User talk:Gwen Gale

Talk archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Sound understanding of BLP policy (restored)

I've restored this conversation as I still had a comment for you to address.

Gwen, I appreciate the actions you took with respect to the RFC, but I do have one significant objection.

You specifically state in your comments that "Collect has a sound understanding of WP:BLP". I am sure that this is true to an extent, but I believe that by saying this, you seem to be implying that problems with Collect's behavior are strictly procedural, i.e., merely that he may sometimes behave improperly while arguing in favor of a perfectly correct viewpoint. Again, I am sure this is sometimes or even often the case, but the way you have worded the compliment appears to deny that he is ever wrong – a sentiment that Collect, all too often, appears to share.

I believe it would go a long way in positively influencing Collect's behavior, for him to arrive upon a definitive understanding that his understanding of Wikipedia policy (e.g. WP:BLP) might, at times, be critically flawed. However, I believe that it would take someone of admin stature definitively telling Collect he is wrong on a specific policy interpretation in order for him to realize that his grasp of policy may be fallible, and also to recognize that in some cases there is no room for a substantive difference of opinion, but rather a correct intepretation and an incorrect interpretation.

It is partly to this end that I requested that you comment specifically on the "Argument with Collect" which I memorialized in its own page which you then userfied. To wit, in that argument, not to be too blunt about it, my position was correct and Collect's was incorrect.

If you'd prefer not to read the entire fiasco, I will distill it for you:

1) WP:BLP states that editors should "Remove any contentious material about living persons that is... a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research)"

2) Collect prefers to believe that the policy actually means this: "Conjectural statements are subject to a blanket prohibition within the context of BLPs; remove any material whatsoever which contains conjecture, regardless of sourcing". However, this is plainly not what the policy says; were the policy to mean this, it would need to be rewritten.

3) Collect has authoritatively insisted to other users, some of whom may have been newcomers, that his reading of this policy was correct.

4) In this way, Collect was effectively making up his own policy simply by dint of being pushy and verbose and making a major time committment to argumentation, all while being fundamentally wrong about the policy he was arguing; he seems to edit roughly 12 hours a day, a time committment few other editors can match regardless of whether they are right or wrong on policy. When coupled with an editor who feels infallible, it makes fertile ground for argument by filibuster, or another fallacious tactic Collect seems to favor, the "argument from authority" (e.g. an implied or expressed assertion to the effect of "seven thousand edits, three decades on the Internet, and many years as an AOL admin make me an expert...")

5) If a habit, this would be a terrible and destructive habit for a Wikipedia editor to have; it would also be terrible and destructive for such a habit to go unnoticed.

This is much worse, and more difficult to spot, than the basic edit warring, POV-pushing, and incivility. However, I am not looking for an expansion of the measures you take against Collect. I simply wish that you would impress upon him that his powers of analysis are not infinite and that he should try to learn to better recognize when his position is in the wrong, and in these cases, openly and perhaps apologetically concede the argument to the other party. My fear is that your comments about his "sound understanding of BLP" may have the effect of validating what I see as Collect's tendency to think that he is always right.

My request is that you please address this issue with Collect, and perhaps make a note of it in your comments at the RFC, before it gets too far out of hand. And of course, if your consideration of the situation results in you coming up with some advice for me, (e.g. "Actually you are wrong on that policy because..."), I am all ears. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

As I've already said, I think his implementation of BLP has been flawed because he has tended to apply it only when the outcome agreed with his own PoV. If he again cites WP:BLP in a way which you find worrisome, please let me (or another admin) know, with diffs. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, Gwen. However, I'm not sure the point has gotten across.

I would appreciate if you would please directly acknowledge that Collect's understanding of BLP policy was, in this case, objectively and substantively incorrect.

As I said before, it is problematic when an editor is completely wrong on a policy, but behaves in a pushy and insistent manner in attempting to get other users to abide by that critically mistaken interpretation of policy. This wasn't a problem with poor implementation of policy, but rather poor understanding of it, and consequently there was an attempt to implement something which was not policy, under the guise of policy.

