Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gwen Gale

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Contents

[edit] Gwen Gale

Final (43/27/0); Closed by WjBscribe as consensus not reached at 01:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Gale (talk · contribs) - Gwen Gale has been editing Wikipedia under her current user name for over a year, during which time she has made over 13,000 edits. She made a further 13,000 edits under her previous account User:Wyss. She is an excellent article writer, developing articles on a range of subjects, some up to Good Article level. She is experienced at XfD and guideline discussions, and has taken part in vandal fighting. Gwen Gale is an experienced and knowledgable user who can be trusted with the tools, in whatever area she decides to use them. Epbr123 (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I'd tend to go where I was needed most. This said, I'd watch WP:AIV, WP:ANI, WP:RFP and CAT:CSD (also WP:AN3, maybe), pitching in where I could. For example, I have so much experience spotting and dealing with unambiguous vandalism (I go by the narrow definition). I was given the new WP:Rollback tool lately and because of this, I've likely rv'd a bit more vandalism and graffiti than I otherwise would have done. I'd also like to help individual editors who approach me with questions and other worries. Oftentimes no response with sysop tools is even needed, but hearing this in a friendly way from a sysop, along with some tips, can be very helpful to a less experienced editor. I strongly believe in the stark line between admin tasks and content editing, so aside from dealing with blatant IP or new-user vandalism, I wouldn't use the tools on any article I've edited for content. Wikipedia has come such a long way since I started editing on this wiki. One sign of this is how lately, I've even brought up my participation here in discussions with professional colleagues who have responded very positively to suggestions I've made about implementing wiki solutions to content management tasks whilst citing Wikipedia as a very successful implementation. I've learned a lot through my Wikipedia hobby and happily, I'm finding meaningful ways to share it these days.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: To answer this, I'd say the hardest thing to do here is growing an article about a high-profile topic towards WP:GA or WP:FA and I think this is as it should be. Knowledge management in the context of open, free content is highly complex and skeinish. Writing a readable, user-friendly narrative to carry it all is a skill. I also think a thoroughly cited and cleanly written article can be so helpful to casual readers, long before it gets to GA. Given this, I tend to work on topics which for me, represent an overlap of two or more core areas of my own interest. I try to combine WP:V and WP:WEIGHT with a steadfastly wide historical perspective and coherent writing style. I always see an article as a "whole" so my edits are often targeted at integrating helpful but perhaps carelessly written edits into a smoothly flowing narrative. My best contributions (to put it that way) have had to do with putting all this together, with all kinds of editors. This brings me to WP:AGF: In my experience most editors, even those who seem (to experienced editors) utterly clueless, nettlesome and PoV driven in the most unhelpful ways (WP:OR, WP:3RR and so on), are editing here in good faith. They want to "help the world" by sharing their views, understanding and knowledge. One "trick" is is to nudge a knowledgeable but inexperienced editor towards sharing what amounts to their acquired knowledge of verifiable sources.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Almost three years ago as inexperienced but enthusiastic User:Wyss (my former username) I got caught in the middle of a very sad dispute between banned sockpuppeteer User:Ted Wilkes[1] and User:Onefortyone. This went on for months and in the heat of an ad hominum, project space argument by User:Ted Wilkes which I should have stayed away from altogether, User:Redwolf24 added me to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone. User:Redwolf24 then looked at it more closely, had second thoughts and tried to have me removed from the arbitration action [2][3][4] but was ignored. I was shocked and humiliated when I received a topical ban but my interests are wide and I weathered it through. Meanwhile I think it was wholly my own fault it ever got that far. I look back and wince when I see how easy it would have been to resolve the dispute on the talk page (wish I knew then what I know now and so on). Anyway since then, Arbcom has more than shown their good faith in me. They're volunteers doing a mostly thankless and difficult job. I can sometimes be a WP:BOLD editor so very short, bright flashups do happen. The latest was at Abraham Lincoln. After inquiries on my talk page[5][6] I tried to help out, but had to walk away since I don't like conflict: Of the two editors there who disputed with me, one was an admin who was soon after blocked for edit warring and hasn't edited since (hope he comes back though, I think he only got into an over-enthusiastic mood). The other was politley asked to refrain from editing at WP:ANI before he scrambled his password and stopped contributing altogether with that account. High profile/traffic articles have problems all their own and sometimes grow at a glacial pace but they do tend to improve with (lots of) time and patience. The only other thing worth mentioning is WP:3rr. With 26,000+ edits since December 2004 (editing as User:Gwen Gale since November 2006) I guess one could say I haven't had much trouble with breaches of 3rr but there was a time when I thought editing by multiple revert could be done from "higher principle" or whatever, to thwart WP:SPAs, socks and blatant PoV warring. I was mistaken. From the perspectives of a casual reader, Wikipedia's purpose as a helpful, free tertiary source and notions of peaceful encyclopedia writing, I believe edit warring is always corrosive and destabilizing. When it comes to content, there is never an emergency on Wikipedia.

[edit] Question from Sarcasticidealist

4. You come across the following articles marked as A7 speedies. How do you handle each?
  • "Ernst Weemerman is an American politician and has been a city councillor in Omaha, Nebraska since 1995." (citing the Omaha City Council homepage as a reference)
No assertion of encyclopedic significance (membership in a town/city council alone rarely if ever meets the threshold), I'd delete the article.
  • "Britney Spheres is an adult film actress who has appeared in upwards of fifty popular adult films." (no source cited)
Has at least some minimal assertion of significance, I'd rm the tag, then likely stubify and add a cite request tag.
  • "Grant Boogernia is the most significant campaign setting in the Oozes & Oopsies series of roleplaying games." (citing the website for Warlocks of the Island, the makers of Oozes & Oopsies)
Not an A7, I'd rm the tag. Could be AfD'd or merged but with games and cartoons I'd tend to leave that to other editors.
  • "The Mediterranean Bird of Prey is an award winning film by director Johnny McRedlink." (no source cited)
Not an A7, I'd rm the tag. Separately, the article may have been started by Johnny himself but since it asserts an award (significance), AfD is the only way to deal with this if the award happens to be either unverifiable or meaningless.
Follow-up: How, if at all, would your answer change of Ernst Weemerman was a city councillor in Los Angeles?
I think the assertion of membership in the city council of a city the size (and wide notability) of LA has encyclopedic significance in the English-language WP. Not an A7, I'd rm the tag and stubify.
One last question, then: where (approximately) is the line between a city whose councillors are speedy-able and those whose councillors are not?
Tough one. I don't know, but would say while a city's size is a helpful gauge, its economic, historical and cultural significance also have some sway. I mean, there are maybe a million towns and villages in the world. Perhaps 25 (1 in 40,000) have city councils in which membership alone could be taken as encyclopedic and the line gets fuzzy with the bottom dozen or so of these. If I had that kind of doubt, I'd send it to AfD. Also, in that fuzzy area, I might Google the person to see if I could dig up something else notable about them. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question from Spartaz

5.: Are you still covered by the topic ban imposed by the arbitration committee?
A: No. When I changed my username at the suggestion of an arbcom member in November 2006 (11 months after the arcom ruling) I was told I could edit anywhere I liked.
  • Was this an on wiki note that we can see? Spartaz Humbug! 17:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
No, it was in a private email exchange with User:Fred Bauder, since my privacy was the pith of the username change. I asked him if the topical ban still applied and his answer was (either in these words or close enough) I could edit anywhere I wanted to. Because it wasn't done on the wiki, there was a flurry a few months later (May 2007) when someone, hoping to compromise me, dug up who I was and reported it to User:Thatcher, who briefly blocked me before learning (I would guess by IRC but I don't know) I was no longer subject to the arbcom ruling and promptly unblocking me with a note, "probation had expired" (see the diff). At that time I also had a few friendly emails and other messages of support. I do also recall User: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 words with that meaning. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Questions from BusterD

