Jump to content

User talk:Gwen Gale/archive17

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


Logan McCree

Hi, could you please userfy a copy of Logan McCree. I was going to create the article based on PORNBIO being satisfied now he has been awarded the 2009 Grabby for Best Actor but ought to start off by revising the version you deleted in 2008. Cheers Ash (talk) 10:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Done (User:Ash/sandbox). I would have restored the article, but being a BLP, it must be very thoroughly cited to reliable sources first. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Edits to archives

I'm sure that these two edits

were made in good faith, and particularly in an attempt to keep the historical record intelligible; however, the edits are to archives which are not supposed to be modified (except perhaps under extraordinary circumstances). —SlamDiego←T 04:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

After a username change, editors are allowed to go back through talk pages and their archives to manually update signatures. This is wontedly not needed, lacking privacy or alikened worries (which would be an "extraordinary circumstance" as you put it). Given I don't know anything about the background of User:Doradus (usurped) but I do see there are redirects from the old username, I wonder what it's all about, yet don't see any harm to the project. Please let me know if I've missed something. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't think that you've missed anything unless I've also missed it; but it was a bit screwy, and I thought that I should dump the issue into the lap bring it to the attention of an admin. —SlamDiego←T 10:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you...

... for reverting the personal attack from my Talk page. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Proofreader

I don't see any disruption following the initial block. Perhaps you could explain? DuncanHill (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikilawyering, ongoing trolling, ongoing threats. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Could you be more specific and provide diffs? Doc Quintana (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Given his contribution history I don't think a list of diffs is needed. As you know, this is already being talked about at ANI. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I am aware of the AN/I discussion, that's why i'm here. And his contribution history is over 15,000 edits, so again I'm going to ask you to be more specific, if you could point out a few diffs that explain what you think justified an indef block. Also, if you could, it's polite to put talkback notices up if you want to continue discussions on a single talk page. Doc Quintana (talk) 00:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Please take this to the ANI thread, thanks. As for talkback notices, I understand some editors get muddled in understanding how talk page threads are done, which is why there's a notice about that at the top of this talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Very well, I'll ask this question again at the AN/I thread. I did not see your notice, and I don't agree with it, but this is your talk page. Doc Quintana (talk) 00:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Talk_page#Sections. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't know why you want me to see that page, but you're lucky that I saw this. Now if you used talkbacks, I would be sure that you made your comment here. Doc Quintana (talk) 02:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Ani Notice.

This is not a reflection on you personally so please don't take offense. Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hell in a Bucket (talk • contribs)

Arbcom Notice.

[[3]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Aimee Semple McPherson

I thought the lede of that article sounds a bit unprofessional to label someone as an "evangelist" and "media celebrity" - what does each of the term mean and what does the combination mean? The terms "preacher" and "cleric" make more sense. She preached her Pentecostal Christian religion and served as the head of the church she founded (therefore a "cleric", possibly with the title of "Rev."). Why did you revert without explaining reason? Wandering Courier (talk) 03:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The first source cited in the article, a Time magazine article from 1928, calls her an evangelist as have most other sources since then. Many clerics and preachers are evangelists, it's a neutral word. Billy Graham, like McPherson, is most widely noted as an evangelist, along with his celebrity for that. Likewise, McPherson's media celebrity is thoroughly cited in the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Gwen. I read it and the terms made more sense now. Though I was appalled by the disparaging tone the article uses referring to lower-class people and McPherson. We've gone through a long way by now towards respect and tolerance. Wandering Courier (talk) 22:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that Time article was way snooty as to the folks who showed up to her Albert Hall revivals in London. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

Sigh

Gwen, I speedily closed the DRV on Spartaz's talk page. In other words, I stopped the undeletion from occuring. I did this in an attempt to stop him from being deluged with messages and getting piled on. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 15:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

But then you reversed yourself. Since everyone seems to have stopped, I don't see any worries. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I know. It didn't work, which was a pity. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 16:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
That's one way of putting it. Beware wiki-wonkery on all sides when feelings are stirred up :) Gwen Gale (talk) 16:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone's sock is most likely

You commented on AN/I that Famedalupi is someone's sock. I thought that as well. Check out these contributions . I see alternation between the accounts. I'm thinking a checkuser is necessary; I have a feeling this is only the beginning. What say you? Auntie E. (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for showing that to me. Having looked at the contributions, I think it very likely that User:Famedalupi is a sockpuppet of User:EllisD. Going by User:Famedalupi's user page, it looks like they may either claim to have lost the password to User:EllisD, are aware their edits look way too wiki-knowing for a new editor, or both. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Calling legitimate edits vandalism

Can you please explain this person [4] what is and what is not vandalism? Thanks in advance. Ninguém (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

He wasn't calling it vandalism. Meanwhile, have you talked about it with him? Why are there fact tags next to citations to begin with? Gwen Gale (talk) 23:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
It is impossible to talk with him, as you know. There are fact tags next to citations because the citations are disputed; they often do not say what the text reports them as saying. Ninguém (talk) 01:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok, start by swapping out those tags with {{Failed verification}}. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh, thanks. That was really useful! :) Ninguém (talk) 03:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You have mail

Not knowing how often you look at your mailbox... LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Answered, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party movement

would it be possible to get the Tea Party Movement page semi-protected. Been having a lot of vandalism. Editors on talk page are working very hard to come to consensus on what article should become and randoms are changing it daily without using talk page and adding some vandal type edits.Malke2010 09:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see enough IP vandalism there to make semi-protection worthwhile, but I'll put the article on my watchlist. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I did look over the edit history and it doesn't justify it now, but thanks for keeping it on your watchlist. Also, editors don't necessarily have to use the talk page, right?Malke2010 00:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
If you have to ask, you should use article talk pages. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
On the question about editors using the talk page, I've run into editors who claim they don't need to use the talk page, they cite the 'be bold' wikipedia thing. That's why I asked the question. I think they should use it but some claim otherwise.
On the Tea Party Movement, lots of IP's coming around, not using the talk page and making edits that are still being discussed on the talk page. This is frustrating to the editors using the talk page. People there are asking again about semi-protection. Please reconsider. Thanks. Malke2010 22:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm watching it. There is a bit of edit warring there, but the back and forth from IPs is low and doesn't seem to be the worry. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

climate pages

Gwen, I'm a bit concerned that you feel legitimate editors are being mischaracterised or driven off from climate pages. While I don't have any firm views on the subject myself, what I've read has convinced me that there is a clear scientific consensus, and that our articles should give due weight to that consensus. Where there are scientific minority views and non-scientific views, they should be shown as such. I don't rush to judgement on new editors, and welcome anyone willing to work within policy. When things get heated errors can be made, and should be acknowledged. At the same time, long term evidence of refusal to accept policies of due weight, and repeated insertion of claims with dubious support or unreliable sources, leads me to say what I think when necessary. If the science does change with good quality sources dismissing AGW, that will be very welcome. However, good evidence is needed and for editing purposes we can't assume that all views are equal without strong evidence. If there any aspects you'd like to discuss, that would be nice. If you'd rather just delete this comment, no problem. Must go and cook something to eat now, anyway. Best regards, dave souza, talk 20:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey Dave, it's easy to narrow down sources so far as to make a tertiary reference article say anything one pleases. This is what has happened on many high traffic, core articles on en.Wikipedia and it's not by happenstance. Meanwhile there are millions more articles where I can help out, with none of these worries and that's what I do, what I can, with those. The sources will likely out in the end, whatever harm's done in the meantime, which could mean en.Wikipedia will be cast aside in a few years when they're done with it, but either way, all the helpful content will likely carry on somehow, somewhere. I'm making spaghetti with ajvar, it's yummy :) Gwen Gale (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Wow, that looks great! Am a bit envious, having had sausages for tea today, but will treat myself to haggis or something tomorrow. The crucial thing is finding good sources and reflecting them faithfully, but that's very difficult in the heat of a news storm. I'm pretty hopeful that things will look clearer in a year or so, not least because scientists will have to reconcile increased openness with peer reviewed publication. Anyway, mustn't distract you from tricky cooking. All the best, dave souza, talk 21:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh, a year or two may do it, we'll see. The spaghetti/ajvar was wonderful! Not at all tricky to whip up by the bye, seeing as how the ajvar came out of a big jar ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 22:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Request

Hi. I'm trying to verify a statement you made - that "Yes, the topic is notable in itself, sources abound," in relation to press coverage of our articles about climate change - Are you aware of any sources that have reported on this in a way negative to our coverage aside from Lawrence Solomon and James Delingpole? Hipocrite (talk) 21:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You only give heed to sources you agree with, so there is likely no pith to this. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I'd beg you to assume good faith. Are there other sources? Hipocrite (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't even agree with how you've framed that question. Happy editing. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your time, I guess, but I must admit I've been put off by what you've written. Perhaps I'm bad at communicating with you, but it seems that you're taking my request entirely out of proportion. Hipocrite (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
We both know what you're trying to do. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm trying to find if I'm missing something when I review media coverage of our articles on climate change. You are apparently doing something different. Hipocrite (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Gwen, could I ask you to reconsider, and if you're aware of sources that cover how WP is perceived in this area, please let me know? Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 21:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I can't go into this online and I don't believe in working on content strategies offline, so I'm stuck. This is a big slice of why I don't edit Global warming topics, other than dropping off sources on talk pages now and then. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Contact me offline if you want but I have no idea what you mean by "working on content strategies", I'm afraid... I feel like I walked into something and caused a mess. ++Lar: t/c 22:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Hey, you didn't stir up any mess, you wandered into one that was already there :) Gwen Gale (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

  1. Proposal to Close This RfC
  2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

question

Are there rules about single purpose editors?Malke2010 01:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

SPAs are very much allowed. Some SPAs are very much helpful. However, there is a somewhat heightened likelihood of worries. See Wikipedia:SPA. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, I mention it because over on Meredith Kercher there seems one on a mission. I've watched the page awhile now. I'd say with the POV leanings, there's worries. Perhaps a relative, friend, fan? Don't know all the rules on that. Malke2010 01:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
PoV is allowed, so long as WP:NPOV and WP:Consensus are given sway. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
On the Meredith Kercher article I forgot to mention that the SPA is making questionable edits about the convicted killer Amanda Knox. Kercher, of course, is the victim. Kercher's article is beginning to read like the SPA is arguing for the innocence of Amanda Knox. Like they're prepping for an appeal and arguing evidence, etc. The editors on the talk page don't seem to be agreeing with this turn in events, and the SPA doesn't seem to be listening. This is why I'm questioning it.Malke2010 02:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Can you give me some diffs? Gwen Gale (talk) 02:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I'm just getting around to that. Here's one. Look at the edit summary. The diff I want you to see will be on the left. [5].Malke2010 02:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Again, on the left: [6]Malke2010 02:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
[7].Malke2010 02:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
That account does seem as though it may be somehow linked with the boyfriend or his national origin. The first step would be to leave a note on their talk page, reminding them that edits should be cited to a reliable source. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
also, this is what we're putting up with on the Tea Party Movement. [8]. I just reverted that.Malke2010 02:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
That kind of edit can be reverted as vandalism. With only one in a day, it's not enough for semi-protection. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay. Also on Meredith Kercher the SPA is at 3RR and might even be past it.Malke2010 03:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
So who goes over and leaves the nice note on the SPA's page? I'm hoping it's you.Malke2010 03:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay, so that leaves me. I'm going over and I'm mentioning also the 3RR thing.Malke2010 03:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Last SPA diff so you get the general idea. This section was removed by another editor. [9]Malke2010 04:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Left message on SPA talk pge re: edit warring/3rr and WP:RELIABLE.Malke2010 04:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Interesting bit here: it's been suggested that the SPA is a reincarnation of this editor: [10], who was banned/block for a month.Malke2010 10:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Tea party thing, thanks for the semi-protection. It will help.Malke2010 12:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
After watching the article for awhile I thought the unsourced IP soapboxing was happening steadily enough to have become disruptive. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It's much more helpful/easier for everyone to call the account by name, User:Zlykinskyja, wlinked, rather than "the SPA." This said, it does look to me as though User:Zlykinskyja is likely User:PilgrimRose, but it's not block evasion, since PR is not blocked anymore. Many editors would take this as a kind of socking, though, given that as before the edits are mostly unsourced, look like original research and are getting tendentious. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, agree use the name. Couldn't remember how to spell it so SPA was easier. Yes, I can see where it could be construed as a kind of socking. Well, User:Zlykinskyja is wrecking havoc with those edits. User:Bluewave is doing a good job getting it more WP:NPOV, at least for the moment. And yes, the IP's on TPM were getting over the top, especially that Hitler edit. Maybe now they'll get bored and go away. Thanks again.Malke2010 13:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Usernames, I mostly copy-paste 'em :) Gwen Gale (talk) 13:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
That's because you're smarter than me. I just read this definition again tendentious and that does fit User:Zlykinskyja. I can almost hear him or her saying, "Look, she's innocent. Let me show you how I know that."Malke2010 13:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Dunno about that, but I can tell you, when I was very young and someone plopped me down, wide eyed, in front of a computer with a windowed GUI for the first time (a Mac), one of the first things they showed me was how to copy-paste text. I hated the very notion of doing it, at first, I don't know why, other than to say, I recall it seemed both clunky and lazy. Needless to say, my outlook on that shifted, fast. :)
I don't think User:Zlykinskyja has taken the time to look into how articles are built here. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it would seem so. But after so many entreaties by other editors, you would think he/she would figure out they were doing something wrong. And if in fact this is the same editor who was blocked, then why come back with a new name and do the same all over again? And it does seem they've been reading the edit summaries and responding to them with their own edit summaries, as well as reverting, etc. It would be helpful for editors if User:Zlykinskyja would use the talk page, work through the process. It doesn't always work, of course, but most of the time editors work through issues, things get resolved. Having the same problem over on Irish American with Rjensen. He's putting in a lot of anti-Catholic rhetoric with very questionable sources that are from certain types of groups, if you know what I mean. It's frustrating but then sometimes when you get the chance to clean up a page, it is rewarding to think you've put in something to the project.Malke2010 14:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Most of these worries get handled sooner rather than later. Keep in mind, other than stuff like WP:BLP blowouts and blatant vandalism, which are blockable straight off, there aren't many "emergencies" here and it's all a slice of keeping the project openly edited, so don't let it get you too stirred up. Oh and there are millions of articles here where you can make good faith, helpful, sourced edits without having them fought over. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, agree. More things get worked out than not. Certain pages, as you know, will always be in flux. It does draw attention though when you see one editor making many changes over a sustained period of time, especially when they seem to be of the 'look she's innocent' kind. Or, 'look at those bad Catholics over there.' XD. GG, how many articles are there on Wikipedia?Malke2010 14:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Way over 3,000,000 on en.Wikipedia. Most aren't high traffic and as I've told you before, it's mostly the high traffic ones which are steadily beset by content disputes and other worries. Also, new editors are more likely to flock to those. The more high traffic, the more the woe, mostly. Tip, click on "Random article" at the upper left of any page, like, 5 or 10 times and I'll be a little startled if you don't find a quiet article you'd get a kick out of editing for at least a few minutes. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
But if you think about it, each one represents turf to somebody. And everybody protects their turf. But here's a question: what is the rule about splitting off a sub-topic into another article? Because it seems to me that for some of these sub-topics that become 'articles' it seems more an opportunity to present a biased view without counterweight. I'm thinking of the "Anti-Catholicism in the United States" page. It reads like it was written by 'Anti-Catholics in the United States.' You come across articles like this and you have to wonder, "Are there any adults here checking on this stuff?" especially when the anti stuff seems so blatant.Malke2010 14:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Don't worry about turf (WP:OWN), which shifts a lot anyway, editors come and go, you'll find that high traffic articles are almost always tough to edit, but most articles are much lower traffic and tend to be easy to edit, given helpful, sourced contributions. I have maybe over 500 articles on my watchlist, hundreds of them hardly ever get edited at all and most of the edits they do get are helpful, even from IPs. As for "any adults here checking on this stuff?" most of them are adults. Welcome to open editing, which is in many ways but an echo of the wider world. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, maybe that's the real attraction, it's an echo of the wider world. I will have to find some of these quiet articles. Maybe some from your list. Got any suggestions?Malke2010 15:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
As I said, the "Random article" link, top upper left, awaits you. Click 5-10 times and stir :) Gwen Gale (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The Goon Show

A few weeks back I saw you mention The Goon Show at some other talkpage. I just got around to listening to some of it, and wanted to say thanks - good stuff. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

May I just say needle nardle noo. And thanks for the memory. Over to Ray Ellington and his orchestra. . . dave souza, talk 20:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

I'm not sure of the rule on the semi-protection, but you once semi-protected Normandy Landings, and for some reason this page seems to get a high traffic in this sort of thing [11] and I was wondering is there a chance that this page could have a longer period of protection? Does that go against the open editing policy? This might be bored high school kids.Malke2010 01:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Much appreciated.Malke2010 18:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Question

Please review these diffs. User Zylinskyja is persisting in these comments despite my repeatedly asking that she cease. [12] [13] [14] [15]. Thanks. Malke2010 22:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe in the last one she is accusing me of being a troll.

