing to look at the paragraph that I'm suggesting, and I suspect he'll judge it fairly.
Now, do you still want to say that there's some sort of hard consensus that I should just accept? Dylan Flaherty 13:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
The pith is, you don't have a consensus for what you want to do, nothing near it (that's not the same thing as saying there is a consensus by which you must abide). The way you invoked Wikipedia:Silent_consensus was very mistaken, then you opened up a third thread on the topic within days. A politician's spoken gaffe (or whatever some may believe underlies it) needs lots of wide coverage to overcome WP:WEIGHT, which you never showed, yet kept on about it. Either way though, consensus (or lack) on en.WP, moreover in political topics, is often mistaken and/or unfair. One can't deal with that by trying to wear down other editors, not only is it against the policies, but it only gets their hackles up even more. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
By the way, have you learned how to use diffs yet? Gwen Gale (talk) 13:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
That would be ignoring Buster7, HiLo48 and 67.117.130.143, who directly supported mentioning the gaffe, not to mention prBeacon and Baseball Bugs. It would also be ignoring the nature of the opposition. Just look at how many of them needed demonstrably false premises in order to support their desired conclusion, including those who made one false statement, had it corrected and then went silent. Consensus is not a vote, so the fact that the basis for the No's is discredited does matter.
On the talk page, jaes twice used the heavy-handed approach of shrink-wrapping sections to prevent conversation from continuing, and also tried to divide and conquer the subject, to no avail. Contrary to what you said, there was never any question of broad coverage, as the gaffe had been highly publicized and even inspired a stupid hoax based on someone falsely coming forward to take credit for leaking it. No, the real issue is that all too many people stopped reading the moment they saw that we'd have to mention the gaffe as part of something else. It's not about my wearing them down, but them avoiding a discussion that they can't hold their own in.
So, does this mean I have a consensus? No, it means there is no consensus and we need an RfC. We could be having it right now if not for one particular delay that you can fix. Dylan Flaherty 15:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes. It means there is no consensus, this also means, however one takes the input from those three, consensus has not gone your way. Political topics on en.WP can be tough to edit (and Sarah Palin is one of the toughest), not at all the easiest articles with which to learn how editing is done here. Likewise dealing with what one may think is the early closing of a thread. Perhaps the next time that happens, unclose the thread with a neutral comment, then ask if there is truly a consensus to close it. Now, I know this edit hit you very much the wrong way and it was indeed uncivil, but given other spats you were having as to refactoring comments, things were already beginning to wear a bit thin for you on that talk page. That's not the time to nudge harder, but rather, to think of another way. An RfC may be that way, if you take your time putting it together, gathering sources and text and so on. The calmer and cooler you stay, the further you'll get, though that may be not so far as you hope now and then.
As to politicians' gaffes, a flurry of coverage which winds down fast may not have the depth and width to get through WP:WEIGHT on a BLP. Almost all politicians make gaffes, it's part of the noise. Since there are a number of editors bringing this up (one way or another), you'll have to deal with that.
This said, the worry's not the content you've been trying to source which stirred up the fuss, it's the way you've been handling yourself on that talk page and others. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Then a topic ban is pointless; you should simply block me indefinitely, else I'll find some other controversial topic and annoy people by demanding a consensus supported by the rules and sources instead of popular opinion. Or you could remove the ban and let the RfC take its course. It's not as if I was edit-warring over anything anywhere. There is no actual disruption, just a few people annoyed that things aren't going their way. Dylan Flaherty 15:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
You post war cries like that and this whilst saying the topic ban is pointless and questionable? Have you ever read WP:POINT? By the way, I never came close to saying you "need to shut up and accept consensus." For starters, as I said, there is no consensus. Trying to help you understand how to handle content disputes and start up an RfC is hardly telling you to shutup. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I assure you that this is not helping one bit. If anything, it is undermining any confidence I might have built up in the basic integrity of the content dispute resolution mechanisms. If "take this gag out of my mouth, I'm trying to say something" is a "battle cry", then it's a darn good one. The way to let me learn how to handle a content dispute by starting up an RfC is to remove the ball gag and let me start the RfC. Dylan Flaherty 15:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I had been thinking about coming to some kind of understanding with you, through which I could lift the topic ban. I think it's too early for that. Maybe we can talk about it again at a later time. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
What's to understand? You remove the ban, I launch the RfC, we get some sort of consensus and stick with it. Or you could wait two weeks and the same thing happens, only with much less fairness. Dylan Flaherty 15:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Wading in way past the start of this conversation, I can say this: sometimes RfCs do not develop some sort of consensus. That's one of the tricky things about WP:CONSENSUS - it isn't always possible to gauge (or achieve). Merely opening an RfC with the intention to develop a consensus isn't sufficient to ensure that would be the outcome.  Frank  |  talk  17:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I had been thinking, a slice of the hitch for Dylan may be, he thinks WP:DR doesn't work unless it's a means to get what he wants (see). Gwen Gale (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Given what you've posted here, the topic ban still seems fitting. Until you shift your outlook on how to deal with other editors and maybe learn more about how things are done here, you're not going to get very far. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, now I go back to WP:AN/I. Dylan Flaherty 17:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Clarification

I genuinely hope you and Dylan are able to come to an agreement that allows him to return to collaborating productively at Talk:Sarah Palin. Unfortunately, there is an important misrecollection above, though, that I think is harmful if it goes uncorrected: "On the talk page, jaes twice used the heavy-handed approach of shrink-wrapping sections to prevent conversation from continuing, and also tried to divide and conquer the subject, to no avail."

Given the extent to which the conversations there were going absolutely nowhere fast, I had asked Dylan, on more than one occasion, to proceed with an RfC (which he initially began working on here). Because the original conversation had stalled, and because Dylan had proposed going forward with dispute resolution, I archived the original discussion. Dylan thanked me for archiving the original discussion and had, in fact, tried to do so himself several hours earlier (with an edit summary of "ending completely counterproductive debate").

I originally archived the second discussion on 13 December, but Dylan reverted that two minutes later as premature. Although I disagreed with his revert, I waited a further three days, until 16 December; given that there still had not been a single further post in that section, I again archived it so that the conversation could continue in one organized thread. In both cases, I believed it was fair to say the conversation had reached its natural conclusion, and Dylan actually got "the last word" there (and in the original section, now that I look back at it).

I don't know why he now believes my archiving of those two sections to have been "heavy-handed," but my intention was not to "shrink-wrap" the debate, and I honestly believed he recognized that at the time. I supported Dylan's proposals to move forward with an RfC, and I believe I was, in fact, (one of, if not) the first editor to recommend to him that particular path. I had considered moving forward with an RfC myself prior to the wp:an/i situation, but I am completely willing to wait and allow Dylan to frame that as he sees fit. (For what it's worth, I'd also support lifting any restrictions, whenever you believe it to be appropriate, to specifically allow him to do so.) jæs (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to work something like that out with him. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I also hope Dylan can return as a productive editor, but a cooling-off period is a great idea. I've worked with the article on and off for over two years now (including during the absolute insanity of late 2008) and the page attracts editors with strong POVs who are initially highly motivated to ensure the page reflects the TRUTH. However, many end up becoming productive and collaborative editors on the article after developing a sense of patience and a better understanding of WP:BLP and acceptable sourcing for controversial claims, and also for the general flow of debate at the talk page and the article's history.
I also hope Dylan learns to pace himself a little - it can stressful jumping into so many controversial articles simultaneously. Kelly hi! 18:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Ooh, I wasn't aware of Crisis_pregnancy_center. Yes, leaping into the highest traffic, most gnashing-of-teeth articles on en.WP straight off has been a hard and bumpy road for many new editors. Meanwhile, I haven't even had Sarah Palin watchlisted since the first few days/weeks after it showed up. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, the Sarah Palin article is not for the faint of heart. I've frequently taken breaks from it for months at a time, though I'm heartened that it seems to have mostly stabilized and appears to be in a slow process of gradual improvement. It still sometimes goes off the rails a little when there's a particularly prominent Palin news story, but all in all, not bad. What it really needs are some good neutral copy editors/biography specialists to get the article up to GA status, hopefully it soon stabilizes enough for that. Kelly hi! 19:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

email ping

Ding. You have mail... --Jayron32 06:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like my email is down for now... Gwen Gale (talk) 07:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Pong! Gwen Gale (talk) 08:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Admin's Barnstar
For your willingness to deal with disputes regarding Sarah Palin, a topic which probably has one of the highest admin burnout rates on Wikipedia. Kelly hi! 04:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Hey Kelly, thanks :) Gwen Gale (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Wpeditmanbob2

You blocked this user not long ago. However, I believe you should consider indef for this edit; I believe the user is a clear troll who doesn't plan on contributing to WP once their block is up.— Dædαlus+ Contribs 07:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw, socky. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
What makes you think it was a TFM sock?— Dædαlus+ Contribs 08:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
He dropped hints along the way, little breadcrumbs leading to his gingerbread house. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I contacted MuZemike about this on irc; turns out it was a sock of Access Denied (talk · contribs). I'll be taking this to ANI shortly.— Dædαlus+ Contribs 08:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
There's an odd link between those two. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I've created the thread, it can be found here.— Dædαlus+ Contribs 09:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I saw this thread at ANI and then looked into the situation with TFM, who I remember interacting with in a pleasant way a couple of years ago. I wonder what happened to cause that spectacular meltdown? Kelly hi! 19:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

This may have been going on for a lot longer than it looks so far, don't know yet. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Second opinion

I'm about 1 button click away from blocking Barts1a for a long time. You're familiar with him, I believe; would this be too drastic? --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I was there earlier today. Given the background, I thought this edit was beyond the pale. Then the rollback cluelessness and the "enemies list" thing on his talk. Whatever's behind his behaviour (he says he's "read the various policies" which brings up even more worries), today it all began to look willful to me. I'd take it to ANI for review either before or after blocking. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Now Heimstern has brought the same thoughts up at ANI. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer, I've commented there. Unless I hear some reasonable opposition, and assuming he's still unblocked, I'm going to block him indefinitely in a few hours. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I do think the need for doing that is all the waste of volunteers' time. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Only since he brought them up himself, I'd say the restrictions are worth a try. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Email

