Jump to content

User talk:Gwen Gale

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 84.81.177.148 (talk) at 10:46, 19 November 2009 (→‎Removal of sex offender title for Roman Polanski). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This user has been loved!This user has been loved!
This user has been loved!


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


Salutations

I know this is random, but I wanted to say thank you for being one of the good guys. I was a regular editor here for a little while, until the migraines (from watching people get away with crap as long as they made even token efforts to game the system) got to be disabling. You were one of the happy exceptions to that general rule, and I don't think I ever properly thanked you as you deserve. (Even though your willingness to deal with problems meant you occasionally had to chew on me as well.)

If they could clone you, WP would be much the better for it. I hope people realize that.

Don't worry about me, I'm no one important and don't do aught more than the occasional casual edit. Just wanted to say thank you for being strong enough to make WP a better place. (^_^)

76.22.25.102 (talk) 05:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please Unprotect Thorstein Veblen

As documented on the article talk page, your understanding of what was going on when you protected the article was a misunderstanding. Please unprotect. -- RLV 209.217.195.188 (talk) 09:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what's on the talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009

Request for Page Protection of Polanski Page

I am requesting Page Protection of the Polanski page. I hope this is a proper means to do that, if not I would be happy to receive the correct direction to do this. Reasoning: After the trip to the ANI page, the originator of the ANI question Benjiboi, begam making comprehensive changes to the article as if authorized to "go at it" based on the original ANI discussion. The first removed the topic at question the NPOV flag, and then reworded the section sexual significantly out of hand, without review or discussion. This was this editors second single handed rewrite of the section. Then Benjiboi reformatted the entire article single handed, without review. When replaced to the original version, the reverted and said there was no consensus for the reversion back to the original, thus clearly showing there was no consensus for the single handed changes. The editor also state the entry to be a Narrative now.

The topic at hand is not rapidly changing, and a time out seems appropriate, and needed. I do not believe there would be strong object to protection also.

Thank you, for consideration, and or redirection to proper venue. --Tombaker321 (talk) 21:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You want me to protect Roman Polanski a half hour after you've done all those revisions to it? No. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The revision is back to the original point before the wholesale changes post ANI forum. Benjiboi has asked for a second review in the ANI forum. It appears to be being drawn there again, by the single handed comprehensive editor Benjiboi. Again thank you for the time --Tombaker321 (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll block edit warring accounts before protecting the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opinoso causing troubles and legally threatening another editor

You might think that the present dispute in the article about Brazil is nothing more than two editors (myself and Opinoso) who can not get along. However, I had never, ever, had any issue with another editor until I met this person. He, on the other hand, for a couple of years has been causing trouble and disruption in here, as I will prove to you now:

Opinoso has legally threatened twice another editor called Felipe Menegaz ([1] [2]). Opinoso writes in Portuguese, as he probably knows that most do not speak English in here. Below I translate piece of both messages:

First message: “You have added several pictures of White Brazilians and, maliciously, erased pictures of Black, Mestizos and Asian Brazilians. If you have problems with racism, you should look after a psychiatry medic because, in Brazil, racism it is a crime with no bail and, in the future, you might end up in jail.”
Second message: “Your ignorance manages to scare me. I did not know public education in Brazil was so decadent to the point of producing people like you. [...] You probably have inferiority complex, because you must had wanted to be Nordic White but you are not. With all sure you are not descendant of European immigrants. [...] You are a Pardo boy who wanted to be European. It is really sad. I just warn you to be careful, because racism in Brazil it is a crime and I already have enough proofs to denounce you for this crime and put you in jail [...]. Those are enough motives to keep you behind bars for some years.”

This is the second time I (and other editors) have trouble with him on the article about Brazil. I found out that Opinoso got into serious discussions with other editors before, also accusing them of being racists. He accused editors João Felipe C.S ([3] [4]), Sparks1979 ([5] [6]) and Felipe Menegaz ([7]). Also, he is very, very aggressive towards other editors, such as with Janiovj ([8]). He also has no respect for rules or anything ([9]) and he knows when to request from the other editor to speak in English ([10]) He also frequently calls good faith edits from other users “vandalism”([11] [12] [13]) if not “racists” ([14] [15]) when clearly they do not please him. And a user has complained to him to stop calling them “vandalism” but to no avail ([16]).