[16]Malke2010 22:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Zlykinskyja is a new editor (an SPA, which is allowed) and may be learning about the need for sourcing and staying away from personal attacks. I'll leave a note for them, but it looks like this may settle down. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
The edit summaries are another problem.[17]. Two things, Zlykinskyja wipes out the name of the section in the edit summary so editors have to figure out where she made the change. And comments like this one in the edit summaries are not helpful. Thanks for the note on her talk page which she deleted.Malke2010 17:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I've left a warning (I'm not worried about edit summaries, they may not be clicking on the section edit links, is all), until I looked into this further today, I wasn't aware there had been blatant sockpuppetry 2 months ago. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
That's quite a bit of something. I had no idea. Interesting.Malke2010 20:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, these tactics some people use to try to undermine and block another editor with whom they disagree on the content of an article are indeed interesting, but most unfair. The Kercher article needs dispute resolution or mediation, or some such formal improvement of the process, in my opinion. I don't know what options are available but if some sort of more formal mediation could be undertaken it would save a lot of time and produce a better, more objective article in the long run,I would think. Zlykinskyja (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Zlykinskyja, if you think there's a need, the first step would be a request for comment, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

mediation question

This is what I was asking about. [18].Malke2010 19:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Two editors don't have a "right" to block anything from an article, other than straightforward vandalsim or BLP vios. See WP:Consensus. Moreover, mediation is not meant to deal with worries about personal attacks. I think you should spend more time trying to gather a consensus on the article talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
We didn't do the mediation. We are using the talk page. I think you misunderstand. The guy who sent this off to mediation is Rjensen. Not me and not Eastcote. What I was asking you, was what kind of rebuttal, if any, can an editor make on these pages. I've never seen this sort of thing. My only contact with any kind of mediation is asking for a 3rd opinion once. So I didn't know what kind of reply would be appropriate on this page.Malke2010 21:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I understood that Rjenson is the one asking for mediation. Being mediation, I don't think rebuttal would be the fit word for what one would want to do there. I must say again, I think everyone should spend more time trying to gather consensus on the talk page. You can read up on mediation here. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
And we would agree with you. Things have been worked out on the talk page before and there is a consensus to examine the changes. There was no reason for this mediation. The editors on the article were seeking more sources and reviewing the sources Rjensen claims support his views. So far, the sources are out of context and do not support the edits. Mediation is not necessary here.Malke2010 21:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010

Lama article , Mexico at it again

It seems as soon as the protection you put on expired, he is back at it... any thoughts?

Nysanda (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Since the spam's from a roaming IP I've semi-protected for 3 months. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

When to place Category tags.

What is the current stand on Category tags? Should they be placed before or after the category actually exists? I've noticed a category tag on one of my watch articles but it's a redlink, so I was wondering whether to remove it (cause it's a redlink) or leave it (to support the category, which should be notable by now). Padillah (talk) 14:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Give it a day or two, the cat may show up. As an editor, you can rm any cat in good faith, so long as consensus is given heed, which also means such a thing may or may not be reverted straight off. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

re: Ron Paul page

I saw your name there. The link for Footnote 140 doesn't bring you to the article; this one does:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35498037/ns/politics/

I am glad to hear you of a kind of Fairy. My 6 year old daughter loves fairies; I bought her a book called The Midnight Fairies which we read today.

David —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sovper (talk • contribs) 05:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The citation link looks ok to me. What do you want me to do?
Cheers to you, reading to your daughter, moreover at that threshold age, is in many ways one of the most helpful things you can do for her. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Murder of Meredith Kercher

Gwen. Would you mind to step in here? If I reverse or change and move the so called "breaking news" where it might fit I'm sure it just would be reversed on sight and so I rather don't bother (and get into a potential edit war). The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 05:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC) PS: Sorry to put the burden on you but you're the one most familiar in this case.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 05:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You can undo over-the-top edits like that yourself without worry, moreover there are enough editors watching the article, it wouldn't have lasted long anyway. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Admin assist needed

Hi Gwen, This: [19] has been resolved by the editors concerned. However an 'uninvolved editor' came along and made comments again as has another. These comments do not seem to be helping a resolved situation. I hatted the thread but it turns out involved editors can't so that. Would you please hat it if you agree it seems resolved. I'd appreciate it. Malke2010 18:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

question

Hi Gwen,

How are we suppose to report repeated vandalism? When I add warning templates to user's talk pages, I'm seeing talk pages that already have several warning templates and I'm wondering if we're suppose to be taking these things to noticeboards when we see that this is a serious problem. Here's some diffs as an example:[20] [21] [ [22] [23] Warnings [24].. I don't he's getting our meaning here. And here's another user: [25] Thanks for the help.Malke2010 18:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, what noticeboard would that be? AN3RR or AN/I. Where does vandalism get reported most often? Thanks.Malke2010 18:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Don't ever post to ANI unless it's something you've tried very hard to solve by other means. Vandalism should be reported to WP:AIV, 3rr edit warring to WP:AN3RR, incivility to WP:WQA but as to civility, WP:CIVIL/WP:NPA blocks are not widely supported anymore, so it has to be way over the top, to be worth reporting there. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. So WP:AIV would be it. Thanks.Malke2010 21:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010

talk pages

Hi Gwen, Do you need a consensus to remove original research and edits with no citations, especially when a citation can't be found to support the edit?Malke2010 13:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You can rm OR without consensus, but outside of a BLP, you shouldn't edit war over doing so, unless the OR is utter screed or rambling personal thoughts (disruptive). Moreover, keep in mind that original research and uncited but clearly verifiable texts are not at all the same things. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, agree, especially the BLP. And edits without citations that are making claims that are verifiable should be easy to rectify with a simple Google search. Thanks.Malke2010 23:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

SCIRS

I have made a stab at adapting WP:MEDRS for more general scientific topics at User:2over0/SCIRS. For reasons I may or may not be able to recall at the moment, you crossed my mind when I was considering other editors who might be interested in working on such a thing. The page is strictly preliminary for now, but this invitation to take a look and offer suggestions, comments, and improvements is open to everyone. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:Fringe (a guideline) and WP:V (a policy) are often both misunderstood and mis-cited on scientific articles. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC closure on Talk:Ghost

Please take a closer look at the situation and tweak your formulation accordingly. Everybody agreed that the NSF is an appropriate source for saying this if they actually bother to say it. The entire RfC was a red herring, and you haven't merely closed it as if that wasn't the case, you even said "the NSF position on this is meaningful, notable, reliable and scientific", as if referring to a specific NSF position.

The RfC had been intentionally formulated so that it doesn't actually speak about the NSF paper that BullRangifer had in mind; by closing the RfC as if it had done that, you are interpreting the support votes for more than they are worth and rewarding Brangifer's gaming. Hans Adler 16:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

On rereading this, perhaps I wasn't clear enough: The RfC is formulated as if it wanted to know whether an NSF publication that deals specifically and in detail with the question whether belief in ghosts is belief in pseudoscience is a reliable source for the statement that this is the case. Of course it would be. But such a paper does not exist.

These fights are part of an effort of some people to apply the pseudoscience Arbcom decision, which dealt specifically with pseudo-science, i.e. with fields that can be confused with science, to other areas for which there is no such confusion. There is some ghost-related pseudoscience, in particular "ghost hunters" (we have a good reliable source for that). But it's absurd to classify a vast area of human culture, most of which has nothing at all to do with pretending to be scientific, as pseudoscience.

To be clear: It may make sense to apply the Arbcom decision on pseudoscience to all of the Ghost article. But this must be done by internal reasoning, not by compromising the quality of encyclopedica articles (making them push an absurdly broad definition of pseudoscience and misquoting the NSF). Hans Adler 16:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. If editors follow my close, they'll only be following policy. Either way, one can't cite an NSF assertion which doesn't exist. Following WP:FRINGE and arbcom's input, other published outlooks should be carried but only as to weight (and that weight may be wee). I do think the label pseudoscience is often wielded as an overbroad smear on en.Wikipedia: If it shows up, it must be cited to a reliable source. That source may still be wrong, but it may have great weight for now. That's ok, that's what an encyclopedia is for. Readers are helped away from being misled by seeing other cited outlooks in the same article, though the text carrying these may be much shorter, with their sources carefully described in the text if need be.
Put another way, ghost-hunter is a notable cultural topic which brushes up against science, but it's not supported by anything pulled from the scientific method. The peer review may be woefully lacking, even mistaken, on this topic, but any such assertion must be cited to a reliable source and if that source isn't a scientific one, the reader should be made straightforwardly aware of that.
I'll throw this last bit in only for fun. We don't know all that much about why some folks see ghosts. There are likely sundry reasons. It could be that an utterly sane person might, when all sorts of things weave together in a given way, see a ghost. This doesn't mean Capser has come for tea. However, Casper is a cute metaphor for something that did come to tea, whatever it was. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
In the light of your response you may want to revisit your sentence "Editors should keep in mind that the NSF position on this is meaningful, notable, reliable and scientific." (My italics.) I am sure that Brangifer, Verbal and some others will interpret this as saying that, according to the RfC, the NSF does have such a position and has expressed it in the document whose misquotation led to the RfC in the first place. Hans Adler 17:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I meant to use that article (the). Good luck to them in citing it if it's nowhere to be found, that's their worry, because they must cite, to have any sway. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
The precise source and precise wording are used and clearly attributed to the NSF. What more can one do when one follows V and NPOV? I started the RfCs because I was in doubt about whether I had misunderstood the situation, but the majority of editors agreed with me. That's a consensus. This is a continuation of the battle that was waged by a few editors in both RfCs, and their arguments were rejected by the clear majority of editors who supported the RfCs. As such we have a clear consensus for using the source in the proposed manner. This is just more disruption, and it needs to be stopped, possibly by applying the ArbCom sanctions. They must learn to drop the stick and walk away from the dead horse. They must abide by consensus. The declarations to continue to wage a war over this matter shows they wish to misuse Wikipedia as a battleground. Only administrators can stop this, and maybe some bold sanctions are needed. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
It looks to me as though the way you want to use the source goes beyond the wording for which you gathered consensus in the RfC(s). I've said a bit more about this in the threads below. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

NSF

I'm sorry Gwen, but I can't accept your closure of the 'pseudoscientific belief' RfC. It is a clear misrepresentation of the NSF's position on the topic. it's a pity, but I am afraid I need to keep arguing for a less POV usage of the quote. --Ludwigs2 21:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

P.s. wow, sorry, I just noticed the other threads here - didn't mean to spam you. Just so you know, I'm probably going to go to the various places this quote is used and add in a caveat that the terminology was discontinued after 2006. it will probably cause trouble, but I don't know what else to do about it except start attributing it to death. --Ludwigs2 21:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
There is another obvious solution, one which is the wikipedian thing to do. You must learn to drop the stick and walk away from the dead horse. You must abide by consensus. Your declarations to continue to wage a war over this matter shows that you wish to misuse Wikipedia as a battleground. That's a very blockable offense. Wikipedia needs to be protected from more disruption by you. First a block of a couple weeks, and then a topic ban when you return. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
WP:KETTLE. Hans Adler 10:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

When things get this dodgy, each editor should try to gather consensus for each edit they want to make. As an aside, human beings naturally build spritual outlooks and belief systems. These have aught to do with science when they are not straightforwardly falsifiable through the scientific method. I think Ghost does an ok job, but not a wonderful job, of sourcing the topic as an anthropological one. Taken altogether, the topic is not pseudoscience, but swaths of the topic (which may or may not stir up into sections of the article), could indeed be dealing with pseudoscientific outlooks on the topic. Take heed though, a ghost hunter could be either a scientist or a pseudoscientist, following how they go about what they do (which is to say, their methodology). Gwen Gale (talk) 12:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Article deleted on Kobi Arad is back

You may recall the discussion that resulted in deleting the Kobi Arad article.[26] It has been recreated two days ago as Yakob Arad. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 05:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. A bit more coverage was cited but the topic still doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8138665.stm  :)

Did you participate? Count Iblis (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Gwen Gale (talk) 06:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I thought you were into Paganism or something of the sort. I've read that some of these people also practice witchcraft as a hobby... Count Iblis (talk) 14:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
You likely misunderstood something about me then (or heard something misundertood), somewhere along the way. No worries though. One could say I have some anthropological and literary knowledge on those topics (as I do with lots of other topics), but I've never practiced either paganism or witchcraft as a belief system or a hobby. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 15:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I see, so we don't have an Admin with magical powers here on Wikipedia :) . Count Iblis (talk) 14:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Heh, like any dumb admin, I only have the magical powers to botch stuff up :) Gwen Gale (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Meaning of consensus

Gwen, to make sure I'm not misunderstanding things, I'd like to ask a question. I have always understood that Wikipedia worked by consensus. If a consensus is wrong, which can happen on isolated talk pages, the proper thing to do is not to war against that consensus, but to seek to change policy, or start another RfC with even broader input. My question is this:

  • Are the results of an RfC considered to represent a consensus on the subject of the RfC?

Under Ending RfCs, it seems to be clearly implied that an RfC ends when a consensus is found. I believe that both RfCs ended with a clear consensus that should be followed and respected. Failure to do so is per definition disruption, a blockable offense. Brangifer (talk) 05:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a consensus that NSF is a reliable source. There may not be a consensus as to how you want to cite that source. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
That's news to me. In the RfC I clearly stated that it was my intention to add the statement as a ref in the NPOV article. That was what the RfC was about. I even made a very clear example so everyone could see exactly what they were saying yes or no to. That is one issue.
The next issue, which is closely related but not identical, is my using the NPOV policy and it's quoting of the ArbCom to justify adding certain articles to Category:Pseudoscience. This is the practical application of policy. If the policy is clear, I am justified in doing so. If the policy is unclear, then we have a problem, and it's not my fault. NPOV and the ArbCom state we are to deal with pseudoscientific subjects in a certain manner. This particular case is NOT dealing with "obvious pseudoscience".
When specifically dealing with belief in ghosts in the paranormal sense (there is an entertainment sense which wouldn't apply, but that's a very small part of the issue and article), the ArbCom and NPOV apply and state that if the scientific community (the NSF represents it) "generally considers" it to be pseudoscience, the article may "contain that information" and it may be so "categorized". Am I misinterpreting policy? Here it is:
  • 2. Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
I'm acting in good faith. I'm not trying to pull some sneaky trick on anyone, but I'm being harassed as if I was. That harassment needs to stop and the little group of editors need to start AGF toward me and to abide by the consensus in the two RfCs. Both RfCs established that the NSF was a RS and that the statement was properly framed, while the NPOV RfC was also about using that RS and approved statement as a ref. That ref hurts nothing.
The subjects mentioned by the NSF are so fringe that they, and the scientific community at large, hardly ever mention them. Their general silence says volumes about how trivially obvious they consider them to be paranormal/pseudoscience subjects. That's why the relatively simple but plain statement by the NSF is all the subjects deserve in the scientific world. The NSF isn't going to waste lots of ink on them by repeating the obvious every year. It's a sort of "duh" statement about what is patently obvious and should not be ignored.
To use an analogy, that would be like ignoring a casual mention that "the world is round", as if the usual silence of the scientific community on that subject raised doubts about whether the world really is round, and whether the scientific community might have changed its mind (by not constantly mentioning this fact in each new report), or might even have got it wrong when they did mention it in a yearly report (like the 2006 version). (Ludwigs2 has even gone that far!) The NSF isn't about to start engaging in pseudoscientific research of the subjects. Per Fringe the NSF's statement deserves to be used, and justifies placing anything related to pseudoscience in the category, whether it is itself a pseudoscience, or whether belief in it is a pseudoscienctific belief. Sure, believers are going to object, but they are fighting the practical application of very clear NPOV and ArbCom wordings. The NPOV policy is supposed to be used, not sit there like some nice statement on the shelf which never gets used. If I'm wrong, I expect that someone can explain it to me clearly. So far the objections have been more related to OR speculations that the NSF got it wrong, didn't mean what it said, or that the objectors didn't believe the NSF. None of those objections are based in policy. This is about Verifiability, not truth. It's a sourcing issue.
It's also very significant that none of those who !voted Support are objecting here. If they were, the current objectors might have a foot to stand on, but they're just carrying on their war against the consensus, and the application of policy. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Look at it this way, NFS is a reliable source for scientific topics and the RfC showed a straightforward consensus for that. Ghost is not a scientific topic, it's an anthropological and cultural/literary topic. Moreover, only some areas of that topic may be pseudoscience. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
That's not quite accurate regarding the consensus. The RfC proposal and the consensus that supported it approved of the NSF as a RS for making the statement it made, which included ghosts. It is considered a patently obvious fact. This isn't about our OR ideas of truth, but about verifiability. Did it or did it not state that belief in ghosts was a pseudoscientific belief? That's all that counts, and the consensus clearly said "YES". I fear that OR and disagreement with the NSF is taking over and blocking our use of policy. Since when does OR supercede V? -- Brangifer (talk) 05:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I want to point out that I said at the very beginning of this process that the RfC was malformed, and that you were going to use the confusion of that misinformation to try to wiki-lawyer your POV in in a strong form. And here you are, deep in the throws of trying to wiki-lawyer your POV in via the confusion of the RfC. Can't you argue anything on wikipedia honestly? Yeesh... --Ludwigs2 05:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I know you said that, and I can't help that you wished a different question. The RfC was about a different question than you wished and the majority were not confused. They understood the question and accepted it. You continue to muddy the waters by arguing about a different question and refusing to accept the results of the RfCs. I had no idea you would wikilawyer and create so much confusion. That is what confuses people who believe your twist on things. Please AGF. Your continued attacks are very unpleasant. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
piffle. the mirror-mirror game doesn't wash here. go back to your wheedling. --Ludwigs2 06:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

