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 Wikitwitter 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)

But your own behaviour had nothing to do with it I guess. Wake up. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Gwen,

Sorry – another long post. While this isn't everything I had hoped for (with regards to a specific pronouncement on the policy debate), I am now satisfied that you have a relatively full view of the situation. I do also recognize it's not your obligation to make sure that I am satisfied with your decisions and statements – nor have I been especially shy about bringing these issues to your talk page. I can't dictate to Collect what he takes home from any given discussion, but I had hoped we would reach a point where he would feel comfortable saying, and feel the need to say, something like, "Gee, I actually was wrong on that one point. Sorry to give you such a hard time about it."

Gwen, I just hope you will watch out that Collect does not make a habit of playing the "edge case", where behavior which might be called "marginally but systematically disruptive" serves as a substitute for the outright edit-warring and uncivil behavior of months past. Still, I am willing to let the water pass under the bridge and be satisfied that the matter is in your hands; and in any case I suspect I will have few run-ins with Collect going forward. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Although Collect has at least acknowledged and apologized for edit warring, it's true he hasn't much acknowledged the worries others have had about tendentiousness and what I'd call "edge warring." I hope I've been straightforward enough, you or any editor shouldn't be at all shy about coming to me or another admin if Collect reverts, otherwise edit wars, wikilawyers over content and so forth. If you do have a later disagreement with Collect, don't comment on him at all, go straight to an admin, since both the RfAr decline comments and RfC close are there to be cited. Collect, I'm truly hoping you'll try to get along with these other editors even if you don't take to their PoVs. Likewise, don't comment on them either. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:47, 11 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)

I left a comment that makes it clear that your use of "personal attacks" is 100% against the letter and spirit of NPA and that you have been here long enough to know that. Not only was there no object of the "attack", the characterization is 100% acceptable per long standing community consensus on describing actions and behavior and ignoring the real life characterizations of an individual. An RfC will be filed later over this and your recent history of very bad blocks based on poor judgment later unless you make the appropriate steps towards rectifying the situation via apologizing to Malleus for such a clear overstepping of your authority. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I wish you the best of luck in your deconstruction of en.Wikipedia. Maybe that's what it needs, let the free market of ideas have sway. Speaking only for myself, I only use the bit to implement consensus. I blocked Malleus owing to the consensus-driven policy WP:NPA and I unblocked Malleus owing to the consensus that his remarks were not a PA but a supportable observation that many admins are indeed sycopantic wannabees. Some are also sockpuppeteers. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

For something controversial and non-urgent like that don't you think the wise thing should have been to get consensus first? Rather than wondering which way consensus is likely to go after the event. Seems to me to be the commonsense way of going about things. Maybe that's just me though? --WebHamster 20:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Deconstruction of Wikipedia? My dear, I have spent more hours in my short time here building up this encyclopedia to a high quality level than anything I have witnessed from you. Your actions took a policy that was created to protect content editors, removed the need for an object, removed the whole idea of "personal", and then applied it in order to bring harm to a content editor. You have defiled the very purpose of the rule, have abused the community's long term consensus on the matter, and brought harm to a long standing high quality content editor. You have attacked the heart, spirit, and strength, of Wikipedia in one move. You owe him an apology. You cannot simply "unblock" the attack upon him. You must apologize and make amends in order to remedy the harm that you brought about. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I've attacked the " heart, spirit, and strength, of Wikipedia in one move." I think WP:NPA needs a rewrite. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You can think that as long as you want, but the community disagrees and you contradicted the community. You owe an apology to Malleus for this action. This is the last time I will state the bloody obvious on the matter, as I will be devoting my time to compiling the rest of the evidence for the RfC if you refuse to extend Malleus the most basic of courtesies after making such a mistake. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I implemented community consensus. I do think the community might want to rewrite WP:NPA and I'll be happy to abide by whatever new policy is set forth there. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You implemented it after incorrectly guessing what it would be in the first place. You have to admit that makes your assessment skills look rather dodgy? Like I know what your answer will be! --WebHamster 20:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Rollback is only for vandalism, Webhamster. You abused it and it was taken away from you. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