Perhaps you feel that this is a mere semantic quibble, but you did seem to be saying that this was not an issue of flawed understanding of policy -- which it certainly was. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer if you would not misstate my positions on BLP. Ascribing quotes to me which I did not write is not a good way to procede. at all. Thank you most kindly, but such fake quotes do not help anyone at all. And use of fake quotes as a straw man argement does not work either. So please cease ascribing words to me which are not mine, positions to me which are not mine and faults to me which are not mine. Thank you most kindly (and any fact checker will find that the "quotes" are fake). Collect (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Collect: you argued that conjectural statements are prohibited by BLP policy. That's not a distortion or a straw man – it's exactly what you were arguing, demonstrated by the record of what you actually said. And it was provably wrong. You need to come to terms with the fact that you are sometimes wrong about things, even subjects to which you may have devoted a great deal of thought. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Diffs? Gwen Gale (talk) 20:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank You most kindly, Collect, for providing proof that Editor:Fcays concerns are right on the money. Rather than respond with a valid defense, you point the finger right back. Fcays is not ascribing quotes to you. He has accurately "phrased" you position. He is paraphrasing your actions and deeds into clear and concise statements that all can understand. He is not claiming that these are your quotes. I certainly don't read them as your quotes. If anyone is making a knowingly false claim it is you. No strawman argement except yours. Editor:Fcays has accurately stated your constant position on BLP's. The fact that you can't, or won't, see it is his point to Administor:Gwen Gale.--Buster7 (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Neat-o ... try reading "Collect prefers to believe that the policy actually means this: "Conjectural statements are subject to a blanket prohibition within the context of BLPs; remove any material whatsoever which contains conjecture, regardless of sourcing". However, this is plainly not what the policy says; were the policy to mean this, it would need to be rewritten." without getting the impression that "Conjectural statements are subject to a blanket prohibition within the context of BLPs; remove any material whatsoever which contains conjecture, regardless of sourcing" is presented as a quote -- or do you routinely assume that quotation marks arounfd a long sentence do not indicate a quote? As for your personal attack -- you can place it with the myriad other attacks you made. Thank you most kindly! Collect (talk) 23:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Diffs? Gwen Gale (talk) 11:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Collect, you most certainly were arguing that conjectural statements are subject to a blanket prohibition within BLPs. In fact, you probably spent about a thousand words viciously and insultingly arguing that exact point, insisting on rejecting black letter Wikipedia policy, and I won't even discuss at this time the various forms of ill behavior you exhibited while doing so, nor the outrageous accusations you're now making here in lieu of simply admitting you were wrong on a cut-and-dry policy which is not really amenable to differing interpretations.

For Gwen, on to the diffs. Please note that the diffs begin before I noticed this discussion and got involved.

(1) The dispute appears to have begun with this diff, in which another user working on the Sarah Palin article adds material on speculation about a 2012 Sarah Palin Presidential bid, and her own comments denying that she would be interested. The material itself was never really a concern to me, but on its face, the sourcing seems to be solid and the subject matter well within line of BLP policy. However, Collect's subsequent response – deleting the material and then providing a false justification for doing so – seems to have been completely inappropriate, and compounded by his refusal to admit any mistake.

(2) Collect deleted the material in this diff, with the edit summary reading, "2012 speculation in a BLP????"

(3) The user who added the material posted this question on Collect's talk page: "In what way does this remotely violate WP:BLP?"

(4) Collect responds that the reason it violates WP:BLP is because it contains conjecture. Specifically, he says that it "fails the 'conjecture' part of BLP", without any explanation of what "the 'conjecture' part of BLP" is. Indeed, his edit summary for his response simply reads, "Conjecture".

(5) Weeks later, I see this discussion at Collect's talk page and realize that it is eerily similar to similar discussions, previously repeated ad nauseam, on the same subject, and others in which Collect has authoritatively said that "facts are what belong in a BLP" (his words) while steadfastly refusing to acknowledge that facts about opinions are still facts, and can be appropriate in a BLP if the opinions referenced are sufficiently sourced, relevant, and notable.

(6) Sensing what I felt sure was a pattern of rule-twisting, I became involved in the discussion by pointing out that BLP policy does not prohibit conjecture.

