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.
Edelseider / RCS
Hello Gwen- Blast from the past here, from way back in the aughts! I noticed by chance that you had encountered someone a while back with whom I'm having some trouble at the moment. See User_talk:Diannaa#Bend_your_ear.3F for more info, and note that that post pre-dates the discovery that prompted my contacting you. I now see that this editor--a native German speaker who edits under the unified login "Edelseider" and, despite unfortunate language challenges, is these days most active here on en.wp--is someone you blocked in a past incarnation as User:RCS. First, do you know if it's ok for him to be editing here again? And second, if it came to it, would you be willing to mention on the ANI (see Diannaa talkpage link) something about his trouble-making past? The admins who have chimed in so far don't seem to have discovered Edelseider/RCS's contentious editing practices, and seem to be treating the issue like a spat between me and him, not perceiving, apparently, that I avoid directly engaging him. Thanks in advance for any attention you can give this; I understand that it's out of the blue and somewhat tedious... Erictalk23:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot that part! By Edelseider's own assertion on his de.wp talkpage, at the beginning of this section (in German). You'll find an editor interaction analysis here showing 104 articles in common; not sure how much this tells you. I tried to find a tool that counts the number of different articles an editor has edited so I could compare the two accounts in that way, but couldn't find one. See also: RCS' last 1,000 contributions, Edelseider's first 1,000. Thanks, Erictalk12:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, I do think User:Edelseider and User:RCS are very likely one in the same. I blocked RCS seven years ago. Indefinte blocks tend to go stale after a year or two, even if the software lock isn't lifted. He seems to have come back as Edelseider 4 1/2 years later. That's a very long time here. Had I been aware of that at the time, I think I would've done no more than left a note on his talk saying something like, "Hey there, I know it's you, no big worries, please be good :)" He has edited for 3 1/2 years with no blocks. As the blocking admin, my outlook is, "sounds ok to me." Hence, I don't see this as socking or block evasion as such and will not block on this alone.
Eric, the edits of some non-native-English-speaking editors can stir up some woe now and then. Cleaning up syntax and grammar takes time. The language/cultural barrier can indeed stir up misunderstandings. Donc, on se calme. One chills out and deals with it, hopefully like a pro (which takes more time), a big slice of being a truly helpful volunteer. See also this take on editing Wikipedia
Eric, please heed Diannaa's words of wisdom elsewhere. I know you're here in very good faith. However, from what I can see, you went astray not only by making personal attacks, but you way canvassed them (WP:CANVASS). Please don't do that again :)
Even when bringing up what one sees as untoward editing by another, one must back it up with diffs to edits straightforwardly outside the bounds of policy and stay wholly neutral in wording.
Meanwhile, I think the best and easiest way to settle this down is for you to stay away from Edelseider and his edits for a month or two. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
@Eric: is really going to enormous lengths to try and get me evicted from Wikipedia, I really wonder why. He should come clear and clean and tell us all why he is so obsessed with me. Yes, I used to be RCS (talk·contribs); I also used to be Insert coins (talk·contribs). And I have done a lot of good things here! I write and edit articles and from time to time, I lose my temper. Without me, Wikipedia would be much poorer in content. But I have never stalked somebody and bullied somebody the way Eric does. He should stay away from me and my edits forever. --Edelseider (talk) 20:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Gwen- Thanks for your time and attention to this. While I don't see my posts as personal attacks--certainly nowhere near the level of tantrums and direct insults that this editor has routinely engaged in here and on de.wp--I appreciate your input. I did not know that the multiple comments under his nominations would constitute canvassing; had I realized that, I would have only posted a single one to alert editors to the self-promotion, despite his multiple affirmation-seeking nominations (which I infer do not constitute canvassing?).
I wish I did not know of the existence of Edelseider and editors like him. But occasionally I run across editing messes where I cannot help but suggest better editing habits. And if my initial polite suggestions are met with rudeness and self-righteousness, my generosity tends to wane. When Edelseider bolted straight to the ANI, and seemed to be immediately taken for an innocent, injured party by some commenters, I felt I had to prompt them to take a closer look at him, despite my reluctance to reward his attention-seeking behavior. I restrained myself (with some help) from posting there about his history on de.wp, which includes three reports on him from different editors as well as two blocks for personal attacks. It vexes me that I even spent the time on him to learn those things, but I got the impression no one else was going to.
