User talk:Gwen Gale

Talk archives
archive1

Banning "use" of credentials

I currently have only limited computer access, so I haven't been keeping up with the discussion about Jimbo's "vetting lite" proposal and related pages. I do note, howver, that you've referred several times to the idea of banning reference to credentials in edit discussions (or maybe just in disputes?), and making it a blockable offense.

I think that any such policy would be an absolute nightmare to administer and, even if administered, would do more harm than good. Would it mean that I couldn't say "My experience as an attorney is that...."? What about if I said, "Based on the thousands of judicial decisions I've read...."? How about, "I admit that, as an attorney, I may be overemphasizing the legal aspect...."? Does blockability depend on whether the assertion is a boast, an admission, or a casual reference? To return to the distinction I mentioned in my earlier comment here, what if the point isn't an attempt to sidestep WP:ATT for an assertion to be included in the article, but is rather an observation about optimum organization, or what constitutes undue weight, or the like? What's a "credential"? My user page discloses my race and gender, which in some circumstances might be considered credentials.

I don't think it's realistic to try to see every Wikipedian as nothing more than the sum of his or her edits. We all have our orientations, our biases, our strengths, our weaknesses. My brief autobiography on my user page is intended less as flaunting credentials than as disclosing potential sources of bias.

Trying to enforce a ban on any such statements on user pages or even in edit disputes would consume huge amounts of administrative time without bettering the encyclopedia. Heck, a lot of time would be consumed just in writing the policy, so that it gave clear indication to users about what was prohibited (there's my bias as a lawyer -- the most important thing is that the rule be clear).

If any such idea ever seems to be gaining traction, please let me know so that I can hasten to the appropriate page and denounce it.  :) JamesMLane t c 19:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I shall get to the pith of it then, while your thoughts on this are understandable I think it would be fairly easy to define "credentials" for the purpose of WP policy and even with JW's "vet lite" proposal this will have to be done. In my experience here I've found that a thoroughly sourced article, abiding by verifiable references from reliable sources (along with confirmable primary sources) trumps any assertion of authority and truth be told, if some nuance needs tweaking by an expert, it may indeed be too granular for an encyclopedia. Casting a class of "credentialed" editors would be fraught not only with endless paths to gaming the site, but would drive experts who wish to remain anonymous away in droves. Meanwhile I still think academically qualified experts are more likely than anyone to tend towards the skills which enable them to quickly and handily source whatever they have in mind (yes, I think we disagree on this one). With no snarkiness meant here, perhaps an editor who wishes to assert their edits more or less on their disclosed credentials rather than relying wholly on their sourcing skill should think about doing so at Citizendium. I've thought about it but so far, for many and sundry reasons, I like it here :) Cheers! Gwen Gale 22:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyway it looks like Wales is sticking with his "vetting lite" CV scheme so it seems you have no worries about bringing up your CV for now :) Gwen Gale 12:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if that plan is instituted, I probably won't bother making any efforts to have my credentials verified. As I mentioned on the talk page Jimbo set up, my main concern is that the POV warriors and arrogant know-it-alls would pay no attention either way, so why bother.

You wrote, "I think it would be fairly easy to define 'credentials' for the purpose of WP policy and even with JW's 'vet lite' proposal this will have to be done." No, there's a big difference. The vetting would be voluntary. If I wanted to use Jimbo's procedure to establish that I really am a lawyer, or for that matter a white male, I could. Alternatively, I could ask people to take some or all of these points on faith. On the other hand, if we were to have "Anticredentialism Police" reviewing ES's and talk page comments, looking for an assertion of credentials that would be a basis for a block, then all editors would have to be informed as to exactly what comments were now prohibited. The issue of definition would be a much bigger deal if people could be blocked for guessing wrong. JamesMLane t c 23:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

They could be gently warned first, templates could go up on article talk pages and so on. For example, 3rr has changed twice in the past several months. Each time, I learned about it by breaking the new policy, being politely warned, claiming I hadn't, then having it politely explained (one example can be found above). However, looks like JW is trying to take the "do as little as possible" path which may also work out in the end, dunno, either way a strong citation trumps any assertion, even, to give an an extreme, funny and rare example, a widely noted expert in some field who's gone barmy :) Gwen Gale 23:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Have a wee snark!

