This is an archive of past discussions with User:Gwen Gale. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
How does a user CSD a Template?
I've seen a user template that the user is done with and they have tagged with CSD-U1. The problem is that, being a template, the CSD tag got placed on all the pages where the template is being used. I'm almost certain that was not the intended result and was wondering... how would you mark a template for deletion? (the template is here) Padillah (talk) 20:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree. And the claim for which sourcing is a problem may be highly misleading even if true. Bell, in his intro to The Engineers and the Price System, notes (with apparent agreement) someone reporting that Veblen was made a member of the Alliance without being asked to join. If Veblen didn't subsequently say “Oh cool!” or somesuch, then the membership either shouldn't be mentioned at all in this article, or shoud be distinguished from the sort of membership that would otherwise be assumed. —SlamDiego←T15:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd be surprised if it hurt. Anyway, someone may find a “reliable” source that shows that Veblen decided to embrace his induction, but that's made more doubtful in-so-far as the Technical Alliance was rather short-lived.
When I hear or read “technocrat”, I first think of the sort who once dominated the Republican Party and who struggled for leadership of it against those who (rightly or wrongly) styled themselves as conservatives. So I first think of Hoover, Dewey, Rockefeller, &c. —SlamDiego←T17:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Nope. Got there via Talk:Daily Mail where you insisted that "centre-right' did not apply to the Daily Mail. I pointed out that WP has such an article - where, to my surprise, I found it was on the AfD list. No following you at all. If it was on there from John Doe, I would still have found it. Thanks, though, for showing your desires concerning me. Collect (talk) 21:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC) To avoid any issue (since I do not note who proposes AfDs) I struck out my !vote. Collect (talk) 22:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Loan me a besom :)
Hi, milady ... process question. I've never been summoned to ANI before, until now.
Question: Understanding well it should rarely be done, but is it possible to appeal ANI (in medias res? or after conclusion?) Many thanks. Proofreader77 (talk) 02:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey. Mostly because you asked:
You're wikilawyering, rather than cutting to the pith. The only pith on en.Wikipedia is reliable sources, furthermore in a BLP giving much heed to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research.
You're loading up the talk page with never-ending loops of original research.
Whether or not you think this is happening, most other editors who've had anything to say about this think that's what's happening. Since the notion of consensus has much sway here, you can't skirt this.
Either way however, if you think you're helping that man or this project, you're not. From what I see, you're only stirring up kerfluffle and sundry harm. Your editing on the topic has reached the level of disruption, which is blockable. Worse, it looks to me as though you're on the very edge of getting site-banned and if you don't stop this behaviour now, you will be.
I'm willing to talk about this more with you, to try and help you, but truth be told, I'm also willing to grab the besom and block you myself if you don't heed both the ANI thread and this one. Please don't let this get stirred up any more, you're sloshing the mixing bowl way too much and the batter's about to hit the wall. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your clear insight from the perspective of the experienced Wikipedia administrator. Yes, it got way out of hand in the interaction between between TomBaker321 (tilting negative—and I'm not the only one who knows that) and my attempting to balance Tom et al (who surely aren't neutral). We are both capable of enormous number of words—and I will provide you with one diff of his arguing that photos "prove" X (trumping sourced description) to illustrate what I've been dealing with. (And all this was after I took the quote out.) another. one more.
The thing that should have been done early (rather than enact this contention) was to take it to the appropriate forum (? hadn't been to either NPOVN or BLPN before) and have someone else determine which interpretation of NPOV was correct.
As for "Original Research"—yes, that was a problem, until I found the secondary source of the day in court when the probation report was described by the judge with press present and spread by AP. (And SlimVirgin informed me at WP:RSN that the documentary Wanted and Desired is RS secondary.)
I know what it all looks like from your shoes. But other than the OUTRAGEOUS enactment of contention between Tombaker321 and myself ... I haven't been owning anything. But I have demonstrated how desperately some will fight to remove an NPOV tag.
Well ... here's the deal. TomBaker321 arrived to write that summary to fit his interpretation of how it ought to be—align "the facts"(he knows what they are) to fit his interpretation of how it should play out. And, against consensus, expand the summary in the main article to be complete—so no one will go to the separate article.
I made visible what he was doing.
Along the way I brought back one person who had been chewed up by the people who yell "child rapist" — she'd been so attacked for being more neutral she erased her pages, and erased all of Polanski talk edits she could. (She wanted no part of herself left amidst the vile mess that happened in the midst of current events.)
We had hit the wall already when Benjobi took this up to ANI, where an old adversary of sorts who is spewing bullshit (even if you believe he is right about me) rushed in to enjoy the act of humiliation.
Now, if you are like Benjobi and Dreamfocus and UrbanII? and 99.xx and etc etc ... you might approve of what Tombaker321 is doing.
But it isn't right.
And when Llwrch puts on that ridiculous editing restriction of 100 words ... it won't be right.
And maybe I'll just walk away. But Wikipedia will not be better—you're absolutely wrong about that.
I've got the diffs to prove it, but nobody cares. That's Wikipedia too.
I'm the only one with diffs up at ANI. I'm the only one who writes all his edit summaries as if he would be judged by them one day.
But no. I will be judged by repeated bullshit aspersions.
LOL (enough rant—enjoying perhaps my last long message). Your message is extremely well timed, because I was moments before hitting a save which would surely have gotten me banned—and I truly had not calibrated that.
All the RC patrol I've done doesn't mean a thing, does it. One trip to ANI, a shouted bunch of misperceptions, with no chance to rebut them because the decision is already a lock.
By the way ... what exactly would you block me for?Defending myself. Attempting to stop the humiliating (and that's what they are) editing restriction?
Hmmmm ... I may hit save after all. Blocking can be appealed to arbcom. Yes, I know I'll lose, but I'd rather go out with a slim chance to clear the air, than none at all—that's what's happening in that topic at ANI. I can show you the difs.:) Cheers. And my most sincere thanks. Proofreader77 (talk) 15:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
With that out of the way :)
Since this ANI was done without a prior discussion on my talk, is there anyway to work out an agreement that does not involve the editing restrictions? Llwrch truly is acting unfairly in this matter, even if you agree with the general thrust. He shouldn't be making the ruling. Proofreader77 (talk) 15:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment: (Excuse my procedural errors.) To be clear, Gwen Gale's actions are not at issue (you actly wisely). But, however much I had erred, the Roman Polanski ANI was abusive. Abusive ANI's are not in the interest of the community. Whether it should be addressed or not, I wish to be clear as to where it would be addressed (and yes, also let those who are not part of the matter know that I was am new to ANI and therefore quite properly stupid:) Proofreader77 (talk) 01:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Stop talking about "procedure," cut the "formal legalese language," it sounds like (and may be) wikilawyering. You have not been abused at ANI, you're lucky you weren't site banned. Over 4,000 editors and admins watch ANI. The contributions of anyone who posts there are looked over with much heed.
If you don't understand by now why you've been sanctioned, there is still a worry.
Don't. do. that. You can if you want, but don't. Next question? First, you'd need to go to some length, trying to resolve any conflict with each individual editor involved. Next question? Gwen Gale (talk) 01:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
That is the answer I sought. (Can't go directly there.) However, given the givens of this situation (the specific matter of an "abusive" ANI — not that there was not a real basis of action, but how it was carried out), and the almost sure denial by the individuals in one-by-one discussion (likely accompanied by further abuse), the interim steps would appear to be quite unpleasant. Such steps would also tend to reflect badly upon me - beginning unwelcome discussions on user talk pages. Is that what you say must be done? Proofreader77 (talk) 02:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
What I'm saying is, you're driving lots of volunteer editors bats and if you don't stop, you're gonna get yourself blocked. If you can't draw consensus on something, but like editing encyclopedia articles for their own sakes, find another article where you can edit peacefully. There are millions of them. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Note that in this edit, the (strange, uninterpretable) upper "(smiling)" was accidentally added in the wrong place in preview— and not removed when complete comment was correctly placed. (I would remove it myself but reaching limit.) Proofreader77 (talk) 03:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
(To clarify purpose of previous message/no response sought) The incomplete "(smiling)" comment (note: the intended edit is lower in the diff) was inadvertently placed under Gwen Gale's linking to Wikipedia:OR#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position, and so would naturally be perceived as a response to it—its meaning unclear, but perhaps perceivable as negative with respect to Gwen Gale's link. I could not remove it due to editing limits; hence previous note (in case Gwen Gale had seen it and not understood its presence as a response to OR link). Proofreader77 (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
How is Paulman Berg blatant advertising? Wikipedia is not for advertisements, it's for knowledge. I'm not an idiot, I know you can't get advertising from wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BumpStopBump (talk • contribs) 08:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Looks like others have already answered this. Put it this way, from the outlook of en.Wikipedia policy the article was both an advertisement and original fiction (creative writing). However keenly done, merrily meant or otherwise fit, neither is allowed here. If this fictional narrative ever becomes notable, say, by being written up by independent music or entertainment publications, it all could be cited here. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Months before it was released I'd heard there were big worries, so I wasn't at all startled at the reviews. It's kinda sad because the casting of Swank was way fit, along with the set design and wardrobe, whilst both the script and direction were but wonted Hollywood :P However, to put it mildly, movies on that level of production aren't ever easy to pay for or to make, the skills and crafts (or lacks) of so many folks being mixed together. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I know this is random, but I wanted to say thank you for being one of the good guys. I was a regular editor here for a little while, until the migraines (from watching people get away with crap as long as they made even token efforts to game the system) got to be disabling. You were one of the happy exceptions to that general rule, and I don't think I ever properly thanked you as you deserve. (Even though your willingness to deal with problems meant you occasionally had to chew on me as well.)
If they could clone you, WP would be much the better for it. I hope people realize that.
Don't worry about me, I'm no one important and don't do aught more than the occasional casual edit. Just wanted to say thank you for being strong enough to make WP a better place. (^_^)
As documented on the article talk page, your understanding of what was going on when you protected the article was a misunderstanding. Please unprotect. -- RLV 209.217.195.188 (talk) 09:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I am requesting Page Protection of the Polanski page. I hope this is a proper means to do that, if not I would be happy to receive the correct direction to do this.
Reasoning: After the trip to the ANI page, the originator of the ANI question Benjiboi, begam making comprehensive changes to the article as if authorized to "go at it" based on the original ANI discussion. The first removed the topic at question the NPOV flag, and then reworded the section sexual significantly out of hand, without review or discussion. This was this editors second single handed rewrite of the section. Then Benjiboi reformatted the entire article single handed, without review. When replaced to the original version, the reverted and said there was no consensus for the reversion back to the original, thus clearly showing there was no consensus for the single handed changes. The editor also state the entry to be a Narrative now.
The topic at hand is not rapidly changing, and a time out seems appropriate, and needed. I do not believe there would be strong object to protection also.
The revision is back to the original point before the wholesale changes post ANI forum. Benjiboi has asked for a second review in the ANI forum. It appears to be being drawn there again, by the single handed comprehensive editor Benjiboi. Again thank you for the time --Tombaker321 (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, thanks, I found it eventually, there is another point I wanted to ask you, as the discussion there does get very opinionated and regular BLP violations and accusations unsupported by reliable sources, and as there is a court case in action at the moment, I felt is would ba a good proactive measure to remove the talk page from the search crawlers, this was done on the Richmond rape article and I feel the same action would be worthwhile to this talk page, is this something you could do? Please comment. Off2riorob (talk) 22:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
User:Alison did that, likely owing to overwhelming worries about the identity of a minor being disclosed in sundry, happenstance edit versions. I'm not aware of anything about Roman Polanski that could reach such a level. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
There were issues there regarding the minor but also regarding us affecting the up coming court case, which is a similar situation as regards Polanski, accepted it is less of an issue than the rape case. Is it the no index template that creates that situation? Off2riorob (talk) 23:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
No. Moreover, that other person linked to the Polanski prosecution has often and willingly identified herself to many and sundry publications and is not a minor. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't answer you more thoroughly yesterday, Off2riorob. The noindex template mostly doesn't even work these days, because by default, all talk and project space pages are not indexed by search engines, while all articles are indexed and the template can't override the latter default. There's an old robots.txt file for en.Wikipedia but it's my understanding that it has, one way or another, no effect these days, owing to default coding done on the developer level: At this time only developers can exclude an article from search engine indexing. Article talk pages are excluded by default, so truth be told, I don't know why Alison put the template there (she may not have been aware that these days, article talk pages aren't indexed anyway). For developers to exclude an article from external search, I'd think there would need to be a WP:OFFICE action, or overwhelming "community" worry shown through very broad consensus. The way to keep truly dodgy BLP content out of an article is through protection and blocks. I've thought about protecting Roman Polanski until the categories are sorted out, but have worried that this would be going beyond the pale, given his legal status. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
SPI
Here is another example of Collect following me. Franklinbe obviously has no ability to contribute constructively to the project. Collect knows this because he disagreed with the RfC that Franklinbe set up[2] and disagreed with his proposed mediation.[3] Franklinbe has been blocked.[4] However when Franklinbe continued to edit under his IP and I complained at SPI, Collect objected, saying:
The user in question signed an IP post of his in Talk:Fascism. I see no reason to look at this as anything other than his normal IP address, and when he saw the signing was wrong, he corrected it with his named account. No secrecy at all. The acconts are the same person (who else would sign someone else's post?) and there is no attempt to evade any WP rules, blocks, sanctions etc. at all. [3] shows the extent of his non-deviousness. Collect (talk) 23:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[5]
There was an SPI complaint linking an odd editor with his IP addres, which he had not tried to hide. The problem is that the person was not evading a block that I had seen -- he signed a post shortly after his IP made it.I had not noted that this post was in evasion of a block -- if so, I apologize. O had read his vblock log as showing a block on 12 November -- the edits in question were on 11 November. I guess it was pre-evading a block? I followed no one other than that editor -- abd it is clear that it affected me as I was the party AGREEING with The Four Deuces on the Fascism talk oage on the issue! Calling agreement about the strsnge RFC anything other than agreement makes zero sense <g>. Collect (talk) 11:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh. That's what I get for believing something without carefully checking out stuff like dates (my botch). That IP edit was indeed made before the first block. It wasn't block evasion, Franklinbe seemingly forgot to sign in, made a post as an IP then went back and signed it whilst logged on. Collect, I guess you could've worded that much more clearly here. FD, do you understand that Collect was talking about posts which had been made before the first time Franklinbe was blocked? Perhaps both of you should be a bit more careful when posting on the same pages, so as to skirt misunderstandings as to what the other's on about? Gwen Gale (talk) 12:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I had thought it was clear when I said there was no block evasion. Meanwhile, the comment at issue was made to me -- not to TFD, so it was clearly directed at me. I found no reason to accuse anyone of Sockism there as I saw what it was, and so my acts were absolutely proper. And it is hard to "follow" anyone when the posts at issue were made to me -- if anything, I suggest the "following" is by another editor than I. Collect (talk) 12:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
The pith is, Collect, that the IP did later evade Franklinbe's block (on the 19th and 20th), which DF indeed cited at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Franklinbe, so today's block of the IP was fitting and I don't understand why you even bothered to bring up the mistaken IP edit Franklinbe had made before he was blocked, since it had aught to do with anything, unless you hadn't looked at the diffs cited by FD to see for yourself that there was block evasion on that IP, although it happened more than a week after the diff you cited. Hence, it looks to me like your post at SI was mistaken (the diff you cited having nothing to do with the block evasion which happened later, which you didn't acknowledge) and that you both should be more careful and perhaps abide by outlooks which bear a bit more good faith. What do y'all think of that? Gwen Gale (talk) 12:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Opinoso causing troubles and legally threatening another editor
You might think that the present dispute in the article about Brazil is nothing more than two editors (myself and Opinoso) who can not get along. However, I had never, ever, had any issue with another editor until I met this person. He, on the other hand, for a couple of years has been causing trouble and disruption in here, as I will prove to you now:
Opinoso has legally threatened twice another editor called Felipe Menegaz ([7][8]). Opinoso writes in Portuguese, as he probably knows that most do not speak English in here. Below I translate piece of both messages:
First message: “You have added several pictures of White Brazilians and, maliciously, erased pictures of Black, Mestizos and Asian Brazilians. If you have problems with racism, you should look after a psychiatry medic because, in Brazil, racism it is a crime with no bail and, in the future, you might end up in jail.”
