Misplaced Pages

U of C, CS

If you could take a look at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs page. The section titled "future growth and expansion" is not cited at all. I feel that it is not encyclopedic and should be removed pending a citation tag.Keystoneridin (talk) 05:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you attempted to find a source? Also, when requesting others view pages, as a courtesy, you should link those pages. لennavecia 06:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The whole article is pretty much unreferenced. Why pick out that one section? I tagged as necessary. لennavecia 06:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Brenda Song

Hi, Jennavecia; I'm not sure why there are still issues at Brenda Song. I had hoped that by mostly ignoring some of the earlier well poisoning and incorrect statements that were being thrown about on GA pages (there and at some other GA pages as well) it would have died down by now so that Gimmetrow could peacefully get back to the sigificant amount of productive work that he does. It's not pleasant for anyone to get poked over and over in an episode that seems neverending. I hope we can all work towards reducing the tension that has accumulated there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It's down to Gimmetrow now. If he can manage to get himself back in gear, then great. If he can't, then I'll be asking for him to be removed from the admin corps. --Malleus Fatuorum 06:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean, Sandy. Gimmetrow has failed to acknowledge that his behavior has been less than appropriate. And his reversion of my cosmetic changes to this article have not helped the way he is perceived in this situation. Reverting established editors and content creators without any sort of discussion is rude, and it stinks of OWNership. لennavecia 06:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Jenna, an unnamed admin accused me of OWNership when that admin erred and misread my edit, after I pointed out as nicely as I could that the admin had misread it. Twice. Consider carefully who might be abusing the established content creators in this case. Gimmetrow 06:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I just saw this. Are you serious? I have a name, Gimmetrow. It's Jennavecia. Or you can call me Lara if you prefer. Now, when you say "as nicely as I could" are you referring to your original wording or revised wording? If the latter, you really shouldn't be referencing it. If the former, it's a good example of the problem here. I try not to revert established users without either a detailed edit summary that clearly explains why I've reverted them, or without talking to them about it first. Pretty much the same goes for good faith edits by new users. It's a personal policy you may benefit from considering. لennavecia 07:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to use preview more. Sorry. By "as nicely as I could", I meant this edit, and then this edit. You accused me of OWNership because you misread my edit at the same time you were defending an editor in conflict with me. It's possible you only came to the article because of that conflict. This is a good example of the problem as I see it: I've made plenty of gestures and other editors have continued the drama. Do you want to resolve this conflict peacefully, or not? Gimmetrow 08:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't checked the history so don't know what reverts might have occurred, but WP:CITE is the guideline that discussess not changing an established citing method without first discussing on talk and gaining consensus. Gimme (and many others) avoid reflist|2 because of the browser errors it can cause and because it adds nothing for the majority of our readers (IE doesn't recognize the two columns, I've never even seen them), and if that is the established citation method on the article, it shouldn't be changed per WP:CITE. I just glanced to see what was up with the whole GA issue, and it seems that there are two new editors now involved (I saw Ling.Nut and Jclemens), so it might be a good step for the editors who aren't getting along to try to just stay away from that article and let the others handle it. I'm not sure why this Brenda person is so exciting, but perhaps I'm too old to get it ... and there are so many other articles to edit that I don't see the benefit in everyone congregating there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

See, why couldn't he have said that? It's unfortunate that you can't see it. |2 saves a lot of space and it looks much better. It's also used on pretty much every article I've edited with more than 10 references, and I can honestly say it's been a really long time since I've seen a polished article without it.