Ping!— Dædαlus+ Contribs 08:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Just for fun, I'll pretend I don't know what that's about. Dylan Flaherty 09:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
No need to pretend. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
If you're going to pretend, why bother even posting?— Dædαlus+ Contribs 09:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I can't hear you. I'm pretending to ride a unicorn and the wind is just too loud. Wheeeee!!! Dylan Flaherty 09:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Are you trying to instigate another batch of chaos? Drop it already.— Dædαlus+ Contribs 09:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Grow a sense of humor. You're the one emailing friendly admins to swoop in and support you, so charges of instigation fall flat. Dylan Flaherty 09:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
This has absolutely nothing to do with humor and you know it. As to me emailing Gwen, that had nothing to do with support. For someone who cites AGF so often, you sure fail to do it yourself. You really have no idea what was in the email, so don't act like you do, and really, drop it.— Dædαlus+ Contribs 09:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
And really, the contents of the email have zilch to do with your actions; there is nothing flat about my accusation of purposeful instigation; you're clearly trying to start an argument here. You were already told at ANI to drop it, yet you continue it here.— Dædαlus+ Contribs 09:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Q

Q. I saw on prBeacon's Talk page you said, "Calling other editors trolls is a wanton personal attack. You should take this as a warning, you can't leave this content in your userspace. Please clean it up now. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)" Well both prBeacon and Dylan Flaherty have just called me a troll on Dylan Flaherty's Talk page in a section called Redemption. Take a look at the circumstance--about as untroll-worthy as you can get. The question is, what, if anything should I or anyone else do about this? I am asking because I saw your comment I quoted above. Thanks for the advice, if any, as I know we are all busy. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, I did not call you a troll, but I did agree that coming to my talk page to harass PrBeacon was an example of trolling. As an analogy, consider that people can do stupid things without being stupid. In your case, I recommend that you not troll, so that nobody will ever mistake you for a troll. Dylan Flaherty 05:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Your Talk page speaks for itself: "I'm going to go with PrBeacon's take on this and call it trolling. Please do me the courtesy of not posting to this page." Even now you say, "I recommend that you not troll...." Further, I did not come to your Talk page to harass prBeacon. Instead I was being very friendly. Yes, I made a deliberate effort to be friendly. We are supposed to edit cooperatively on Wikipedia. I was making an effort to be friendly in accordance with Wiki policy. It saddens me that you call that trolling on your Talk page and here, and harassment here. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, I don't see it that way, but perhaps you can convince Gwen. Good luck with that. Dylan Flaherty 06:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
How do you see it? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

You were gloating over the end of ANI which resulted in Dylan's topic ban. I advised him to take it all with a grain of salt. You latched upon this to deliver some pointy nonsense, much like your contributions to the ANI involving him. It's trolling. That's not the same as calling you a troll. Rather than looking for ways to excuse your actions, you might examine the actions themselves. -PrBeacon (talk) 07:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Read the Talk page again. It was not trolling. And saying that's not that same as calling me a troll is silly. As to your claim of gloating, I was not gloating. You say I'm trolling. I'm not. You say (I forget where) I'm a POV-editor on the SPLC page. I'm not. Dylan says above I'm harassing. I'm not. You say I'm gloating. I'm not. Anyone simply needs to read the "Redemption" section of the DF Talk page to see this for themselves.
Gwen Gale already said to you "Calling other editors trolls is a wanton personal attack. You should take this as a warning, you can't leave this content in your userspace. Please clean it up now." How do you think Gwen Gale will react to your coming to her Talk page and essentially flouting what she said by saying, "It's trolling"? To me, you have evidenced, right here on Gwen Gale's Talk page, that you have zero regard for her message. None. This is partly why I am here seeking advice from Gwen Gale. I had no clue you would come here and help illustrate the problem.
I am not going to write here for a while for real life reasons. If anyone leaves any further comments about me, I will be unable to respond. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't need to reread it, I know you over-react and misrepresent others' often to uphold your own distorted perspective. You post two negative comments at ANI about Dylan, inappropriately piling on there, then go to his talkpage for chitchat? Try to see how disingenuous that sounds. Perhaps this is the time for you to read up on willful blindness. Your attempts to re-frame what I said and then make such a bold claim here that I am 'flouting' what Gwen said, are beyond ridiculous. Get a grip. -PrBeacon (talk) 07:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, once online feelings get stirred up, friendly chit chat (witty or not) can be taken as a blatant, sneering taunt. Text does not come across online like a voice. When dealing with someone who is upset or disgruntled (say, who thinks they've been done wrong), think of anything you post as likely to be taken wrong. Since you now know Dylan is likely to get way set off by anything posted to his talk page he doesn't like (never mind other pages), the easiest way to deal with that is, stay away from his talk page (this is not an admin "banning" you from there, though).
  • PrBeacon, LAEC wasn't trolling Dylan's talk page. Only so you know (this is not meant to be taken as a warning or a chide): Never call other editors here trolls, even if they seem to be, to you. It'll make a troll gleefully troll more and make a GF editor gnash their teeth, both of which will take volunteer editors away from building articles. Sometimes, you'll see an editor call a behaviour trolling. It's slightly kinder than calling someone a troll but not much. Outside of an indef block notice posted now and then by a harried volunteer admin, the word only brings harm and wasted time to the project.
  • Dylan, chill. I know you haven't groked it yet, but you've brought most of this on yourself. You'll not get you want editorially by citing civility rules, but you might get closer now and then by following them. I think you should take that "no post" list off your talk page. Not only does it smear those listed, but it will make other editors so wary of you, less likely to talk with you at all, for fear they'll wind up on the list or otherwise be wasting their time. That's why such a list is thought of as uncivil, not handy at all. So, begin by being civil and neutral yourself, you might be startled with how quickly things begin going more happily for you here. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Gwen, you're right. He was taunting, or so it seemed. Odd how he's gotten so self-righteous about the single 'trolling' comment yet he doesn't see how his own repeated behavior in poking Dylan at the two latest ANI sections, is so much worse. Can that be reported to WQA?-PrBeacon (talk) 09:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I'll accept "taunt" in place of "troll", but I won't accept the notion that it's all my fault that THF called me a vandal, a liar, and so on. That's nobody's fault but THF's, and each and every admin who enables him, including you. Dylan Flaherty 09:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok, if you want policy, here it is: The biggest mistake you keep making, which has become a disruptive time sink, is not following WP:DR. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
This isn't a content dispute, it's THF flaming me. Dylan Flaherty 09:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
have you read WP:DR? Gwen Gale (talk) 09:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Not only have I read it, I've written the screenplay. It's called "Wikipedia Dispute Resolution: It never works, but we keep trying". I'm shopping it around Hollywood, but despite the success of "The Social Network", nobody's bitten yet. If all else fails, I can always recycle it as a porno and sell it to Jimbo. Dylan Flaherty 09:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Does that mean you're unwilling to follow dispute resolution? Gwen Gale (talk) 09:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Wait, you mean I'm allowed to? That's news to me. Dylan Flaherty 10:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
What haven't you been allowed to do? Gwen Gale (talk) 10:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Where do I even begin? How about the Sarah Palin RfC? Dylan Flaherty 10:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Please give me the diff or wlink. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you're already familiar with the topic ban you imposed. Dylan Flaherty 10:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

You brought up an WP:RFC. The topic ban had nothing to do with an RfC. Could you please give me the diff or wlink to the RfC you're talking about? Gwen Gale (talk) 10:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
The topic ban is what's stopping me from filing the RfC. Dylan Flaherty 10:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
You already made an open call to "override" her[4] and it didn't happen. That should tell you something about how things work here. An "Us vs. Them" mentality rarely succeeds here in this community project. It's not her fault you were topic-banned: it's your own. File the RfC when the topic ban expires. Doc talk 10:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Ok, Dylan, thanks for telling me what you meant. That was helpful. I don't think you've followed the opening steps of WP:DR enough yet, to open an RfC. Moreover, you hardly seem to follow those opening steps at all, ever, which I think is why you've run into so much woe here. What do you think about that? Gwen Gale (talk) 10:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Let's see, I think I've made enough of an attempt to discuss the issue on the article talk page. It got to the point where the only consensus was that we need to go to RfC. In the meantime, I went to WP:EA and was advised to open an RfC. Is there some other step I should go through first? Dylan Flaherty 10:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
They likely told you an RfC was called for, mostly to get all the bickering off the article talk page. That's understandable, articles like Sarah Palin are nests of PoV and strong feelings. Anyway, the hitch is, so far, I don't think an RfC would have the outcome you want. Not yet, anyway. Second, try following the opening steps in DR whenever you think something untowards has happened. Are you nettled because an editor has called your thoughts sophistry? Ok. Go to that editor first and in a cool, peaceful, editorial and neutral way, ask what they mean. If a GF edit of yours is mistakenly reverted as vandalism, do likewise. Go to the editor first. You don't seem to do that. Do you? Gwen Gale (talk) 10:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
No, I wouldn't say it's a matter of strong feeling. I think a more accurate analysis would focus instead on the strong systemic resistance to anything that might, even in passing, appear to in some way reflect poorly upon the subject. That's actually not what WP:BLP is about; it's not a mandate to whitewash. It's also not limited to the topic of the upcoming RfC. While specific content changes may be important, it's much more important to break through the Culture of No that so blatantly WP:OWNs the article so the next change doesn't encounter the same foot-dragging, WP:IDHT and insults.
Now, you just suggested that I ought to go to the editor first. The problem with such generally helpful advice is that it is, specifically, not very helpful at all. Been there, done that. THF has made it quite clear[5][6] that I am not welcome on his talk page. Moreover, no amount of good faith can explain why he might have imagined that calling me a vandal, a liar and worse could be anything but insulting. This is not an accidental excess; he's a lawyer and he's gaming your system. Now, you could have also suggested I take it to the generally toothless WP:WQA page, except that it can't cover the issues of edit-warring, drive-by-tagging and abuse of Twinkle. And, no matter where I go, I can count on such luminaries as LAEC to show up and do their level best to distract from the reported issues and recast this in terms of my imagined faults.
So, in the end, we are where we began; DR is a failure, WP is a failure. Dylan Flaherty 16:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Gwen, I've brought up the possibility of moving forward (in a bit of an unconventional way) at User talk:Dylan Flaherty#Idea. I don't know all the specifics, but I was hoping you'd consider it, and if Dylan is willing, perhaps he can move forward with his proposed RfC and even begin proving that the topic restriction could be removed early. jæs (talk) 11:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm open to it, hopefully Dylan will keep talking with me here. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
No thanks. There's no point in trying to start an RfC at arm's length. I'll just wait. Dylan Flaherty 16:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Kagome 85 and Blackmagic1234(aka, Moukity)