(7) Collect presents the following text as evidence for his claim that conjectural statements are prohibited in BLPs: "Remove any contentious material about living persons... that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research)". He also immediately escalates the tone of the discussion by applying the colorful edit summary "Chutzpah at your service" (presumably a play on my name), and accusing me of seeking to intimidate him.

(8) Frustrated by the fact that I have already repeatedly explained this to Collect and he simply ignores me, I point out that the language he has just cited does not support the claim that conjecture is prohibited in a BLP, and I proceed to explain what the language actually means. In other words, I explain that conjectural interpretations of a source are prohibited, exactly as the policy states, and that this is simply an extension of WP:NOR, because if an editor makes a "conjectural interpretation" of a source he is adding his own conjecture rather than simply reflecting what the source says -- which would clearly be WP:Original Research, as just mentioned.

(9) Collect, colorfully and with a great deal of verbiage and suggestions that I get myself a dictionary, refuses to acknowledge this, saying that the policy is open to multiple interpretations and that his interpretation is just as valid as my own. (I'd like to point out, again, that his "interpretation" is not in any way supported by the language he cites, nor does the language itself appear to be ambiguous in any way.)

(10) The discussion degenerates even further and ends with Collect refusing to acknowledge that he was mistaken, and insisting that his personal "interpretation" of the specific BLP language is uniquely correct.

(The entire discussion can be found here. My delightfully annotated version, which I presented to the RF/C as evidence of what a surreal experience it is to debate something with Collect, can be found here.)

• All I ask, Gwen, is that you authoritatively confirm the following statement: The language in BLP policy which prohibits conjectural interpretations of a source, pursuant to WP:NOR, means exactly what it says: an editor may not make a contentious edit that is a conjectural interpretation of a source within the context of a BLP. It does not say, nor does it mean, that all conjecture should be removed from BLPs regardless of sourcing. Yet this was precisely what Collect was arguing.

• Even now, Collect will not even acknowledge that he may have been mistaken at any point – instead, he is right here on your Talk Page accusing me of lying about him and manufacturing "fake quotes" (his words) which he claims bear no relation to anything he has actually said. In reality, you can quickly confirm that I have paraphrased Collect's debate position quite accurately. This is precisely the problem I am talking about. When Collect feels he has lost an argument, or simply does not like what another editor is saying, he resorts immediately and without hesitation to character assassination. This does not appear to have changed at all subsequent to the recent interventions, and it's a really awful and counterproductive trait which does harm to other editors and to Wikipedia itself. A lesson on fallibility is all I ask you to deliver, as I think the rest of the problems might then correct themselves.

Thanks for your time (by now, lots of it). Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Whoa! I read this section in an idle moment, and see that the complaints presented by the other editors about Collect are completely correct. Their arguments are logical and sound. Collect has definitely misinterpreted the BLP policy. Put simply: Sourced facts about published conjecture ╪ editor making a conjectural statement. Waiting for Gwen to respond! ► RATEL ◄ 00:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This section had already been deleted. Meanwhile, I do not really think a person who has called me "deranged" and worse has much credibility here. As for your position on BLP, I think that also has been noted. I do not believe WP should compete with the National Enquirer and Paris Match. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 01:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That statement is a red herring, Collect. Why not simply admit you are wrong on this issue? We'd all think more of you for it. ► RATEL ◄ 01:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

If you actually cited my position on BLP accurately, fine. When gross misstatements are told it becomes hard to say "when I stopped beating my proverbial wife." And the more times a distortion is posted, does not make it any less a distortion. Your position on BLP, that we should deliberately seek out defamatory material, is, moreover, quote repugnamt to me. WP ought not be the National Enquirer, while some seem to think the National Enquirer is precisely what we should use as a reliable source. Calling a request for honest discussion a "red herring" is, moreover, not helpful for the project. Collect (talk) 01:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(posted after Buster's comment) Collect: the only person here citing your position on BLP is me, and I am doing it quite accurately and with direct reference to the things you actually said. No misstatements, gross or otherwise. It's all there in the diffs. Plus, your comment which Ratel referred to as a "red herring" consisted entirely of personal attacks so it's difficult to imagine how you see that as a "request for honest discussion" rather than an attempt to change the subject away from the policy debate in which your position was wrong. Honest discussion is already being had, regardless of whether you choose to participate. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Respond to Editor:Fact checker, Collect. Don't use Editor:Ratel as a smokescreen. Your tactics are too obvious.--Buster7 (talk) 02:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Collect and BLP