<-- Gwen, will you please do something about these incessant attacks, incivility, and failures to AGF by Ludwigs2? That it has been tolerated so long is insufferable, and allowing it to happen is the same as approving of these policy violations. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8138665.stm  :)

Did you participate? Count Iblis (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Gwen Gale (talk) 06:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I thought you were into Paganism or something of the sort. I've read that some of these people also practice witchcraft as a hobby... Count Iblis (talk) 14:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
You likely misunderstood something about me then (or heard something misundertood), somewhere along the way. No worries though. One could say I have some anthropological and literary knowledge on those topics (as I do with lots of other topics), but I've never practiced either paganism or witchcraft as a belief system or a hobby. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 15:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I see, so we don't have an Admin with magical powers here on Wikipedia :) . Count Iblis (talk) 14:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Heh, like any dumb admin, I only have the magical powers to botch stuff up :) Gwen Gale (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC closure on WT:NPOV

I am not sure that you have addressed the RfC topic at all. As I understood the RfC, it was about adding a very specific footnote to the policy:

  • This is how it started. [27]
  • After the first response had come in, Brangifer turned the section into an RfC and added a "neutral" summary that wasn't actually a summary at all but a misrepresentation. [28]

Hans Adler 17:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I read both as meaning the same thing. NSF can be taken as reliable in an encyclopedia, even if they're wholly wrong. If they're wrong, it's a worry, but this can be dealt with through WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Hence, my close more or less says, "follow the policies we have." Reading through the RfC, it didn't look to me as though some editors on either side had a strong grip on the policies we have. If you think a more straightforwardly worded RfC would help, post it, no need to be shy, content and policy RfCs sometimes don't help much, but they don't often do much harm, either (since the harmful ones tend to get closed fast). Gwen Gale (talk) 17:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Saying that (1) "NSF is a reliable source for saying A" is very obviously not the same as (2) "Put a footnote into WP:NPOV that says that NSF says A". But at least by closing the RfC as (1) you are not rewarding Brangifer's gaming. I am not interested in yet another RfC of this kind at the moment, thank you. Hans Adler 17:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth, having read it yet again, I don't see (2) as reading the way you read it, but I do see how (2) could be more easily wikilawyered. Hopefully, this will send everyone back to the policy pages. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for yet another post on your talk page: I just realised my first link was to the current page rather than the old version I had in mind. Fixed it.
Well, Brangifer's footnote says: "The scientific consensus, as expressed by the [NSF], has identified belief in ten subjects to be pseudoscientific beliefs. They are: [...] ghosts, [...], witches, reincarnation [...]". As a footnote of an Arbcom decision that talks about topics that pose as science this is highly problematic. Also note that the source cited says nothing at all about "scientific consensus" and only uses belief in these things casually and without discussion as a proxy for belief in pseudoscience, for purposes of questionnaires in the US. There are so many caveats being ignored by Brangifer's footnote, and context is changed so radically, that it simply isn't funny any more. Hans Adler 18:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Please AGF. I am not gaming the system. We just happen to disagree. I believe the NSF is right, and you think it's wrong. Ludwigs2, whom you support, even went so far as to claim "that the NSF screwed it up once", referring to the 2006 version. Somehow he can read the NSF's mind and says they got it wrong. That's pretty bold OR, and definitely not a legitimate ground to reject the source. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Facepalm Facepalm "I believe the NSF is right, and you think it's wrong."
BullRangifer, you are practising WP:IDHT. I don't know how many times I have told you so far that the issue is not whether the NSF is reliable or not but whether you, you the tiny little editor who does not have the scientific weight of the NSF behind himself, are interpreting the NSF correctly or not. (That the statement you are incorrectly attributing to the NSF happens to be very problematic only makes things worse, but is not at the heart of the matter.) Stop hiding behind the NSF. The NSF is not misquoting itself, you are misquoting it. I am beginning to count now how often I tell you this. If it continues much longer I will start to collect diffs to earlier instances where you have been told exactly the same thing. This information is very relevant to your RfC/U. Hans Adler 10:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
You can count all you want, and it will only document that just that many times you have revealed that you disagree with the consensus in two RfCs, which concluded I was not misinterpreting the NSF or the statement. Your counting will have a boomerang effect, so please continue to collect those diffs which I can use against you. The gun is pointing at your own foot. Go for it and this will end up as an ArbCom, where you, Ludwigs2, Abd, and some others may well get indef banned. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see anything in the RfC I closed that supported adding Ghost to the pseudoscience category. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not in the RfC. It's an application of the NPOV policy itself. Look at guideline 2. That guideline makes it clear that when something is "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community [the article] may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience." The NSF reference we've been discussing proves that point. Remember this isn't about truth but verifiability. Some may disagree with the source, but that's OR. If we don't apply that policy, then it is just an unused decoration, and I don't think that was the intent of the ArbCom which created that guideline, and of the editors who incorporated it into the NPOV policy. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
BullRangifer, that is our content policy, not our policy policy. This is exactly the kind of dangerous slippery slope I hoped to avoid. External sources do not inform wikipedia policy, consensus opinions of editors do, OR and all. Unomi (talk) 02:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Unomi, I'm not exactly sure what you are referring to by your first sentence. Please elaborate.
As to my application of the NPOV policy in this case, Guideline 2 justifies using the NSF statement as a source in any article named in that source, IOW the list of ten items. There has been some question about interpretations of certain items. While that's an interesting discussion, it's OR and OR cannot be used to reject a source. The obvious solution is to follow standard exegetical principles. When confronted with multiple possibilities, one chooses the one most consistent with the known opinions of the source and which creates internal consistency. Choosing a definition which creates internal inconsistency amounts to violating the subject and setting up a straw man that can then be argued against and destroyed. The NSF is obviously referring to the witchcraft aspect of "witches" when they say "witches". They aren't referring to the fact that witches exist as a popular phenomena in entertainment. Little girls in witch costumes at Halloween and Casper the Ghost don't count. They are referring to the paranormal aspect.
There is no question the NSF made the statement, and in a very deliberate way at that, by using the word "pseudoscience" instead of the original "paranormal". The two RfCs are actually unnecessary in this connection, but they give added support for my edit as they show that a majority of editors in both RfCs affirm that I was interpreting the source correctly. Even without the RfCs, the source, combined with NPOV, can be used to justify placement of any of those ten items in the Category:Pseudoscience, because a scientific body considers them to be pseudoscientific. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
brangifer: first, I think you mean hermaneutics, not exegesis, unless you're making a religious argument. which, come to think of it, you may be... The odd thing, however, is that this is exactly the argument I made to you about why we should not use the quote in the way you want to use it. "one chooses the [interpretation] most consistent with the known opinions of the source and which creates internal consistency." You have (as I have pointed out) taken this quote badly out of the context of the source: there is no other sourced indications that the NSF advocates the position you are trying to promote; later revisions of the same document do not use the language on which you are hanging all of your arguments... Your attempts to use the quote in this way are inconsistent with the NSF's other stated positions and with the very document the quote comes from. so why are you still arguing this? --Ludwigs2 21:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Meaning of consensus

Gwen, to make sure I'm not misunderstanding things, I'd like to ask a question. I have always understood that Wikipedia worked by consensus. If a consensus is wrong, which can happen on isolated talk pages, the proper thing to do is not to war against that consensus, but to seek to change policy, or start another RfC with even broader input. My question is this:

  • Are the results of an RfC considered to represent a consensus on the subject of the RfC?

Under Ending RfCs, it seems to be clearly implied that an RfC ends when a consensus is found. I believe that both RfCs ended with a clear consensus that should be followed and respected. Failure to do so is per definition disruption, a blockable offense. Brangifer (talk) 05:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a consensus that NSF is a reliable source. There may not be a consensus as to how you want to cite that source. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
That's news to me. In the RfC I clearly stated that it was my intention to add the statement as a ref in the NPOV article. That was what the RfC was about. I even made a very clear example so everyone could see exactly what they were saying yes or no to. That is one issue.
The next issue, which is closely related but not identical, is my using the NPOV policy and it's quoting of the ArbCom to justify adding certain articles to Category:Pseudoscience. This is the practical application of policy. If the policy is clear, I am justified in doing so. If the policy is unclear, then we have a problem, and it's not my fault. NPOV and the ArbCom state we are to deal with pseudoscientific subjects in a certain manner. This particular case is NOT dealing with "obvious pseudoscience".
When specifically dealing with belief in ghosts in the paranormal sense (there is an entertainment sense which wouldn't apply, but that's a very small part of the issue and article), the ArbCom and NPOV apply and state that if the scientific community (the NSF represents it) "generally considers" it to be pseudoscience, the article may "contain that information" and it may be so "categorized". Am I misinterpreting policy? Here it is:
  • 2. Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
I'm acting in good faith. I'm not trying to pull some sneaky trick on anyone, but I'm being harassed as if I was. That harassment needs to stop and the little group of editors need to start AGF toward me and to abide by the consensus in the two RfCs. Both RfCs established that the NSF was a RS and that the statement was properly framed, while the NPOV RfC was also about using that RS and approved statement as a ref. That ref hurts nothing.
The subjects mentioned by the NSF are so fringe that they, and the scientific community at large, hardly ever mention them. Their general silence says volumes about how trivially obvious they consider them to be paranormal/pseudoscience subjects. That's why the relatively simple but plain statement by the NSF is all the subjects deserve in the scientific world. The NSF isn't going to waste lots of ink on them by repeating the obvious every year. It's a sort of "duh" statement about what is patently obvious and should not be ignored.
To use an analogy, that would be like ignoring a casual mention that "the world is round", as if the usual silence of the scientific community on that subject raised doubts about whether the world really is round, and whether the scientific community might have changed its mind (by not constantly mentioning this fact in each new report), or might even have got it wrong when they did mention it in a yearly report (like the 2006 version). (Ludwigs2 has even gone that far!) The NSF isn't about to start engaging in pseudoscientific research of the subjects. Per Fringe the NSF's statement deserves to be used, and justifies placing anything related to pseudoscience in the category, whether it is itself a pseudoscience, or whether belief in it is a pseudoscienctific belief. Sure, believers are going to object, but they are fighting the practical application of very clear NPOV and ArbCom wordings. The NPOV policy is supposed to be used, not sit there like some nice statement on the shelf which never gets used. If I'm wrong, I expect that someone can explain it to me clearly. So far the objections have been more related to OR speculations that the NSF got it wrong, didn't mean what it said, or that the objectors didn't believe the NSF. None of those objections are based in policy. This is about Verifiability, not truth. It's a sourcing issue.
It's also very significant that none of those who !voted Support are objecting here. If they were, the current objectors might have a foot to stand on, but they're just carrying on their war against the consensus, and the application of policy. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Look at it this way, NFS is a reliable source for scientific topics and the RfC showed a straightforward consensus for that. Ghost is not a scientific topic, it's an anthropological and cultural/literary topic. Moreover, only some areas of that topic may be pseudoscience. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
That's not quite accurate regarding the consensus. The RfC proposal and the consensus that supported it approved of the NSF as a RS for making the statement it made, which included ghosts. It is considered a patently obvious fact. This isn't about our OR ideas of truth, but about verifiability. Did it or did it not state that belief in ghosts was a pseudoscientific belief? That's all that counts, and the consensus clearly said "YES". I fear that OR and disagreement with the NSF is taking over and blocking our use of policy. Since when does OR supercede V? -- Brangifer (talk) 05:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I want to point out that I said at the very beginning of this process that the RfC was malformed, and that you were going to use the confusion of that misinformation to try to wiki-lawyer your POV in in a strong form. And here you are, deep in the throws of trying to wiki-lawyer your POV in via the confusion of the RfC. Can't you argue anything on wikipedia honestly? Yeesh... --Ludwigs2 05:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I know you said that, and I can't help that you wished a different question. The RfC was about a different question than you wished and the majority were not confused. They understood the question and accepted it. You continue to muddy the waters by arguing about a different question and refusing to accept the results of the RfCs. I had no idea you would wikilawyer and create so much confusion. That is what confuses people who believe your twist on things. Please AGF. Your continued attacks are very unpleasant. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
piffle. the mirror-mirror game doesn't wash here. go back to your wheedling. --Ludwigs2 06:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

<-- Gwen, will you please do something about these incessant attacks, incivility, and failures to AGF by Ludwigs2? That it has been tolerated so long is insufferable, and allowing it to happen is the same as approving of these policy violations. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I hope you will help User:Tony Sidaway in his attempts to get these users to calm down. He has issued very stern warnings already. I'd rather have you on my side in a possible ArbCom case that may be the end of this. Standing on the minority side of two RfCs won't look good, and allowing that minority to disrupt this much won't either. The personal attacks and and failures to AGF must stop. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Malke 2010

Reply at my talk page.--Happysomeone (talk) 16:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

diff

[29]. Malke2010 04:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

[30].Malke2010 20:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010

More eyes,

I know that by posting here, and asking for you too look into the situation, I am more than likely, if anything, sealing my own fate. I do not know if you have been watching the situation unfold that started on one user talk, slipped to mine, went to ANI, then to ANI again. I know that saying "I have messed up" would be an understatement here. I failed what I originally agreed upon regarding my last block, and I guess I have been taking things so personally that I haven't really been able to think straight for the past couple days. If feels like a weight on my chest. This rage that I have at this user and those who support them without calling them out for their own mis-deeds. It won't go away. I've tried calming myself down, I've tried doing things completely unrelated to wikipedia, like games with family, or friends. None of this has helped. After this message is posted, I'll be going on a forced wikibreak with the wikibreak enforcer. I don't know if this rage will fester inside of me, or subside. Honestly, I hope it to be the latter, as it is not healthy for me. It certainly doesn't feel healthy.

Block me if you wish, I would understand such a thing, and why it was needed. I probably deserve it anyway.

When you feel like it, please check out this thread.

Even if you agree against me, I would still appreciate your opinion. I trust in whatever judgment you make.


The last thing I ask, the thing that has kept me going, is that there won't be more than one person watching Wallflowers98 abuse filters. Only User:Shirik will be watching, and I can't help but worry, that when they are not around, something will get through.

Good eve, I need to close all tabs related to this project for 10, maybe even 15, days. I'll start with 10. if the rage is still there, 15. If the rage is still there, 20.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

From what I can see, you got all stirred up about something again and waded into kerfluffle without asking for help from an admin. Since you've stopped yourself and moreover, taken a wikibreak, I see no reason whatsoever to block you.
Community consensus on civility as shifted on en.Wikipedia over the last few years. The notion of staying cool in the midst of disputes still has wide support, but when content-contributing editors do stray into snarkiness ("you're insane," "you're an idiot" and so on), they tend to be put up with more.
This may be somewhat owing to the utter lack of civility seen these days in "professional academics." They get away with all kinds of scathing personal attacks and put-downs in the classroom, on blogs and elsewehere. I've found that when someone starts going after the person (editor) instead of the idea (sources and content), they're showing more about the weakness of their own outlook than anything else.
Don't snark back, ever. Turning the other cheek doesn't mean giving up, it's a means of staying above the fray: If the next slap comes, it shows the woeful weakness of the slapper, not the slapped. When you see something untowards, don't let your zeal to fix things allow you to slide down the easy slope to bickering and backbiting, since that'll only bring encyclopedia-building (or whatever else one may be trying to do) to a halt. Most will only see your anger and that it's you who's letting loose with the second slap. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Jesse Ventura

Hello Gwen,

The user V7-sport http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:V7-sport Has reverted changes I made to the Jesse Ventura biography as can be seen here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesse_Ventura&action=history

I tried to improve that page by removing lines that do not respect wikipedia rules: WP:BLP WP:LIVE WP:BOLP

V7-sport edits clearly show he wants to tarnish the image of a well known living person by trying to link the former governor with criminal organizations and then trying to deny he served his country in an army unit which changed names. Could you please help correct this and warn the user?

Thank you.

--Grandscribe (talk) 06:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I do see a strong PoV going on with edits like these, but they're sourced and so far, I wouldn't see them so much as BLP violations, but as mild strays from NPoV. Ventura has been getting lots of coverage lately, so one shouldn't be too startled to see some "image bashing" by redlinked users on en.Wikipedia. One might try to find some sources which put those edits in context. Have you tried talking about this with V7? You also might want to post something about this at WP:BLPN. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010

Tea Party movement

Thank you for unlocking Tea Party movement early. CopaceticThought (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Roman Polanski move protection

Why is there an expiration for the move protection? Did you intend to just have the editing protection expire by June? (The Polanski article was move-protected since September 2009.) Andrewlp1991 (talk) 03:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I only added the semi-protection on editing, the move protection was already there. I see what you meant now, fixed (pls let me know if otherwise). Gwen Gale (talk) 17:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010

How do you ask for Admin help?