And that validates your dodgy decision how? --WebHamster 20:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That sounds a lot like baiting to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Some have said I'm a master at it. I disagree. --WebHamster 20:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, there's a vast difference between "abused" and "misused". Not that I would expect you to understand that, what with your delineation of write (sic) and wrong processes being a tad dodgy and all. --WebHamster 20:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I will use the above as evidence in the RfC if I do not see an apologize coming after I make this very clear - "I implemented community consensus". WP:NPA 1. "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Who was the contributor that was object to the comment? There was none provided, so there is no way that this falls under "personal". 2. "comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people" - Calling someone a sycophant by definition is a comment on an action, as sycophant is a modifier dealing with -behavior- and only -behavior-. These two points are 100% essential to the community's definition of a "personal attack" and wont change because the dictionary definition of both "personal" and "attack" match exactly what the policy states as intended. You blocked without having an object while the comment was about a behavior. This is 100% against acceptable. This is now 100% clear to you. Now you can apologize (as many others have requested you to do), or you can most likely be desysopped for making it clear that you don't understand the community's most basic of policies nor do you make the even basic attempt to correct these violations. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

We disagree. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Disagree on what? You have not provided an object for part 1, and part 2 is very simple. Now, part 3 is this "Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack." Now, since consensus made it clear that you were wrong about him making a personal attack, you have to apologize in order to strike your own personal attack. So, on top of you owing an apology for a very bad block that went against policy, you have to make amends to prevent your own being blocked. Perhaps you wouldn't mind a desysopping for abuse and a lack of accepting our policies, but you might actually care about being blocked for the disruption and attacks you have made? It isn't cowardice to admit one made a mistake an apologize for it, so why not just do the right thing? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

What do I care about? Gwen Gale (talk) 20:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yourself? Your status? Not being blocked? Anything? There are plenty of reasons why there is one logical and easy choice to make, and yet you refuse. So, perhaps you care about nothing. It was pointed out that there was no object to the term sycophant, and pointed out by another that NPA needs an object. You blocked anyway, even though NPA makes it clear that they were right. You claimed there was an attack, even though NPA states that making such claims is a personal attack. You assumed there was an object, even though AGF alone would tell you that your assumption is inappropriate. You have disrupted the encyclopedia by hassling one of our top content contributors and blocking him against policy. You also show a disregard for WP:CONSENSUS. Do you actually care about the encyclopedia at all? I haven't seen any action from you as of late that suggests you do. You have claimed that policies should be rewritten, that mistakes don't need to be apologized for, and that harm can be done without even feeling the least bit bad for it. You were blocked many, many times before and was even restricted by ArbCom. Your attitudes show a return to such previous state of acting. A simple apology would go far to showing that you are actually here to help and not harm. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Threatening Gwen with an RfC if she doesn't apologize and appropriately grovel seems a bit much as far as perverted justice goes. If, however, someone proposed a policy whereby non-admin editors were able to impose this kind of thing as a formalized punishment when admin actions go against community consensus it might be kind of fun... But seriously, I think this campaign has gone far enough Ottava. If you thought an apology was appropriate, a polite request for one would have been a better way to go about it. There's certainly a gray area involved here, and splitting hairs over wording and definitions of what is and isn't a personal attack doesn't seem useful. It comes down to judgment. I'd like to see more restraint on admins part, they need to use discussion and to exercise restraint just like the rest of us do when dealing with frustrating circumstances, but the apology by way of threat approach is rather unseemly even if it were complied with. And yes I know that this is often how it's done when the roles are reversed, but hopefully that will change some day soon... ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Multiple people have asked for an apology, and multiple people have stated that there is more than enough to certify. Will I pursue the RfC if she apologizes? No. However, I feel that an RfC is more than due. But here is the thing - I expected that she wouldn't apologize because she thinks what she did in usurping the community's authority, blocking against policy, violating NPA, Civil, and the rest, and causing harm and disruption, means that she should probably be desysopped and blocked for at least a month as the only way to prevent future behavior like this from happening. Perhaps a month block would be a lesson not to allow her to have sysopping especially after multiple blocks and a maybe ArbCom statement saying that she completely abused her status as an editor. There was no justification for her actions or treatment of Malleus. You know it, I know it, and regardless of what she may say, Gwen knows it. It is impossible for her not to read the extremely clear statements at NPA and think that a comment without an object, stated to not have an object, could even come close to meeting the requirements for NPA. To use Jimbo's term, Gwen has verified that she has a poisonous personality. She can redeem herself via apology, but she probably wont even though that option has been laid out before her by multiple parties and is rather easy to take. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I have to say, as someone embroiled in this brouhaha, that what Gwen showed was a lack of judgement, in my parlance, a "fuck up". I don't think she should be subjected to an RFC or a blocking, or even a bollocking and/pr then make an apology to Malleus simply for a fuck-up. I think all of those sanctions are pretty much useless in the scheme of things and will serve no purpose from a project standpoint. What is needed is something that gets the point across to Gwen, improves the project and help stop this sort of thing happening again. I'd suggest that Gwen make a voluntary effort to spend a full week editing and discussing at WP:NPA and it's talk page to see if she can actually do something to improve it. Just a suggestion, I'll go back into my corner now. --WebHamster 21:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

