User talk:Gwen Gale: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:12, 23 December 2010


archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

merry yule and a gear new year

If I left a post on your talk page...

Please answer there. I'll see it, no worries.

Are you here because I deleted your article?
Please read through this first to find out why.

Email,

Ping!— Dæ dαlus^{+ Contribs} 11:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pong! Gwen Gale (talk) 12:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A stranger to the truth?

How do you reconcile this with your unblocking comment: "‎consensus seems to be that many admins are indeed sycophants", which wasn't even accurate, as I hadn't been discussing administrators. What we both know is that admins like yourself prowl around looking for any excuse to block editors that they take a dislike to. Malleus Fatuorum 15:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're mistaken, Malleus, nothing in that log entry had anything to do with what you may have been talking about at the time, likewise as to any take you may have on what I do here or why. If there's anything I can help you with, I'll be happy to try and I do mean that. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of us is mistaken, but it isn't me. You are a liar. Malleus Fatuorum 15:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input, Malleus. You have my best wishes for the holiday season. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not try addressing the issue instead of trying to patronise me? Oh, I know, because you're an administrator and whatever you do is automatically "the right thing". Pathetic. Malleus Fatuorum 15:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

en.WP has lots of flaws which some might understandably call pathetic. So I've put up a snap of some yummy industrial eggnog we can both look at. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for an explanation, not a whitewash. To refresh your memory the discussion is here. You said explicitly that "calling someone a sycophantic wannabee is a personal attack", when I had called nobody anything. I am though now calling you a liar once again. Malleus Fatuorum 16:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd already looked up the diff, dreaming we might be having one of these warm little chats, thanks though. Here, I've put up another snap, holly berries. Bitter and mildly poisonous, but something to behold nonetheless, I guess like some editors here, too. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did you lie? That is of course a rhetorical question, as the answer is obvious. I'll leave you to your stalking of other content contributors, thankful that your stalking of me is now in the public domain. Malleus Fatuorum 17:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow your post there reminds me of that scene from Reservoir Dogs set in the abandoned undertaker's, you know (I mean, maybe you know), where Vic Vega, after doing a quick bit of cosmetic surgery on the trussed-up-and-gagged LA cop's ear with a straight razor asks, "Was it as good for you, as it was for me?" I believe that's before Vic thoroughly douses him with petrol and pulls out his trusty Zippo. Speaking of yuletide cheer, light and warmth, look! Christmas carolers in California! I wonder what they might have been singing? Could it have been the Little Drummer Boy? Gwen Gale (talk) 17:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the truth is still as elusive to you as ever. Malleus Fatuorum 18:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Malleus, I know that our cozy chat here means I'll forever have to recuse from any admin action having to do with you (never mind I'd already made up my mind to do that long ago). Meanwhile, there may be but one truth, but most of that's canny unknowable so we can only do what we can and in the scope of this thread, metaphorically speaking about this website hobby thing or whatever, maybe you, me and baby makes three. Aren't you thrilled? Gwen Gale (talk) 18:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So are you admitting or denying that you lied? Malleus Fatuorum 18:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I've done in this thread, is to metaphorically compare your behaviour on my talk page with online rape, the outcome being runed somewhat sloppily with notions of the spawn of Satan, which is why your incivility, along with incivility altogether, is not on here. Now Merry Christmas to you and begone. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see. So now, having lied about your block, you're now trying to justify that by accusing me of raping you, even though you invited me here to discuss your block. You're a fucking joker. Malleus Fatuorum 18:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Although I can well appreciate that Malleus is not the easiest person to get along with, I feel that comparisons to rape (even with the proviso that it is metaphorical) are excessive and unwarranted. Worse, they can be used as the basis for further arguments.

