Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Gwen Gale

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Threaded comments

I've moved some of Gwen's reponses, and the responses to them, from the oppose section to here, because there were so many that it was getting hard to see where to place a vote. See below. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 19:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stats

Gwen Gale's edit stats using "wannabe Kate" tool as of 22:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC):

run at Fri Jan 18 22:47:02 2008 GMT
Image talk: 1  
Image: 66  
Mainspace 7993  
Portal: 2  
Talk: 3128  
Template: 7  
User talk: 1696  
User: 178  
Wikipedia talk: 68  
Wikipedia: 244  
avg edits per page 15.76  
earliest 05:26, 23 November 2006  
number of unique pages 849  
total 13383  
2006/11  265   
2006/12  202   
2007/1  1207   
2007/2  1825   
2007/3  2073   
2007/4  276   
2007/5  474   
2007/6  249   
2007/7  178   
2007/8  724   
2007/9  1184   
2007/10  917   
2007/11  1238   
2007/12  1790   
2008/1  781   

Mainspace  
415 Amelia Earhart  
365 Nick Adams (actor)  
284 Lesbian  
281 Apollo 1  
246 Lisa Nowak  
229 William Desmond Taylor  
227 Mountain Meadows massacre  
216 Shamrock Hotel  
210 Selig Polyscope Company  
177 Oral Roberts University  
168 Berghof (Hitler)  
166 Essjay controversy  
162 The Yellow Kid  
156 Leni Riefenstahl  
154 Richard Roberts (evangelist)  


Talk:  
486 Mountain Meadows massacre  
385 Amelia Earhart  
359 Essjay controversy  
318 Lisa Nowak  
246 Abraham Lincoln  
155 Lesbian  
103 Brandon Teena  
75 Fred Noonan  
56 I-35W Mississippi River bridge  
56 Mountain Meadows massacre/draft  
43 Nick Adams (actor)  
40 Lesbian/Archive2  
38 Berghof (Hitler)  
37 William Oefelein  
36 Lesbian utopia  


Image:  
18 Shamrock houston.jpg  
9 Nickadamsmars.jpg  
8 Minter01.jpg  
6 My Chauffeur.jpg  
5 Nickadamsrebel.jpg  
3 Eva berghof.jpg  
3 Bsd daemon.jpg  
2 Madchen In Uniform Video Cover.jpg  
2 WilliamDesmondTaylor.jpg  
2 Outcault 4th ward brownies.jpg  
2 Lisa Nowak2.jpg  
2 Deborah Foreman laugh.jpg  
2 AdamsNugent1959.jpg  
     
     
Template:  
6 Howland Island Locator  

  
User:  
69 Gwen Gale  
51 Essjay/RFC  
39 Gwen Gale/Essjay thing  
3 ANNAfoxlover/Autographs  
3 Rklawton  
3 Wyss  
2 Seraphimblade/sandbox/practice  


User talk:  
900 Gwen Gale  
163 Jimbo Wales  
28 Bzuk  
26 Sarah777  
25 Essjay  
23 Rklawton  
22 Essjay/RFC  
17 Yamla  
14 Trebor  
12 Derex  
10 DepartedUser  
9 Blue Tie  
9 Maury Markowitz  
9 Mattisse  
8 Gwen Gale/archive1  


Wikipedia:  
36 Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents  
26 Articles for deletion/Operation Mockingbird  
21 Articles for deletion/Führer Headquarters  
19 Requests for comment/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey2  
16 Administrators' noticeboard/3RR  
15 Deletion review/Log/2007 March 5  
13 Requests for adminship/Gwen Gale  
12 Requests for page protection  
11 Articles for deletion/Essjay  
8 Articles for deletion/City of Faith Residential Reentry Center  
7 Possibly unfree images  
5 Miscellany for deletion/User:QuackGuru  
4 Requests for checkuser  
4 Possibly unfree images/2007 September 28  
4 New admin school/Deleting/delete  


Wikipedia talk:  
17 Manual of Style (dates and numbers)  
16 Articles for deletion/Essjay  
16 Manual of Style  
11 Administrators accountability  
2 WikiProject LGBT studies  
2 Requests for comment/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey2  
2 Requests for comment  