Back so soon, it seems. It appears two editors are continually reverting each other's edits at Tea Party movement. What do we do?--Happysomeone (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I've protected the page from editing for two weeks. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you.--Happysomeone (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Gwen.Malke2010 18:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if you would address this to the editor responsible. [31]. I take responsibility for my behavior, but understand I've been through a long, two week process of harassment and hounding by this editor, and I would appreciate it if this editor was advised that templating another editor it can be seen as provocative, as my replies to it on his talk page show. Thanks.Malke2010 19:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't appreciate that comment and find it upsetting. I am not hounding or harassing anyone.--Happysomeone (talk) 19:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps that was not your intention, but you must admit your 3RR, the OR/Noticeboard, your provocative talk page claims, the Wikialert and now the templating, all within two weeks, and constant, not intermittent, do suggest a pattern of behavior that can easily be perceived as harassment and hounding. In addition, you earlier canvassed Xenophrenic on Feb 3 on his talk page,[32] as you did other editors when you saw new editors had arrived at the TPM. And now Xenophrenic's reverting of all my good faith edits just within the last 24 hours,seems odd. And again, for the Wikialert, you canvassed editors to make comments, including Gamaliel,[33] who to my knowledge has never edited on the TPM. In any event, I have taken responsibility for my behavior and I am simply asking Gwen to address yours. It does take two. Warning/advising only one doesn't seem fair.Malke2010 20:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to mention also, that the apparent canvassing here [34] also suggested that the new editing at TPM represented vandalism. Suggesting that an editor's good faith edit is vandalism can be seen as a personal attack.Malke2010 20:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
This is part of your OR/Noticeboard claims. After the admin tells you he doesn't find I've done anything wrong, you then claim that I've withdrawn support for an edit when that was not true, nor was it my edit. This does seem like harassment to me.[35]Malke2010 20:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC
(ec)Once again, comments like this could be seen as a personal attack. [36]. And continuing to comment on this wikialert that you made, especially after I'd made it plain I didn't want to participate, did make me call into question your motivations. It seemed to me, why not just stop?Malke2010 20:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
And again, when it's obvious I'm not commenting in order to end it. [37].Malke2010 20:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Per your request Gwen, I have given you a sample of diffs. If you like, I can also get the diffs from all the Wikialert posts, the 3RR, etc. Thanks for your help in this matter.Malke2010 20:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I won't be getting involved in whatever disagreements exist between Malke 2010 and Happysomeone, but I won't sit by and listen to falsifications that involve me. I have not "reverted of all your good faith edits just within the last 24 hours". I edited only a small section about a living person, Susan Roesgen, and removed BLP violations, original research and unreliable sources. The reasons for my edits were explained in the edit summaries and on the talk page before you engaged in edit warring. ([38], [39], [40] I'm still awaiting your input there on these issues, by the way.) As for Happysomeone alerting me to issues with the TPM article, you'll note that I informed Happysomeone that I would watch, but wasn't going to be getting involved - and I still haven't. Your blatant BLP violations, however, needed addressing. Hope that clears things up - you may resume your squabbling. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

(OD) If I may make a suggestion here to all involved, either file a report somewhere or forget it. The page is protected and blocks are not punitive, therefore, previous behavior isn't really relevant unless it's sufficient to bring it up in an actual case somewhere. Simply coming onto an admin's page and arguing about whether someone else was edit warring/canvassing/in good faith/whatever isn't going to get anyone blocked for previous behavior. Hanging on to previous arguments and trying to make points about who's done something wrong in the past won't get current problems solved. I doubt Gwen really wants this fight to take place on her page, in any case. Dayewalker (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

This has been a really big news week for the Tea Party movement, and this article sits protected while the discussion page plays dead. Nothing useful seems to be coming from such a long edit block. -- AvatarMN (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I am not sure why they did that during the healthcare vote. Meishern (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I've swapped the full protection with only semi-protection for the 4 days left to run on this. I protected the page owing only to the edit warring, timing as to anything unfolding politically in the meantime had nothing to do with it. Keep in mind, en.WP isn't a news site, it's a reference encyclopedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted the last edit Malke2010 made to the article before you protected it on the 16th because it contained original research and BLP violations. Talk page discussions of Malke2010's edit lasted only one day, and s/he has not returned to those discussions since then. My understanding of Malke2010's final position is s/he would prefer to see the whole paragraph about Roesgen removed completely: "Yes, I think it should be eliminated all together. See below." and "I don't think Roesgen adds anything to this article." While any of that content still remains in the article, I'll be doing what I can to see that it remains compliant with Wikipedia's BLP policies. Best regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Given I could be missing something, if such quotes are cited to a source taken as reliable on en.WP, in an article on a political topic, a BLP vio is unlikely. There may be weight worries, but that's not the same thing. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
You are indeed missing something, but I wasn't all that clear. Describing Roesgen's interview tone as "belligerent" as if it were a statement of fact, instead of a statement of opinion (as in the second instance of the word), is contentious material in violation of BLP. Many expressed just the opposite opinion about her interview tone. Also, taking an irrelevant known fact (many months later, Roesgen's contract with CNN was not renewed) and inserting it into the paragraph about Roesgen's Tea Party interview, as if one was the cause of the other, is not only WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, but also contentious material in violation of BLP. In Malke2010's opinion, "She got bounced for being inappropriate and unprofessional.", and s/he tried many times to have the article express that unsourced personal opinion. The quotes you mentioned weren't directly BLP issues, and were of only secondary concern to me — but even those were contested due to undue weight and unreliable sourcing. I hope that clears things up. Perhaps the matter is now moot, as another editor has trimmed the whole paragraph down to a single sentence. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, as I hinted above, I'd say you can feel free to skive anything you take in good faith as WP:UNDUE or stealthy spanning. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
What happened to the diffs I put on your talk page that show personal attacks? And btw, my edit that Xenophrenic removed was not OR and it was well cited from the National Review with a quote by Mark Hemingway and others. I think it's time you addressed these personal attacks by Xenophrenic and Izauze. The one by Izauze was especially malicious [41] and should have received a warning. Since you've opened the page again, now would be a good time to do that.Malke2010 12:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Malke2010, you are referring to completely different content. Your original research and synthesis I commented on is described above (and has nothing to do with the National Review or Hemingway stuff); please reread. As for "personal attacks", I have reviewed the links you provided, just to be sure, and I do not feel compelled to retract any of my statements — I stand by my comments. If you are still seeking redress, bring your issues to WP:WQA or WP:ANI, but be advised that filing reports there will also subject your own behavior to similar scrutiny. Pestering individual administrators to act on your behalf is not the proper course of action. Of course, if you'd like to try to establish a productive, collaborative editor relationship, I am always open to that as well. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
[42].Malke2010 12:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Please show me the diffs of the earlier posts you're talking about? Gwen Gale (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I do see you've done some refactoring of this thread yourself. That's unhelpful. Please don't do it again. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I haven't refactored anything. Also, the diffs are there for you to see in the posts above.Malke2010 16:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Malke, if the diffs are there, why are you asking me what happened to them? Either way, I didn't remove anything from this thread. I'm not going to fall into loops with you about what refactoring means: Please don't refactor user talk pages other than your own, again. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I haven't refactored your talk page. I edited my own post for clarity. That's a big difference. And the personal attacks by Izauze and Xenophrenic are gone from your talk page. I found them in the history of your talk page and I added them to my posts above. I don't know how else to point this out to you. The one by Izauze was especially malicious [43] and should have received a warning. This one is by Xenophrenic.[44].Malke2010 16:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Also, I just checked the policy, and it is okay for me to edit my own comments especially since you had not replied to them. And from what I can see, you still haven't replied.Malke2010 16:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Now that you seem to be acknowledging that you did refactor this talk page, I must say, this edit of yours was not supported by the policy on refactoring.

Admins are never required to use their tools or leave warnings. You're welcome to seek further input elsewhere. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

What about the diffs of the personal attacks?Malke2010 01:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I am, of course, referring to these diffs:[45].[46]Malke2010 13:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Diffs: [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54].--Happysomeone (talk) 17:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Hoping to help both of you get through this, please think about what I've tried to tell each of you before: If editors aren't getting along as to content, about the worst thing they can do is start saying stuff about each other (which is the pith of WP:NPA). By far the most helpful thing to do is, no more or less than citing reliable sources and talking neutrally about how to echo them in the text. Some editors can do this straight off, easy as pye. Others have to learn how to do this (or at least learn how not to get swayed from doing it). Don't comment on other editors, comment only on content. Editing here often calls for what some call a "thick skin."

Likewise, don't try to sway content by trying to get another editor sanctioned. Before taking something behavioural to an admin or a noticeboard like ANI, try asking yourself, "If I agreed with this editor's contributions as to PoV or content, would I be complaining about their behaviour?"

As to personal attacks, there is a swath of heavy content editors here who think a bit of snark now and then is ok, so most admins, whatever they may think themselves about it, nowadays shy away from civility and PA warnings and blocks unless something far beyond the pale gets posted. Think wanton ethnic/religious/gender/lifestyle slurs, y'all know what I mean. Meanwhile, calling another editor, say, an idiot may not be cool but it's put up with here, so long as it happens as a throwaway post or edit summary and doesn't become a nettlesome habit which is taken as wasting the time of volunteers. Some of this is owing to the utter lack of civility that some academics show towards some of their students. This kind of classroom heedlessness has gotten much worse in the last few years, for sundry reasons. I glark that'll wind down again one day but for now, I think going on about it here is a bunny trail.

So like it or not, blow off the snark, a true civility kerfuffle almost always takes at least two. Besides, turning the other cheek whilst sticking to sources yourself will mostly show how snarky the other editor has been towards you.

If you have a meaningful behavioural complaint to make, take it to either ANI or an admin, but keep in mind your own behaviour may be hung out with all the other dirty laundry. If you have a meaningful, daunting content worry which is going nowhere on an article talk page, try a content board by asking for help in a neutral way.

The pith of most policies here come down to this: Cite sources, be neutral as you can, use your account on this privately owned website to write this openly-licensed encyclopedia and meanwhile, do what you must to get along with other editors. It's a website, after all. Those who can't or won't edit within these stark bounds, but keep trying to edit anyway, wontedly wind up being blocked from editing, whether or not their takes on sources and content might be taken as sound.

en.Wikipedia is a tertiary source, which means its content is drawn mostly from what we call reliably published secondary sources, along with some scattered primary sources. In say, fifty years, many of the sources from which en.WP content has been drawn will likely be taken as either woefully lacking or flat-out wrong, never mind any shifts in cultural spins and so on. Hence, any article will have its flaws, some glaring, some less so, maybe, there is no way to skirt this, we do what we can. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Gwen. Armour and advice taken on board. Thanks also for the vandal-semi-protect, a problem that I see continuing for sometime to come.--Happysomeone (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Uncivil comment made by user:Parrot of Doom

I made a good faith edit earlier to today's featured article claiming that usage of the Long s in a quote was confusing and unnecessary: [55]

user:Parrot of Doom reverted the change and rudely pointed out, "It's only confusing to those without the ability to think.": [56]

I took offense to this and warned him if he didn't apologize I would report his behavior to an administrator: [57]

He then refused to apologize: [58]

This is an obvious case of uncivil behavior. Please block him for at least 24 hours. This user needs to learn some manners. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks as though you changed a sourced quote (with a long s/f), which you shouldn't have done. The edit summary was snarky (I wouldn't leave an edit summary like that) and I understand what you mean, but sometimes, it takes a thick skin to edit here (even in good faith). Meanwhile PoD showed he has bad manners. If something like this happens again, please feel free to let me know. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again but POD just took another swipe at me. Please have a look at his final post for this section where he calls me "beneath contempt". Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 18:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010

I think this one's for you...

See this diff. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

IP ( 80.218.11.191) doing weird stuff

Like creating Talk pages for articles that don't exist. 80.218.11.191 (talk · contribs) has created and moved five or six articles to talk pages. Not the same class as DC's anon but odd nonetheless. I speedied one but then got nervous when it looked like they did that to at least 4 I can think of. What do you suggest? Padillah (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Editors have rolled everything back, I blocked the IP for a short while. I think you can be bold when you see stuff like that. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Man, you guys are fast! I guess my main question would be about the Talk pages for non-existent articles - what is the CSD for that? Where can I find a good list of CSD codes and their explanations? Padillah (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Template_messages/Deletion#Speedy_deletion. I'll do 'em now. Looks like someone already got them. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

I'm going to ask you respectfully to stop trying to push this off AN/I. This came from a community ban and discussions centered around things which came from community bans need to happen there. This issue was raised about another banned user and there were concerns about him ever getting unblocked (which happened and many people missed the discussion and were quite perturbed about it.) If the discussion peters out and it gets moved off the page, so be it. But trying to forcefully push it off to someones talk page where the community won't see it doesn't help the situation.--Crossmr (talk) 01:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The unblocking admin User:xeno straightforwardly asked you to make further comments and suggestions on his talk page, which is why I archived the thread. I archived the earlier thread because someone else asked me to do so. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I just re-archived. Crossmr, in the last 12 hrs at least, you're the only person still pushing the point. The thread does not exist for you to continue making the same point over and over again. It's past the point that it's productive.
You can, within your rights, file a RFC on Xeno's conduct, file a new community ban proposal, or point out any violations that Diego Greg happens to make now. If others feel that the topic is needing more discussion, they can unarchive it. But it seems to be just you now, and you're not saying anything new now. I advise you to let it die. We're not prematurely archiving it away from people's view; it's just that the discussion is dead and you're flogging the proverbial dead horse. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Not everyone lives in the same time zone. It is why we don't archive for at least 24 hours. What I'm doing is questioning an admin who has ignored community consensus and refuses to provide a satisfactory answer as to why. Other admins have also questioned it and commented on it. You are essentially prematurely archiving it because many people won't comment on it now that it has been archived. I'm not continually bumping the thread and only responding to what is written. If no one actually has anything further to contribute I won't be just adding extra time stamps to keep it up. You have made the thread much less inviting though to anyone who does want to answer, so by all means, carry on sweeping it away.--Crossmr (talk) 05:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
ANI threads can be archived less than 24 hours after a last post. The archived threads are still on ANI for all to see. As has already been said, you can begin a new thread at ANI straightforwardly asking that MW/DG be reblocked or begin an RfC about the unblocking admin, or both. Meanwhile please keep in mind that the editor was unblocked with the tightest editing restrictions one can think of, so tight that they're more or less still blocked, other than from editing anything but their own userspace. The only, single reason even this was done, supported by a slim majority at ANI, was because an experiened editor wanted to try mentoring. Yes, MW/DG botched straight off and left a thank you note at ANI but so far no admin has reblocked for that, since it was rash and heedless but not at all harmful (it's likely that the breadth of the restrictions hadn't sunk in for him yet). There are more than a few admins, myself among them, who will quickly reblock if MW/DG strays in any way again. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Except I've already demonstrated several points of concern with the editor who offered to mentor. He twice pushed the logic that if we don't unblock now we'll just have to discuss it later, and was already indicating that he was planning to get MW into article space rather rapidly. Those aren't the actions of an experienced user and not the actions of someone I want mentoring someone the community agreed to block for 10 years. Threads can be archived, but it has been made less inviting to new input. Some people might want to comment, but see it is archived and not do so. You can try and spin it anyway you want, but that is the reality. The "botch" or whatever cutsie name we want to try and put on it to avoid calling it a violation, demonstrates that lack of maturity which everyone was concerned with. Which is why he should never have been unblocked in the first place. Before he was even unblocked he was pushing the boundaries, and then he he stepped over them and admins would rather close the discussion down, or at least get it out of the public eye where it can go die on someone's talk page.--Crossmr (talk) 13:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I think most of what you have to say there is mistaken. All you've demonstrated is that you want MW/DG reblocked and won't stop going on about it. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

BullRangifer's RfCs, again

I have started a discussion on BullRangifer's use of the Science and Engineering Indicators 2002-2006 at WP:RS/N#Science and Engineering Indicators 2006. Unfortunately it's all a big muddle, but that's hard to avoid when proving that something is a misquotation even though it is literally present in a source. Part of the problem at the moment is that BullRangifer is trying to shut down discussion by insisting that everything has been settled already by the RfCs which, according to him, you closed with "a very clear conclusion, one which was an echo of the overwhelming consensus". [59] He has already told SlimVirgin: "You disagree with Gwen Gale, Coren, and several other admins, as well as the majority in both RfCs. That's just plain disruptive and tendentious editing against the consensus. You are aiding and abetting disruption and should think twice. You have been advised of this before and I'll also note this absurd, policy-ignoring comment of yours as another piece of evidence for future use. Note that your adminship is on the line." Of course SlimVirgin did not say that the NSF is not a reliable source. Apparently her crime was this: "BR, this is a poor source for the claim, period. V not T doesn't mean that every single source must be used in every WP article to which it could possibly apply, no matter how inappropriately."