As far as I remember, or am aware, you are uninvolved in this sock fiasco, so would you mind closing this ban thread and issuing the ban on the two?— Dædαlus+ Contribs 00:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.— Dædαlus+ Contribs 07:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Let me know if there are any loose ends. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Off topic,

And unrelated to anything above, you have a new email.— Dædαlus+ Contribs 08:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

What dastardly plan are you shady characters hatching off-wiki? Next thing we know, you'll be talking on IRC! Kelly hi! 08:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Boring socks, is all. By the bye, I tried IRC for a few days about two years ago, wasn't for me, though I understand how some find it handy and helpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
As I said on my talk page, just a joke that apparently nobody but me thought was funny. I'm sure it's all none of my business. Kelly hi! 08:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
No worries :) As Daed said, it was "none of the above." Gwen Gale (talk) 08:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

You're Right

But I had to let them know that i'm not having it. I provided a source for Castle Walls and the girl reverted it without even looking. So yes it made me a liitle angry, but I didn't mean no harm. I hope I won't be blocked for speaking my peace. Georgia Peachez (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 December 2010

Fluorospam

117 links and counting ... - Alison ❤ 12:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

What a busy little bee. If someone were trying to get that site blacklisted meta-wide... Gwen Gale (talk) 12:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Although to be honest, a lot of those links are archives of discussions ... and I don't think that it has been the actions of only 1 user. I noted that the RSN discussion was inconclusive, although leaned towards non-inclusion. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's indeed why I brought it up. The sock (Freedom5000), by almost always posting that link, seems to be mucking up the pitch, so to speak, for GF editors citing the site. As for RSN, lots of sources get blown off by consensus on en.WP not because of reliability worries, but because they don't agree with the consensus outlook on a topic, that's been going on for years here. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Email,

Ping!— Dædαlus+ Contribs 11:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Pong! Gwen Gale (talk) 12:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

A stranger to the truth?

How do you reconcile this with your unblocking comment: "‎consensus seems to be that many admins are indeed sycophants", which wasn't even accurate, as I hadn't been discussing administrators. What we both know is that admins like yourself prowl around looking for any excuse to block editors that they take a dislike to. Malleus Fatuorum 15:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

You're mistaken, Malleus, nothing in that log entry had anything to do with what you may have been talking about at the time, likewise as to any take you may have on what I do here or why. If there's anything I can help you with, I'll be happy to try and I do mean that. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
One of us is mistaken, but it isn't me. You are a liar. Malleus Fatuorum 15:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your input, Malleus. You have my best wishes for the holiday season. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Why not try addressing the issue instead of trying to patronise me? Oh, I know, because you're an administrator and whatever you do is automatically "the right thing". Pathetic. Malleus Fatuorum 15:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
en.WP has lots of flaws which some might understandably call pathetic. So I've put up a snap of some yummy industrial eggnog we can both look at. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking for an explanation, not a whitewash. To refresh your memory the discussion is here. You said explicitly that "calling someone a sycophantic wannabee is a personal attack", when I had called nobody anything. I am though now calling you a liar once again. Malleus Fatuorum 16:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd already looked up the diff, dreaming we might be having one of these warm little chats, thanks though. Here, I've put up another snap, holly berries. Bitter and mildly poisonous, but something to behold nonetheless, I guess like some editors here, too. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Then why did you lie? That is of course a rhetorical question, as the answer is obvious. I'll leave you to your stalking of other content contributors, thankful that your stalking of me is now in the public domain. Malleus Fatuorum 17:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Somehow your post there reminds me of that scene from Reservoir Dogs set in the abandoned undertaker's, you know (I mean, maybe you know), where Vic Vega, after doing a quick bit of cosmetic surgery on the trussed-up-and-gagged LA cop's ear with a straight razor asks, "Was it as good for you, as it was for me?" I believe that's before Vic thoroughly douses him with petrol and pulls out his trusty Zippo. Speaking of yuletide cheer, light and warmth, look! Christmas carolers in California! I wonder what they might have been singing? Could it have been the Little Drummer Boy? Gwen Gale (talk) 17:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I see that the truth is still as elusive to you as ever. Malleus Fatuorum 18:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes Malleus, I know that our cozy chat here means I'll forever have to recuse from any admin action having to do with you (never mind I'd already made up my mind to do that long ago). Meanwhile, there may be but one truth, but most of that's canny unknowable so we can only do what we can and in the scope of this thread, metaphorically speaking about this website hobby thing or whatever, maybe you, me and baby makes three. Aren't you thrilled? Gwen Gale (talk) 18:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
So are you admitting or denying that you lied? Malleus Fatuorum 18:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

What I've done in this thread, is to metaphorically compare your behaviour on my talk page with online rape, the outcome being runed somewhat sloppily with notions of the spawn of Satan, which is why your incivility, along with incivility altogether, is not on here. Now Merry Christmas to you and begone. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I see. So now, having lied about your block, you're now trying to justify that by accusing me of raping you, even though you invited me here to discuss your block. You're a fucking joker. Malleus Fatuorum 18:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Note

Although I can well appreciate that Malleus is not the easiest person to get along with, I feel that comparisons to rape (even with the proviso that it is metaphorical) are excessive and unwarranted. Worse, they can be used as the basis for further arguments.

I'm not familiar with the basis for your original disagreement with Malleus (and I strongly decline to become further involved), but a brief look seems to indicate that it has become a meta-argument: people arguing about their behavior in previous arguments. Such meta-disputes can drag on well beyond the point of diminishing returns and become a festering stagnant pool of emotional cancer. Both of you are adults, and should be able to withdraw from this. DS (talk) 18:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I am a very easy person to get along with, so long as you don't try taking the piss, as Gwen has done. Malleus Fatuorum 19:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I would agree with Dragonfly, though, that maybe a withdraw to separate corners and having some tea would be more beneficial.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 19:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Let's see if you're so sanguine when you're accused of rape. I somewhat doubt it. Malleus Fatuorum 19:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
A careful reading indicates that she did not accuse you of rape. She said that your behavior was a) METAPHORICALLY b) COMPARABLE TO, c) "online rape" (which she linked to Wikipedia:BAITING). Although you may feel like Glenn Beck, and although Gwen's post used emotionally-inflammatory language, Gwen's post did not accuse you of raping anyone and you're more than smart enough to understand that. DS (talk) 19:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
What I'm smart enough to understand, but you apparently aren't, is that if that if I'd made that comparison than I would have been blocked. Haven't you bothered to read anything here? What's worse in your opinion? Accusing someone of rape or of being a sycophant? Malleus Fatuorum 19:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
What's worse is refusing to relinquish the stick more than eighteen months after the death of the horse. It's not unreasonable that you were displeased that you were blocked — rightly or wrongly — in June 2009. It's ridiculous that you're still hounding and harassing the administrator about it today. jæs (talk) 19:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
That depends on which horse you're looking at. The one I'm looking at sure as Hell ain't dead. And to describe an invitation to discuss that block here as "hounding and harassing" really proves the point. Malleus Fatuorum 20:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Malleus, what outcome would you like to see from this interaction? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to see Gwen resign her position in the civility police. Malleus Fatuorum 20:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
In all fairness to Malleus, I believe he means he only wants me to recuse from making admin comments or blocks having to do with civility worries. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. Malleus Fatuorum 21:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thank you Malleus, and thank you Gwen, for putting it in slightly more concrete terms. So, Gwen, is this a step you're considering, or not? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't do civility blocks. I don't even watch WQA. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Alright, thank you for clarifying that. Malleus, is this satisfactory? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
No. Malleus Fatuorum 21:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok, she said she doesn't "do" civility blocks, which seems consistent with what you want. What more, specifically and concretely, can we do to resolve this issue? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
She may say whatever she likes, but a lie is a lie, and she is a liar. Malleus Fatuorum 02:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
So what is your point posting here? Just to say that? Have you got any practical end result in mind, or are you just expressing yourself... for some other reason? What are you after here? Anything realistic? Are you being rational?

In other words, can you please answer the question I asked you above? What can we do to resolve this issue? -GTBacchus(talk) 03:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Gwen says that she doesn't do civility blocks, which is patently untrue. Why should anyone believe anything else that she says? She invited me here to discuss the civility block she placed on me, but I have since then been accused of raping her for being so impudent as to take her at her word. There is nothing that you or anyone else can do to resolve the situation absent a time machine. Malleus Fatuorum 03:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Then why are you posting here? If you have no practical goal, then what is your point? What do you want, Malleus? -GTBacchus(talk) 03:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban

As per the AN/I discussion, I have come here to tell you that you cannot reverse the topic ban which you imposed on Dylan Flaherty (with overwhelming community support). Horologium (talk) 02:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

A bit procedural, but thanks for helping Dylan understand. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
admins abusing their power Although the conversation was closed (a bit early) I have asked for a clarification. Thank you.Buster Seven Talk 06:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I'll answer here (it's easier): I don't know who was behind them. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Request,

Could you please do something about this obvious attempt to instigate an argument? Looks like clear WP:BATTLE mentality. There was nothing constructive about that post. Post in a thread that has nothing to do with you, an attack on an editor you were previously banned from commenting on. I think this ban(specifically mbz1 commenting on me) needs to be upped to indef, or they need to be blocked for a long while, as they are clearly trying to start something.— Dædαlus+ Contribs 06:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Prodego has left a note. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
You might wish to clarify at their talk page, since they're claiming your reasons are something other than the bad-faith SPI they filed.— Dædαlus+ Contribs 18:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Done. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks.— Dædαlus+ Contribs 18:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Just curious

