Difference between revisions of "The case against Gwen Gale"

MyWikiBiz, Author Your Legacy — Thursday March 28, 2024
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Change cquote template to quote)
 
(47 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
[[File:Gwen Gale aka the Witch is roaming around wikipedia .jpg|thumb|300px|After Gwen Gale got her [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/Admin_mop.PNG administrative tool] she quickly turned the mop to a witch's broomstick. Now she uses this broomstick to fly around Wikipedia to collect heads of innocent editors while allowing trolls to troll.]]
+
[[File:Gwen Gale aka the Witch is roaming around wikipedia .jpg|thumb|300px|After Gwen Gale got her [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/Admin_mop.PNG administrative tool] she quickly turned the mop to a witch's broomstick. Now she uses this broomstick to fly around Wikipedia to collect heads of innocent editors while allowing trolls to troll. "The witch" was the name of one of Gwen Gale's sock accounts.]]
 
'''"I will kill myself tonight and it is all your fault."''' wrote 16-years old kid at the talk page of Wikipedia administrator Gwen Gale on February 3,2012.
 
'''"I will kill myself tonight and it is all your fault."''' wrote 16-years old kid at the talk page of Wikipedia administrator Gwen Gale on February 3,2012.
This kid, as many other Wikipedia users has became a victim of bullying that is allowed on the site that belongs to non-profit charitable organization tax-exempt organization [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation Wikimedia Foundation]
+
This kid, as many other Wikipedia users has became a victim of bullying that is allowed on the site that belongs to non-profit, charitable,tax-exempt organization [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation the Wikimedia Foundation]. The scariest part is that the Wikimedia Foundation was aware about Gwen Gale bullying '''before''' the latest incident, and did nothing. The 16-years old kid sustained irreversible emotional damage and a Wikimedia Foundation bears a full responsibility for allowing this to happen. Although there is so called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Child_protection Child protection] policy on Wikipedia, it does not protect a child from being bullied on Wikipedia. When specifically asked about protecting children from bullying on Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation's employee [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Philippe_%28WMF%29 Philippe Beaudette] [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Philippe_%28WMF%29&diff=prev&oldid=3510606 refused to respond].   
  
Gwen Gale is not the only bully administrator on Wikipedia. She's probably not the worst either. She's one of dozens bullies that allow to roam free in Wikipedia's jungles.   
+
Gwen Gale is not the only bully administrator on Wikipedia. She's probably not the worst one either. She's one of hundreds of anonymous bullies with administrative tools that are allowed to roam free in Wikipedia's jungles.   
  
  
Line 9: Line 9:
  
 
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&section=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 lied:[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 {{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!
 +
  
 
==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.
Line 26: Line 68:
  
  
*user:Malleus Fatuorum was blocked on June 10, 2009. The user was unblocked in an hour after [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive13#Malleus an admin and a few users complained about the block]. Over this block [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive13#Recall she was suggested "to spend some time reading WP:BLOCK and, frankly, not editing here."] After a long threads at her and Malleus Fatuorum's talk pages Gwen Gale [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum/Archives/2009/June#I_was_mistaken apologized for the block].
+
*user:Malleus Fatuorum was blocked on June 10, 2009. The user was unblocked in an hour after [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive13#Malleus an admin and a few users complained about the block]. Over this block [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive13#Recall she was suggested "to spend some time reading WP:BLOCK and, frankly, not editing here."] After a long threads at her and Malleus Fatuorum's talk pages, in which Malleus said about Gwen [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gwen_Gale&diff=next&oldid=403807278 "She may say whatever she likes, but a lie is a lie, and she is a liar"],Gwen Gale [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum/Archives/2009/June#I_was_mistaken apologized for the block].
  
  
Line 50: Line 92:
 
*User Mbz1
 
*User Mbz1
  
On December 23, 2010 Gwen Gale responded to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mbz1#Per_your_request canvassing] and blocked the editor for a week.  
+
On December 23, 2010 Gwen Gale responded to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mbz1&oldid=476332609#Per_your_request canvassing] and blocked the editor for a week.  
 
She made the block to be indefinite after [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMbz1%2Fa7&action=historysubmit&diff=403914418&oldid=403912569 the editor made this post]. She removed the editor's talk page access without warning only because the editor added an indefinite blocked user template to her talk page two times. The talk page access was restored by another administrator.
 
She made the block to be indefinite after [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMbz1%2Fa7&action=historysubmit&diff=403914418&oldid=403912569 the editor made this post]. She removed the editor's talk page access without warning only because the editor added an indefinite blocked user template to her talk page two times. The talk page access was restored by another administrator.
  
Line 64: Line 106:
 
===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.}}
  
  
Line 79: Line 121:
 
*[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)]}}  
  
  
Line 107: Line 149:
  
 
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Gwen+Gale&page=User%3ATombaker321&year=2012&month=December&tagfilter= User Tombaker321 was blocked on July 15,2010] after the user [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARoman_Polanski&action=historysubmit&diff=373514166&oldid=373498413 directly accused Gwen in "squashing the dialog by using her admin role"] and after Gwen [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tombaker321#disruption continued to engage the user at his talk page].
 