6. This edit by Fred Bauder seems to indicate that you also edited briefly under User:The Witch. Is that correct?
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.
I have no issue at all with the interim user account, but was wondering why this wasn't disclosed. Shouldn't those edits also be logged on this page's talk? Late sig by BusterD (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
To be straightforward with you, I still kinda like the name but many editors seemed to take it as disruptive (I quickly understood that and dropped it "like a hot potato" since this wasn't at all what I meant to happen). Since it was only a day-long experiment I thought it was nn. I'll add it to the links though, thanks for bringing it up. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
It's a great name, but I could see how you'd have to be as ubiquitous as User:Voice of All to get away with it. I'd be satisfied if you were to agree (other than unregistered editing) no other user accounts have been used and/or need to be logged in talk. BusterD (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I've thought now and then of bringing my 24 hour experiment User:The Witch back as a special purpose, fully-disclosed-on-my-user-page-friendly-sock but this would only happen because I like the name so... anyway, yes we can agree, no other user accounts have been used and/or need to be logged in talk. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
7. Have you ever edited any current or previous version of talk pages (including your own user talk page or talk archives) in a manner that might be seen as misleading to a current reader of that page or those archives?
I would like to answer your question but I need something more specific, like,

(Here, Gwen asks herself a question as an example) ... "As Gwen Gale, did you ever try to hide the fact you were User:Wyss?"