Just curious; in this edit you used the reasoning that "could mislead other editors". Was the misleading part directed towards the categories, or the message itself? It appears they copy/pasted the notice instead of subst, so incorrect categories were showing ... so I can understand removing those ... but in what way is applying a block notice to oneself, when you are indeed blocked, misleading? Or was it an incorrect reason shown (looks like the generic disruptive editing notice, so fits most situations). Granted, theie comments were indicating a likelihood of continued disruption ... so I think a forced wikibreak was required at this point if there's ever to be hope of the user making a convincing appeal for an unblock, so I don't disagree with the revoking of talk page access. But I was curious on the reasons for that one action ... what was it that was viewed as potentially misleading? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Only an admin would (or can) leave a block template and no admin posted that glaring template at the top of her talk page, which could be taken as grave dancing (which is to say "admin abuse") by editors who might see it. Then she edit warred over putting it there. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks ... I don't 100% agree, but I understand your reasons now and can see where you're coming from on that. Not really worth debating the remaining questions, so I'll just leave it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I think what you did (indef block with no talk page access) is not right. If you feel there was a disruptive behaviour on AN/I, AE, etc, you could just have imposed a ban on contributing to these pages. This would be proper. This is not a reason to indef block a productive editor who regularly and contructively contributes useful content in a variety of different fields. Only very recently she authored this artlce: Ravens of the Tower of London, which made it to DYK 12 Dec. You can find a list on the same talk page. We don't need to lose good editors because they annoyed you by trying to defend themselves on their own talk page. Please cool down and reconsider. It's Christmas time:) Thank you. - BorisG (talk) 03:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think putting this in terms of feelings has anything to do with what happened. I would say, anyone sharp enough to write articles like that likewise might know how very easy it would be to get their talk page unlocked and then, within a fairly short time, get unblocked, though perhaps with a ban from editing sundry project pages and so on, given all the volunteer time wasted, owing to her having launched into such straightforward harassment. So far Mbz1 has said, both on her talk page and later in at least one email, that she has no plans to ask for an unblock. If her outlook on that happens to shift, she already knows what to do. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. But emotions do occasionally get the better of everyone of us. Thus the self-rightous and patronising approach is usually unwise... even for esteemed admins... - BorisG (talk) 12:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes and for any editor. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes. But admins have a burden of responsibility. They can do a lot more damage than other mortals. - BorisG (talk) 13:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Getting to the pith of what you seem to be talking about, harassment of other editors does a lot of harm. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Bzuk (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikidrips

Merry Xmas Gwen. I see you're dealing with our sockpuppet. The latest manifestions forgot to sign as User:206.225.95.144, and the page is now locked to everyone. How about a semi-protection? At least note that it was that IP that made the request. It's nice to have the documentation visible. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

He didn't forget to sign in, he was on one of his roving IPs, is all. I don't understand why anyone would need to edit that page now.
Oh and merry Christmas to you! Gwen Gale (talk) 20:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of DonnyD97

Hello, you were the administrator who blocked USER:DonnyD97 for a legal threat that editor made. There is a new user account that started on Dec. 25, seven days after DonnyD97 was blocked, who is making the exact same kind of edits that DonnyD97 did leading me to suspect sockpuppetry. Specifically converting people or actor infoboxes to comedian infoboxes or expanding the information in the comedian infobox for that person. The editor makes some good contributions and I sincerely don't believe is here to hurt WP, but does not seem willing to engage with other editors when there is a disagreement or even just when that editor makes easily correctable mistakes. And then of course is the outstanding legal threat (here) and some rather uncivil language used when blocked. I'm really unfamiliar with the entire process dealing with socks so I thought I would mention it to you before trying to figure out what, if anything, else I should do. Thanks. SQGibbon (talk) 07:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't give much of an answer without knowing the name of the account. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh crap! Sorry about that. It was USER:2D3D but someone else already got to it. Geez, can't believe I forgot to mention only the single most important part of my message. Wow. SQGibbon (talk) 12:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Heh, I thought maybe you didn't want to set a mean, clueless admin after 'em until you understood more about what to do :) Gwen Gale (talk) 12:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Last, final and only notification!

LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh thank you for reminding me, I think Darwinbish should get the founder's bit too. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1

When you're back, I'd ask you to take another look at Mbz1 and respond to their recent comments, and clarify whether what they've said so far is enough to merit (possibly conditional) unblocking; or what else you want to hear to justify unblocking. Any other recommendations or thoughts (eg I notice Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mbz1 is a redlink; any opinion on whether a formal community ban should be proposed now or in certain circumstances, etc) would also be helpful. Rd232 talk 02:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I've been watching. I never thought a ban was called for, still don't. As yet, Mbz1 doesn't seem very open to talking about the block on her talk page in a meaningful way, which is likely why the ANI thread showed no consensus to lift the indef block (say, trimming it back to one week). I don't think this had much to do with AI edits as such, but rather, with the straightforward harassment of editors with whom she didn't agree for whatever reasons, which began wasting way too much volunteer time. So far, I think an RfCU would look too much like that ANI thread and stir things up further, without a happy outcome for anyone (given most editors, myself among them, do acknowledge the helpful side of her content editing). I don't think she's ready to hear from me, as the blocking admin, on her talk page either, though if I saw some hints otherwise about that from her, I'd be willing to try. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
User_talk:Mbz1#So_let_me_see seems worth responding to to me. At any rate, some dialogue from the blocking admin seems the most likely way to move things forward. Rd232 talk 10:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I'll read through that again and maybe try to do something later this afternoon, when I have more time. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Was a glass half full or half empty? There was no consensus to keep the contributor blocked either, and if you are to exclude the most vocal involved parties like for example tarc that wrote about Mbz1 "I'll repost a response I made to that insufferable twat Mbz1", Bulldog123, who is in content dispute with Mbz1, Bali ultimate, who falsely accused Mbz1 in plagiarism on a few occasions, Daedalus969, who reported Mbz1 as vandal for removing his number 8th warning from her own talk page and some others, guess what, probably there was a consensus to lift the block. Besides Mbz1 promised to disengage from all administrative noticeboards. There's no valid reason to keep the contributor blocked any longer.--Broccoli (talk) 18:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I guess you hadn't seen this, which I posted hours ago? Meanwhile you're mistaken, her unblock request was declined, which a number of admins supported afterwards and either way, her block had no bearing as to the behaviour of any other editor, untowards or otherwise. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I just read your post at mbz1's talk page, and would like to thank you for this offer. I'd also like to stress out one more time that Mbz1 has already offered to stay away from everything you mentioned in your ,message. She even made her offers in bold--Broccoli (talk) 19:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
That's mostly why I made that post. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict, my comments earlier for Broccoli) Mbz1 has been blocked now ten times in the last year for legitimate reasons of edit warring, disruptive editing, violations of topic and interaction bans, and harassment. Why on Earth would you want to summarily discount the opinions of editors she has directly affected with her behavior? I agree with Gwen above, a ban was never going to be an option. Gwen's proposal is a good step, though. Dayewalker (talk) 19:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, User:ברוקולי is not User:Broccoli; this person should not have that signature. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Someone should ask them what's up with that. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I have told the Hebrew user, and that user just removed my comments. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I've left them a note ( ברוקולי means broccoli in Hebrew). Gwen Gale (talk) 09:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Minor point -- I think users should be allowed (as they are generally) to delete other users' comments from their talk pages. Two reasons jump out at me. First, some users leave incorrect statements on users' talk pages. Not always significant enough to address at a noticeboard. But red herrings that can confuse readers. Second, for pure readability it is helpful for others' if readers delete material from their talk pages. Both apply IMHO to archives. We even of course allow warnings to be deleted--this indeed happens all the time, and is completely acceptable. I understand that there can be reasons to wish to look at all tp history at times, and archives can be considered good form, but on balance I believe that the general rule is founded on good principles that outweigh the benefits of an approach mandating tp or tp archive retention. Just my thoughts, in case tthey are of interest to you, on what is completely a minor side issue. Happy holidays Gwen.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Merry Christmas! Editors can more or less blank what they please from their talk pages, but archiving instead, builds trust. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Tripping over each other

Sorry about that one, had too many windows open with blocking the sock. I think I mashed it for longer than you did, so go right ahead and shorten it if you like. Courcelles 22:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Truth be told, longer's likely fitter ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 23:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. Some of these folks are amazingly persistent. Makes you wonder what they could accomplish if they were doing something more productive than making extra work for us. Courcelles 01:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
It's likely more or less all the same person, User:Freedom5000, a checkuser found he was using proxies. His behaviour is so wildly over the top and utterly heedless to anything having to do with policy, he may not even believe what he claims. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Re archiving

Think it should be sorted with this, though someone may want to double check. un☯mi 09:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2010

Ping!

You have new messages
Hello, Gwen Gale. Check your email – you've got mail!
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

— Dædαlus+ Contribs 11:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

barnstar


 The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
This is one of the strangest barnstar I have ever given. I tried to understand where you were coming from in your actions towards me. I believe I did, and it helped me to feel better about what happened. Although I said many times that I do not consider the block to be valid (I still do not), you lifted it without requesting my apology, which would have been impossible for me to issue without lying, and I never lie. It was kind and nice of you to lift the block, and you deserve this barnstar. I'd better give it to you now before I am blocked again :( Anyway...Mbz1 (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Mbz and please don't be shy about asking me for help if you like. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For your fast and resolute actions to stop sockpuppetry and vandalism, especially the anti-fluoridation socks of User:Freedom5000 / User:Wikidrips. Long semi-protection of the relevant articles is a very effective tool. Thanks! -- Brangifer (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Sometimes semi is the only way to shoo off sockies on proxies. Happily, only one in every few thousand editors tries that kind of over-the-top ploy, what a time sink. Whatever they truly had in mind, they'll most likely get bored and semi-protection won't be needed after a month or two. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy, happy

Happy New Year, and all the best to you and yours! (from warm Cuba) Bzuk (talk) 08:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Ta! :D Gwen Gale (talk) 08:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 January 2011