I would appreciate it if you could help by either clarifying that yes, this is how you meant the RfC closures (i.e. there was a consensus that the source is good for what BullRangifer wants to use it for) or no, it's not OK for BullRangifer appeals to your authority as closer of the RfCs in this particular way. Hans Adler 09:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not what I meant, I've lengthened my close of the RfC at Talk:Ghost/pseudoscience#RfC:_Context_of_NSF_statement_about_belief_in_ghosts. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
This certainly changes the situation and to some degree I'm backing off from this situation until I get further clarification. I have acted in good faith all along, but have been treated like dirt, with accusations of lying, gaming the system, being "stupid", and far worse. Because the two main objectors' arguments had been repeatedly debunked in the RFCs, I chose to believe the conclusions of the majority in those RfCs. Note that I haven't edit warred during this process. I have discussed and met the personal belief objections using policy-based arguments.
I now see we need to eliminate the "verifiability, not truth" wording from our V policy (which Hans Adler recently attacked at WT:V, but has modified his position), since his wishes would make Wikipedia into an Orwellian Ministry of Truth, where statements that aren't undeniable falsehoods (and even considered true by the majority), but are hotly debated, can still be excluded (leaving only one side as content) purely because one faction doesn't consider them "true".
Gwen, I would like you to discuss this with me on my talk page. I respect your insights and would like to really understand this. While I understand and agree with some of your comments you've added to the closure, I fear you have been duped by Hans Adler's arguments. Your comments seem to reveal some confusion about the underlying issues. Help me understand what you mean. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
There is no way the wording The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth is going to be taken out of WP:V, it's a core principle on en.Wikipedia and of reference works overall. It has nothing to do with Orwell's Ministry of Truth. Anyone who claims knowledge or understanding of truth is at best mistaken, even if there is indeed only one truth to be had. Lacking truth, we go with verifiability (which is to say falsifiability), which can have its flaws, but it can also be very helpful.
If you have questions, you're welcome to ask them here. You should, however, be very careful as to what you say to me about other editors: If you want to talk about sources and sourcing, stick to that. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I was being very sarcastic in my comments and see that we completely agree on the value of "verifiability, not truth". I'll try to be careful how I mention other editors, but you should know that Hans actually began a thread at WT:V to change that wording, but was persuaded not to. Blueboar and I argued for its preservation, and I even think it needs strengthening, not weakening. I have all along considered the objections to the NSF statement to be based on a violation of that principle. Personal objections to a verifiable source must not be based on one's opinion of the truthfulness of the statement, but the objections to using the NSF statement have been based on such personal speculation and objections. I have been defending the source, not because I necessarily believe every word of it (it could have been worded better, but space constraints no doubt demanded brevity), but because it's a very notable statement, taken in context from a notable source. That has been denied in many ways, all from claiming the NSF blundered, to that they are just plain wrong (so what!), to that they didn't even make the statement (!) (Hans has done this repeatedly), etc. All those arguments have been used while I have stuck to defending our verifiability policy.
I have never included the statement in any of the articles in a manner to state as a matter of unattributed fact that, for example, "belief in ghosts" IS "a pseudoscientific belief". I have always attributed the statement to the NSF, thus noting they made the statement, and that it was thus their POV. Other opinions to the contrary would also be welcome if properly sourced and attributed. That's standard NPOV editing. Even such NPOV additions have been deleted and warred against, and I believe that violates policy. There are a number of exclusion criteria for rejecting a source, but personal opinions about the truthfulness of a statement are excluded (by the "verifiability, not truth" clause) from being used as a reason for rejection, especially when those beliefs aren't backed up by a single source that discusses and differs with the NSF statement. If it had been a BLP matter, those criteria could have been used, but no other policy-based arguments were really valid under the circumstances. It always came back to disagreement with the NSF opinion. Even if they were wrong, the source is impeccable and noteworthy. If they really were so wrong, I suspect other RS would have commented on it, and those comments would be welcome.
I would love to discuss your additions to the closure. I wish I had had them earlier. I have acted in good faith all along in my edits and this controversy. I believed that the majority consensus in both RfCs supported that the NSF really did make the statement and that the NSF was a reliable source for making it. I will not discuss the statement if Hans Adler and Ludwigs2 are allowed to interfere with the discussion with you. I'm not interested in some passionate or heated debate. They will only repeat their arguments, and as you seem to note below, their arguments and style aren't always conducive to bringing constructive results. To me they seem to often be more inflammatory than enlightening. The heat to light ratio isn't positive. I'd like to quietly explore this with you so that I can learn something. I'd like to avoid such situations in the future. I've been here nearly five years and have close to 28,000 edits under my belt, so I'm not a newbie, BUT I can still learn a lot! I'd like to "pick your brain", since I hold your opinions in high esteem. Can we have a conversation on a subpage? I want your honest opinion without interference from others. Is that fair enough? -- Brangifer (talk) 04:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I've set up a sub-page at User talk:Gwen Gale/Brangifer and will answer there. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking both of you might be helped through careful readings of the following:

From what I've seen, if this goes to arbcom (which one would hope it does not), both of you could be sanctioned. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think I have much to fear, but you might get a reproof for your extremely incompetent handling of two RfCs which you closed without understanding them. Later you tried to fix the problem by adding lots of stuff that is prima facie reasonable but definitely didn't represent RfC consensus in this form, and some of which was also problematic. Hans Adler 20:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Two RfCs? Gwen Gale (talk) 20:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I think Brangifer actually started three, but they were all badly formed, and the one you closed was doing double duty for two different questions (one on Ghost and one on the NPOV page, and neither of them the 'right' question with respect to what he wanted to do with the RfCs). The whole thing was a mess. However, I (for one) appreciate that you took the time to clarify, so that maybe now we can get some purchase on this silliness. --Ludwigs2 20:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
(ec) I was talking primarily about the RfC at Talk:Ghost, but the one archived at WT:Neutral point of view/Archive 38#RfC: Using the National Science Foundation as a reference is nothing to be proud of, either. If you close an RfC of the type "Is the sun hot enough so that we can go swimming", which is set in a context of someone demanding that we all go swimming at 10 and that Jimbo pay for everything, as "The sun is hot", then it is predictable that both sides will claim victory. RfC closures are supposed to resolve conflicts, not fan them. I tried to talk you out of this, but apparently I didn't find the right words. Hans Adler 21:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
NFS is taken as a reliable source on en.Wikipedia, even when NFS is wrong. I don't think you're going to get what you want and I don't think Brangifer is going to get what he wants but don't listen to me, I'm only a clueless admin. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Gwen, pardon me for pointing it out, but 'source' refers to publications, statements, or other productions, not to people or groups. The material published by the NSF can be considered reliable for the topics it is published on, but the NSF is not 'innately' reliable (assuming that phrase even makes sense). This is right near the core of the problem: The NSF published a document, one part of which concerned public attitudes towards science and the critical thinking skill of lay people, and one footnote of that section mentions belief in ghosts. This footnote may be a reliable source for what the document was discussing (critical thinking skills - I'd even have a bit of trouble with that, mind you, since it's a footnote), but it is clearly not reliable as an analytic statement about pseudoscience, since the document itself is not intended to analytically discuss pseudoscience. brangifer has been exploiting this confusion all along (treating the NSF as though any old thing it happens to mention comes straight from God's mouth). don't perpetuate it. --Ludwigs2 21:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I notice that you are discussing what really matters rather than superficial questions of following policies etc. That's fine when dealing with me, but causes trouble when dealing with BullRangifer.
The dispute was never about whether the NFS is a reliable source or whether we follow the NFS when it is wrong. By asking those questions, BullRangifer was begging the question, which is why hardly anybody opposed, but Dbachmann, for example, protested against the absurd RfC.
He is also misrepresenting my opinions about many things. E.g. I never tried to remove "verifiability, not truth" from WP:V. I merely tried to address a problem that was introduced IMO when it was separated from the following sentence, which had been suggesting for a long time that verifiability is only a necessary condition for inclusion, not a sufficient one. Quite a few people seem to misunderstand this, a situation that has led to problems at Sam Blacketer controversy. I am worried that these problems will get even worse now that the balance was shifted a bit more towards the fundamentalists who would happily make Wikipedia libel living people if the only proof that the reliable sources are wrong is readily available in our edit histories, but not published in a reliable source.
BullRangifer's character assassination campaigns are a real problem that will need addressing. Hans Adler 22:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
PS: Ludwigs2 is of course right that the NSF cannot be a reliable source but is merely an author of typically reliable sources. Like all other reliable sources, those published by the NSF have inherent restrictions on their reliability. Hans Adler 22:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Hans please stop talking about other editors, stick to sources and how to echo them in the text.
Ludwigs2 I agree with you and tried to deal with that last month but the hitch is, any sloppiness published by NFS is taken as "reliable" on this website, at this time. Put simply, this is a cultural problem (state-paid-and-tainted bureaucrats and academics having replaced God in the "mainstream" and so on). The only way to deal with a cite to a dodgy NFS assertion is to reliably cite another assertion from elsehwere, or skive the NFS cite altogether by consensus. Brangifer tried to extrapolate the notion of reliablity of a citation into cite spanning/synthesis, carrying forward a sloppy assertion into the mistaken, "global" assertion that belief in ghosts is "pseudoscience." A belief in ghosts is not pseudoscience, it is a weakly understood anthropological aspect of human culture. The sources do show this, but echoing the sources in the text means splitting the notion of belief from that of falsifiable existence. These are not the same things (Slim has wisely brought this up, too and helpfully shown a way to write helpfully sourced text). Gwen Gale (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I would have loved to stick to that, but there is a small number of very active editors who have very effective techniques for stifling all rational discussion. Ottava Rima was another example, and had to be banned by Arbcom because of that. But I see I am wasting my time here if you are simply accepting misquotations that can only be justified by Wikipedia's sociological structure as a given rather than something that needs correction. Unwatching this page. Hans Adler 22:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Hans, you do have a self-thwarting way with other editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
(e/c) I'm having a hard time believing that we are impotent when it comes to restricting statements to the context of the documents they come from. You almost make it sound like I could find a notice on the NSF website that says "Due to the passover holiday we will not be serving BLTs at our upcoming conference, but will substitute roast beef", and parlay that into a claim that the NSF supports Judaism. Don't get me wrong, I am decently satisfied with your clarification (which I think was on the mark), I'm just perplexed by how much mileage people can get with this kind of (what strikes me as) overt silliness. And the solution you suggest is almost impossible - where would I find a reliable source that shows this footnote was not supposed to be taken that way when no reliable source would ever consider that anyone would possibly interpret this footnote that way? I hate to say it, but brangifer is advocating what by all measures is a fringe theory, he's just hidden the fringe idea behind the skirts of the NSF. The skeptic as pseudoscientist - yeeeEEEeee...
Well, at any rate, I suppose I should carry this thought over to wp:NOR and see if I can figure out some kind of revision that will address this problem. Thanks again for clarifying the RfC. --Ludwigs2 22:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
To see this kind of thing silliness carried to the most woeful, mistaken and deeply unhelpful ends, see core articles such as Global warming and Abraham Lincoln. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
lol - I've been to Global Warming; that page is just way too borked even for me, and I have a very high tolerance for crapulence. And I just don't have the heart to see what they're doing to good old honest Abe.
incidentally, I think you struck out the wrong word above (though it makes more sense like it is...) --Ludwigs2 23:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Good old honest Abe? Hah! Don't get me started :) Gwen Gale (talk) 23:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
responded below. --Ludwigs2 23:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

POE?

Perl Object Environment? I'm confused... Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Purity of Essence. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh man I totally missed it. Well done! Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
[60] enough said...

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010

RCS

How on earth is he supposed to appeal a block if you've locked his talk page? We all say stupid things in the heat of the moment and your response was totally disproportionate. He has been a valuable contributor, at least unblock his talk page to give him a chance. You've condemned and gagged him at the same time for a single edit (though I do not defend the edit itself). Thanks.- J.Logan`t: 13:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

His email is still enabled. I was very straightforward about what he can do to be unblocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010

Austrian School#Criticism

While you were quoting MoS and NPOV did you stop to read the section and check the sources before renaming it to 'Criticism'? It seems like the only real criticism is coming from a Wikipedia editor. Weakopedia (talk) 03:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Also of note in relation to contested "accurate predictions" between Austrians and the mainstream are the false predictions from Austrian School adherents...
I agree the section is very muddled. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
It's when I read the description used for one of the sources used in the reflist and it says...
A prediction of a correction in the housing market, possibly after the "fall" of 2005, is implied by The Economist magazine's cover story for the article "After the fall", which illustrates a brick falling, with the label "House Prices"
... that I start to wonder O_o Weakopedia (talk) 07:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
So far as I can tell, I agree with you. I'd think a rewrite, at least, is needed. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Hummus

Hello Gwen, I noticed you altered the History of the ingredients (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hummus) back to Palestine. It is a problem, since the term "Palestine" did not exist yet at the time, and in fact it would be less of a mistake to write Canaan or even Israel, since both predated the "Palestine". The only way to avoid anachronisms and political sway, would be to state that "They were eaten by people in what are today Israel and the Palestinian territories..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scias76 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

You're mistaken, I've answered you on the article talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not. As you can read in the article for Palestine, the term "Palestine" does derive from the Philistines, but it was given to the land by the Romans only in 135 AD, after the Jewish revolt. In the 20th century it was brought back to life by the British, and thus became recognized world wide as "Palestine". In any case, the Philistines themselves were not present yet in the land in the year 4,000 BC - they arrived around the time of the Israelites/Jews, and they settled mostly in a relatively small strip along the coast, an area which is partly the Gaza strip. You can read more here, if you want.

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_early_palestine_name_origin.php

I think that the definition I gave is very factual and clean of any political affiliation. SCias76 (talk) 15:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no need for you to be posting both here and on the article talk page, I've answered there. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
my apologies. I've left a detailed response there, thank you. (Scias76 (talk) 20:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC))

Radiopathy caught red-handed socking to evade his 1rr restriction and twinkle blacklist

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Radiopathy. Thank you.— Dædαlus Contribs 21:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I got an email from him and answered, saying he might wait four months and then email arbcom that he means to make a fresh start. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010

Malcolm Schosha

Hi Gwen Gale. I've met Malcolm Schosha at Commons, where the editor has been doing positive contributions for some time now. I know Malcolm Schosha has some problems with civility. Especially hard on me was his civility issues with the editor I respecter the most. I am talking about Lar. But it was almost a year since Malcolm Schosha was blocked. I am a strong believer in a second chance. May I please ask you to consider that second chance for Malcolm Schosha, or at least allow him to edit his own talk page, and see what he has to say. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I'd like to help out and thanks for letting me know, but I must recuse. This said, the WP:Standard offer would be open to Malcom, but with his block log, I would think posting this at WP:AN would be the only way to start, even towards unlocking his talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Stabbed Kercher getting axed

Hello, Wikid77 here. Now that User:Zlykinskyja has been hounded away from editing "Murder of Meredith Kercher", the wholesale axing of fully-sourced text has begun. See: removal of forensics. The apparent WP:Wikihounding of Zlykinskyja might have been as a woman, with legal expertise, trying to keep the article neutral in legal terms. I warned beware of "colleagues gasping if they knew about editing on that lowly pedia". Perhaps if American student Amanda had been "Adam Knox" then fewer people would want to remove sourced text disputing the evidence and 20? misquoted infamous statements. (I didn't know any evidence in December 2009, now I know much, and some seems falsified in Italy). Zlykinskyja tried to add how "Donald Trump" rejected the verdict (+source), but that was quickly deleted. Some US officials are conducting a mock-trial by judge to compare verdicts, but I doubt that could be explained in the article. Then some prankster this week posted at top, "Breaking news: Knox dead in prison from suicide, details not confirmed" (from an IP edit in the London area), and some say Knox cried in jail when she heard WP posted that. I wish we could split the article into several low-target subarticles (I noted Manson Family has 17 spinoff articles). The talk-page has resisted any attempt to reduce the rabid focus on "Amanda Knox" and naturally, a prior subarticle was AfD deleted.
However, I suggest the following:

  • "Amanda Knox" (redirect) - becomes broad neutral article with civil suits, appellate trial, and college coursework in prison.
  • "Raffaele Sollecito" (redirect) - becomes broad neutral article, noting he completed his computer degree while in custody, and they met, at a classical music concert, because he looked like Harry Potter.
  • "Prosecution of Amanda Knox" (new) - would contain all the pro/anti-Knox text, moved from edit-wars in the Kercher article.
  • "Investigations of Kercher murder" (new) - would be a forensic article, with fingerprints, Low copy number DNA, luminol, unidentified DNA/prints, listing exact quotes+sources, etc.
  • "Murder of Meredith Kercher" (reduced) - would be trimmed into an overview, linking sections to subarticles.

