[[File:Gwen Gale aka the Witch is roaming around wikipedia .jpg|thumb|300px|After Gwen Gale got her [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/Admin_mop.PNG administrative tool] she quickly turned the mop to a witch's broomstick. Now she uses this broomstick to fly around Wikipedia to collect heads of innocent editors while allowing trolls to troll. "The witch" was the name of one of Gwen Gale's sock accounts.]]
'''"I will kill myself tonight and it is all your fault."''' wrote 16-years old kid at the talk page of Wikipedia administrator Gwen Gale on February 3,2012.
This kid, as many other Wikipedia users has became a victim of bullying that is allowed on the site that belongs to non-profit charitable organization tax-exempt organization [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation the Wikimedia Foundation]. The scariest part is that the Wikimedia Foundation was aware about Gwen Gale bullying '''before''' the latest incident, and did nothing. The 16-years old kid sustained irreversible emotional damage and a Wikimedia Foundation bears a full responsibility for allowing this to happen. Although there is so called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Child_protection Child protection] policy on Wikipedia, but it does not protect a child from being bullying on Wikipedia. When specifically asked about protecting children from bullying on Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation's employee [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Philippe_%28WMF%29&diff=prev&oldid=3510606 refused to respond].

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

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

Below is a real request concerning Gwen Gale. This request was filed on one of Wikipedia sites, and it was deleted with no action taken. Read it and decide for yourself.

==The case against Gwen Gale==
===Some examples of unwarranted blocks and unwarranted removing of talk page access===
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Gwen+Gale&page=User%3AFunguy06&year=2009&month=December&tagfilter= On 26 April 2009 Gwen Gale blocked user Funguy06 with the edit summary "(Vandalism-only account: no meaningfully encyclopedic edits)"]. In her block message [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Funguy06#blocked she provided neither differences to support the block, nor an explanation how to request an unblock]. The user who [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&target=Funguy06 started contributing to wikipedia in 2006] was blocked over [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heidi_Montag&diff=prev&oldid=286162601 this 2009 edit] for "vandalism only". But please [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidi_Montag see the article]. Funguy06 did not vandalize the article.He made a good faith, encyclopedic edit. As a result of the block the user is gone. He did not even bother to write an unblock request.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Gwen+Gale&page=User%3ANug%20&year=2009&month=December&tagfilter= On 25 July 2009 Gwen Gale blocked user Nug for an alleged outing]. After being [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive14#Martintg_.22outing.22 contacted about the block at her talk] Gwen Gale unblocked the user with the edit summary "behaviour seems to be supported." This unblocked edit summary required a one second correction block, in which administrator wrote: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Theresa%20knott%20&page=User%3ANug%20&year=2009&month=December&tagfilter= I cannot believe that Gwen Gale would put that as an unblock reason!]

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Unknown+the+Hedgehog On August 10 August 2008 Gwen Gale blocked indefinitely Unknown the Hedgehog for "calling another Wikipedian his "friend"" with the edit summary: "Spam / advertising-only account:"]. At the same time she blocked a few other users indefinitely. A [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive161#WP_seemingly_used_as_a_social_network thread was started about these blocks]. Admin Oren0 wrote:"I'm greatly concerned about the block of Unknown the Hedgehog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) specifically. He has ~150 mainspace edits which, while small, seem to be improvements to articles. Why does calling another Wikipedian his "friend" get him banished for life? Is there really consensus that this user should be banned?Oren0 (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)" Oren0 also [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive6#Block_of_User:Unknown_the_Hedgehog_for_WP:MYSPACE started a thread at Gwen's talk]. Gwen did unblock the editor herself.

*User Ludwigs2 was blocked on July 2, 2008. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lar Administrator Lar] requested review: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive441#Block_review_of_User:Ludwigs2 "I suggest this block is excessive at best, and possibly completely unjustified. I'd suggest review by uninvolved admins. ++Lar: t/c 18:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)"]. The block was lifted.

*user:Malleus Fatuorum was blocked on June 10, 2009. The user was unblocked in an hour after [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive13#Malleus an admin and a few users complained about the block]. Over this block [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive13#Recall she was suggested "to spend some time reading WP:BLOCK and, frankly, not editing here."] After a long threads at her and Malleus Fatuorum's talk pages, in which Malleus said about Gwen [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gwen_Gale&diff=next&oldid=403807278 "She may say whatever she likes, but a lie is a lie, and she is a liar"],Gwen Gale [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum/Archives/2009/June#I_was_mistaken apologized for the block].

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BioSynergy User BioSynergy was blocked for user name by Gwen Gale on June 8, 2008. Gwen was also the one who declined the unblock request]. It is unclear, if the user ever made a new account.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive17#Unblock_request This discussion] is about the block imposed on user Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ).[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Richard_Arthur_Norton_%281958-_%29&diff=prev&oldid=364916173 was blocked] for 72 hours for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_May_24&diff=prev&oldid=364914402 this edit, in which the user corrected a punctuation typo]. Please take a look at this comment Gwen Gale made, when asked about the block: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive17#Unblock_request "He was not moving on, he was hiding the warnings, knowing he would most likely be blocked for carrying on with his disruption and hoping that a careless admin would think he was blocked for correcting a punctuation typo. This is also why he put his unblock request at the top of the page, far away from the block notice. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)"]. The user was unblocked in a few hours with edit summary "Block not covered by Wikipedia:Blocking policy".

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3ANWA.Rep User NWA.Rep] was blocked at 20:36, 21 November 2008. She removed the editor talk page access only for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANWA.Rep&action=historysubmit&diff=253259006&oldid=253258844 removing block notice] that the user could have done in accordance with the policy. Two hours later another administrator [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANWA.Rep&action=historysubmit&diff=253276995&oldid=253259979 restored the talk page access]. He wrote: "Looks like a misunderstanding of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_pages WP:USER] - have reenabled talkpage editing". At 20:10, 29 November 2008 one second correction block was added to the editor block record: "Noting the block was at least somewhat questionable, enough to have a note in the block log. See blocking admins talk page." When asked why she removed the editor talk page access Gwen responded: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=253260480 "He edit warred over the block notice. I'm willing to re-enable his talk page editing in a couple of hours but I'm going out to dinner now."]

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ASuper+Badnik User Super Badnik] was blocked indefinitely at 21:03, 9 August 2008. The block was overturned by another administrator.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3ABreathing_Dead User Breathing Dead] at 20:51, 23 July 2009 Gwen removed his talk page access. The talk page access was restored by another administrator.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Douglas_M._Smith On July7, 2010 a new user Douglas M. Smith was blocked indefinitely with the edit summary: "‎ (Personal attacks or harassment: potential libel, outing)"]. I looked over user contributions, and could not find anything that warranted an indefinite block (will appreciate if somebody looks at this block and tell me, if I am missing on something). [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Douglas_M._Smith It does not look like the user was issued any warning before the block].

*User Mbz1

On December 23, 2010 Gwen Gale responded to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mbz1&oldid=476332609#Per_your_request canvassing] and blocked the editor for a week.
She made the block to be indefinite after [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMbz1%2Fa7&action=historysubmit&diff=403914418&oldid=403912569 the editor made this post]. She removed the editor's talk page access without warning only because the editor added an indefinite blocked user template to her talk page two times. The talk page access was restored by another administrator.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AOgioh user Ogioh] was blocked indefinitely. The block was reverted in less than an hour.

*Gwen Gale removed the talk page access to the editor she blocked for this post: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RCS&diff=prev&oldid=356584362 "Harmful? My dear Gwen, you seem not to know what the case in question was all about. The irony of my edit - which I find funny - can be understood with the hindsight of how that case turned out, i. e. that the rape in question never took place and that the so-called victim was in fact a compulsive liar with a history of court convictions that has continued since. But I suppose that you are another of these self-righteous people with a mission with whom arguing is nothing but a waste of time."] When asked by another wikipedian how the editor could request to be unblocked Gwen responded [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive17#RCS "His email is still enabled"].

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

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

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

In [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive3#Re:_Edit_Warring this thread] Gwen Gale stated:"First, if you are an admin and get involved in a content dispute like this, you cannot use your admin powers to resolve it." It was said on May 16, 2008.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Gwen+Gale&page=User%3ASoutherndata&year=2009&month=December&tagfilter= The first time User Southerndata was blocked by Gwen Gale at 15:04, 28 June 2008] for alleged "vandalism" on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Noonan Fred Noonan], although the user clearly made a good faith edits. In a few places (including the block log) she said that she edited the article after the block. Gwen Gale edited this article a lot, and before the block. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_Noonan&oldid=2399161 Actually Gwen Gale wrote this article, when she still edited as Wyss], but let's see June 28,2008: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_Noonan&action=historysubmit&diff=222286333&oldid=222286201 Gwen Gale] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_Noonan&action=historysubmit&diff=222287525&oldid=222287133 was edit warring] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_Noonan&action=historysubmit&diff=222288253&oldid=222288170 with the very same editor she later blocked].[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive5#Your_Block_on_User:Southerndata After being questioned about the block while involved], she lifted the block just to re-block the user indefinitely two days later at 22:38, 30 June 2008. At that time she was even more involved with the user than when she blocked him the first time because of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bzuk&diff=prev&oldid=222544929 this post by the user].