Crackpot at ANI looking for you

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the section and blocked the IP for block evasion.—Kww(talk) 23:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 January 2011

question

Hi Gwen,

Could you please explain me one more time how to move my entire talk page's history to the entire new archive? The thing is that while I do see "move" button at the article pages, I do not see it at my own talk page. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Your talk page is move-protected, which is why you don't see the move tab. However, user talk page histories aren't moved to talk page archives (only the text is copy-pasted to an archive, either by the editor or by a bot). If you don't plan on editing en.WP anymore, WP:RTV might be open to you. Even with RTV though, a user's talk page history might not be deleted. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, no I am not going to exercise my right to vanish, but I still would like to be able to move my own talk page please. Is it possible to unprotect the move and allow me to move it? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
You can't move your talk page history to an archive page, it's not allowed. Lifting the move protection is wholly another topic, that was done to protect your talk page from vandalism. Now that you are aware of these two things, do you still want the move protection lifted, knowing that you aren't allowed to move your talk page history elsewhere? Gwen Gale (talk) 03:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, please do unprotect it. Thank you so much.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I have lifted the move protection. However, you may not move the history of your talk page elsewhere. If you do, the move will be undone and the move protection may be put back. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I am afraid not only you did not lift protection, but you actually protected it more. Now only sysops may edit it :-)--Mbz1 (talk) 03:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Yep, oops, I was fixing that when you left this message. Sorry :) Gwen Gale (talk) 03:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
There's nothing to be sorry about. Could have happened to anybody. So, if I understood you right I am not allowed to use "move" button that I got now? Then what it is for? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Most pages here have move buttons but under policy, either can't, wouldn't or shouldn't be moved. Think of it like the edit window, one can't type anything one pleases into one of those, either. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Gwen, I am really sorry to bother you, but I am afraid I still cannot understand why I may not move my talk page to archive. May I please ask to take a look at the policy: It does allow to move talk pages to archives. Am I reading it wrong?Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I have waited for your response, but I assume you are busy, so I did move it in accordance with this policy. If I have done something wrong, may I please ask you to undo me, but I do hope that I am allowed to move my talk pages. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I went back to sleep. Come to think of it, though I can't recall ever having seen someone archive their talk page with history moves, you can do that, since the move shows up in your talk page log. Hence, most experienced editors will still be able to find the history. It does look like the history move you've made may not match up with how you've archived the text. To make things easier, you should put a link to your archives on your talk page, but you don't need to do that. Taken altogether, handling it this way is unlikely to have the outcome you want, since some editors may think you're only trying to hide your talk page history and so might only draw more heed (not less) to it. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Unilateral unblocking of Binksternet

There was a clear consensus against unblocking Binksternet on AN/I. Several admins had clearly stated that no other admin should unilaterally unblock him, without a clear consensus. So I'd like to know why you unilaterally unblocked him without a consensus? Wikipedia is a transparent project, I'd like to know if you were contacted or lobbied off-wiki by another admin to take this action? Last time he was blocked, he had also promised to stick to 1RR, so your rational to unblock him makes no sense. Where is the consequence for his disruption of the project and harassment of me after the previous promise? Kurdo777 (talk) 07:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't unilaterally unblock Binksternet. Both the blocking admin and myself were talking with him on his talk page and he agreed to abide by 1rr for six months, among other things. Blocks are never punitive as such, he'd agreed to handle the behaviour for which he'd been blocked, the blocking admin had already shortened the block to one third and reblocks are easy. If he breaches 1rr in the next six months, or follows you about, or wikihounds, he'll be swiftly reblocked and given the background, that block will not only be much longer (or maybe indef), but will much harder for him to get lifted. Only so you know, I didn't talk with anyone off-wiki about this, nor did anyone ask me off-wiki to unblock him. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I was canvassed by Kurdo777 regarding this situation. If Gwen, Binkster, and the blocking admin worked this out, I see no problem with it. Blocks are easy to do, and if Binkster slips up again he can easily be reblocked. --Jayron32 13:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Two questions

Three answers on my talk page: User talk:Amatulic#two questions. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy 10th Anniversary of Wikipedia!

File:Verre de whisky.jpg
Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

HeyBzuk (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 15:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Concern of an editor Trolling

Hi Gwen Gale, I've been having an arguement with another editor about including information about someone's statement which is not 100% accurate. It has been discussed by expert geneticists (which the person based his statement on) that identifying a person's ancestry is not 100% accurate still to date and the other editor continues to include the information when I had the proper sources stating the flaws in the person's statements about admixture. If they want to keep in the article fine but the way it is written it makes his statement appear golden and 100% accurate. So I've gotten tired of it because on other editors are getting involved and I included even more sources clearly indicating that DNA tests assessing admixture are not 100% accurate and even miss/can't identify recent ancestors. I'm trying my best not to get into an edit war but I'm so tired of seeing it in the article. It's in African American in the admixture section and he also removed everything pertaining to relations between Native Americans and African Americans but left information between European Americans and African Americans...so what am I so supposed to think about that? It's a part of African American history the editor continues to try to exclude and their was no discussion about the removal of the information. It was just removed and no other editor stepped in to check him.Mcelite (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be saying, User:Malik Shabazz is trolling at African American? Gwen Gale (talk) 09:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I see RS issues as well as the old "However ..." type of argumentative addition to the article. For example, "Red Lake Net News" accepts reader submissions which it only edits for clarity, but not otherwise. RS sources do not act as SPSs for people as a rule. And so on. Malik is acting entirely properly there. Collect (talk) 11:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned images

Please see File:Zabriskie point antonioni 01.png, File:Zabriskie point antonioni 03.png, File:Zabriskie point antonioni 04.png, and File:Zabriskie point antonioni 05.png. These showed up on the nightly database report of orphaned non-free media today. Courcelles 03:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about this. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2011

The Signpost: 24 January 2011

Looks like user DonnyD97 is back

Hey, since you were the one who blocked USER:DonnyD97 I thought I'd mention that it looks like they are editing again using another IP (this same editor has been blocked several times for sockpuppeting). The new IP is USER:173.72.84.209. Never mind, taken care of. SQGibbon (talk) 01:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Please help - harassment

Hi Gwen,

Seeing as you're an administrator, and I'm being harassed by an experienced user on Wikipedia, I just wanted to draw the Wikipedia staff's attention to this user, and his offensive behaviour.

I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, and I've never been harassed so much in my life, as I have when I tried to expand some of the articles, by adding a few links and resources, here.

You can see all my correspondence with Kintetsubuffalo here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kenoiyan

And the edits (with comments) here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Raven&action=history

Maybe I made a mistake in trying to add that resource link to the article, but it isn't right that these people should abuse me for it. I thank you for your help dearly... I don't know who else I can turn to...

Nevermind what happened to me, but I don't want another new Wikipedia user to have to go through the same unfair treatment, that I've suffered.

Incidentally, is there a form for personal abuse on Wikipedia? There must be some place where victims of verbal harassment and abuse can seek protection..?

Thank you, sincerely, Kenoiyan (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I've commented in the thread about this on your talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you...

...very much! SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2011

Lesbian sexual practices

Hello, Gwen Gale. Why do you keep reverting to this? As I stated in my edit summary, "Fingering can be penetrative, and oral sex can as well, when either fingers or the tongue enter the vagina. The Non-penetrative sex article makes this clear." So does the Sexual intercourse and Fingering (sexual act) articles. Furthermore, the source attributed to Shere Hite mentions digital penetration (aka fingering) as part of lesbian lovemaking. And to say that lesbian sex positions are limited? That's simply not true. The variety of sex positions in the Sex positions article can be acted out by lesbians as well. There are even reliable sources stating that lesbians can act out the same positions as heterosexual couples. I simply do not understand why you kept reverting to that equally unsourced and limited definition of lesbian sex. Either way, I have further tweaked the IP's additions, and will likely add sources to boot. Flyer22 (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I've undone two IP edits to that article in the span of a month. You might take your thoughts to the article talk page, so other editors can have input as to how sourcing and text might be handled. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I was only saying I don't understand these types of reverts from you[7][8][9], given what I explained above. I'm not seeing how those edits being unsourced was a problem, considering that just glancing at the text before the IP edits showed how inaccurate the information was. And fingering was sourced anyway. Not to mention, fingering most often means penetration. The only kind of valid revert was/is the second one, as the IP added "many." But the stuff about lesbians only having non-penetrative sex and limited sex positions was unsourced too, and I take it the IP added "many" to not signal "all." Anyway, I am not trying to attack you. I just wanted to know why you made the reverts. As for taking my changes to the talk page, I don't see why that is necessary, given that the text is now better sourced and more accurate. Flyer22 (talk) 19:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
That page has only been on my watchlist for vandalism and unsourced edits. Unwatched. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh, okay. I understand automatically reverting additions or changes that are unsourced. At times, I don't regard the unsourced information I am reverting too much either. And again, I didn't mean to come across as though I were attacking you...if that's how it seemed. Flyer22 (talk) 20:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

An Appeal

Hi Gwen, this is an official appeal for my bans on AE, ANI and AN.
  • I am appealing those bans not because I cannot live without contributing to those boards, I could.
  • I am appealing those bans not even because I actually would like you to lift them. I do not really care about being banned on those boards.
  • I am appealing those bans for the record: to state my opinion that there were no valid reasons to issue them in a first place.
  • I did agree on the bans myself, and I would have agreed on those now too, but I have never considered them to be reasonable sanctions.
ANI and AN: If you are to look at my contributions prior to you blocking me in the end of December, you will see that I hardly contributed to ANI and AN in the last few months before the ban. I forgot, when I myself started a thread there except the one about IP vandal. So actually I got banned on those boards over a single post on ANI in a thread started by someone else. My post was blown out of proportions. I believe my bans on those boards to be very unreasonable.
AE. I used to contribute to this board, and I did file request concerning a user just before I was blocked. You called this request "hollow". It was not. My request was unreasonably closed after I got blocked, but less than a month later the user I filed request about was blocked for 24 hours, and then topic banned for 2 months.
SPI. I do not appeal my ban on SPI. I did not file this single request to harass anybody. I did not file it in a bad faith. I filed it only, trying to defend myself, but I made a big mistake: I filed the request in a hurry without checking all circumstances, and I could understand your decision to ban me on SPI.
Please note, I am not asking you to loose time providing any rationale for whatever your decision is going to be, or even to state any decision at all. If it is easier for you, please simply ignore my appeal. As I stated above I wrote this appeal only for the record, and I do not really care about being banned on those boards, but of course I would have felt myself much better, if you have agreed with me.
No matter what is your decision on my appeal, I'd like to tank you one more time for stating conditions for my unblock as you did. If you have requested me to admit that the block was fair, it would have been absolutely impossible for me to do.
Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Is there something you want to post at this time to AE, ANI or AN? Gwen Gale (talk) 11:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
No, there's absolutely nothing I'd like to post to any of those boards. Even if the ban is lifted I will proceed like it is still on. I wrote an appeal after this comment: "It was done because they were making lots of frivolous complaints here and constantly stirring the pot. " was made about me. This comment hurt me a lot, because actually I was banned over a single comment that was not a compliant, and was in the thread started by someone else. I have never filed lots of complaints to AN/I, and I have never filed any frivolous one. In the last few months before the ban I have not started any thread except about IP vandal. That's why I decided to appeal the ban because, if I do not, it might look as I believe those to be the sanctions I deserved to, but those were not.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you've forgotten, but the block wasn't over "a single comment." I was happy to unblock you after you agreed to stay away from the noticeboards for six months. As Beeblebrox (further) said the other day, in the ANI diff you posted above, this is your last chance, which I still think is more or less true. It's been only about five weeks into those six months and I think it's too soon to lift the agreement. Meanwhile, if you're saying the only worry here is that your feelings were somehow hurt by what Beeblebrox said in the post, you might want to think about chatting with Beeblebrox about it on their own talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Gwen, I am not talking about the block, I am talking about the bans. I'm not sure you remember, but when I, while being blocked, was discussed at AN/I at least one admin suggested I should be indefinitely banned on I/P conflict topics. You, Gwen, decided to check this claim out yourself. You did not relay on the words of other admin, but instead you checked my own contributions, and came to the conclusion that there's no reason to ban me on I/P conflict topics at all. You have done a great and a fair job with this decision. So, all I am saying now is: if an editor is edit-warring on climate change articles, there's no reason to ban this editor on I/P conflict articles, or in my situation, if I have never abused neither AN/I, nor AN, nor AE, which I did not, there's no reason to ban me on those. Having said this I will not bother you with my appeals anymore, besides you have much more interesting, entertaining and I'd say penetrating matters to be discussed at your talk page :-).
I did chat with Beeblebrox about their post and even wrote an essay on the topic Wikipedia:Don't just say it, prove it.
Thanks again for taking time to respond my post.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 February 2011