• That happened seven months ago, it's all stale now.
• Someone can have a sound understanding of a policy and twist it to editing towards their own PoV, which as I said in my close of the RfC as the unblocking admin, is what I think Collect did. Either way, it doesn't matter, the outcome or behaviour is all that needs any heed. If he has done this again lately, or does it again, please let me or another admin know about it, with diffs.
• I think the lot of you should stop talking about each other now and start over, dealing only with sources and content.
• Collect, this means you, too. Please stop talking about other editors. By trying to shift the topic away from your own edit warring behaviour you often bring yourself to the very cliffs of personal attack and stir up more kerfluffle. This could become blockable.
• Had arbcom taken the RfAr, it's likely a few of you would have been sanctioned by its broad scythe along with Collect. If it winds up there again, good luck.
• Y'all, please take my hint and stop bickering. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Response

I am not trying to bicker, Gwen. Collect, if you'll notice, is the one who is trying to inject character attacks into this discussion... right here in plain view on your talk page. I have a straightforward question, on a straightforward subject; I'm trying to get a straightforward answer out of an admin, and having precious little luck.

Please directly and explicitly confirm the following (2) numbered statements:

• (1) From the Talk Page text referenced above, it is obvious that Collect was arguing that BLP policy prohibits conjectural statements, regardless of whether he was aware or unaware that this is not what the policy says.

• (2) This position, stated above, is incorrect. Perhaps Collect knew it was incorrect and deliberately chose to distort the policy in order to achieve his preferred outcome. Perhaps he just didn't get it. Whatever the case, the position was incorrect.

Additionally, please note that since Collect is now vehemently claiming that this is not what he was arguing, he is now openly lying right in front of an admin, which ought to give any WP editor pause. Not only is he lying about statements he has made on record, but the admin he's doing it in front of has already been made aware of that record, which makes it even more disturbing that he would be so bold. In order for discussions on Wikipedia (or anywhere else) to have any meaning, it simply cannot be acceptable to say something and then go back and say you never said it.

Gwen, mentoring and providing advice to an editor is one thing; fostering an environment where the editor feels comfortable escalating his problematic behavior, engaging in ad hominem attacks, and lying about statements he has previously made on record, is entirely different. I fear that you are going to be a bad influence on Collect because you seem barely willing to seriously criticize, contradict, or sanction him. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Since neither of you can say anything in 1,000 words or less, or not have the last word, please let me save all of you some time and provide the Wikitwit version:

• F: He's wrong!
• C: Am not!
• F: Are too!
• G: Diffs please.
• F: See! He won't play by the rules!
• C: Do too!
• F: Do not!
• G: Diffs please.
• F: Make him stop!
• C: Can't make me
• G: Can too.
• F: He's your pet!
• G: Is not!
• C: Is too!
• G: I have a fire hose and I'm ready to use it.
• G & C: Are not!

Flowanda | Talk 18:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

How boring, not even clever. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Clever, I am not. But I didn't mean to offend, either...I'm pretty sure I've played that scene a few times myself. Sorry. Flowanda | Talk 18:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

All the world's a stage, I guess :) No worries! Gwen Gale (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Fc, I agree with much of what you've said. I don't think Collect is lying, I think he's so wrapped up in his own wikilawyering that he shifts his own outlook at will, without wholly groking he's doing so, to skirt owning up to his own behaviour. I can't block him for doing this on my talk page. I can't block him for stuff he did before the RfC. If I seem like I'm being too easy on Collect, the truth is, I'm going easy on all of you, hoping everyone will stop attacking each other. I still don't think you understand that others along with Collect would likely have been sanctioned by arbcom had they taken on the RfAr. If Collect makes any reverts as sanctioned by me (the unblocking admin), I'll block him. If he becomes tendentious on an article talk page, or edit wars through wee wordings rather than reverts, I'll either start a thread at ANI about disruption or block him straight off. If he's stirring up worries now, other than on my talk page, give me diffs and I'll take admin action now. Collect, what do you have to say about this? I'm not happy with how you've handled the aftermath of the RfAr and RfC. Fc, are you willing to forget the bygone and give me diffs only having to do with Collect's edits after the RfC? Please let me have your thoughts. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I have sought utterly to comply with your stipulations. I do feel the multiple CUs, RFCUs, SPIs, ANis, WQAs, RFAR and the like have made me a bit testy, and the badgering which continues on multiple pages is not helping much. I do not actually like being called a "nut case" and "deranged" and worse and being given a cite for "brain damage" which I rather think is not a productive mode of discussion. Thanks! Collect (talk) 19:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Removing notability tag from Thomas DiLorenzo

