236
edits
Changes
MyWikiBiz, Author Your Legacy — Thursday May 02, 2024
Jump to navigationJump to searchThe case against Gwen Gale (view source)
Revision as of 15:47, 6 December 2012
, 15:47, 6 December 2012no edit summary
Below is a real request concerning Gwen Gale. This request was filed on one of Wikipedia sites, and it was deleted with no action taken. Read it and decide for yourself.
Below is a real request concerning Gwen Gale. This request was filed on one of Wikipedia sites, and it was deleted with no action taken. Read it and decide for yourself.
==Making of a bully or Gwen Gale's Wikipedia's story==
=== [[Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]]'s Wikipedia story ===
Gwen Gale started editing Wikipedia in 2004 as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20041205181435&limit=2000&target=Wyss user Wyss].
In December of 2005 she was banned from the articles involving sexuality. The ban was stated like this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Wilkes%2C_Wyss_and_Onefortyone#Ted_Wilkes_and_Wyss_banned_from_making_homosexuality.2Fbisexuality_edits "Wyss is banned from making any edit related to a person's alleged homosexuality or bisexuality. The clauses "any edit" and "related to homosexuality or bisexuality" shall be interpreted broadly; this remedy is intended, for example, to prohibit correcting the spelling of "gay"."] There are hard '''on-wiki''' evidences she evaded her ban on a few occasions.
In December of 2005 just a few days before the imminent ban was imposed Gwen Gale made a sock account [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&target=The+Witch The Witch]. A month later The Witch was discovered and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Wilkes,_Wyss_and_Onefortyone&action=edit§ion=30 identified as a sock and as a vandal]. She failed to disclose The Witch in her RfA. After she was specifically asked about this account, she made a untruthful statement:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Gwen_Gale#Questions_from_BusterD "For about 24 hours, two years ago, yes. I quickly decided User:The Witch was an unhelpful username so I went back to User:Wyss. You will please note the account wasn't used to evade the arbcom ruling. I don't consider this brief experiment relevant but I'll be happy to answer questions about it."] BTW Fred Bauder had the right to call The Witch "a vandal". Here are two examples taken from The Witch's contributions:
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Vote/Fred_Bauder&diff=prev&oldid=35547895 "# '''Oppose''', an apparent liar who pursues a strictly unencyclopedic agenda."]<br />
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Vote/Snowspinner&diff=prev&oldid=35548817 "# '''Oppose''', Intellectually unqualified and the worst of roleplaying."]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Vote/Gwen_Gale Gwen Gale failed to mention her The Witch account in her statement], when she unsuccessfully tried to get elected to ArbCom.
All histories of talk pages of users Wyss and The Witch were deleted by Fred Bauder in a violation of basic Wikipedia policies and with no explanation. There's no doubt that this deletion that removed some of Gwen's Gale rhetoric was very useful to her in becoming an administrator.
Here are only two examples of Gwen Gale's rhetoric that somehow survived outside her other accounts talk pages:
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fred_Bauder&diff=prev&oldid=30774808 "Truth be told, according to freely available public records, he was suspended for soliciting a client's wife to work in a prostitution ring, then refusing to attend his hearing on it. Many would interpret this as "disbarred" but he denies the term applies. Bauder disclosed none of this to Mr Wales when he was asked to join lawyerish arbcomm.]<br />*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Wilkes,_Wyss_and_Onefortyone/Proposed_decision&diff=prev&oldid=31826736 "Anyway I disagree that I ever disrupted Wikipedia or ever had the personal potential or whim to do that. My contribution history speaks for itself. I've been slapped hard by arbcomm for expressing my opinion that among them lurk wankers, fiddlers, fools and trolls who coddle their own kind.]
=== Gwen Gale's reaction on being blocked ===
I would have missed on this, if Gwen Gale's behavior as a blocked user versus a blocking administrator were not so drastically different. So let's see a few survived examples of Gwen's reaction on being blocked. These could be compared to the examples I will provide below that will demonstrate Gwen's bullying reaction to the comments of the editors she blocked.
Here is her reaction after 24 hours block for violating of her topic ban on editing articles referring to people's homosexuality: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jtdirl&diff=prev&oldid=42240931#Your_negligence Your block was a misinterpretation of both the arbcomm ruling and its present status. You have been manipulated, at best. The wording of the block notice was equivalent to harassment. I was unable to edit my own talk pages or send emails to admins during the time my block was in force. This represents further negligence on your part and was a violation of Wikipedia policy. The block notice itself was ineptly formatted and represents further negligence. Finally, I find your user signature both disruptive and deceptive since it hides your true user name. In the future, please sign your posts in the normal way, with four tildes. If you wish to communicate with me further concerning these matters, please do so only via the email link on my user page. Thanks. Wyss 21:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)]
Here is her reaction for 24 hours block for edit warring [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive1#Too_many_trolls_and_fools_after_all.2C_I_guess "Too many trolls and fools after all, I guess There are too many of them for me here, too many role-playing troll admins, too many troll sockpuppet editors. Bye then. Gwen Gale 06:29, 1 April ,2007"].
