Difference between revisions of "The case against Gwen Gale"
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
| − | * | + | *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]. |
Revision as of 15:08, 26 February 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 Wikimedia Foundation
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.
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.
The case against Gwen Gale
Some examples of unwarranted blocks and unwarranted removing of talk page access
- On 26 April 2009 Gwen Gale blocked user Funguy06 with the edit summary "(Vandalism-only account: no meaningfully encyclopedic edits)". In her block message she provided neither differences to support the block, nor an explanation how to request an unblock. The user who started contributing to wikipedia in 2006 was blocked over this 2009 edit for "vandalism only". But please 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.
- On 25 July 2009 Gwen Gale blocked user Nug for an alleged outing. After being contacted about the block at her talk Gwen Gale unblocked the user with the edit summary "behaviour seems to be supported." This unblocked edit summary required a one second correction block, in which administrator wrote: I cannot believe that Gwen Gale would put that as an unblock reason!
- On August 10 August 2008 Gwen Gale blocked indefinitely Unknown the Hedgehog for "calling another Wikipedian his "friend"" with the edit summary: "Spam / advertising-only account:". At the same time she blocked a few other users indefinitely. A thread was started about these blocks. Admin Oren0 wrote:"I'm greatly concerned about the block of Unknown the Hedgehog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) specifically. He has ~150 mainspace edits which, while small, seem to be improvements to articles. Why does calling another Wikipedian his "friend" get him banished for life? Is there really consensus that this user should be banned?Oren0 (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)" Oren0 also started a thread at Gwen's talk. Gwen did unblock the editor herself.
- User Ludwigs2 was blocked on July 2, 2008. Administrator Lar requested review: "I suggest this block is excessive at best, and possibly completely unjustified. I'd suggest review by uninvolved admins. ++Lar: t/c 18:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)". The block was lifted.
- user:Malleus Fatuorum was blocked on June 10, 2009. The user was unblocked in an hour after an admin and a few users complained about the block. Over this block 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 apologized for the block.
- User BioSynergy was blocked for user name by Gwen Gale on June 8, 2008. Gwen was also the one who declined the unblock request. It is unclear, if the user ever made a new account.
- This discussion is about the block imposed on user Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ).was blocked for 72 hours for this edit, in which the user corrected a punctuation typo. Please take a look at this comment Gwen Gale made, when asked about the block: "He was not moving on, he was hiding the warnings, knowing he would most likely be blocked for carrying on with his disruption and hoping that a careless admin would think he was blocked for correcting a punctuation typo. This is also why he put his unblock request at the top of the page, far away from the block notice. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)". The user was unblocked in a few hours with edit summary "Block not covered by Wikipedia:Blocking policy".
- User NWA.Rep was blocked at 20:36, 21 November 2008. She removed the editor talk page access only for removing block notice that the user could have done in accordance with the policy. Two hours later another administrator restored the talk page access. He wrote: "Looks like a misunderstanding of WP:USER - have reenabled talkpage editing". At 20:10, 29 November 2008 one second correction block was added to the editor block record: "Noting the block was at least somewhat questionable, enough to have a note in the block log. See blocking admins talk page." When asked why she removed the editor talk page access Gwen responded: "He edit warred over the block notice. I'm willing to re-enable his talk page editing in a couple of hours but I'm going out to dinner now."
- 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.
- On July7, 2010 a new user Douglas M. Smith was blocked indefinitely with the edit summary: " (Personal attacks or harassment: potential libel, outing)". I looked over user contributions, and could not find anything that warranted an indefinite block (will appreciate if somebody looks at this block and tell me, if I am missing on something). It does not look like the user was issued any warning before the block.
- 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 removed the talk page access to the editor she blocked for this post: "Harmful? My dear Gwen, you seem not to know what the case in question was all about. The irony of my edit - which I find funny - can be understood with the hindsight of how that case turned out, i. e. that the rape in question never took place and that the so-called victim was in fact a compulsive liar with a history of court convictions that has continued since. But I suppose that you are another of these self-righteous people with a mission with whom arguing is nothing but a waste of time." When asked by another wikipedian how the editor could request to be unblocked Gwen responded "His email is still enabled".