Another editor's attack list

Hello again. You may recall that you asked me to remove a list of 'FNC campers' from my usertalkpage awhile back, because it could appear to be an attack page. Now I'm on the other end of that two-way door so I'd like to get some advice on how to proceed, if possible. I recently asked an involved admin about it but was told to just ignore it. Here's the list Anti-LAEC anon editors" which lumps me in with anon-IP editors, and here's where I've asked him to remove it my name [10]. Apparently the list was created as a reply to an investigating admin, but no proof of my involvement was provided then or since. LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk · contribs) has refused to remove my name, rejected my request to provide diffs, and repeated old arguments until his talkpage editing privileges were revoked again. Respectfully, -PrBeacon (talk) 10:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC) revised

I now see that I should have simply suggested exactly what I originally had in mind: a strikethrough of my name on the listlike this PrBeacon should suffice. If you think that's improper, I will abide. -PrBeacon (talk) 13:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) You should have listened to that admin: ignore it. LAEC can't do anything about it now. So you want an admin to sweep in and erase it to "prove you were right". Just drop it - it's been there since 27 December 2010 and no admin has removed it, and is not affecting your "reputation" one little bit. Do you really think it is? I think this is just sour grapes that he wouldn't do it and that you had to. Well, you can still edit here, now can't you? So let it go... Doc talk 11:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Back for more hounding, eh? Or is merely button-pushing now? Take your own advice, or at least try to contain your scorn. Perhaps you're confused, conflating my voluntarily removed list with my objection to being on another user's list. And I've asked you before to stop making half-cocked accusations without all the facts, yet here you are again putting words in my mouth, or making it seem that way. I didn't mention reputation or a need to be right or wanting an admin to 'sweep in.' The list has remained there while other admin(s) investigate the claims. At some point a judgement must be made. Or else my name should be removed, if not some of the others. I think it's reasonable to not want the "anti-"anyone label. In fact, I don't see any follow-up on the supposed abuse by "anti-LAEC" editors.. And just to be clear, what do you mean by "you can still edit here, now can't you?" -- is that some sort of veiled threat? -PrBeacon (talk) 11:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
{multiple ec's} First off, the "MYOB" in your first edit summary doesn't fly - this is a very public wiki, and my business is whatever I make of it. Disruption is one thing I deal with around here, and that's how we know each other, PrBeacon. As far as the "you can still edit here", it means he's indeffed from editing (punishment enough), yet you're going on about some minor thing that you'd have to search for on his talk page to even find. It's not emblazoned across the top of it, for Pete's sake. You continually bring this up, well known by every admin who's been watching the circus. It will never be revdeleted so it is always visible in previous versions of the page anyway. You are making a big deal out of something that isn't one, and you are trying to kick an editor when he's already as far down as he can get. As far as me "making it seem" some way... that's not my problem. Try more AGF and less focusing on other editors' "perceived" motivations. Doc talk 12:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Reality check: three other admins have responded at LAEC's talkpage recently and none of them has so much as offered a word of discouragement to me. It's actually you who's trying to make a bigger deal out of it here. And apparently your version of AGF is to mischaracterize at least half of what I write and then pretend to 'know' me from your self-appointed role as disruption watchdog. Give us a break. -PrBeacon (talk) 12:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Most "attack page"-style entries are deleted almost immediately. Yet this remains. Why is that, do you think? Because it's not worth beating the horse carcass over. Yet you seem to need that last word by having that thing deleted: you want to win on that. It's that type of mentality that I see you engaging in quite frequently. Speculate all you want about me. Doc talk 12:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm about to block both of you for 24hrs for the childish display of BS above. Anyone has the right to ask for some form of review of something, as long as it does not become forum shopping. To follow an editor that you have a past issue with and badger them as they attempt to do that is just beyond belief. One more word by anyone OTHER than the OP directly related to the original question, Gwen Gale - or even another TPS'er admin - and it takes two quick clicks. Got it? (rhetorical question - most answers will lead to blocks of both) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I share Bwilkins' outlook on the bickering above. I'd have thought both of you have edited this website long enough to know the boring outcomes brought by such sniping, moreover when it happens online. PrBeacon, mostly, I don't like lists of editors, although now and then some which have been gleaned from verifiable flags in the database, such as lists of admins, reviewers, rollbackers and so on are ok. Although I'm not thrilled to see a list like LAEC's, it's not an attack, it's someone's stale draft listing of editors having to do with a dispute, with a heading unhappily lifted from an admin's offhand wording elsewhere. It's not helpful as such but, more or less, mild as can be. The editor has been blocked indef even from their own talk page, which will likely be blanked soon enough. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Why override a checkuser block

User:Access Denied was blocked by User:MuZemike for one week for socking why would you make that block indefinite? Were there more socks? Inka888 20:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Many more. See the links on the user page. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 February 2011

Mbz1

I think you are person who unbanned Mbz1 and I would like to ask you re-instate that ban. I was given something that looked like evidence of wrongdoing by Mbz1. Planning to take it to ANI, I asked Mbz1 how we could get her unbanned and if she heard about this. What followed is one of the strangest and most persistent personal assaults I think I've seen with multiple violations of WP:Legal. Also a violation of the terms of her unblock as she's now taken this to multiple admins. This has gotten way out of hand. Sol (talk) 02:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Gwen, what Sol's is doing here is a wp:Forum shopping. As you may see here the user has already asked to have me blocked, and their request was ignored by user:PhilKnight.Later after yet another post to PhilKnight's talk page, User:Sol Goldstone was specifically asked to stop posting at PhilKnight's talk page. Now the user came to your talk page with a false accusations of me somehow "violation of the terms" of my unblock. As it is clearly seen from my post at Jimbo page it has nothing to do with complaint. In my post I did not name anybody, and did not provide any links. The post was made only for the record because I believe that Jimbo as wikipedia's founder should know about what I believe it is the first incident of email hacking, which is directly connected to my editing of wikipedia, and impersonating of the member of arbcom. I'd also would like you to note that I tried to explain my intentions to Sol. Thanks. --Mbz1 (talk) 03:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Mbz1, the open wiki is not the place to talk about worries that one's own email has been hacked owing to edits on en.WP, or other privacy woes. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Gwen! It is an incredibly thoughtful comment. I should have thought about this myself before I made those offensive comments about the hacker and his proxy. Sorry, it is too late to fix it for this particular incident, but I promise to you, Gwen, that the next time my email accounts are hacked, and I am being harassed on wiki by a user, who is proxy-editing for the hacker, I'd say nothing because of the hacker, and his proxy privacy concerns. --Mbz1 (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Email an admin or arbcom instead. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Great advise, thanks! BTW thanks for not blocking me over this spurious request, and for not extending my countless bans to User:Jimbo Wales's talk page :-) --Mbz1 (talk) 18:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
There's seldom a need, as such, to post to Jimmy's talk page, it's more of a public forum than anything else and he already canny knows there are email account hackers and whatnot lurking about this website. Keep in mind, he kindly said you might go to someone else for help. The pith here is, don't comment on other editors. Stick to citing sources, as to article content. If you have a worry about editor behaviour, as we agreed when I unblocked you, go to one admin or other experienced editor, likewise if you think you're being harassed (as in email hacking), or email arbcom. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 February 2011

The Signpost: 28 February 2011

Sol ban

  • Looking through the posts and conversations of our newly community-banned editor (Sol Goldstone) brought me to your talkpage history. Fascinating, fascinating stuff.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
It seemed very much headed that way to me. Aside from what got them banned, I wasn't too thrilled to see all that happen to a GF editor who had earlier helpfully agreed to some rather mild noticeboard restrictions, then quite understandably reached out for help in the agreed-upon way (to User:PhilKnight with an ok side post to Jimmy's talk) and then had to put up with worrying about being reblocked until I had time to answer. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 March 2011

