User talk:Gwen Gale

Talk archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

the f word

I wontedly block usernames made of sundry spins on it and am happy to do this for the community, knowing that 19 times out of 20 (or whatever) anyone who would choose any username calling this word to mind wants only to disrupt the encyclopedia but truth be told, I mean, fuck, I so like that word :) Gwen Gale (talk) 02:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You are quickly becoming my favorite admin. Switzpaw (talk) 02:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Calm down Switzpaw, Gwen may be the alias of a huge hairy bloke. But this is a great page to learn about Wiki and how to deal with all levels of ambition, attitude and culture. PS Gwen, I know a lady who chose her company name, 'FertilityUK', in complete naivety, so she must be the other 1 of the twenty. Autodidactyl (talk) 12:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Autodidactyl how the fuck did you guess? Gwen Gale (talk) 14:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Aaaaaaargh. But it still doesn't prove that you are a man. Autodidactyl (talk) 16:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

So what did she do when she groked the acronym at last? Gwen Gale (talk) 03:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Regretted it but carried on regardless. Resolved to always write the name in full. The 'business' is at the formal/technical/medical end of the spectrum of family planning and sex education. Autodidactyl (talk) 12:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

wholesale archiving of Talk:Joe the Plumber by one editor

User:Inclusionist has made it his business to archive current sections from a Talk page without consultation, and in order to show his "positions" ina better light that the recent sections showed them. Collect (talk) 01:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparently he did it to use 29 or so rapid fire edits to fix his words, and to change section titles as well as to remove posts which were embarassing to him. Of course, mainly without noting the changes. Sort of a do it yourself WavBack machine for Talk. Collect (talk) 02:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it may be a little untowards but unless there's a consensus on the talk page to put everything back I wouldn't do anything: If you have a need to cite any of his talk page edits, do so with diffs. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Game time -- now he has a RfM out -- he notified me even before he filled in any of the blanks. I think Joe the Plumber is setting a record for such processes ... Collect (talk) 03:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm so startled to see it. ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 03:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Be sure to read its Talk page. I am trying not to laugh at some of this! Collect (talk) 03:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It's codswallop stateside meaningless scam politics no matter who comes out "on top" and has little to do with Joe himself so don't try to keep up with it, cite sources if you like and please do let me know if you see any WP:BLP worries but otherwise let it play out into its pithless fate as an historical footnote to yet another tweedle-dee tweedle-dum election. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Although just a few seconds ago, I did try looking for those diffs, I honestly am not thinking straight. For the past few days, all I've been doing is parser code in my friend's wiki for an sheeted, dice-based rpg of his. Long story short, the template topped out at 150kb of parser functions. I'm exhausted, as are my eyes. I probably need to take a break from the computer for a couple of days until I feel better before I get involved in any disputes.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 06:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

If you ask me, there may be a reason why looking for the diffs was a slog, tired minds tend to shut down when faced with worthless tasks :) Gwen Gale (talk) 06:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Returning vandal

Thanks for rapidly blocking User:Pioneer prefered Lewinsky. I am sure it was a return of the famous User:Pionier. Please see the other IPs on that page, for he will return in about 3 days. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 03:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. You can let me know if they show up again. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Jerry Evans

May I please have a copy of my article on Jerry Evans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). So I can rewrite it to a higher standard, I'm very new at this wiki stuff and didn't finish writing the article to the necessary standard. Thanks ranluf-[email addy redacted] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.164.228 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Please read this page first. I've put the deleted text at User:Ranluf/sandbox. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Vengeance of lazarus

An article that you have been involved in editing, Vengeance of lazarus, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vengeance of lazarus. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Happy Editing! — 72.75.110.31 (talk · contribs) _{12:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)}

All I did was decline the speedy. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Your grossly inappropriate block of The Enchantress of Florence

This block was inappropriate for several conspicuous reasons:

• You imposed the block without actually considering the substantial issues. You comment in announcing the clock was simply that you had "worries." It is clear that you did not reasonably consider the circumstances or evaluate the circumstances, but acted on accusations alone. That is simply high-tech lynching of someone who had stated unpopular opinions, and is behavior that a reasonable, ethical person would be ashamed of.

  You imposed the block without allowing an opportunity for the accused person to respond. That is another feature of a lynching. Since my spouse is actively employed, unlike, it seems, most of her critics, she did not have an opportunity to respond to the discussion of blocking before you imposed the block. I would think that simple decency requires allowing a response. You apparently do not.

  The block was asymmetric. Once of the complainants, Crusio had posted a lengthy personal attack on my spouse, in response to her civil (and accurate) comment that his actions toward a new user violated the WP:BITE policy.[1] [2] Crusio then accessed my spouse's contribution list,announcing his intentions and began removing her prior contributions without regard to their validity; here, for example, he vandalized an article by reinserting unsourced material that amounts to puffery/advertising. [3] Note that Crusio began devoting unwarranted attention to her only an hour after she removed a "prod" notice he had placed on an article. [4] Note that in the same discussion, concerning deletion of an article concerning an erotic film performer, supported the inclusion of a claim that the performer had engaged in explicit on-camera sex with her sister (raising BLP issues far more substantial that the accusations falsely leveled against my spouse bu Durova), even though the source Crusio cited said exactly the opposite, that the claim was a hoax. [5] [6]. Frankly, Crusio's actions and comments more that justify the description of him as a "stalker," and demonstrate far greater cause for restrictions on his editing capabilities.