How dare you say I fucked up ;) Isn't that a personal attack? Shouldn't you be blocked for that? :D Gwen Gale (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Only if you wanted to fuck up ;) --WebHamster 21:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Truth be told, this was a personal attack aimed at one of the three admins who supported WH's loss of rollback. Policy is no longer in line with consensus, hence I unblocked. I think the place to talk about this is Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks, but that's me. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you have even the vaguest glimmerings of what the word "truth" actually means? Who was the individual being "personally attacked" in your opinion? Surely a "personal attack" must have a target? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Spare me the loopy dialectics about truth. Yes, you straightforwardly called one of the 4 admins involved (none of which was me), one of the three who supported the action, a sycophantic wannabee. That's a personal attack. Doesn't matter which one, it was aimed at whomever you had in mind. I'll not play your house game by dropping usernames to and fro. I'd unblocked you months ago when I mistakenly thought you'd undertaken to be more civil. As the unblocking admin, I took further action. If policy has fallen out of line with community consensus, which it may have done, I'm ok with that and either way, I implemented consensus and swiftly unblocked you. I understand that your rudeness and wanton snark are wholly supported by many editors and trust me, I can happily, easily deal with that. Maybe the project needs a bit more snark, let's see how it spins out. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It's the admin version of Where's Wally? --WebHamster 21:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You're baiting now, WH. Take it elsewhere, or nowhere, but not here. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That's Master WH to you Ms Gale! Do you a deal. You unwatch my talk page and I'll do the same to you. In any case there's bugger all perch round here that I can see. --WebHamster 22:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Done :) Gwen Gale (talk) 22:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

A lady and a scholar. But an empty damned fish pond! --WebHamster 22:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That's what I was thinkin' ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 22:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It might go easier for you in future if you took the trouble to check your facts before over-reacting to a non-existent problem. Why do you assume I was referring to an admin? Is User:Blaxthos an admin, for instance? Does it really make a difference whether my comment was directed towards an admin or not? Are you really all such sensitive flowers that the truth hurts? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Daisies, Malleus. I like daisies, I don't know why, I always have. Most folks I've met get panged now and then by the truth, such as it is. After Ckatz blocked you last August, I had a look and unblocked you and I'd have unblocked you again, in a heartbeat, if you'd put up an unblock request saying you wouldn't make personal attacks anymore. As it happened, I unblocked you anyway because policy has fallen a bit out of line with consensus. Thanks for your many steadfast contributions to the project and cheers to you. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

If you or anyone else believes that I would ever make an unblock request, much less one with a confession of guilt and an apparently sincere contrition, then we're clearly living in different universes. If you ever see such a request from me then you should reject it immediately, because it will the clearest possible proof that my account has been compromised. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record I didn't support the removal of rollback. In fact, I disagree with removal at my talk page, yet Cirt still revoked it, citing a now removed note I had left at the top of my page, the intent of which was so admins could reverse my actions when I wasn't around - not reverse them even when I said I don't think they should be. Because s/he invoked that clause, I think that the removal of the rollback may be considered a "first action". I think rollback should be re-enabled - it shouldn't have been removed for a single misuse. Of course, that won't put the genie back in the bottle, but such is life. –xeno^talk 22:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think WebHamster has gotten the hint and can be trusted with another go at rollback. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I think he had the hint a long while ago. –xeno^talk 22:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you really believe that he gives a monkey's cuss whether he has rollback rights or not? If you do, you've sadly misjudged him. It's a pretty useless feature anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Naptime, Malleus, naptime. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Malleus, I'm afraid you seem to be (perhaps unintentionally) stirring the pot too often. (unwatching as well - seems to be the best way to end this, but feel free to visit my talk page if you want to talk more on this, Mal) –xeno^talk 22:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't start this. Would you be quite so sanguine if I'd blocked you for a week? Somehow I doubt it. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Simple grammar

What Gwen states: "Truth be told, this was a personal attack aimed at one of the three admins who supported WH's loss of rollback."