Anyway, Sandy, I can understand your point. My involvement is due to the fact that Gimmetrow felt it appropriate to threaten to remove Malleus from the sweeps, a process I got started. So while I took about a year off from the project, I've kept an eye on progress, and considering the staggering amount of reviews he's done (about 5% of the more than 3,000), I have an issue with that threat. Not only because Gimmetrow has no authority to make such a threat, but because it's disruptive and an abuse of position. It is a serious issue that Gimmetrow refuses to acknowledge this. And that's just part of the problem. لennavecia 07:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Well, trying to get editors to acknowledge things in the midst of an editing tug-of-war doesn't often pay off. Imagine doing similar with Malleus :-) I'll catch up with you tomorrow; it's way past my bedtime and my husband finally got home from a very delayed flight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to it. My view is that when an admin abuses their position, it's best to fess up ASAP. Anyway, sleep well. لennavecia 07:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Why these continual half-truths? Why the refusal to face the very clear facts? I have never even read this bloody Brenda Song article, yet Gimmetrow feels able to accuse me of having some kind of COI, personal attacks ... but that's OK because he's a friend of SandyG, who hasn't even bothered to check the facts before dropping her opinion. --Malleus Fatuorum 07:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm off to bed as well, but here is the timeline as I've gathered so far. I'm still missing discussion, I need to get the GAR info in there. If there's anything missing, feel free to add it. لennavecia 07:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey - long time etc. Thanks for helping out with this article and the unhappy interactions surrounding it. As I'm sure you appreciate, it's a story with two sides, misunderstood intentions on each, escalation of antagonism, and so on. I'll try to fill in as best I can. Geometry guy 18:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate it, G'guy. So good to see you again... Paris has been but a memory.... لennavecia 19:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Halcyon days! The notebook is good. If I spot gaps, I'll let you know. Geometry guy 20:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I must say, this is a disturbing situation. I got busy with an event I waited ten years for, and to come over at the end of that and find this is a real downer. I originally stopped by to inquire over a six-week-old situation between two good editors that was still escalating and to see if we could do anything to deescalate it, perhaps by encouraging distance. Obviously my query hasn't helped (a day later, there's a page full of diffs on each party, looking like this tiff isn't headed towards deescalation), so I'll be bowing out and hoping some sense of proportion is restored and that this blows over. I don't know what half-truths Malleus is referring to; perhaps he genuinely didn't see the well poisoning and personal attacks on me across many GA and talk pages or perhaps there are more pieces I'm not aware of. The entire situation seems particularly disporportional when I compare anything said by Gimme or Malleus to the blatant untruths and personal attacks from other parties against me that went unaddressed during all of this, and which I intentionally avoided, hoping all of this would just blow over. In relation to the trash talk that I let slide, I don't understand the reactions that I'm reading here. Malleus asking about an "excutioner's axe" and "punishment", and removal from admin corp being mentioned ?? Executioner's axe for what? Is there dirt I haven't seen on other pages? And removal from admin corp for what? Where is the abuse of admin tools? Lara, you asked if there were gaps in your notebook: I don't pretend to have followed it all. Once I saw everyone involved was overlooking blatant personal attacks, while being so offended over far lesser posts, I tuned out. I did notice, though, that your notebook says: "Gimmetrow threatens to block the users he is in conflict with", when I don't see any such statement in the diff you gave, so it might be helpful to rephrase that to reflect what he actually said (and in fact, what did happen, Gimme ended up blocked). If anyone at GA had raised an eyebrow about the very real personal attacks that were leveled at other parties throughout all of this, I might consider taking all of this more seriously. Absent that, I see a rather childish tempest in a teapot, and I'm very sorry that my concern was unhelpful and appears to have caused even further escalation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Sandy. You may or may not be aware that I highly value your opinion, so I'm glad to have heard from you regarding this situation. I've had a very narrow focus in my review of this situation, and have just today started getting into the talk pages, so I am not clear on the personal attacks you are speaking of or from whom they came, and I feel bad that I may have overlooked them. I'll look into it more and would appreciate any further detail or links you are comfortable giving. As far as my notebook goes, I'm not sure where I'm going with it. I started it as really what the name of the pages implies, notes. I didn't know what had happened, so I decided to build a timeline. Unfortunately, it revealed itself as a bit of a bigger deal than I realized. There's a lot of inappropriate admin weight being thrown around by Gimmetrow and very little acknowledgment of error. However, I believe I just read a post from him wherein he admits he was upset... hopefully there's something about overreacting. Regardless, to specifically address one of your concerns above:

::Kindly fix the damage on the talk page. If I interact with either Million or Peanut right now, there is a fair chance a few people will get blocked. You could, for instance, set up a GAR. Gimmetrow 21:26, 21 October 2008

