Misplaced Pages

User talk:Gwen Gale: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:28, 20 January 2010 view sourceMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Archiving 3 thread(s) (older than 1d) to User talk:Gwen Gale/archive16.← Previous edit Revision as of 16:11, 20 January 2010 view source Gwen Gale (talk | contribs)47,788 edits GoRight: +Next edit →
Line 131: Line 131:


:This does happen more or less as you say. It wontedly doesn't take much to bait an eager, helpful-minded but inexperienced and narrowly targeted user into getting upset, straying outside policy and getting blocked before they have a clue the website doesn't work the way they, in good faith, thought it did or should. Moreover, some of those "minority" users aren't at all what they seem to be and they sometimes cleverly, sometimes clumsily, stain the pitch, muddling utter codswallop and dodgy sources with meaningful, reliably supportable and verifiable outlooks. Then the smeary loops begin anew as more editors happen to tumble into high traffic articles with their clueless good faith. As I've said for a long time, en.Misplaced Pages is awash in skilled sockpuppets, some of which are helpful, most not. Many editors would be startled to learn who runs many of them, or maybe not so startled. Editors might think now and then about why no automatic CU scripts have ever been implemented and CU "fishing" isn't allowed and heed this when they edit high traffic, controversial articles. Experienced editors can and do deal with things neutrally only at the edges of core, high traffic topic areas, but the systemic bias is stirred up by a lot more than demographics and it is daunting. ] (]) 13:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC) :This does happen more or less as you say. It wontedly doesn't take much to bait an eager, helpful-minded but inexperienced and narrowly targeted user into getting upset, straying outside policy and getting blocked before they have a clue the website doesn't work the way they, in good faith, thought it did or should. Moreover, some of those "minority" users aren't at all what they seem to be and they sometimes cleverly, sometimes clumsily, stain the pitch, muddling utter codswallop and dodgy sources with meaningful, reliably supportable and verifiable outlooks. Then the smeary loops begin anew as more editors happen to tumble into high traffic articles with their clueless good faith. As I've said for a long time, en.Misplaced Pages is awash in skilled sockpuppets, some of which are helpful, most not. Many editors would be startled to learn who runs many of them, or maybe not so startled. Editors might think now and then about why no automatic CU scripts have ever been implemented and CU "fishing" isn't allowed and heed this when they edit high traffic, controversial articles. Experienced editors can and do deal with things neutrally only at the edges of core, high traffic topic areas, but the systemic bias is stirred up by a lot more than demographics and it is daunting. ] (]) 13:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

: on GRs talk page quite handily gets to another side of the pith. ] (]) 16:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


== Regarding my block == == Regarding my block ==

Revision as of 16:11, 20 January 2010

This user has been loved!This user has been loved!
This user has been loved!
Are you here because I deleted your article? Please read through this first to find out why.
If I left a post on your talk page please answer there, I'll see it, no worries. If you leave a post here, I'll answer here. Now and then I don't think an answer from me is needed. If you wanted one anyway, I'll be happy to get a wee nudge.


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


New proposal

Hi Gwen :) I've suggested a new proposal here. Would appreciate your views there. Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ 04:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for showing that to me. I don't think I have much to say beyond the input you've already had there. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 13:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Tc ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ 19:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome and yes, this is the first custom sig I've seen with drop shadows :) Gwen Gale (talk) 19:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
lol, had copied it blatantly from TheWeakWilled :) Thanks. Tc ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ 04:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Your continuing sponsorship of Proofreader77

Gwen Gale: You have an ongoing relationship with Proofreader77 in your capacity as Admin.