Part of the difficulty comes in when expertise is needed to evaluate which source is worthwhile. My feeling is that saying, as I can recall users doing, "this is a great discussion and I'd like to use this with my students" is ok, saying "I've a masters degree in this, and that source you've produced is rubbish" is over the top. And worthy of a gentle warning, or more if the behaviour persists. For my take on it, see this section. ... dave souza, talk 00:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

That's what Essjay did :) Haha! Snark! Anyway trust me, I know how time saving it all can seem to be. I work with PhDs day in and day out. I had lunch with two yesterday. Oh! Fuck! Have I asserted a credential now? I am such a bumpkin! Argh! Gwen Gale 01:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Two! My sympathies. But imagine the horror of having to eat with even just one, but at every single meal, like I must do until I die. ... I've come to the conclusion that it would be best to just leave everything as is, but unfortunately that's not a tenable position for Jimbo. It's very interesting watching his strategy evolve. Derex 10:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Although there has been a bit of grumbling over at the WMF it looks like JW will have his wonted way of "doing as little as possible," an old trick of the British Foreign Office which has its bright side :) Gwen Gale 13:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I must say again though, if a nuance or spin on a topic has enough sway to make it into an article, then it should be supportable (and wontedly will be supportable) by a reliable independent source. If an expert has something meaningful to say and can't run down a citation she should get it published elsewhere and then footnote it here. WP:OR. Gwen Gale 17:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

If someone asserts a credential in an attempt to override WP:ATT, then I think a reminder of the policy you refer to, accompanied by not allowing the questionable edit to stand, is far better than trying to write a rule, generate a template, issue gentle warnings, block a user, consider the user's request for unblock, etc. It seems like quite a disproportionate effort for a non-problem.

As for getting something published elsewhere, that's often quite a bit of hassle. I've been thinking that, with Wikipedia as big as it is, our NOR policy sometimes results in the tail wagging the dog. Should our articles continue to be totally dependent on whether the South Succotash Daily Bugle has published something? The Foundation might consider hiring an editor who would oversee an online publication aimed at filling gaps -- where a Wikipedia edit dispute might be resolved with a citation to a reputable source, but there are none on either side, because for whatever reason the actual authorities don't address the issue. What if there were a separate WMF publication devoted exclusively to such original research? Wikipedians could then consider it in editing the article -- this publication would have no special preferred status. That probably won't happen soon, though. JamesMLane t c 19:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Mind, this is only my own take, but I think a lag between WP and bleeding edge OR (along with expert interpretation which has not yet been published) can be rather a strength. I do like your notion of a separate WMF wiki for OR by vetted experts and knowledgeable editors, mercilessly edited and screened with a weir to keep out the cranks and their codswallop. Gwen Gale 02:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no, I wasn't proposing a separate wiki. It would be a separate publication but edited in the old-fashioned non-wiki sense. Its purpose would be to generate "reliable/verifiable source" material, which Wikipedia editors (and everyone else) could use as they pleased. For example, it could include point-counterpoint articles by feuding experts, as well as material along the lines of "here's an expert saying what everybody in the field knows and therefore doesn't bother publishing".

I hadn't even thought of a separate wiki for OR. That's an interesting idea, but you may take full credit for it! JamesMLane t c 20:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Haha! Either way I think it's a cool notion :) Gwen Gale 22:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

RegisterFly blog link

Ah, good catch. Given that the sourced passage is specifically about that link that I linked to, would that make it OK? If not, I can pull it myself and leave the link to the article itself in the references since they link back from there as well. - Denny 05:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Truth be told it shouldn't be in the text at all. Given the context, any editor would be a true meanie to rm an external link to it though. Gwen Gale 13:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Punctuation in quotes

Hi, I saw you had reverted my edit on Essjay controversy. However, you are aware that Wikipedia's style on quoting is not the same as common styles like MLA? If the punctuation isn't part of the quote, it goes outside of the quote on Wikipedia. See Wp:mos#Quotation marks. So after making sure you knew that, do you still think that revert is correct? If so, I'll leave it alone. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 19:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Ĩ do understand. With all due respect to your good faith and to Wikipedia Policy, which I support, I humbly stand by my wee edit. Thanks for asking me about it though. Cheers! :) Gwen Gale 19:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

A bit of advice

We've disagreed in the past but I wanted to pass along a bit of advice to help you out. Don't get roped into anything close to 3RR's 'cause even if there's a pretty solid case that what you're doing is reverting destructive edits or vandalism, you are likely to be blocked as well by dispassionate admins seeking resolution of disputes, and complaints are likely to be seen as 'wrong version' style gripes and largely ignored.