Based directly on these URLs: [1], [2], [3]



Wyss's edit stats using "wannabe Kate" tool as of 22:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC):

run at Fri Jan 18 22:46:58 2008 GMT
Category: 5  
Image: 25  
Mainspace 5695  
Talk: 3960  
Template: 4  
User talk: 535  
User: 23  
Wikipedia talk: 76  
Wikipedia: 3115  
avg edits per page 4.28  
earliest 14:02, 14 February 2004  
number of unique pages 3139  
total 13438  
2004/2  16   
2004/3  0   
2004/4  0   
2004/5  0   
2004/6  0   
2004/7  0   
2004/8  0   
2004/9  0   
2004/10  0   
2004/11  0   
2004/12  1748   
2005/1  1047   
2005/2  901   
2005/3  714   
2005/4  0   
2005/5  7   
2005/6  750   
2005/7  2084   
2005/8  1696   
2005/9  1086   
2005/10  1039   
2005/11  147   
2005/12  33   
2006/1  887   
2006/2  1196   
2006/3  41   
2006/4  0   
2006/5  0   
2006/6  0   
2006/7  7   
2006/8  0   
2006/9  11   
2006/10  22   
2006/11  6   

Mainspace  
501 Adolf Hitler  
277 Elvis Presley  
257 Nick Adams (actor)  
200 Vegetarianism of Adolf Hitler  
187 Frances Farmer  
154 Death of Adolf Hitler  
142 Lesbian  
136 Amelia Earhart  
132 The Beatles  
127 Kensington Runestone  
114 Veronica Lake  
111 Lee Harvey Oswald  
104 Magda Goebbels  
89 Haymarket Riot  
88 James Dean  


Talk:  
805 Sollog  
687 Adolf Hitler  
395 Elvis Presley  
355 Vegetarianism of Adolf Hitler  
323 Nick Adams (actor)  
135 Eugenics  
125 Natalie Wood  
99 Frances Farmer  
63 Joshua Gardner  
59 Aluminium  
57 Prussian Blue (duo)  
39 Death of Adolf Hitler  
36 The Beatles  
34 Ludwig von Mises Institute  
33 James Dean  


Category:  
5 Cryptogams  

 
Image:  
3 Frednoonan earhart2.jpg  
3 Mullervikt.jpg  
2 Nickadamsrebel.jpg  
2 Menginsappho.jpg  
2 Minter01.jpg  
2 Nikumarorogallagher.jpg  
2 Vittiavventura.jpg  
2 Nickadamsmars.jpg  


Template:  
2 Final occupants of the Führerbunker  

 
User:  
3 Fvw/TalkArchive/9  
3 Rlandmann  
2 Ted Wilkes  
2 Fvw/TalkArchive/3  
2 Mirv  

     
User talk:  
49 Mel Etitis  
29 Onefortyone  
26 Ed Poor  
25 Fred Bauder  
21 JCarriker  
17 Hoary  
14 Sam Spade/ - archive/November 2005  
11 Michael Dorosh  
10 Raul654  
10 Redwolf24  
9 Jpgordon  
9 Professor Von Pie  
8 ExplorerCDT  
8 Viriditas/Archive 9  
8 Jimbo Wales  


Wikipedia:  
109 Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents  
46 Village pump (policy)  
31 Requests for arbitration  
27 Village pump (news)  
25 Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive9  
21 Votes for deletion/Scheiße  
21 Administrators' noticeboard/3RR  
20 Articles for deletion/Scatolinguistics  
16 Articles for deletion/Classical definition of republic  
15 Requests for comment/Cberlet & Willmcw  
15 Articles for deletion/List of vegetarians  
14 Articles for deletion/Bishop ring  
13 Articles for deletion/Log/2005 August 20  
10 Anti-elitism  
10 Articles for deletion/Remote influencing  


Wikipedia talk:  
43 Requests for arbitration  
14 Requests for comment/Cberlet & Willmcw  
6 Anti-elitism  
5 Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone/Proposed decision  
2 Village pump (policy)  
2 Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone/Evidence  

Based directly on these URLs: [1], [2], [3]

[edit] Threaded comments from project page 1

  1. Lastly (per above) construing my absence in any manner whatsoever is also highly inappropriate. I don't understand. Could you elaborate? -- Hoary (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    Rklawton, I'm happy to see you've come back (even if your first edit since your block a month ago has been to express your opinion here) but I think you're the one who has been PoV warring behind sysop tools. I also have serious worries about your interpretations of WP:Vandalism. Either way though, I hope we can get past this somehow. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: 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.