Yes, WP:RTV, 11 months after the arbcom ruling I was being stalked and personally identifiable information about me had been posted on this wiki by another editor. After another year this turned out to be non-threatening and nothing to worry about but at the time I took it seriously. Fred Bauder suggested I change my username.
By coincidence, I redirected User:Wyss to User:Gwen Gale a couple of days before I received this nomination (which I must say, I was expecting). Truth be told, this User:Ted Wilkes User:Onefortyone thing all blew over a long time ago. Moreover, I recently told 141 I thought there was a way WP policy would indeed wholly support the inclusion of his tabloid/gossip sources and made it clear I support that inclusion.
Please do ask me anything you like and I'll be open about it but be specific, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Not to nitpick, but the unindented bullet used in your comment above makes it appear as if it were I who posed the question which begins: "As Gwen Gale, did you ever..." I did not ask that question, thinking its form a bit provocative. BusterD (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Oops, I didn't mean for that to happen, I've fixed it, please let me know if you're ok with it now.
followup: This edit seems to mislead the reader. Was this a notice of a legitimate block? BusterD (talk) 17:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
That was almost two years ago and I think I was still kind of "touchy" about all this back then (which I know most editors would undertsand). My comments there say the block wasn't justified. I don't remember the details at all but if I said at the time it was unjustified it likely was. Please note, in my comments back then I still acknowledged that the block happened, but I was clearly unhappy and was strongly contesting it. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
following up to reply: In retrospect, do you think that's the right way an admin candidate should be expected to deal with talk archives? Doesn't that sort of edit make your archives a less reliable source for current evaluation? BusterD (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I see what you're getting at. I do so agree with you, in retrospect I think rm'ing the template was an over-reaction at the time. I truly don't remember the details but I can say, reading my comments, I was upset and felt wronged. If I felt that way today, I would handle it very differently (and I think, far more effectively). It was two years ago, I have lots more experience now along with a much deeper understanding of how WP works (and why it works) and I should say, Wikipedia has grown up more too. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
continued followup: I see that "At request of user" Fred Bauder appears to have deleted the page history for User talk:Wyss. Was this talk archive page history deleted because it permitted access to inflammatory or personal information? BusterD (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, WP:RTV. At the time it seemed like the wise thing to do. The talk pages were sprinkled with bits of personal information I'd disclosed about myself in causal exchanges and a certain user had homed in on who I was, where I lived and so on. Moreover, a recently banned sockpuppet had my private email address, had seen a picture of me on another web site and knew something about where I lived. I got very worried and asked Mr Bauder to wipe out the talk pages, which he immediately did. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
final followup: And that sounds quite appropriate, but with this RfA in mind it might have been better to just oversight the inappropriate information and leave most of the history intact. Of course, you may have had no intention of seeking tools at that time, and have had very good-faith reasons for deleting an entire talk page history which covers a big chunk of your editing career. I have zero issue with the pedia protecting users from abuse. Do you agree that this missing talk page history further clouds the picture for a current or casual reader (albeit for the best of reasons)? BusterD (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
To put it mildly, I did not have this RfA in mind at the time, I was more worried about running into some smirking nut on the sidewalk offering to buy me a coffee and "talk things over" or whatever (and this involved not one, but two problematic editors). Meanwhile I wholly agree with the principle you're getting at. By the way, I wouldn't say the talk page history is missing, we know what happened to it, it was deleted under WP policy at my request by a member of arbcom. My User:Wyss contribution history is still there however, so editors can always get a helpful notion about what I was doing back then. Moreover, my current User:Gwen Gale talk page history is intact and goes back 14 months covering 13,000 edits, so using the "cloud" metaphor might be a bit much even if we are on the same wave-length about why you're asking. Anyway please keep asking questions if need be, I don't mind! Gwen Gale (talk) 20:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
About oversight yes, I didn't know this could be done at the time and moreover I was more worried about quickly dealing with privacy concerns (and not calling further attention to the personally identifiable details) than anything else. This is another example of the notion, "if I knew then what I know now." Gwen Gale (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
8.: Several posters below have mentioned what they viewed as POV editing on the Talk:American Civil War page. Please comment on this edit. Was User:North Shoreman the editor who was blocked from editing or the one who was asked to refrain from editing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BusterD (talk • contribs) 05:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
You might want to consider rewording your question. I do want to answer, so I shall, but please feel free to follow up if I'm not answering the questions you had in mind.
No posters on this nomination page have said anything about POV editing at Talk:American Civil War. Moreover, I can't remember ever editing that article or posting to its talk page. I mean, did I? If you can find me a diff I'll be happy to comment.
About this edit which you have asked me to comment on, User:North Shoreman's characterization of the contributors (to which he refers) is mistaken. User:North Shoreman has a very strong PoV but that's ok under WP policy and that's all I can say about him. Since there is no meaningful consensus on the talk page of Abraham Lincoln from experienced editors to accept the sources he objects to, for me, the discussion ended many weeks ago. Similarly, I think you were wholly mistaken when you wrote this edit summary while reverting me at Abraham Lincoln. So we disagree. I'm ok with that. I'm looking forward to when we can find an article to work on where we more or less agree on the sources and context.
I have not previously referred to User:North Shoreman on this page. As far as I know he has never been blocked and he wasn't either of the editors I was talking about. If you would like to know who those two editors were, the links to their names have been in my answer to q3 above since this page was opened. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Forgive me for my error. So you were in page dispute on Talk:Abraham Lincoln with more than just the two editors you characterized in #3 above. BusterD (talk) 05:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Those are the only two editors with whom I would say my interaction rose to the level of a "dispute" rather than a "disagreement." I don't think of my interaction with User:North Shoreman, for example, as a dispute, only a strong, passing disagreement. User:North Shoreman handled himself quite acceptably, given the polarity of our disagreement IMHO. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
followup I think that User:Kscottbailey might be included on that list of users whose interaction rose to a level of more than "disagreement." I'd suggest we could even add myself. Why wasn't I characterized in your response to #3? Did I not call your actions disruptive and warn you that if you persisted including Lew Rockwell links in the AL page I'd call your edits vandalism? BusterD (talk) 06:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I think User:Kscottbailey changed his name to User:BobTheTomato, then, I believe, changed his account to User:MrWhich, which he closed down not long after. I didn't want to get into that because I wanted to protect his privacy.
Since you had also indicated willingness to work with me on those sources in the future and made other friendly, conciliatory remarks, both before and after, I didn't want to bring up your misconduct in issuing those warnings. You were not a disinterested admin. You were not applying WP:Vandalism according to its clearly written definition. I also didn't want to bring up your lack of understanding of WP:Vandalism. That's ok though, stuff like this happens here and you've made an effort now and then to be reasonable. However, you've brought a dead content dispute to this page and have tried to characterize it as a discussion of conduct. I stopped editing at Abraham Lincoln when I confirmed there was no consensus for the sources. I was not disruptive. Editors have been wrongfully accused of vandalism at Abraham Lincoln only for trying to introduce published, critical sources about him. I stand by my conduct there. I'm willing to let it drop and find a way we can work together in the future. Can we do this? Gwen Gale (talk) 06:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I have struck out your mistaken statement of fact about Talk:American Civil War. If this is not appropriate, please fix it or comment as needed, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC) Quite correct. Thanks! BusterD (talk) 06:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
more followup I'm sorry I have to belabor this a bit, but after the two editors you mentioned above (one an admin) endorsed my warning here and here and call for cooldown, you agreed to abide by the warning. If you characterize my actions then as 'misconduct", then why did you agree to abide by the warning? Was admin User:Rklawton incorrect in his endorsement? Might you handle the situation differently as an admin? BusterD (talk) 06:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I was responding with wiki-peace. User:Rklawton was indeed incorrect in his endorsement (and he was blocked for edit warring soon thereafter and hasn't been seen since, though I do hope he comes back). I had no interest in disputing with anyone at all. I'd be delighted if you and I can find something to collaborate on in the future, since these straightforward, good faith back and forths can in truth, build lots of trust. If you ever need a hand with something, please let me know. I'm here to peacefully build a helpful encyclopedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate that. You've mentioned Rklawton's blocking more than once on this page, an arguable five-hour block which was removed within minutes of user's explanation and apology on talk. Your characterization seems to imply the block tarnishes Rklawton's reputation or reliability as it regards his actions in the Talk:Abraham Lincoln interaction. Does occasional punitive action taken against administrators render those administrators less reliable or trustworthy on completely unrelated issues? BusterD (talk) 07:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
User:Rklawton hasn't been back since it happened. You and I have both have edited here long enough to at least have a clue as to what that's all about. I don't think it was an unrelated issue, I think it was a meaningful, progressive trend in his behaviour which ultimately resulted in a block for 3rr (which was routinely and correctly lifted after he responded to the concerns raised). I brought him up once, in q3. Any other mentions of him have been in my answers relating to to the same issue. For me, the block doesn't tarnish his reputation at all, it only offers context. As I've said, I hope we see him again soon. Whatever may have happened, I still think he has lots of helpful qualities. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
This posting says that an on-system user email was sent, though no email was received (and I've never missed a wikipedia email before or after). Was such an email sent? Does an admin have the tools to verify that such a never-received email was sent? BusterD (talk) 07:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
How can you possibly know if the system has never failed you before? A user fishing about for help could find you on the admin list, ask for help, never hear back, blow it off and you'd never know. I sent you an email and (too) patiently waited for your response. I do remember the email said I may have misread one of your posts on the talk page and understood why you thought I might be ignoring you. Meanwhile you posted this response to me on the wiki about the missing email. That. hurt. my. feelings. No worries, we hadn't interacted before, I got over it. I don't know if an admin can check on whether a wiki-email has been sent. I've never run into that problem. I glark someone can. It would be great if there was a record and we could at least track down what happened. However, such a glitch (say, on the browser side) could also cause an absence in the data record: I pressed the button, the wiki software blindly responded with a sent message, but a wiki|sendmail pipe seems to have burped somewhere. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to contrast two positions you've taken here: when you feel like you must protect yourself from abuse, few actions seem too extreme (changing user name, blanking entire talk page histories, editing talk archives); when others take actions to protect themselves from potential abuse (refusing to exchange emails with a stranger), your feelings get hurt. So with your hurt feelings, you labeled another user's and my fairly innocuous comments personal attack. Would you as an admin do the same thing today? BusterD (talk) 14:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
You're trying to draw a connection with what I told you today about a forgotten and fleeting pang of reaction I had on 8 December, to your comment about a missed email (WP:AGF, by the way), which I shared with you a few hours ago only in a gesture of openness to your questions, with someone's nth meaningless and unhelpful repetition of the word pettifoggery in a PoV warring edit summary a month earlier. I never said my feelings were hurt by the latter (they weren't). Please stop misrepresenting what I've said. On a separate topic, you've already said you understood why I handled the talk page history for User:Wyss as I did. That happened a year earlier and also had aught to do with hurt feelings. It was WP:RTV over something I have explained at more than sufficient length above. You may wish to draw some broad behavioural theme between these three events, but there isn't anyway. What worries me though, is you've carelessly brought up the true name of a different editor who lately closed his account and subsequently changed his username twice for WP:RTV reasons before he dropped out of sight altogether (as far as I can tell). I was careful not to do that all along. As an admin, do you think it was appropriate for you to disclose his name here? Gwen Gale (talk) 16:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I mentioned the account User:Kscottbailey because the user figured prominently in heated discussion with on Talk:Abraham Lincoln. I never mentioned User:MrWhich, though you referred to user in diffs. I also did not mention User:BobTheTomato. I certainly did not draw the direct co-relation which you did in your comment above. To paraphrase your recent construction: As a prospective admin do you think it was appropriate for you to co-relate those accounts here? BusterD (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
You portrayed them as separate users, hence trying inflate the number of users involved, which was misleading. His name appears only in the diffs now but you've subsequently posted it here at least twice. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
9.: In this final thread of questions, I'll draw a slightly different connection than the one Gwen sees. In the discussion on Question #8, both Gwen and I referred and linked to numerous edits which occurred on her talk page, and were diffed from the talk page archives. Gwen, why do none of these links (including lengthy interaction with an admin) appear in the talk archive? Based on the large number of edits in your talk page history for that and the following day, there should be a fair amount of text in your talk archive that a casual reader might miss. Explain the discrepancies between the current truncated section here and the less copyedited version in page history here. As a prospective admin did you think it wise to copy edit talk when archiving in a way which might tend to look misleading in a close examination like this proceeding? BusterD (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
In my talk archive there is a section called PoV worries over AL. The third word of the text is an unambiguous, wikified link to an archive in your userspace of everything, including an untouched transcript of what happened on my user page at the time, clearly showing the misconduct of the editors I've already mentioned, for anyone to see. It's been set up that way since all this happened a month and a half ago. Moreover the section is highlighted by a graphic which was meant to draw readers' attention to the it.
Earlier today on my talk page you said, I think I can safely characterize the 19th century American history interest cluster of wikipedia editors to be reflexively defensive against edits by new users... I think everything about this speaks loudly in agreement with your take there. I tried to introduce some sources, I was reflexively chased off, I dropped it. I must also note again, I disclosed there had been a conflict at Abraham Lincoln (using the wording of the question) when this nomination was posted. Are we at Wikipedia:HORSE yet?
We're much closer to WP:SPADE, IMHO. Your selective quotation of my candid characterization of my interest cluster omits: "...or when the sources provided don't pass the experienced nostrils of page watchers." As a member of MilHist project, I am fortunate to work in a content-interest cluster with a loyal cadre of experienced, knowledgeable editors with a high level of dealing with vandalism in an efficient and disinterested way. If seasoned cluster editors like User:North Shoreman or User:Rklawton call "shenanigans" (or some such alert) in edit summary then I have pragmatic reasons to believe their characterization of the situation, based on hard experience. Your characterizations are exactly what I find issue with in this proceeding. A Wikipedia administrator is a person who has demonstrated a certain amount of trust based on their actions in real time and their transparency in page history time. This proceeding is a measurement of level of trust. That is the precise purpose this RfA process performs. By expressing support or opposition and marking the assessment with four tildes, by raising questions about past and current behavior without uncivil intention or tone, by testing the knowledge, judgment, and real time reactions in this assessment process, a representative sample of the entire userbase tests the candidate. In the past, this procedure was bit more blistering. These days not so much, in my humble opinion. I have taken some liberty, by today's standards, in the length of my questioning. I did so because I was surprised so few others had taken on the responsibility. The true measure of a successful RfA, IMHO, is how the candidate characterizes the issues raised in this essential question and answer process. This is why I've counted the legs one-by-one, to extend your visual. BusterD (talk) 21:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining and thanks for taking the time to participate here. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Meanwhile, have a look at this cheery anon post over on Rklawton's talk. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
So we have evidence of another editor who makes claims your edits were disruptive, though for some reason the user has chosen merely to comment on the proceeding instead of participating. BusterD (talk) 21:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I know who it is. Lots of editors have characterized his edits as blatant disruption, for years. He's a WP:SPA who accuses anyone who disagrees with him of being a sockpuppet. No worries, I don't much mind him doing this, since it's what he does and I'm used to it. As he says in his anon post, he recently started taunting me with graffiti on my talk page.[7][8][9]
Comment It seems to me User:BusterD hasn't used this section for questions at all, but for a long series of unsupported opinions and assertions, each with a question tacked on the end only for the purpose of giving him the opportunity to post another long assertion/opinion. I would like to note, these assertions seem driven by a previous, long dead editorial content disagreement: User:BusterD is an interested editor in the "amhist milhist group", whose interests include watching Abraham Lincoln for (and patrolling talk pages when), in his own words, "sources provided don't pass the experienced nostrils of page watchers." Please see my original answer to q3 above. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