I'm not familiar with the basis for your original disagreement with Malleus (and I strongly decline to become further involved), but a brief look seems to indicate that it has become a meta-argument: people arguing about their behavior in previous arguments. Such meta-disputes can drag on well beyond the point of diminishing returns and become a festering stagnant pool of emotional cancer. Both of you are adults, and should be able to withdraw from this. DS (talk) 18:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am a very easy person to get along with, so long as you don't try taking the piss, as Gwen has done. Malleus Fatuorum 19:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with Dragonfly, though, that maybe a withdraw to separate corners and having some tea would be more beneficial.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 19:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see if you're so sanguine when you're accused of rape. I somewhat doubt it. Malleus Fatuorum 19:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A careful reading indicates that she did not accuse you of rape. She said that your behavior was a) METAPHORICALLY b) COMPARABLE TO, c) "online rape" (which she linked to Wikipedia:BAITING). Although you may feel like Glenn Beck, and although Gwen's post used emotionally-inflammatory language, Gwen's post did not accuse you of raping anyone and you're more than smart enough to understand that. DS (talk) 19:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm smart enough to understand, but you apparently aren't, is that if that if I'd made that comparison than I would have been blocked. Haven't you bothered to read anything here? What's worse in your opinion? Accusing someone of rape or of being a sycophant? Malleus Fatuorum 19:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's worse is refusing to relinquish the stick more than eighteen months after the death of the horse. It's not unreasonable that you were displeased that you were blocked — rightly or wrongly — in June 2009. It's ridiculous that you're still hounding and harassing the administrator about it today. jæs (talk) 19:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on which horse you're looking at. The one I'm looking at sure as Hell ain't dead. And to describe an invitation to discuss that block here as "hounding and harassing" really proves the point. Malleus Fatuorum 20:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus, what outcome would you like to see from this interaction? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see Gwen resign her position in the civility police. Malleus Fatuorum 20:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness to Malleus, I believe he means he only wants me to recuse from making admin comments or blocks having to do with civility worries. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Malleus Fatuorum 21:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you Malleus, and thank you Gwen, for putting it in slightly more concrete terms. So, Gwen, is this a step you're considering, or not? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't do civility blocks. I don't even watch WQA. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thank you for clarifying that. Malleus, is this satisfactory? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Malleus Fatuorum 21:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, she said she doesn't "do" civility blocks, which seems consistent with what you want. What more, specifically and concretely, can we do to resolve this issue? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She may say whatever she likes, but a lie is a lie, and she is a liar. Malleus Fatuorum 02:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what is your point posting here? Just to say that? Have you got any practical end result in mind, or are you just expressing yourself... for some other reason? What are you after here? Anything realistic? Are you being rational?

In other words, can you please answer the question I asked you above? What can we do to resolve this issue? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen says that she doesn't do civility blocks, which is patently untrue. Why should anyone believe anything else that she says? She invited me here to discuss the civility block she placed on me, but I have since then been accused of raping her for being so impudent as to take her at her word. There is nothing that you or anyone else can do to resolve the situation absent a time machine. Malleus Fatuorum 03:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then why are you posting here? If you have no practical goal, then what is your point? What do you want, Malleus? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban

As per the AN/I discussion, I have come here to tell you that you cannot reverse the topic ban which you imposed on Dylan Flaherty (with overwhelming community support). Horologium (talk) 02:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A bit procedural, but thanks for helping Dylan understand. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request,

Could you please do something about this obvious attempt to instigate an argument? Looks like clear WP:BATTLE mentality. There was nothing constructive about that post. Post in a thread that has nothing to do with you, an attack on an editor you were previously banned from commenting on. I think this ban(specifically mbz1 commenting on me) needs to be upped to indef, or they need to be blocked for a long while, as they are clearly trying to start something.— Dæ dαlus^{+ Contribs} 06:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 100: / Line 100: @@
 :[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&action=historysubmit&diff=403806617&oldid=403806430 A bit procedural], but thanks for helping Dylan understand. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale#top|talk]]) 02:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
+== Request, ==
+Could you please [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Mbz1_starting_up_a_dispute_that_was_6-months_gone_past.3B do something about this obvious attempt to instigate an argument?]  Looks like clear [[WP:BATTLE]] mentality.  There was '''nothing''' constructive about that post.  Post in a thread that has nothing to do with you, an attack on an editor you were previously banned from commenting on.  I think this ban(specifically mbz1 commenting on me) needs to be upped to indef, or they need to be blocked for a long while, as they are clearly trying to start something.— '''[[User:Daedalus969|<font color="Green">Dæ</font>]][[User talk:Daedalus969|<font color="Blue">dαlus</font>]]<sup><big><span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Daedalus969&action=edit&section=new <font color="grey">+</font>]</span></big> [[Special:Contributions/Daedalus969|<font color="Green">Contribs</font>]]</sup>''' 06:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)