*
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive141#User:Gwen_Gale_reported_by_User:John_J._Bulten_.28Result:_protected.29 On October 1, 2010 Gwen Gale was reported for edit warring].
:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Magog_the_Ogre Administrator Magog the Ogre Magog the Ogre] had this to say about Gwen's conduct:
{{cquote|Gwen is very very much out of line, not only with the rollback tool but threatening to block a user in a dispute: future edit warring of this type will receive a block.}}
:After Gwen Gale yet another time claimed a good faith edit to be "vandalism" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HJ_Mitchell administrator HJ Mitchell] had this to say about Gwen's conduct:
{{cquote|In this case, while it might not have been your intention to get into a dispute, you did step over the bright-line rule and, as far as I can see, none of the reverted edits were vandalism. I would suggest being more careful with rollback at the very least. Non-admins have been known to lose it for less. In this case, while it might not have been your intention to get into a dispute, you did step over the bright-line rule and, as far as I can see, none of the reverted edits were vandalism. I would suggest being more careful with rollback at the very least. Non-admins have been known to lose it for less. }}
:Gwen also received a personal message about this incident.
{{cquote|[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive18#3RR_violation_.2B_misuse_of_admin_tools '''3RR violation + misuse of admin tools'''. Please see WP:AN3#User:Gwen Gale reported by User:John J. Bulten (Result: protected). I am also rescinding the warning you gave the user you were opposed to, and replacing it with a proper warning for edit warring. Please consider this a warning: if you believe it is inappropriate and/or would like to appeal it, you may take it to WP:ANI. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)]}}

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Gwen+Gale&page=User%3AWallamoose&year=2009&month=December&tagfilter= user Wallamoose was blocked on October 18, 2008 for a week] for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHummus&diff=246116334&oldid=246061640 this edit] at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hummus Talk:Hummus]. Gwen Gale has been involved with the article for a long time. Her involvement with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hummus Hummus] was even pointed out in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Gwen_Gale_2#Oppose her RFA:"I have interacted with Gwen Gaile on only one article, hummus, but I don't think her interactions on that article are consistent with Wikipedia policy. She treats the article as though she owns it, and seems not to understand the difference between reliable sources and unsupported assertions on random Web pages and cookbooks."]. In her block rationale Gwen stated: "Following [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHummus&diff=246116334&oldid=246061640 this edit by you] after my warning, I've blocked you from editing one week for disruption, non-encyclopedic edits and trolling. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 16:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)". This one week block for editing an article '''talk page''' was wrong because Gwen Gale is heavily involved with the article and because she was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHummus&action=historysubmit&diff=246061640&oldid=246047546 edit] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHummus&action=historysubmit&diff=246120404&oldid=246116334 warring] with the editor, and because Wallamoose was not trolling. As it is seen from [http://www.haaretz.com/misc/comment-page/hummus-in-the-torah-19.44445 this reliable source] Hummus was mentioned in the Torah. Although the editor tried to explain to Gwen why he posted the statement to the article's talk page Gwen Gale escalated the block to be indefinite,and then removed the editor talk page access. Gwen also allowed Dædαlus to harass the blocked editor on his talk page.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/74.233.165.176 This IP was blocked on June 24, 2009 for ‎"personal attacks or harassment"] after Gwen Gale was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADeath_of_Neda_Agha-Soltan&action=historysubmit&diff=298378688&oldid=298378421 edit] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADeath_of_Neda_Agha-Soltan&action=historysubmit&diff=298381919&oldid=298380458 warring] with him over quite innocent post to an article talk page. Gwen Gale was heavily involved in editing this article's talk page. Then IP [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gwen_Gale&diff=prev&oldid=298380525 ranted at Gwen's talk page]. Of course IP post to Gwen's talk was not very nice, but even, if this IP deserved to be blocked, it should have been blocked by an uninvolved admin.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AJayeba User Jayeba was blocked at 23:18, 26 August 2009 for "spamming] right after the user [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maureen_McCormick&diff=prev&oldid=310260822 reverted] Gwen Gale at the article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maureen_McCormick&action=historysubmit&diff=310259889&oldid=310259713 she] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maureen_McCormick&action=historysubmit&diff=310260525&oldid=310260330 was] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maureen_McCormick&action=historysubmit&diff=310261166&oldid=310260822 edit warring] with this very user she later blocked.The user was unblocked with the summary "no spamming".

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User%3AProofreader77&type=block User:Proofreader77]

**[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Gwen+Gale&page=User%3AProofreader77&year=2009&month=December&tagfilter= was blocked at 23:03, 29 December 2009 for making $1,000 donation to wikipedia.] Gwen Gale issued the block after she was asked by another administrator to leave the editor alone: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AProofreader77&action=historysubmit&diff=333349988&oldid=333285633 Gwen,you have gotten too personally involved. I urge you to leave further admin actions with respect to this editor to other administrators. '''User:DGG| DGG''' 20:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)]
**[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Gwen+Gale&page=User%3AProofreader77&year=2010&month=February&tagfilter= was blocked indefinitely at 22:16, 14 February 2010 for requesting a blocked user template]. This block was overturned by another administrator.
**[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Proofreader77&diff=prev&oldid=345321695 This edit made on 21 February 2010 is the last edit made by Proofreader77]. After this Gwen Gale removed his talk page access. She did it during [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=344569343#Proofreader77_blocks the request for arbitration] that was initiated to discuss prior unwarranted and overturned blocks of this editor the very blocks that were imposed by the very same Gwen Gale.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AScias76 On May 12, 2010 Gwen Gale blocked Scias76] for edit warring at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hummus Hummus]. Gwen Gale was involved in edit warring of this article. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hummus&action=historysubmit&diff=357403536&oldid=357400663 She] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hummus&action=historysubmit&diff=357451756&oldid=357449920 reverted] a few editors [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hummus&action=historysubmit&diff=357829370&oldid=357828550 including the one she later blocked.]

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Gwen+Gale&page=User%3ATombaker321&year=2012&month=December&tagfilter= User Tombaker321 was blocked on July 15,2010] after the user [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARoman_Polanski&action=historysubmit&diff=373514166&oldid=373498413 directly accused Gwen in "squashing the dialog by using her admin role"] and after Gwen [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tombaker321#disruption continued to engage the user at his talk page].

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iloveredhair&oldid=399168659#only_warning On November 26, 2010 user Iloveredhair was blocked] for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lesbian_sexual_practices&diff=prev&oldid=399035544 silly posts] at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lesbian_sexual_practices Talk:Lesbian sexual practices]. In a few minutes after the initial block [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AIloveredhair Gwen removed the user's talk page access], claiming "vandalism" in the edit summaries. There are two problems with the block. First of all it was not vandalism (the user made posts only to the talk and not to the article), and they could have been called "trolling", but definitely not "vandalism". Second of all Gwen Gale [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lesbian_sexual_practices&oldid=172122298 is the author of the article] which means once again she misused her tools while involved.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive20#Austrian_School Here is only one exchange] between user Misessus and Gwen Gale that took place after [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austrian_School&action=historysubmit&diff=441938928&oldid=441937995 Gwen reverted the user]. There were more exchanges at the article talk page like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Austrian_School&oldid=446927564#Sec_Break_1 for example here]. In a little bit more than a month after this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Gwen+Gale&page=User%3AMisessus%20&year=2012&month=December&tagfilter= Gwen blocked this user for edit warring on this article on September 4, 2011 ]. Gwen blocked the user just two days after another user had this to say about her: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive166#User:Misessus_reported_by_User:Dark_Charles_.28Result:_Both_restricted_to_1RR.29 "Gwen Gale is an involved admin. She has been actively supporting one side of this debate for years. She should not have been the admin to decide on this case. I would like to formally request a review of this action. LK (talk) 03:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC) "]. Gwen was involved with this article and with the user, and although it looks like the block itself was proper, it should have been imposed by an uninvolved admin.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=422603670 This comment was made by Gwen in a section of arbitration enforcement request concerning Mbz1 on April 5, 2011 ]. The problem with this comment is that it was made in the section that is clearly marked as "This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above." "Uninvolved administrator" means an administrator, who never edits content of the articles that belongs to the topic of the specific sanctions. Gwen Gale have been editing these articles for years. She was edit warring and pushing her point of view in these articles. I have never seen any other admin who made even small edits in the articles under ARBPIA commenting in the section for uninvolved administrators. Most of the times the really uninvolved administrators even will not revert either clear vandalism violations.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A208.102.209.78&action=historysubmit&diff=474506962&oldid=474505344 On February 2,2012 Gwen Gale declined unblock request of the user who complained about her in his unblock request, which makes her involved]. This unblock request should have been declined, but Gwen Gale should not have been the one to do it. This example demonstrates that Gwen Gale has difficulties in understanding what "involved" administrator means. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alison&oldid=474697911#Zhand38 And this thread explains how this all ended up]. It is sad.

===Biting newbies===
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jamiroquai&diff=prev&oldid=308136584 User Hatcrazy was blocked two times in August of 2009].
The first block was 24 hours for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lady_Victoria_Hervey&diff=prev&oldid=306484174 this edit].
The user was right [http://books.google.com/books?id=RH5JXwAACAAJ&dq=Lady+Victoria+Frederica+Isabella+Hervey&hl=en&sa=X&ei=17AtT7idLIijiQLMpsmjDA&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA "Lady Isabella Frederica Louisa Hervey (born 9 March 1982) is a British socialite, model, and actress.] The second block was for two weeks for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jamiroquai&diff=prev&oldid=308136584 this edit] in which the user changed "are an English" to "is a British". Please look at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamiroquai article] now. It has "British" not "English" . Looks like the user was right because [http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/jamiroquai-latest-act-to-sign-on-to-f1 a] [http://articles.chicagotribune.com/keyword/jamiroquai few] [http://www.romania-insider.com/british-jamiroquai-to-bring-jazz-funk-to-the-romanian-seaside-this-summer/25776/ newspapers] call them "British". The user was also [http://books.google.com/books?id=2nxLkMspauIC&pg=PA59&dq=Stella+Nina+McCartney+is+a+british+fashion+designer&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Vq8tT7eXGOigiQKr5cXDCg&ved=0CFQQuwUwAQ#v=onepage&q=Lady%20Victoria%20Hervey&f=false right] in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stella_McCartney&diff=prev&oldid=306338679 this edit],
and the user was [http://books.google.com/books?id=SWUEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA86&dq=Queen+%28band%29+%22Freddie+Mercury+%22+%22British%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QrctT4DMEtLSiAKKpIG5Ag&ved=0CEoQuwUwAQ#v=onepage&q=Queen%20%28band%29%20%22Freddie%20Mercury%20%22%20%22British%22&f=false right] in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Queen_%28band%29&diff=prev&oldid=306338771 this edit] and probably in all other edits as well.