In a year after this rant was written Heidi Wyss became one of wikipedia administrators under user name Gwen Gale.
=== Gwen Gale writing articles about herself ===
One of the biggest problems with Wyss is that she always has been treating herself differently than others, violating the Golden Rule: "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself."
One of the biggest problems with Gwen Gale is that she always has been treating herself differently than others. Probably one of the most striking examples of such behavior is a story about Gwen Gale writing two articles on wikipedia about herself. There are two problems with writing articles about herself. The first problem is that Gwen Gale is absolutely not notable. Another problem is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest conflict of interest]: for example a person writing about herself could be not neutral.
As it is seen from her contributions Wyss was well aware about these policies. She was very active [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&offset=20041205181219&limit=500&target=Wyss in voting on deletion requests of articles written by others],often claiming that a subject of an article is not notable: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Valby&diff=prev&oldid=8288404 "*'''Delete'''. Ad, vanity, and doing off-colour versions of covers isn't notable."] (the article was kept);[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Russell_White&diff=prev&oldid=8153396 *'''Delete''' not notable [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 18:08, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)] (the article was kept).
Then she herself [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Leo_J._Meyer_%282nd_nomination%29 nominated an article for deletion]. She wrote:<br />[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Leo_J._Meyer_%282nd_nomination%29&oldid=203579523 Conflict of interest, subject of this biographical article is not of encyclopedic interest meyerj is an SPA who created this article to memorialize his father. The subject is not encyclopedic (a routine military career), not widely noted, the article amounts to original research and its creation raises many COI worries.] This article was kept. Two articles that Gwen Gale wrote about herself were [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Heidi_Wyss deleted]. So here we go: the same person claims that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_J._Meyer Leo J. Meyer], who was one of only three hundred and three men who have been awarded three Combat Infantryman Badges out of more than the twenty-three million, "is not of encyclopedic interest", writes two articles about an absolutely not notable person - herself. The same person who writes two articles about not notable herself sees "many COI worries" with a user writing article about his notable father.
In another striking episode, on October 4, 2008, Gwen Gale accused a user in being [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephanie_Adams#November Stephanie Adams] and in violating [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COI Wikipedia:Conflict of interest]
In particular Gwen wrote {{cquote|1=[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gwen_Gale&oldid=243072039#Stop_Making_False_Assumptions_.28Re:_Stephanie_Adams_Article.29 We don't believe you. Please have a look at Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. If you carry on disrupting the article, you may be blocked from editing. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)]}} Just stop and think about this. This was written by the very same Gwen Gale who wrote two articles about herself!
==The case against Gwen Gale==
==The case against Gwen Gale==
===Some examples of unwarranted blocks and unwarranted removing of talk page access===
===Some examples of unwarranted blocks and unwarranted removing of talk page access===
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Gwen+Gale&page=User%3AFunguy06&year=2009&month=December&tagfilter= On 26 April 2009 Gwen Gale blocked user Funguy06 with the edit summary "(Vandalism-only account: no meaningfully encyclopedic edits)"]. In her block message [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Funguy06#blocked she provided neither differences to support the block, nor an explanation how to request an unblock]. The user who [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&target=Funguy06 started contributing to wikipedia in 2006] was blocked over [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heidi_Montag&diff=prev&oldid=286162601 this 2009 edit] for "vandalism only". But please [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidi_Montag see the article]. Funguy06 did not vandalize the article.He made a good faith, encyclopedic edit. As a result of the block the user is gone. He did not even bother to write an unblock request.
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Gwen+Gale&page=User%3AFunguy06&year=2009&month=December&tagfilter= On 26 April 2009 Gwen Gale blocked user Funguy06 with the edit summary "(Vandalism-only account: no meaningfully encyclopedic edits)"]. In her block message [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Funguy06#blocked she provided neither differences to support the block, nor an explanation how to request an unblock]. The user who [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&target=Funguy06 started contributing to wikipedia in 2006] was blocked over [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heidi_Montag&diff=prev&oldid=286162601 this 2009 edit] for "vandalism only". But please [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidi_Montag see the article]. Funguy06 did not vandalize the article.He made a good faith, encyclopedic edit. As a result of the block the user is gone. He did not even bother to write an unblock request.