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. | ” |
| “ | 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.
- The first time User Southerndata was blocked by Gwen Gale at 15:04, 28 June 2008 for alleged "vandalism" on Fred Noonan, although the user clearly made a good faith edits. In a few places (including the block log) she said that she edited the article after the block. Gwen Gale edited this article a lot, and before the block. Actually Gwen Gale wrote this article, when she still edited as Wyss, but let's see June 28,2008: Gwen Gale was edit warring with the very same editor she later blocked.After being questioned about the block while involved, she lifted the block just to re-block the user indefinitely two days later at 22:38, 30 June 2008. At that time she was even more involved with the user than when she blocked him the first time because of this post by the user.
- 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.
- user Wallamoose was blocked on October 18, 2008 for a week for this edit at Talk:Hummus. Gwen Gale has been involved with the article for a long time. Her involvement with Hummus was even pointed out in her RFA:"I have interacted with Gwen Gaile on only one article, hummus, but I don't think her interactions on that article are consistent with Wikipedia policy. She treats the article as though she owns it, and seems not to understand the difference between reliable sources and unsupported assertions on random Web pages and cookbooks.". In her block rationale Gwen stated: "Following this edit by you after my warning, I've blocked you from editing one week for disruption, non-encyclopedic edits and trolling. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)". This one week block for editing an article talk page was wrong because Gwen Gale is heavily involved with the article and because she was edit warring with the editor, and because Wallamoose was not trolling. As it is seen from this reliable source Hummus was mentioned in the Torah. Although the editor tried to explain to Gwen why he posted the statement to the article's talk page Gwen Gale escalated the block to be indefinite,and then removed the editor talk page access. Gwen also allowed Dædαlus to harass the blocked editor on his talk page.
- This IP was blocked on June 24, 2009 for "personal attacks or harassment" after Gwen Gale was edit warring with him over quite innocent post to an article talk page. Gwen Gale was heavily involved in editing this article's talk page. Then IP ranted at Gwen's talk page. Of course IP post to Gwen's talk was not very nice, but even, if this IP deserved to be blocked, it should have been blocked by an uninvolved admin.
- User Jayeba was blocked at 23:18, 26 August 2009 for "spamming right after the user reverted Gwen Gale at the article she was edit warring with this very user she later blocked.The user was unblocked with the summary "no spamming".
- was blocked at 23:03, 29 December 2009 for making $1,000 donation to wikipedia. Gwen Gale issued the block after she was asked by another administrator to leave the editor alone: Gwen,you have gotten too personally involved. I urge you to leave further admin actions with respect to this editor to other administrators. User:DGG| DGG ( talk ) 20:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- was blocked indefinitely at 22:16, 14 February 2010 for requesting a blocked user template. This block was overturned by another administrator.
- This edit made on 21 February 2010 is the last edit made by Proofreader77. After this Gwen Gale removed his talk page access. She did it during the request for arbitration that was initiated to discuss prior unwarranted and overturned blocks of this editor the very blocks that were imposed by the very same Gwen Gale.
- On May 12, 2010 Gwen Gale blocked Scias76 for edit warring at Hummus. Gwen Gale was involved in edit warring of this article. She reverted a few editors including the one she later blocked.
- User Tombaker321 was blocked on July 15,2010 after the user directly accused Gwen in "squashing the dialog by using her admin role" and after Gwen continued to engage the user at his talk page.
- On November 26, 2010 user Iloveredhair was blocked for silly posts at Talk:Lesbian sexual practices. In a few minutes after the initial block Gwen removed the user's talk page access, claiming "vandalism" in the edit summaries. There are two problems with the block. First of all it was not vandalism (the user made posts only to the talk and not to the article), and they could have been called "trolling", but definitely not "vandalism". Second of all Gwen Gale is the author of the article which means once again she misused her tools while involved.