Gwen Gale [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hatcrazy#August_2009 warned the user], but a new user could not have known what "consensus" and "sourcing" means.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ANextbook User Nextbook was blocked at 20:56, 9 November 2011] after [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pitcairn_Islands&action=historysubmit&diff=459856138&oldid=459853639 Gwen Gale] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pitcairn_Islands&action=historysubmit&diff=459856594&oldid=459856520 was] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pitcairn_Islands&action=historysubmit&diff=459858526&oldid=459857327 edit warring] with him. Gwen Gale claimed BLP. Another admin [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive20#Why.3F questioned the block, saying in particular "I don't think BLP concerns are a carte blanche for disregarding AGF like this and especially not BITE since we can't expect newcomers to understand these complex policies within their first 10 edits. I would appreciate if you would be more polite and welcoming towards new editors in the future, and not be as quick with the block-hammer, if you feel you don't have the patience for giving adequate explanations to a newcomer feel free to contact me and I'll gladly take over"], but Gwen failed to clarify her position.

:Here's an analysis of the situation with this user:
:1. A new editor [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Nextbook made a few contributions.]
:2. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANextbook&action=historysubmit&diff=459501988&oldid=458203616 He is warned he has to use sources].
:3. So in his next two edits he tries to use sources.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pitcairn_Islands&action=historysubmit&diff=459856520&oldid=459856138 In this edit he provides not just one, but three sources almost for every sentence he adds, but he does it like this "(Marks, "Lost Paradise", page 292.) "] because he is not sure what is the right way to list references. In his next and the last edit he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pitcairn_Islands&action=historysubmit&diff=459857327&oldid=459856138 inserts the external link to the article in Guardian, which of course is a reliable source].
:4. The user [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANextbook&action=historysubmit&diff=459859217&oldid=459856885 is blocked] and never returns.

===Gwen Gale using unnecessary, rude edit summaries in the block log===
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Genieactionpaul On June2, 2010 a user was blocked with the edit summary: "smells like dirty laundry to me"].
===Gwen Gale responding to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing canvassing]===
I will provide only two example. More examples could be presented by request.

1. Here Gwen Gale responds to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing#Stealth_canvassing email canvassing] by user Daedalus969.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive19#Email.2C Here is an example of one such conversation about sent email]:
*''Ping!— Dædαlus+ Contribs 11:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)''
*''Pong! Gwen Gale (talk) 12:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)''

What Daedalus969 was doing just before he pinged Gwen Gale? He [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=403686336 was commenting on the same AN/I thread] that Gwen Gale [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=403691945#user:Kuguar03 closed] just before she ponged.
So as soon as Daedalus969 said "Ping" Gwen gladly responded "Pong".

2. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FBusterD&action=historysubmit&diff=467424231&oldid=467422483 With this edit the user admitted he canvassed Gwen Gale to co-nominate him in his RfA] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FBusterD&action=historysubmit&diff=467281585&oldid=467245749 Gwen Gale responded to canvassing]. It is funny that the user made his/her admission in response to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guerillero admin Guerillero] saying [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FBusterD&action=historysubmit&diff=467417317&oldid=467417178 that Gwen Gale does not instill any trust in him/her].

==Gwen Gale makes a fool of yourself and of Wikipedia==
A few days ago professor Timothy Messer-Kruse shared his experience in editing Wikipedia. In particular he recalls part of his exchange with Gwen Gale:[http://chronicle.com/article/The-Undue-Weight-of-Truth-on/130704/ "Explain to me, then, how a 'minority' source with facts on its side would ever appear against a wrong 'majority' one?" I asked the Wiki-gatekeeper. He responded, "You're more than welcome to discuss reliable sources here, that's what the talk page is for. However, you might want to have a quick look at Wikipedia's civility policy."]
The complete conversation is preserved [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Haymarket_affair&oldid=477110217#.22No_Evidence.22 here]:
{{cquote|Fine. I see I will have to fight these battles one at a time. I will start with the most obvious. Here is a "majority" source, indeed the most often-cited source for information on Haymarket there is, Paul Avrich, The Haymarket Tragedy: from page 190: "Spies had heard that two men had been killed, apparently the correct number, but when he picked up the Daily News, the paper reported six deaths." So, it should be evident that this authoratitive source also agrees the proper number should be TWO. As for you claim about Wikipedia's policy, your characterization of it is absurd, especially if the "majority" source that is cited can be shown to be factually wrong. Explain to me, then, how a "minority" source with facts on its side would ever appear against a wrong "majority" one?MesserKruse (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Gwen Gale was also the one who "welcomed" the professor to Wikipedia:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMesserKruse&action=historysubmit&diff=265745449&oldid=265745388 "Did you make this edit while not logged in to this account? You may want to have a look at Wikipedia's policy on sockpuppets. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)"]

Professor Timothy Messer-Kruse who is a world famous expert on the subject was ordered to review [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CIVIL "Wikipedia's civility policy"] although he was civil, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet "Wikipedia's policy on sockpuppets"] simply because he forgot to log in.

Here's a post at Gwen's talk page concerning her involvement in the matter:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gwen_Gale&oldid=477103224 "Hello. I just want to point out that I recently read an article in the chronicle here: http://chronicle.com/article/The-Undue-Weight-of-Truth-on/130704/ and it describes what amounts to an edit war that you were engaged in. I looked at the page and discussion in question, and it seems to me that you are boorish and a bully. I would like to suggest that you tone down your air of self-righteous authority, in order to encourage a more civil atmosphere on Wikipedia. It's especially ironic that when presented with what seems to be a very civil point by (presumably) the author of the blog, you ignored the substance of his argument and instead groundlessly accused him of being uncivil himself. If you're going to wear that hat of uncontested arbitrator of *TRUTH*, it would be helpful if you at least justified your claims in detail to those who go to the trouble of trying to actually discuss the truth in a balanced fashion using reliable sources. As it stands, you arbitrarily call seemingly reliable sources "unreliable", and other sources that support your preferred narrative "reliable," and this makes you an awful bully. Please consider changing your behavior and attitudes. Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashwinr (talk • contribs) 17:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)"]

==Wikipedians about bullying==

*When a 13-years old was asked why she would continue editing Wikipedia, she responded: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Trusilver&oldid=455609402 "Because almost everyone there is a bunch of fakes who like Wikipedia because they have power over others."]

*[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Elen_of_the_Roads#Meta_coda_by_Proofreader77:_.22Wikipedia_and_the_pleasure_of_bullying.22 "Of course, Wikipedia needs its bullies — it does not pay salaries, but there is the psychic pleasures of bullying. Obviously not everyone is a bully. There are some good-hearted admins. But the patterns of the social dynamics of Wikipedia are almost designed to cultivate a collection of bullies to do the work, and provide structural support for that bullying — as ArbCom's backing the bullying of Proofreader77 gives some flavor of.]

*A former wikipedian an award-winning Physicist had this to say about Wikipedia:

#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=205868902#Conclusions ...Wikipedia, on the contrary, is the enshrinement of contempt for learning, knowledge and expertise. It is, for many, a diversionary hobby to which they are prepared devote a great portion of their time, as others do to computer based video games. Unfortunately, it has led also to an inner cult, shrouded in anonymity, with structures and processes of self-regulation that are woefully inadequate. Many of these tools and procedures are reminiscent, in parody, of those of the Inquisition: secret courts, an inner "elite" arbitrarily empowered to censor and exclude all those perceived as a threat to the adopted conventions of the cult; denunciations, character assassination, excommunication. An arbitrarily concocted "rulebook" and language rife with self-referential sanctimoniousness give a superficial illusion of order and good sense, but no such thing exists in practice.It is truly a "Tyranny of the Ignorant"].
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cheeser1&diff=prev&oldid=201767732 I have no interest in "defending" myself against false accusations, made with no other intent than harassment. I have a real world identity, and have had more than enough of the absurdities of this fictional pseudo-environment, in which people play out their aggressions as though they were knocking down "enemies" in a video game. I have the impression that many of those for whom this is a permanent romping ground are simply maladjusted individuals in their real lives who have a compulsive need to act out aggressions in this fantasy world as a rather pitiful form of self-affirmation...But individuals who try to launch, within science, campaigns of self-promotion through such absurd vehicles as Wikipedia clearly have no interest in the truth, and are only too happy to support the bullying, intimidation and denunciations of self-appointed enforcers such as User: Cheeser1. Given the opportunity, they would doubtless wish to do the same in real life... My only remaining intention, within this lamentable setting, is to close down all vestiges of such contemptible farce, which is a parody of the well known practices used in police states, where denunciation is sufficient to imply guilt, and intimidation is a stock in trade to contain potential "enemies of the state". The only satisfaction that I have is to be able recall that I anticipated such an onslaught, and said so on record, although I failed to anticipate the scope of its absurdity. No-one with any intelligence or self-respect who becomes aware of the prevalence and apparently, encouragement, of such machinations would agree to participate further in such things.]

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

==See also==
*[[A typical Wikipediot]]
==External links==
*[http://wikibrutewar.blogspot.com/2009/10/brutal-wikiwarrior-of-week-gwen-gale.html Brutal wikiwarrior of the week: Gwen Gale]
*[http://allswool.blogspot.com/2008/04/tyranny-of-ignorant.html Tyranny of the Ignorant ]
*[http://gwen-gale-heidi-wyss-tinpot-auteur.blogspot.com/ Gwen Gale -Tinpot Wikipedia Tyrant/Auteur ]
*[http://wackepediaheidichronicles.blogspot.com/2008/12/gwen-gale-heidi-wyss-wackipedia-fable_09.html The Heidi Chronicles]
*[http://gwen-gale-heidi-wyss-tinpot-auteur.blogspot.com/2009/03/gwen-galeheidi-wysss-gormglaith-review.html Gwen Gale/Heidi Wyss's Gormglaith Review]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Vote/Gwen_Gale Gwen Gale failure to become an arbitrator]
[[category:Wikipedia]]
*[http://youtu.be/OWN_FhUpp1c Gwen Gale's Wikipedia moments (Tyranny of the Ignorant )]
*[http://youtu.be/nrEdYyejlj8 Ding Dong the Wicked Witch is Dead]

==Share this page==
<sharethis />

[[Category:Wikipedia]]

<br>
<div style="overflow:auto;height:1px;">
[[Keyword:=Gwen Gale]]
[[Keyword:=bullying]]
[[Keyword:=suicide]]
[[Keyword:=the Wikimedia Foundation]]
[[Keyword:=Heidi Wyss]]
[[Keyword:=Gormglaith]]
[[Keyword:=Wikipedia]]
</div>
<br>

The case against Gwen Gale

2012-03-30T00:33:25Z

2012-03-18T19:12:35Z

Kolobok: /* See also */

'''Wikipedia scandals''' are the all-too-frequent ethical lapses that pervade [[Wikipedia]]. This page will attempt to document some of those that are worth saving for history, since otherwise they will likely be whitewashed out of Wikipedia culture.