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Gwen+Gale&page=User%3ATombaker321&year=2012&month=December&tagfilter= User Tombaker321 was blocked on July 15,2010] after the user [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARoman_Polanski&action=historysubmit&diff=373514166&oldid=373498413 directly accused Gwen in "squashing the dialog by using her admin role"] and after Gwen [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tombaker321#disruption continued to engage the user at his talk page].
 +
 +
 +
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Gwen+Gale&page=User%3AKoshVorlon&year=2011&month=December&tagfilter= User KoshVorlon was blocked on 11 May 2010 ] after Gwen gale was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Sanger&diff=361460676&oldid=361460589 edit warring] with the user.
 +
  
  
Line 122: Line 168:
  
 
===Biting newbies===
 
===Biting newbies===
*On February 13, 2012 there was a Signpost with the name: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-02-13/In_the_news&oldid=476912548 "Scholar confounded by rules fit for the everyman"]:
 
{{cquote|In a paywalled article for The Chronicle of Higher Education, Timothy Messer-Kruse, a professor at Bowling Green State university specialising in the history of the American labor movement, detailed his frustrated encounters with Wikipedia's immune system in endeavouring to set perceived inaccuracies in its historical coverage to rights.}}
 
In the article named "The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia" the professor writes:
 
[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."] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Haymarket_affair&oldid=476851229#.22No_Evidence.22 Here's the complete conversation]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MesserKruse And here the first message the professor got.]
 
 
 
 
 
 
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jamiroquai&diff=prev&oldid=308136584 User Hatcrazy was blocked two times in August of 2009].
 
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jamiroquai&diff=prev&oldid=308136584 User Hatcrazy was blocked two times in August of 2009].
 
The first block was 24 hours for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lady_Victoria_Hervey&diff=prev&oldid=306484174 this edit].
 
The first block was 24 hours for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lady_Victoria_Hervey&diff=prev&oldid=306484174 this edit].
Line 136: Line 174:
  
 
Gwen Gale  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hatcrazy#August_2009 warned the user], but a new user could not have known what "consensus" and "sourcing" means.
 
Gwen Gale  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hatcrazy#August_2009 warned the user], but a new user could not have known what "consensus" and "sourcing" means.
 +
  
 
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ANextbook User Nextbook was blocked at 20:56, 9 November 2011]  after [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pitcairn_Islands&action=historysubmit&diff=459856138&oldid=459853639 Gwen Gale] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pitcairn_Islands&action=historysubmit&diff=459856594&oldid=459856520 was] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pitcairn_Islands&action=historysubmit&diff=459858526&oldid=459857327 edit warring] with him. Gwen Gale claimed BLP. Another admin [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive20#Why.3F questioned the block, saying in particular "I don't think BLP concerns are a carte blanche for disregarding AGF like this and especially not BITE since we can't expect newcomers to understand these complex policies within their first 10 edits. I would appreciate if you would be more polite and welcoming towards new editors in the future, and not be as quick with the block-hammer, if you feel you don't have the patience for giving adequate explanations to a newcomer feel free to contact me and I'll gladly take over"], but Gwen failed to clarify her position.
 
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ANextbook User Nextbook was blocked at 20:56, 9 November 2011]  after [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pitcairn_Islands&action=historysubmit&diff=459856138&oldid=459853639 Gwen Gale] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pitcairn_Islands&action=historysubmit&diff=459856594&oldid=459856520 was] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pitcairn_Islands&action=historysubmit&diff=459858526&oldid=459857327 edit warring] with him. Gwen Gale claimed BLP. Another admin [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive20#Why.3F questioned the block, saying in particular "I don't think BLP concerns are a carte blanche for disregarding AGF like this and especially not BITE since we can't expect newcomers to understand these complex policies within their first 10 edits. I would appreciate if you would be more polite and welcoming towards new editors in the future, and not be as quick with the block-hammer, if you feel you don't have the patience for giving adequate explanations to a newcomer feel free to contact me and I'll gladly take over"], but Gwen failed to clarify her position.
 +
 +
:Here's an analysis of the situation with this user:
 +
:1. A new editor [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Nextbook made a few contributions.]
 +
:2. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANextbook&action=historysubmit&diff=459501988&oldid=458203616 He is warned he has to use sources].
 +
:3. So in his next two edits he tries to use sources.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pitcairn_Islands&action=historysubmit&diff=459856520&oldid=459856138 In this edit he provides not just one, but three sources almost for every sentence he adds, but he does it like this "(Marks, "Lost Paradise", page 292.) "] because he is not sure what is the right way to list references. In his next and the last edit he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pitcairn_Islands&action=historysubmit&diff=459857327&oldid=459856138 inserts the external link to the article in Guardian, which of course is a reliable source].
 +
:4. The user [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANextbook&action=historysubmit&diff=459859217&oldid=459856885 is blocked] and never returns.
  