I have seen how other articles, split into subarticles, greatly reduce the vandalism in the spinoff details, so that forensic details would likely match the sources, when viewed there. This message is just a general notice, sent to a few admins, and I don't expect an immediate response. Also, feel free to delete this, knowing it was posted in a 1 May talk-page revision: as a May Day warning about axing of Kercher text. Thanks. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

This will likely not happen, see Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#People_notable_only_for_one_event. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010

Edit Warring by Xenophrenic

Xenophrenic is edit warring on my talk page. I deleted a personal attack he made and he kept reverting on my talk page. Now he's decided he'll delete all his comments. Perhaps you could reason with him?Malke2010 17:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me like you altered Xeno's comment, which isn't allowed. The easiest way for you to handle this is to blank or archive the thread (you can do that as you please on your own talk page) and forget it. If I've missed something, tell me. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I removed a personal attack.Malke2010 17:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
It's your talk page, you can remove a whole comment as you please, but don't edit the comment, put simply. It stirs up too many worries. If Xeno keeps posting, you can blank Xeno's posts as you please. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, thanks, will do. He's a great time waster.Malke2010 19:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
As to this edit, if you don't want something like this on your talk page, ok (though leaving it would cause much less harm than you think), but you should archive or blank the whole thread. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Okay, but I thought the blanking thing would look worse. I'll archive it.Malke2010 21:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Blank, archive, or keep whole threads and you'll be ok. Keeping whole threads you think are untowards or not fair will not make you "look bad" to other editors (quite otherwise, truth be told), however nettlesome and grating they may seem to you. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm trying to archive the thing, but it ends up archiving it plus everything below it. I've no idea how to do it. Do you know how?Malke2010 00:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

On the admin and other project boards "hatting" or hiding a thread is sometimes mistakenly or at least misleadingly called archiving since when the posts stop, a thread on one of those pages does get archived rather quickly by a bot: I see you were trying to "hat" the thread rather than archive it (archiving would be cut/pasting the thread onto your archive page), but I guess you didn't put in the closing command:

{{hat|1=name of this hatted thread}}

This is the hidden text.

{{hab}}

I've done it for you. Hatting a thread is indeed another way to close down and get rid of a thread without blanking it. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I wanted to archive it but I didn't know how. I do know the difference. My bot has stopped working. Don't know why. I prefer it to archive and clear the page every two days and it was doing that for a bit after many help desk tries. Now it's stopped. I thought the hat would be a good alternative to keep the peace faster. Would be better to archive it if you know how.Malke2010 11:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
No matter what day count you put in the bucket, the bot won't archive at all unless/until there are something like 5-6 threads on the page. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Anyway, I archived it for ya. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you so much. I didn't know that about the bot. I thought it might be the pictures on the page. Glad it will all work out. :)Malke2010 13:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
:) Gwen Gale (talk) 13:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment

You might remember me from my previous existence as Thunderbird2. I recently decided to start editing again, and as I no longer have the password for that account, made a new one, making clear my identity on my user page. I received two accusations of sock-puppetry almost immediately [61] [62]. They have not been repeated explicitly, but it seems to me that they are implied by edits like this one and they have not been withdrawn either. The accusations took place in a discussion on (yes you guessed it) the IEC prefix (one that I did not start but joined in full swing).

There is now a new discussion going on, also at MOSNUM, that I did start myself and which I am trying to divert away from IEC. I have so far been unsuccessful in doing so because other editors keep dragging it back. I would be grateful if you could take a look at the discussion there and comment on the tactics and language of the editors involved? Thank you. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

You should at least be thinking about making the disclosure about your earlier account more straightforward on your new talk page, the way you put it now is not much of a helpful disclosure, but more like a riddle.
The xbi prefixes put forth by the IEC 10 years ago are still utterly unknown to most readers of en:WP. It is highly unlikely that en.Wikipedia will begin using them any time soon since, as a tertiary reference, en.WP is meant to echo the world it covers, not help sway folks into learning these newer prefixes for base 10 powers of 1024. The overwhelming consensus is still to use the old prefixes for powers of 1000. It looks to me as though in 5-10 years the IEC prefixes may be known widely enough that en.WP could begin using them, one will see in time. If you have come back to badger on this topic again, you will not get the outcome you want. You should drop it. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand. I was asking you to comment on my attempts to take the discussion away from IEC. Are you saying that my edits are not welcome, even when I am not advocating use of IEC? (point taken about riddle though - will fix) Dondervogel 2 (talk) 18:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
We both know what you were doing, as did the editors posting in that thread. Drop it and please don't try to wikilawyer me about this, you'll likely be unhappy with the outcome of that, too. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

AFD

How does one suggest an AFD? I'm thinking maybe this one would be a good candidate.[63]. Malke2010 17:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

This one, too. [64].Malke2010 17:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:AFD#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Great, thanks. :) Malke2010 17:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010


Sanger

I would hope you WOULDN'T. NLT is policy. End of story. Any user that files a legal threat is subject to this policy. I'm only following policy. Closing an AFD in less than 5 minutes is not. KoshVorlonNaluboutes,Aeria Gloris 12:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You're not following policy. The article about Sanger has nothing to do with him as an editor on en.WP. I'm willing to take this as a rash misunderstanding by you, but if you carry on, I'll block you for disruption. If you truly think there's a need, the next step would be WP:DRV, but the outcome will be the same. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
NLT is policy. He's threatening legal action on Wikipedia. Any threat of NLT should be dealt with quickly. In any prior case of NLT the account has been blocked until the threat has been withdrawn, further articles about the subject have either been removed or protected to prevent collateral damage. This is all per policy. Shutting down an AFD in less than 5 minutes is NOT following policy. Threatening a user with blocking FOR following is also not policy.

Allow the AFD to run (5 minutes doesn't cut it). (Read WP:AFD if you don't belive me). I will be restoring the AFD shortly. I would hope you would allow it to run to establish consensus. Two people aren't consensus. Further, per policy, I will be blanking his page and requesting it be blocked. KoshVorlonNaluboutes,Aeria Gloris 12:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Last warning: If you do any of those things I will block you for disruption. As to legal threats, if he made one as an editor, he could be blocked for it, but I'm not aware of any LTs by Sanger as an editor. Either way, legal threats of any kind, anywhere, have no bearing on article deletion at all. WP:NLT has nothing to do with articles, only editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Gwen, Read NLT again:

ather than immediately threatening to employ litigation, you should always first attempt to resolve disputes using Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedures.

If you must take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so. However, it is required that you do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels. You should instead contact the person or people involved directly, by email or through any other contact methods the user provides. If your issue involves Wikipedia itself, you should contact Wikipedia's parent organization, the Wikimedia Foundation. Do not issue legal threats on Wikipedia pages.

If you make legal threats or take legal action over a Wikipedia dispute, you may be blocked from editing so that the matter is not exacerbated through other channels. Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing while legal threats are outstanding.

Legal threats should be reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or an administrator.

Nothing in this text says it can only be made as an editor.
He has made a legal threat to Wikipedia - this is a fact
NLT sets for a policy on dealing with such - this is also a fact
Blocking the user and minimizing collater damage is part of that policy - also a fact
I would hope you wouldn't block me for following policy. Again, I will restart the AFD shortly (haven't done so yet). Follow policy and allow it to run, rather than close it in less than 5 mins. KoshVorlonNaluboutes,Aeria Gloris 13:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as a talkpage stalker, Larry Sanger, the editor is completely different than Larry Sanger, the article. Sanger the user can be blocked for NLT, but the article is effectively unrelated. The AFD was poorly planned, and against policy in the first place. Additional attempts to modify it would be a) prevented and b) disruption. Take it to WP:DRV if you must, because the close was within policy. Now, you want to go to Sanger, the editor's page and have him blocked indef for WP:NLT then go ahead. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

...and on a much more pleasant note...

...after your tremendous help on Buffalo 461 and it's eventual DYK so long ago, I stumbled across Gros Islet this morning, and thought to myself "why not try to expand this one to DYK status as well". If you have the time and/or ideas, your help would be appreciated! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh! Yes, come to think of it, I do remember Buffalo 461! Let me put some thought into Gros Islet :) Gwen Gale (talk) 13:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

edit

Gwen, I edited the "personal attack". regarding "consensus", does the term consist of you and Tiamut? I believe I DO have consensus, and I would like to understand how and why I don't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scias76 (talk • contribs) 12:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

See your talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for rollback rights

Gwen, would you consider giving rollback rights to User:Janggeom ? I have found him to be a calm, methodical editor in the Martial Arts articles and it appears he has the need of rollback rights [65]. Thanks! jmcw (talk) 10:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Done :) Gwen Gale (talk) 12:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! jmcw (talk) 10:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010

Malke

I don't see a big issue or any need for a block at all, am I missing some history that I don't know about? Off2riorob (talk) 19:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I've warned her about personal attacks before, at least three times. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

This is clearly a issue that is on both sides, I was also templated by the user repuplican jacabite and had to ask him not to continue doing it. There is no reason to block him its a minor issue, very minor and so he called the templating the regular vandalism when he just should have told User republican jacabite to go away and not post on his talkpage. 19:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Off2riorob (talk)

Personal attacks often get stirred up when there are worries on both sides, as there are here. I warned her about personal attacks. As I said elsewhere, I don't support RJ's behaviour. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
No me neither. Well, its done now, at least the wikipedia is protected.Off2riorob (talk) 19:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

More

Your perspective at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_review:_Malke_2010 would be appreciated as you have been involved with blocking this editor recently. Toddst1 (talk) 21:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Input given, sadly so. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Your message

With all due respect, I do not see how an edit summary I made while removing an unwanted message from my own talk page is a personal attack. I simply stated what I believed to be the truth, i.e., that his "warning" was useless. As it happens, I was correct and his warning was not worth the time it took to write it. Now, that said, I will not claim complete innocence in the ensuing exchanges. However, I never accused anyone of anti-Irish or anti-Catholic bigotry, as he or she repeatedly did. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 20:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you know what you did. Don't comment on other editors and don't attack them. Stick only to neutral comments about sources and how to echo them in the text and you might be startled by how much more smoothly things go, even in disgreements which seem hopeless. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I know what I did. And I know what he did. And I quite firmly believe that a change in my attitude would not have altered the situation one bit. That said, I will check my attitude in future. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 21:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
You'll have to do that if you want to keep on editing here. Meanwhile both of you have done more harm to each of your editorial outlooks than you may understand. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I haven't done anything wrong. He's made egregious personal attacks against me which you condone by not blocking him.Malke2010 21:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
You both have been throwing personal attacks at each other. Stop it. Both of you. Please. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
What personal attacks by me? Where are the diffs? Also, I've just checked and offensive language is considered vandalism such as when an editor says another editor is making paranoid ramblings.Malke2010 21:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Many experienced editors would take paranoid ramblings as a personal attack, few experienced editors would call paranoid ramblings "offensive language." I think you're wikilawyering a bit there, which you shouldn't do. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC):
The thing here is, Gwen, other editors see your behavior.Malke2010 23:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Malke, please stop badgering editors with whom you don't agree and things might go a lot more smoothly for you here. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for moderation of page Chamar and Ramdasia

Last year you had banned the user Ravinder121 for his personal attacks on the pages 'Chamar' and 'Ramdasia'.

Well, he has started doing it again. He is doing the following:

1 - In the Talk page of 'Ramdasia' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ramdasia, he is making personal attacks and deleting posts and sources that are provided by me. One of his comments to me is: "I am a Ramdasia Sikh and you a Ravidasia chamar who should have no right to edit a section to which you don't belong to. You also goto Jatt section and do the same. Stop posting your Chamar Advertizement link here."

2- He is also edit warring the 'Chamar' page by using IP spoofing.

Bal537 (talk)bal537 —Preceding undated comment added 13:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC).

I've blocked him for a month, for edit warring and disruption, but please keep in mind, this back and forth over castes is mostly... sickening. Do not make further edits (or revert back to unsourced edits) to Ramdasia without sourcing them. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

"they"

and A Nobody and Ikip have been coming for me for a long time. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Where they lose me, since I began editing here so long ago and far away, is I've slowly shifted from being a hard core deletionist to a much more inclusionist outlook and as to en.WP, more or less open-minded as to where the winds of consensus and WmF might blow. In the meantime, there are still inclusion thresholds and I don't like to see editors hammering away at those who try to keep the project within them, as if the latter are editing outside the bounds of policy or even morality, even if I think notions of encyclopedic inclusion could tend to grow ever-wider over stretches of time, if ways are found to handle this. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
The other threads are boxed-up, which is fine. I get tagged as 'deletionist' a lot, but on most subjects I'm all for inclusion. I commented to Cas once that I'd be fine with covering all 300,000 species of beetles (nodded at wikispecies, though). I do take issue with the endless spinning-out of things like fictional elements. Some such things should be covered, in far less detail than the fans want, in the parent articles, but a lot is simply over-coverage on a massive scale. My other core concern is a maintenance one; there are far too few serious eyes on articles due to the poor ratio of those eyes vs number of articles. For the project to grow, the number of clues underfoot needs to go up in proportion to the volume of content. We're not doing that, we're too tolerant of those that I see dragging mean quality down by pushing quantity up without regard to quality. Every time we delete a crappy article, the mean quality goes up; every time we sort an inappropriate editor, the toxicity of the project goes down.
I recall that so long ago and far away time; I'd already been here then for over two years.
Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC) — Defender of teh wiki ;)
There are many (to put it mildly) clusters of articles which don't meet the notability thresholds but which, through a consensus of the editors who watch them, are allowed to stay. As I hinted above and as you wrote, the worry is maintenance, how to handle the content editorially, without losing a meaningful grasp on it. As it is, small glitches which show up in articles (rather than blatant vandalism) can wait months or even longer to be spotted and fixed. Sometimes, I'll go to an article because of a helpful talk page post and in editing the article as to that post, I might find all kinds of other little things that need brushing up, even though the page was on my watchlist all along. But I tend to scan my watchlist (which is long) looking for big things and if I peek at a diff, if it looks like a good faith edit and the article hasn't had any woes lately, if I'm short on time (which I often am), I might miss that it's a "quality dip." Gwen Gale (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I think I like you ;) You're spot-on. I've said much the same thing for a long time, albeit not always mildly. We have extensive walled gardens and they survive for long periods for a variety of reasons. Sometimes it's the locals defending their turf; other times it's an abandoned Gordian knot. I made better than a thousand edits last July/August to the 1632 series garden, now much pruned. In that one, a huge number of intricate templates had been used to cement everything in place via all the obscure syntax that served to dissuade editing. Everything was all tied in knots and I had to do a lot of manual substs in order to enable the TfDs to proceed. And then the de-snotted articles went to AfD, where most bit the dust. This was a huge block of fanwank and spam (Baen Books was very, very prominently covered and linked).
The cementing of things in place approach is common; this is what the quarter meg of discussion at WT:ACTOR#Filmography RFC is about. The owners of the 30,000 or so actor bios have been cementing heaps of hard-coded markup into the wiki because they a) don't like the look of class="wikitable" and b) they like LightSteelBlue. They don't know boo about code and have blithely corrupted these pages with markup that is invalid and duplicative of core styling. And they fight back like a cornered animal. All for a gratuitous look-and-feel. And it's not just the color, they also are enamored with tables; building filmographies that have more table markup than content and thwart editing by the majority of editors who are poorly skilled at much markup beyond apostrophes and brackets.
I see these sort of gardens, and the editors building them, as a huge time-suck for those focused on project wide concerns. A great many random editors end up helping articles simply because they exist. This, of course, is a key wiki concept and is all-good when we're talking an appropriate article that simply needs work. I fix spelling, formatting, and coding issues everyday. It sucks, though, when people put effort into something that genuinely shouldn't be here. I see the core plan of places like Wikia as being to leech on the good will of editors here; fan content gets created here and is helped along by large numbers of helpful editors and then the sows-ear content is transwiki'd to a commercial site where money is made off it.
The project has done a far better job of producing content (both appropriate and not) than it has at building a functioning community. This place lets most anyone edit, but it also offers anyone a voice. For many people, this is a first; in the real world, no one pays them any mind at all. But they can he 'heard' in some "local consensus" that is simply suffering from insufficient clueful eyes.
And this brings me back to the ratio; we need a stronger, larger, core of folks wielding clue-bats in order to support further growth of the project and to guide it in appropriate directions, and we need to take a firmer hand with users working against core project goals.
Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
My take on this altogether is that en.WP echoes the wider world in so many ways. This is both the stength and weakness of any "general" encyclopedia. One shouldn't be startled at all that the project has built lots of content but doesn't seem to have done so keenly at weaving ways for editors to get on with each other, it's another echo of where the world is at now, so to speak and yes, I said seem. This is nudged even futher into time wasting rabbit trails of woe because editing costs are so cheap. At its core the project runs on an amazing number of freely given hours of editing each day. Lots of waste is built into how content is grown and this is quite understood by the folks who put up most of the money to run this privately owned website (and those who run the search engine which brings most of its readership and new editors). From an economic outlook, it's not waste at all, it's what drives the whole thing. The output is lots of free content. There are worries about flaws in the content. Some may see these flaws as helpful. Helpful to whom? Follow the money. en.WP's core humanities articles are not a free and neutral market of verifiable knowledge. However, there is still a lot of helpful stuff here. Most of the content here tends to be more helpful than not, but stay away from Abraham Lincoln.
Many readers are smarter than many editors think and can handle many of these worries on their own. However, it's handy to keep in mind, half of everyone is of less than average intelligence. Even those with more snap than most can do amazingly dumb things if they've been fed dodgy information in an urban setting most of their lives. Moreover, although most people are wonderful and helpful beings, flaws and all, about 1 in 20 of us are wanton predators and about 1 in 500-1000, you wouldn't be safe with alone in the same room. There is no correlation between intelligence and predatory behaviour. The smartest predators wind up working for outfits like Goldman Sachs and telling US presidents what to do. The dumber predators wind up in prison, or worse (like getting banned from editing en.WP) but this is not to say most folks in prison are predators, most are more like sheep, one way or another. The wider survival benefits to this aren't wholly understood and what is known, isn't widely published.
Infoboxes and templates are a scourge, mostly. They warp information. They mislead, then they stir up a warping feedback loop straight back into the text. They draw heed where maybe it need not, should not go. Besides, they bring lots of clutter and make pages ugly. If I dug into it more though, I could likely show how they bring a marketing edge to the project, given how most folks handle information these days, being brainwashed in the state-run daycare prisons called public schools. They also take little meaningful thought to build and spew into the article space. For some editors, they make for fun hobby time.
In the Hollywood entertainment community, lots of free social time is taken up talking about... show business. Lots of this chit chat has to do with linking up cast, crew and executive staff with all the sundry production credits they've shared through the years. Almost anyone in the business will tell you, it's an easy way to get small talk going in schmooz gatherings big and small and moreover, it helps almost anyone build a helpful skeleton of understanding as to how the business works. IMdB is utter Hollywood party and deal fodder. The awful info boxes here are but an echo. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Follow up

Gwen, As you can see, Larry Sanger's article has been vandalized repeatedly (not by me, nor by my direction). You were DEAD WRONG to revert me, own the damn article and block per involved. The whole idea was to minimize collateral damage because of his lawsuit against Wiki. Don't worry, I have no intention of repeating what I did earlier, but understand, the actions I took were proper per WP:NLT. Next time, read policy and comply rather than own. KoshVorlonNaluboutes,Aeria Gloris 15:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The page hasn't even been edited in five days. From what you've written above, your understanding of WP:Legal is still mistaken and what you did was way outside of policy. You edit warred over it, even after being warned thrice, which is why I blocked you. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Nope, his article was sent to AFD to minimize collateral damage (that's part of WP:NLT). Yes, it could be protected, but, it could still be damaged even in a protected state, second, his page was blanked (again, NLT). You blocked me against policy WP:INVOLVED. BTW - I see you reverted my removal of Larry Sanger's Youtube links, please read WP:ELNO, WP:YOUTUBE, Links to Avoid. WP:SELFPUB, his youtube links are not permitted per those policies. (No, I didn't touch them after your revert)

KoshVorlonNaluboutes,Aeria Gloris 16:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

As you've been told many times, you're mistaken. If you disrupt User:Larry Sanger or Larry Sanger again, I'll block you from editing again. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Close thread?