==Essjay is not a professor==
A wave of problems began with a decision by Wikipedia co-founder [[Directory:Jimmy Wales|Jimmy Wales]], when he hired a 24-year-old college dropout named [http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/gifs/wmessjay.png Ryan Jordan] to work at Wales' for-profit corporation Wikia, Inc. The hiring decision was made, even though Wales apparently knew Jordan had been passing himself off to the Wikipedia community (and to ''The New Yorker'' magazine's Pulitzer Prize winning [[Interviewed By:=Stacy Schiff]]) as a tenured professor [http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/gifs/essjay5.png holding multiple advanced degrees].

Further aggravating the issue, Jordan (whose Wikipedia screen name was "Essjay") was soon appointed by Wales to the highest volunteer adjudicating body within Wikipedia -- the Arbitration Committee.

[[Image:Wikipedia_scandals.jpg|right|thumb|275px|Wikimedia Foundation donations are dropping substantially]]When ''The New Yorker'' outted Ryan Jordan's academic fraud, their editors contacted Jimmy Wales for comment. Wales was quoted with the now infamous, "I regard it as a pseudonym and I don’t really have a problem with it." This set off a firestorm of criticism, both within Wikipedia and external to the world's largest encyclopedia community. Especially damaging seemed to be the numerous administrative cover-ups that attempted to hide the historical wiki record of Essjay's actions and the community debates that followed.

===The financial consequences===
The Essjay incident appeared to have an adverse impact on daily financial donations to the [[Directory:Wikimedia Foundation|Wikimedia Foundation]]. The downward slide closely mirrored a number of ethically questionable decisions by key administrators of [[Directory:Wikipedia|Wikipedia]].

The Wikimedia Foundation enjoyed a total of $3,477 in donations on February 23rd, the day Essjay was elevated to ArbCom status. Contrast this with a total of only $739 made on March 18th, less than one month later. This represented a 79% drop in daily contributions!

==Wikia / Wikimedia finances==
''Discussions took place on Wikipedia about the relationship between Wikia, Inc. and the leadership of the Wikimedia Foundation board of trustees. As you can see, these discussions were mostly rebuffed by hard-headed loyalists who couldn't imagine any wrongdoing.''

I heard that the person who is in charge of the Wikimedia Foundation's finances is the very same person who is in charge of the for-profit Wikia, Inc.'s finances. Is that true? --[[User:Dude Manchap|Dude Manchap]] 03:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
:Good question. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''</sup> 20:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
::So what if it is? I certainly trust them to do a good job if they are, and I'm sure that the board (who is in charge of the person) knows about this considering the owners of Wikia are previous board members. (...and the Board isn't stupid). '''[[User:Cbrown1023|<span style="color:green">Cbrown1023</span>]]''' '''<small>[[User talk:Cbrown1023|<span style="color:#002bb8">talk</span>]]</small>''' 23:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
:::That's fine if you personally trust them, Cbrown1023, but you may want to look at the [http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1023.pdf IRS form 1023] (no joke -- it's the same form number as the number found in your User name -- coincidence or irony?), especially what's said about Line 5a: '''A "conflict of interest" arises when a person in a position of authority over an organization, such as a director, officer, or manager, may benefit personally from a decision he or she could make.''' Note also Appendix A, starting at Page 25, which outlines a sample Conflict of Interest policy that a non-profit organization might adopt. Do you think that, as Appendix A suggests, either Jimmy Wales or Michael E. Davis have ever left the room during a Wikimedia Foundation board meeting, so that the other board members could discuss whether a conflict of interest was present for those two, who just happen to be former business partners and are currently vested in Wikia, which benefits from many, many favorable associations within Wikipedia? Jimmy Wales tried to hire a Wikipedia Arbitration Committee member onto Wikia. Wikia has many thousands of outbound links from Wikipedia, which point to pages monetized by Google AdSense ads. I guess, Cbrown1023, the question is not whether the Board "knows about this", but rather, why are they allowing such a gross appearance of conflict of interest to continue unabated? --[[User:Dude Manchap|Dude Manchap]] 03:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
::::If you feel that the Wikimedia Foundation is doing something wrong, by all means file a complaint with them. Otherwise, please take this discussion elsewhere. This noticeboard isn't for solving legal problems. - [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 03:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::This is not currently a legal problem. Nobody said it was. It is a Conflict of Interest problem. Another administrator has called it a "Good question", so why should it be swept under the rug and be "Resolved" by a non-administrator? --[[User:Dude Manchap|Dude Manchap]] 14:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi again Dude. A few clarifications: you posted to ask whether there's a conflict of interest but haven't supplied much information. Normally requests to this board cite specific activity and evidence. And normally there's an onsite edit history to reference. If this person actually has registered and edits in a way that reflects a conflict of interest, this noticeboard might be able to accomplish something. If the conflict of interest relationship doesn't extend to actual editing activity then I have no direct power and only a little influence. Yet as the founder of [[:Category:Eguor admins]] I'm particularly open to this type of request. Sure, why not investigate a Wikipedia/Wikia COI? Burden of evidence rests squarely on your shoulders. Go for it if it's particularly important to you. Just expect to shoulder most of the work yourself. I'll check it out, see if there's anything I can do about it, and possibly ask for broader input. That's as fair as I can be. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''</sup> 15:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
:Well, this is a wiki, so the burden of evidence isn't just on me -- it's on the other users who will hopefully see this thread and have enough "wikisleuthing" in their blood to check it out some more. I appreciate your support of it staying in the open, rather than being hastily "resolved", which really would have reflected poorly on the Foundation. For starters, people may wish to look at these discussions about the Wikia/Wikipedia conflict of interest:
::*[http://www.joeszilagyi.com/2007/04/30/wikipedia-unethical-conflict-of-interest Joe Szilagyi blog]
::*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikia#Financial_conflict_of_interest.3F Wikia article discussion in Wikipedia]
::*[http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/04/28/wikipedia-special-treatment-for-wikia-and-other-wikis/ TechCrunch article by Nik Cubrilovic, including many illuminating comments]
::*[http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2006/1stDistrict/March/Html/1041110.htm Court case against Michael E. Davis, Treasurer of both Wikimedia Foundation and Wikia, Inc.] This one is important, as it shows that Davis has not paid $817,830 that he was judged to owe the plaintiff. We are simultaneously being asked to "trust" that Davis will do a good job with the books at both Wikimedia and Wikia, Inc..<small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Dude Manchap|Dude Manchap]] ([[User talk:Dude Manchap|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Dude Manchap|contribs]]){{#if:16:00, August 20, 2007 (UTC)| 16:00, August 20, 2007 (UTC)}}.</small> 
::*[http://www.ihatewikipedia.com/uploads/Wikimedia_IRS_Form_990_2006_YE_063006.pdf Wikimedia Form 990 (Line 80) indicates there is a financial "relationship" with Wikia, Inc.]<small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Dude Manchap|Dude Manchap]] ([[User talk:Dude Manchap|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Dude Manchap|contribs]]){{#if:16:00, August 20, 2007 (UTC)| 16:00, August 20, 2007 (UTC)}}.</small> 
::*[http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/htdig/wikien-l/2007-January/059882.html Angela Beesley moved rejected Wikipedia articles to co-opt them for Wikia's benefit] <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Dude Manchap|Dude Manchap]] ([[User talk:Dude Manchap|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Dude Manchap|contribs]]){{#if:17:07, August 20, 2007 (UTC)| 17:07, August 20, 2007 (UTC)}}.</small> 
:Again, I look forward to whether anyone else will step up and investigate this further. --[[User:Dude Manchap|Dude Manchap]] 15:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
::(stepping over issues of whether this is the right page to talk about the subject)...indeed, board members and accountants both have [[fiduciary]] duties to act in the best interest of their organizations. By various laws and governance principles they have to recuse themselves or avoid involvement when there is a conflict. Even a perceived conflict can be corrosive to governance and is sometimes prohibited because people lose faith. Someone who is on the board of Wikimedia or does its finances and also has a financial stake in Wikia should be very careful about taking positions here on things that benefit Wikia by directing traffic there, banning things from Wikipedia so as to distinguish it from a commercial site, making Wikipedia less attractive to constituents than Wikia. Actions that seem to raise a conflict include banning commercial links, advertisements, fair use media, conflict-of-interest editors, etc., from Wikipedia so that people go to Wikia for that.[[User:Wikidemo|Wikidemo]] 16:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) Looking over those five links, two of them are specifically legal issues outside my expertise. I have no qualification to evaluate them. Joe Szlilagyi's blog is hardly a reliable source and another on-wikipedia thread was started by someone who's expended his credibility also. The techcrunch.com article holds water, in my opinion. What exactly are you seeking? If the basic complaint regards financial relationships at that level, then the most I could do would be to ask the WMF board to review this matter, and possibly to ask someone to institute nofollow to outgoing links to Wikia. My sysop tools would be useless to address this. Or is more forthcoming? <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''</sup> 17:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
:This is a wiki -- there's no telling if there is "more forthcoming" or not. Another example might be the Essjay situation. Essjay was nominated by Jimmy Wales to the Arbitration Committee -- the highest level of dispute resolution below the Board itself. Only a month earlier (I may be wrong about the timeline), Wales had also hired Essjay to work for Wikia, Inc. This took place this year, well after the issue of "Conflict of Interest" has been made so noticeable on Wikipedia, thanks in part (ironically) to Wales' discussions of editing by conflicted parties. Was it appropriate for Wales to nominate one of his Wikia employees to a position on the Arbitration Committee? I believe that question was obscured by the whole firestorm over Essjay's fabricated credentials. Yes, I think the Board of Directors should look at this entire matter; but do you realize that it should be while Wales and Davis and Beesley (and any other Wikia parties I may have missed) are not present in the room? The other factor that I think is important here is that this discussion remain open for some time. Already two non-admin users have attempted to hide it from plain view, with the reason being it belongs somewhere else. This seems very weak, being that this is a Conflict of Interest Noticeboard, and this is a conflict of interest issue. --[[User:Dude Manchap|Dude Manchap]] 17:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