  1. A. Incomplete application. In question #6 above, Gwen Gale admits that she failed to mention this briefly used account at the beginning of this procedure. If I were hiring Gwen Gale or if I employed her, discovering the omission of something important from the past might be a deal breaker right there. In this case, it would be a very minor matter indeed unless one reads Gwen's final response to the thread, creating the horns of dilemma: Either Gwen had no plans ever to use the account again, in which case the omission was easily explainable, OR Gwen (however now-and-then) had plans to use the account, in which case the omission is near unforgivable as it regards RfA. If she had an inkling she might ever use the account again, as an admin candidate Gwen had an obligation to submit those few account edits for scrutiny at the very beginning of this process without prompting, IMHO, leaving no possible hint of sockpuppetry.
    B. A pattern of manicuring talk pages and talk archives with apparent intent to mislead. In question #7 above, Gwen admits to removing a valid block notice before archiving the page (as User:Wyss) because she was "touchy" about it. Her edit summary at the time seems to suggest the notice was improperly formatted, but today, she's made no similar claim. Though she says two years' experience has improved this failing, and I have no doubt sure she's in earnest, it appears she chose the same course last month (as Gwen Gale) when after apologizing and agreeing to abide by a posted warning, she later chose to mislabel multi-editor characterizations of her talk page actions as vandalism, restored her change after one user corrected the mischief, then she deleted the warning and huge chunks of criticism from her talk page when talk consensus went against her, as we learned in question #8. User has a right to edit her talk pages in any way she deems fit, but as a candidate, this RfA may measure the wisdom of specific edits or editing patterns, especially when the demonstrated trend has been to edit in a manner which tends to omit notices of disruption. That I felt compelled by her actions to compile the talk archive in my own user space says something about how users including myself felt about her reliability at that time, at least as it is revealed in talk. On top of all this, the talk page history for Wyss has been inconveniently blanked, so it's far more difficult to discover if this alleged (and I'm choosing this next word advisedly) pettifoggery has occurred in talk which covers about half of the candidate's edits. I generally use the more generic term mucking, but the word pettifoggery has resonance in this specific procedure, since Gwen argued with one of the mentioned users for using the term to characterize what that user saw as bad behavior.
    C. The missing email. I need technical help with this, but I feel we should know whether Gwen actually sent an on-system email, or just said she did. I'd love to assume good faith, but we're in a verification procedure here and all questionable edits and activities could become part of this process at any time. If Gwen actually clicked send, then the server has evidence which can verify this, and I have a big apology to make. If on the other hand there's zero evidence the email was ever sent, I'm not sure we can reasonably be expected to accept Gwen's wikipedia-ate-my-email explanation in an RfA. If it can't be proved she sent that email, then her narrative version is further called into question. Any extant data on wp email failure out there?
    D. Viewing privacy as a one-way street. Candidate has made much of the terrible situation which existed before the Wyss account became inactive. As a result of her need for the pedia to provide necessary and appropriate shelter from abuse and the potential for abuse, user changed names twice, took an editing break, had the old account talk page history erased, and edited talk before archiving. Yet when another user (myself) stated intention not to exchange emails with a stranger "already deemed troublesome," Gwen reports her feelings were hurt and her response was to label my comment personal attack. I have a very difficult time reconciling the two positions. If Gwen's privacy is this important and if her wikiskin is this thin, then adminship is perhaps not the best option. I've watched lurking ED stalkers swarm, provoke and slander User:MONGO for years, and apparently they're not done. Good admins often get rough treatment. If Gwen's not ready for that kind of heat, Gwen can't wield the tools effectively.
    E. Negative characterization of some of those those not represented in this process. I'm greatly troubled User:Rklawton brief block has been mentioned in a way which connoted causality, first with Gwen's interaction and last with Rklawton's absence. While the three circumstances may in fact be related, I'm confident the characterization that "a meaningful, progressive trend in his behaviour which ultimately resulted in a block for 3rr" has little foundation, other than as Gwen's opinion. I'm sure Rklawton is reassured in the perhaps patronizing opinion "...I still think he has lots of helpful qualities." As it regards the three she'd rather me not name (though she not only named all three but linked them as one person within twenty five words of another), none of them is a dark old one. I see no reason why those account names can't be used, or why using the names in this narrow obscure procedure fails to protect anybody. By characterizing the users by what she saw as offenses instead of using their names, Gwen exhibited her self-interestedly biased point of view as it regarded the validity of their claims in the conduct dispute, IMHO.