Whats up with removing my notability tags from Thomas DiLorenzo? I can understand it if you dont agree with me, but you should know that you cant just remove tags without making some effort to address the concerns expressed. Bonewah (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You can't slap a tag on the article and be done with it. The topic is notable and you haven't supported the tag on the article talk page, which you must do. If you have meaningful worries about the topic's notability, take it to articles for deletion. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Drudge Report

Even trivial wording changes are now being reverted <g>. I think one editor is substantially not even reading what he reverts. [1] Collect (talk) 23:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Why is Collect editing political pages like Drudge Report without consequence, in direct contravention of the strictures recently placed upon him by you, Gwen Gale? ► RATEL ◄ 00:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Never saw that on the RfC. Might want to read it again. Soxwon (talk) 01:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, re-reading I see it's only a reversion restriction. Pity. But there's still the "tendentiously or disruptively" clause. By Talk-challenging my revert that replaced a necessary sentence segment, he's skirting that one. ► RATEL ◄ 01:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh plz, your word isn't law. He's allowed to have a freaking opinion for God's sake. Soxwon (talk) 01:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)"Necessary"? I trust that most people when you say a site has ads that they can figger out that it gets revenue from the ads. As for the other reverts you made of my major changes --- I suggest that some might, in fact, find your revert petty. And I doubt really that removing the word "out" where it is not needed is "disruptive" to anyone at all. But heck, some might think you are chasing every single edit I make to see if Gwen will block me. Sad, really. Collect (talk) 01:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Think you're being stalked? Not a nice feeling, is it? ► RATEL ◄ 02:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

One can't infer revenue by seeing ads on a website. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

socks in the drawer

About this, I've long said that en.Wikipedia is awash in sockpuppets and many editors would be amazed at who runs some of them. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Like finding gambling going on at Rick's Cafe? I stand strongly by my estimates of "alternate personas" for sure. Collect (talk) 20:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

"We'll always have Paris." Gwen Gale (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

And the Place de la SST? Collect (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Le Concorde était beau, mais c'était une arnaque socialiste/fasciste des années soixantes. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Mais le Concorde - c'est finis. Collect (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Ba oui, c'est le but. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I understand the idoms -- but Google translate does not. Collect (talk) 22:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I said, "yeah, that's what I'm sayin'" :) Gwen Gale (talk) 23:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

My loose translation was "Oh yeah, that was my point." -- Close enough? Collect (talk) 23:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The point, aye! Gwen Gale (talk) 23:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sir Lancelot

Gwen Gale, why do you and user:LadyofShalott have the same image on your userpage? Are you related? Also, the poem seems a bit dated. Isn't there something from pop-culture you can use that I would be able to relate to instead? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Happenstance. As for the poem, I don't have it anywhere in my userspace, never have. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 08:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't you think you two should Ro-sham-bo for the privilege of hosting the image? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It's so daunting, I feel so betrayed, that someone would put the same GFDL snap as I on their talk page. I hum a song of woe and nobody cares, I think I'll go eat grass. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Malleus

Hi. FYI I've left a question at Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs)'s talk page. Cheers, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I've already answered there. Personal attacks aren't allowed on en.Wikipedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct; blatant personal attacks are not allowed. However, don't you think a week for a borderline-uncivil comment is a bit punitive? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I was going to make it for 31 hours but had a look at his block log. Then, 5 minutes ago, I was about to unblock Malleus owing to what I see as a lack of consensus, but he seems to be gleeful about it, saying, "bye bye Wikipedia" (see also the text at the top of his user page). I'm happy to go along with consensus on this and have yet to see a post supporting this block. What do you think? Gwen Gale (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)