What Malleus stated: "there being too many admins when it takes three of them plus one sycophantic wannabee"

As Gwen has acknowledged, there were three participants. Malleus was directing criticism to a non-existent fourth player. Since there is an obvious numbers difference, it is clear that the very basics of Gwen's understanding of the matter is extremely flawed. So, not only did she not have the requirements for a NPA, her own reading of the matter was very incorrect. Gwen, are you going to still persist? Will you admit that your own understanding of the incident was flawed? Then, after having this pointed out, you make a clear violation of WP:CIVIL in comments like "Naptime, Malleus, naptime." Instead of doing what is appropriate (as per NPA - "The appropriate response to inflammatory statements is to address the issues of content rather than to accuse the other person of violating this policy.") you have abused your blocking privleges, declared that policies should be rewritten to conform to your views, and persist in being incivil and making personal attacks. What makes you think that any of this is acceptable? Ottava Rima (talk) 22:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

So many admins, so little time. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

So, if I say that there is currently stupid people, that would be a personal attack according to you? And where in NPA does it say that? NPA makes it clear that these show up in direct conversations and are used against people. It also makes it clear that the appropriate response is not to label them as personal attacks but to instead deal with the merits of the statement. You failed to do this. When was the last time you read the policies? Ottava Rima (talk) 23:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

If you said "Currently, there are stupid people," I would not see that as a PA. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm the injured party here, and I'm really not bothered, Gwen made what I would (obviously) consider to be a big mistake. What she needs to do now is to address what she will do to avoid making similar mistakes in the future. If they continue, then she will have to accept the consequences. She's had her reminders to read what the policies actually say, instead of following her idiosyncratic interpretations of what she thinks they ought to say, it's now down to her. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You've made personal attacks before and I guess you'll likely keep on making them. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that you need to take some time to very seriously consider your position here. I'm not demanding a ritual humiliation, simply a recognition that your interpretation and application of the NPA policy is incorrect. It is of course your choice though. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Please take some time to consider the benefits of being more civil and cutting back on the personal attacks. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:DONTBEADICK might apply too. Soxwon (talk) 00:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I've never supported that essay, I don't think linking to it is helpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said Gwen, it's your choice what happens next, no matter who thinks who is a dick. Which unsurprisingly you don't appear to consider a "personal attack". --Malleus Fatuorum 00:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

A guideline a personal attack? Soxwon (talk) 00:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Malleus, please take the worries you've had over the personal attack you made on WebHamster's page to ANI or another project page for wider input. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Further discussion with you is clearly unlikely to be productive; by your logic if a guideline was created on "sycophantic wannebee" then to suggest that an unnamed person was a "sycophantic wannebee" would have been perfectly acceptable. I have wasted enough of my time trying to explain to you why your behaviour as an administrator is problematic. Take it or leave it, but be prepared to live with the consequences of either choice. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, watch out for that whip ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 01:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(Baiting redacted) Gwen Gale (talk) 00:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Baiting? Another accusation of impropriety that is far from the truth. You do realize that Civil spells out very clearly that you are not to make such accusations. Furthermore, you have no right to "redact" a comment like that. You can remove it, but you cannot alter it as it clearly does not contain anything of high incivility that would make such a thing acceptable. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Take it elsewhere, if you like, but not here. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

my comments

User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum#I_was_mistaken. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I do think Wikipedia's civility policies need some talking about, consensus has shifted towards a more open-minded outlook on how editors word things. I'm ok with that. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

David Copperfield (again!)

Gwen, reading some of the comments above about your own blocks and arbcom and some comments made about you, I wonder if you would please consider a request from me concerning your involvement with my edits to the abovementioned page, and that is that I would ask that since you gave me an indef block for suggesting I'd like to insert a particular edit, not actually inserting it, and since you are (or seem to be) friendly with Collect, an editor judged problematic by many (see his RfC) and who is opposing all my edits on many pages, I would ask that you recuse yourself from further involvement with me and instead supply me with a short list of admin names that I may use to give oversight to my edits to the Copperfield page. I do give you my word that I shall use the admin/s and not go merrily off, doing my own thing. Thank you. ► RATEL ◄ 23:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You can't use the above baiting to skirt WP:BLP. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious? I asked you a genuine question. Will you please supply me with a short list of admin names, or must I go off and find them myself? THANKS!! ► RATEL ◄ 23:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I told you two days ago more input is always welcome but given the gleeful goal you've so clearly laid out you can't wedge another thread as a way to skirt WP:BLP. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