 
===Gwen Gale using unnecessary, rude edit summaries in the block log===
 
===Gwen Gale using unnecessary, rude edit summaries in the block log===
Line 156: Line 201:
 
2. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FBusterD&action=historysubmit&diff=467424231&oldid=467422483 With this edit the user admitted he canvassed Gwen Gale to co-nominate him in his RfA] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FBusterD&action=historysubmit&diff=467281585&oldid=467245749 Gwen Gale responded to canvassing]. It is funny that the user made his/her admission in response to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guerillero admin Guerillero] saying [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FBusterD&action=historysubmit&diff=467417317&oldid=467417178 that Gwen Gale does not instill any trust in him/her].
 
2. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FBusterD&action=historysubmit&diff=467424231&oldid=467422483 With this edit the user admitted he canvassed Gwen Gale to co-nominate him in his RfA] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FBusterD&action=historysubmit&diff=467281585&oldid=467245749 Gwen Gale responded to canvassing]. It is funny that the user made his/her admission in response to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guerillero admin Guerillero] saying [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FBusterD&action=historysubmit&diff=467417317&oldid=467417178 that Gwen Gale does not instill any trust in him/her].
  
===Wikipedians about Gwen Gale===
 
 
*By [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mike_Halterman administrator Mike Halterman] {{cquote|1=[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008%2FVote%2FGwen_Gale&action=historysubmit&diff=255116395&oldid=255113719 Gwen Gale wasn't even on my radar, positively or negatively, until this week, and then I was involved in an incident with her and her judgment gave me such pause. So for that, I oppose, and suggest she looks into how she deals with disputes. Like it or not, this is the highest community "court" or what have you that we have here, and after what I saw, I don't want her on it, probably ever.]}}
 
 
*By [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:David_Shankbone administrator David Shankbone] {{cquote|1=[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008%2FVote%2FGwen_Gale&action=historysubmit&diff=255126563&oldid=255124705 I'm sorry, but you really sunk it for me on Talk:Rush Limbaugh. I found your arguments and sources on there to be a disgrace, frankly. Or, User:Avruch said, "I think some of your arguments have been disingenuous, and beneath what I believe your intelligence and perceptive ability to be."]}}
 
 
*By [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:East718 administrator East718] {{cquote|1=[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:East718/ACE2008 aka Wyss. Formerly placed under editing restrictions by ArbCom for unseemly conduct; evaded these restrictions with a sockpuppet... Zero-tolerance attitude towards adminship makes them wholly incompatible with a role of higher responsibility that requires more creative solutions.]}}
 
 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Gwen_Gale#Candidate.27s_closing_statement_about_the_conduct_of_this_RFA Gwen Gale insulted everybody who dared to vote against her].
 
 
===Recent misuse of administrative tools===
 
Admin Gwen gale deleted the last surviving pieces of her sock user Wyss talk page history.
 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wyss/a4#Wikipedia:Avoid_personal_remarks "User request to delete page in own userspace: user thought this had been done years ago"]. Interesting she refers to herself as to some unknown to her user: "User request to delete page". She lies that this page is in her "own userspace". She deleted '''the only page''' that had talk history of Wyss. She frlrtrd many other archives of user Wyss as well.
 
 
==Self-pitying==
 
After all the bullying and harassment Gwen Gale exercised towards other editors she suddenly decided to engage in self-pitying:
 
{{cquote|1=[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=prev&oldid=467273789 I was thinking yesterday, in all my life, I have never been so harassed, wantonly smeared, blatantly lied about or otherwise trashed as I've been on this website. Not even nearly. I've put up with it because I knew the slurs were never about me as such, but about other stuff only a dozen or so editors (out of thousands) were flogging and thrashing away at towards their own utterly selfish, narrow, thwarted goals and outlooks as to editorial and policy outcomes (and I dare say much worse sometimes).]}}
 
She provided no single evidence of her being "harassed, wantonly smeared, blatantly lied about or otherwise trashed."
 
 
In another place Gwen Gale said:{{cquote|1=[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thumperward&diff=prev&oldid=467136329 "Stuff has been done to me here that I find "intolerable," awful, but I don't go on about it."..."If it helps, I agree with you, the whole thing stinks."]}} Assuming under "the whole thing" Gwen Gale meant the project, she should realize that, if it "stinks", it is partly because of her.
 
 
== Gwen Gale - Fred Bauder a strange relationship ==
 
 
User Fred Bauder is an administrator and a former arbitrator of English Wikipedia. Wyss and her socks used to make personal attacks against Fred:
 
 
*{{cquote|1=[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Vote/Fred_Bauder&diff=prev&oldid=35547895 an apparent liar who pursues a strictly unencyclopedic agenda.]}}
 
 
*{{cquote|1=[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=31101333 With all the recent bad publicity, can't decide if you want the same old gang of troll coddlers re-elected, eh Mr Wales? :) ]}}
 
 
*{{cquote|1=[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.]}}
 
 
*{{cquote|1=[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=31095658#Wankers.2C_fiddlers.2C_fools_and_trolls Wankers, fiddlers, fools and trolls. Even as the Seigenthaler scandal was breaking in hundreds of news reports across the world, arbcomm member and suspended (in effect, apparently disbarred) lawyer Fred Bauder voted to endorse the statement that my sourcing standards were "unrealistic," as in, "Why bother for accuracy?]}}
 
 
*{{cquote|1=[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fred_Bauder&diff=prev&oldid=30786079 The more I learn about you, the more I think you don't want to help people write an encyclopedia. Why are you here?]}}
 
 
Yet somewhere along the way Fred Bauder everything has changed.Fred Bauder was no longer "an apparent liar who pursues a strictly unencyclopedic agenda", "(in effect, apparently disbarred) lawyer Fred Bauder", not even one of "wankers, fiddlers, fools and trolls", he suddenly became "Mr Bauder", and Gwen's best friend.
 