:How does this question have anything to do with the purpose of this page? [[User:Corvus cornix|Corvus cornix]] 17:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

==Heidi Wyss editing as ''Gwen Gale''==
{{main|Heidi Wyss AKA Gwen Gale}}
[[File:Gwen Gale with heads of contributors she blocked.jpg| [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Gwen_Gale&oldid=403226565 Gwen Gale] with heads of contributors she blocked|thumb|350px]]
Heidi Wyss is a Swiss administrator of Wikipedia. Under the user name ''Gwen Gale'', she has handed out numerous account blocks ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&offset=20081201000000&limit=500&type=block&user=Gwen+Gale&month=11&year=2008 more than 500] in October and November of 2008) to other users who supposedly violated Wikipedia's rules. However, she herself broke a cardinal rule of Wikipedia -- don't self-publish autobiographical puff pieces in the encyclopedia. The article she wrote looked something like this:

===Heidi Wyss ===
'''Heidi Wyss''' (born 1975, [[Geneva]]) is a [[Swiss]] author.

Wyss was educated in Geneva and in the [[United Kingdom]]. She has worked as an [[histology|histologist]] and technical writer. Her first [[novel]] ''[[Gormglaith (novel)|Gormglaith]]'', published in 2007, has been described as a "Radical lesbian separatist cult hit set in a plausible future with a witchy bent",<ref>The Secret Society of Lesbian Propellerheads, ''[http://www.ssolp.org/index.php SSOLP home page]'', accessed February 1, 2008</ref> "...like a female ''[[Finnegans Wake]]''..." along with "touches of [[JRR Tolkien|Tolkien]]" and reminiscent "...in some ways of the very intricate work of [[Patricia Kennealy-Morrison]]'s Keltiad novels."<ref>Swann, Morgaine, ''[http://www.womenwriters.net/winter05/Gormglaith1.htm Gormglaith by Heidi Wyss]'', womenwriters.net, accessed February 1, 2008</ref>

'''References'''
{{reflist}}

'''External links'''
*[http://skepchick.org/blog/?p=636 Wyss interviewed at Skepchick.org]

<nowiki>[[Category:Swiss feminists]]</nowiki>
<nowiki>[[Category:Swiss science fiction writers]]</nowiki>
<nowiki>[[Category:1975 births]]</nowiki>
<nowiki>[[Category:Living people]]</nowiki>

[[File:Gwen Gale aka the Witch is roaming around wikipedia .jpg|left|thumb|350px|After Gwen Gale got her [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/Admin_mop.PNG administrative tool] she quickly turned the mop to a witch's broomstick. Now she uses this broomstick to fly around Wikipedia to collect heads of innocent editors while allowing trolls to troll.]]

===Gormglaith===

''As if the autobiography were not enough, administrator Gwen Gale went on to write a self-promotional advertisement on Wikipedia about her rather non-noteworthy novel, '''Gormglaith''':''<br>

'''''Gormglaith''''' (2007) by [[Heidi Wyss]] is a hard science fiction novel set in a radical feminist separatist world of the future.

'''Plot introduction'''
The tale follows its protagonist Gormglaith as she copes with the outcome of her own rashness throughout five life-shifting days and nights.

'''Reception'''
Morgaine Swann in her review on womenwriters.net said "I'm sure there are Druids and Wiccans who'll devour it whole... LOTR fans who'll sleep out for tickets to the movie and Witchy young women enamored of fantasy books on all things Keltic... for my part, I had trouble getting into it. It isn't just a book -- it's a project. From the first page, it was incomprehensible and there was nothing there to draw me in, or make me care enough to dig in. A little seduction, or at least introduction, would go a long way. It felt like a female [[Finnegan's Wake]], with all that implies, good and bad. It had touches of [[J. R. R. Tolkien|Tolkien]] and reminded me in some ways of the very intricate work of [[Patricia Kennealy-Morrison|Patricia Kennealy-Morrison's]] [[The Keltiad|Keltiad]] novels. If that appeals to you, I recommend this book."<ref name="urlGormglaith">{{cite web |url=http://www.womenwriters.net/winter05/Gormglaith1.htm |title=Gormglaith |author= Morgaine Swann|authorlink= |coauthors= |date= 2004-12-01|format= |work= |publisher= |pages= |language= |archiveurl= http://www.webcitation.org/5bfJe9kFD|archivedate= 2008-10-18|quote= |accessdate=2008-10-18}}</ref> Karen Campbell in her review on Quiet Mountain Essays said "We meet Gormglaith Hafgan Halsen (Celtic for "dark blue-green lake, storm in summer changing course") in a pastoral late summer setting under elm trees, mid-conversation with her friend Findabair. Their rolling banter deftly pulls us into the story, and a state of extreme culture shock. This is wonderfully written and fun English dialog, but not quite any sort the reader has encountered before... Gormglaith's radical setting, vocabulary and deceptively linear structure will present a challenging and rewarding read for some, but it'll be a difficult, uneven slog for others. This may depend more on individual temperament and interest in the story than on reading skills. As feminist literature it's unceasingly assertive, positive and controversial. As hard science fiction it offers a deeply structured, often entertaining story, at turns inspiring and disturbing, in a unique contribution to the genre."<ref name="urlQuiet Mountain Essays; Gormglaith Book Review by Karen Campbell">{{cite web |url=http://www.quietmountainessays.org/Gormglaith.html |title=Quiet Mountain Essays; "Gormglaith" Book Review by Karen Campbell |author= Karen Campbell|authorlink= |coauthors= |date= 2004|format= |work= |publisher= |pages= |language= |archiveurl= http://www.webcitation.org/5bfJs3ZS8|archivedate= 2008-10-18|quote= |accessdate=2008-10-18}}</ref>

'''Notes'''
{{reflist}}

'''External links'''
*[http://skepchick.org/blog/?p=636 Wyss interviewed about ''Gormglaith'' at Skepchick.org]
*[http://www.literateweb.com/wyss.htm Gormglaith] online at Literateweb.

<nowiki>[[Category:2007 novels]]</nowiki>
<nowiki>[[Category:Science fiction novels]]</nowiki>
<nowiki>[[Category:Utopian novels]]</nowiki>
<nowiki>[[Category:Feminist science fiction]]</nowiki>

===Consequences===
As usual on Wikipedia, even the most conflicted volunteers think that they are better than others to lead the project, and ''Gwen Gale'' had even put herself up for election to the Arbitration Committee, Wikipedia's highest ruling authority below the Wikimedia Foundation board of trustees and staff. Once her conflicted edits were exposed, though, she withdrew herself from consideration for ArbCom.

The lesson here, of course, is not so much that what Heidi Wyss had done was so terribly wrong, but rather that Wikipedia is corrupt from the very top down. Thus, we should not be surprised as observers when these conflicts of interest are exposed; indeed, we should be surprised that such conflicts are not revealed more often... because what gets publicized is only the tip of the iceberg.

In January of 2010 [[:user:Willowtree|Willowtree]](probably [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gwen_Gale Gwen Gale]) [http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia_scandals&diff=prev&oldid=106377 tried to remove the information about herself from this article] just as she [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008%2FCandidate_statements%2FGwen_Gale%2FQuestions_for_the_candidate&diff=254715552&oldid=254671400 did] many times on English wikipedia, but this time it did not work out, and she [http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia_scandals&diff=106400&oldid=106377 was reverted]. It is not the only appearance of Gwen Gale on mywikibiz. [http://mywikibiz.com/Special:Contributions/81.62.148.165 In 2007 she wrote an article about her novel]. According to [http://img362.imageshack.us/img362/6083/92979875oe7.jpg this screenshot] this IP#81.62.148.165 was used by Heidi Wyss (Gwen Gale) to edit an article about her novel on wikipedia as well.

==Tolerance of plagiarism==
The original version of any wiki-formatted article about the Arch Coal company was authored in September 2006 by [[Directory:Gregory J. Kohs|Gregory Kohs]] and released under the terms of the GFDL on this website, [[Directory:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz.com]]. It was then scraped by an independent editor into Wikipedia. In October 2006, erroneously thinking that the article was paid for by Arch Coal, Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales acted to delete the article from Wikipedia, but the Wikipedia community determined that Wales' action had been unjustified. The article was revised, largely by "User:JzG" (Guy Chapman). However, in January 2008, Kohs demonstrated to Chapman that the article as modified by User:JzG actually plagiarized many aspects of the original. Faced with that evidence, Chapman elected to cover up his misdeed by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Arch_Coal deleting the original edits] on the Wikipedia site, thus making the provenance of the article appear to have come from Chapman, and not from MyWikiBiz. When Jimmy Wales was notified about this violation of professional ethics and proper GFDL attribution of the edit history, Wales '''very reluctantly''' restored the original edit history, with the childish edit summary, "''might as well restore all of it I suppose''".

When later asked to comment on this affair, Jimmy Wales instead relied on one of his loyal followers to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=255481782&oldid=255480598 erase the uncomfortable question] and to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AEast_Bradford block the editor] who asked it.