Could you, for kindness, explain to me how someone like Opinoso, who legally threatens another editor and is abusive towards other editors it is still in here? It is clearly that for at least 2 years he has causing trouble and disruption in Wikipedia, nonetheless, he is still in here. Why he was not blocked? Why he still roaming freely around? --Lecen (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all very old diffs, showing edits long before I warned him about personal attacks and reverting good faith edits as vandalism. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What?! And that's it? A couple of years ago he accused an editor of being racist, two years later he did the same with me, and you think he has changed? A person who does not allow any change in any article he "contributes" and create a whole lot of mess in the discussion page to prevent it? Someone who made the article Brazil become locked only to stop anyone from doing something that unplease him? Gwen, please, I ask you, do not turn your back on this. You know just as I do that this guy does not deserve to be in here. - --Lecen (talk) 02:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You gave me old diffs, after which he was warned (and sternly so), so there is nothing to do about the diffs you gave me. Do you have some diffs from say, the last few weeks? Gwen Gale (talk) 02:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If they are old diffs and he was punished for that, why he is still in here? Isn't threatening with legal action considered enough to someone to be blocked for good? You want something new? Fine, I created a topic in Brazil discussion page asking for other editors thoughts so that the page could be unblocked. Opinoso called what I did "fake disruptions" ([17]). Not only that, I wrote down about Enclopedia Barsa view of Brazilian ethnicity where Caboclos were the majority of the population. Opinoso then replies saying that nowhere does the enclopedia says that,([18]) although it is there, several times, written. I asked in that thread for other editor's opinions, but Opinoso appeared and started with his endless discussions only to make for other editors impossible to follow the matter. He keeps lying, he keeps falsely accusing other editors, and he will not stop until he has full ownership of all articles he want to. --Lecen (talk) 02:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Policy breaching editors on en.Wikipedia aren't punished, they're warned, sanctioned or blocked, only to stop the behaviour. Opinoso has been warned a few times about this kind of thing. Can you give me diffs from the last two weeks of Opinoso making personal attacks or legal threats, or reverting good faith edits as vandalism? Gwen Gale (talk) 03:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If that's so, why nothing happened to him when I told you that he was fabricating information and putting them on the article only to remove other legitimate info that he did not like? About recent edits that he has reverted, see here. Although it is sourced in the text and backed by a reliable source ("The Mestizo population (or Pardo as it is officialy called) is a broader multiracial category that includes Caboclos (descendants of Whites and Indians), Mulattoes (of Whites and Blacks) and Cafuzos (of Blacks and Indians").), he not only reverted but also called it "personal theories". He always does that, putting on check the good intention of other editors. He also cause disruption like on this private conversation that I am having with editor Luizdl, putting my good faith on doubt for someone else in a conversation he was not invited or called to be part of ([19] [20] [21] [22]). The matter now is if the Pardo category means multi-racial or brown in English. He is causing all this confusion with me because of that, because while I say that it is multiracial, he says that this is my personal theory. However, to editor Redhill54(yet another user he calls racist as usual) he said that Pardo is "mixed-race", that is, multiracial ([23]). Why he does that? Why he is getting into contradiction? Isn't he doing all of this just to make my life in Wikipedia a hell? To get "revenge" for "losing" the other dispute about a different matter we had in this same article? Putting on doubt my good faith in conversations that he was not called to; reverting edits I did for no reason; creating my life a hell in the article I contribute to the point of making it locked... isn't that harassment? --Lecen (talk) 09:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lecen, Gwen asked for very specific diffs. She asked for diffs of personal attacks, legal threats, and reverting good-faith edits as vandalism. The diffs provided are not any of these things. They are diffs of an obvious content dispute. You are seeking to have Op blocked. If you want to possibly succeed in that endeavor, you need to provide the diffs Gwen asked for.— Dædαlus Contribs 11:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, as I don't like the behavior GG requested diffs of, I shall do some of the work for you: This is a tricky one, he is definitely reverting an edit as vandalism, but whether that edit is good-faith or not could be up for debate. Other than this single edit, I cannot find any other possibilities, but I this may just be my opinion. Lastly, I only searched for 'labeling good faith edits as vandalism'. I didn't research any other area of the requested diffs.— Dædαlus Contribs 11:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That one looks like section blanking to me, calling it vandalism can be a bit edgy sometimes but more often than not ok. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, cross-posting. Oh well. See my response, if interested. -- Hoary (talk) 12:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

here's what I'm willing to do

Lecen, as Hoary has said elsewhere, some time ago, some of Opinoso's edits were indeed worrisome. You've shown me old diffs of that. As I've told you, I warned Opinoso about this kind of thing some time ago. It took a few strong warnings, but so far as I can see, he stopped reverting good faith edits as vandalism and has stopped making personal attacks. What's left is a content dispute with some very light, back and forth edit warring and ownership, which seems to be mostly over sources and how to echo them in the text. I think both y'all and Opinoso are likely a bit too keen on your own PoVs, the topic itself is way controversial and maybe the text should put this forth as such in a neutral way, sternly following the sources, which likely don't agree among themselves one way or another.

There is little or no call for the admin bit here for now, though I'd say it bears watching, mostly for edit warring, WP:OWN and WP:Disruption from all "sides."

I don't have time to mediate a heavy content dispute, moreover I loathe wading into kerfluffles over stuff like race and ethnicity. I think going on about it is disgusting, maybe because what little we do know about the topic is often blatantly spun into deeply flawed political/nationalistic/social spats which help nobody but rather, upset almost anyone within earshot and understandably so.

Y'all should keep in mind that most folks have rather strong notions about their "ethnic identities" and an en.Wikipedia article is unlikely to sway them no matter what it says, but it's even more unlikely to do so if readers find its outlook as slanted in any way. So, I think most of this is a big waste of time. There are likely sundry outlooks in the sources on this and I'd think, if anything, most of them should be echoed in the text in a very low-key, neutral way.