My "gleeful goal" (read: hard work) to balance hagiographies notwithstanding, I shall seek another admin to give oversight. I would appreciate it if you would bow out of this now, since I have assured you I shall not proceed to edit the page without admin input to possibly controversial material. ► RATEL ◄ 00:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

See WP:Forum shopping. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Does not apply. I am not "repeatedly" seeking other opinions, simply one other opinion, since I believe you have an animus towards me based on your association with Collect and based on your mistaken understanding of my motives. ► RATEL ◄ 00:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

See WP:3 which states that Ratel, your actions are 100% correct. Gwen Gale, you accusing him of forum shopping when asking you to re-evaluate yourself is highly inappropriate. Mediation, third opinion, and the use of places like AN and ANI to re-evaluate the involvement of an admin are -always- acceptable. Ratel, I would take your case directly to WP:AN and state that Gwen Gale put forth a partial guideline under improper conditions in order to intimidate you from seeking a third opinion on the matter. Such actions show a recognition that they are wrong and are not something that impartial and unbiased admin do. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I keep saying wider input's ok and you keep coming back here. Ratel, as I said, you should try BLP/N first. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Ratel I was wondering if you have taken this discussion to other editors yet? I would like to read about it more. can you please provide me with links so i may do so? I tried looking for your blocks using the tool i found on your scratchpad. i was able to find your previous blocks but nothing about you currently being blocked. are you in fact blocked? I am not on either side but i have been following your debate with collect and gwen gale and I find it very interesting. I agree that you should take the case to other admins. I am watching this page but feel free to respond directky to me if you wish! Thanks! :)Emely1219 (talk) 20:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

See this thread. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I have already read most of that. Is that the block that you are now discussing with him or is he blocked again? When someone is blocked, is there automatically someplace for someone to comment on the block like a public forum?Emely1219 (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)--Emely1219 (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)--Emely1219 (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Syed Ahmed

I have put the article as an FA please leave comments or suggestions if you can thanks! Bangali71 (talk) 23:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Kamila Shahtakhtinskaya

I was very happy when article about me was posted in Wikipedia, and now you are telling me--Lack of importance???? This is very ver-ry offencive -makes me ask ritorik Question---How important are you? and so is anybody? But honestly --that is not that many people like me!!!! S98.231.22.80 (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)incerely, Kamila Shahtakhtinskaya

That was a year ago. Shahtakhtinskaya is a piano teacher in the states. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Recall

Per an RFC case I seem to have to do (sadly) in light of your recent actions, I'd like to know if you have any standards for administrator access recall? This would help the RFC I'm going to prepare and, I sincerely believe, make things easir and less drama fuelled. If you don't have or do not believe in recall standards that's fine. If so a diff on either my talk or yours would be great. Best. Pedro :  Chat  20:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you might want to spend some time reviewing the project's civility and NPA standards and practices. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. I think you might want to spend some time reading WP:BLOCK and, frankly, not editing here. I'll take your response as "no comment" re: RFC. Pedro :  Chat  20:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't clear (thinking you might have read the end of the thread higher above), I meant they likely both need a thorough updating and you might be able to help out with that. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) Know nothing about any of this and only here because i have gwen's page watchlisted and recall caught my eye; if i was her, here's what i'd say (i'm sure she's much nicer and less abrassive than i am, one of her faults): "Do your own research, pedro. Want to attack me because i was involved in an outcome that you don't like? That's your business. But asking me to help you with researching a hit piece against me? No. Let me know when you file the RFC." I'm sure she'll simply give you what you want and be back-bendingly polite. But that would be my response if I were her.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

If someone asked me if I had recall standards I'd point them to the very clear ones linked from my user page. Complex stuff here, obviously, but "do you have recall standards?" gets "check out WP:CIV and WP:NPA". To be fair Bali - that's not really a "do your own research" reply is it? Pedro :  Chat  20:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Bali, see User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum#personal_attacks. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

FWIW - they aren't actually linked Pedro... –xeno^talk 20:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Pedro, if making things easier and less drama-fuelled is what you desire, may I suggest letting this drop? That ends the drama on the spot. All the best, Antandrus (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, apparently so. Pedro :  Chat  20:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Gwen - Okay, consensus seems an RFC is a bad idea. Please don't block valued content editors for a week on the basis of "their block log". Block to minimise damage to Wikipedia - that's the point of the button - not to be punitive. You need to reasses your use of the block button IMHO but I'm stiring drama not helping so I'll drop it now. Apologies. Pedro :  Chat  20:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)