It's no problem for me to stay away from Edelseider; I never wanted anything to do with him. Thanks again for your time and advice. Erictalk21:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Both of you, please comment only on the edits, not the editor. Even saying good things about an editor may now and then seem like more than what's needed Oo. When commenting on what one sees as worrisome edits, one must always back it up with plenty of diffs and be way careful (stay neutral) with the wording. If good faith edits seem a bit sloppy or whatever, it's most often far easier and kinder to wait a bit, then go in and helpfully clean up the syntax, grammar and such.
I'd guess that, through the years, I've done this myself more than a thousand times, on copy written both by native and non-native English speakers. Still do. It takes time. It's work. If you don't want to deal with it, by far the best thing to do is, nothing at all.
Truly disruptive editors, such as those who let their lost, hot tempers show up on-wiki, sooner or later do get warned and if need be, shooed away from the kerfluffle or even blocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, Gwen, I must have been unclear in my above statements. I know all about diffs, thanks. I wasn't trying to document anything here, nor prompt you to undertake any action beyond advising me, unless you felt compelled to add some context to the ANI complaint. At first I merely wanted to determine if the RCS connection and history were relevant to the ANI. Later, I was just trying to explain myself to you to clarify the original motivation behind my offending posts, and to assure you that this issue did not arise out of a quarrel. I'm quite done with the whole thing, thanks. I do appreciate your work here, and I'm sorry to have taken up your time with this unfortunate business. Erictalk23:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Not sure what to say there. I feel like I should never have dignified it with a response at all. Erictalk23:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
I've been trying to help you. If you don't answer "yes" to an interaction ban between you and Edelseider (who has already agreed, voluntarily), Beeblebrox may likely make your side of it an involuntary sanction. I wholly agree with Beeblebrox.
1. My name is Michael, Arad's manager, and therefore do not edit his articles. Is it ok if I ask an editor-frnd to edit the draft (I already before asked my frnd Peter Pattern)?
2. Does the following notability specifics seem fair as to be incorporated within the draft:
Subject meets notability in following sections:
WP:GNG
Non trivial and objective coverage by reliable sources such as: ynet.com, Jewish Week, All About Jazz (article) and Israel Times.
WP:MUSICBIO (Although single section notability is sufficient, Arad meets notability in 4 different sections)
3. In case the requirements are fulfilled (links are alive, and you find #2 satisfactory, are you going to be willing to assist in living the draft and unsalt 'Kobi Arad' article?
Having looked into it, I think this topic does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (music). Please be aware, this has nothing to do with any outlook I may have as to Mr Arad's talent, skills, work or background.
Given the sources cited, I would see no need to carry on editing a draft at WP:AFC until such time as citations showing this topic meets a notability standard might later show up. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.
The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.
To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.
We really appreciate your input!
Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.
Hello, Gwen Gale. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Irene Craigmile Bolam article: please check what happens there
Hello Gwen, hope you are doing well!
I would like to attract your attention to the article "Irene Craigmile Bolam": both of us contributed several times into editing it.
During the last period some person using the name "Gibsononian" repeatedly replaces the text of the article with conspiracy fantasies
of the conspiracy theorist Tod Swindell, that were debunked and discredited long ago. I think this is a deliberate campaign of misinformation
of the readers and serious abuse of Wikipedia, that demand some proper reaction.
Hi Alex. Looks like they've stopped for now. My outlook/understanding on the topic aside (highly, highly likely Irene was not Amelia) their edits were wholly usourced so I'd say any editor can freely undo them on sight, short of blatant 3RR. Next step would be to give them a stern warning. Keep me posted if need be. Cheers. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Gwen Gale. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi Gwen, I'm concerned that MyMainAccount is a socket puppeteer being a user that brought up here [1] I the issue does exist but I believe largely because the deadlink wasn't archived there are other sources that say the same thing as the specific source that is being targeted. I'm very suspicious of the user that added the tag to the article b/c that was literally the first thing the user has done on wiki. I thought this was unusual for a first time user.Mcelite (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Gwen, Clouded leopard was moved to Mainland clouded leopard with no discussion among editors. I wasn't sure if this could be a simple redirect or not it was done by one user randomly with no discussion. Thank you for your time and help.Mcelite (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Happily, someone moved it back before I saw this. As an aside, would that there were housecats with coats like that. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account.
What do I need to do?
Only to follow the instructions in this message.
Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites).
Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable).
Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers.
How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)?
Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.
Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.
We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.
Pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next month.
Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.
Imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next several days.
Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.
Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions have been removed.
Subject to certain time limits and other restrictions, your administrative permissions may be returned upon request at WP:BN.
.jpg)