    F. It appears that Gwen Gale will receive community approval and win the mop in this process, though I believe I've raised appropriate questions about the candidate's trustworthiness and good judgment. With that in mind, I should offer some helpful advice to the new admin. At one point in talk between us, I characterized Gwen's frequent cheerful remarks as ingratiating. Perhaps it was not my finest edit, but I can tell you that the reason I drew this assessment was because I sensed intermixed with the "Cheers!", "All the best!", "Happy editing!" a fair mix of sarcasm (or irony, depending on one's view). I would suggest the two don't mix well. My advice: be less sarcastic, or expect people to respond less excitedly to overly (and perhaps superficial seeming) happy interjections. BusterD (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    I meant no sarcasm, not a shred ever and I never said "happy editing" (it's not my style). Gwen Gale (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    Gwen is quite correct in this last assertion. I foolishly quoted by own (actually) disingenuous interjection. Sorry. BusterD (talk) 01:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    Not to rub it in, I think this whole section is a fitting example of how a few well-meaning editors who watch Abraham Lincoln have mistakenly projected their own cynicism, anger and lack of good faith (along with lots of other stuff) onto another editor who didn't wholly agree with their notions of acceptable sources. I hope you'll reconsider, BusterD. I don't agree with the characterizations about me which you've drawn above. For starters, I think you've thoroughly muddled editorial content PoV with conduct. Many of your statements of fact have been selectively pulled way out of context and re-spanned in a measured attempt to synthesize a critical description of me. Criticizing me for (or relative to) actions I took over a year ago following WP:RTV is inappropriate. As for the email, back when I sent it and you expressed reluctance about revealing an email address to me (never mind there are trivial things like Gmail accounts and free forwarders which many of us use as an ID buffer), I never even hinted in reply that you should reveal any private or personal information to me, or even email me back. I only mentioned the "hurt feelings" today as an aside because I thought we had developed a bit of rapport after this very long line of questioning which, truth be told, sometimes seemed to me like a "fishing expedition" crafted only to dredge up "gotchyas" (although maybe an admin should be able to calmly handle that kind of thing whilst keeping her cool, old school and so on, hence I didn't mind this much in itself). Moreover, as we've shown, some of your statements of fact tend to be mistaken. Taken altogether, IMHO, my contribution history doesn't support your assertions but we can carry on at my talk page whenever you like. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    (She said, rubbing it in.) Instead of dealing with my points of fact by answering questions in discussion above, candidate has again chosen to characterize my motive and actions as mistaken and cynical. Candidate filled out a complete application for adminiship, but intentionally omitted a user account which was previously used and which she was considering using in the future. From an employment standpoint (and this is a job interview process), that's failure to completely disclose, and that's a big deal. Her failure to disclose has nothing at all to do with my cynicism or my motives. She kept a sock account in her pocket during an RfA. In what way is that my issue? BusterD (talk) 13:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    Arbcom and many others knew about that username from the start and I knew everyone knew (here's Mr Bauder's name in the history, from 2006 and moreoever I haven't touched that fleetingly used account in over two years), so how you can say I had a sockpuppet in my pocket is beyond me. Please stop misrepresenting the facts? Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    1. Where was the intentional omission of (mention of) a user account? 2. "Job interview processes" are usually for paid positions. This one isn't. (Or if it is, I want my back pay.) 3. In what way is "The Witch" an issue at all? 4. On a suspicion some way above: Gwen's skin is easily thick enough -- or can you supply any diffs that suggest otherwise? -- Hoary (talk) 14:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    a1. In the two word heading of my first point. Where it starts: "A. Incomplete application."
    a2. Yes, you're correct. This is an open job interview (that anyone can edit!) for an unpaid volunteer position. To be a docent, one has to go through a similar vetting, since like this job, there is considerable responsibility involved.
    a3. As an omission on that job application. When prompted, candidate stated she thought that account might see use in the future. That makes it part of this proceeding, as it should have been from the first diclosure of user account info. The The Witch still hasn't seen tracking information pasted on this talk page like the first two accounts mentioned.
    a4. How about this one above in which user says "That. hurt. my. feelings.". The manifestation of those hurt feelings was false double accusation of personal attack, then covering of backtrail by later deleting relevant talk. BusterD (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    User talk:BusterD is wikilawyering. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    Gwen Gale has a pattern of steering the discussion to the defects of others. BusterD (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    I think, if I had happened to agree with BusterD's take on sources and subsequently engaged in the exact same behaviour at Abraham Lincoln whilst supporting his editorial PoV against a different user who did not, say User:Thorsmitersaw, he would would not be criticizing my conduct at all. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    1. Yeah, well. I'm whelmed. 2. This is an encyclopedia whose content sensible adults try to improve but don't trust; it's not a hospital or nuclear power plant. 3. Isn't what's here sufficient? 4. You're right; I hadn't noticed that earlier reference to feelings. Now that I see it it rather disappoints me, as I'd been under the impression that Gwen didn't show any. (Whether she has any is by the way. What's written is what counts.) Gwen, keep your feelings zipped up in future, OK? -- Hoary (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    Sorry about that Hoary. I slipped, trying too hard maybe to WP:AGF. I won't let it happen again:) Gwen Gale (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Threaded comments from project page 2