The Signpost: 14 March 2011

Hi

I see you unblocked Mbz1 on the condition she stay away from the noticeboards, but I couldn't quite make out the last part of "has agreed to stay away from ANI, AN, SPI, AE for 6 mos, tkng bvir wrs to only 1 editor". Is it she can't take one specific editor to AN or anyone to ANs. I ask because she just took me to AN/EW, although my three edits were consecutive minus some grammar fixing by another editor. Passionless -Talk 08:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Mbz1 agreed to stay away from AN, ANI, SPIs and arb enforcement. "Noticeboards" in threads about this has been shorthand for AN and ANI. This said, given the agreement, one might rather she had taken this to an admin or experienced editor, but it seems highly likely she didn't think she was breaking the agreement by making a GF post to WP:AN3 (she didn't break the agreement) and it looks to me as though she was neither careless nor disruptive in making the post, or in following up on the thread there.
It does seem as though you more or less breached 1rr, the least one could say is that you skirted the edge. Either way, you took it too far. I've left a warning on your talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Gwen, May I please ask you to take a look at at this. As you see administrator AGK found neither the block nor the agreed bans to be warranted. Yes, I agreed on those myself, and yes, I am still grateful to you that you did not use your power to force me to admit that anything that was done to me that day was fair. It was not! I could have not agreed to say the block had any merits even, if my life depended on it. Now, when I am getting harassed by any troll/sock/hound because of those humiliating bans I see I should have not agreed on them. I have done absolutely nothing wrong on any of those boards to deserve those agreed bans. A valid AE request, a valid AN/I post (see what administrator AGK said about it), no posts at AN, and yes, bad, but a single SPI should not have resulted in anything like this ever! Why did I agree on those bans? Well, I love wikipedia. For three months after you unblocked me I have written at least 16 new articles, I have uploaded at least 5 high resolution images, but enough is enough. From now on I am not going to follow on that agreement. If I feel I need to contribute on any of those boards, I will. Please feel free to re-block me to satisfy the trolls, the hounds and the socks.Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
The editor has been warned. Meanwhile, as I have said before, please don't call other editors trolls, ever.
If you break your six month agreement, you'll likely be blocked by an admin and the noticeboard ban might be lengthened. If you had come here and asked that it be lifted, without threats, I was more than ready to do so. However, given you've said you plan on breaking the agreement, I don't think that time has come yet. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I assure you I have never ever called or will call another editor a troll.
I did not make any threats. I am sorry, if you feel I did.
But I do not feel as asking the unfair, unheard of bans to be lifted. They should have never be posted in the first place ever!
As much as I am concerned they have been lifted.
I would not be surprised, if you are to block me, but you know what I do not care. --Mbz1 (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh, stop whining. For highly active and motivated editors like you, en.WP ain't easy to edit. If your contributions weren't so helpful, you might still be indef blocked. You could have gotten the noticeboard agreement lifted today if you'd asked and not threatened. Think about it. Oh and please don't use the noun troll on-wiki. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Well...

Mbz1 has given you a breath of Spring to promote WikiLove and a new beginning

--Mbz1 (talk) 03:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

My bans

Hi Gwen,

As I told you earlier today I was going to consider my extremely unwarranted bans to be lifted, and to act accordingly, but then you gave me the cookies, and I decided it would not be the right thing to do to upset you with my actions.

So, I am asking you to lift those bans. May I please ask you to understand me? I do not care about contributing to any of those boards. I could live happily without them, but my bans have been used to hound and to harass me more than once already. Only yesterday a sock of a banned user and user:passionless harassed me with those bans as you know. And you still remember now community-banned User:Sol Goldstone, don't you?

I hope you like the image of the Spring. I took it myself, and I decided to give you something different not cookies, but I'd like to stress out please that I gave you wikilove not in order to ask you to lift my bans, but rather to do something nice for you as you did for me by giving me cookies:-)

Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind, though both of those editors came to me trying to get you blocked, Sol Goldstone was banned from the site and passionless got warned (and was almost blocked).
That said, six months is a long time on the Internet and you've kept to the agreement (thanks!), so I'm willing to shorten the agreement to three months, which means, as of now, it'll be up a week from today, 27 March.
From then on, you're on your own and you should be ready to deal with any outcomes of posting to AN, ANI, SPIs or AEs. Editing controversial and/or high traffic topic areas, you will run into editors whose behaviour may be worrisome. You might still think about seeking help from an experienced editor or admin before going to a noticeboard, or moreover, learning more about handling such things on your own.
I only ever saw the agreement as a way to get you unblocked so you could keep helping out here, if you wanted, nothing more or less. If anyone brings up the topic, or the shortening of the length, you can give them the diff to this post. All the best. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, but I have never done anything on those boards to deserve being blocked and/or being banned, as it was confirmed by administrator AGK in the link I provided above.
Three more questions please.
  1. You said not to use the noun "troll", what about using the verb "trolling"?
  2. Do you know about any other user who has been banned for AN and or for AN/I for any period of time?
  3. Would you be willing to go over my edits that lead to my blocking by you and agreed bans and compare those to edits of two other users that resulted in no such sanctions? This would be definitely beneficial to me in order to understand what went wrong, and I hope it would be beneficial for you as an administrator too because IMO the sanctions should not depend on what administrator is imposing them. I believe the sanctions should be rather generic.If you do, I will make a page in my user space for this purpose. I believe it would be an interesting experience.
Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm trying to help you. The behaviour of other editors has nothing to do with you. You helpfully agreed to stay away from those noticeboards, abided by the agreement, which has now been halved as to length. Drop it. As for the word troll, if you have to ask about nouns and verbs, it'll be easier if you stay away from that word altogether (on-wiki). Gwen Gale (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
The thing is that as you probably noticed English is not my first language. When I translate some words in my native tongue those really do not sound so bad, but still before I am using any of those words I'm usually trying to see how other editors, that are known to be polite using those words. So, with the word "trolling" , for example, I looked at this diff. I could provide quite a few other examples of using this word by highly respected editors.
I disagree that the behaviour of other editors has nothing to do with me because at least partly anybody's behaviour depends on the behaviour of others towards this person. Besides what I was proposing to do was rather not analyzing the behaviour of others, but analyzing the sanctions that were or were not imposed for a similar kind of behavior because IMO the sanctions should not depend on administrator, who imposes them, and should be generic. But, it is OK, if you'd rather not discuss this. Yes, I agreed on those bans because I was eager to get unblocked and because I did not care to contributing to those boards.I did not realize how humiliating those restrictions were, and how they would be used to hound me. OK I am dropping this question at least here.
Still my question #2 went answered, which is fine.
Thanks for taking the time to respond to me, and for trying to help me. I was also trying to help you, to become even better admin than you are, and never again to block anybody as unwarrantably as administrator AGK put it, as you blocked me. All the best.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I think you're mistaken about that. By the way, you might want to take some time to, at last, learn how to cite diffs. Either way, you're on your own, I'm done with you. Good luck. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
To tell you the truth I wish you have never started with me :-) Sorry, I am in funny mood today. Please don't get angry with me. Let's laugh together. Good luck to you too!--Mbz1 (talk) 22:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok. Sounds cool to me :) By the way, this is the diff to cite later, if need be. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you please block an IP?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/173.74.196.27 I can barely keep up with my reverts of this IP. Please help.Asher196 (talk) 22:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

for your sense of humor

The Barnstar of Good Humor
Not everybody here understands my sense of humor because I came from an absolutely different culture. You did, and this deserves a barnstar! Mbz1 (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Problem with user Msnicki edits and continuous reverts on Bash article.

Hello Gwen,

Could you please help fix the problem on the Bash page. User Msnicki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Msnicki ) is simply biased against using the official Bash homepage as a valid source of information to write a good definition for Bash.

Can you help solve this?

Thank you. --Grandscribe (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sources#Self-published_or_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves. Mixed with independent sources, an org's own published assertions about itself, such as its website, are very ok, so long as the reader is made aware of how the article text was built. The text itself may need to acknowledge that the assertion or content came straight from the org's website, but given this, such content can indeed be carried and cited and often, likely should be. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 March 2011

question

Hi Gwen, you said you are lifting my bans as of March 27. As user:passionless indicated here she's planning to take me to AE by the end of the week. If this is to happen before March 27, am I allowed to respond at AE filed against me? I'd like to stress out please, that it is not me who's going to file an AE on Passionless, it is Passionless who is going to file an AE on me. I personally will do my best to stay away from all those boards like the bans are still on, if for nothing else then at least because it is much safer to stay away :-) Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

If someone posts something about you at AE before the 27th, you can answer there, but that said, you should likely ask an experienced editor or admin how to handle it, before posting there yourself. As for when the whole agreement ends on the 27th, yes, please believe me, you'll be much happier if you do everything you can to stay away from AN, ANI, SPI and AE. Keep WP:DR in mind and the old standby, going to an experienced editor or admin for help first. This is something many longtime editors (admins among them) on en.WP learn to do sooner or later anyway :) Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 01:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I know I will be much happier, if I am to stay away from those boards. I only agreed on those bans in a first place because they worked perfectly for me personally.
Thanks for allowing me to respond to AE, if it is filed against me. It is very generous of you indeed. I assure you, if you have said "no" I would not have violated the agreed bans. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, Gwen; I just thought I ought to point out that the rollback tool is only for use on edits which were clear vandalism and not for reverts such as these: [11] [12] and arguably [13]

Hope you don't mind me sticking my nose in :) ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 09:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The first two edits were rbs of an IP who had made mostly vandalistic/disruptive edits and had already been warned many times. The latter was a wholly unsourced IP edit on the level of old tabloid gossip and most editors would see straight off what happened. However I'm open to the notion that a few editors might not see it that way. Thanks for letting me know about your thoughts. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
It really doesn't matter how many times the IP had been warned; this is transparently not "obvious vandalism" in any way, shape or form. ╟─TreasuryTag►pikuach nefesh─╢ 07:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and incidentally, since your talkpage is indefinitely semi-protected, you should really set up a sub-page such as User talk:Gwen Gale/IPs so that non-autoconfirmed editors can leave you messages, as per WP:UPPROT and the general principle of administrators' communication. Thanks, ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 09:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this up, it does bear thinking about. Simply put, I don't like having this talk page semi-protected, perhaps unprotection can be tried sometime later. A page for IPs wouldn't help, since the protection is here only because of non-auto-confirmed users to begin with. Meanwhile, at least, I'm not aware of any glitches or woes met by GF editors who wish to help build the encyclopedia and have a word with me. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, I agree that having a protected talkpage isn't ideal; mine was semi-d for some months and aside from anything, it adds that unsightly red box to the edit-window! However, of course "the protection is only here because of non-auto-confirmed users to begin with," that's the whole point of semi-protection, and this point was well-known at the time that WP:UPPROT observes that people in your situation "should have an unprotected user talk subpage linked conspicuously from their main talk page." ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 06:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
The policy doesn't cover everything (and should is not the same as must). As I said, I don't like having a semi-protected talk page and some time later I may try unprotecting it. However, this is not the time for that, nor do I think it's a fitting time to try a talk page for IPs and non-autoconfirmed editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
True, "should" is not the same as "must" – but if you're planning to go against the recommendation you should at least have a clear reason for doing so. May I ask what it is? ╟─TreasuryTag►pikuach nefesh─╢ 07:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 March 2011

The Signpost: 4 April 2011

Hi

Haven't seen you around in a while; thought I'd just drop by and say hello. :) I really need a whole lot more text to balance the orchid, but I'm not sure I'm going to be able to come up with enough. That's really a very striking flower, isn't it? I absolutely love its color variations. Flowers can be such shameless hussies, just flaunting it out there for any passing pollinators. Go them, I say. If they're going to be that spectacular, they should share. (No offense meant to plain flowers. They can share, too, if they want to. And non-flowering plants as well.)