 
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FGwen_Gale&action=historysubmit&diff=185479492&oldid=185479006 "I got very worried and asked Mr Bauder to wipe out the talk pages, which he immediately did."] By wiping talk page history "Mr Bauder" violated basic wikipedia policy and deleted most of the evidences used against Wyss in her arbitration case.
 
 
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FGwen_Gale&action=historysubmit&diff=185473897&oldid=185473826 "I do also recall Fred Bauder sending me a politely worded note at that time which said something like, "We're counting on you, don't let us down" or something with that meaning."]
 
 
== Gwen Gale - Daedalus969 a strange relationship ==
 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Daedalus969 User Daedalus969] [http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&grouped=on&page=User_talk:Gwen_Gale is the top contributor to Gwen Gale's talk page].
 
 
Gwen Gale responds to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing#Stealth_canvassing email canvassing] by that user:
 
 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive19#Email.2C Here is an example of one such conversation about sent email]:
 
*''Ping!— Dædαlus+ Contribs 11:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)''
 
*''Pong! Gwen Gale (talk) 12:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)''
 
 
What Daedalus969 was doing just before he pinged Gwen Gale? He [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=403686336 was commenting on the same AN/I thread] that Gwen Gale [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=403691945#user:Kuguar03 closed] just before she ponged.
 
So as soon as Daedalus969 said "Ping" and Gwen gladly responded "Pong".
 
 
Maybe there would not have been anything strange in a friendship between Gwen and Daedalus969, but the problem with Daedalus969 is that the user is simply [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bishonen&diff=291466598&oldid=291465740 a "little shit"] as Wikipedia administrator Bishonen correctly noticed. Besides that "little shit" is missing ability to write articles as he himself [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jack_Merridew&diff=prev&oldid=398339429 admitted].   
 
 
Another former Wikipedia editor said: [http://gwen-gale-heidi-wyss-tinpot-auteur.blogspot.com/2009/03/gwens-minions.html "Daedalus969, the hapless youth who literally has no clue (at least how to spell, or even construct a readable sentence), who runs around acting like an Administrator and frequently goes to Gwen/Heidi for advice/help."]
 
 
So why Gwen Gale likes Daedalus969 so much? Maybe she likes that this "little shit", "hapless youth who literally has no clue" really has no clue of what he is doing like for example, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AThe_Witch&action=historysubmit&diff=256350718&oldid=256327243 when he removed a period from Gwen's sock talk page with an edit summary "courtesy blanked"]?
 
 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive9#Just_an_idle_question.2C Once "a little shit" asked Gwen the witch, if he could run for adminship]. Gwen responded:
 
{{cquote|I'd say, work on your peacemaking a bit (we're all meant to be building articles here, after all) and you'll be an admin sooner rather than later ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 12:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)}} Interesting what she was thinking?
 
Although it is not entirely clear what drives a "witchy girl" Gwen Gale and a "little shit" Daedalus969 together, but there is no doubt that the pair is responsible for driving off the project countless valued editors.
 
 
==Heidi Wyss at the WEB==
 
 
Heidi Wyss wrote articles about herself on at least 3 different sites.
 
 
Editing under user name "Spidermite", she wrote two articles about herself on feminists wiki: [http://wiki.feministsf.net/index.php?title=Heidi_Wyss&oldid=3427 Heidi Wyss] and [http://wiki.feministsf.net/index.php?title=Gormglaith&oldid=3428 Gormglaith].
 
 
Editing under user name "Gwen Gale" she wrote two articles about herself on [[Wikipedia]]:[http://img68.imageshack.us/img68/1431/89587859ig5.jpg Heidi Wyss] and [http://img362.imageshack.us/img362/6083/92979875oe7.jpg Gormglaith (novel)]. Both were later deleted because the subject was not notable.
 
 
Editing as IP 81.62.148.165 she wrote an article about herself at MyWikiBiz:
 
[http://www.mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Gormglaith_%28novel%29&oldid=64360 Gormglaith (novel)]. According to [http://img362.imageshack.us/img362/6083/92979875oe7.jpg this screenshot] this IP#81.62.148.165 was used by Heidi Wyss (Gwen Gale)  to edit an article about her novel on wikipedia as well.
 