Re: 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)

  1. Most of those edits weren't reverts. Striking out as too vague, pls see my comments below. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
    It looks to me as if User:Blnguyen has mistaken the replacement of a snarky edit summary[1][2] for 1 or 2 reverts. I was trying to nudge User:BobTheTomato towards a more civil tone. I must say, although this episode wasn't a breach of 3rr for either me or User:BobTheTomato, I think this is when I made a new hard core rule for myself of 1rr separated by days (which I'd been more or less sticking to anyway). User:Blnguyen, I was making a thorough test of consensus and attitude at Abraham Lincoln and as I have said before, I left when I found a lack of consensus for the inclusion of meaningful critical sources in that article. I truly don't like conflict, so I'm always looking for ways to keep things calm and civil. For what it's worth, AL was an extreme and startling experience for me and I learned some things from it. Editing on Wikipedia always means learning without end. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    Regarding your finding of a lack of consensus for the inclusion of meaningful critical sources, do you believe you exhausted all avenues in your attempt to have content critical of Lincoln included in the article? Ronnotel (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    You can see in this section the lingering, PoV warring echoes of reaction to my attempt to introduce the sources there (and re-introduce a single external link). After I determined I would meet only with conflict and dispute over this, I dropped the discussion. Truth be told, without consensus on these sources from other experienced editors, taken along with my wish to edit here peacefully and keep articles in a stable form, I saw no reason to carry on with it at all. I could have posted an RFC on these sources but at about the time it crossed my mind, the pile on had begun, I wanted to end all conflict and dispute and I agreed to a 90 day cooling off period, since in principle there are no content emergencies on Wikipedia. Subsequent to that, I began to question whether I had any interest at all in editing at Abraham Lincoln, since there are so many other things to do here. I have an open mind about it but no, as I've said, I couldn't even think about it unless I saw a meaningful consensus of experienced editors willing to introduce the sources (not, for example, only a few newish or infrequent users posting worries about the lack of these sources on my talk page). Gwen Gale (talk) 17:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    I'm not sure you addressed the point I was trying to make so I'll rephrase. Do you see how the phrase a lack of consensus for the inclusion of meaningful critical sources could be intepreted a failure to assume good faith? In this particular case, I didn't see the sort of effort at compromise made in order to support this statement. I for one was ready to engage on these sources but I got the sense that you simply walked away mad. Ronnotel (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    I thought I'd made efforts to compromise and wasn't asking for much at all even to begin with. I was proposing the restoration of a single external link which had been in the article for months, along with a bit of rewording in the header, that's all. When the reaction was so utterly aggressive, angry and uncompromising, I saw no reason to carry on with it. If consensus comes along to introduce those sources, the article will evolve with them with or without me. It's not in my core area of interest. I was only trying to help a couple of users who had posted questions about the lack of sources there on my talk page, along with another who had gotten a vandalism warning for trying to introduce them many months back. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    Revert 1 at 02:44, 9 November 2007, Revert 2 at 04:10, 9 November 2007, Revert 3 at 05:26, 9 November 2007, Revert 4 at 00:37, 10 November 2007 (self-reverted a minute later), Revert 5 at 02:35, 10 November 2007, Revert 6 at 03:24, 10 November 2007. Reverts 1, 2, 3, and 5 account for the 3RR violation at Abraham Lincoln. The edits, collectively, could have resulted in a 24-hour block for edit warring. Both you and BobTheTomato told each other to stop reverting (Bob cited 3RR, you cited "edit warring"), but you continued, nonetheless. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    On the very edge but not 3rr, since at least one of those can be interpreted as a text change. It's one reason I walked away from the article for awhile after that, I didn't want to address it that way. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    4 reverts in less than 24 hours. That's a 3RR violation. Revert 1 was a removal of a source that North Shoreman and BobTheTomato thought were appropriate. Revert 2 was a clear cut revert. In revert 3, you reverted BobTheTomato's text change (comparison: [3]). In revert 5, you undid BobTheTomato's external links removal. None of the reverts fit in the realm of exceptions to the 3RR rule. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    I said it was on the edge. If they're all taken as simple reverts, they span a period of 23:51. I thought of it that way then. I didn't like how that had happened and I left for at least a few days. Anyway following WP:3rr, editors have been blocked for less than four reverts in a 24 hour period. I'm certainly not trying to defend that brief pattern of edits, even if I was being reverted almost immediately no matter what I did, which was wholly outside of my experience here. The whole thing was unusual for me and it took a bit of time for me to adapt and react. As I said above, after this happened, I resolved to more strictly follow a 1rr rule for myself. I mean, I felt wronged, but I wasn't smugly happy with how I'd dealt with it either. Please note that in q3 I addressed my current take on 3rr: If I recall correctly, this episode played a big role in my deciding that back and forth reverts were never, ever helpful, even if they skirt under the technical blocking threshold of 3rr. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    Maybe some cultural context would help here. I'm Swiss, grew up speaking English maybe more than half the time, went to English language schools beginning with high school and went to college in the UK. From mostly British teachers I learned about the 1861-1865 US war as "The War Between the States" (it was years before I fully understood the significance of using that name). I was repeatedly told that although the institution of slavery was disgusting, the war was fought not to end slavery, but was fought over tariffs, business interests and notions of nationalism and economic union. I know many Americans here but long story short, "all they ever seem to talk about" is how much they hate Bush, hate empire, hate nationalism and so on and nobody ever talks about Lincoln. I like Americans and America but haven't been there in donkey's years. So you can see why I might have been startled by the reaction I got at Abraham Lincoln and why I walked away from it when I found there was no peaceful path towards introducing critical sources at this time. I was never mad about this lack of consensus. There are so many articles to edit here. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Threaded comments from project page 3