Second message: “Your ignorance manages to scare me. I did not know public education in Brazil was so decadent to the point of producing people like you. [...] You probably have inferiority complex, because you must had wanted to be Nordic White but you are not. With all sure you are not descendant of European immigrants. [...] You are a Pardo boy who wanted to be European. It is really sad. I just warn you to be careful, because racism in Brazil it is a crime and I already have enough proofs to denounce you for this crime and put you in jail [...]. Those are enough motives to keep you behind bars for some years.”
This is the second time I (and other editors) have trouble with him on the article about Brazil. I found out that Opinoso got into serious discussions with other editors before, also accusing them of being racists. He accused editors João Felipe C.S ([9][10]), Sparks1979 ([11][12]) and Felipe Menegaz ([13]). Also, he is very, very aggressive towards other editors, such as with Janiovj ([14]). He also has no respect for rules or anything ([15]) and he knows when to request from the other editor to speak in English ([16]) He also frequently calls good faith edits from other users “vandalism”([17][18][19]) if not “racists” ([20][21]) when clearly they do not please him. And a user has complained to him to stop calling them “vandalism” but to no avail ([22]).
Could you, for kindness, explain to me how someone like Opinoso, who legally threatens another editor and is abusive towards other editors it is still in here? It is clearly that for at least 2 years he has causing trouble and disruption in Wikipedia, nonetheless, he is still in here. Why he was not blocked? Why he still roaming freely around? --Lecen (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Those are all very old diffs, showing edits long before I warned him about personal attacks and reverting good faith edits as vandalism. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
What?! And that's it? A couple of years ago he accused an editor of being racist, two years later he did the same with me, and you think he has changed? A person who does not allow any change in any article he "contributes" and create a whole lot of mess in the discussion page to prevent it? Someone who made the article Brazil become locked only to stop anyone from doing something that unplease him? Gwen, please, I ask you, do not turn your back on this. You know just as I do that this guy does not deserve to be in here. - --Lecen (talk) 02:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
You gave me old diffs, after which he was warned (and sternly so), so there is nothing to do about the diffs you gave me. Do you have some diffs from say, the last few weeks? Gwen Gale (talk) 02:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
If they are old diffs and he was punished for that, why he is still in here? Isn't threatening with legal action considered enough to someone to be blocked for good? You want something new? Fine, I created a topic in Brazil discussion page asking for other editors thoughts so that the page could be unblocked. Opinoso called what I did "fake disruptions" ([23]). Not only that, I wrote down about Enclopedia Barsa view of Brazilian ethnicity where Caboclos were the majority of the population. Opinoso then replies saying that nowhere does the enclopedia says that,([24]) although it is there, several times, written. I asked in that thread for other editor's opinions, but Opinoso appeared and started with his endless discussions only to make for other editors impossible to follow the matter. He keeps lying, he keeps falsely accusing other editors, and he will not stop until he has full ownership of all articles he want to. --Lecen (talk) 02:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Policy breaching editors on en.Wikipedia aren't punished, they're warned, sanctioned or blocked, only to stop the behaviour. Opinoso has been warned a few times about this kind of thing. Can you give me diffs from the last two weeks of Opinoso making personal attacks or legal threats, or reverting good faith edits as vandalism? Gwen Gale (talk) 03:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
If that's so, why nothing happened to him when I told you that he was fabricating information and putting them on the article only to remove other legitimate info that he did not like? About recent edits that he has reverted, see here. Although it is sourced in the text and backed by a reliable source ("The Mestizo population (or Pardo as it is officialy called) is a broader multiracial category that includes Caboclos (descendants of Whites and Indians), Mulattoes (of Whites and Blacks) and Cafuzos (of Blacks and Indians").), he not only reverted but also called it "personal theories". He always does that, putting on check the good intention of other editors. He also cause disruption like on this private conversation that I am having with editor Luizdl, putting my good faith on doubt for someone else in a conversation he was not invited or called to be part of ([25][26][27][28]). The matter now is if the Pardo category means multi-racial or brown in English. He is causing all this confusion with me because of that, because while I say that it is multiracial, he says that this is my personal theory. However, to editor Redhill54(yet another user he calls racist as usual) he said that Pardo is "mixed-race", that is, multiracial ([29]). Why he does that? Why he is getting into contradiction? Isn't he doing all of this just to make my life in Wikipedia a hell? To get "revenge" for "losing" the other dispute about a different matter we had in this same article? Putting on doubt my good faith in conversations that he was not called to; reverting edits I did for no reason; creating my life a hell in the article I contribute to the point of making it locked... isn't that harassment? --Lecen (talk) 09:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Lecen, Gwen asked for very specific diffs. She asked for diffs of personal attacks, legal threats, and reverting good-faith edits as vandalism. The diffs provided are not any of these things. They are diffs of an obvious content dispute. You are seeking to have Op blocked. If you want to possibly succeed in that endeavor, you need to provide the diffs Gwen asked for.— DædαlusContribs11:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Lecen, as Hoary has said elsewhere, some time ago, some of Opinoso's edits were indeed worrisome. You've shown me old diffs of that. As I've told you, I warned Opinoso about this kind of thing some time ago. It took a few strong warnings, but so far as I can see, he stopped reverting good faith edits as vandalism and has stopped making personal attacks. What's left is a content dispute with some very light, back and forth edit warring and ownership, which seems to be mostly over sources and how to echo them in the text. I think both y'all and Opinoso are likely a bit too keen on your own PoVs, the topic itself is way controversial and maybe the text should put this forth as such in a neutral way, sternly following the sources, which likely don't agree among themselves one way or another.
There is little or no call for the admin bit here for now, though I'd say it bears watching, mostly for edit warring, WP:OWN and WP:Disruption from all "sides."
I don't have time to mediate a heavy content dispute, moreover I loathe wading into kerfluffles over stuff like race and ethnicity. I think going on about it is disgusting, maybe because what little we do know about the topic is often blatantly spun into deeply flawed political/nationalistic/social spats which help nobody but rather, upset almost anyone within earshot and understandably so.
Y'all should keep in mind that most folks have rather strong notions about their "ethnic identities" and an en.Wikipedia article is unlikely to sway them no matter what it says, but it's even more unlikely to do so if readers find its outlook as slanted in any way. So, I think most of this is a big waste of time. There are likely sundry outlooks in the sources on this and I'd think, if anything, most of them should be echoed in the text in a very low-key, neutral way.
To this end, it may be time for everyone to look into dispute resolution. Believe it or not, there are some very handy tips there.
I do understand that some think sources are being mis-cited. The way to fix that is to put short, pithy quotes from a source straightforwardly into the text and otherwise cite every line if need be.
If personal attacks, untowards reverts or edit warring get stirred up again please let me or another admin know about it, but please stop showing me old diffs of behaviour which has already been warned off. Likewise, I'm willing to try and answer broad questions about policy and sourcing. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Gwen, don't worry, I am not trying to get your opinion on ethnics or something similar. I wrote this. Read above, please. I showed to you yesterday diffs and I would like to know if they can be considered harassment or not. Because the first dispute I had with Opinoso I was backed by at least five other editors while he was alone and by himself. And that dispute was about the history section where he accused me of many things and you even warned him. Not ethnics, history. Six editors against one problematic editor like Opinoso can not be considered simply POV. I believe you are being a little bit unfair with me. Now on the ethnics dispute there are three editors against Opinoso. It always him and only him. But ok, forget that. I want to know, according to my last post to you, if his behavior can be considered harassment. If not, I will not bring any more issue to you, I promisse. But know this: it will be a matter of time until you see him involved in another serious trouble or another editor coming here to complain about his behavior. Anyway, as usual, I apreciate your atention. Thank you very much. --Lecen (talk) 13:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Read WP:Harass then, if you think there has been harassment, give me diffs from the last two weeks which show it. Meanwhile, if there are so many editors who disagree with Opinoso, there could be a consensus as to the content so I don't get what this would be about. Again, for now all I see is a content dispute, with both "sides" going about dealing with it in flawed ways. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Here it is again what I wrote:
About recent edits that he has reverted, see here. Although it is sourced in the text and backed by a reliable source ("The Mestizo population (or Pardo as it is officialy called) is a broader multiracial category that includes Caboclos (descendants of Whites and Indians), Mulattoes (of Whites and Blacks) and Cafuzos (of Blacks and Indians").), he not only reverted but also called it "personal theories". He always does that, putting on check the good intention of other editors. He also cause disruption like on this private conversation that I am having with editor Luizdl, putting my good faith on doubt for someone else in a conversation he was not invited or called to be part of ([30][31][32][33]). The matter now is if the Pardo category means multi-racial or brown in English. He is causing all this confusion with me because of that, because while I say that it is multiracial, he says that this is my personal theory. However, to editor Redhill54 (yet another user he calls racist as usual) he said that Pardo is "mixed-race", that is, multiracial ([34]). Why he does that? Why he is getting into contradiction? Isn't he doing all of this just to make my life in Wikipedia a hell? To get "revenge" for "losing" the other dispute about a different matter we had in this same article? Putting on doubt my good faith in conversations that he was not called to; reverting edits I did for no reason; creating my life a hell in the article I contribute to the point of making it locked... isn't that harassment? --Lecen (talk) 13:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
No, those edits would not be taken as harassment on en.Wikipedia, they're only hints of a content dispute from someone with a very strong PoV. I think both "sides" are dealing with this in flawed ways. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok. So, my behavior is "flawed". I was not rude with you or any other administrador, nor with any editor. I am polite and I try my best to not say something that could be considered rude. You will receive other complains against him in the future, you know that. But as I promissed, I will not bother you anymore. If in any moment I acted in a way you considered "flawed", I apologize. I sincerely did not mean it. But you should think why more and more editors do not contribute to articles that Opinoso "owns". They can't do anything as long as he is in there, and they know that they will not receive firm assistance from administrators. It is like Wild West, everyone by themselves. I admit, Gwen, that I am frustrated. Many others must have felt the same about the same issue before me. However, I thank you for your time. I understand that some times we just get tired of people complaining and all that. But when many complain about one user only, there is clearly something wrong. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 15:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I didn't say you were rude with me, I said your behaviour as an editor, editing the topics and dealing with Opinoso, is flawed. Truth be told, I think y'all are mistaken and unsupported by the sources, Opinoso too, as to all of your PoVs. Hence my thinking that this whole kerfluffle is a big waste of time and a yawn. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Gwen. I wrote to you: "But know this: it will be a matter of time until you see him involved in another serious trouble or another editor coming here to complain about his behavior." Well, I was right: an editor called Likeminas has complained about him. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Removal of sex offender title for Roman Polanski
You removed the title of sex offender in the Roman Polanski page. The term is apt and is in large part how he is known to many people. The fact was cited and is not in violation of any part of the IP BLP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.164.47 (talk) 20:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I do not believe you understand. Roman Polanski fits all the legal definitions of a sex offender in the USA. The most important being that he has been convicted of a sex crime. His convicted is well documented, was cited in the edit, and is also well cited in the rest of the page. The term is most apt and the change that you made should be reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.164.47 (talk) 20:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Your take on this is not the consensus so far, nor did you source your edit, with that terminology, to a reliable secondary source. Take it to the talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I came to Wikipedia to find out how it worked. Reading these pages provides a wonderful insight. You haven't the intelligence to say the same thing from one paragraph to the next. This is what Wikipedia is? If you are representative then it is the most inane collection of personal scribblings on earth. You really are quite stupid you know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.81.177.148 (talk) 10:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I am currently under a six month 1RR restriction. I would like you to look at this and this and tell me if you would oversee the duration of the sanction in place of the admin who imposed it. Thanks. Radiopathy•talk•02:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Gwen, is it out of line to report what I thought was a violation of a restriction? As to when you said, let others report it, only a given few know of this restriction is in place. Or should I just tell all those involved that there exists a restriction, so that they may report any violations?— DædαlusContribs04:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Please stop with the incivil shit. My question was not addressed there, as, given that moment of time, you were not under that restriction. Further, when I raised that ANI thread about you, I was not blocked. So really, back off.— DædαlusContribs04:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Telling me to enjoy my block is uncivil and unnecessarily provocative. Just where is it you think you are? You've been blocked more than once for incivility and edit warring, not to mention you've been blacklisted from twinkle because of your abuse, and you've been placed on an edit restriction because of your edit warring. A restriction that you violated! You've been told by more than two admins that edit warring is wrong, and disruptive, yet, you continue to do it, even after being placed on a restriction. You've been told that you need to stop edit warring, so revert once, then discuss.— DædαlusContribs05:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Jumping in: Radiopathy, Daedalus969, if either of you address or reference each other here, on my talk page, or elsewhere anytime during the next 24 hours, I will be blocking the account for 1 day. Disengage and stop the bickering/baiting now. Abecedare (talk) 05:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Stay away from each other until you can be cool about it. If one or the other is straying from policy in some way, someone else will see and deal with it, blow it off, don't comment about each other anymore. If this keeps up I'll stop it myself by putting you both under 6 month personal attack sanctions as to each other and your only appeals will be at ANI or with arbcom, where you might not get much shrift.