===Additional comment===
When in December 2008, Kohs [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arch_Coal&diff=255480884&oldid=255154863 sought to improve] the article about Arch Coal on Wikipedia, his improvements were [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arch_Coal&diff=next&oldid=255480884 reverted back] by a mindless administrator from Belgium. This underscores the true system of editorial control on Wikipedia -- it matters not the '''content''' of one's edits, but rather '''who''' authors the content. (Which, of course, directly contradicts Wikipedia's supposed credo that "anyone can edit".)

==Rachel Marsden affair==
Wales allegedly made attempts to "clean up" a Wikipedia entry for a woman with whom he had a relationship, and it generated headlines.

The Wikipedia article regarding controversial [[Directory:Canada|Canadian]] radio commentator [[Rachel Marsden]] has been the subject of controversy on Wikipedia from some years. According to Ms. Marsden, whom Wales has admitted to dating, she had asked [[Wikipedia]] to delete her [[biography]]. Her concerns led her to contact Wikipedia co-founder [[Jimmy Wales]] in 2006, claiming that it was wrong and libelous. According to her, he reviewed her biography and, deeming that it was not up to standard, helped to clean up the entry. However, the article was mainly revised as the result of an extensive review by Wikipedia's arbitration committee.<ref>I did much of the work on this case, and probably played the major role in providing guidelines for revising the article. Jimmy Wales played little, if any, role in editing the article or requesting its revision. Guidelines for editing were based on Wikipedia's Biographies of living person's policy, <nowiki>[[w:Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons]]. [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred]] [[User talk:Fred Bauder|Talk]]</nowiki> 22:44, 17 March 2008 (EDT) </ref>

Wales announced in a statement on Wikipedia "My involvement in cases like this is completely routine, and I am proud of it."<ref name=smh/> On [[February 29]], [[2008]], the technology gossip blog [[Valleywag]] claimed that they had entered into a relationship, and published instant messaging chats that they had allegedly exchanged. On the following day Wales announced on his Wikipedia user page that he was no longer involved with her. In return, Marsden, who claimed to have learned about the breakup by reading about it on the Internet, turned to [[eBay]] and put up for auction a [[t-shirt]] and sweater that she claimed to be Wales'.<ref>{{cite news
| url = http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2008/03/02/marsden-breakup.html
| title = Canadian pundit, Wikipedia founder in messy breakup
| author = Siri Agrell
| publisher = [[The Canadian Press]]
| date = [[2008-03-02]]
| accessdate = 2008-03-06
}}</ref><ref>{{cite news
| url = http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080304.wlbreakup04/BNStory/lifeMain/home
| title = Ms. Marsden's cyberspace breakup: tit-for-tat-for-T-shirt
| author = Siri Agrell
| publisher = [[The Globe and Mail]]
| date = [[2008-03-04]]
| accessdate = 2008-03-05
}}</ref><ref>{{cite news
| url = http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,334652,00.html
| title = Wikipedia Founder's Fling With Columnist Ends in Nasty Public Breakup
| publisher = [[Fox News Channel|FOXNews.com]]
| date = [[2008-03-03]]
| accessdate = 2008-03-05
}}</ref><ref>{{cite news
| url = http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article3475722.ece
| title = Fury of a woman scorned – on Wikipedia
| publisher = [[The Times]]
| date = [[2008-03-04]]
| accessdate = 2008-03-05
}}</ref><ref name=smh>{{cite news
| url = http://www.smh.com.au/news/web/ex-takes-her-revenge-on-mr-wiki/2008/03/04/1204402405901.html
| title = Ex takes her revenge on Mr Wikipedia
| publisher = [[The Sydney Morning Herald]]
| author = Asher Moses
| date = [[2008-03-04]]
| accessdate = 2008-03-05
}}</ref>
<ref>{{cite news
| url = http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/internetlife/2008-03-04-wikipedia-wales_N.htm?csp=34
| title = Wikipedia's Wales defends breakup, expenses
| publisher = [[USA Today]]
| date = [[2008-03-05]]
| accessdate = 2008-03-05
}}</ref><ref>{{cite news
| url = http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2004286879_btwikipedia17.html
| title = Wikipedia experiences growing pains
| author = Alana Semuels
| publisher = Seattle Times
| date = [[2008-03-17]]
| accessdate = 2008-03-17
}}</ref>

A typical editor of Wikipedia is not allowed to document this incident within the Wikipedia article about Jimmy Wales.

==Scorpions "Virgin Killer" album cover==
In December 2008, the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) added to its "potentially illegal" list the Wikipedia image of the original album cover of The Scorpions' fourth release, ''Virgin Killer''. The image depicted a young girl posed naked with only her vulva covered by the appearance of cracked glass. Many found the picture offensive. Internet service providers in the [[Directory:United Kingdom|UK]] followed suit with the IWF and blocked the image and page from users' browsing, and channeling those requests through a very limited set of IP addresses.

Regardless of your opinions about whether this image constitutes child pornography, or whether the IWF engaged in "censorship" of art, one thing was clearly missed by the mainstream media in this affair:

:''If Wikipedia did not suffer from an intractable vandalism problem, this one-page block on a 22-yr old album cover might never have been noticed. It was only noticed because the proxy IP was blocked on the Wikipedia side of the connection.''
:''The fact of the matter is, Wikipedia admins blithely block thousands of IPs, sometimes in wholesale range-blocks that affect major metropolitan areas.'' - [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=21516&view=findpost&p=146163 Barry Kort], 12/09/2008.

That is, the Wikipedia apparatus practices wide-scale editorial censorship, without due process, on an hourly basis; yet few seem concerned about this even within an encyclopedia that purportedly ''anyone can edit''. Yet, there is much wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth when an image that portrays a young girl, told by a photographer to strip down naked and pose for the camera, all in the name of marketing a rock band's album, is censored.

===Put images to the test===
[[Image:St_Pete_billboard.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Would you contribute $25 to see this billboard in real life?<br>''(Click picture only if you're a not-easily-offended adult)'']] Many Wikipedia zealots possess a feverish reflex urge to shout "Wikipedia is not censored" and will defend vehemently not only the ''right'' but the '''''need''''' to publish on Wikimedia servers prurient content that is neither properly sourced nor even encyclopedic in nature. One Wikipedian pauses to note:

:''...I really do worry that any media organisation actually putting the effort in to scratch beneath the surface of the Wiki machine may find some things that will be harder to defend than an album cover from 1976.'' - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=next&oldid=256870274 "George the Dragon"], 12/09/2008.

Wouldn't it be interesting to put the Wikipedia standard to the test, say, in an environment of "community standards" like St. Petersburg, [[Directory:Florida|Florida]]? How fun would it be to start a grassroots fundraising campaign to pay for a "free speech"-testing, GFDL billboard such as this one? Comment on [[Talk:Wikipedia_scandals|this talk page]].

==David Boothroyd, sockpuppet admin==
[[Directory:David Boothroyd|David Boothroyd]] created controversy in 2009 when it was discovered that he edited [[Wikipedia]] under the user names '''Dbiv''', '''Fys''', and '''Sam Blacketer''' and eventually became part of the site's policy-enforcing Arbitration Committee. After earning Administrator status with one account, then being de-sysopped for inappropriate use of the admin tools, Boothroyd regained Administrator status with the "Sam Blacketer" sockpuppet account. A [[Labour Party (UK)|Labour Party]] member, after being sleuthed out by [[Directory:Wikipedia Review|Wikipedia Review]] contributor, "Tarantino", Boothroyd outted himself for having used [[sockpuppet|sockpuppets]] in the course of obtaining his position and for having edited the article of [[Conservative Party (UK)|Conservative Party]] leader [[David Cameron]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/26/wikipedia_westminster_councillor/|title=Sockpuppeting British politico resigns from Wikisupremecourt|last=Metz|first=Cade|date=26 May 2009|publisher=[[The Register]]|accessdate=2009-05-27}}</ref>
==Johann Hari and his socks==

Johann Hari a disgraced journalist used Wikipedia for a few years [[Johann Hari and David Rose|to prize himself in his own entry, and to libel his opponents in their entries]].

== See also ==
* [[Wikipedia]]
* [[Criticism of Jimmy Wales|Jimmy Wales]]
* [[Directory:Wikimedia Foundation|Wikimedia Foundation]]
* [[Nationalistic Editing on Wikipedia]]
* [[Directory:Josip Broz Tito and Wikipedia| Wikipedia's bias towards Dictator Josip Broz Tito and Communist Yugoslavia]]
*[[A typical Wikipediot‎]]
*[[The case against Gwen Gale]]

==External links==
<references/>
*[http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=18620 Milton Roe's 18 Promises about Editing Wikipedia] - A Wikipedia Dissenter's Credo

*[http://youtu.be/OWN_FhUpp1c Gwen Gale's Wikipedia moments (Tyranny of the Ignorant )]

<br><br>
[[Keyword:=Wikipedia]], [[Keyword:=Scandal]]
[[Category:Wikipedia]]

The case against Gwen Gale

2012-03-04T00:42:09Z

Kolobok: /* Some examples of unwarranted blocks and unwarranted removing of talk page access */

[[File:Gwen Gale aka the Witch is roaming around wikipedia .jpg|thumb|300px|After Gwen Gale got her [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/Admin_mop.PNG administrative tool] she quickly turned the mop to a witch's broomstick. Now she uses this broomstick to fly around Wikipedia to collect heads of innocent editors while allowing trolls to troll. "The witch" was the name of one of Gwen Gale's sock accounts.]]
'''"I will kill myself tonight and it is all your fault."''' wrote 16-years old kid at the talk page of Wikipedia administrator Gwen Gale on February 3,2012.
This kid, as many other Wikipedia users has became a victim of bullying that is allowed on the site that belongs to non-profit charitable organization tax-exempt organization [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation the Wikimedia Foundation]. The scariest part is that the Wikimedia Foundation was aware about Gwen Gale bullying '''before''' the latest incident, and did nothing. The 16-years old kid sustained irreversible emotional damage and a Wikimedia Foundation bears a full responsibility for allowing this to happen. Although there is so called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Child_protection Child protection] policy on Wikipedia, but it does not protect a child from being bullying on Wikipedia. When specifically asked about protecting children from bullying on Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation's employee [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Philippe_%28WMF%29&diff=prev&oldid=3510606 refused to respond].