Hi, Gwen. Could you consider closing this ANI thread as multiple users have suggested? I'm beginning to feel a bit intimidated the wrath of a few people insisting that I'm harassing them, despite the fact that I'm just not, and there appears to be a consensus of the fact.

I picked you as a random admin who commented in the discussion; if you think that you should be recused from closing it, perhaps you could commission someone neutral to do so? Thanks, ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 21:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm neutral enough that I was ok with closing it, I think you may need to talk with RAN more about this, though. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Chamar

Hi Gwen. What do you make of this? It seems to my untrained eye that User:Bal537 has the edge on the references, and I'd probably encourage them to start inlining them. But you seem to have dealt with this before and may have a view. I'd rather not keep the article semi'd, and blocks are probably not going to be fruitful. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I should block both of them for edit warring, but I won't yet. I agree with your take. I'm watching the article, if you want to try and help out please do and if you need me to pitch in, please let me know. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I blocked them both today because they carried on edit warring. User:Sunnyissunny may be a block-evading sock of User:Ravinder121. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I've indef blocked User:Sunnyissunny as a sock of User:Ravinder121 and reset the latter's month-long block. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, yes no complaints there. It explains a few other open proxies which have now fallen under my radar, and no doubt will continue to do so. I'll see if I can cohere the talk page somewhat - such mess. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Here's what I did at Ramdasia, I was thinking I'd likely do the same at Chamar, spewing tonnes of raw URLs mixed with snipes at other editors is not what I think of as meaningful use of a talk page. These caste back and forths are dirty rags, which could do with a trip to the laundry, so to speak. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010

Re: Making up

Hi, Gwen; in relation to your comment I must say that I maintain I did nothing wrong in this instance. The view at ANI was that I wasn't harassing him; he's trotting around badmouthing me by saying that I am at every opportunity he has.

I did "stay away" from him (or at least, can you show me a diff of my targetting/pursuing him?) – yes, we both commented on the same AfD, but that's inevitably going to happen. He was the one who opened communications with/about me, and I have to say, I do tend to resent any suggestion otherwise. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 09:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

RAN's pages were there for 5 years. They shouldn't have been, but other than not belonging in his userspace they were harmless, meanwhile he thought it was ok for them to be there and it's understandable he got unhappy about how things went poof but that's done now. I think the aftermath is the only meaningful worry now: Your sarcasm at the AfD was a bit thick, no big deal, but thick. So RAN got stirred up and made a personal attack. Then you kept stirring with your post about it at ANI. Ok. Still no harm done, but it was heading into that neighbourhood. By "stay away" I mean blow it off and the kerfluffle will dwindle much sooner than later. Admins get sniped at all the time. You're an admin, please handle it like one. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
To be absolutely fair I'm not an admin, but point taken! ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 10:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh (palm of hand meets forehead). We don't have much article overlap and "from the wee bits I'd seen from you so many times before, I had long happened to think..." so I never bothered to check. At last I grok some of the things you posted in the aftermath. Thanks for understanding my input on this, which happily, would tend to work even more for a non-admin. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Gwen, he's still at it – please can something be done about this? I really cannot continue on Wikipedia if he is going to be badmouthing me like that at every opening. ╟─TreasuryTag►estoppel─╢ 07:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

And on Commons as well. This is absurd. ╟─TreasuryTag►You may go away now.─╢ 08:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I've asked him to stop. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Hopefully it will make a difference! ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 09:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

This is like being in a bad dream [66] – how can we stop him from badmouthing me at every opportunity? ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 19:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again! ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 20:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, IMHO, history has shown that it's extremely unlikely that RAN will admit he's wrong. In this WP:ANI archive there are 3 separate threads on his behavior, and I can't detect any admission on RAN's part that his behavior has been problematic. There's also this recent thread on WT:AFD about one of his actions at recent AfDs--again no admission that his behavior was wrong--and the current discussion on his talkpage. He routinely edit wars up 3RR, but is careful to not make a 4th revert. I guess point is: in my experience he's a habitual line toe-er. Maybe I'm biased since we're almost never see eye to eye; maybe I'm out of place bring this up here. I guess my point is, I don't think he should be afforded anymore leniency, especially in light of his unwillingness to admit his behavior has been a problem. Yilloslime TC 20:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

pls stop edit warring over it (copied thread)

I've undone your blanking edit, the third editor to do so. Please stop edit warring over this. You're welcome to look into whether or not Tan would like the page kept clean of posts all the time, but until it's known that he has asked, there is no need to rm GF posts by editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any warring although you may see different. Toddst1 reverted my removal and I reverted him and moved to discussion on his talkpage and he asked me to self revert and I was in the process of doing that when Morenose disagreed with Todd and he attempted to remove the replacement and I returned to the previous position and went to morenoseo to discuss and to Zeno to discuss and you have come and reinserted the content. I don't see any warring but you are welcome to make a report if you feel I have violated policy. Off2riorob (talk) 13:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't see that in the edit history, Morenooso's edit undid all of your edits and restored content. However, whatever happened, I believe you when you say, you didn't see your edits as edit warring. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, no I did not. What morenoso was trying to do was revert my three edits. His edit summary and he used twinkle so no content was added, was (1,025 bytes) (Reverted 3 edits by Off2riorob; Rv: no need for this reversion.... only there was a edit conflict and only one edit was reverted leaving two... I took his comment in the summary and the conflict and removed the other two posts as his edit summary declared and then went to immedialy discuss with him and with Zeno. Sometimes I find myself on wikipedia discussing such trivia it makes me despair. Off2riorob (talk) 13:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

His edit restored Toddst1's edit and undid yours. The diff is very straightforward. However, I don't have any worries about any of this, it's done. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I hope I didn't over step but, I undid the rater unhelpful posts Off2riorob put on Tna's page. I could see no point other than a personal attack so I reverted them. Padillah (talk) 14:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't see it as a personal attack at all, but if you interpret it as that then you are of course correct to remove it. Off2riorob (talk) 14:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I saw that one. More of a "jibe" than a PA, I thought. I was wholly neutral as to whether that one might stay or go, I don't think either of you did anything much untowards there. The only worry would be going back and forth over it. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request

As the blocking administrator, could you please comment on the unblock request at User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

He archived all the warnings and discussion about three minutes after before making the edit for which I blocked him. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I am concerned that the archiving might reflect that he was in the process of moving on, just at the point when you blocked him. The edit for which you blocked was correcting a punctuation typo. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
He was not moving on, he was hiding the warnings, knowing he would most likely be blocked for carrying on with his disruption and hoping that a careless admin would think he was blocked for correcting a punctuation typo. This is also why he put his unblock request at the top of the page, far away from the block notice. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I am not at all sure of this, but will leave the unblock request for someone else to review. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, he archived, baited with the small edit and then factored his unblock request hoping to mislead anyone who tried to understand what was happening. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
See also User_talk:Gwen_Gale#Re:_Making_up (there's an ANI link) above and Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_)/Family_History. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Gwen, I fully endorse your action at any rate. I do hope that some sort of acceptable, if not amicable, conclusion comes out of this mess. ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 07:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Nope, had no effect :( ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 21:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
He posted that on commons, TT, so it has to be dealt with on commons. Moreover, some of his uploads which are not fit for en.WP could be ok for commons, if someone is willing to work with him as to licencing, verification and categorization. Would you be willing to try and help him? If he posts something like that on en.WP though, you can let me know. I'll likely redact the edit and thoroughly warn him. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I would absolutely be willing to help him if he retracts his claims that I harassed him. As I'm sure you can appreciate, if he refuses so to do, then he cannot expect my assistance. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 21:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Don't be a goop. Help him out. You two are linked "forever" now anyway. If he blows you off, it's his worry, not yours. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
What is a goop? :O Anyway, no, I'm sorry, I see no reason to lend a helping hand to anybody who broadcasts multiple false claims of harassment against me. If someone did that to you in real life, you wouldn't help decorate their house, would you? ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 22:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
So show him he's wrong. I mean, he's wrong, yeah? You're worried about licencing, not about skiving all of RAN's uploads off WmF project sites, yeah? Gwen Gale (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
As I say, I'm sure you wouldn't do free babysitting for a neighbour's kids if the neighbour was badmouthing you up and down the street. I'm afraid my decision is no. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 22:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
You're mistaken, I might babysit the kids if need be, given they're not the ones spewing out the snark. Meanwhile, maybe you're both being goops about this. If you're not willing to help out with the licencing, I think you should drop anything to do with RAN, because the licences are the pith. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
You are entitled to that opinion, and thank you for your advice, but I must respectfully decline to follow it. ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 23:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
As a clueless admin, I'm beginning to think both of you may be trying to skirt policy and follow grudges. It seems like you should recuse from anything having to do with RAN from now on. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm disappointed that you think that, because it is a thoroughly incorrect view. I have only the interests of Wikipedia at heart, and scrubbing copyright violations etc. is important. ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 08:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I believe you. Meanwhile, I missed the latest block of RAN for that commons post, which I had noted above was a commons worry and not something which could be dealt with on en.WP and indeed, he was unblocked owing to that. However, he has been warned again to stop making comments about you and this will be dealt with as needed on en.WP. I also see there was more sockpuppetry. Either way, today I was going to ask you to stay away from anything having to do with RAN, but I see NYB has already done. Please take it as a recusal by you, I don't think it's punitive at all. It's very much needed, to help get to the root of whatever's going on. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Where I erred is in seeing the edit summary, seeing the user name Dfsghjkgfhdg, which looks like the kind of random bs a youthful vandal would choose, and making the assumption that it was vandalism. The late hour did not help. But, yes, you are correct, it was not vandalism, simply a careless edit. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 13:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Understandable mistake, also Dfsghjkgfhdg's misreading of the line, I misread it in the diff as a non-sequiter on the first go too, I only wanted you to be aware of it. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The ANI incident you closed

I'm not going to re-open it as I'm probably going to be too busy today to do it justice, but you might want to look at my talk page. His PAs on his own talk page are one thing, but on mine? Dougweller (talk) 05:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I would say, wait for about a day. Then, if any snark that's still about is bringing too many bumps to your own editing, open another ANI thread with the very latest diffs.
As you may know, aside from stuff like straightforward ethnic slurs, NPA more or less has sway only over editors with less than a few thousand edits and admins. There will always be an admin willing to lift a civility block by saying, "It wasn't a PA" or "it was mild and this editor has a gazillion FAs so get over it."
I think incivility drives off many more helpful editors than putting up with it saves. However, Ceoil is also on to something when he talks about wonky "process haze," which can indeed become a trap of easy shortcuts to thinking... or worse, truth be told, since the scourge of PC is often wielded as a means of shutting folks down altogether and en.WP often echoes how this happens in the wider world, it has nothing to do with civility and even less to do with freedom and open markets of thought (even published thought as it has to do with, say, an encyclopedia). It all strips language of meaning and this is what it is canny meant to do. Learning only comes when thought meets feelings, all of 'em and for us, language is the hardwired pathway to much of it. Skive language into a long string of soft coos and believe me, the end will come rather quick.
Meanwhile, some of the worst PAs I hear in the wider world come from "authority figures" on campuses and in capitols whilst they flog that dumbed-down batch of scams which are rhetorically gathered together under the fuzzy tag PC.
A wee hint of this is a thread on Jimmy's talk, about the term wikilawyer being a smear on lawyers. What next, shall Wikipedia:Gaming the system be taken as a slur towards gamers? If Jimmy makes one careless post on his TP, zap, it can get picked up and warp its way worldwide. Hence half the threads there are wanton baiting, one way or another. Over the years this has whittled down what he says in public, to what we see today. He's way skilled at dealing with it, cheers to him for that, it's his gig, but what has this wrought? It's even more skeinish than this, way, but I guess that'll have to do for now. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Admins contribute to the problem when they keep digging their heads under the sand despite glaringly obvious issues; that is the precise reason why the noticeboards are gradually (with a few exceptions) turning into a complete zoo/circus - the central venue to do and say anything, regulated by no rules except SOCK. If NPA, CIVIL, AGF, TALK, etc. only applies to certain editors and everyone else is entitled to ignore it, Ottava Rima would not have met the fate that he did. That is why nobody has successfully changed policy to reflect the version you've outlined. And if your comments were being edited by someone else, attacks were being made on your talk as well as that persons talk, and your talk page turned into a trolling circus, but you couldn't use your tools, what would happen? I have no doubt that one of your peers would have stepped in, but even if you did have to visit the zoo/circus, I'm pretty sure you would've received some form of actual assistance as opposed to a "blow it off" conclusion or excuse of "mildness". Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to be travelling so I don't think I should start a thread knowing I wouldn't be around enough to contribute properly. But I'm one of those who don't think editors with loads of FAs get a free pass just because of that. Dougweller (talk) 10:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't think they should get a free pass either, a little slack though, maybe. Meantime snarking about like that, when they do it, may thwart their own goals more than they understand (or maybe not, since I can't say I know what their goals are). Either way, blocks won't hold. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


A lot of this withering rot gets stirred up by too many rules. The bigger the rulebook, the more ways I can find to skirt it altogether. Most folks find ways to get along with each other without too much fuss and fussle. One way they do this, if let be, is throw anyone out who stirs up too much kerfleuffle. So long as the banished can find a group where they can freely gather (and either get by or wipe each other out) on their own, freedom rings, but if one group gets the wrongheaded notion they can widen their sway and make everyone else hew their path, it all goes to shite. Same as trying to "welcome" everyone. This is what's happening here. The highest quantitative goal of this website, its pith, is traffic. Without mega traffic, the site dies. The traffic is drawn and stirred by way-open editing. Big chunks of that open editing are stirred by the sundry battles, the backs and forths waged at the top of Google searches with gnashing of teeth. It's fun. It's Hollywood. It's Disneyworld for writing-hooked wretches like you and me. It's broadband smack with a hard kick, shot straight into the veins and in the brain within a heartbeat or two, jangling the 'dorphins.
Winning mass market products are never the best products, they're the lowest working standard of something folks want which can be had the most widely and at the cheapest cost. Welcome to en.WP. Start throwing out too many kinds of editors (whatever kinds) and the quality by some outlooks may indeed shoot into orbit, so to speak, but traffic will fall. Meanwhile the rulebook here ain't gonna be skived down, too many folks these days have been brainwashed into thinking fine-toothed lice combs of regulations are helpful tools in "managing" human behaviour, when in truth most human behaviour need not and cannot be managed (by other humans) at all. The rulebook is going to grow, content building will slow, entropy will spread and someday the website will become a ghost. By then, those who have chucked in most of the money to keep the servers up hope to have gotten what they wanted. It's up to each volunteer here to think for themselves about if they're getting what they want. Happily, there are many ways to pitch in here, to get the kick.
So yeah, I'd like to see more civility on en.WP. The worst breaches are indeed handled swiftly, at least. Meanwhile I'll dream, it helps, but other than those given for the most wanton of slurs, civility blocks on this website don't hold and are unlikely to, so long as mega traffic is welcome here.
By the bye, yep, forget WP:WQA, it's a joke and yes, for most editors, ANI is a page best skirted altogether. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Gwen Gale. You have new messages at TreasuryTag's talk page.
Message added 08:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 08:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Gwen Gale. You have new messages at TreasuryTag's talk page.
Message added 08:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 08:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

As the header at the top of this page says, I watch any talk page to which I post, there is utterly no need for these talkback templates, please don't put them here, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010

Genieactionpaul

I think your "mistaken" block was probably quite accurate. Take a look at the histories of User:Genieactionpaul and Dildo Batter, both of which I've deleted. Just not sure who he is.—Kww(talk) 17:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the contribs came so fast for a minute there, when I went back to the TP, I thought I'd blocked the wrong user, but I hadn't. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Rollback misuse

I have begun thread you may be interested in, here.  Giacomo  18:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I commented. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Oops, didn't grok you were baiting me. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Note

FYI: [67] – ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 22:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It's an edit war, stand back from it now. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
So you're going to let him delete the thread? ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 22:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I answered the post you made on your TP. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Gattosby redux

Socks are attacking RAN again. Please assist. Thanks. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 22:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it to me too. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Could you also possibly close the Alexander Hamilton (general) AfD? Many thanks for the fast action. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 22:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I've deleted it. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
That's great. Thank you very much. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 22:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the nudges. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
It was my pleasure :) Dr.K. λogosπraxis 22:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion question

What is the difference between {{db-prod}} and AfD? I see menu selections for each in TW and I'm kinda stumpped for the difference. Thanks for the help. Padillah (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

  • WP:PROD, slap one up and after 7 days, if nobody takes it down, an admin will more than likely be willing to delete the article with little or no discussion. Anyone at all, even the article creator, can rm a prod tag though, for whatever reason, or without even giving a reason.
  • WP:AFD is a 7-day discussion as to whether or not to keep an article. These can get very heated, so be careful to understand what you're doing if you nominate an article for AfD.
  • WP:CSD, by the way, is a means of tagging straightforwardly unencyclopedic articles for review and maybe quick deletion by an admin but likewise, read the policy carefully before tagging something CSD.