Radiopathy, 1rr is 1rr, it's not that hard to abide by. I mostly stick to it myself unbidden. I learned long ago that the old back and forth always does more harm than help, even when one is wholly supported by policy, sources and notions of a "helpful outlook." If you're not happy with how Abecedare handles your sanction, you're welcome to ask me or any other admin to have a look, but as I said, 1rr isn't that hard to do. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree, especially the part about getting burnt even when you're perfectly in the right. This happens a lot with editors who seem to have problems "getting it"; they tend to edit war and engage in hostile discussions in defence of their lack of skill or familiarity with guidelines/policies. I've fallen into this trap a few times and been rebuked, while meantime the editor who truly is hurting the project goes on his merrie way, undetected. I'm not referring to anyone specific here, by the way.
Put it this way, when you get stirred up over some (non-vandal) edit which seems untowards and has popped in again after you undid it, ask yourself, are you truly worried it may still be there in a year? How about in five? Whatever the answer may be, an edit war then and there won't have any sway on the outcome at all other than to muck things up for readers. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
It looks helpful enough as an essay, for reading, so far as it goes. I'm wondering what you think might be lacking about WP:BLOCK (if anything) and if you think something like this essay should become a guideline or policy. I'd be very worried about WP:CREEP and the wikilawyering this kind of thing could stir up. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I really only see it as an essay (maybe a guideline someday) - you know, the "review of common-sense 1-pager memo". One of the issues with WP:BLOCK is that it's a long read. We read it a few times, and forget. The essay (as written) can apply to bans, blocks, editing restrictions ... any of the various sanctions that are available on Wikipedia. In fact, it might even help an admin to think "restriction first, block next time" - based on the whole escalating concept. (talk→BWilkins←track) 12:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Pithy, yes (so tell me to pith off, if needed). One of the reasons that it uses "acronym gimmicks" is because it is directly derivative of the SMART principles. What I have done is expand "appropriate" to address the preventative nature. The "education" concepts flows from my belief that everybody has something to add to Wikipedia: many just don't know it yet, so they choose disruption. Maybe I'm just naive :-) Should it stay in my userspace as an essay, or should it be in Wikipediaspace ? (talk→BWilkins←track) 14:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Heh. The linguist in me knows all too well that acronym-drawn checklists for thought can become unhelpful, bounding boxes for thought. Truth is, I already looked for a synonym for prevention beginning with e and couldn't find one that fit to my liking, but one may be lurking somewhere :) Also, I have a very strong mindset against bureaucracy of any kind and likewise, for me, "SMART" smacks of that. I like your essay, but too quickly ran into bumps trying to help out with the editing :) That's ok though, I think you should keep at it so long as you're stirred up to do so. The only thing I don't like about it is linking "education" with sanctions. I don't think it's time yet to say, whether it should stay in your user space. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
The cited source straightforwardly says, "It has also been suggested that the money he made from these dealings helped to establish the Bush family fortune and set up its political dynasty." Moreover, the source says the alien property custodian didn't sieze UBC assets until October 20 1942, almost a year after war was declared, so the source does seem to support this and the edit at the very least looks like it's verifiable. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Last I checked, BLP does not allow rumor (which is what this is "It has been suggested" by unnamed people is clearly a statement which need the best possible source. As it refers to the "dynasty" it clearly refers to living people, thus BLP is properly invoked. Note that there is no reliable source saying that any specific monies were made by Bush as he was an employee of Harriman, and it is Harriman who made money, if anyone. Thanks. Collect (talk) 21:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Last I checked, members of the "dynasty" including his son, are quite alive. Referring to the "dynasty" clearly then refers to living people. Did I miss GHWB's obit? Collect (talk) 21:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not aware that the article asserts G.H.W or W had any dealings with the national socialists in the 1930s or during the 39-45 war (W wasn't even born yet). Gwen Gale (talk) 21:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
It states a rumor that the family money came from dealings with Nazis after WW II started. I suggest that this clearly does connect with living people. Especially since the blogoshpere made the claim that Nazi money set GWB up in business ... Rumor does not belong within a mile of a BLP. Collect (talk) 21:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Not a BLP violation and besides, that's not how it's worded. Put it this way, a big swath of the Kennedy trusts came from Joe's bootlegging operations. Citing this on en.Wikipedia is not a BLP worry as to Caroline Kennedy, who derives much benefit from her inheritance. Either way, I didn't make the edit, I don't edit the article, perhaps that edit could be worded more smoothly, it's highly likely someone will deal with it one way or another. Keep in mind, the source on PB says, "His business dealings, which continued until his company's assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy." That is not worded by the source as a rumour. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Cecil Adams debunked that bit -- the holdings in Germany were nationalized by Hitler before any Auschwitz was built (Apr 27, 1940) the Thyssen holdings were all nationalized in September 1939 -- making it kinda hard for Bush to have anything at all to do with Auschwitz <g>. Careful searching, by the way, shows no actual sign of the lawsuit. Considering how much false material has been purveyed oin the Bush family, a line should be drawn when no actual cite of any such lawuit is findable on the entire Google database. Where no verifiable source for the suit exists, it is rumor, and where dates make the claims impossible, it is clear that the rumor, like the hundreds of other rumors, are despicable. There is no lawsuit for the obvious reason that the dates make any such claims absurd on their face. " Well, an equally dedicated crew is now spreading sensational allegations about Dubya and his forebears. (Sample: the president's grandfather not only financed the Nazis, he used concentration-camp prisoners as slaves.) ' is how Adams disposes of this trash. Collect (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Collect, you said the edit wasn't supported by the source, but it is (though perhaps clumsily worded). Then you said it's a BLP violation, but it's not. Now you're saying the source itself is wrong and meanwhile, seem to be talking about personal blogs that aren't even cited in the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
1. The source did not support the claim as written. 2. It remains a BLP violation as it connects directly with living people, and is a "rumor" at best. 3. I pointed out that the "lawsuit" may not have ever existed (I searched as best I could in German news archives without finding a trace and my college German was fair.) 4. I quoted Cecil Adams on the facts as he found them. He is quoted above, I did not raise the issue of blogs being used in the article as they were excised from it a while back <g>. Thanks -- perhaps you can find any hint in a German language source that any such suit ws ever filed? Collect (talk)
It does say the money came after WW II started -- if the assets in Germany were seized more than two years before the US entered WW II, it is kinda hard to support the claim - no> And I am now pretty sure the lawsuit is pure urban legend, Two hours and no sign of it. Collect (talk) 23:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Please don't bold text with me. The source doesn't say the assets were taken earlier. Some Thyssen family holdings may have been grabbed by Speer before other UBC holdings were grabbed by the Anglo-Americans but be wary of your own original research, which is to say, synthesis. You're welcome to add another source which has more to say about this and you're also welcome to tweak that edit, smoothing the wording and so on, that wouldn't be a revert. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
The date for the seizure is from the WP article on Thyssen. Sourced as to the fact of the seizure. The Auschwitz date is from the article on WP, but fully sourced. UBC was not, in fact, found by the APC to hold Thyssen property (per UBC artocle and sourced) Tachyons do not exist. Collect (talk) 23:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Gwen - hope you are well. Please would you take look when you have a second. This profile is being vandalised with defamatory, un-sourced material. I believe that the source of defamation may lie with in the BBC and is currently being investigated. I know that the Oversight Committee is being asked to remove these comments from the history. Please would you consider protecting the article so that it can only be edited by established editors? Thanks. Amicaveritas (talk) 15:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey. Try undoing the edits and leaving them a note on their talk page. If they edit war over it, let me or another admin know. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
This time an IP added words to the ADL quote which are simply not present in the quote at all, making it look like it means something contrary to the actual quote. To wit "regardless of the basis in truth." Collect (talk) 12:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I've reverted that (as you know, it wasn't from anything close to the same IP). I'm happy to look at these (time allowing), but please give me diffs from now on. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I think we've talked out the issue of Booker's credibility. Those who are inclined to read up on Booker or are already aware of his reputation will have made their minds up. Repeatedly saying that I don't cite any sources, when I've cited direct quotes from Booker himself and referred you to the article which contains the external sources, isn't helpful and is cluttering up the discussion. Can I suggest that you move on from this and stop repeating the same accusation? --TS21:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Dear Gwen,
can I ask you to give me rollback? On the cons, I'm not a high volume vandalism reverter, a few here a few there per week. On the pros, I don't think I've made any mistaken reverts (at least, there's no evidence of it ;-) or ended up in acrimonious disputes about changes. Occasionally I have to do some jumping around to undo a few consecutive (vandalism) edits in a row, and it would be convenient to simply rollback. Lissajous (talk) 06:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods – not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics' work. It seems they are prepared to stop at nothing to stifle scientific debate in this way, not least by ensuring that no dissenting research should find its way into the pages of IPCC reports.
I'm puzzled. You've previosuly been fairly sensible, and not interested in global warming. Now all of a sudden you're trying to foist the likes of Booker on us. Why the sudden interest on a topic about which you seem to know very little? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
You misunderstand me. I intend no personal attack. I withdraw any words that you chose to consider such. But my puzzlement remains, and I would be interested to know why your sudden interest. I believe that it is appropriate to ask you here - this is not a general question for the article talk. You are, naturally, under no obligation at all to answer William M. Connolley (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok. Meanwhile, your very question is mistaken, but I've seen your edits for years and understand (more or less, I guess) why you've asked it in that way. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Was that an answer (again, this isn't a PA, I simply don't understand you)? To be specific, I had two questions in mind, neither of which you've answered: why add Booker, and why your sudden interest? I'm not sure what part of my question you consider to be mistaken - could you clarify? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd hoped to have a quiet conversation free of the noise from elsewhere. You won't tell me why my questions are mistaken, or answer the revised version, so OK: I'll stop trying here. My curiosity remains; do leave me a note should you ever wish to discuss this, or use email William M. Connolley (talk) 23:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Put it this way, I'm not trying to be all that coy about it. We disagree on a lot having to do with this, along with what the sourcing policy has to say. It's not that big of a deal, since I've never edited the article, have no plans so far to do so, most likely won't, nor use the admin bit anywhere throughout the topic set and meanwhile, I know plenty of input from many and sundry editors will be forthcoming. I may even unwatch the article soon. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I stumbled upon this and grinned, spotting the strip of green, I'm thinking it may even wind up as my yule thingy this year. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh, don't worry, it's had impact here - my kids loved it. Now I've got the job of explaining to them not only that a kitten is not just for xmas, but also that it's not even for xmas. No matter how cute it looks. Lissajous (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that excessive page protection is harmful. In this case, I fear it is being used to artificially impute partisan motives. Perhaps another request to unprotect? I'd make it, but given the history I think it would just engender more accusations. Ronnotel (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
They were wantonly edit warring and I don't yet see much of a hint that wouldn't start up again. Moreover, there's lots of hard core stuff behind this edit warring (and how the talk page threads wend and wind) that won't go away any time soon. It's all but an echo of what's happening with this topic set in the wider world. The sources on all this will sooner or later sort themselves out, at least settling down to a dull roar. Meanwhile when peer review itself is questioned far and wide in reliable sources, those sources carry meaningful weight side by side with peer review. The protection will end on its own in 5 days. There's always hope that at least a bit more consensus will show up on the talk page and it's so very likely there'll be more sources to cite by then. Either way, en.Wikipedia is but a tertiary source, a handy tool, so it can and does lag, sometimes for years on high traffic core topics. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
As I've been saying for some time now, en.Wikipedia is awash in sockpuppets and many editors would be startled to know who runs some of them. There are a few reasons why this website has been losing tens of thousands of editors (and dozens of helpful admins). I'd say the wanton socking by established, nominally trusted editors isn't a core reason, but it's an outcome which canny shrivels trust and overwhelmingly wastes the time of volunteers who think that by editing through the consensus policies they can build truly helpful, keenly sourced encyclopedia articles. Some of the puppeteers are so skilled they may never be brought to light (and I'm not talking about "goodhand" alt accounts which are run harmlessly owing to sundry privacy or harassment worries). Sockpuppetry is mind scam. The fix is neither a hunt far and wide for all those who lurk, nor in some keen set of scripts which could more or less easily spit out likely sockies to a mailing list of checkusers and arbcom folks, nor a good faith, open plea for it to stop. I can only say, the likely outcomes are foreseen and fairly short term now, among them an understanding that en.Wikipedia could indeed go the way of Alta Vista and the USENET within a very few years. Some know spot on what I'm talking about. Happily though, in the long term, the worries aren't all that big, the outlook seems bright for open content, along with the foregone end of 19th century notions having to do with legislated IP and copyright, never mind the myth these have anything to do with helping those who create content bring it to free markets. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Good piece, and funny that the last line exactly points to the problem outside the admin area, changing the course of wiki from a transparent user based open source project with 1000 eyes verification to a cathedral style project based on the Two-man rule (the other man beeing the friend admin), in German das 4 augen principe, has some consquences, it showed here [35] that only 30 people allowed or disallowed new edits to the project and thats not enough to guaranty NPOV, funny enough, most of the wiki's who implemented the plug-in came from behind the wall and took the possibility to grab the power, the fact that DE is discussing a fork or changing course is just a healthy process of re-evaluation, as for common editors, if you feel handled as shit, there are more than enough projects in this world. Just an opinion :)Mion (talk) 20:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Those edits can be reverted by any editor without heed to 3rr. Please let me know if it gets worse and I'll semi-protect the articles if need be, he's jumping about on IPs so blocks would be meaningless and it's way too early to think about range blocking. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Gwen, why did you restore the off-topic soapboxing in this edit? We have a notice at the top of the page asking people not to use the page as a forum and the talk page guidelines specifically empower us to remove material not relevant to improving the article (WP:TPO). The talk page is long enough as it is without being cluttered up with off-topic rants. If you're not willing to keep the talk page tidy, please at least don't obstruct other people's efforts to do so. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
It wasn't soapboxing, it was an unsourced, good faith comment about the article content. User:Apis_O-tangAtmoz helpfully archived it (although I don't agree it was "soap"). Please don't remove good faith comments from article talk pages. If you have worries about the editor who left the comment, you might leave a comment on their talk page or below the archived thread asking for sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
You do realise that the same editor has been posting rants about "liberals" and "political correctness"? He's clearly either a soapboxer or a troll out to wind people up. I've left a comment on his talk page asking him to cut it out. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. The note you left looks very helpful to me (aside from your use of the word rant). Please don't call other editors trolls. If an editor strays into blockable behaviour, they'll most likely be blocked. Sometimes though, good faith editors with outlooks stronger than their understanding of en.Wikipedia policy try to improve articles without citing sources. I wholly support archiving the thread and leaving a note for the editor, as you and Apis Atmoz have done. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Gwen, you marked for deletion the article on Guifi.net. It is one of the largest and exemplary open community wireless networks in the world, and very active on the definition and promotion of the common wireless ideas. I thought it would be really relevant to add an article about it. It is growing rapidly and it has more that 10.000 nodes (a lot for a community wireless net, much more that the well known similar nets in English speaking countries) and perhaps around 10-100 times number of people related to it (no official statistics on it). These are the arguments for relevance and I believe an article in the English section should cover important aspects about the world, not only about things on the most industrialized and English-speaking countries. I only occasionally contribute to the Wikipedia so perhaps I may be wrong. Leandro.navarro (talk) 14:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I can't see that I've ever had anything to do with that. If you think the topic meets WP:ORG, you might want to find some sources and cite some text. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Why did you delete this podcast's page? It is inappropriate for you to delete information because you are unaware of its cultural significance in your country. Simply because you are unaware of another country's culture gives you no right to say it has no significance. It is not your place to delete the cultural references of another country so please restore this page immediately and refrain from further uninformed deletions of American culture. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.204.24.203 (talk) 13:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I request semi-protection for “Phi Kappa Psi”. There's an editor who has used multiple accounts (Personperson1234567, CoolioDroolio, and ReversePorkies, now all indefinitely blocked) and more recently anonymously edited from 70.162.21.165 (blocked) and from 150.135.161.148 (not presently blocked) to removed references and an allegation of sexual assault.