 
In January of 2010 [[:user:Willowtree|Willowtree]](probably  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gwen_Gale Gwen Gale]) [http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia_scandals&diff=prev&oldid=106377 tried to remove the information about herself from this article] just as she [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008%2FCandidate_statements%2FGwen_Gale%2FQuestions_for_the_candidate&diff=254715552&oldid=254671400 did] many times on English wikipedia, but this time it did not work out, and she [http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia_scandals&diff=106400&oldid=106377 was reverted].
 
 
==Not a fairy==
 
[[File:Gwen Gale with heads of contributors she blocked.jpg|Gwen Gale with heads of contributors she blocked|thumb|350px]]
 
 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Gwen_Gale&oldid=403226565 Heidi Wyss AKA Gwen Gale tries to present herself as Wikipedia's fairy], but everybody who is willing to look at her conduct closely will see an ugly expression of a bully administrator behind a fairy's mask.
 
  
 
==Gwen Gale makes a fool of yourself and of Wikipedia==
 
==Gwen Gale makes a fool of yourself and of Wikipedia==
 
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) }}
Line 252: Line 217:
 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gwen_Gale&oldid=477103224 "Hello. I just want to point out that I recently read an article in the chronicle here: http://chronicle.com/article/The-Undue-Weight-of-Truth-on/130704/ and it describes what amounts to an edit war that you were engaged in. I looked at the page and discussion in question, and it seems to me that you are boorish and a bully. I would like to suggest that you tone down your air of self-righteous authority, in order to encourage a more civil atmosphere on Wikipedia. It's especially ironic that when presented with what seems to be a very civil point by (presumably) the author of the blog, you ignored the substance of his argument and instead groundlessly accused him of being uncivil himself. If you're going to wear that hat of uncontested arbitrator of *TRUTH*, it would be helpful if you at least justified your claims in detail to those who go to the trouble of trying to actually discuss the truth in a balanced fashion using reliable sources. As it stands, you arbitrarily call seemingly reliable sources "unreliable", and other sources that support your preferred narrative "reliable," and this makes you an awful bully. Please consider changing your behavior and attitudes. Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashwinr (talk • contribs) 17:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)"]
 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gwen_Gale&oldid=477103224 "Hello. I just want to point out that I recently read an article in the chronicle here: http://chronicle.com/article/The-Undue-Weight-of-Truth-on/130704/ and it describes what amounts to an edit war that you were engaged in. I looked at the page and discussion in question, and it seems to me that you are boorish and a bully. I would like to suggest that you tone down your air of self-righteous authority, in order to encourage a more civil atmosphere on Wikipedia. It's especially ironic that when presented with what seems to be a very civil point by (presumably) the author of the blog, you ignored the substance of his argument and instead groundlessly accused him of being uncivil himself. If you're going to wear that hat of uncontested arbitrator of *TRUTH*, it would be helpful if you at least justified your claims in detail to those who go to the trouble of trying to actually discuss the truth in a balanced fashion using reliable sources. As it stands, you arbitrarily call seemingly reliable sources "unreliable", and other sources that support your preferred narrative "reliable," and this makes you an awful bully. Please consider changing your behavior and attitudes. Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashwinr (talk • contribs) 17:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)"]
  
==Bloggers about Gwen Gale==
+
==Wikipedians about bullying==
 +
 
 +
*When a 13-years old was asked why she would continue editing Wikipedia, she responded: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Trusilver&oldid=455609402 "Because almost everyone there is a bunch of fakes who like Wikipedia because they have power over others."]
 +
 
  
A famous blogger [http://www.blogger.com/profile/04065046996890668141 All's Wool that Ends Wool] writes about Gwen Gale in the blog named ''Tyranny of the Ignorant''. Calling her "one Wikipediot" he writes:
+
*[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Elen_of_the_Roads#Meta_coda_by_Proofreader77:_.22Wikipedia_and_the_pleasure_of_bullying.22 "Of course, Wikipedia needs its bullies — it does not pay salaries, but there is the psychic pleasures of bullying. Obviously not everyone is a bully. There are some good-hearted admins. But the patterns of the social dynamics of Wikipedia are almost designed to cultivate a collection of bullies to do the work, and provide structural support for that bullying — as ArbCom's backing the bullying of Proofreader77 gives some flavor of.]
  
{{cquote|1=[http://allswool.blogspot.com/2008/04/tyranny-of-ignorant.html a noted mathematical physicist from the Centre de recherches mathématiques is precisely the kind of "expert" that Wikipedia claims it would like to attract to give credence to its content. Yet, when such a scientist attempted to edit the Myrzakulov equations article, a field in which he has considerable expertise, he was rebuffed by the "community." To quote one Wikipediot: "One may be an expert in one's field, but not an expert in collaborative, volunteer development of an open encyclopedia using wiki software.]}}
 
Of course the expert left Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=205803614\#Etc. comparing it to inquisition and calling it a "Tyranny of the Ignorant"]
 
  
A few people responded to the blog:
+
*A former wikipedian an award-winning Physicist had this to say about Wikipedia:
  