[edit] Statement from BobTheTomato/Kscottbailey

There’s little that would have led me to log this account in again, save an RfA for this user. When I was active in RfA, I rarely saw a serious candidate (one with an actual chance of passing) that I would worry about their actions as an administrator more.

Abraham Lincoln history, GG’s edits started on 11 October. After a quick refresher, it seems that over half her edits are reverts, including edit summaries accusing other editors of "edit warring" and various and sundry other fabricated wikipolicy violations.

Gwen agitates for inclusion of Musharaff info into the article, by way of smearing Lincoln, whom she referred to at the same talkpage as a “genocidal tyrant.” Arguing against consensus.

Gwen badgers I and several other editors about “sourcing” uncontroversial information in the lead of the article. Arguing against consensus.

Here, I finally start calling it like I see it, after being alphabet-souped for days. Gwen continues her badgering.

Gwen continues to argue against consensus, attacking uncontroversial facts about Lincoln.

Here Gwen refers to removal of links per WP:EL as “edit warring”, continuing to argue and badger against consensus.

I call Gwen out on her use of edit summaries to accuse me of non-existent policy violations.

After agreeing to abide by Rklawton’s proposed review of external links, she reneges and attempts to argue and force a site she likes into the EL section.

And yet more.

I would strongly encourage the community to look deeply into the conflicts this user has engaged in, both as GG, and (upon further research) as Wyss. In my view, a user with this kind of track record does not need extra tools. BobTheTomato (MrWhich) (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Gwen Gale before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

  • You need to accept the nom first :) — DarkFalls talk 23:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Oops! Done :) Gwen Gale (talk) 23:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, the editor should withdraw their acceptance of this nomination. I don't think she is helping herself nor her chances of regaining any credibility. I think the RFA will probably pass but we'll always have questions. It reminds me of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Majorly. If the editor wants to be a respected admin in the future she should prove to us in the next few months that she can avoid POV pushing and edit warring. Her answers in this RFA and her actions just a month ago give me the feeling right now that she can't.--STX 22:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
This editor also left a message on my talk page, to which I have replied. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Note: I believe the above user's remarks are driven only by a previous editorial content dispute at Abraham Lincoln. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Huh? This RfA is nothing like Majorly's. What does that RfA have to do with this one? Acalamari 02:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • It appeared that the RFA would pass but reservations about the editor from past actions and strong opposition caused the nominee to withdraw to avoid being an untrusted administrator.--STX 04:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually, that wasn't the case. Gmaxwell made unfounded claims that Majorly was a sockpuppet of Matthew Fenton. People started opposing because of these claims. Naturally, because of these frivolous allegations, Majorly withdrew the RfA. Had Gmaxwell not made those claims, Majorly's RfA would have passed. He later asked for the tools at WP:BN, and Raul654 gave him the the sysop bit. By the way, it was a reconfirmation RfA. Majorly was previously a trusted administrator, who decided to leave the project and give up his tools. A few months later, he decided to put himself through the RfA process again. Nishkid64 (talk) 04:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Perhaps I misinterpreted but the editor still withdrew his acceptance as I have suggested for the current candidate to also do.--STX 05:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Let me clarify my comparison of this RFA to Majorly's. The following are the 4 striking similarities:
  1. It was controversial
  2. It looked as if it might have passed
  3. I participated in the RFA, which doesn't happen often
  4. Allegations of and/or use of alternate accounts by the nominee

Sorry for the confusion.--STX 21:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

      • Majorly's RfA wasn't controversial when you participated in it: it had a lot of partcipants, but it wasn't controversial. It only became controversial when Gmaxwell came up with the sockpuppetry allegations, and you'd already participated in that RfA by then. The only similarity I see between this RfA and Majorly's is the fact that some people participating in this one also participated in that one. I thank you for your explanation, but I still don't see how Majorly's RfA is relevant to this one; the opposition in that RfA wasn't very strong before the sockpuppetry allegations, and as Nishkid64 said, Majorly had already been a trusted (and highly respected) admin. However, I think we should agree to disagree and drop this matter, as it adds little to Gwen's RfA. Acalamari 22:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


  • Gwen's statement

There are reasons why dozens of articles (once could say hundreds but I do drive-bys and I've only ever watched about 100 at a time), many of them core, still carry big swaths and swatches of prose I put in them and these reasons have nothing to do with edit warring or trying to slip dodgy sources into narratives.

We're told to be prepared our contributions may be edited mercilessly and I stand by that warning. Meanwhile my edits tend to stick, hard. Not all of them, but I'd say most and even if they do get rewritten as more helpful sources crop up it's wontedly on the skeleton I put there. Anyway it's easy to make someone who has made 26,000 edits here (with most of the major edits bearing edit summaries) look bad by citing a dozen (or 2 or 6 dozen) with summaries which could, long after and wholly out of context, seem a bit snarky. How many here can truthfully say this couldn't be done with their own edit summaries? A few, but not many I'd glark.

We're told to use edit summaries and talk page posts (which I very strongly support), but then in the heat of some worrisome dispute we're criticized long after for being too casual, or too smug, too canny cheery or too snippy. When I work on a page for months and develop the strong impression an editor who is polite and more or less familiar with the topic sources, but has a simmering PoV to vent and moreover, through time, seems to speak English as a second language and may be posting with machine smoothed text (never mind the countless userpages about this wiki bearing userboxes claiming sundry levels of language skill, have I ever said how much I agree with Jimbo's take on userboxes?) is it lack of good faith or uncivil to ask if someone speaks English as a first language? I've seen admins do this dozens of times, sometimes snarkily so, then politely "inviting" the editor to go off and edit their own native language Wikipedia. Yet on this page, I'm criticized for having done it quite straightforwardly (and when I had a reply, whether or not I believed it, said nothing further). Instead, I started a low key, friendly RFC on the content, not the editor, stood back, got a couple of helpful replies, implemented a brilliant forehead slapper which, oy, I've used myself now and then, which stabilized the article header and then, here, get criticized for not standing back (longer I guess) but I have more important stuff to talk about and I don't want to go on about this one little thing.