Heh, brings to mind something someone told me long ago and far away (from an Internet outlook), which she put more or less, "As an admin you have to be ready and willing to take the blame for anything and everything that's wrong with this website." Gwen Gale (talk) 15:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps the accusation was based upon a theory of mind control, or upon parallel-universe, many-worlds, or possible-worlds interpretation of the cosmos. —SlamDiego←T18:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Gwen. The user Surelyhuman is persist in removing the categories on Beyonce Knowles article. See here:[36]. I've tried to talk over with the user but the person insists that the person shouldn't be applied to the categories out of his own opinion. Her heritage is sourced and yet the person refuses to accept the categories being in the article when there apply to people of full or partial heritage.Mcelite (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the warning was at all well considered for appropriateness before being given. The problem is not that I am removing sourced and verifiable categories from the Beyoncé Knowles article, but that user Mcelite and I have opposing views on what kind of categories belong on the article. I see that user Mcelite and yourself are well acquainted, but warnings should be given out after making sure it is appropriate to do so, instead of simply after being contacted. I will talk about the problem on the talk page as you suggested, but I'd appreciate it if the warning you gave me was recanted. Surelyhuman (talk) 10:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I looked into this before leaving the warning on your talk page. You removed reliably sourced categories. Edit warring over what to call the ancestral background of a living person is one of the most harmful kinds of edit warring that can happen on en.Wikipedia and I can't bring myself to give it much shrift, which is why I left such a straightforward warning. You cannot take the article back and forth on this. You should not take verifiable content out of an article. Both you and Mcelite should now try and gather sources and consensus on the talk page and if the two of you can't come to an agreement, let someone else gauge the consensus and make any needed edits. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
accusation
[37] accuses me of "secretly canvassing" -- as this is absolutely untrue, and part of a continuing harassment by an editor, I would like you to be aware of such accusations. Collect (talk) 23:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't know how "secret" any of that is, but it looks like something on the edge of selective canvassing to me. Collect, you should have a look at WP:CANVASS. It's ok to leave one or two notes like that on user talk pages if you must, but if you want to draw more editors than that to an article, you'll need to use project pages and be more neutral with your wording.
Consensus isn't a vote. A single editor, talking things over with a flock of others who don't agree, can sometimes (and always should be able to) sway article content with fit sourcing. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
First excamples are not CANVASS -- all but one are to one editor over a period of months, the sole other is to one editor who had reverted the edit in question. As to the second one ... I wrote in a neutral manner to people who had !voted on deletion -- a neutral notification is not canvass by definition, and absoplutely not "selective canvass". I did not notify TFD because he was the person who actually raised the issue. Under no circumstances ought that be considered canvassing, to be sure. And you should note that I have had essentially zero contact with those editors otherwise. This is, again, "diff hunting" on an editor with 10K edits. Note further that TFD specifically said that I supported calling the Daily Mail "Nazi." The accusations are palpably false, and deleterious to WP. Collect (talk) 11:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Those posts didn't look neutral to me but even if they were, neutral posts can still be canvassing, doesn't matter at all how much contact you've had with the editors. Please don't do that, there's amost never a true need for it and edits by a flock of "partisan" accounts (which are often done in good faith and are not even seen by those who make them as being "partisan") seldom help. Meanwhile I don't pay much heed to the word Nazi when I see it on en.Wikipedia talk pages (unless it's thrown as a PA), most folks don't even know what it means. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I contacted all involved (including Colonel Warden) AFAICR, and I would never call those posted to anything but neutral (DGG is partisan? Nope.) -- and the accusation about me approving of calling the Daily Mail "Nazi"? In short -- no "Secret canvassing" and no "canvassing" in anything but a p[roper usage. Meanwhile - I got harassing emails in the past which so far have not been acted on. Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
You don't think you canvassed but you did. This is not a big thing, don't do it again, is all. As for any harassing emails, if you're getting any now, let me know about them and I'll have a look. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
my apologizes
I apologize for my harsh actions towards Surelyhuman. It just really bothered me that the user completely over looks certain things in a manner that seems ignorant to me. I'm taking a day off to cool off. Thank you again.Mcelite (talk) 07:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for thinking about it. That topic area brings forth some of the strongest (and in good faith) outlooks you'll see here. Worse, I think those kinds of categories are at once woefully fuzzy and hemmed-in. I don't think they should even be in BLPs but if they are, given how so many editors like the "meta-data" stuff they spin off (I say it's "garbage in, garbage out" half the time), one should take much heed and care with them. Labels can be ok here and there, but not only will most of them forever shift in sundry ways, they're often wrongly put or thought-out to begin with. Hence, I think sometimes, they're maybe not worth too much time, much less any bickering. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
pr
Excellent. lol Abraham Lincoln was on my mind, and quoted in my most recently deleted comment — a joke which applies to the edit summary of the reversion (a pleasantry I got from Killerchihuahua's userpage after she gave me a barnstar).
PS: Metacomment on other matters (which have formal response on my talk): Proofreader77 is not Ottava Rima.
And I don't mean to be (too) funny, but since I have missed the opportunity to exchange gracious, sometimes clever remarks with you, I will respond now with a movie title that in Spanish reads "Abre los ojos," and in English, well, about the same thing. :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Editing
Hi,
I've noticed that you have an extensive editing history on wikipedia. That is very impressive. I'm looking for a mentor to help me acclimate to the encyclopedia as I would like to begin editing soon. Do you have any useful suggestions to help me get started? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erohwasinewg (talk • contribs) 09:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
You most likely don't need a mentor. The easiest way to learn how to edit en.Wikipedia is to begin editing and learn as you go. I've left a boilerplate welcome message on your talk page because it has helpful links, which you might read if you have some time. The main things a new editor should keep in mind are:
Gwen, since you are familiar with the user, can you take a look at his contributions to WP:AN over the last day or so at this thread (the initial proposal is fine, but his participation soon degenerated into tomfoolery, baiting and edit-warring; see the page's edit-history). See also the my messages to him requesting him to stop, and reminding him of his edit-restrictions, which he seems to have violated. If he continues, I plan to issue short blocks, but would appreciate a second opinion and set of eyes. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 14:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Since AN isn't in the talk space, he didn't stray from those restrictions, but I agree he was baiting, being pointy and otherwise disruptive. Hence I'm going to widen the restriction to project pages. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Gwen, you have gotten too personally involved. I urge you to leave further admin actions with respect to this editor to other administrators. DGG ( talk ) 20:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Wow, it's hard to believe it has been two years since the article was promoted to GA. Hope you are doing well. Cheers! Postoak (talk) 05:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I have my head in an unusual and not good place this morning
Can you speedy delete: Talk:Ball's Bluff Battlefield Regional Park and National Cemetery? I did some move-mucking and made the problem worse. I believe I have all the redirects correct now, but just need the newly created talkpage deleted. Thanks. Have a holly jolly. BusterD (talk) 12:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
If you have a moment could you cast an eye over Kobi Arad? Sorry the talk page is a bit of a mess and the history reveals a bit of a stand off developing. It seems to hang on a very slender thread of notability (a single source in Hebrew). my last attempt at a clean up. Worth bothering with in a seasonal gesture of goodwill? Lame Name (talk) 19:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Here is what asserts and meets notability and seems quite verifiable: His compositions have been played on Israel National Radio and he has appeared with the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra in a televised show The music of Ravel which was part of an educational televised series. Arad has transcribed works by Dizzy Gillespie which have been published by Hal Leonard. If at any time you still think the topic's not notable, that's very ok and what WP:AFD is all about. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 21:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
enfield paul
please can you return the article kingston hospital radio to my sandbox. i do not understand what you mean by copy right violation, and I find the wikipedia guidelines on this confusing and complicated. i work for the charity involved so am not sure how why i don't seem to be able to use our content. all i need is for someone to say do this, don't do this in relation to my article. if necessary i will move it to a special page. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enfield paul (talk • contribs)
I've had nothing to do with this article so far as I can tell. However, the article was deleted as a copyright violation: Copyright violations can't be restored to any spot on en.Wikipedia, so I can't put it back in your sandbox. Moreover, the deleted text doesn't seem to meet the notability standards and has no independent sourcing at all. Hence, even if it were wholly re-written and not a copyright violation, since the topic does not seem to be encyclopedic, it's likely any text would be either speedily deleted, or deleted after being taken to articles for deletion. Please keep in mind, you can follow the blue links in this answer, to learn more about the policies. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 13:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I should be grateful if you would grant me rollback rights. If you look at my contributions you will see my substantial history of responsible editing and I intend to increase my vandal fighting activities. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
(* Quoting Shell Kinney's topic header once placed on my talk after having witnessed some lightness on Killerchihuahua's talk)
Given that it's Christmas, and that that ANI was a "car wreck" of misperceptions ... if you would like to have a chat with Llywrch (recently blessed with baby girl) and Hans Adler (note: Cuchullain also affirmed, but a bit of COI there: See User:Proofreader77/American warning) about withdrawing/nullifying/whatever what happened, that is fine with me.
But as I indicated on my talk, whatever will happen at Arbcom (or perhaps AN, if Arbcom considers the matter too frivolous, ^;^) "will be convivial." (Note: I have been blessed by all that has happened — and my user page is much improved: 3.0 lol) Proofreader77 (talk) 23:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Note: Benjiboi/Banjeboi is, yes, a more complex matter, since her editing choices were in the mix on Roman Polanski. Two editors have "dragged" Proofreader77 to ANI (inappropriately) regarding that article. The BLP/NPOV issues of that matter are complex, and I am still investigating possible solutions. Will leave it at that for now. (Reference links: ANI (1)(2)(3) AN3(1)) -- Proofreader77 (talk) 00:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
Sorry to post a (mostly) negative message on your page, since you obviously do a lot of hard work at improving this encyclopedia. I hope you'll consider unblocking User:Breathing Dead--I was just looking over the block records and it seems to me that blocking this user was a mistake. I think that in the dispute between you and this user, WP:CIVIL was violated on both sides, and that it's unfortunate that there was an indefinite block placed on this user since he made many positive contributions to the encylopaedia. I also think that admins should not use the tools in disputes that they themselves participate in. I also posted a message on this topic at the admin noticeboard. Hope you had a merry Xmas! Cheers, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 01:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
May this season be the last in which the insane visit you on this talk page! (Okay. probably just too much for which to hope. Sorry.) —SlamDiego←T07:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, his edits seemed more irrational today than before. To tell the truth, it was the first time for me to get into such situation - couldn't save any short message, at his or my talk - constant conflicts. Materialscientist (talk) 13:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Happenstance ("bad luck") on the edit conflicts. I've found the easiest way to get through those is, let them happen, let them be, copy (CTRL+C) what I tried to post, back up and save again. As for BH, 'tis the season and from his outlook I think he was feeling more than a bit snubbed, wasn't up to speed on the MoS guideline and felt he was dealing with what he saw as something akin to vandalism (hence, he didn't think he was edit warring at all). Gwen Gale (talk) 14:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it might be completely logical to him to have a photo credit, as usual in any journal or web article, and I felt that he felt "used up and thrown away" on that, but. Strange that he came up with this within an hour though the images stood there for ages. I also did not understand why some of his adds were oversighted - as I recall he was only leaking his account name. Er .. I feel like fighting for good contributors, but here it went too far :) Materialscientist (talk) 14:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I can only glark, that a kind of hankering on the topic of photo credits somehow and at last caught up with him today. The oversights were made because he tried to out another editor in those edit summaries, he. was. not. happy. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I also see that in almost three years, he never made a post to his own talk page until today, leading me to think he's not too keen on talking about stuff here which, as many learn soon or later, or alas sometimes never, can in itself stir up kerfluffles. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, nobody talked to him personally on his talk - only templates, thus I don't blame him. Also, if I couldn't type a word, so was he - that's possibly why he went off-line today .. Guesswork .. sometimes I feel I can't not to make a mistake .. and its Ok :-) Happy editing and Merry Christmas. I should be in bed long ago. Materialscientist (talk) 14:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't blame anyone. However, this kind of thing is why I've come to dislike (what one calls here) the "templating" of any user, moreover good faith ones, moreover with "automated tools." Gwen Gale (talk) 11:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Gwen:
I see that you have remove Proofreader77 restrictions because of his wiki-lawyering to you above. In your decision to remove all the restriction, you said that the restriction were not working, thus they were lifted.