*{{Cquote|This Gwen Gale - is out of control at wikipedia. She banned me from the website for merely asking a question after she threatened me for what i can't even figure out.}}
+
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=205868902#Conclusions ...Wikipedia, on the contrary, is the enshrinement of contempt for learning, knowledge and expertise. It is, for many, a diversionary hobby to which they are prepared devote a great portion of their time, as others do to computer based video games. Unfortunately, it has led also to an inner cult, shrouded in anonymity, with structures and processes of self-regulation that are woefully inadequate. Many of these tools and procedures are reminiscent, in parody, of those of the Inquisition: secret courts, an inner "elite" arbitrarily empowered to censor and exclude all those perceived as a threat to the adopted conventions of the cult; denunciations, character assassination, excommunication. An arbitrarily concocted "rulebook" and language rife with self-referential sanctimoniousness give a superficial illusion of order and good sense, but no such thing exists in practice.It is truly a "Tyranny of the Ignorant"].
*{{Cquote|Gwen Gale is the perfect example of the smug, self-important morons that pretend to be Wikiexperts. If you look at her edit history, she spends hours and hours daily being high and mighty on Wikipedia.}}
+
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cheeser1&diff=prev&oldid=201767732 I have no interest in "defending" myself against false accusations, made with no other intent than harassment. I have a real world identity, and have had more than enough of the absurdities of this fictional pseudo-environment, in which people play out their aggressions as though they were knocking down "enemies" in a video game. I have the impression that many of those for whom this is a permanent romping ground are simply maladjusted individuals in their real lives who have a compulsive need to act out aggressions in this fantasy world as a rather pitiful form of self-affirmation...But individuals who try to launch, within science, campaigns of self-promotion through such absurd vehicles as Wikipedia clearly have no interest in the truth, and are only too happy to support the bullying, intimidation and denunciations of self-appointed enforcers such as User: Cheeser1. Given the opportunity, they would doubtless wish to do the same in real life...    My only remaining intention, within this lamentable setting, is to close down all vestiges of such contemptible farce, which is a parody of the well known practices used in police states, where denunciation is sufficient to imply guilt, and intimidation is a stock in trade to contain potential "enemies of the state". The only satisfaction that I have is to be able recall that I anticipated such an onslaught, and said so on record, although I failed to anticipate the scope of its absurdity. No-one with any intelligence or self-respect who becomes aware of the prevalence and apparently, encouragement, of such machinations would agree to participate further in such things.]
*{{Cquote|Talk about an obsessed, jealous, ugly wench...Gwen Gale recently edited pages about a beautiful Playboy Playmate named Stephanie Adams and did so with malice due to her anger of not being a notable author herself. }}
+
 
*{{Cquote|Gwen Gale (AKA Heidi Wyss) just recently caused a furor at Wikipedia as it turns out she had written two articles about herself (her actual name is Heidi Wyss). Both of these puff pieces were quickly nominated for deletion, with a host of people trying to cover up the fact that she wrote them, claiming others were trying to "out" her (Wiki-speak for revealing her ID, something rather ironic when you consider she wrote the articles herself). As of 12/3, there are a bunch of very funny items on Wikipedia and Wikipedia Review about this. Gwen is staying uncharacteristically quiet about having divulged her true identity. }}
+
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<big>'''DO NOT DONATE TO THE WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION.IF YOU DONATE MONEY TO THE WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION, YOU'RE LENDING YOUR SUPPORT TO A SYSTEM THAT NOT ONLY TOLERATES BUT FOSTERS ONLINE BULLYING. IF YOU DONATE MONEY TO THE WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION, YOU'RE LENDING YOUR SUPPORT TO A "TYRANNY OF THE IGNORANT."'''</big>
  
 
==See also==
 
==See also==
 +
*[[A typical Wikipediot]]
 +
*[[Wikipedians versus Academics]]
 +
 +
==External links==
 
*[http://wikibrutewar.blogspot.com/2009/10/brutal-wikiwarrior-of-week-gwen-gale.html Brutal wikiwarrior of the week: Gwen Gale]
 
*[http://wikibrutewar.blogspot.com/2009/10/brutal-wikiwarrior-of-week-gwen-gale.html Brutal wikiwarrior of the week: Gwen Gale]
 
*[http://allswool.blogspot.com/2008/04/tyranny-of-ignorant.html Tyranny of the Ignorant ]
 
*[http://allswool.blogspot.com/2008/04/tyranny-of-ignorant.html Tyranny of the Ignorant ]
Line 276: Line 249:
 
*[http://youtu.be/OWN_FhUpp1c Gwen Gale's Wikipedia moments (Tyranny of the Ignorant )]
 
*[http://youtu.be/OWN_FhUpp1c Gwen Gale's Wikipedia moments (Tyranny of the Ignorant )]
 
*[http://youtu.be/nrEdYyejlj8 Ding Dong the Wicked Witch is Dead]
 
*[http://youtu.be/nrEdYyejlj8 Ding Dong the Wicked Witch is Dead]
 +
 +
==Share this page==
 +
<sharethis />
 +
 +
[[Category:Wikipedia]] 
 +
 +
<br>
 +
<div style="overflow:auto;height:1px;">
 +
[[Keyword:=Gwen Gale]]
 +
[[Keyword:=bullying]]
 +
[[Keyword:=suicide]]
 +
[[Keyword:=the Wikimedia Foundation]]
 +
[[Keyword:=Heidi Wyss]]
 +
[[Keyword:=Gormglaith]]
 +
[[Keyword:=Wikipedia]]
 +
[[Keyword:=cyber-bullying on Wikipedia]]
 +
</div>
 +
<br>

Latest revision as of 13:26, 27 August 2014

After Gwen Gale got her administrative tool she quickly turned the mop to a witch's broomstick. Now she uses this broomstick to fly around Wikipedia to collect heads of innocent editors while allowing trolls to troll. "The witch" was the name of one of Gwen Gale's sock accounts.