So it's not only a matter of abusing his admin position by threatening to block those whom he is in a dispute with, but also when it's over something he should have, and still at this point could have, done himself to begin with. My greatest concern here is the cherry topping of Gimmetrow not acknowledging any of the several errs made. And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Malleus is without fault here. I'm just more concerned with the behavior of the admin, who I think should be held to a higher standard. As far as where it's headed, I couldn't tell you. Malleus made a comment about desysopping, how serious the comment was is not clear to me, but it is an unrealistic notion and I think that's clear to anyone. A saving grace is that admin tools were not used. Only an abuse of position, which is not regarded as an issue to most around here. So I'm hoping some discussion can clear things up. The most important thing in this situation is the assurance that such events, such threats, will not happen again in the future. An agreement to:

• not attempt to rewrite or erase part of an article's history,
• not edit war those attempting to fix it,
• not make empty threats about removing project members or blocking aforementioned editors,
• not continue to show OWNership issues of Brenda Song, and
• not criticize others actions when his own are no better, or arguably worse, in any given situation.

I value our content creators far too much to let these type of actions slide unchecked. Too many prolific editors have been run off by abusive admins. If I can prevent an instance of this, I will. It's not only that I want to keep Malleus in sweeps and the GA project, because he is brilliant there, but I want to keep him writing as well. I hope you understand my position, and in digging through pages, I found an edit from you that gives me the impression that you know exactly how I feel.

And for Malleus, there's a serious need to cut down on the insults and inappropriate use of edit summaries, the exaggerations and escalation of drama. But, as I say, for my concerns here, it's about the abuse of administrative position, and anyone else is free to take a different focus. لennavecia 06:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The more I read Gimmetrow's "Kindly fix" post, the more convinced I am that it was never intended as a threat to block. The post shows exceptionally poor communication skills, and was quite understandably misinterpreted as a threat. However, if one imagines Gimmetrow were not an admin, the post makes perfect sense. The "few people" it refers to clearly includes Gimmetrow himself, so he isn't seeing himself as the blocking admin, merely as a stressed editor in conflict. The third sentence shows that the other two were not meant with malice. Geometry guy 07:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point. I'll amend as necessary. There's still an abuse of position, however, but it is good to realize there was no threat of blocks. لennavecia 07:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

If I took time to deal with every personal attack leveled at me, I'd never get anything done. Admittedly, the ones involving GAs were over the top, but since others choose to overlook them, so will I, because I've got work to do. I wasn't asking for your help and I don't want to create that distraction; I was only pointing out an uneven standard as it impacts how seriously I'm willing to take this entire tempest in a teapot. I just went to WP:GA, WP:GAN, and WP:GAR and see nothing named "Sweeps", so I don't know where to find these other issues. I'm only familiar with the two that impacted me. I'm not seeing the admin weight being thrown around by Gimme: as you said, there was no abuse of tools. I work with him a lot, and I read his comments very differently than you do. I don't see a threat to block in the statement you quote; Gimme was the one who ended up blocked. I don't see abuse of tools, I don't see any ownership at Song (Gimme's edits were rightfully in accordance with WP:CITE), and he paid for trying to fix articlehistory and the GA nom his way with a 3RR block, in a situation where even GA people don't seem to have decided what the correct procedures are, and his 3RR is unrelated to admin tools. Maybe it's because I've been subjected to so much abuse for as long as I've been on Wiki, but I'm just not seeing serious issues here. This is a situation that might benefit most from everyone puting down the sticks, and focusing instead on the real problems on Wiki: childish behaviors (which we're seeing here) and truly abusive admins and editors. I'm sorry I wasn't more helpful; perhaps I should have stuck with my initial instinct to ignore this whole mess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Clearly we see this situation from different views. No use of tools does not mean no abuse of position. I think the page shows a definite issue with abuse of position and I was not speaking of the CITE issue (though I did not find anything on that page regarding whether or not splitting reflists was a matter of consensus), rather the fact that he did get so upset over the review to the point of attempting to remove it from the history, edit warring to keep it removed and referring to those attempting to fix his mistakes as vandalizing the page. The fact that he reverts seasoned editors without discussion is another example of an ownership issue. And the fact that so many here do not see an issue with admin abuse when no use of tools was used is a problem in and of itself. Such abuse runs content contributors off, and it's my opinion that, considering what we do here, content contributors are worth much more than admins, particularly those who put their suitability for the role in doubt. لennavecia 07:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and this is sweeps. And this is what Gimmetrow threatened to put an end to. لennavecia 07:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

