Changes

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 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!

In particular Gwen wrote {{quote|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!

===Gwen Gale misusing her administrative tools when  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:INVOLVED#Involved_admins involved]===

===Gwen Gale misusing her administrative tools when  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:INVOLVED#Involved_admins involved]===

The policy that clearly states:

The policy that clearly states:

{{cquote|In general, editors should not act as administrators in cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest conflict of interest] in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.}}

{{quote|In general, editors should not act as administrators in cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest conflict of interest] in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.}}

   

   

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:INVOLVED#Misuse_of_administrative_tools This section states]:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:INVOLVED#Misuse_of_administrative_tools This section states]:

{{cquote|Conflict of interest, non-neutrality, or content dispute – Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist. With few specific exceptions (like obvious vandalism) where tool use is allowed by any admin, administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools.}}

{{quote|Conflict of interest, non-neutrality, or content dispute – Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist. With few specific exceptions (like obvious vandalism) where tool use is allowed by any admin, administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools.}}

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive141#User:Gwen_Gale_reported_by_User:John_J._Bulten_.28Result:_protected.29 On October 1, 2010 Gwen Gale was reported for edit warring].

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive141#User:Gwen_Gale_reported_by_User:John_J._Bulten_.28Result:_protected.29 On October 1, 2010 Gwen Gale was reported for edit warring].

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Magog_the_Ogre Administrator Magog the Ogre Magog the Ogre] had this to say about Gwen's conduct:

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Magog_the_Ogre Administrator Magog the Ogre Magog the Ogre] had this to say about Gwen's conduct:

{{cquote|Gwen is very very much out of line, not only with the rollback tool but threatening to block a user in a dispute: future edit warring of this type will receive a block.}}

{{quote|Gwen is very very much out of line, not only with the rollback tool but threatening to block a user in a dispute: future edit warring of this type will receive a block.}}

:After Gwen Gale yet another time claimed a good faith edit to be "vandalism" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HJ_Mitchell administrator HJ Mitchell] had this to say about Gwen's conduct:

:After Gwen Gale yet another time claimed a good faith edit to be "vandalism" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HJ_Mitchell administrator HJ Mitchell] had this to say about Gwen's conduct:

{{cquote|In this case, while it might not have been your intention to get into a dispute, you did step over the bright-line rule and, as far as I can see, none of the reverted edits were vandalism. I would suggest being more careful with rollback at the very least. Non-admins have been known to lose it for less. In this case, while it might not have been your intention to get into a dispute, you did step over the bright-line rule and, as far as I can see, none of the reverted edits were vandalism. I would suggest being more careful with rollback at the very least. Non-admins have been known to lose it for less. }}

{{quote|In this case, while it might not have been your intention to get into a dispute, you did step over the bright-line rule and, as far as I can see, none of the reverted edits were vandalism. I would suggest being more careful with rollback at the very least. Non-admins have been known to lose it for less. In this case, while it might not have been your intention to get into a dispute, you did step over the bright-line rule and, as far as I can see, none of the reverted edits were vandalism. I would suggest being more careful with rollback at the very least. Non-admins have been known to lose it for less. }}

:Gwen also received a personal message about this incident.

:Gwen also received a personal message about this incident.

{{cquote|[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive18#3RR_violation_.2B_misuse_of_admin_tools '''3RR violation + misuse of admin tools'''. Please see WP:AN3#User:Gwen Gale reported by User:John J. Bulten (Result: protected). I am also rescinding the warning you gave the user you were opposed to, and replacing it with a proper warning for edit warring. Please consider this a warning: if you believe it is inappropriate and/or would like to appeal it, you may take it to WP:ANI. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)]}}  

{{quote|[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive18#3RR_violation_.2B_misuse_of_admin_tools '''3RR violation + misuse of admin tools'''. Please see WP:AN3#User:Gwen Gale reported by User:John J. Bulten (Result: protected). I am also rescinding the warning you gave the user you were opposed to, and replacing it with a proper warning for edit warring. Please consider this a warning: if you believe it is inappropriate and/or would like to appeal it, you may take it to WP:ANI. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)]}}  

A few days ago professor Timothy Messer-Kruse shared his experience in editing Wikipedia. In particular he recalls part of his exchange with Gwen Gale:[http://chronicle.com/article/The-Undue-Weight-of-Truth-on/130704/ "Explain to me, then, how a 'minority' source with facts on its side would ever appear against a wrong 'majority' one?" I asked the Wiki-gatekeeper. He responded, "You're more than welcome to discuss reliable sources here, that's what the talk page is for. However, you might want to have a quick look at Wikipedia's civility policy."]

A few days ago professor Timothy Messer-Kruse shared his experience in editing Wikipedia. In particular he recalls part of his exchange with Gwen Gale:[http://chronicle.com/article/The-Undue-Weight-of-Truth-on/130704/ "Explain to me, then, how a 'minority' source with facts on its side would ever appear against a wrong 'majority' one?" I asked the Wiki-gatekeeper. He responded, "You're more than welcome to discuss reliable sources here, that's what the talk page is for. However, you might want to have a quick look at Wikipedia's civility policy."]

The complete conversation is preserved [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Haymarket_affair&oldid=477110217#.22No_Evidence.22 here]:

The complete conversation is preserved [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Haymarket_affair&oldid=477110217#.22No_Evidence.22 here]:

{{cquote|Fine. I see I will have to fight these battles one at a time. I will start with the most obvious. Here is a "majority" source, indeed the most often-cited source for information on Haymarket there is, Paul Avrich, The Haymarket Tragedy: from page 190: "Spies had heard that two men had been killed, apparently the correct number, but when he picked up the Daily News, the paper reported six deaths." So, it should be evident that this authoratitive source also agrees the proper number should be TWO. As for you claim about Wikipedia's policy, your characterization of it is absurd, especially if the "majority" source that is cited can be shown to be factually wrong. Explain to me, then, how a "minority" source with facts on its side would ever appear against a wrong "majority" one?MesserKruse (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

{{quote|Fine. I see I will have to fight these battles one at a time. I will start with the most obvious. Here is a "majority" source, indeed the most often-cited source for information on Haymarket there is, Paul Avrich, The Haymarket Tragedy: from page 190: "Spies had heard that two men had been killed, apparently the correct number, but when he picked up the Daily News, the paper reported six deaths." So, it should be evident that this authoratitive source also agrees the proper number should be TWO. As for you claim about Wikipedia's policy, your characterization of it is absurd, especially if the "majority" source that is cited can be shown to be factually wrong. Explain to me, then, how a "minority" source with facts on its side would ever appear against a wrong "majority" one?MesserKruse (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to discuss reliable sources here, that's what the talk page is for. However, you might want to have a quick look at Wikipedia's civility policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC) }}

You're more than welcome to discuss reliable sources here, that's what the talk page is for. However, you might want to have a quick look at Wikipedia's civility policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC) }}