  Several of the charges you cite are no more than unfounded accusations, little more than rude epithets. THe claim of "pointy noms" is unsupported by anything other than name-calling, and your repetition of it, plainly without having evaluated the response provided in relevant discussions [7]. It should also have been clear that several examples of that accusation were clearly made in bad faith; Horrorshowj, for example, made the accusation while aaccusing "mass" deletion proposals, although there were only two. Acting without evdence -- indeed, in the clear absence of evidence, is at best grossly irresponsible.

  Your reference to BLP violations is clearly and unmistakeably inappropriate. That claimwas made only by user:Durova, who has achieved notoriety by making false allegations against another user. It rests entirely on Durova's objectively false statements regarding the standards for credit card chargebacks, as discussed in detail in the Ginger Jolie deletion debate. "Durova" believes that it is inappropriate to unfavorably characterize a person who refused to provide services she had contracted for, refused to voluntarily refund the advance payments made to her business, and inappropriately, publicly, threatened retailiation against those who made valid claims to their credit card issuers. Why Durova has such sympathy towards dishonest business practices I cannot understand, but discussion of them, based on the subjects own public statements, plainly violates no Wikipedia standards.

  Your actions are irresponsible and unjustified. You should immediately reverse the block and apologize. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 13:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't take anyone's word for anything, I looked at the diffs. The block was endorsed at WP:ANI and she was clearly being disruptive, engaging in personal attacks and pointy edits whilst straying from WP:BLP. Moreover the block will automatically lift in a few hours, although if she carries on with that behaviour, the next block will be swift and for a much longer time. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Where are the "pointy edits" and "BLP violations" you claim? Why do you believe it is approprate to act without providing an opportunity to respond? Why was your block asymmetric? Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 14:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said, this block was endorsed at WP:ANI. She's more than welcome to contest the block by putting up an {{unblock|reason here}} tag on her talk page, which other admins will review. Mind, her block will be up in a few hours anyway. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Why do you refuse to discuss the matter? Your block was "justified" by false statements and poor policy judgments; the fact that another administrator had the poor judgment to agree with you is hardly relevant. And that certainly does not address the asymmetry question; why did you not act against Crusio, whose personal atack on, and stalking of, my spouse led to the less caustic comments you imposed the inappropiate block for? Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 14:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a court of law, it's a private website with easy to follow rules which have grown through community consensus. She broke a few rules, was blocked for it and the block was endorsed. The block notice clearly tells how to contest a block, but she hasn't contested it. If she does contest it with an unblock template, other admins will be happy to review this block. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

That's just another evasion. I think it is clear that she did ot break several of the rules you cite, and that you refused to block other users whose more severely broke the one arguably applicable rule. Moreover, there is no rule which states that other users may not object to blocks, and such objections take place frequently. Your comments here strongly suggest to me that your behavior was abusive, and you are unwilling to follow the standards you apply to others. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 14:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

On your user page you self-identify as lawyer who has too much time on his hands right now. Wikipedia is only a website, she broke some of its rules and was only blocked from editing web pages on a single website for 2 days. Moreover, as a relative you seem to have a conflict of interest. She's welcome to put up an unblock template and other admins will review the block. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Now that's a personal attack, and you're also citing a nonexistent COI policy. You continue to evade the legitimate issues involved. Thats an abuse of your authority. Your behavior appalls me. Regardless of my relationship to the target of your hostility, there's nothing inappropriate about questioning actions that appear dubious. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 14:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Hostility? I think you may have your own edits muddled with someone else's. I'll put it this way, but only once more: She can contest the block by putting up an unblock template. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Any user may object to abuse of an administrator's authority. You cite no policy otherwise. The fact that the target of the abuse does not choose to follow the abuser's preferred process is irrelevant. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 14:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I've told you four times how she can handle this. You can bring this up at WP:ANI but I'd rather humbly nudge you towards having a cup of tea instead. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

And I have told you an at least equal number of times that my objections to your abuse of administrative authority are independent of anyone else's opinions. You do not city any policy as justification for your refusal to address these issues. I would also note that the overall discussion you implicitly endorsed included a suggestion that sanctions toward me were possible (a claim also without plicy justification), so I hardly think your dismissive attitude is appropriate. Any Wikipedian editor may object to abuse of authority, not just the target. You cite no policy otherwise, because there is none. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 15:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Throughout this thread you've strayed from both WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, which is mostly why I haven't wanted to go into this very deeply with you. If you would like to carry on this discussion, please do so at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:The_Enchantress_Of_Florence_attacks_on_other_editors, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)