- Here is only one exchange between Misessus and Gwen Gale that took place after Gwen reverted the user. There were more exchanges at the article talk page like for example here. In a little bit more than a month after this Gwen blocked this user for edit warring on this article on September 4, 2011 . Gwen blocked the user just two days after another user had this to say about her: "Gwen Gale is an involved admin. She has been actively supporting one side of this debate for years. She should not have been the admin to decide on this case. I would like to formally request a review of this action. LK (talk) 03:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC) ". Gwen was involved with this article and with the user, and although it looks like the block itself was proper, it should have been imposed by an uninvolved admin.
- 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.
- On February 2,2012 Gwen Gale declined unblock request of the user who complained about her in his unblock request, which makes her involved. This unblock request should have been declined, but Gwen Gale should not have been the one to do it. This example demonstrates that Gwen Gale has difficulties in understanding what "involved" administrator means. And this thread explains how this all ended up. It is sad.
Biting newbies
- On February 13, 2012 there was a Signpost with the name: "Scholar confounded by rules fit for the everyman":
| “ | 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: "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." Here's the complete conversation. And here the first message the professor got.
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.
- User Nextbook was blocked at 20:56, 9 November 2011 after Gwen Gale was edit warring with him. Gwen Gale claimed BLP. Another admin 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.
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.
Wikipedians about Gwen Gale
Gwen Gale insulted everybody who dared to vote against her.
Gwen Gale using her administrative tools when involved
When an involved administrator blocks an editor it is anyway as a teenaged bully is harassing a toddler. In this section I provided an example of using tools while involved. Here are two of the most striking examples.
- This thread is about yet another bad block imposed by Gwen Gale. She blocked this user while involved with him (edit warring on the same article). The user was blocked at 15:04, 28 June 2008 for so called "vandalism". In a few places Gwen Gale lied she edited the article only after the block. In reality she edited this article a lot before and after the block. Actually Gwen Gale wrote this article, when she still edited as Wyss, but let's see June 28,2008: Gwen Gale was edit warring with the very same editor she later blocked.
- Interestingly enough after blocking the user while so heavily involved, and being told and agreeing she should not have done it, Gwen Gale blocked him again just two days later on 22:38, 30 June 2008 in spite of being "not happy with having been the blocking admin".
- User Jayeba was blocked at 23:18, 26 August 2009 for "spamming right after the user reverted Gwen Gale at the article she was edit warring with this very user she later blocked.The user was unblocked with the summary "no spamming".
- This is the last edit made by Proofreader77. After this Gwen Gale removed his talk page access. She did it during the request for arbitration that was initiated to discuss prior unwarranted and overturned blocks of this editor the very blocks that were imposed by the very same Gwen Gale. She was not just involved. She was heavily involved, but nobody from arbitrators bothered to undo her action and at least warn her.
- On May 12, 2010 Gwen Gale blocked Scias76 for edit warring. Gwen Gale was involved in edit warring of this very article herself. She reverted a few editors including the one she later blocked.
- 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 dishonestly 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.
- On November 26, 2010 user Iloveredhair was blocked for silly posts at Talk:Lesbian sexual practices. In a few minutes after the initial block Gwen removed the user's talk page access. claiming "vandalism" in the edit summaries. There are two problems with the block. First of all it was not vandalism (the user made posts only to the talk and not to the article), and they could have been called "trolling", but definitely not "vandalism". Second of all Gwen Gale is the author of the article which means once again she used her tools while involved.
- User Nextbook was blocked at 20:56, 9 November 2011 after Gwen Gale was edit warring with him. Gwen Gale claimed BLP. Another admin 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.
Gwen Gale is dishonest and untruthful
- Here's an example of Gwen Gale reverting a clearly good faith edit claiming it was "vandalism". In an apparent try to cover up she blocked the editor for edit warring with herself she also claimed "vandalism" in the edit summary for that block.
- Here's an example of Gwen Gale blocking editor for so called "spamming". In an apparent try to cover up she blocked the editor for edit warring with herself she claimed "spamming" . The user was blocked for adding the link to an interview that the subject of the article gave to Entertainment Tonight which of course had nothing to do with spamming.