"I will kill myself tonight and it is all your fault." wrote 16-years old kid at the talk page of Wikipedia administrator Gwen Gale on February 3,2012. This kid, as many other Wikipedia users has became a victim of bullying that is allowed on the site that belongs to non-profit, charitable,tax-exempt organization the Wikimedia Foundation. The scariest part is that the Wikimedia Foundation was aware about Gwen Gale bullying before the latest incident, and did nothing. The 16-years old kid sustained irreversible emotional damage and a Wikimedia Foundation bears a full responsibility for allowing this to happen. Although there is so called Child protection policy on Wikipedia, it does not protect a child from being bullied on Wikipedia. When specifically asked about protecting children from bullying on Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation's employee Philippe Beaudette refused to respond.

Gwen Gale is not the only bully administrator on Wikipedia. She's probably not the worst one either. She's one of hundreds of anonymous bullies with administrative tools that are allowed to roam free in Wikipedia's jungles.


Although the name of the article is The case against Gwen Gale this article could have been named "the case against bullying on Wikipedia".

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's Wikipedia story

Gwen Gale started editing Wikipedia in 2004 as user Wyss.

In December of 2005 she was banned from the articles involving sexuality. The ban was stated like this "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 The Witch. A month later The Witch was discovered and 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 lied:"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:

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:

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: 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 "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 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 in voting on deletion requests of articles written by others,often claiming that a subject of an article is not notable: "*Delete. Ad, vanity, and doing off-colour versions of covers isn't notable." (the article was kept);*Delete not notable Wyss 18:08, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC) (the article was kept).

Then she herself nominated an article for deletion. She wrote:
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 deleted. So here we go: the same person claims that 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 Stephanie Adams and in violating Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

In particular Gwen wrote

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

Some examples of unwarranted blocks and unwarranted removing of talk page access









  • User Super Badnik was blocked indefinitely at 21:03, 9 August 2008. The block was overturned by another administrator.


  • User Breathing Dead at 20:51, 23 July 2009 Gwen removed his talk page access. The talk page access was restored by another administrator.



  • User Mbz1

On December 23, 2010 Gwen Gale responded to canvassing and blocked the editor for a week. She made the block to be indefinite after the editor made this post. She removed the editor's talk page access without warning only because the editor added an indefinite blocked user template to her talk page two times. The talk page access was restored by another administrator.


  • user Ogioh was blocked indefinitely. The block was reverted in less than an hour.



Gwen Gale misusing her administrative tools when involved

The policy that clearly states:

 
 
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 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.
 

 

This section states:

 
 
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.
 

 


In this thread Gwen Gale stated:"First, if you are an admin and get involved in a content dispute like this, you cannot use your admin powers to resolve it." It was said on May 16, 2008.


Administrator Magog the Ogre Magog the Ogre had this to say about Gwen's conduct:
 
 
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" administrator HJ Mitchell had this to say about Gwen's conduct:
 
 
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.











  • This comment was made by Gwen in a section of arbitration enforcement request concerning Mbz1 on April 5, 2011 . The problem with this comment is that it was made in the section that is clearly marked as "This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above." "Uninvolved administrator" means an administrator, who never edits content of the articles that belongs to the topic of the specific sanctions. Gwen Gale have been editing these articles for years. She was edit warring and pushing her point of view in these articles. I have never seen any other admin who made even small edits in the articles under ARBPIA commenting in the section for uninvolved administrators. Most of the times the really uninvolved administrators even will not revert either clear vandalism violations.


Biting newbies

The first block was 24 hours for this edit. The user was right "Lady Isabella Frederica Louisa Hervey (born 9 March 1982) is a British socialite, model, and actress. The second block was for two weeks for this edit in which the user changed "are an English" to "is a British". Please look at the article now. It has "British" not "English" . Looks like the user was right because a few newspapers call them "British". The user was also right in this edit, and the user was right in this edit and probably in all other edits as well.

Gwen Gale warned the user, but a new user could not have known what "consensus" and "sourcing" means.


Here's an analysis of the situation with this user:
1. A new editor made a few contributions.
2. He is warned he has to use sources.
3. So in his next two edits he tries to use sources.In this edit he provides not just one, but three sources almost for every sentence he adds, but he does it like this "(Marks, "Lost Paradise", page 292.) " because he is not sure what is the right way to list references. In his next and the last edit he inserts the external link to the article in Guardian, which of course is a reliable source.
4. The user is blocked and never returns.