The restrictions were not the measure, there was never a criteria of if the restriction do not work, that they will be removed. Quite the opposite. I think its fair to say that Proofreader77 has gamed these restriction, and his working around them and violating them too, should not warrant their removal.
To the restrictions:
1. Proofreader has edit warred with editors.
2. Proofreader77 has continued to place Sonnets into Talk pages.
3. Proofreader77 has not obtained a mentor. His idiosyncrasy style has not changed, and his communications skill are very often unintelligible to others.
4. Proofreader77 has strayed from the restrictions.
5. Proofreader77 continues to abuse AN and ANI, and wiki-lawyers on Admin talk pages.
6. Gwen Gale acknowledges that Proofreader's methodology of interaction has not changed.
7. The lifting of the restriction was unilateral, verse the consensus removal requirement, which was decided by ANI
Proofreader77 in his offer to you, used hard to read formatting, which the restriction where suppose to remedy. When give feedback from a third party, dismissed the advice.
Proofreader77 represented to you that all parties. This was not true, as I was certainly not notified, and I was very much included in that ANI. Proofreader's note to Cuchullian was not replied to. The note to Hans Adler, was not responded to when you lifted the restriction, then days after, Hans responded to Proofreader saying "This is not acceptable.
Proofreader has placed sonnets of Jimbo Wales talk page, and other unintelligible lengthy contributions. Proofreader was blocked to a day, due to his disruption. However when you did that, you failed to consider his restrictions that were already to be in place.
Proofreader engages in disruptive rhetoric as his primary contributions to Wikipedia. The effect and time on others should be part of the consideration.
The ANI said "If you seek and successfully obtain mentorship for help with your idiosyncratic style and make meaningful progress improving your communication skills, these restrictions may be lifted by a consensus of editors."
Proofreader has not take the restrictions to heart, continues wikilawyer and even told you he was going to Arbitration.
I sense you have become too labored with this matter, which is why you removed the restrictions while contending his style of interaction was not changed.
I feel strongly that you should replace the restrictions (the problem remains), then hand off the problems of Proofreader77 by creating an ANI topic to allow disposition by others. The should not be dropped off, it needs to be handed off.
Thank you --Tombaker321 (talk) 10:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me have your thoughts on this. I lifted PR's talk/project page restrictions because the outcome wasn't what anyone who'd given input at ANI had been hoping for. I indeed thought PR was gaming the restrictions, which is why I even tried widening them: They'd been meant (as are most admin-set restrictions) as a way to skirt blocking PR and give him time to think about things. When he asked me the other day that they be lifted, I did so more or less "knowing" he'd either settle down (which was my hope) or stir things up even more. As it happened, I'd say he ran amuck on Jimbo's talk page and elsewhere. I'd say PR knows what he's doing and could stop whenever he pleases, but I can't say I know why he's been so disruptive. I always found his way of putting things slightly unsettling, a bit time wasting, but harmlessly so, hence I more often than not didn't bother to read what he had to say too deeply. It was only in the last few months that I saw his talk page meanderings and sonnets grow out of hand. When I saw warnings from 2 other admins on his talk page last night, followed by a wanton taunt at Jimbo (which PR has already wikilawyered as having been a friendly go at a chat about fund raising), I blocked him. His unblock request was swiftly declined.
I've never seen mentoring teach anyone but the mentor anything about en.Wikipedia. Truth be told, I think the whole notion of mentoring is widely misunderstood, but that's another tale and not that big of a worry, from my outlook anyway.
I think, given the outcome, the restrictions were worth trying but didn't help at all, so I can't see how putting them back could help editors build the encyclopedia.
I think PR should edit under the same consensus policies as most other editors and if he strays again after his block is up, I think he should be blocked again. I also think he's headed straight for a site-wide ban and wouldn't be startled at all if, deep down, that's what he wants to happen.
Whatever happens next, I was already thinking, I won't be the one to block PR again. If his behaviour carries on and is indeed as harmful as it seems to me, others will deal with him. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I was asked to comment here, but I'll try to keep my comment short. I'd rather try to deal with these problems with blocking and per case restrictions (i.e. stop doing that), rather than trying to create broad restrictions that will unnecessarily hinder while having a spirit that is easily evaded. Prodegotalk17:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I was willing to try them out following the consensus to do so at ANI, but this is why I lifted them. I had tried admin-set restrictions 2 or 3 times before and taken altogether, I don't think they ever swayed an outcome. As I recall, all the editors wound up blocked anyway. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I might also say, on the topic of "per case" restrictions, saying something very straightforward and unmistakable, like, "Stay away from User:X" (which I learned from User:Fred Bauder long ago), does often help and seems to spare hurt feelings too. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I need to inform the two other Admins in the ANI...of this discussion, I tried to keep a small footprint until I could see your first response. I see your logic with the removal, however I definitely see Proofreader77 taking it as a green light, especially after he said he would go to Arbitration after the increasing of restrictions. His choice was to take it as validation. I am somewhat in shock over his actions on Mr. Wales page, sonnets and heavy peppering. In the likely scenario where an ANI is required again, I will reference our discussion here. Thank you. --Tombaker321 (talk) 00:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I, too, had a request to comment here. Not too much to say since I haven't been watching PR or his actions very closely. (Most of my Wikipedia-related work has been devoted to the offline effort of reading a poorly-written history in a marginally competent translation -- so our users don't need to. ;-) At first I thought PR was following the guidelines & they were working. His input was to the point, & appeared to be on topic. After all, the intent was to get him to cooperate in a productive way, suggest how he can get help if he wants it, & allow us to ignore him if need be. (I'm not particularly bothered by his sonnets; I can ignore them as well as the next person.) However, not long ago I saw him go off the rails on WP:AN/I, & considered blocking him -- only to step back since I felt that would make for more wikidrama in the long run. And when I saw his note on my page that led me to an unintelligible exchange (well, I couldn't make sense of what was being discussed or why), well, it's clear that he doesn't want to work with the community. But I'm not going to drop the banhammer on him -- unless I absolutely am forced to -- for the same reasons Gwen likely has. -- llywrch (talk) 06:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
After "31 hour Block" Proofreader immediately begins reverting
Thank you for unblocking Daedalus969. I don't know if you got my email, but I did reread those early posts and I can see his frustration in trying to get us to understand him. I don't believe he intended to be uncivil. I think he was trying so hard to be heard, we couldn't hear him. Malke201000:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
^ http://www.heraldik.se/artiklar/dubba.html
^ Karl Löfström
[edit] Literature
Karl Löfström; Sverges Riddarordnar (
Arvid Berghman; Nordiska Ördnar og dekorationer (Malmö 1949)
Rudolf Cederström; Katalog (Stockholm 1948)
Rudolf Cederström; Svenskt Silversmide 1520 - 1850 (Stockholm 1941)
Michael Conforti en Guy Walton; Royal treasures of Sweden 1500 - 1700 (Washington 1988)
Regarding unblock of Nableezy
I think this was a reasonable unblock, I probably would have changed it to a fixed duration of at least a day, but I am me and you are you. Please note that I am always open to discuss any block or unblock should the need arise. Chillum(Need help? Ask me)23:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh, your block was very fit. After the legal threat I would have blocked him 72 hours for disruption, but either way, if he stirs up anything else, he should be blocked again. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
You're quite right to remove the remark 'too many stupid people here', which carried over when I copied the 'retired template' from Nableezy's page. The quotation from NoCal while he was an editor here, and which I entered on my page several months ago, and has never been objected to by anyone, even him then, or since, goes back. No disrepect intended. But removing an uncontested remark, illustrating a mindset, made on wikipedia, months after it came to light that the person used sockpuppetry to sway arbitration on critical issues and disrupt pages after recent events, is an inappropriate interference with that page, which is now dead, in any case. Regards Nishidani (talk) 16:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I find much of what is happening around me incomprehensible, perhaps because I am thick-witted. Could you clarify who told you that this old edit, from May 7 2009 was a 'parting shot', and who apparently asked you to 'rm (it) as a courtesy, by request'? Or have I misunderstood your syntax?Nishidani (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
The editor claims you took the post out of context, to make them look bad (my words). I'm wholly neutral on what you may have been thinking, but posting diffs which could be taken as putting down another editor, under a retired tag, all owing to a content dispute, doesn't help the building of an encyclopedia. I'm not saying you did anything wrong, but only from the outlook of a clueless admin, that leaving it there is unhelpful and not needed. Either way, I hope you'll be editing articles again soon. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, yes, I'd found it, so now more than ever, put it this way, I don't see how citing a diff from a banned sock helps anything. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
It shows the attitudes that editors in the area deal with on a regular basis, but what is wrong with it? Why should a banned sock be able to ask for anything from this site? nableezy - 17:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
We don't "dance on the graves" of banned users here, no matter what we think they've done. The diff should be taken down. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
As Nishi already wrote, that was not "dancing on the grave" of NoCal, this was put up well before he was banned and not once did he, while he had the chance, even claim that it was taken out of context. NoCal said what he said, he should have been more careful with his words if he did not want people to cite them. nableezy - 17:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm in the middle of something else off-en.WP now, can you please give me the diff showing that was posted before NoCal was banned? Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I see Nableezy has made the point I intended to. But for the record:-
I'm late in replying, because I'm slow at checking.
I did not 'cite a diff from a banned sock'. I cited a remark, not out of context, providing a precise link, to someone who at the time wasn't known (to administrators, as opposed to people who had to edit with him) to use sockpuppetry, or several other techniques for gaming articles.
Gwen. Let it be clear. I have almost always excused administrators because they have an intolerable and thankless burden of boring tasks, which means slipping up is to be expected. They can’t be expected to see what people in the thick of things know. They judge a different kind of evidence, with different criteria, as wikilaw asks them to. So this note is impersonal.
The citation someone asked you to remove was, as the citation indicates, from a remark by User:NoCal100. Click on it confirmed sockpuppets, which will give you extensive details:-
The editor (?) claims I took the post out of context. I presume this means the editor who asked you to take down the old citation on my page is intimately familiar with NoCal’s work.
Well, the editor deceived you. If the editor who complained is anyone traceable back to NoCal, then he has abused your trust by luring you to make an edit, on his behalf on wikipedia, when he has been blocked indefinitely. If he is just a friend or editor in correspondence with NoCal, the point is the same. I’m sure you’ll appreciate the delicacy of the matter, and why this intervention unnerves me.
It is a direct cite, and the link provides the context.
The tag is not ‘retired’. Numerous administrators’ pages cite noted or notorious remarks mthey have come across in the course of their work. I haven’t seen anyone object to this practice. Except now, in my case.
I will admit that I took this to be just the last of many last straws, of using ruses relentlessly, kicking dead horses, just to try to provoke me into another state of exasperated reaction, as occurred unfortunately with Nableezy, and get me more in deep water with administration than I already am, though I still do not understand why my behaviour is regarded with such suspicion.
What ‘doesn’t help the building of an encyclopedia’ is taking at their word editors who exploit the infinite possibilities of being litigious and vexatious, against the practice of serious editors who almost never litigate (I’ve never done so, despite sighting hundreds of technical infractions, even in the recent case involving Nableezy, where one plaintiff violated WP:BLP and WP:AGF in the very moment he was joining others in trying to get Nableezy banned), and end up with a record of complaint on their pages which in no way reflects the high seriousness of their commitment, their readiness to listen and compromise, and their scruples about wasting time in gaming and countergaming, when pages are to be written. We've been effectively destroyed over the past months, I hope in the future more care is taken in comprehensively checking out background before one acts on emails, or complaints, in this area. Thanks for your consideration.Nishidani (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thanks both of you for helping me get up to speed and keeping after me on this. I was mistaken, the email sent to me by the banned user somehow gave me the notion that diff had been posted in the last day or so, I was mistaken in calling it a "parting shot" and I'm sorry. I still think it should be taken down as a courtesy (we do that kind of thing all the time for banned users), but since it's been up for so long and I don't understand why NoCal didn't put up a fuss about it before now, I don't see much for an admin to do here. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
That's deeply appreciated, and enough. I'll apologize in turn for this needless bother, not only from me. Best regards Nishidani (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Dear Gwen, I want to add a new version of 'Kobi Arad' article which establishes notablity.
- Dec. 31st and earlier, the original question of notability, was due to the lack of secondary sources (please review conversation notes written by Lame Name). He said the crux of evidence, which was crucial for its notability before was the establishment of secondary sources.
Over the recent week I made a series of edits (and some are only in the new version) including citations, reference notes, content - and now every single argument in the article is now backed up by a secondary source.
The content of the new article qualifies it for notability, since it establishes that: 1. Kobi Arad is first (ever) to have earned Doctorate in Historic Third Stream (now Contemporary Improvisation) department. 2. Blue Note Bulletine's comments, which refer to Arad as a prominent musician are now verified 3. Kobi Arad has appeared with the Israeli philharmonic orchestra in a televied series 'The music of Ravel' 4.1 An Opera that Arad re-composed has been played in the notable venue of Tel Aviv Museum. 5. A plentiful of reviews and secondary sources confirm Arad's notability and outstanding musicianship (including Jazz Times CD Reviews and Jewish Advocate review). Reviews from such prominent journals as the Boston Herald, Boston Pheonix, Jewish Advocate, Jerusalem Post and Jazz Times have been placed in the article.
- Hairhorn's comment, mentioning that proof of earned Doctorate Degree should help, has been fulfilled.
- Jubilee's encouraged edits, that may establish notablity. In adherence to Jubilee's and Hairhorn's guidance - a considerable series of edits have been made (and some are only in the new version only) in the article.
- Additional wealth of information, presenting the breadth of Arad's work has been placed in the 'Compositions' and 'Performances' sections of the new article.