Re: 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)

  1. I would like to note that I mentioned this flash-up at Abraham Lincoln when I accepted this nomination and that I went to the article because of two inquiries on my talk page which noted the lack of critical sources in the article (I provided the diffs in my answer to q3 above). I do think Abraham Lincoln is thoroughly lacking in critical sources but I think the edit history shows my edits in the article space were minimal and I quickly left altogether when I found there was no meaningful consensus from experienced editors for my suggestions. I won't be back there unless I see at least 3 or 4 active and experienced editors who are willing to politely work towards balancing the text (and I don't see this happening anytime soon). 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 stongly to even a hint AL was something less than a secular political saint. As an editor, I'm ok with that. User:Southern Texas, as you know, I haven't been back to the article and I do apologize if anything I said on the talk page, reasonable as it may have been from my perspective, might have upset you. Lastly, to ward off any misleading statements which may follow, I did say on the talk page, There are lots of verifiable, reliable and independent secondary sources, much more than enough for WP:RS and never mind all the primary sources to be had, to support an assertion Lincoln was a genocidal tyrant who by his own account had no interest in ending slavery in the United States. However, I never tried to enter such a volatile characterization into the article narrative. Rather, I was hoping it would stir up at least some support for some minor adjustments to the header along with the restoration of a single external (but controversial) link which had been in the article for at least many months. This didn't happen, I found out what I needed to know and I left the discussion. One of the admin editors involved was not long after blocked for edit warring elsewhere (the diff is above in my answer to q3). The two other editors who reacted the most strongly to me, User:BobTheTomato and User:MrWhich, have since closed down their user accounts (they may have been the same editor, I don't know and don't care). I'm still happy I tried, but had I known the negative reaction would have been so strong I would have left it alone. I believe in consensus on this public wiki and as I said when I accepted this nomination, when it comes to content, there is no emergency on Wikipedia. Besides, there are mountains of non-controversial stuff to edit here and I think my contribution history shows my thoughts quickly went elsewhere. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Candidate's closing statement about the conduct of this RFA

It seems to me all of the edits on this project page have been made in sincere good faith but I have meaningful concerns about how this RFA has been conducted. The following is only a summary. None of this should be taken as criticism or description of anyone's intent, but only as notes of apparent, inadvertant mistakes made in handling of my RFA.

  • The edits forming q6-q9 are comprised mostly of more or less unsupported and rambling opinions which significantly bear several unambiguous misrepresentations of fact (however unintentional they do seem to me) along with what appear to be well-meaning but ad hominum and "strawman" arguments. The outcome is several kilobytes of text which form a wholly misleading essay.
  • Like the above essay in the questions section, most of the initial oppose votes are clearly related to a thoroughly dead editorial sourcing disagreement at a single, very highly visible article. Most of these votes more or less openly declare their position as PoV based, an objection not supported by WP policy. There is also clear evidence of backchannel, non-transparent canvassing and contact relating to this PoV issue, however well intended.
  • Halfway through the RFA an editor moved almost all of the ensuing discussion onto the talk page, saying the threads were "making it hard to vote." However this is not a vote, it's a discussion. Moving these threads ended the discussion and in my view, this RFA, without consensus. Most of the opposition comments came after this move was made.
  • Two comments/posts made by me over two years ago, which because of a policy supported deletion implemented under WP:RTV are no longer visible to non-admins, were accidentally described in misleading terms, with no discussion as to their context in a long blown-over episode (which was originally disclosed in the nomination). My two-year-old comments, amounting to general, snarky, sweeping criticisms of Wikipedia as it was back then, which I clearly did not later support, in either tone or content, were thus left to the fertile imaginations of non-admin editors, for whom neither the comments themselves nor their underlying context were available. These editors were likely wholly misled because the mention of these non-viewable comments completely distorted my long-ago contribution history. A significant good faith retraction and switch to support, of an oppose vote based on one of these hidden comments, was later made with the kind words, "I hope my comments of a few days ago don't sink this RFA."
  • This deleted history was unavailable to me, hence it was not only forgotten (I don't hold grudges, no big feat, it's how I am), but wholly unavailable during the preparation of this page. Had this history been been available (and had I known talk pages deleted under WP:RTV were citable), these old, long-dead issues would have been more succinctly addressed from the outset and the overwhelmingly positive content of those old talk pages would have been cited. Meanwhile up to this point, my 13,000+ edits over 14 months as User:Gwen Gale were critically cited only in relation to the single, wholly PoV issue above and again with no reference to context or content.
  • Most of the opinions which came after this initial flurry (of PoV objections and references to nonviewable, 2-year-old fossil commentaries) came from understandably worried editors who have had little or no experience with me and focus on edit summaries taken wholly out of context, with no reference to or apparent understanding of the underlying edit histories (we all know it's hard and even boring to read through long, deeply threaded discussions about articles we've never been involved in).
  • Nevertheless some positive opinions about this RFA continued to arrive but there can be no doubt many editors refrained from participating at all as a result of the misleading confusion on this project page.