The arbcom topical ban on User:Wyss back in December 2005 was a botch on their part, lots of editors and more than a few admins have agreed with me on that, even lately. A few months after it happened, even Mr Bauder said in a private email it should likely be "revisited" but then at his suggestion (for other reasons entirely) I changed my username, he said I could edit anywhere I liked, I didn't want to stir up conflict again and for me, that was the end of it. Even more to the pith, I came to see the whole thing as a careless glitch and nothing more. In many and sundry ways this wiki couldn't run if arbcom didn't do the thankless, very dirty, mostly volunteer job they do and because of my own inexperience and carelessness with a sockpuppet and a WP:SPA warrior in 2005 I got swept up by their mop into a topical ban. Big deal. I got over it.

After User:SlimVirgin moved so much of the threaded discussion here to the talk page most context of this discussion was lost and the pile on began. I said discussion. She said she did it to make it easier to vote but this is not supposed to be a vote, is it. Anyway I have no hard feelings towards her, she's clearly doing what she sees as fit for whatever it is she wants to do. Slim and I swappped emails a couple of years ago. I think it was over something wonky like comma usage or whatever. Then we had a brief back and forth over a picture of a dog in an article which I thought had aught to do with the dog (she wanted it in). I walked away and it stayed, don't know if it's still there, haven't looked. Anyway she does lots of helpful stuff here but this isn't about SlimVirgin and I don't think this RFA has been about the conduct of User:Gwen Gale, breezy as I can be now and then.

I don't hold a grudge. I'm a cheery person, sometimes it's a bane but whatever. I didn't even remember who User:BusterD was when he showed up here. It took a day for me to catch on, I'm such an AGFin bumpkin. This is an admin who calls a good faith content disagreement vandalism. That's ok, I understand. We all know how something we WP:OWN on the well-meant higher planes we hold dear, in a way high visibility article, on this heavily visited wiki, can seem so utterly self-evident. Then, when some new editor comes stumbling in to question it, with our habits so keenly sharpened to content trolling extreme PoV warriors, clueless WP:OR cranks, bored middle schoolers sitting in Prussian-style mind-killing mills and whatnot, we might in the heat of the moment of indignation over our volunteer time being wasted, call a good faith editor a vandal.

Which brings me to User:North Shoreman. When I saw his post on this page this morning I smiled and whispered the words Thank you. No hint of sarcasm or anything else untowards there. Never mind he opposes my RFA, never mind he's mistaken when he says, the sources I suggested paint Mr Lincoln as a cartoon, quite the contrary, AL was a highly intelligent and complex person. Never mind the thoroughly mistaken, "Neo-Confederate" slur (as such a slur means "racist slavery" to most Americans). Otherwise, he was more or less spot on about the sources. Most schools around the world (but not in the states) teach the US 1861-65 war had little or nothing to do with slavery. Now, he and I are polar opposites as to PoV on this and I'm not here to debate the topic (I walked away from that article long ago) but his conduct towards me has always been more or less exemplary, couldn't ask for more, ever. He didn't try to edit war with me (unlike another editor at AL did, reflexively) and stayed out of it when two admins and an editor chased me to my talk page and kept hammering away at me after I'd said I was leaving the discussion. Please read his post again and you'll have a strong notion as to what the sources disagreement was all about. I had originally been approached by a few other editors wondering about the lack of these sources in the article, I found no consensus on the talk page for those sources and I left. I was so willing to drop it (and had indeed mostly forgetten the episode). Anyway I don't know if User:North Shoreman is an admin (I haven't bothered to check), but if he is, he never muddled his admin role with any interest in content. Oh and he never mocked me for being polite and cheerful (if he did it wasn't much to worry about but I don't think he did). Thanks User:North Shoreman.

So this discussion is supposed to be about trust but I don't think it has been. I think it's been about Abraham Lincoln and very unpopular editorial sources (some would say politics, some wouldn't) followed in the end by a classic Wikipedia pile on. I think there has been careless conflation and sloppy reading of diffs and long, skeinish, deeply threaded edit histories. I don't think it's fair but life's not fair and no amount of rules, regs and laws will ever make it fair because we'd never be able to agree on them fairly for all, for starters.

Whatever the outcome here may be, any one of you can come to me any time and I will use my experience with and knowledge of Wikipedia, along with my writing skills, to get any WP:V source you like into the article space in a way that'll stick hard and fast, even if I wholly disagree with your PoV and the take asserted by that source (while this may mean putting it into a sub-article, it more often won't).

Lots of editors know this about me already. Lots of them haven't spoken up at this RFA, likely because they don't know about it. My thanks though, to those of you who did notice this was going on. I haven't emailed anyone on the backchannels, I haven't asked for a shred of support off this page because that's how I wanted this done.