Please view the new page and above mentioned comments, and enlighten me as to which other changes I may make in order to transform this article to a notable article, which would meet wikipedia's expectations.
I looked at the recreated (and since re-deleted) article and still saw citations which do not support the assertions made in the text. Moreover, the citations given are either not independent of the subject, or are straightforwardly promotional. Although the citations do show that this person likely exists and is working on a career in music, they do not show that the topic meets Wikipedia's standards for music biographies (these have nothing to do with someone's talent, skill, or likelihood of notability someday). I should also say that a doctorate degree in any field, of itself, has little or no sway on encyclopedic notability here. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kobi Arad showed zero support for keeping the article at this time and there don't seem to be any citations one could find which might bring forth any other outcome. You might want to wait 3-12 months and see if independent and reliable sources on this topic begin showing up. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Gwen, and thanks for your quick reply (u seem like a warm person),
I dont mind waiting with this article 3 months and see what's out there, but a few questions:
The Jewish Advocate page The Jewish Advocate by Susie Davidson
[50] was not on the original version, and seems to address both info and small interview. Why is it not a secondary source ?!
Also the Boston Herald ([51]), Boston Phoenix ([52]) and Jazz Times community reviews ([53] and [54]) provide some valuable information - why do u not consider these porminent sources as secondary sources?! (there's also a Jerusalem Post review for the Opera work of Arad ([55]))
Again, I dont mind waiting tl there's nu stuff out - but at least want an explaination for the overrulling of the above-mentioned sources upstaies, as they are all 1. Independent 2. Major Newspaper published 3. discuss Arad's work
I'll do this one more time for you, although other editors have already told you this more than once:
The Davidson cite [56] is at zoominfo and not verifiable. However, even if it was, it does not show that the topic meets WP:MUSIC, which is the notability threshold of this website for folks in the music business.
Boston Herald cite [57] is only a single, passing mention of his name and moreover, the link is not to the Boston Herald but to manishamusic.com.
Boston Phoenix cite [58] is only a single passing mention of his name.
JazzTimes cites [59][60] are not reviews, but straightforwardly promotional blurbs (press releases), without any depth at all, which were most likely published more or less as JazzTimes got them. Some music publications do this, there is nothing untowards about giving a free advertising plug in editorial content if that's what a publisher wants to do, it can get the word out about an artist but plugs are not a reliable source.
Jersalem Post cite [61] leads to pqasb.pqarchiver.com, Arad is not even mentioned in the abstract.
I see exactly what is in the diff. I see arabic script. I think that's the same thing. I thought it might be some kind of link but I had no idea what was being linked. Also, this page has lots of vandalism, so that's why I asked.Malke201016:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Only so you know, it's not Arabic script, it's Farsi script (simplified Nastaʿlīq). Saying "I see exactly what is in the diff" didn't tell me what characters you might have seen in the link, which depending on your browser/OS font support, could have been a string of blocky error characters. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Kudos as to taking the time to track down and cite the family passage which has been subject to a minor edit war, of late. Kierzek (talk) 03:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Took a bit longer than I thought it might, moreover through the heavy fog of ghits owing to scrapings from the en.Wikipedia article itself. I also found an article at Jstor, a declassified report from the 1940s, which in the Google hit string seemed to verify what happened to her family, but the text itself was behind a payment wall. Nevertheless, the latter was a strong hint that the source I did cite has reliability. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I know. Let me know if you need help. Meanwhile though, you do need to be much more careful with rollback. If an admin had stumbled by happenstance upon one of those edits, they may easily have taken away your rollback bit. I would have warned you. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Excuse me for butting in, but you asked me a question, Gale - and I answered it completely and honestly. What WHL is suggesting is that I lied in my response. I did not. That you would agree with WHL in her assertion I am lying is curious, to say the least - especially for an administrator. Am I wrong about how I am reading what you wrote? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 03:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how anyone believes you've lied SRQ. I do think you've gotten much more stirred up about things having to do with Whl, other than some mistakes she's made with rollback.
So far as I am aware, both of you have been very helpful in building and watching articles, so please know that when two editors start bickering like this, it can quickly begin to disrupt the project. This kind of disruption is highly boring to most volunteer editors and the outcome is almost never a happy one for the bickerers. If you can't get along with each other that's ok, but if so, stay away from each other and stop talking about each other, even if one feels slighted. If you feel upset or angry about something, that happens here, but wait until that feeling has blown over before posting. Almost nothing here is worth going through an RfC, likewise an RfAr, much less getting blocked over.
I see you both edit articles having to do with very high profile pop-culture, often closely linked with California. Such topics are traps for misunderstandings, clashing outlooks and deeply dodgy sourcing. Look at it this way, en.Wikipedia (like most other general references) is by far weakest in the humanities. When it comes to popular humanities, things can get much worse, never mind abounding BLP worries, we do what we can. Lastly, I'll put it this way, why anyone who knows the first thing about Charlie Manson, with all the ongoing swirls having to do with that topic in California, would edit war over the article, is rather beyond me. So, from now on, blow off the bygone, please peacefully talk about sources and how to echo those sources in article texts, knowing it won't always be cake, or don't talk at all. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't notice this reply until just now. I appreciate your comments above and thank you for replying. If you take note of recent events surrounding the editor above, maybe you can understand my frustration surrounding your accusation that I was filing the abuse of rollback complaint out of something other than what was really there. The editor in who was in question in that report, IMO, showed a complete disregard for the standards Wikipedia has for those with rollback privileges, and now, for using a sock. I take no joy in the fact that she turned out to be exactly what I suspected, but am glad that the chapter is now completely closed and what needs to be on record, is. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I do hope things will settle down for you. As I tried to say earlier, you were indeed stirred up by a lot more than her mistakes with rollback. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Hummus
Hi,
Do you feel able to clamp down on Shuki's repeated behaviour? Or do you feel too involved? (See my latest post to the talk page which edit clashed with yours.)--Peter cohen (talk) 13:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Gwen, do you see yourself as a fair sysop admin or do you like throwing around baseless accusations to protect your POV or those of like minded others? Did you actually check out my edits before threatening me? If you actually investigated the suspect behaviour before trying to placate your friend Peter and scare me away, you would notice that Peter Cohen is actually more aggressive in this 'war' than I am. Did you post a threatening warning on PeterCohen's talk page for his part in the behaviour you call 'edit warring' in these three edits? [65][66][67]. I challenge you to justify Peter cohen's editing over mine or please remove your accusations from my talk page. --Shuki (talk) 23:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
You didn't even answer me at all, instead made a snide remark which again shows your fault here: I have used the Hummus talk page more than you. Do yourself a favour and cool off. --Shuki (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
You deleted an article named russ russell on 16 July 2008 for A7 bio.
A page named Russ Russell was promptly created the very next day by User talk:Riskyruss. It is, in my opinion, also COI, and rather un-notable.
There have been some edits done to it by a bot named User:RussBot that does something for dab, and operated by User talk:R'n'B . R 'n B means Rhythm and Blues.
Somewhere among the same connections is a User:RussBlau who also did a lot concerning dab.
Perhaps I am just putting two and two together, and maybe this is just a train of coincidences, but I think it's worth investigating. for socks and other things. I wonder if you could do some detective work with your admin tools and let me know what comes up before I AfD it. Thanks.
I deleted the first article russ russell because it had been tagged, was all lower case (always a big hint of an A7 and/or careless COI) and the text made no meaningful assertion of notability. However Russ Russell, which was re-created by the same user shortly thereafter, has now been up for a year and a half as a more or less neutrally worded stub and a quick Google search tells me the topic could be notable. Keep in mind, COI is allowed in and of itself, it's self-interested, non-neutral editing from a COI which is very much not allowed. Anyway Russ Russell isn't a speedy at this time, so if there are worries, AfD would be the only way to deal with them.
I did find a User:Russ from a year earlier, sock of a user who had been banned for a year by arbcom, but that ban had ended by the time Russ Russell popped up and anyway, I can't see how User:Russ is linked to this in any way.
Russ is a fairly common nickname in English. User:R'n'B is an admin who at one time signed their posts as "Russ," hence their bot User:RussBot which cleans up category redirects in articles. Likewise the background of User:RussBlau, which has been inactive now for two and a half years.
Having worked a little on this page today, it was fresh in my memory when I chanced to see this one. The former is of course released under the GFDL etc etc. Should I feel flattered, do you think? Actually it made me feel salty, but I couldn't think of a WP-approved "reason". -- Hoary (talk) 07:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Goths, Visigoths . . . Vandals, yes, that was it! I should reread Ernst Gombrich's wonderful little world history for kids. -- Hoary (talk) 15:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I like Goths! :D Besides, I think the Vandals were smeared by Roman imperial propaganda back in the day and it stuck, wending its way into English at the Elizabethan from renaissance Italy, so alas, we're stuck with that word in the en.Wikipedia interface for now. Blah. ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
How's this: "The conditions for re-use given by CC-BY-SA were not met so I removed the text as an obvious copyvio." Nice arguing, CIreland! -- Hoary (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Heh, I thought of that and the lack of attribution is true enough (even a short note logged into an edit summary in the history would have done). Would've fallen back on that too, but it was a spoofed user page nicked by a swiftly indef blocked account, after all and saying so seemed easier to my lazy self at the time :) Gwen Gale (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for showing that to me. I don't think I have much to say beyond the input you've already had there. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 13:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Gwen Gale: You have an ongoing relationship with Proofreader77 in your capacity as Admin.
1. You have placed restrictions on him base on an ANI, then increased them for conduct, and then removed them when conduct was problematic. The latter actions were made so unilaterally by yourself.
2. You said: Whatever happens next, I was already thinking, I won't be the one to block PR again. If his behaviour carries on and is indeed as harmful as it seems to me, others will deal with him. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
3. Another admin has indicated to you that you have become too personally involved.
4. You have deleted disruptive content of Proofreader77 instead of reporting them.
5. Proofreader77 maintains on his user pages negative information about Gwen Gale, with nothing apparent that it part of any timely process.
6. Since your unilateral removal of restrictions placed on Proofreader77 via ANI consensus. Proofreader77 has been blocked twice, warned repetitively for disruptive editing, and had disruptive edits removed by yourself, without Admin follow through.
7. You allowed the ANI process to become Roman Polanski based, rather than how it was written, as disruptive editing. The disruptive editing which you have readily said was occurring, was unexplainably avoided by your remarks in the ANI.
8. Proofreader77 has now, in retaliation, created a sockpuppet investigation on me.
9. You insinuated that I had made BLP violations, without any documentation or prior statements to that effect. You characterization of my contributions was your personal feelings, disassociated with what work that I have done. By doing that you obfuscated the issue raised in ANI.
10. You did not allow me the time to notify a user of an ANI that I started, instead you interjected yourself to it, and then where so hyperfocused on me, that you blocked me for ignoring a warning, on an edit what was done before the warning. The time stamps bear that out, however your rush in the Admin role, did not have the enough time to allow comprehension, before you yielded a block, for something that timestamps refuted. IE, your personal zeal for these affairs yielded a knee-jerk admin action. (circling the wagons)
Your previous remarks to Proofreader77:
You're wikilawyering, rather than cutting to the pith. The only pith on en.Wikipedia is reliable sources, furthermore in a BLP giving much heed to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research.
You're loading up the talk page with never-ending loops of original research.
You're not editing in a neutral way.
You're more or less trying to own the article space.
You don't seem to be assuming good faith.
Because of the above, it is my request that you recuse yourself since your objectivity on these matters is compromised, or at best has the appearance of being too personally involved.
If you as an "editor" want to address the characterization on Proofreader77s user pages...that is obviously something you should do, if you want. I would appreciate an affirmative response to what your future involvements will be.
rgds --Tombaker321 (talk) 11:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Pr77 is one topic, you're another. Until you can begin acknowledging the policies of this website and hew much more closely to them, there's little else to talk about. That article is still more or less the only article you've edited here and very narrowly so. Sniping at everyone who gets in your way and forum shopping far and wide, as you've been doing, won't bring the outcome you're hoping for. As for your BLP violations, there is fairly wide consensus on that. You can't skirt WP:BLP through wikilawyering or soapboxing. As I've said before, there may be a way to get something at least akin to what you want into that article, without straying from BLP. Others have dropped the very helpful hint that you might try editing other topics as a way to learn how articles are built and edited here. It's wholly up to you, as to whether you might heed what we're telling you. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Gwen Gale, I am disappointed by your choice to not engage feedback given you.
To your continuing charges that I have BLP violations, if you are unable and unwilling to state what they are, I ask that you stop skipping about, gossiping those charges. I do not mistake your repetitions, as substance, nor should you. I accord myself to all the Wikipedia tenants, rest assured. --Tombaker321 (talk) 07:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
You weren't blocked for BLP violations, but by now you know what they've been and moreover, I think you're asking editors to cite those BLP violations so you can at least get them forever posted onto a talk or project page on this website. The outcome of this is not going to be what you want. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I remember having a high opinion of you from forever, but I cannot at the moment recall where we have interacted. It might have been under my old username, Eldereft, or it might have been only at the several noticeboards. You have commented a couple times lately on the danger of introducing a systematic bias through selective enforcement. This is, honestly, something I worry about a fair bit. From my editing of alternative medicine articles, it is fairly obvious that I consider most of them mostly bunk, but nonetheless several editors with other perspectives have commented that I still promote fairness of coverage. Sorry to toot my own horn here, but I want you to understand where I am coming from and that I have experience thinking about writing controversial articles, particularly those with a clear "minority" side.
Upon being entrusted with the mop'n'bucket, I realized that removing equal numbers of disruptive participants from both "sides" would disproportionately skew our coverage - 9:5 is a very different editing environment than 6:2 or, worse, 4:0. Groupthink is dangerous to any enterprise, particularly one that aims for the comprehensive and neutral coverage we do. Considering knowledge of the inner workings of Wikipedia as a force multiplier, the situation is even worse - a few committed experienced editors can easily engineer sanctions for their less experienced fellow volunteers through selectively pointing out the bright lines only when it is almost too late and generally themselves remaining just within the norms while still being agents of frustration more than collaboration. I try to respond with warn and counsel particularly in cases where a new editor might not have an experienced advocate but indicates that they are here to promote comprehensive coverage rather than simply trying to hijack Wikipedia's voice to the world or indulge in general trolling.