Step back, let other editors have a look, give it air, etc. Don't bring yourself down to the level of an edit warrior. Assert that you won't continue to revert war on the article in question and you'll likely avoid a block (since they are preventative, not punitive in nature). Be well. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks and you're spot on with that. Truth be told, we were about to go out for a walk! My report on the 3rr page was rather much my last fling at it, as you say, to draw attention. I did sincerely try to reach an agreeable wording, which I think the diffs show but whatever. Sigh :/ Cheers anyway! Gwen Gale 19:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked (wrongly)

You have been blocked for violating the three-revert rule at William Oefelein. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or use dispute resolution if necessary, rather than engaging in an edit war. The duration of the block is 24 hours. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I have sent this admin an email. Gwen Gale 21:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Given your agreement to refrain from edit-warring, I have unblocked you. I am sorry if I offended you, however, both sides were participating in the edit war on this article. (By the way, you missed my age by several years.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. There still seems to be an autoblock though. Cheers. Gwen Gale 01:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I've cleared the autoblock. You should be able to edit now. Musical Linguist 01:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't be too quick

It is clear that you violated 3rr. Here are the four reverts -- in less than 24 hours. Just focus on the single word "however" and you will see how you removed it:

#1

#2

#3

#4

3rr is not necessarily based upon the removal of an exact word but upon the edit warring between two editors over issues and reverting the other editor. However, in this case, it fits even the most narrow definition of the rule. So I would not expect to get an apology if I were in your shoes. Issuing an ultimatum sort of backs everyone in a corner, including yourself. Not such a good idea.

You could also give the admin a bit of the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he or she was not on. Or busy. It happens.

Finally, you might have one excuse for the 3rr's that you could fall back on -- you could cite "Ignore all Rules" (which is sort of stupid... but it is out there) and you could cite "Biography of Living Persons" as a source of justification. It would not be as though you did not violate 3rr, but did so for superior reasons. If you can make that argument. I'm not sure that the word "however" meets that criteria, but it might work. I wouldn't expect an apology, but perhaps you could claim a "tie" rather than a loss and suffer less injury to your esteem and reputation.

You seem like a tireless editor and that's often a good thing for wikipedia. Why not stay? --Blue Tie 23:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Blue Tie posted the above, trying to help in good faith, after reading this.

Thanks Blue Tie. Gwen Gale 02:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do, and thank you for being gracious as well, glad it could be resolved, and please take it as such. Have you considered asking for a third opinion? Sometimes, a third set of eyes is helpful to clearing up a logjam between two editors. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Way. I told him on his talk page I'd likely be asking for an RfC. This is so trivial yet given WP:BLP I'm keen on keeping uncited, snarky OR "hints" out of the text. Funny thing, if he could come up with a citation I wouldn't think twice about it being in there. Gwen Gale 02:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

William Oefelein

No problem, glad I could help. --Kyoko 03:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. To me, my explanation felt heavy-handed, but I hope it made it clear why the statements shouldn't' automatically be assumed to be contradictory. --Kyoko 20:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Amelia assailed again

G/H, I remember that you instituted a type of protection for the Amelia Earhart article in February. Is there any way to put that back into effect; I am getting tired of reverting high school kids' notions of fun and frolic?! I can also use some advice to protect another page that is having problems with vandalism, albeit from an adult. How does the "sprotect" as you once styled it, work? Bzuk 19:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Semi-protection prevents edits by anons and new users. Unless there are more than 4 or 5 true pranks a day there is much reluctance to sprotect an article since helpful "drive by" edits by helpful anons do happen. Truth be told the AE article is rather quiet for now, given its higher profile topic. If you're having vandalism worries with a single user, you might want to bring it up at WP:ANI. Mind, it must be true vandalism, not crankiness, which must and can only be handled by asking for reliable citations. Gwen Gale 20:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Check user created

Just FYI: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/However_whatever - Denny 04:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I am such a bumpkin. I can't believe I didn't grok it until now. Gwen Gale 04:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

don't think it was totally obvious (and I'm as much a bumpkin as you are...), until you mentioned it as a joke (was it a joke?) and then the wheels started turning, and I looked at the edits without looking at the names. same guy, same wording... - Denny 04:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way that was no joke. Gwen Gale 05:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I mean, I Googled a bit for similar wording and syntax and then... fwap! It dawned on me, he'd provided a diff straight back to his earlier self in his latest trick at baiting me. Gwen Gale 04:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

What was the link to that? If he linked to his own sock, saying it was him, add it to the RFCU! - Denny 04:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This one, in which he cites a diff from weeks back, where I'd asked Baba gump to review WP:Troll. I guess he remembered, huh? Anyway he started describing me as a troll today and when I spoke up about it he threw that diff back in my face (saying like, "If she says it, I can say it" blah blah). He didn't say it was him or anything but thinking about both of them at the same time did it for me, is all. Gwen Gale 04:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I asked Real96 (talk · contribs) the CU clerk, why it was moved. I think it's a regular RFCU case, unless he knows something I don't... - Denny 05:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Who knows. Where there's smoke... Gwen Gale 05:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent) I moved the page down to the IP request section, and speedied the old page. I took off the speedy tag, later, because Luna (or other admin/clerk) could have the page deleted later. Per A, IPs must be listed below in the IP section. Cheers! Real96

Meanwhile I glark there are more where those three came from. Gwen Gale 15:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

EVP

If you're interested in getting involved there, a new perspective would be welcome. In general, there has been recent controversy about various parapsychology/pseudoscience topics such as how they should be defined, which categories are appropriate, etc. --Minderbinder 19:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI

FYI. - Denny 22:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It does have WP:OWN written all over it. I'd rather not guess publicly at what's behind it :) Gwen Gale 22:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Amelia Earhart

OK sorry. Its just i am doing a report on her so i like to have a little fun while doing it (This unsigned message was posted at 22:55, 20 March 2007 by User:Girlfromthebigo)

i actually do help if something is really wrong. why do you take so much offense.