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

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

Below is a real request concerning Gwen Gale. This request was filed on one of Wikipedia sites, and it was deleted with no action taken. Read it and decide for yourself.

==The case against Gwen Gale==
===Some examples of unwarranted blocks and unwarranted removing of talk page access===
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Gwen+Gale&page=User%3AFunguy06&year=2009&month=December&tagfilter= On 26 April 2009 Gwen Gale blocked user Funguy06 with the edit summary "(Vandalism-only account: no meaningfully encyclopedic edits)"]. In her block message [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Funguy06#blocked she provided neither differences to support the block, nor an explanation how to request an unblock]. The user who [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&target=Funguy06 started contributing to wikipedia in 2006] was blocked over [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heidi_Montag&diff=prev&oldid=286162601 this 2009 edit] for "vandalism only". But please [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidi_Montag see the article]. Funguy06 did not vandalize the article.He made a good faith, encyclopedic edit. As a result of the block the user is gone. He did not even bother to write an unblock request.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Gwen+Gale&page=User%3ANug%20&year=2009&month=December&tagfilter= On 25 July 2009 Gwen Gale blocked user Nug for an alleged outing]. After being [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive14#Martintg_.22outing.22 contacted about the block at her talk] Gwen Gale unblocked the user with the edit summary "behaviour seems to be supported." This unblocked edit summary required a one second correction block, in which administrator wrote: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Theresa%20knott%20&page=User%3ANug%20&year=2009&month=December&tagfilter= I cannot believe that Gwen Gale would put that as an unblock reason!]

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Unknown+the+Hedgehog On August 10 August 2008 Gwen Gale blocked indefinitely Unknown the Hedgehog for "calling another Wikipedian his "friend"" with the edit summary: "Spam / advertising-only account:"]. At the same time she blocked a few other users indefinitely. A [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive161#WP_seemingly_used_as_a_social_network thread was started about these blocks]. Admin Oren0 wrote:"I'm greatly concerned about the block of Unknown the Hedgehog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) specifically. He has ~150 mainspace edits which, while small, seem to be improvements to articles. Why does calling another Wikipedian his "friend" get him banished for life? Is there really consensus that this user should be banned?Oren0 (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)" Oren0 also [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive6#Block_of_User:Unknown_the_Hedgehog_for_WP:MYSPACE started a thread at Gwen's talk]. Gwen did unblock the editor herself.

*User Ludwigs2 was blocked on July 2, 2008. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lar Administrator Lar] requested review: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive441#Block_review_of_User:Ludwigs2 "I suggest this block is excessive at best, and possibly completely unjustified. I'd suggest review by uninvolved admins. ++Lar: t/c 18:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)"]. The block was lifted.

*user:Malleus Fatuorum was blocked on June 10, 2009. The user was unblocked in an hour after [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive13#Malleus an admin and a few users complained about the block]. Over this block [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive13#Recall she was suggested "to spend some time reading WP:BLOCK and, frankly, not editing here."] After a long threads at her and Malleus Fatuorum's talk pages Gwen Gale [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum/Archives/2009/June#I_was_mistaken apologized for the block].

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BioSynergy User BioSynergy was blocked for user name by Gwen Gale on June 8, 2008. Gwen was also the one who declined the unblock request]. It is unclear, if the user ever made a new account.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive17#Unblock_request This discussion] is about the block imposed on user Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ).[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Richard_Arthur_Norton_%281958-_%29&diff=prev&oldid=364916173 was blocked] for 72 hours for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_May_24&diff=prev&oldid=364914402 this edit, in which the user corrected a punctuation typo]. Please take a look at this comment Gwen Gale made, when asked about the block: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive17#Unblock_request "He was not moving on, he was hiding the warnings, knowing he would most likely be blocked for carrying on with his disruption and hoping that a careless admin would think he was blocked for correcting a punctuation typo. This is also why he put his unblock request at the top of the page, far away from the block notice. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)"]. The user was unblocked in a few hours with edit summary "Block not covered by Wikipedia:Blocking policy".

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3ANWA.Rep User NWA.Rep] was blocked at 20:36, 21 November 2008. She removed the editor talk page access only for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANWA.Rep&action=historysubmit&diff=253259006&oldid=253258844 removing block notice] that the user could have done in accordance with the policy. Two hours later another administrator [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANWA.Rep&action=historysubmit&diff=253276995&oldid=253259979 restored the talk page access]. He wrote: "Looks like a misunderstanding of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_pages WP:USER] - have reenabled talkpage editing". At 20:10, 29 November 2008 one second correction block was added to the editor block record: "Noting the block was at least somewhat questionable, enough to have a note in the block log. See blocking admins talk page." When asked why she removed the editor talk page access Gwen responded: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=253260480 "He edit warred over the block notice. I'm willing to re-enable his talk page editing in a couple of hours but I'm going out to dinner now."]

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ASuper+Badnik User Super Badnik] was blocked indefinitely at 21:03, 9 August 2008. The block was overturned by another administrator.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3ABreathing_Dead User Breathing Dead] at 20:51, 23 July 2009 Gwen removed his talk page access. The talk page access was restored by another administrator.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Douglas_M._Smith On July7, 2010 a new user Douglas M. Smith was blocked indefinitely with the edit summary: "‎ (Personal attacks or harassment: potential libel, outing)"]. I looked over user contributions, and could not find anything that warranted an indefinite block (will appreciate if somebody looks at this block and tell me, if I am missing on something). [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Douglas_M._Smith It does not look like the user was issued any warning before the block].

*User Mbz1

On December 23, 2010 Gwen Gale responded to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mbz1&oldid=476332609#Per_your_request canvassing] and blocked the editor for a week.
She made the block to be indefinite after [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMbz1%2Fa7&action=historysubmit&diff=403914418&oldid=403912569 the editor made this post]. She removed the editor's talk page access without warning only because the editor added an indefinite blocked user template to her talk page two times. The talk page access was restored by another administrator.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AOgioh user Ogioh] was blocked indefinitely. The block was reverted in less than an hour.

*Gwen Gale removed the talk page access to the editor she blocked for this post: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RCS&diff=prev&oldid=356584362 "Harmful? My dear Gwen, you seem not to know what the case in question was all about. The irony of my edit - which I find funny - can be understood with the hindsight of how that case turned out, i. e. that the rape in question never took place and that the so-called victim was in fact a compulsive liar with a history of court convictions that has continued since. But I suppose that you are another of these self-righteous people with a mission with whom arguing is nothing but a waste of time."] When asked by another wikipedian how the editor could request to be unblocked Gwen responded [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive17#RCS "His email is still enabled"].

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

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

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

In [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive3#Re:_Edit_Warring this thread] Gwen Gale stated:"First, if you are an admin and get involved in a content dispute like this, you cannot use your admin powers to resolve it." It was said on May 16, 2008.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Gwen+Gale&page=User%3ASoutherndata&year=2009&month=December&tagfilter= The first time User Southerndata was blocked by Gwen Gale at 15:04, 28 June 2008] for alleged "vandalism" on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Noonan Fred Noonan], although the user clearly made a good faith edits. In a few places (including the block log) she said that she edited the article after the block. Gwen Gale edited this article a lot, and before the block. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_Noonan&oldid=2399161 Actually Gwen Gale wrote this article, when she still edited as Wyss], but let's see June 28,2008: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_Noonan&action=historysubmit&diff=222286333&oldid=222286201 Gwen Gale] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_Noonan&action=historysubmit&diff=222287525&oldid=222287133 was edit warring] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_Noonan&action=historysubmit&diff=222288253&oldid=222288170 with the very same editor she later blocked].[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive5#Your_Block_on_User:Southerndata After being questioned about the block while involved], she lifted the block just to re-block the user indefinitely two days later at 22:38, 30 June 2008. At that time she was even more involved with the user than when she blocked him the first time because of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bzuk&diff=prev&oldid=222544929 this post by the user].

*
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive141#User:Gwen_Gale_reported_by_User:John_J._Bulten_.28Result:_protected.29 On October 1, 2010 Gwen Gale was reported for edit warring].
:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Magog_the_Ogre Administrator Magog the Ogre Magog the Ogre] had this to say about Gwen's conduct:
{{cquote|Gwen is very very much out of line, not only with the rollback tool but threatening to block a user in a dispute: future edit warring of this type will receive a block.}}
:After Gwen Gale yet another time claimed a good faith edit to be "vandalism" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HJ_Mitchell administrator HJ Mitchell] had this to say about Gwen's conduct:
{{cquote|In this case, while it might not have been your intention to get into a dispute, you did step over the bright-line rule and, as far as I can see, none of the reverted edits were vandalism. I would suggest being more careful with rollback at the very least. Non-admins have been known to lose it for less. In this case, while it might not have been your intention to get into a dispute, you did step over the bright-line rule and, as far as I can see, none of the reverted edits were vandalism. I would suggest being more careful with rollback at the very least. Non-admins have been known to lose it for less. }}
:Gwen also received a personal message about this incident.
{{cquote|[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive18#3RR_violation_.2B_misuse_of_admin_tools '''3RR violation + misuse of admin tools'''. Please see WP:AN3#User:Gwen Gale reported by User:John J. Bulten (Result: protected). I am also rescinding the warning you gave the user you were opposed to, and replacing it with a proper warning for edit warring. Please consider this a warning: if you believe it is inappropriate and/or would like to appeal it, you may take it to WP:ANI. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)]}}