1. You have placed restrictions on him base on an ANI, then increased them for conduct, and then removed them when conduct was problematic. The latter actions were made so unilaterally by yourself.
2. You said: Whatever happens next, I was already thinking, I won't be the one to block PR again. If his behaviour carries on and is indeed as harmful as it seems to me, others will deal with him. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
3. Another admin has indicated to you that you have become too personally involved.
4. You have deleted disruptive content of Proofreader77 instead of reporting them.
5. Proofreader77 maintains on his user pages negative information about Gwen Gale, with nothing apparent that it part of any timely process.
6. Since your unilateral removal of restrictions placed on Proofreader77 via ANI consensus. Proofreader77 has been blocked twice, warned repetitively for disruptive editing, and had disruptive edits removed by yourself, without Admin follow through.
7. You allowed the ANI process to become Roman Polanski based, rather than how it was written, as disruptive editing. The disruptive editing which you have readily said was occurring, was unexplainably avoided by your remarks in the ANI.
8. Proofreader77 has now, in retaliation, created a sockpuppet investigation on me.
9. You insinuated that I had made BLP violations, without any documentation or prior statements to that effect. You characterization of my contributions was your personal feelings, disassociated with what work that I have done. By doing that you obfuscated the issue raised in ANI.
10. You did not allow me the time to notify a user of an ANI that I started, instead you interjected yourself to it, and then where so hyperfocused on me, that you blocked me for ignoring a warning, on an edit what was done before the warning. The time stamps bear that out, however your rush in the Admin role, did not have the enough time to allow comprehension, before you yielded a block, for something that timestamps refuted. IE, your personal zeal for these affairs yielded a knee-jerk admin action. (circling the wagons)

Your previous remarks to Proofreader77:

  • You're wikilawyering, rather than cutting to the pith. The only pith on en.Misplaced Pages is reliable sources, furthermore in a BLP giving much heed to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research.
  • You're loading up the talk page with never-ending loops of original research.
  • You're not editing in a neutral way.
  • You're more or less trying to own the article space.
  • You don't seem to be assuming good faith.

Because of the above, it is my request that you recuse yourself since your objectivity on these matters is compromised, or at best has the appearance of being too personally involved. If you as an "editor" want to address the characterization on Proofreader77s user pages...that is obviously something you should do, if you want. I would appreciate an affirmative response to what your future involvements will be. rgds --Tombaker321 (talk) 11:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Pr77 is one topic, you're another. Until you can begin acknowledging the policies of this website and hew much more closely to them, there's little else to talk about. That article is still more or less the only article you've edited here and very narrowly so. Sniping at everyone who gets in your way and forum shopping far and wide, as you've been doing, won't bring the outcome you're hoping for. As for your BLP violations, there is fairly wide consensus on that. You can't skirt WP:BLP through wikilawyering or soapboxing. As I've said before, there may be a way to get something at least akin to what you want into that article, without straying from BLP. Others have dropped the very helpful hint that you might try editing other topics as a way to learn how articles are built and edited here. It's wholly up to you, as to whether you might heed what we're telling you. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Gwen Gale, I am disappointed by your choice to not engage feedback given you.
To your continuing charges that I have BLP violations, if you are unable and unwilling to state what they are, I ask that you stop skipping about, gossiping those charges. I do not mistake your repetitions, as substance, nor should you. I accord myself to all the Misplaced Pages tenants, rest assured. --Tombaker321 (talk) 07:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
You weren't blocked for BLP violations, but by now you know what they've been and moreover, I think you're asking editors to cite those BLP violations so you can at least get them forever posted onto a talk or project page on this website. The outcome of this is not going to be what you want. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 18 January 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 14:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Tombaker321

He's getting tiresome at my talk page. Jehochman 14:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tombaker321. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
It appears to have uncovered a separate sock farm. Tombaker321 will continue his campaign of disruption, I predict. Jehochman 13:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that. Seems Pr77 did spot some socks, but they weren't who he thought they were (I'm not startled). Gwen Gale (talk) 13:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
That reminds me of a The Ren and Stimpy Show episode where they fall through a black hole and discover where all the Universe's missing left socks go. Jehochman 14:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Heh! I may never grok why, ever since I was in school, if I carefully count and match socks before throwing them in the washing machine, they'll all be there, none will be missing and it'll seem like a big, batty waste of time but, if I slip up even once and don't count and match 'em first, at least one's bound to go missing, maybe forever :) Gwen Gale (talk) 14:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