Anyway, because I've had a nosy look at your contribs, I see you're not gone altogether, just staying close to home at the moment. I hope that whatever you're up to, life is treating you well. Happy April! Enjoy spring, if you live in that hemisphere. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Ta! Yes, that's a canny striking flower :) Cheers to the wanton among them! Have had almost no time at all for en.WP lately and yes, I've been through a wide swath of that hemisphere lately and the hints of spring have made it easier! Gwen Gale (talk) 23:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

AE

Are you an uninvolved admin in Mbz1's case? If you have a previous dispute with the editor or in the topic area you should place your comment in the section above it.Cptnono (talk) 23:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

We did have a big dispute, but not in this topic area.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
"Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute." It says "and" instead of "or" but I assume the spirt along with it being construed broadly makes it WP:INVOLVED. Please move your comment now.Cptnono (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I've never had any content disputes with Mbz1. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Mbz1 says you guys had a "big dispute" and you said at AE that you should not be the one to impose any sanctions. So what is going on?Cptnono (talk) 01:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
The dispute was (and I guess, is) over my admin actions in dealing with Mbz1's disruption. That's a highly mistaken take on WP:INVOLVED but nonetheless, I do think another admin should take over dealing with this now. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh. That makes sense. If you were reprimanded (even with just words) for your administrative actions involving Mbz1 then you would certainly be involved but I do not know the details.Cptnono (talk) 01:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
So far as I know, all my admin actions had Consensus. That said, I'm done dealing with this as an admin, it's time for someone else. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
@Cptnono, I've always believed that Gwen's blocking me was more than unfair. Now it has been confirmed by an depended review made by another admin at my request. When Gwen blocked me for a week, I said I would give her a trout because the block was not fair.I also said she should not be an administrator. She then changed my block to be indefinite. I posted indefinite block template to my talk page, Gwen removed it, I re-added it, and Gwen removed my talk page access. Then she offered me unblock conditions with 6 months old bans to AN/I, AN, SPI and AE. At that time I was grateful to her that she did not ask me to admit the block had any merits. Besides I did not care about contributing to those boards. So I agreed on the bans. I did not realize that those bans were not only highly unfair, but highly humiliating as well. I do not believe there has been any other editor who has been banned on those boards. The reason for my block and bans was a single post on AN/I in a thread started by some one else, an absolutely valid AE request and a single, bad, filed in a hurry, but not in a bad faith SPI request. So, now you know my and Gwen's story. I am not sure if all of the above counts as involvement.
Sorry, Gwen, to use your talk page as that, but I do not like talking about people behind their back, so I decided to respond to Cptnono here. Regards. --Mbz1 (talk) 01:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

edit conflict: If it is reasonable to assume that your previous interaction has clouded her judgement then I would agree that she is "involved". Sounds like she is done dealing in an administrative fashion then I am surprised she commented in that section. Of course, her opinion are the least of your worries at this point. I think it is unfortunate since I do respect your editing and fully understand how frustrating Passionless is. Best wishes. For GG, you should at least consider moving your comment. Cptnono (talk) 01:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Both of you, please take this elsewhere. My long-ago admin actions on this all had consensus, I tried to help Mbz1 by lifting the unblock agreement months early and have no plans to take any further admin steps on this. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Your comment on AE

Hi Gwen,

There's no reason to topic ban me. I could be put on a zero tolerance civility alert, but I did not do anything that could have required a topic ban in this area. I hope you will reconsider your comment. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

As I told you when I lifted your unblock agreement, you're on your own. I've tried to help you. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Gwen, I am not asking you to help me to get away with no sanctions. I am only saying I did absolutely nothing to deserve to be topic banned on I/P related articles. None of my "crimes" that was presented in this AE was made in the main space, half of it has absolutely nothing to do with I/P topic at all, all the differences are taken out of content, some of them are 1,2 months old, at least one is 3 months old, before you blocked me! There's no need to topic ban me. Zero tolerance civility alert, ban on using the word "troll" and an interaction ban with user:passionless will take care of all problems.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
It's a sanctioned topic. One must tread way, way carefully as to anything having to do with it. It looks as though you still haven't learned how to do that. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I know it is a sanctioned topic, and I have done nothing wrong in this topic. May I please ask you to see the comment made by user:ZScarpia "Since it looks to me as though, to a large extent, Mbz1 was provoked, and since her comments don't appear to me to be particularly heinous (compared to the general level in the IP area), I think that a long-term topic ban would be unjust. Unfortunately, because of her history, Mbz1 has become a bit of an easy mark. I do, though, think that it would be useful to continue the restriction on raising cases on noticeboards. " I brought your attention to this particular comment because user:ZScarpia is an editor from a different side of the conflict, an editor we have content disagreements sometimes, and if such editor believes I have done nothing wrong in that topic, it is the best testimony on my behalf.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Also, may I please ask you to clarify your comment for me. What did you mean under "following arbcom's topic area sanctions"? If I am topic banned, what other "topic area sanctions" could be imposed by arbcom? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Any admin can topic ban you or any disruptive editor from API topics, because the topic is already under arbcom sanctions. If you don't understand this, you should ask an experienced editor or another admin for help. I'm not aware of your having been topic banned yet but then, I haven't looked in the last 2 hours or so. Either way, please take this elsewhere. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Your agreement with Mbz1 is being discussed

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Mbz1. You made a deal with Mbz1 in December, 2010 at the time that you lifted her indef block. Mbz1 has questioned the restrictions that you imposed. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I did not questioned the restrictions. I said they were lifted as of March 27. I should have provided the difference right away. Sorry about this. I did provide it now. BTW while we are on this,as I promised to you even with my restrictions lifted, I have not made a single post to any of those boards, except AE, where I was brought in by another user.Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I did lift the agreement after many months had gone by. Noticeboard posts don't seem to be the worry here but let me know if I've missed something. I've also commented in the thread above. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Noticeboards have never been a worry. My block and my agreed bans were unwarranted--Mbz1 (talk) 00:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
We've already been over this, more than once. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Gwen, I am still baffled by Mbz1's claim that you were involved, and should not have acting in her case. At first sight, the request now at WP:AE#Mbz1 appears to show some backsliding from the deal that you agreed with her in December. Defining the extent of backsliding is hard, since Mbz1 will not admit to any facts at all that might indicate there was a problem with her behavior, then or now. She does admit that 'trolling' is a poor choice of words, and I think she has offered to accept a civility restriction. She still protests that your December restrictions were unfair. I have been conducting a discussion at User talk:EdJohnston#The last appeal. When you say, 'We've already been over this, more than once', can you share any diffs? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Those would be found by searching for almost any edit they have made on this talk page and almost every edit I have made on theirs (tough searching that talk history though, since they refactor and page-move the history, which is allowed). The only pith here is, I've never had a content involvement (much less a content dispute) with this editor, everything I've done as an admin with them has had consensus, I unblocked them with an unblock agreement, later lifted their unblock agreement 3 months early and have no plans (or time now) to have anything further to do with them as an admin. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I perceive that Mbz1 either misunderstands or does not accept the standard meanings of WP:INVOLVED and WP:CANVASS. This satisfies my concerns. I take note of Mbz1's opinion above, 'My block and my agreed bans were unwarranted,' even though I disagree. I am disappointed that Mbz1 frequently removes warnings from her talk, even though the material that she does not remove is now being properly archived. EdJohnston (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Note

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 16:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Contact

Please could you put a notice at the top of your talk page advising IP editors to contact another admin, who will pass their message on to you, if they have any issue they need to raise with you? As it is, they are given no indication as to how they can communicate with you. Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 01:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Something tells me both of you have a lot more on your minds here than helping out IPs. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

IEC prefixes (Gibibytes) again…

Gwen, please see this talk thread at Talk:Hard disk drive#IEC prefixes and WP:MOSNUM. I suspect User:RaptorHunter is Thunderbird2, who knows better. So too does User:Tom94022, who is seizing upon this flair up in direct contravention of a widely discussed consensus on MOSNUM. For a first stop, can we get a CU on RaptorHunter? Greg L (talk) 03:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Greg is threatening me with checkuser [14] in violation of the Check user policy which forbids a "threat against another editor in a content dispute." He thinks that anyone that disagrees with him must be a sockpuppet. He offers no evidence, his only purpose is too attack any other user who supports binary prefixes--RaptorHunter (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Tb2 hasn't edited in over two years and is not blocked, so I don't think this meets the threshold for an SPI. Mind, consensus can shift. Either way WP:DR would seem the likely path here. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I would also say, although there is still not yet a hint there would be any consensus for IEC prefixes in the MoS, given their ongoing lack of use in the wide world, it's ok to gauge what consensus may be from time to time by bringing it up. It's also ok here to have a strong PoV on a topic, the pith being how it's put forth and handled, by everyone. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 April 2011

The Signpost: 18 April 2011

The Signpost: 25 April 2011

Violation of block

Hello. I just want to let you know that I am familiar with the edit behaviour and POV of a certain user you indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple account. He just returned to the article Mexico, reverting and re-introducing large portion of texts that were removed due to article weight. He also wants to introduce a particular POV regarding indigenous languages and economics of Mexico. You should check his edit pattern and I'd go for a check user.

I don't have the time now to produce a diff list but check Rahgld edits to article Mexico. He was also always clustering articles with pictures, and his new sock is also doing the same. It is veeeery easy to notice it is him... yet again. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 13:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 May 2011

The Signpost: 9 May 2011

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive19&oldid=1085625125"