- Gwen Gale mentioned her "Wyss" account in her statement, when she unsuccessfully tried to get elected to ArbCom, but if one was to click on it, he was directed to Gwen Gale page. Nowhere in her statement she ever mentioned she was blocked and topic banned while editing as Wyss.
- Gwen Gale failed to disclose "The Witch" account in her RfA. After she was specifically asked about this account, she made a untruthful statement:"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." Actually Gwen Gale did evade "the arbcom ruling" . There are hard on-wiki evidences she evaded her ban on a few occasions. I am not providing them here in order not to be accused in outting, but I will email the evidences to any interested authorized user. Also "The Witch" made her first (not deleted edit) on December 18, 2005, and her last (not deleted edit) on January 19,2006. So, no, Gwen, your "expirement" lasted mach longer than "about 24 hours". Later on Gwen Gale repeated her untruthful statement once again "I tried that name out for a day, three years ago."
- Gwen Gale failed to mention her "The Witch" account in her statement, when she unsuccessfully tried to get elected to ArbCom.
Gwen Gale unable to assume good faith
This discussion demonstrates Gwen Gale inability to assume good faith.
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) was blocked for 72 hours for this edit, in which the user corrected a punctuation typo. Please take a look at this comment Gwen Gale made, when asked about the block: "He was not moving on, he was hiding the warnings, knowing he would most likely be blocked for carrying on with his disruption and hoping that a careless admin would think he was blocked for correcting a punctuation typo. This is also why he put his unblock request at the top of the page, far away from the block notice. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)". Hey, Gwen, you did block him "for correcting a punctuation typo", did you not?
The user was unblocked in a few hours with edit summary "Block not covered by Wikipedia:Blocking policy".
Recent misuse of administrative tools
Admin Gwen gale deleted the last surviving pieces of her sock user Wyss talk page history. "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:
She provided no single evidence of her being "harassed, wantonly smeared, blatantly lied about or otherwise trashed."
In another place Gwen Gale said:
| “ | "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:
| “ | an apparent liar who pursues a strictly unencyclopedic agenda. | ” |
| “ | With all the recent bad publicity, can't decide if you want the same old gang of troll coddlers re-elected, eh Mr Wales? :) | ” |
| “ | 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.
- "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.
Gwen Gale - Daedalus969 a strange relationship
User Daedalus969 is the top contributor to Gwen Gale's talk page.
Gwen Gale responds to email canvassing by that user:
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" 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 a "little shit" as Wikipedia administrator Bishonen correctly noticed. Besides that "little shit" is missing ability to write articles as he himself admitted.
Another former Wikipedia editor said: "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, when he removed a period from Gwen's sock talk page with an edit summary "courtesy blanked"?
Once "a little shit" asked Gwen the witch, if he could run for adminship. Gwen responded:
| “ | 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: Heidi Wyss and Gormglaith.
Editing under user name "Gwen Gale" she wrote two articles about herself on Wikipedia:Heidi Wyss and 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: Gormglaith (novel). According to 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 Willowtree(probably Gwen Gale) tried to remove the information about herself from this article just as she did many times on English wikipedia, but this time it did not work out, and she was reverted.
Not a fairy
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
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.
Bloggers about Gwen Gale
A famous blogger All's Wool that Ends Wool writes about Gwen Gale in the blog named Tyranny of the Ignorant. Calling her "one Wikipediot" he writes:
Of course the expert left Wikipedia comparing it to inquisition and calling it a "Tyranny of the Ignorant"
A few people responded to the blog:
| “ | 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. | ” |
| “ | 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. | ” |
| “ | 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. | ” |
| “ | 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. | ” |
See also
- Brutal wikiwarrior of the week: Gwen Gale
- Tyranny of the Ignorant
- Gwen Gale -Tinpot Wikipedia Tyrant/Auteur
- The Heidi Chronicles
- Gwen Gale/Heidi Wyss's Gormglaith Review
- Gwen Gale failure to become an arbitrator
- Gwen Gale's Wikipedia moments (Tyranny of the Ignorant )
- Ding Dong the Wicked Witch is Dead