GoRight

I remember having a high opinion of you from forever, but I cannot at the moment recall where we have interacted. It might have been under my old username, Eldereft, or it might have been only at the several noticeboards. You have commented a couple times lately on the danger of introducing a systematic bias through selective enforcement. This is, honestly, something I worry about a fair bit. From my editing of alternative medicine articles, it is fairly obvious that I consider most of them mostly bunk, but nonetheless several editors with other perspectives have commented that I still promote fairness of coverage. Sorry to toot my own horn here, but I want you to understand where I am coming from and that I have experience thinking about writing controversial articles, particularly those with a clear "minority" side.

Upon being entrusted with the mop'n'bucket, I realized that removing equal numbers of disruptive participants from both "sides" would disproportionately skew our coverage - 9:5 is a very different editing environment than 6:2 or, worse, 4:0. Groupthink is dangerous to any enterprise, particularly one that aims for the comprehensive and neutral coverage we do. Considering knowledge of the inner workings of Misplaced Pages as a force multiplier, the situation is even worse - a few committed experienced editors can easily engineer sanctions for their less experienced fellow volunteers through selectively pointing out the bright lines only when it is almost too late and generally themselves remaining just within the norms while still being agents of frustration more than collaboration. I try to respond with warn and counsel particularly in cases where a new editor might not have an experienced advocate but indicates that they are here to promote comprehensive coverage rather than simply trying to hijack Misplaced Pages's voice to the world or indulge in general trolling.

Once a minoritarian editor passes the hurdle to themselves become an experienced contributor, though, neutrality of enforcement demands that they be held to the standards of the community. Consistently arguing that coverage should move in a particular direction is not a problem unless they start wholesale rewriting articles against consensus. Continually tweaking and insulting their fellow volunteers and showing a marked preference for engaging on a disputatious rather than collaborative level, as is my conclusion from GoRight (talk · contribs)'s edits over the last several weeks, however, is more disruptive to the project than is the loss of their voice to discussions.

I am wondering, if you have the time and inclination, if I might hear your thoughts on more productive solutions to this instance in particular or to the problem in general. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 20:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

This does happen more or less as you say. It wontedly doesn't take much to bait an eager, helpful-minded but inexperienced and narrowly targeted user into getting upset, straying outside policy and getting blocked before they have a clue the website doesn't work the way they, in good faith, thought it did or should. Moreover, some of those "minority" users aren't at all what they seem to be and they sometimes cleverly, sometimes clumsily, stain the pitch, muddling utter codswallop and dodgy sources with meaningful, reliably supportable and verifiable outlooks. Then the smeary loops begin anew as more editors happen to tumble into high traffic articles with their clueless good faith. As I've said for a long time, en.Misplaced Pages is awash in skilled sockpuppets, some of which are helpful, most not. Many editors would be startled to learn who runs many of them, or maybe not so startled. Editors might think now and then about why no automatic CU scripts have ever been implemented and CU "fishing" isn't allowed and heed this when they edit high traffic, controversial articles. Experienced editors can and do deal with things neutrally only at the edges of core, high traffic topic areas, but the systemic bias is stirred up by a lot more than demographics and it is daunting. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
This post on GRs talk page quite handily gets to another side of the pith. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding my block

I am sure you remember my most recent block. I was unblocked on the promise that if a situation had the potential of turning sour, I would ask for outside assistance. Well, I have. Just thought you would like to know.— dαlus 12:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, regarding my possibly uncivil post, as I'm about to note on the page at hand, I'm just going to go and refactor it now rather than await approval.— dαlus 12:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

As such, I have done so here. I hope it is better than it was.— dαlus 12:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Daedalus, thanks for letting me know about this, I've put it on my watchlist, you should stop posting to that talk page, there are overwhelming BLP and other worries with that user/topic and you're only giving him a soapbox. The only thing for him to do now is put up an unblock request or email arbcom. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
User talk:Gwen Gale: Difference between revisions Add topic