To this end, it may be time for everyone to look into dispute resolution. Believe it or not, there are some very handy tips there.

I do understand that some think sources are being mis-cited. The way to fix that is to put short, pithy quotes from a source straightforwardly into the text and otherwise cite every line if need be.

If personal attacks, untowards reverts or edit warring get stirred up again please let me or another admin know about it, but please stop showing me old diffs of behaviour which has already been warned off. Likewise, I'm willing to try and answer broad questions about policy and sourcing. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen, don't worry, I am not trying to get your opinion on ethnics or something similar. I wrote this. Read above, please. I showed to you yesterday diffs and I would like to know if they can be considered harassment or not. Because the first dispute I had with Opinoso I was backed by at least five other editors while he was alone and by himself. And that dispute was about the history section where he accused me of many things and you even warned him. Not ethnics, history. Six editors against one problematic editor like Opinoso can not be considered simply POV. I believe you are being a little bit unfair with me. Now on the ethnics dispute there are three editors against Opinoso. It always him and only him. But ok, forget that. I want to know, according to my last post to you, if his behavior can be considered harassment. If not, I will not bring any more issue to you, I promisse. But know this: it will be a matter of time until you see him involved in another serious trouble or another editor coming here to complain about his behavior. Anyway, as usual, I apreciate your atention. Thank you very much. --Lecen (talk) 13:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:Harass then, if you think there has been harassment, give me diffs from the last two weeks which show it. Meanwhile, if there are so many editors who disagree with Opinoso, there could be a consensus as to the content so I don't get what this would be about. Again, for now all I see is a content dispute, with both "sides" going about dealing with it in flawed ways. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here it is again what I wrote:
About recent edits that he has reverted, see here. Although it is sourced in the text and backed by a reliable source ("The Mestizo population (or Pardo as it is officialy called) is a broader multiracial category that includes Caboclos (descendants of Whites and Indians), Mulattoes (of Whites and Blacks) and Cafuzos (of Blacks and Indians").), he not only reverted but also called it "personal theories". He always does that, putting on check the good intention of other editors. He also cause disruption like on this private conversation that I am having with editor Luizdl, putting my good faith on doubt for someone else in a conversation he was not invited or called to be part of ([24] [25] [26] [27]). The matter now is if the Pardo category means multi-racial or brown in English. He is causing all this confusion with me because of that, because while I say that it is multiracial, he says that this is my personal theory. However, to editor Redhill54 (yet another user he calls racist as usual) he said that Pardo is "mixed-race", that is, multiracial ([28]). Why he does that? Why he is getting into contradiction? Isn't he doing all of this just to make my life in Wikipedia a hell? To get "revenge" for "losing" the other dispute about a different matter we had in this same article? Putting on doubt my good faith in conversations that he was not called to; reverting edits I did for no reason; creating my life a hell in the article I contribute to the point of making it locked... isn't that harassment? --Lecen (talk) 13:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, those edits would not be taken as harassment on en.Wikipedia, they're only hints of a content dispute from someone with a very strong PoV. I think both "sides" are dealing with this in flawed ways. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. So, my behavior is "flawed". I was not rude with you or any other administrador, nor with any editor. I am polite and I try my best to not say something that could be considered rude. You will receive other complains against him in the future, you know that. But as I promissed, I will not bother you anymore. If in any moment I acted in a way you considered "flawed", I apologize. I sincerely did not mean it. But you should think why more and more editors do not contribute to articles that Opinoso "owns". They can't do anything as long as he is in there, and they know that they will not receive firm assistance from administrators. It is like Wild West, everyone by themselves. I admit, Gwen, that I am frustrated. Many others must have felt the same about the same issue before me. However, I thank you for your time. I understand that some times we just get tired of people complaining and all that. But when many complain about one user only, there is clearly something wrong. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 15:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say you were rude with me, I said your behaviour as an editor, editing the topics and dealing with Opinoso, is flawed. Truth be told, I think y'all are mistaken and unsupported by the sources, Opinoso too, as to all of your PoVs. Hence my thinking that this whole kerfluffle is a big waste of time and a yawn. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sex offender title for Roman Polanski

You removed the title of sex offender in the Roman Polanski page. The term is apt and is in large part how he is known to many people. The fact was cited and is not in violation of any part of the IP BLP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.164.47 (talk) 20:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Roman_Polanski#Category_French_Rapist. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe you understand. Roman Polanski fits all the legal definitions of a sex offender in the USA. The most important being that he has been convicted of a sex crime. His convicted is well documented, was cited in the edit, and is also well cited in the rest of the page. The term is most apt and the change that you made should be reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.164.47 (talk) 20:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your take on this is not the consensus so far, nor did you source your edit, with that terminology, to a reliable secondary source. Take it to the talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I came to Wikipedia to find out how it worked. Reading these pages provides a wonderful insight. You haven't the intelligence to say the same thing from one paragraph to the next. This is what Wikipedia is? If you are representative then it is the most inane collection of personal scribblings on earth. You really are quite stupid you know.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gwen_Gale&oldid=326711712"