Once a minoritarian editor passes the hurdle to themselves become an experienced contributor, though, neutrality of enforcement demands that they be held to the standards of the community. Consistently arguing that coverage should move in a particular direction is not a problem unless they start wholesale rewriting articles against consensus. Continually tweaking and insulting their fellow volunteers and showing a marked preference for engaging on a disputatious rather than collaborative level, as is my conclusion from GoRight (talk·contribs)'s edits over the last several weeks, however, is more disruptive to the project than is the loss of their voice to discussions.
I am wondering, if you have the time and inclination, if I might hear your thoughts on more productive solutions to this instance in particular or to the problem in general. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 20:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
This does happen more or less as you say. It wontedly doesn't take much to bait an eager, helpful-minded but inexperienced and narrowly targeted user into getting upset, straying outside policy and getting blocked before they have a clue the website doesn't work the way they, in good faith, thought it did or should. Moreover, some of those "minority" users aren't at all what they seem to be and they sometimes cleverly, sometimes clumsily, stain the pitch, muddling utter codswallop and dodgy sources with meaningful, reliably supportable and verifiable outlooks. Then the smeary loops begin anew as more editors happen to tumble into high traffic articles with their clueless good faith. As I've said for a long time, en.Wikipedia is awash in skilled sockpuppets, some of which are helpful, most not. Many editors would be startled to learn who runs many of them, or maybe not so startled. Editors might think now and then about why no automatic CU scripts have ever been implemented and CU "fishing" isn't allowed and heed this when they edit high traffic, controversial articles. Experienced editors can and do deal with things neutrally only at the edges of core, high traffic topic areas, but the systemic bias is stirred up by a lot more than demographics and it is daunting. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I am sure you remember my most recent block. I was unblocked on the promise that if a situation had the potential of turning sour, I would ask for outside assistance. Well, I have. Just thought you would like to know.— DædαlusContribs12:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Also, regarding my possibly uncivil post, as I'm about to note on the page at hand, I'm just going to go and refactor it now rather than await approval.— DædαlusContribs12:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Daedalus, thanks for letting me know about this, I've put it on my watchlist, you should stop posting to that talk page, there are overwhelming BLP and other worries with that user/topic and you're only giving him a soapbox. The only thing for him to do now is put up an unblock request or email arbcom. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Heh! I may never grok why, ever since I was in school, if I carefully count and match socks before throwing them in the washing machine, they'll all be there, none will be missing and it'll seem like a big, batty waste of time but, if I slip up even once and don't count and match 'em first, at least one's bound to go missing, maybe forever :) Gwen Gale (talk) 14:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Not wanting to reopen the archived topic, its now well over a week since both of you asserted I had BLP violations. Gwen Gale's psycho-babble assessment of my motivations could not be more wrong. A third admin is still failing to offer any support of these violations also. While I appreciate the impossibility in your minds that you would be using your roles as admins improperly, its no solace to your continuing assumption of bad faith upon me. Jehochman claims I am on a campaign of disruption, and that I will continue to be. Both aspersion are wrong. Calling in question a editor's contributions is a challenge, it is reprehensible to ridicule the editor who is attempting to respond. I have stated to both of you clearly my concerns for your approach to administration, to which neither of you have decided to address. Here now again, you seem to be posturing. I would appreciate it if you both now stop your tomfoolery and continuing to necessitate a response. I would hope you can both do that. --Tombaker321 (talk) 10:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
You weren't blocked for BLP violations, but by now you know what they've been and moreover, I think you're asking editors to cite those BLP violations so you can at least get them forever posted onto a talk or project page on this website. The outcome of this is not going to be what you want. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
What part of tell me what your are saying I did wrong, is incomprehensible? You think that I should not get the outcome of knowing what what the mud slinging is. It is particularly disappointing that as an admin, you resort to this approach. When you say I am going to have this "forever posted", you are assuming bad faith. As in your capacity of administrator, you continue to repeatedly assume bad faith upon me and others, it might be helpful for you to reflect on your approach. Might you try? Unless you want to engage this more, there is no need to reply --Tombaker321 (talk) 14:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Gwen,
Thanks for keeping an eye out for this article. I think the high school kids must have this as an assignment. Lots of silly stuff going on there.Malke201003:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it could be the echo of a yearly cycle, where a bunch of (I'd say, middle) schools hit the same spot in the same standard history text book, that does happen on other topics. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Edit summaries on 9/11 talk pages.
I've seen your recent discussion with Tarage (talk·contribs). Is there something like an edit summary template, something that simply says "Reverting the edit. This talk page is not a forum. Its purpose is to discuss on how to improve the article."? The edit summaries that effectively continue the forum-style discussion by inserting both a (strong) personal viewpoint, sometimes combined with a personal attack, do not contribute to improve the editing process in the area. I think that we should have a guideline on those edit summary, with the aim of having them as neutral as possible. It would be helpful both to avoid feeding trolls and to avoid discouraging potential constructive contributors to the encyclopedia. Cs32enTalk to me09:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I think some of the automated tools have drop-downs for edit summaries (but I've only ever used one of them once). Wikipedia:Edit_summary#Use_of_edit_summaries_in_disputes is straightforward, I think it's easy to leave a neutral edit summary, like rm cmt, WP:FORUM or something.
I also think the whole 911 topic area on en.Wikipedia is skewed and non-neutral, which stirs up strong feelings from all outlooks even more, hence more snarky comments show up. I'd say there is no easy fix for the worries there, for now. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Technical niggle
An indefinite block has consensus until it is overturned for cause. The discussion on GoRight hasn't turned up cause to overturn the block, and there seems to be agreement by all admins, and indeed by GoRight, that he has to take the concerns expressed seriously. Sadly this verdict has been obscured by the tendency to turn such discussions into an up/down vote, which encourages the very polarization that makes GoRight's manner of engagement so a problematic. I have no doubt that 2over0, Jehochman, and GoRight together will keep working towards a sanction or other framework under which GoRight can contribute successfully to Wikipedia, but getting him to the point of accepting this does seem to have required administrator intervention. --TS15:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, as you hint, what I meant was clear but I've tweaked the wording to make it more straightforward. The lack of any action at all on his last unblock request spoke for itself (further admin input is still needed one way or another), which he'll likely be getting on his talk page. I think the ivoting was an echo of the selective policy enforcement widely seen on some of these high traffic, core topic areas, following PoV. I must say, however, the indef block itself was wholly supported by policy. As you've also hinted, there are hopes GoRight will sooner or later be willing to hew to it and be brought back into the fold. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Could you do me a favor...
and take a look at this exchange? This guy's been on me since I first showed up(he thinks I'm a sockpuppet -I'm not). He got me article banned for a month on a 1RR technicality (I really did try and self-revert) which User:2over0 and I amicably worked out. After my return to the talk page, he's all over me again with threats and intimidation. He reported me to 2over0 trying to get my probation revoked. I, for the life of me can not figure out what his problem is with me. If you'll check the diffs I left on 2over0's TP, there is nothing controversial much less worthy of sanction. HC thinks I've opened a closed issue but a quick glance at the talk page should show you that there is not anything close to consensus on his issue. I've read some of your stuff and I trust your judgment. Do you see a problem with my edits? Do you think HC's behavior is in bounds? Given that I just got off of an article ban initiated by the user in question, I can't use the RfE procedure without being accused of retaliation. I have no desire to go that route anyway. I just want to edit in peace and be dealt with in [WP:AGF]. Advice? JPatterson (talk) 04:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Keep in mind, en.Wikipedia is but a tertiary source and is by far weakest in topics linked with the humanities (politics among them). All tertiary sources have flaws and systemic bias. If an editor truly believes an en.Wikipedia article is unhelpful, the sources will still out in the end but it can take a long time for this to happen. Moreover, there's no guarantee an openly edited, high traffic en.Wikipedia will even be on the Internet in 3-5 years, so please don't get too wound up about content disputes here and besides, as so many editors are wont to forget, folks who read encyclopedias tend to be rather smart.
The whole notion of anthropomorphic global warming (or climate change) is a political topic which is only marketed as science. The whole thing has begun to unfold as such but nobody can say how the foregone political outcomes will be timed.
Starting a thread on someone's talk page by saying they're making "threats and intimidation" (even if they are) will almost never help settle anything. As I've said earlier, eager, newer editors on these topics often get baited into getting angry, breaking policy through edit warring and personal attacks, which aren't allowed, then get blocked or otherwise sanctioned. Where policy enforcement is selective, such as in this topic area, one must be heedful of the policies with every edit.
Sticking to 1rr (and no more than say, 3rr/week) on any article is almost always helpful. Never, ever comment on other editors when you're in a content dispute, much less over one of these core topics which are so deeply, systemically biased. Talk only about sources and how to echo them in the text and don't get caught in the trap of bickering over shreds of wording, moreover because any wording in a high traffic article is likely to shift sooner rather than later anyway. Whatever you do, write in a sternly neutral voice and don't try to get things done through polls, RfCs or ivotes, because they have aught to do with sourcing.
Content disputes, however they've spun up, take lots of time to deal with. Think about how much volunteer time you're willing to burn up on this, it may take a lot. This said, under policy, a single editor can get a highly unpopular source into an article despite a flock of editors who think otherwise, since consensus as to content is not a vote, but this is not to say doing so will be easy.
Think about honing your skills as an editor in other topic areas which you like. This can help you learn how en.WP policies mesh with sourcing and building content. The more you understand how this happens here, the more sway you can have elsewhere. Also, editors who have experience in a wider swath of topics not only make keener editors, they're also seen as such by others.
Lastly, even without systemic bias, no editor in an openly edited project will get anywhere near everything they want in a high traffic article for long. Even editors who seem to agree on an outlook and have even become fast online friends will sooner or later find something they don't agree on at all. So the trick is, learn to get along peacefully with editors who don't agree with you, because everyone will disagree with you somehow, sooner or later and there is nothing untowards or unhappy about that. Besides, we all get stuff muddled now and then. Friendly (or at least helpful) back and forth in sorting it out is worthy and brings its own meed. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the thoughtful response. Understand though, I wasn't trying to get the sources into the article. I posted them on the TP to dispute the oft-made claim that most reliable sources do not use the term "climategate". I still fail to see why that act alone should set someone off like it did. I also don't understand, given that his reaction to my posting those references was a threat to get me blocked, how one is supposed to object to such incivility without, as you say, "Starting a thread on someone's talk page by saying they're making "threats and intimidation".
Your comments seem to reinforce the slow realization I had discerned that there seems to be pattern of one-sided enforcement here. Surprisingly frank from someone in your position, but I appreciate your candor. I think I'm fully capable of operating in an asymmetric environment but really, if it is so bad that simply posting references in support of your position on a talk page is a sanctionable offense while blatent baiting, biting and accusations of bad faith are not, then one wonders if there is any point to any of this.
There seems to be this lingering suspicion about my account activities. Your comments seem to indicate you may also thing I'm a single purpose account. Please note that I have contributed to only one article in the AGW space and many others in the field of engineering. Just FYI. Thanks again for looking this over. JPatterson (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
What's cool about en.Wikipedia is there are so many things to do which can be helpful, rewarding and fun, so one can still get a kick out of editing by staying away,as needed, from stuff which is overwhelmingly nettlesome, time-wasting and unfair. The wide wendings of free thought tend to take care of the latter anyway, sooner or later. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sure that sources can be found that asserts that the Austrian School is unscientific, and I've provided some sources that claim that it is scientific.
But my biggest problem here is that I don't want to wade into this article to fix everything that is wrong with it. For the most part, it's written by two groups. Each group treats the school as equivalent only to those branches that may be traced to v. Mises. The would-be defenders and the attackers aren't really very familiar with the literature even of just those branches. Most of the editors in these two groups merely want the appearance of neutrality, as they push their respective Points-of-View as hard as they think they can.
I just occasionally try to fix one thing here or there on that article, and even then find people who don't know and really don't want to know gobbling-up my time. In that context, I'm not sure that anyone could really set things right. He or she would more likely be banned for his or her trouble.
And I don't want a major share of my writing on economics to be on Wikipedia. I want most of my writing to be original research published where original research is expected and does some good. —SlamDiego←T20:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
User:Professional Assassin was straightforwardly getting into Holocaust denial and hagiography about Adolf Hitler. The evidence is overwhelming that the National Socialists were behind an industrial slaughter of anywhere from 6,000,000 to 12,000,000 people, mostly during the early 1940s in concentration camps and often but not always through the use of poison gas, thereby wiping out most of the Jewish population in Germany and many areas of Eastern Europe. Put broadly, lots of records were burned in the closing weeks of the war, among these were likely some "paper trails" leading to Hitler (who may have given lots of verbal orders anyway), so there will always be some questions as to how many millions were murdered and how they were murdered. Either way, millions of men, women and children were indeed murdered and those who try to use what documentation is missing, to claim there was no Holocaust, or that Hitler was unaware of it, are mistaken. More than enough documentation, physical evidence and witnesses survived.
As for the hagiography, without getting into the root background of how and why Hitler was able to get into power, for all the death, crime and ruin Hitler brought upon Europe, he did the most harm to the German people, the outcome of his deeds being the deaths of tens of millions of Germans and almost sending that country back to the stone age, so to speak. If support for hagiography on most politicians is thin to begin with, such support for the likes of Hitler is very much thinner.
When gauging disruption, a dodgy username is often seen as how it mixes with the account's contributions. Hence, when I saw the username Professional Assassin combined with the account's edits and edit summaries, I found it easy to read the name as Professional Assassin of Jews (or something close enough to that), advocating genocide, so I blocked the account, as a first step, for the username. The user's quick answer led me to think that the name was indeed meant to disrupt, as did the flurry of IP vandalism which followed on my talk page (some of which was as disgustingly anti-Semetic as could be).
The username block was wholly supported by policy. When I blocked the account, I planned to see what the user's response was and review the contributions further and thought it very likely I'd later note in the block log that it was also for disruption. However, admins and others piled onto the account's talk page, a block setting was changed by another admin and sundry comments were made, which brough a sloppy outcome. When things settled down a bit, I did change the block reason to both disruption and the username.