I stand by my RFA, I stand by my contribution history, I stand by the leadership of Wikipedia and its community driven ways, for all its strengths, with all its flaws. I apologize to each and every one who might have taken me wrong. If you knew me better, you wouldn't have done. I'm truly sorry I haven't made more of an effort to get to know some of you as editors. I hope we can fix that. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Support
  1. Support. Great editor. (Except they s/he needs to accept the nomination officially. =D.) Malinaccier (talk) 23:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    Oh yeah, beat the nom! Malinaccier (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. I strongly support this nomination. Gwen Gale is an excellent article-writer, good at vandal-fighting, experienced, and overall, a nice user. My interactions with her have been positive, and I'm sure she'll make a fine admin. Acalamari 23:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    Per Acalamari. Concerns in the past (with arbcom) has been addressed. — DarkFalls talk 23:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support - although we have had limited contact, editing skills and personal interaction appears great. WBardwin (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. Epbr123 (talk) 00:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support Jmlk17 00:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support per nominator. Excellent editor, Gwen will make a great admin. Postoak (talk) 00:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support No problems here. --Sharkface217 02:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Support As per Acalamari and track.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. Support per nom and answers to questions. SpencerT♦C 02:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. Strong Support Wonderful editor, will put the mop to good use. Very happy to support. --Veritas (talk) 04:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  11. Support Don't see any reason not to. Lawrence Cohen 16:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  12. Support Excellent candidate, will surely make an excellent admin. - PeaceNT (talk) 17:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  13. Support as per my experience with Gwen's excellent, collaborative work on the Oral Roberts University article. She proved herself to be both calm and even-handed when dealing with rabid POV-pushers on that article, so I have zero concerns that she would abuse the tools. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  14. Support. I hope you'll be conservative with the deletion of municipal politicians, since it's often hard to call how they'll go at AfD, but I confess that this is something of a personal bugbear of mine, and it would be churlish to oppose a good candidate on that basis. I'm also entirely satisfied with Gwen's discussion of the Arb Comm ruling and related events. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
    #Support. Fine editor. I had a problematic interaction with her last year (see oppose section below) but I'm willing to take at face value that she learned from this experience and moved on.(switch back to oppose, see below)Ronnotel (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  15. Support - Seen this editor around and impressed with their work. Any concerns about how safe the tools would be have already been addressed to my satisifaction. Also, this is one of a few times that I am ignoring my own standards with regards to the arbcom ruling. -MBK004 20:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  16. Support I'd find it impossible to support any admin subject to editing restructions but its clear that these have expired. The candidate has been an exemplary contributor in recent times and thoroughly deserves the mop. Spartaz Humbug! 21:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  17. Support. Impressive contributor with a clear ability to learn from her own mistakes and improve. I believe she will continue to improve. Also, I would like to point out that I am not Sarcasticidealist's personal anything ;) - Revolving Bugbear 22:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  18. Support Appears unlikely to use the mop other than as required. Only (minor) concern is the occasional non use of edit summaries; I suggest Gwen Gale turns on the option of forcing edit summaries, communication being vital for the role of sysop. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  19. Support - of course. She's been great here, never BITEy and should make a fine admin :) - Alison ❤ 02:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  20. Support, changed from neutral after the candidate elucidated her answer to Q2. Majoreditor (talk) 02:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  21. Support, I have a great deal of respect and admiration for this editor's work. I would be delighted for her to be an admin. Please give her the mop! - Neparis (talk) 06:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  22. Support, A fine editor, discussed the Arbcom ruling quite well. Midorihana~いいですね？ 09:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  23. 25th support Hopefully I don't run into an edit conflict. NHRHS2010 12:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  24. Support An excellent candidate. --Siva1979Talk to me 12:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  25. Support - trustworthy editor. Addhoc (talk) 13:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  26. Support: an excellent editor for as long as I've known her, which is quite some while. -- Hoary (talk) 14:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  27. Support: Seen her in action, and she is quite professional in her attitude. --MoRsE (talk) 17:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  28. Support Experienced and cool-headed. Will be an asset. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  29. Support VanTucky 21:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  30. Weak Support Yeah I know I would point the small detail of a significantly low number of WP contribs - (however it has involvement in several aspects, like the village pump, afds, ani and 3rr but very little of RFPP and AIV. The experience also is significant too.--JForget 00:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    Actually, she has a lot of Wikipedia-space edits. See the contributions of Wyss. Acalamari 03:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    Oops sorry, I've forgot the other user name. Certainly much more WP contribs there.--JForget 04:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  31. Support Seems to to be a good, experienced editor. Sf46 (talk) 06:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  32. Mike R (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  33. Support My past interaction with Gwen was positive, and her willingness to walk away from a battle to avoid disruption shows excellent judgment. alanyst /talk/ 21:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  34. Support I would like to see a little more projectspace edits, but everything else is outstanding. Trusilver 21:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    Remember she's had two accounts :) Epbr123 (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  35. Support, with pleasure . — CharlotteWebb 18:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  36. Support. Record seems fine, and I don't believe this editor is likely to misuse the admin toolbox. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  37. Support for her very fine and thoughtful edits. Pinkville (talk) 23:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  38. Support. It looks like she's made mistakes in the past, but has learned from them, and is otherwise a great contributor. I trust her with the admin tools. krimpet✽ 08:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  39. Support - per edit history and answers to questions. MilesAgain (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  40. Support I certainly don't like this (diff provided by Ral315 below), but it was two years ago, and I have generally found Gwen Gale a decent and civil editor. I haven't seen anything recent which would give me pause, so I support. faithless (speak) 09:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  41. Removing my opposition; given discussion with Gwen Gale, I understand the underlying issues there. I admit I'm a bit biased regarding Gwen Gale's previous history, and I trust other users' beliefs that Gwen Gale is generally civil these days. I hope my comments of a few days ago don't sink this RFA. Ral315 (talk) 21:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  42. Support I feel I can support the user, and I trust that any incivility issues have subsided. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 03:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  43. Support I have had delightful experience with Gwen ( particularly in fondue ). jmcw (talk) 12:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose

Note: Several long replies and threaded comments have been moved from this section to the talk page. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 19:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