Hope this helped, Gwen Gale (talk) 19:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I think so. So CSD is for blatant violations of certain rules (found elsewhere), AFD is for articles that don't fit CSD and should really be discussed, and PROD is for articles that look like they don't belong but might be of use to someone. Is that kinda close? Padillah (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
You could put it that way about CSD, one way to think of PROD and AFD is that they gather the same kinds of article-space content worries, a PROD deletion happening after 7 days if nobody wants to discuss it in that time (by removing the tag), whereas AfD is a 7-day discussion the outcome of which is either to keep or delete the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

|

You seem to have come to the erroneous and insulting conclusion that I stalk and harass other editors (your words) and am a bully. Given your supreme lack of judgement in the pathetic "abuse warning" you gave me after a single mistaken rollback, I'm not sure I care much for your opinions anyway, and for that reason, please do not post to my talkpage again – remarkably little of what you have had to say in the last week or so has been interesting, much has been irritating, a not insignificant amount has been severely misguided at best. Thanks in advance. ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 08:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010

User:Fastily

I don't think User:Fastily should be involved in deleting image files that I loaded. He was caught adding incorrect tags to each of the files saying they were unsourced where a clear source was listed, then used rollback multiple times when I added more information on the source, he was demanding that I show him an online link to images that were clearly public domain from the census. He is no longer a disinterested third party. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC) (talk | contribs) deleted "File:7690550 110266346076.jpg" (F11: No evidence of permission) (Deletion log); 20:05 . . Fastily (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Lindauer Kershaw 1929 023b.jpg" (F11: No evidence of permission) (Deletion log); 20:05 . . Fastily (talk | contribs) deleted "File:HubbardBell.gif" (F4: Lack of licensing information) (diff | hist) . . Sacco and Vanzetti‎; 20:04 . . (-1) . . Bmclaughlin9 (talk | contribs) (→Later tributes: removing extra space) (Deletion log); 20:04 . . Fastily (talk | contribs) deleted "File:7690550 110266346076.jpg" (F11: No evidence of permission)

This is not kosher behaviour. Please investigate. To be more exact: Fastily's disappearance from the ANI thread involving Fastily's mass tagging of RAN's images needs to be explained first and then after Fastily has been cleared of admin-wrongdoing toward RAN, then maybe they can have supervised access to RAN's images. Frontier-type (in)justice directed toward RAN should be avoided. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 00:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

RAN, the easiest (but not the only) way to handle this would be to carefully reupload the images with clean licencing information. One of those listed above was published after 1 Jan 1923 by the NYT with a claim that the copyright was not renewed. I recall asking how you knew this to be true but, although you may have answered me, I didn't see an answer. Taken altogether, I don't think (and never thought) showering you with a flurry of templates was a helpful way to deal with getting your uploads into the bounds of licencing policy.

  • Having watched the aftermath, I do think you were bullied/harassed out of spite over a content disagreement elsewhere.
  • Many of the deletion rationales and templates were wrong.
  • However, some of your upload pages did have lacks as to licencing.
  • Copyright policies are followed much more closely now than when you made many of those good faith uploads.
  • You claimed harassment as a rationale to save images, rather than discussing the licencing or bringing the licencing up to speed, as needed, along with asking for more time to do so. You indeed needed more time and should have been given it without all the kerfluffle, but the way you handled it added "noise" to the already muddled mix.
  • Likewise your genealogy pages, keeping them in your userspace was outside the bounds of policy but they'd been there for a long time and throwing them into the blizzard of templating, moreover in a way that seems to have been for spite, was the wrong way to bring them up for discussion.
  • Please keep in mind, any bullying and harassment must still be talked about away and apart from dealing with the image pages.
  • Some of the deleted images might be restored through WP:DRV if any licencing worries are handled at the same time, but again, DRV is not the place to talk about harassment.
  • There is no staightforward way to unwind the harm already done.

If you think there are patterns of behaviour shown by any editor or admin which are likely to bring more harm to the project, an RfC would be the next step (as I and others have been saying all along). This is up to you or anyone else who wants to follow up in that way. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I do need to interject here (and I won't do so again) to comment on one aspect of what Gwen said: Having watched the aftermath, I do think you were bullied/harassed out of spite over a content disagreement elsewhere. My comment is: bollocks. ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 07:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
It looks to me as though you used TW as a tool through which to bully and harass (although you don't always use TW to do this). As I said on your talk page (where your refactoring of threads often makes it hard for other editors to keep track without digging into its edit history), I will not be taking any admin actions as to this and I'm neutral as to what anyone else might do. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Not entirely clear what "refactoring" you are referring to, but if your response to my denial is to simply repeat the statement ("It looks to me as though you used TW as a tool through which to bully and harass, although you don't always use TW to do this,") then it's extremely unimpressive... ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 07:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I think you know what I mean about the refactoring of your talk page. However, if you don't, that only stirs up more worries. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
...and drifting from the subject that you made an unsubstantiated claim of harassment. Well done! ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 07:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
First you say I "simply repeat the statement," then when I don't say it again, you say I'm "drifting from the subject." To skirt any misunderstandings, I think you used TW to bully and harass RAN. I'm neutral as to how anyone else may want to deal with your harmful behaviour. If you want further input from me about this, you're welcome to post here. If you don't like the input I give you, there is no need for you to post here. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Neither repeating the statement nor skirting the issue provide any factual basis for your claim that I harassed Richard. I am asking if you have any factual basis, and if so, to outline it here. ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 08:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
As in: "Iraq had weapons of mass destruction." "How do you know?" "Iraq possessed nuclear and chemical weapons." "You just repeated the statement." "If you don't know what nuclear weapons are, that's quite disturbing." "Now you're drifting from the issue." "First you say I 'simply repeat the statement,' then when I don't say it again, you say I'm 'drifting from the subject.'" But there is still no evidence in this little role-play that Iraq did have WMDs. See my point? ╟─TreasuryTag►You may go away now.─╢ 08:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Many other editors have claimed you harassed RAN out of spite over an editorial disagreement. I don't agree with how many of them made those claims, I don't agree with how RAN handled his claim, because making them that way stirred up an even bigger mess. Having watched the aftermath, I now agree with the claims: I was beginnging to see some pith to those claims over the last week or so, however clumsily or angrily some of them may have been made, but when you popped up with these spiteful edits, I understood what you were doing. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I have !voted in hundreds of AfDs, naturally opposed thousands of editors in my time, and the suggestion that that alone is sufficient motive for me to spend hours of my time scrutinising their activity is ludicrous. For what it's worth, the tags were, generally speaking, all absolutely correct, and the pages (as opposed to files) I nominated for deletion were all deleted with an overwhelming consensus. See also [68] and [69] for the general background. I would be interested to hear which part of this statement, and the two diffs I provided, you think is a lie (and it would have to be a lie in order for your assertion that I harassed Richard to be correct).
As for the edits to Spaghetti, I genuinely thought – and still think – that that IP made a valid addition which you deleted without providing a reason. Sure, I only stumbled across it because I was looking through your contributions for examples to illustrate my point that everybody makes mistakes (yes, I was being charitable by assuming a mistake) with reversions, but that's not harassment. That had a perfectly valid and legitimate purpose. ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 08:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Put it this way, TT, you may not think your behaviour is harassment or bullying, but many editors indeed take it as such. If you're having a disagreement with someone, that's very ok. The pith is how one handles a disagreement. On en.WP, dealing with a disagreement by skimming through a good faith editor's contribution history and looking for other stuff to disagree on is not only unhelpful, it's very harmful. Using TW to blizzard them with deletion templates on years-old good faith uploads, even if some do need some tweaking, is even more harmful. Please don't do things like that anymore. The more active an editor may be, the more they get tangled up on disagreement-prone project pages such as AfD, the more careful and wary they must be. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

That seems a very fair comment (and I have accepted elsewhere that perhaps I didn't handle the – serious – problems with Richard's contributions in the best possible way), except for one sentence: "Put it this way, TT, you may not think your behaviour is harassment or bullying, but many editors indeed take it as such." That is a fallacy. It is only harassment if I intended to harass. Harassment is one of those offences like vandalism: if the intention isn't there, and the edits are made in good faith, then it might be disruptive, it might be that more competence is required, but it is still not harassment. And that is my point. So long as I acted in good faith, I cannot be guilty of harassment. And I did act in good faith. ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 08:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
As with most other tasks folks do together, there will always be sundry levels of competence. Sometimes dealing with this is a canny breeze, sometimes it takes a lot of care. I was already thinking eariler that you might not understand one can fall into harassing behaviour without believing it's harassment (or in other words, not meaning to harass as such). Before hitting the save button or beginning some big batch job with TW, you might carefully think about how the editor is going to see your actions. Folks put a lot of their free time, thought and heart into editing here. They can get very stirred up if they think they've been unfairly slapped or smeared. Other editors might see this and worry it will happen to them. Kerfluffle, woe and gnashing of teeth follows. Meanwhile, RAN didn't mean to breach the bounds of his userspace (those pages had been there for years). Many of RAN's image uploads went back years and it's not startling at all to find images that old which need some tweaking as to licencing and so on, or moving to commons, whatever. Even bringing it up on his talk page at that time might have nettled him, but instead of templating him, you should have offered to help him go through the images, brushing up the licence worries where needed and talking in a settled way about anything that might need deleting. As it happened, many of his images weren't orphaned at all, but were linked from article citations, which doesn't even show up on the image page. Sometimes dealing with this good faith stuff is like peeling back layers of an onion, so to speak, rather than smashing it with the delete hammer. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Your last comment is excellent. I fully agree. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 14:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank spam!

Hello, Gwen Gale. You have new messages at User:TFOWR/Thankspam.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TFOWR 21:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Dignity

You have left a message about edit warring at Dignity. Please explain why you left the message. PYRRHON  talk   02:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I left the message mostly because you may not have known that low-level edit warring, as you have been doing for weeks there, is not allowed. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Dignity#Vandalism2. Please comment there if you wish. PYRRHON  talk   02:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
As it happens, I saw it first on your talk page. Much more often than not, there is no need for you to copy-paste the same thing onto more than one page. That said, I've answered on your talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
The matter on my talk page concerned one editor only, and I was replying to Guy. I did not copy-paste the same thing to Dignity's talk page. You seem to have a great many misconceptions about what is going on here, and that is causing me great concern. To be certain that I am not out of line in raising matters related to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, I have initiated a discussion at Wikiquette Alert. You may wish to participate at [[70]]. PYRRHON  talk   18:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
That makes at least five editors who have told you that your take on WP:Vandalism is mistaken. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Abby

(five months, SEC, five months) Hey! "Four and a half" was your word choice, not mine. :-) But you've done a nice job editing and cleaning up the article. (SEC (talk) 15:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC))

Yeah the wording maybe, meanwhile I thought you'd miscounted, but argh! it was me :P Gwen Gale (talk) 15:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Gwen, are you willing to come with me to BLP1E and propose (or support) a possible change. The current version is: If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them.

The new version could be: If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event of little signficance, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. (bolded to make it easier for you to see but not actually bolded in the new version).

I think the new version is what many people actually believe, not the current version. I do not seek conflict, merely clarification and cooperation. Since I seek cooperation, if you stamp your feet and say "no, no, no, I disagree!" then I will rethink the matter. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I may be willing to help out with that but first, please think about...
  • Sunderland isn't low profile and it can't be said she's likely to become low profile, it's likely she'll write a book and if she does it'll be published and such a book could gather more sales than if she circumnavigated. There were over 5000 online news articles about her in English alone over the weekend.
Your thoughts are welcome. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

sections

The section is, for the most part, written in the order events were revealed, but not in the order they happened. The very last sentence is about how the ship was dismasted, the middle of the middle paragraph is about how the boat was discovered dismasted but upright. The first paragraph has information about where the dismasting happened.
The information about the air search was in the former "dismasting" section. Wouldn't that fit better in the "rescue" section? But then that paragraph has informatoin about the dismasting and sail dragging. All mixed in.
Etc, etc.
I don't think my edit is final, but there needs to be a more logical gathering or sequencing of the facts before this section can be divided (which it probably should be). Still needs work. Maybe a Dismasting and Rescue section with three subsections (Dismasting, Search, Rescue)?(SEC (talk) 23:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC))
It's not mixed at all. The sloop dismasted, with an outcome. Then later there was a maritime rescue, with an outcome.
Did you see the notice at the top of my page? Gwen Gale (talk) 00:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
No, I just scrolled to the bottom of your page and then hit "new section". Sorry.
Either I'm missing what you mean by outcomes, or I wonder if you carefully evaluated what I said above vs the contents of the article before my edit. To pick one item, are you saying the air search is an outcome of the dismasting? (SEC (talk) 00:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC))
Yes. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm honestly not understanding then. Can you explain in your terms how the previous presentation of this information fits logically into these paragraphs and into "Dismasted" and "Rescue" outcomes? (SEC (talk) 00:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC))
I don't even look at it as a previous presentation, all you did was take out a section title and mix it with another, it's a small thing and not worth the worry to me. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 11:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks...

...for that block. I should have done it myself, but didn't feel comfortable since I was their "only" target. Even though it bleeding obvious they were a sock... I need to toughen up!

Thanks again, TFOWR 19:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Straightforward sockie, moreover with a dodgy username, don't be bashful about blockin' those :) Gwen Gale (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Query

Regarding [71], what happens from here? -- Cirt (talk) 19:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd wait to see what he says. If he bickers over it, an RfC would be called for. If he carries on with BLP vios I'll block him and if that were to happen, one might call for an emergency desysoping thread at ANI, but it has not gone that far yet. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 19:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Update: [72]. It would seem there is a disagreement from the admin in question, as to whether he engaged in wanton BLP violation. Not sure where this proceeds from here. Thoughts? -- Cirt (talk) 05:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I've said something to him about it on his talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010

AN thread

A quick *Poke* regarding an ANI thread related to you. (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Gwen_Gale_admin_abuse Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 21:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Technically only a WP:AN thread, not a WP:ANI so DEFCON 4 rather than 2 ..... Pedro :  Chat  21:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Fixed the header for correctness. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't think you can brush this under the carpet or point to the IP's reaction as an excuse. You removed legitimate talk page comments, their point was valid even if badly presented. Reliable sources do exist criticising the film's portrayal of Junge as overly sympathetic, and she is considered by many sources to be the protagonist of the film. Instead of making excuses, why not apologise and acknowledge that this was a removal too far? Fences&Windows 15:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
So cite sources. As to the IP's behaviour, you're mistaken. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
They're not required to to have a talk page discussion and you've failed to provide any evidence that supports your biting the IP. There are now several people finding fault with your behaviour including other administrators.--Crossmr (talk) 07:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Editors are also not required to go on the attack when they're asked to cite sources. I've commented in the AN thread. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
You're free to remove personal attacks from a page if you feel it's necessary. You aren't free to remove legitimate comments from a talk page, and then threaten a user with your admin tools if they don't like what you've done.--Crossmr (talk) 13:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive17&oldid=1118706825"