Gwen Gale using unnecessary, rude edit summaries in the block log

On June2, 2010 a user was blocked with the edit summary: "smells like dirty laundry to me".

Gwen Gale responding to canvassing

I will provide only two example. More examples could be presented by request.

1. Here Gwen Gale responds to email canvassing by user Daedalus969.

Here is an example of one such conversation about sent email:

  • Ping!— Dædαlus+ Contribs 11:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Pong! Gwen Gale (talk) 12:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

What Daedalus969 was doing just before he pinged Gwen Gale? He was commenting on the same AN/I thread that Gwen Gale closed just before she ponged. So as soon as Daedalus969 said "Ping" Gwen gladly responded "Pong".


2. With this edit the user admitted he canvassed Gwen Gale to co-nominate him in his RfA and Gwen Gale responded to canvassing. It is funny that the user made his/her admission in response to admin Guerillero saying that Gwen Gale does not instill any trust in him/her.


Gwen Gale makes a fool of yourself and of Wikipedia

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:"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 here:

 
 
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)
 


 

Gwen Gale was also the one who "welcomed" the professor to Wikipedia: "Did you make this edit while not logged in to this account? You may want to have a look at Wikipedia's policy on sockpuppets. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)"

Professor Timothy Messer-Kruse who is a world famous expert on the subject was ordered to review "Wikipedia's civility policy" although he was civil, and "Wikipedia's policy on sockpuppets" simply because he forgot to log in.

Here's a post at Gwen's talk page concerning her involvement in the matter: "Hello. I just want to point out that I recently read an article in the chronicle here: http://chronicle.com/article/The-Undue-Weight-of-Truth-on/130704/ and it describes what amounts to an edit war that you were engaged in. I looked at the page and discussion in question, and it seems to me that you are boorish and a bully. I would like to suggest that you tone down your air of self-righteous authority, in order to encourage a more civil atmosphere on Wikipedia. It's especially ironic that when presented with what seems to be a very civil point by (presumably) the author of the blog, you ignored the substance of his argument and instead groundlessly accused him of being uncivil himself. If you're going to wear that hat of uncontested arbitrator of *TRUTH*, it would be helpful if you at least justified your claims in detail to those who go to the trouble of trying to actually discuss the truth in a balanced fashion using reliable sources. As it stands, you arbitrarily call seemingly reliable sources "unreliable", and other sources that support your preferred narrative "reliable," and this makes you an awful bully. Please consider changing your behavior and attitudes. Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashwinr (talk • contribs) 17:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)"

Wikipedians about bullying



  • A former wikipedian an award-winning Physicist had this to say about Wikipedia:
  1. ...Wikipedia, on the contrary, is the enshrinement of contempt for learning, knowledge and expertise. It is, for many, a diversionary hobby to which they are prepared devote a great portion of their time, as others do to computer based video games. Unfortunately, it has led also to an inner cult, shrouded in anonymity, with structures and processes of self-regulation that are woefully inadequate. Many of these tools and procedures are reminiscent, in parody, of those of the Inquisition: secret courts, an inner "elite" arbitrarily empowered to censor and exclude all those perceived as a threat to the adopted conventions of the cult; denunciations, character assassination, excommunication. An arbitrarily concocted "rulebook" and language rife with self-referential sanctimoniousness give a superficial illusion of order and good sense, but no such thing exists in practice.It is truly a "Tyranny of the Ignorant".
  2. I have no interest in "defending" myself against false accusations, made with no other intent than harassment. I have a real world identity, and have had more than enough of the absurdities of this fictional pseudo-environment, in which people play out their aggressions as though they were knocking down "enemies" in a video game. I have the impression that many of those for whom this is a permanent romping ground are simply maladjusted individuals in their real lives who have a compulsive need to act out aggressions in this fantasy world as a rather pitiful form of self-affirmation...But individuals who try to launch, within science, campaigns of self-promotion through such absurd vehicles as Wikipedia clearly have no interest in the truth, and are only too happy to support the bullying, intimidation and denunciations of self-appointed enforcers such as User: Cheeser1. Given the opportunity, they would doubtless wish to do the same in real life... My only remaining intention, within this lamentable setting, is to close down all vestiges of such contemptible farce, which is a parody of the well known practices used in police states, where denunciation is sufficient to imply guilt, and intimidation is a stock in trade to contain potential "enemies of the state". The only satisfaction that I have is to be able recall that I anticipated such an onslaught, and said so on record, although I failed to anticipate the scope of its absurdity. No-one with any intelligence or self-respect who becomes aware of the prevalence and apparently, encouragement, of such machinations would agree to participate further in such things.



DO NOT DONATE TO THE WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION.IF YOU DONATE MONEY TO THE WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION, YOU'RE LENDING YOUR SUPPORT TO A SYSTEM THAT NOT ONLY TOLERATES BUT FOSTERS ONLINE BULLYING. IF YOU DONATE MONEY TO THE WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION, YOU'RE LENDING YOUR SUPPORT TO A "TYRANNY OF THE IGNORANT."

See also

External links

Share this page

<sharethis />