  1. Oppose (change to support) While Gwen has a strong record of contribution, my interactions with her leave me with decided reservations about her temperament and style of editing. In particular, I found her to be excessively aggressive over what I thought was a minor issue in this discussion: Talk:Fred_Noonan#Presumed_dead. Based on this, I'm not at all convinced that Gwen would bring the right attitude to difficult situations. Ronnotel (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
    This looks like any other typical dispute over a policy issue and should probably have been taken to WP:3O, but Gwen's behavior doesn't seem "excessively aggressive." --Veritas (talk) 19:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
    From February 2007? That was almost a year ago. Acalamari 19:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
    I shouldn't have let it go on and on like that. I wasn't "excessively aggressive" but could/should have gotten other, disinterested editors in on it after our first back and forth. Sorry about that Ronnotel, looking back on it, I see this as my botch and you have my apologies. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
    Switching back to oppose. Issues raised by others in this section bolster my original concerns. Ronnotel (talk) 11:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Oppose, the editor has a history of POV pushing and edit-warring at Abraham Lincoln. An admin should abide by WP:NPOV. --STX 21:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
    Response moved to talk. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 19:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Oppose reverts too much. See the history of Abraham Lincoln around 9-11 Nov 2007. She definitely broke the 3RR only two months ago and did about 7 reverts in about 27 hours [although she wasn't blocked]. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 22:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Oppose - In my assessment, Gwen Gale possesses many of the requisites of a good administrator but lacks adequate trustworthiness and good judgment, based on what we've uncovered in questioning above. [see talk for comments]. BusterD (talk) 13:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Strong oppose - this editor has a long history of problematic edits. Her edits on Lincoln (in addition to the reversion problems noted above) also indicate some rather serious POV pushing issues. I'm very concerned that she would abuse her admin position to continue POV pushing at a more serious level. Lastly (per above) construing my absence in any manner whatsoever is also highly inappropriate. In short, this editor has frequently and recently shown poor judgment and should not be given additional tools. Rklawton (talk) 14:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. My experience of Gwen Gale/Wyss is that s/he edits disruptively, and reverts a great deal. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 19:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. Oppose per Blnguyen, Rklawton and BusterD and the disruptive edit warring on Abraham Lincoln. It's not to say that this editor is not good contributor, but I can not trust this editor with extra tools. Maybe someday but not at this time.--Ѕandahl 21:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. Looking through some of the candidate's contribs:
    • this appears to me to be an uncivil remark during a content dispute.
    • This edit summary also seems somewhat uncivil. The previous edit summary capitalized the word "not", which to me gives it a bit of an aggressive tone. In this exchange, the candidate reverted the same material twice but didn't post any discussion on the article talk page. This was only a couple of weeks ago, so I wonder about the candidate's statement about having learned not to revert so much.
    • Here, the candidate states an intention to "step back", but the ensuing discussion [10] [11] looks a lot more like "continue to participate" than "step back" to me, leading me to wonder about ability to step back in admin situations where such is required.
    • This edit summary is worrisome. Here the candidate is characterizing the other editor's edits as "disruption, PoV warring". Yet when I go back in the edit history, I see an edit war over the word "her" between the candidate and the other editor. I didn't notice any other editors reverting that word (although I didn't check every edit and only looked at the last few times it was reverted). The candidate had this to say about it on the talk page: (after someone said "Technically, there is a tiny semantic difference between the two versions. Not really enough to argue about. I don't really see what the big deal is here."), "Which is why I've taken the insistence of that editor on inserting her into the text as mild disruption/PoV warring: However, it does imply the innovation was relative only to her films, which is not what the 6 cited sources say" Apparently the candidate was participating in a content dispute, insisting on removing (or was it adding?) the word "her", believed it made a semantic difference, and was characterizing the other editor as "disruptive" for participating in the same (slow) edit war as the candidate, over something allegedly not significant enough to argue about. This isn't the type of detached judgement I expect from an admin. Again, this was only a few weeks ago. The candidate says on this RfA page, "there was a time when I thought editing by multiple revert could be done from "higher principle" or whatever;" maybe the candidate needs more time to learn this lesson more thoroughly. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    At the time I knew this might appear as trivial to other editors, which is why I approached it very slowly and ultimately called a friendly, low key RFC on the content (not the editor). The editor in this case and I have worked together on the article for some time, more often than not in agreement. The editor was at all times civil and had introduced information and citations which were highly critical of LR's use of wartime Jewish prisoners which I thought were helpful and adequately sourced. At the stage cited above, the editor seemed to be conflating LR's unambiguously documented ethical lapses with her widely documented influence on the film industry. Editors who carefully review the history of the article and its talk page will see, the word "her" was part of an "iceberg's tip" strategy of incrementally nibbling away at how the article interpreted film-industry sources as to her influence. The issue has been solved for now (I think) by using only direct quotes from verifiable sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    Thank you for the background; however, none of that addresses the fact that you called another editor's actions "disruption, PoV warring" when you and the other editor were both carrying out a two-person revert war. I note that you have not taken this opportunity to retract those words,Coppertwig (talk) 12:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC) and I'm negatively impressed by your characterization of another editor's attempts to modify an article (in your comment here) as "part of an "iceberg's tip" strategy of incrementally nibbling away at how the article ..." I recommend commenting on article content and proposed article content, not on the other editor, other editor's behaviour or other editor's alleged strategy. I wish you an enjoyable time editing Wikipedia regardless of the outcome of this RfA. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    Truth be told I did retract it a few hours before you posted the above. If you look at the talk page post and edit summaries before I called the RFC, you'll see I was only talking about content, sources and interpretation. It certainly wasn't an edit war. Over a period of 5 days there was ongoing discussion between us on the talk page along with three back and forths, never more than one a day. When we got to the third one and had made no progress, continuing the swapping would have begun to seem like a revert war to me and I asked for the RFC, then implemented a suggestion received through it. I never used the term "disruption" in the transclusion of the RFC. Today, I asked for the editor to provide some sources which directly support his PoV, so we can put that in the narrative too (he was cite spanning and drawing WP:OR conclusions previously, although there is a possibility some reference can be found to support his PoV). I did forget that I used the word "disruption" one time on the article talk page and have struck that out too. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    I note that you've chosen to retract "disruption" but not to retract "POV warring". (Talk:Leni Riefenstahl#Riefenstahl's pioneering influence in film). I wonder whether you consider your own participation in what you don't consider to be an edit war (but I do; 3 reverts each) to also be "POV warring". I wonder whether you consider the section heading, "Riefenstahl's pioneering influence in film", as the section heading for a RfC which I think you initiated, to be NPOV. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    I used that phrase because it pithily represented the disagreement and I also chose it to get attention in the list. Moreover, I didn't introduce the phrase into the article, although the cited sources do widely support it (for my part, I think it's a bit PoV). Maybe I could have put it in quotation marks? I must say, none of this has been about the quality of my edits in the article space and I would like to mention, the overwhelming majority of articles I watch and have edited in the past have no conflict in them at all, including Haymarket affair, which is a very controversial topic for some. I've been close to that article for three years, never had trouble there and yesterday it at last made GA. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    • On the plus side: I forgot to mention that while looking through the same bunch of contribs I also found that the candidate knows how to apologize. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. Oppose (ec with Coppertwig) After looking over her contributions and the histories of pages she has edited (apparently she has little use for the 'show preview' button) and the discussions above and on the RFA talk page, I'm not convinced she is admin material at this time. Too much POV in the wrong places. - KrakatoaKatie 01:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    I don't see that as an issue with the preview button. I know a number of editors who like to make small edits to articles, instead of lumping all the changes into one massive edit. Nishkid64 (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    I see it as an issue with the preview button. I also noticed that while looking through the candidate's contribs. Sometimes it can be useful to separate edits -- it makes it easier to revert just one of them -- but usually it's better to reduce the overall number of edits. In the ones I saw, the candidate was editing what the candidate had just added; not particularly useful to keep as separate edits, cluttering the article history and the recent changes log. I don't claim to be perfect as far as that goes, and perhaps it has nothing to do with whether one would be a good admin or not, but using the preview button is encouraged. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    Yeah, I didn't phrase my concern very well. I'm not perfect either and I often have a typo or two I have to fix that I missed with preview. It just seemed really odd to me to have 260+ edits in a row on one article, many of them only adding or removing one word that was just added in the previous edit, and the same pattern holds on other articles. Separating edits for clarity is one thing. 265 times is another. It bothers me as inattentive to detail, but it's inconsiderate too. And that interaction with Ral315 is hideous.(struck as Ral315 has removed his opposition – but I retain my opposition to the candidate at this time.) - KrakatoaKatie 19:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    My only interaction with this user was a particularly nasty conversation here (admins only; page has been courtesy deleted). Contributions under The Witch and Wyss leave me unable to support. While they were quite a while ago, I'm just too disgusted by the behavior under those usernames to support. Ral315 (talk) 01:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    Good knockabout fun, that. You certainly held your own, with a first-rate comeback line. -- Hoary (talk) 05:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    Ditto. Well-played. KrakatoaKatie 22:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    I'd like to see it. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. Oppose I am not impressed by the user's conduct in this RfA, specifically her comments toward BusterD and Rklawton. I am also not comfortable with the edit warring and 3RR violation on Abraham Lincoln. I believe that it is evident that you violated 3RR, but you still maintain that this was a borderline violation, while the reverts say otherwise. Nishkid64 (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. In addition to issues raised above, edits like this concern me. Jayjg (talk) 04:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    That was over what he was most widely known for, not whether or not he is one (he most definitely is, repulsively so). I only wanted to see some more sources since I've always heard more about other controversial aspects of his books (the dodgy scholarship and so on), although obviously, looking back, I could have been more clear in the edit summary. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  12. Oppose - the behavior that I've seen in researching this RfA does not move me to believe this user would be an appropriate admin. I find the user to be unnecessarily confrontational, particularly in the diff cited by Ral above. (struck through as Ral has removed his opposition. After further review, I retain my opposition, with regret.) - Philippe | Talk 05:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  13. Oppose The Abraham Lincoln article is an important one and the nominees activities regarding this article are significant. While she tries to picture her participation as entirely a reply to a call for help, in fact at one point in the debate (starting with her effort to inject current Pakistani politics into the article) there were 102 straight exchanges between Gwen, with nobody supporting her side, and ten other editors in opposition to her positions. I would think that someone qualified to be an administrator would have picked up on the need to walk away a long time before the nominee figured it out.
    She supports revising the article to present an extreme fringe view that Southern secession was entirely about tariffs and states rights and that Lincoln actually supported slavery -- a position that apparently went right over the head of folks like Jefferson Davis. Rather than the nuanced approach that is required in articles of this type, she prefers a simplistic version that fails to differentiate between abolitionists (which Lincoln was not nor does the article say so) who were for immediate emancipation and other opponents of slavery, like Lincoln, who were morally opposed to slavery and saw the restriction of slavery to where it currently existed as insurance that it would eventually die. It was this latter view, recognized as valid by both proponents and opponents of slavery in the territories, (not 20th Century issues such as the validity of mixed marriages that Gwen wants to insert into the article) that shaped the political debate, of which Lincoln was an integral part.
    It is significant how she even now chooses to characterize those who oppose her extreme simplifications when she says (see “Threaded comments from project page 3” on the discussion page for this page), “It's a very high profile article which for some editors represents an historical fulcrum to their political beliefs, so I do understand how they might in utter good faith react so strongly to even a hint AL was something less than a secular political saint.” In fact, the only interjection of political beliefs into the debate was Gwen’s support for the blatantly political lewrockwell.com when, in fact, its section on “King Abraham” (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/lincoln-arch.html) is nothing but a Neo-confederate support site, providing articles like “Heil, Abe” and “Hitler Was a Lincolnite”. Those views that she supports during the debates regarding Lincoln, such as Lincoln being a “genocidal tyrant” are straight out of the Lew Rockwell and Neo-confederate play books.
    In defending her position against those overwhelming opposed to it, she sets up a strawman arument by claiming that the opposition’s position was set at resisting “even a hint AL was something less than a secular political saint.” It should be noted that this cartoonish characterization was made NOT in the heat of the previous debate but right here in this discussion when the nominee is assumably on the best behavior that she is capable of demonstrating. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  14. Oppose per civility concerns, particularly those raised by User:Coppertwig above. These are recent; I note this particularly unhelpful comment was made about two weeks ago. I'm fairly taken aback by the tone of this reply. (Particularly given the state of the article at the time.) "before arbitrarily trying to enforce your individual notions of WP policy and readership needs. All the best"? A request for sourcing is not arbitrary or individual; concerns of redundancy could have been just as swiftly dealt with by a more cordial pointer to conversation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  15. Oppose - Mainly per Coppertwig's diffs, the editting battles are worrisome to me as well. -Dureo (talk) 14:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  16. Oppose I'm afraid I must oppose here. And I've spent some considerable time reviewing this debate and associated threads. Civilty concerns and warring on articles is hardly ideal in an admin candidate. Sorry. Pedro :  Chat  15:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  17. oppose after viewing all the discussion, the diffs, and the answers, I choose to oppose. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  18. Oppose. In my dealings with her at Abraham Lincoln, I was accused of edit-warring, personal attacks, and all manner of wikipolicy violations, none of which I'd committed. She couches her accusations of bad faith in faux politeness, but they remain unsubstantiated allegations, as she never supported them in any way. In addition, she edit-warred at that page, badgered against consensus, and displayed some quite blatant POV problems at the talkpage as pointed out above. It's disturbing to me that this candidacy is so close to the line of acceptable promotion. BobTheTomato (MrWhich) (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    Note that the above user seems to be some kind of sock puppet account. See contrib history as well as the fact that the user page is editable only by admins. --Veritas (talk) 02:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Nope. No secret who I am. I logged in to specifically oppose this user, based upon her edit warring and her behavior in my dealings with her. BobTheTomato (MrWhich) (talk) 02:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  19. Oppose; I cannot support someone who replaces her userpage with "Tell the Wikitruth", followed by a rant about how we're an "autistic care group for the obese and unemployed", and then defends it in that state for months. Antandrus (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    Reminds me of some comments here about thick skins and thin skins. That was two years ago, I was treated very unfairly back then and still shocked by it (it's a yawn now). I think I was quoting some blog comment somewhere but don't remember too clearly. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    I'd like to expand, since this discussion has gotten a bit volatile. I felt very let down by the whole process back then. I cared and felt utterly wronged. In the context of public perceptions about WP at the time, which were not as positive as they are today (and for highly supportable reasons) I was trying to send a signal. Wikipedia has grown a lot since then, I've grown a lot into Wikipedia along with that and I've since made my peace with what happened. While it's effectively impossible that I would ever post such a thing again, I don't think it's at all fair for you to dredge that up, especially since regular users can't see the context (or the talk page history behind it).
  20. Per Blnguyen. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 00:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  21. Oppose, while I wish I could say otherwise, I find this too concerning. Sourcing is a requirement, not a nicety, and a challenge to unsourced material is 100% OK. The only possible responses to such a challenge are to provide sources or agree to removal, not something else. I'm also a bit concerned by the understanding of BLP given below in response. These aren't insurmountable problems, and I think you've done a good job starting to get things turned around. I hope next time I can be in the column above. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    Thanks! I'll reply in full on your talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  22. Oppose, the people before me have more than done their job compiling loads of pure bitter nastiness that has spewed from this user's mouth. The last thing we need out of new admins is more drama. Don't bother replying here or on my talk page, my mind is very firmly made up. Mike H. Fierce! 12:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    This reply is not directed to you, Fierce! (but thanks for participating here). With all due respect and strong agreement in principle as to the worries of those who have commented on this, I don't think it's at all reasonable or fair that anyone should be discussing a comment taken out of context which I made two years ago as a much less experienced user, on a much less mature Wikipedia, which I cannot even see. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    Gwen, I'm not exactly sure which comment you are referring to but I'd be happy to make it available to you offline if you think it would help. Ronnotel (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    In fairness to Gwen, that's pretty harsh language, Mike, and I don't think it's justified by any of the diffs we've seen here. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 19:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    Thanks SlimVirgin. I don't think Mike knows me as an editor, so I can at least understand his reaction. I glark it's an indefensible comment made during my most difficult moments at Wikipedia, two years ago. I've written more about it here. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    I've addressed this further on my talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  23. Oppose per Moonriddengirl, SlimVirgin, and others. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  24. Oppose - you need a longer track record to put the past behind you, and appease those who fear a relapse. The Transhumanist 23:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  25. Oppose, low level of Wikipdia-namespace contributions indicate a likely lack of policy knowledge. Stifle (talk) 11:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    See my response to Jforget above: she has over 3,000 Wikipedia-space edits if you combine the two accounts. Acalamari 17:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  26. Oppose Disruptive in the too-recent past. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  27. Oppose per PoupouOnToast. Majorly (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral

Neutral, pending a satisfactory answer to Question 2. You've not really answered Q2, which reads: What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why? Please tell us what your best work has been at Wikipedia. Is it an FA or GA collaboration? Raising a stub to B-class? Anti-vandalism contributions? Please describe to us what you believe constitutes your best work. C'mon, give us a great answer so I can strike out my neutral vote and move to support :) Thanks, Majoreditor (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. One way or another, you've picked up on something important about my take on editing. My answer to q2 was meant to show I think of all my edits as "best contributions" since if they weren't, I (being me) couldn't make them. I'm here mostly because I get a thrill out of researching and writing helpful, lasting text on topics I know something about in terms of sources and context. I should also say, I skirt two broad topic areas because I deal with them all day (and sometimes all night) in my <nowiki> life </nowiki> and writing here's fun for me cuz it helps widen me mind :) Anyway I've edited hundreds of articles, many of them core. I've started some, tweaked others and moved on, raised, smoothed and cleaned up many more. Here's a sampling of stable articles I'm fond of and which I've had much do with, hopefully to give you some overall notion about the outcome of what I do here (Note, some of these are still not up to speed with our current and very helpful stress on thorough citations): Apollo 1, Apollo Guidance Computer, BSD Daemon, Carol Kaye, Ella Margaret Gibson, Eva Braun, Fondue, Fred Noonan, FreeBSD, Gerald Gallagher, Haymarket Riot, Hertha Thiele, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Leni Riefenstahl, Lesbian, Mabel Normand, Nick Adams (actor), Nikumaroro, Oral Roberts University, Prayer Tower, Selig Polyscope Company, Shamrock Hotel, The Yellow Kid , Tom Mix, Traudl Junge, William Desmond Taylor, Window Maker.
If you would like me to develop my answer to q2 even further, please nudge! Gwen Gale (talk) 02:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer. I'm switching to support. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 02:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutral, somewhat concerned regarding answers to Q4, especially the second. Unsourced biographies containing potentially controversial information (such as starring in adult films), should be deleted immediately on BLP grounds regardless of other considerations. I would like a further clarification as to what the reluctance to delete would be in such a case? Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC) Changed to oppose as explained above. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. My reasoning was, the name Britney Spheres in the question is unambiguous, it is not the name of a real person, but overhwelmingly likely to be the empty pseudonym of some kind of entertainer and the assertion of "upwards" of 50 popular adult films is an assertion of significance in that topic area, hence not an A7, even without a source. If the name was "Lisa Henderson" or something not so adult-filmish, unsourced, it still wouldn't be A7 but I would have taken heed, Googled the name and unless I found much, multiple support for the assertion and the name, deleted it as a G3/G10. You may be implying any assertion of porn activity is inherently, entirely negative and G3/G10 unless thoroughly verified on the spot. I can see the wisdom of this, why speculate at all with BLP? If I've missed something, please let me know. What sways with BLP is the intent of WP policy, not the letter. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.