User:Youth in Asia is the name of a fairly widely known punk band from the 1980s. It's an ironic play on words, the account has been lightly active since 2006, has a spotless block log and I don't see it as disruptive or offensive at all, so I see nothing for an admin to do there. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Given that his whole point were no Jews were killed by the Nazis its difficult to see how you could draw the conclusion the name meant killer of Jews (or whatever you saw it as). Besides if his intend was that would not Proffesional murderer or Gas Van man have been the type of names he would have picked? There seems to me no reason to draw the conclusion you have from his name. I agree that his attitude was a good reason for a temperary block (in the hope thnat he learnt his leason) but the username block seems to be excesive and highlty subjective to an extream.Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
As I said, the username block was a first step, the logged block is now for both disruption and the username. All the IP/proxy vandalism and harassment which followed further shows that both the username and the account's edits were meant only to be disruptive. Some of the vandalism was anti-Semetic. Holocaust denial is almost always linked with strong underlying anti-Semitism. That kind of dialectic muddle is quite common in political disinformation (lies), however skillful or clumsy. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
A fine block, I was getting to the point of requesting one myself after exhausting my good faith. I would have banhammered him myself if I hadn't involved myself in the disputes. Fences&Windows01:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
HELP! with Lama Pai article
After an experience with the Chan Tai San article, many associated with the "tibetan martial arts" agreed in the interests of the articles on the subject it was best to not turn every article into a long list of "me, yes me, I am part of it" or just old blatant self promotion. Now, after several edits and re-edits and polite requests, we have a fellow apparently from Mexico who can't seem to help himself. Might we get a moderator or moderator action on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nysanda (talk • contribs) 00:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello Gwen, can you look at these diffs and suggest how best to proceed? I believe the user in question is being disruptive. He is not using the talk page like the rest of us, and his rationale for reverting does not make clear sense, especially when he says he didn't see anything on the talk page. I made deletions to the section in question and added several, well sourced items. With just one revert this user wiped them out stating that a reference to the' free market' offended him. This is why I say, it makes no sense. Another editor, using the talk page, saw the revert and reverted it back to where I had it. The diffs include the user in question's other reverts as well. [69][70][71]. Thanks, Malke201022:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Sarah Palin is still under article probation. If you think someone is OR/cite spanning, bring it up on the talk page, since deleting sourced content from that article, which has some of the highest traffic on the website and is under probation too, should have consensus. Also, allowing the narrative to say something she advocates is free market would need a source. Let me know though, if they start edit warring. Lastly, I see some sourced content about the book(s) still hasn't been restored but I guess that would be covered in the separate article(s) so, again, bring it up on the talk page if you think it should be put back. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
How did you get your user page sectioned off with the barnstars all in rows. I'd like to get the photos on my user page arranged in sections so I can write comments, but I can't figure it out.Malke201014:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
It's easy to grab the code for yourself, hit the edit button and look at everything beginning with <br clear="all" />, but before the category stuff at the very bottom. You can plug in whatever images and text you like. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 22:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Later, I thought it might be better to revisit it too, because Jimmuldrow seemed so intent and it appeared to really bother him. It seemed like his view should be taken into account and the matter would best be resolved with what he proposed so I asked him this:
This seems to be an unusual way to go about things, and reads more like a personal attack than an explanation for his edit on Sarah Palin's position. I have not objected to his new edit political positions edit, and I don't see right now where anybody else has either. Please advise, thank you. Malke201018:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
That last thread may not have been a personal attack, but it was on the edge of one and either way, it was not about sources and content so much as it was a long complaint about another editor. I've closed and hatted the thread.
This is mostly a content dispute. It does seem to me, as though Jimmuldrow may be doing a bit of cite spanning/synthesis. If a politician cites someone else, this doesn't mean the politician was "inspired" by them. Anything near to such an assertion would need to be straightforwardly cited to a source and likely quoted (rather than being carried by the article narrative).
Ongoing input from other editors will likely be needed for a little while longer. The sister article may be more fit for most of this.
I don't watch Sarah Palin. If Jimmuldrow carries on with any back and forth about this in the article itself, please let me (or another uninvolved admin) know. One diff will be enough. Likewise, if Jimmuldrow comments on the talk page about another editor, rather than about sources and content, let me know. Again, one diff should be enough. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time. I presented the diffs and the explanations because it is difficult to explain things out of context. I wanted to give you an idea of the process editors were attempting to use versus the disruption we've been dealing with from this editor. Also, I wanted you to see that I was attempting to satisfy his demands within process. This is a difficult enough page to edit without this sort of thing happening. Thanks again for your help in this.Malke201012:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
No worries, I'm only saying, most admins will want a diff, but have been doing this long enough, they'll likely need/want only one or two, to spot the pith of something. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
"If Collect edits tendentiously or disruptively again, I will start a thread at WP:ANI asking for consensus to block him for at least 1 month for disruption. Editors can likewise report disruption either to my talk page or to WP:ANI and cite this RfC close."
I have had no interactions with Pof9 at all in aeons. Note that he used his animus at an RfA per [84]. Seems if anyone can not let go, it is he. Collect (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I answered it. After your passive aggressive answer (asking me to go through your entire edit history instead of answering a simple question) and refusal to bring this to ANI (like you said you would in RFC), I moved it to ANI myself. I'm not surprised though. You were never neutral. Phoenix of902:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
GG you say you have been waiting for Phoenix to answer your question. If the question you refer to is 'Please tell me more about why you have titled this thread "Time to back up your words"' Phoenix already answered it with 'So that you can start that thread at ANI.' In which case it's unhelpful to badger the editor for a reply that you have, in fact, already received. But if you have another question in mind, surely it would help to tell Phoenix which one. I hope this helps. Writegeist (talk) 08:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
"...did not answer the question?" Please. Your question to Phoenix Please tell me more about why you have titled this thread "Time to back up your words" brought this direct answer from Phoenix: So that you can start that thread at ANI. In ignoring this response, which could not be more clearly a direct answer, and instead substituting Phoenix's separate remark that "you were never neutral", for no better reason, apparently, than that's what you thought was the reason for the thread's title--again, regardless of what Phoenix very explicitly told you was the reason--you really only feed Phoenix's belief about your neutrality. Which is a pity if you really are neutral. It's disappointing. Oh well, I'll duck out of this discussion now and go for a nice peaceful bike ride by the ocean :~) .Writegeist (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
You were never neutral. That's what I thought you meant, Phoenix, when you titled this thread with the rather badgering "Time to back up your words": You don't think I'm neutral. This is why I asked, then waited for your answer.
"single flight of carelessness"? The article has a huge red warning sign. Hard to miss. Especially if it wasnt the first time you were editing it. Phoenix of903:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
As another admin and myself have both told Collect, there are two warnings, one over the edit window and one heading up the talk page. If you think he saw either of them, why do you think he made the edit, knowing he would be blocked straight off? Do you believe he might have been thinking something like, "I'll make the edit anyway and if I get caught and blocked, I'll say I didn't see the warnings and get unblocked."? Gwen Gale (talk) 13:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
To be accurate, the second warning was placed by Tiptoety after the question was raised [86]. It was placed there as a result of my suggestion that the warning be placed there. Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
So there was only one warning at the time, beginning with big red letters, over the edit window. Phoenix, did you know, that when an admin sees the edit window of a protected page, the whole background of the edit window is pink? This was done because too many admins were editing protected articles for content (which they're mostly not allowed to do) without seeing the protection notice over the edit window. It's hard to miss a pink editing window, but it's widely understood here that a warning over over an editing window can indeed be missed, moreover with all the wiki-wide banners and stuff which can show up at the top of a page and which most editors learn to "go blind" to. I think it was careless of you, Collect, not to see it, but one can understand how this could happen.
Phoenix, if you think he saw that warning, why do you think he made the edit, knowing he would be blocked straight off? Do you believe he might have been thinking something like, "I'll make the edit anyway and if I get caught and blocked, I'll say I didn't see the warning and get unblocked."? Gwen Gale (talk) 14:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I have to go thru his edit history to see if the rest of his problematic behaviour has ceased but I dont have the time right now. Phoenix of905:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok, if you find a string of diffs showing disruption and/or tendentious editing in the last month or two, you're welcome to post them here for me to look at. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Is this a personal attack? [87] He implies I have something to do with harassing emails (ie: "One of his friends") he was talking about here [88]. Harassing emails are a serious (and possibly criminal) offense. Phoenix of923:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't recall Collect telling me anything meaningful about harassing emails, did I miss or forget something, Collect? I would say that claiming someone, who has sent what he calls "harassing" emails, is your "friend" could be taken as a personal attack, since friend has sundry meanings online. What can either of you tell me about all this? Gwen Gale (talk) 15:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I sent you the emails a while back. I believe you have sufficient information thereon. The parties have a number of intersections online, and unless you now wish me to make an open charge of harassment against that other editor, with all that entails, I think that my comment to a third party was as neutral as humanly possible. Be assured that I did not intend to indicate that the two are "personal friends" in any other manner at all. Thanks! Collect (talk) 16:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I guess that rings a bell. Can you please give me the date in November? Also, why are you posting about those emails now? Gwen Gale (talk) 17:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
You asked me not to post details at the time. The mention Pof9 found in his search was in an aside, and was not anything for Pof9 to reasonably take umbrage at. I am not naming the other party in the belief that he has been more-or-less quiet for two months now. You will note, however, that Buster7 and I are at peace, and Ikip made as much an apology as he has ever made. To every thing there is a season, and this is the season to lay all this "stuff" to rest. Collect (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok, wonderful, so stop trying to link Phoenix_of9 with old harassing emails, for starters. Meanwhile, I didn't ask you to post details this time either, I asked you for the date you told me about them. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I did not link him to the emails at all, and the dates were from 5 November through 21 November. You did not appear to react to them at all. Collect (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
One of his friends kept sending me emails links him to the emails. I got four emails from you, on 11, 19 and 21 November. Only one copied an email, from User:SluggoOne, sent to you through the en.Wikipedia email system. It's a very mild taunt and as a one-off, could hardly be taken as harassment. Another email carried only this diff. Another said he had made "four contacts" with you (not "four harassing emails" or even "four emails"). I replied to three of the four emails you sent me. Has anything having to do with those contacts happened since late November? Gwen Gale (talk) 23:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Copies of emails were sent on 12 Nov and 21 November. I fear you mislaid the second? I had basically zero edit conflicts with him - ever. Why he is this tenacious, I know not. Collect (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I did not "bring these up again" - the aside was after another comment by the other editor. I did not mention who the person sending the emails was, only that I had brought them to your atention. Period. I accused Pof9 of nothing whatsoever, and if he thinks I accused him, I willingly apologize for that perception. It was, moreover, not intended as anything more than an aside. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I clearly now see why you deleted this page. I rewrote the article sticking with the letter of the land; I hope it may supplant the deleted one which is what comes up in a google search: jonathan sheldon movie producer. I would like to have it corrected and all the information is accurate. Please let me know and thank you.
--Jonno888888 (talk) 03:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Gwen. Is there a way to remove the deleted page of "Jonathan Sheldon", or have it replaced with the new proper page of "Jonathan Sheldon" on Wiki? The deleted page comes up in searches and gives a misimpression. Thanks again. --Jonno888888 (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Here's the problem; the deleted archived "Jonathan Sheldon" is what comes up when you google search, and it gives the impression that the listing is bogus. Does the archived deleted one stay up forever even though it's been rewritten and corrected? Thanks - --Jonno888888 (talk) 03:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
There is a need for consistency here. The children are named in the current version of the article and elsewhere on the talk page. There has been an ongoing WP:BLPNAME debate about this, but the names are easily available on the Internet, including the Daily Telegraph source given.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)21:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I see that the names of her kids are in the article but unsourced. Moreover, the spelling of one of those names is not the same as given in the DT source you gave. If you fix and source the article text, please feel free to undo my redaction on the talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't know the names on the birth certificates, but most of the argument seems to be about the spelling of Starlit/Starlite/Starlet. The real issue is whether the names should be in the article at all, and the consensus of the US media is not to give the names. It seems that the children have been given new identities anyway, since anyone with access to the Internet can find the names very quickly. Personally I would favour giving the names with some reliable sourcing, since the information is in the public domain.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)21:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I live in the UK, and do not like going against the wishes of the US media. However, the names are easy to find on the Internet (eg here in the Daily Mail). Since Wikipedia is read in a range of countries, attempts to redact the names on a permanent basis are likely to fail. This is why I would (somewhat reluctantly) support naming the children.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)22:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I've re-closed the thread, but if you want to tell me about a revert, I need a diff (or diffs) which straightforwardly show a revert. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I'll have to go back and do it again. The point is, it doesn't have consensus, the whole thing is disruptive and is having a WP:CHILL on moving forward. As I explained several days ago in another post here, basically he's not working with anybody here. He's just doing what he wants. He's not working within the process at all and this makes it difficult for everybody else to have input. Why bother getting consensus and taking the time to write an edit, post it, etc., if he can just come along and change it, abuse the talk page with postings about an editor and not the article, etc. Not an expert, just saying.Malke201000:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I was only saying, it's not a revert. I understand the worry about consensus, it might be helpful to wait for other editors to say what they think. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Question
On the edit war/reverting 3RR thing. If an editor has made 5 reverts in 24 hours over two pages that are on the same subject and in fact are just a split of one article, and if that editor also visited other talk pages to solicit support, is that edit warring. Also, he didn't use the talk page. Just reverted.Malke201000:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
That wouldn't be WP:3rr. Not using the talk page, in itself, doesn't mean much of anything. If an article or topic area is under probation and/or this kind of reverting keeps up for some time, it might be taken as edit warring or tendentious/disruptive and then, a lack of talk page posts could have something to do with it, but without seeing the edits, I can't say whether what you're asking about is worrisome. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, don't know the details of these rules through and through, so I'm not sure when I see something. Better to ask than act first. Appreciate your taking the time.Malke201002:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
A sock, a hack, or someone just talking with himself?
Hi,
I tried to engage our friend Daedalus969, since he's very thorough with SP investigations, but I got no response.
Start here, follow through to the last revision and note the edit summaries. This account was either hacked, or the IP is just very friendly with himself.
I'm sorry about not responding, SPIs are typically.. well, they require much work. Looking up diffs, going through histories, etc. Currently I have various programming-heavy things in mind my right now regarding stuff other than wikipedia, so I'm trying to get it out so I don't forget it. The only reason I followed up on the 3rr report is that well, 3rr doesn't take much out of me.— DædαlusContribs02:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
![[48]](http://www.flowerstochennai.com/images/flowers/50white.jpg){kind=link}