This is what abusive admin action sans tools looks like, and I've recently seen equally bad personal attacks leveled at me, unaddressed by some of the same parties hollering abuse here, so that makes it hard for me to give this tempest a lot of weight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Other stuff exists, I know. And FM is no longer an admin as you know, for he was pulled from him pedestal for abusing his position and tools. If you are not interested in helping with this situation, Sandy, I understand. I know you and Gimme are close, coupled with the abuse you've noted above, it's completely understandable. And should I see PAs being thrown at you in the future, I'll be sure they do not go unchecked. I, however, fear that this tempest is going to lead into a bigger mess in the future if left unchecked now. لennavecia 08:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe FM was desysopped for what he said to me: ArbCom decided they had to do something because of the outcry, so my guess is that they sacrificed FM instead of SV. I don't think for a minute anyone cared a year later about what FM did to me, any more than any admin cares to deal with the personal attacks that have been in plain view throughout this GA affair. Anyway, I understand if you feel there's a bigger problem: so do I, but I submit that, in this case, the flashlights are being pointed at the wrong dark corners, and Gimme and Malleus got caught in the crossfire. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

LOL

WP:CUTEGIRL. Official policy. --Closedmouth (talk) 06:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Hahhaaha, uhm... wtf? XD ... er, thanks?! :p لennavecia 06:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't take the credit unfortunately. --Closedmouth (talk) 06:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ahahaha. Gurch! XD <3 لennavecia 07:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, is that what got him blocked? – iridescent 21:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

My gurch is blocked?!? OH NOES! لennavecia 05:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Reallikeunreal

Hi I have recently noticed an account being created for vandalism purposes. Could you alert other Admins so the account is blocked. I suspect they will also try to make another one after the block. It is called Thegreatestmoever3. Could you assist me in blocking this account as I also understand you have has disputes with Thegreatestmoever before. Thank you Reallikeunreal (talk) 12:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Nothing listed at Special:Contributions/Thegreatestmoever3. You sure that's the right name? GlassCobra 21:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Look at the requester's contribs, Glass. لennavecia 04:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

When is my trial due to begin?

When's my trial due to begin?. I only ask because I'll need to buy a new suit, so a little bit of warning would be good. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

MF---there isn't going to be a trial, they were simply going to throw you in water and see if you float like a duck---Balloonman 21:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Time will tell. Can the record show when Gimmetrow started throwing his blockhammer around? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to hang around waiting for the inevitable executioner's axe. An environment which rewards liars but punishes straight-talkers is not one I have any time or respect for. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Malleus, shut up. You can't leave. I'll find you and beat you into submission, and let me tell you, I'm a bitch to be reckoned with when I'm armed with a whip. That said, I had not seen these threats of blocks. This situation does not get better as I go through more pages. Thank you for pointing this out. And stop fanning the flames, Malleus, it doesn't help the situation. لennavecia 03:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Malleus, you are right, of course. I do not believe he is gone. But I think he (the person behind the wiki name) is way more sensitive a human being than he wants to let on.

The whole issue with Gimmetrow was immensely depressing, as Malleus did nothing wrong until he began to lose patience in the end. Gimmetrow's article was failed (perhaps too quickly) but that is not a reason for Gimmetrow, the admin, to repeatedly vandalise the article history. Those purporting to be helping Gimmetrow by arguing about the stupidity of the GAN process and taking Brenda Song to GAR actually prolonged the situation, none of which was the fault of Malleus. I think it is poor behaviour on the part of partisan editors to blame Malleus while continuing to see no wrong in Gimmetrow's behaviour.

I don't think Gimmetrow has "poor communication skills". That editor is quite competent and able to express points of view more than adequately. I am at a loss to understand the dumping on Malleus for this incident, especially by another "superior" editor, of whom Malleus has always been extremely supportive. Malleus has done much excellent work for this "superior" editor. I can understand why he is fed up over this. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)