Although adminship is supposed to be "no big deal" I believe it is reasonable that I document my concerns about this RFA, since in the future it will be taken as a part of my contribution history. I support, admire and enjoy the community and will accept whatever outcome is decided upon but if these issues cannot be dealt with in the decision process I respectfully suggest this RFA be closed as "broken," archived as such and re-held later. Thanks for reading this and thank you for participating in my RFA! Gwen Gale (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Ronnotel (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I echo the "wow." If Gwen intended to insult the intelligence of nearly all of those who dared oppose her, she succeed in spades with the above post. I had a load of experience with her during her POV-pushing at the Lincoln article, and BusterD's opposition based on her edits there was not "solely based on POV" or however she put it. It was based on an accurate observation of Gwen's passive-aggressive POV-pushing, both at the main article, and at the talkpage. Insinuating that all of us were "admitting" that we were basing our opposes on POV-based disputes is ludicrous and insulting in the extreme. With this insulting post, you have confirmed my opposition, both now and in the future. BobTheTomato (MrWhich) (talk) 19:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Gwen, I don't think this approach is entirely reasonable, and in a sense it's why people opposed you.
Regarding moving the threaded comments to talk, it's very common to do this when they get as long as these were, and arguably moving them would have been to your advantage, if anything, because people really don't like to see a nominee argue each and every point with opposers, which seemed to be what you were doing.
Regarding deleted pages, all you had to do was ask an admin to undelete them. But I'm not sure much hung on that point.
I would say it would make more sense to take on board the spirit of what people were saying (even if you disagree with them in detail), and try again in a few months. I'm sorry you're disappointed, and I do think some of the comments were too harsh. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 18:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I've taken much on board! Everything's ok. However, that wasn't the point of this statement. Sorry if my comments seem harsh though. I would like to say, in all honesty, I think what you do here is wonderful and I have zero issues with you as an editor or as an admin. I only think the move was a well-meant mistake. Please note too, I said these comments should not be taken as criticism. I'm hoping we run into each other sometime editing an article, I'd enjoy working with you on editorial stuff. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I meant that some of the comments about you were too harsh, not comments of yours. :-) SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 19:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh! Sigh :) Gwen Gale (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement of disclosure from BusterD

I'm actually surprised at the outcome of this RfA. I expected Gwen would get the mop here, and didn't think my questions or comments sufficient to change many minds. I even said as much in my opposition comments. For fullest transparency, I'd like to disclose that I contacted three editors to alert them to this process: I placed a message on User talk:North Shoreman, since I'd mentioned an edit of his which demonstrated what I was seeing at Talk:Abraham Lincoln; I emailed User:Rklawton and User:MrWhich because I believed in their absence they were being characterized poorly by the candidate. IMHO, the biggest issue in this RfA has been the defensive posture taken by the candidate. The more the candidate argued and contested she was a victim in this process designed to examine her, the less admin-like she appeared. Because I took such a harsh stance in this RfA, when she runs again (and I encourage her to do so), I pledge to take a neutral stance, and not repeat the questions asked here. BusterD (talk) 23:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Gwen, the lesson here is that, as an admin, you have to learn to take the blame for everything that goes wrong with the website -- including things you have done, things you have not done, and things you couldn't even imagine doing. Otherwise, you'll be accused of being thin-skinned and will probably spend your entire adminship in tears. :-) SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 23:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much both of you. I'm truly ok about this and like so many things on this wiki, it's a big learning thing. BusterD you said early on, there was a "public airing" (or however you put it) to all this and from then on I took it as such, which is one reason I made so many comments back to other editors. I agree the pile on's not your "fault" (that's a wiki thing, a "life" thing too), I mean, you didn't think it would happen (I did, lol!) and as you said before, you were only trying to drag me through the "old school" bit which is still ok with me. SlimVirgin that's a very helpful and insightful thing to say about taking "the blame for everything that goes wrong with the website." I can do that :) Gwen Gale (talk) 00:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Candidate's statement of agreement with closure

First, although this RfA failed, I'm happy because the outcome has been so helpful in many meaningful ways. I consider my RfA to have been wholly productive, constructive and correctly closed. My thoughts above have already been swiftly addressed and fully resolved through discussion, straightforwardly and in exemplary ways. Thanks again everyone for your time and for participating, both on this project page and elsewhere. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)