Erm, that doesn't cut it since vandalizing articles isn't helpful. Gwen Gale 23:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

please mail me. i am so sorry. and it is impoliet to ignore a appology:-( . please at least respond

What do you want? Gwen Gale 23:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

EVP

Gwen, appreciate your input to the article. We are discussing the definition of EVP at the url below, so it may be premature to start changing it. --- LuckyLouie 17:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-13 Electronic Voice Phenomenon

Truth be told it's a widely recognized and explained phenomena with a straightforward definition. The only "debate" is whether or not it's sometimes caused by "spooks" (the paranormal claims). Let's see if someone doesn't like my changes and if that happens... whatever! There are many paths to peace on a public wiki. Gwen Gale 17:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. And drop by the mediation discussion if the spirit moves you (pun intended) : ) LuckyLouie 17:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Haha! wooooo wooooo! :) Gwen Gale 17:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems they don't want to hear about the naturalistic stuff behind it :) Gwen Gale 14:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

RegisterFly GA/Peer review

In the spirit of WP:BOLD I cleaned it up a fair bit more tonight and put it up for both Good Article & a seperate Peer Review. Would you mind taking another pass? the whole article is basically written by you and I and I'd love to see this get full Featured Article status after April, when that... mess ends for them. Its just too interesting/odd of a story! - Denny 08:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Your reversion of my edit to Eva Braun

See: Talk:Eva_Braun#The_sketch_is_not_by_Hitler

-- Egil 09:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've mv'd it to the talk page then. Gwen Gale 08:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for edit warring at Lisa Nowak. Have a look at the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Blue_Tie_reported_by_User:Gwen_Gale_.28Result:24_hours_for_both.29. Please use dispute resolution in the future. Dmcdevit·t 06:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll find something else to do then. Have fun violating Wikipedia policy, Dmcdevit :) Gwen Gale 06:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

See my comments to WP:ANI/3RR. Dmcdevit has erred, and you should be unblocked as soon as possible.Proabivouac 06:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Very sorry to see you blocked Gwen Gale. Unfortunately counting (ie: rv1, rv2, rv3) one's reversions is severely frowned upon. I hope you'll reconsider departing from the project. Your input is valuable here. (→Netscott) 08:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not violate 3rr. Gwen Gale 08:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that you didn't revert 4 times.... User:Dmcdevit checked your block log and read that a block for 3RR had just been lifted per "User agrees to refrain from future edit wars"... so he blocked you for edit warring (which I'm sure he based on the "rv3" edit summary you left). I haven't looked at the meat of what you were editing on but given what I know about you I suspect you were right. If you had been blocked for 3RR specifically I would argue your case but that is not what you were blocked for. (→Netscott) 08:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The remark "User agrees to refrain from future edit wars" was made by a teenaged admin who'd had sysop powers for only a few days, who was trying to save face after carelessly and erroneously blocking me for reverting a sockpuppet. Not wanting to prolong any conflict or unhelpful feelings, I didn't dispute his mis-characterization of the unblock. Meanwhile this current block is a double violation of Wikipedia policy. Gwen Gale 08:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Too many trolls and fools after all, I guess

There are too many of them for me here, too many role-playing troll admins, too many troll sockpuppet editors. Bye then. Gwen Gale 06:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Gwen Gale (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

See WP:ANI#Block of User:Gwen Gale by User:Dmcdevit.Proabivouac 07:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=See [[WP:ANI#Block of User:Gwen Gale by User:Dmcdevit]].[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 07:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=See [[WP:ANI#Block of User:Gwen Gale by User:Dmcdevit]].[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 07:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=See [[WP:ANI#Block of User:Gwen Gale by User:Dmcdevit]].[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 07:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

• I did not break 3rr.
• Moreover, when I reported Blue Tie for 3rr I made it clear that I would not make any further edits to the article for 24 hours.
• 3rr is meant to be preventative, not punative.

This block is a double violation of Wikipedia policy and is serious abuse of sysop access to the blocking scripts. Gwen Gale 08:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Gwen Gale is a serious and law-abiding editor with a record of non-trivial contributions to issues of foundation-level importance. User:Dmcdevit's block was in error, and should be reversed as soon as possible, so that the encyclopedia might continue to benefit from her contributions.Proabivouac 08:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)