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Gwen+Gale&page=User%3AWallamoose&year=2009&month=December&tagfilter= user Wallamoose was blocked on October 18, 2008 for a week] for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHummus&diff=246116334&oldid=246061640 this edit] at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hummus Talk:Hummus]. Gwen Gale has been involved with the article for a long time. Her involvement with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hummus Hummus] was even pointed out in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Gwen_Gale_2#Oppose her RFA:"I have interacted with Gwen Gaile on only one article, hummus, but I don't think her interactions on that article are consistent with Wikipedia policy. She treats the article as though she owns it, and seems not to understand the difference between reliable sources and unsupported assertions on random Web pages and cookbooks."]. In her block rationale Gwen stated: "Following [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHummus&diff=246116334&oldid=246061640 this edit by you] after my warning, I've blocked you from editing one week for disruption, non-encyclopedic edits and trolling. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 16:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)". This one week block for editing an article '''talk page''' was wrong because Gwen Gale is heavily involved with the article and because she was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHummus&action=historysubmit&diff=246061640&oldid=246047546 edit] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHummus&action=historysubmit&diff=246120404&oldid=246116334 warring] with the editor, and because Wallamoose was not trolling. As it is seen from [http://www.haaretz.com/misc/comment-page/hummus-in-the-torah-19.44445 this reliable source] Hummus was mentioned in the Torah. Although the editor tried to explain to Gwen why he posted the statement to the article's talk page Gwen Gale escalated the block to be indefinite,and then removed the editor talk page access. Gwen also allowed Dædαlus to harass the blocked editor on his talk page.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/74.233.165.176 This IP was blocked on June 24, 2009 for ‎"personal attacks or harassment"] after Gwen Gale was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADeath_of_Neda_Agha-Soltan&action=historysubmit&diff=298378688&oldid=298378421 edit] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADeath_of_Neda_Agha-Soltan&action=historysubmit&diff=298381919&oldid=298380458 warring] with him over quite innocent post to an article talk page. Gwen Gale was heavily involved in editing this article's talk page. Then IP [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gwen_Gale&diff=prev&oldid=298380525 ranted at Gwen's talk page]. Of course IP post to Gwen's talk was not very nice, but even, if this IP deserved to be blocked, it should have been blocked by an uninvolved admin.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AJayeba User Jayeba was blocked at 23:18, 26 August 2009 for "spamming] right after the user [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maureen_McCormick&diff=prev&oldid=310260822 reverted] Gwen Gale at the article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maureen_McCormick&action=historysubmit&diff=310259889&oldid=310259713 she] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maureen_McCormick&action=historysubmit&diff=310260525&oldid=310260330 was] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maureen_McCormick&action=historysubmit&diff=310261166&oldid=310260822 edit warring] with this very user she later blocked.The user was unblocked with the summary "no spamming".

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User%3AProofreader77&type=block User:Proofreader77]

**[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Gwen+Gale&page=User%3AProofreader77&year=2009&month=December&tagfilter= was blocked at 23:03, 29 December 2009 for making $1,000 donation to wikipedia.] Gwen Gale issued the block after she was asked by another administrator to leave the editor alone: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AProofreader77&action=historysubmit&diff=333349988&oldid=333285633 Gwen,you have gotten too personally involved. I urge you to leave further admin actions with respect to this editor to other administrators. '''User:DGG| DGG''' 20:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)]
**[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Gwen+Gale&page=User%3AProofreader77&year=2010&month=February&tagfilter= was blocked indefinitely at 22:16, 14 February 2010 for requesting a blocked user template]. This block was overturned by another administrator.
**[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Proofreader77&diff=prev&oldid=345321695 This edit made on 21 February 2010 is the last edit made by Proofreader77]. After this Gwen Gale removed his talk page access. She did it during [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=344569343#Proofreader77_blocks the request for arbitration] that was initiated to discuss prior unwarranted and overturned blocks of this editor the very blocks that were imposed by the very same Gwen Gale.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AScias76 On May 12, 2010 Gwen Gale blocked Scias76] for edit warring at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hummus Hummus]. Gwen Gale was involved in edit warring of this article. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hummus&action=historysubmit&diff=357403536&oldid=357400663 She] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hummus&action=historysubmit&diff=357451756&oldid=357449920 reverted] a few editors [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hummus&action=historysubmit&diff=357829370&oldid=357828550 including the one she later blocked.]

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Gwen+Gale&page=User%3ATombaker321&year=2012&month=December&tagfilter= User Tombaker321 was blocked on July 15,2010] after the user [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARoman_Polanski&action=historysubmit&diff=373514166&oldid=373498413 directly accused Gwen in "squashing the dialog by using her admin role"] and after Gwen [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tombaker321#disruption continued to engage the user at his talk page].

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iloveredhair&oldid=399168659#only_warning On November 26, 2010 user Iloveredhair was blocked] for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lesbian_sexual_practices&diff=prev&oldid=399035544 silly posts] at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lesbian_sexual_practices Talk:Lesbian sexual practices]. In a few minutes after the initial block [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AIloveredhair Gwen removed the user's talk page access], claiming "vandalism" in the edit summaries. There are two problems with the block. First of all it was not vandalism (the user made posts only to the talk and not to the article), and they could have been called "trolling", but definitely not "vandalism". Second of all Gwen Gale [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lesbian_sexual_practices&oldid=172122298 is the author of the article] which means once again she misused her tools while involved.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive20#Austrian_School Here is only one exchange] between user Misessus and Gwen Gale that took place after [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austrian_School&action=historysubmit&diff=441938928&oldid=441937995 Gwen reverted the user]. There were more exchanges at the article talk page like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Austrian_School&oldid=446927564#Sec_Break_1 for example here]. In a little bit more than a month after this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Gwen+Gale&page=User%3AMisessus%20&year=2012&month=December&tagfilter= Gwen blocked this user for edit warring on this article on September 4, 2011 ]. Gwen blocked the user just two days after another user had this to say about her: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive166#User:Misessus_reported_by_User:Dark_Charles_.28Result:_Both_restricted_to_1RR.29 "Gwen Gale is an involved admin. She has been actively supporting one side of this debate for years. She should not have been the admin to decide on this case. I would like to formally request a review of this action. LK (talk) 03:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC) "]. Gwen was involved with this article and with the user, and although it looks like the block itself was proper, it should have been imposed by an uninvolved admin.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=422603670 This comment was made by Gwen in a section of arbitration enforcement request concerning Mbz1 on April 5, 2011 ]. The problem with this comment is that it was made in the section that is clearly marked as "This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above." "Uninvolved administrator" means an administrator, who never edits content of the articles that belongs to the topic of the specific sanctions. Gwen Gale have been editing these articles for years. She was edit warring and pushing her point of view in these articles. I have never seen any other admin who made even small edits in the articles under ARBPIA commenting in the section for uninvolved administrators. Most of the times the really uninvolved administrators even will not revert either clear vandalism violations.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A208.102.209.78&action=historysubmit&diff=474506962&oldid=474505344 On February 2,2012 Gwen Gale declined unblock request of the user who complained about her in his unblock request, which makes her involved]. This unblock request should have been declined, but Gwen Gale should not have been the one to do it. This example demonstrates that Gwen Gale has difficulties in understanding what "involved" administrator means. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alison&oldid=474697911#Zhand38 And this thread explains how this all ended up]. It is sad.

===Biting newbies===
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jamiroquai&diff=prev&oldid=308136584 User Hatcrazy was blocked two times in August of 2009].
The first block was 24 hours for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lady_Victoria_Hervey&diff=prev&oldid=306484174 this edit].
The user was right [http://books.google.com/books?id=RH5JXwAACAAJ&dq=Lady+Victoria+Frederica+Isabella+Hervey&hl=en&sa=X&ei=17AtT7idLIijiQLMpsmjDA&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA "Lady Isabella Frederica Louisa Hervey (born 9 March 1982) is a British socialite, model, and actress.] The second block was for two weeks for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jamiroquai&diff=prev&oldid=308136584 this edit] in which the user changed "are an English" to "is a British". Please look at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamiroquai article] now. It has "British" not "English" . Looks like the user was right because [http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/jamiroquai-latest-act-to-sign-on-to-f1 a] [http://articles.chicagotribune.com/keyword/jamiroquai few] [http://www.romania-insider.com/british-jamiroquai-to-bring-jazz-funk-to-the-romanian-seaside-this-summer/25776/ newspapers] call them "British". The user was also [http://books.google.com/books?id=2nxLkMspauIC&pg=PA59&dq=Stella+Nina+McCartney+is+a+british+fashion+designer&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Vq8tT7eXGOigiQKr5cXDCg&ved=0CFQQuwUwAQ#v=onepage&q=Lady%20Victoria%20Hervey&f=false right] in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stella_McCartney&diff=prev&oldid=306338679 this edit],
and the user was [http://books.google.com/books?id=SWUEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA86&dq=Queen+%28band%29+%22Freddie+Mercury+%22+%22British%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QrctT4DMEtLSiAKKpIG5Ag&ved=0CEoQuwUwAQ#v=onepage&q=Queen%20%28band%29%20%22Freddie%20Mercury%20%22%20%22British%22&f=false right] in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Queen_%28band%29&diff=prev&oldid=306338771 this edit] and probably in all other edits as well.

Gwen Gale [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hatcrazy#August_2009 warned the user], but a new user could not have known what "consensus" and "sourcing" means.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ANextbook User Nextbook was blocked at 20:56, 9 November 2011] after [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pitcairn_Islands&action=historysubmit&diff=459856138&oldid=459853639 Gwen Gale] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pitcairn_Islands&action=historysubmit&diff=459856594&oldid=459856520 was] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pitcairn_Islands&action=historysubmit&diff=459858526&oldid=459857327 edit warring] with him. Gwen Gale claimed BLP. Another admin [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive20#Why.3F questioned the block, saying in particular "I don't think BLP concerns are a carte blanche for disregarding AGF like this and especially not BITE since we can't expect newcomers to understand these complex policies within their first 10 edits. I would appreciate if you would be more polite and welcoming towards new editors in the future, and not be as quick with the block-hammer, if you feel you don't have the patience for giving adequate explanations to a newcomer feel free to contact me and I'll gladly take over"], but Gwen failed to clarify her position.

:Here's an analysis of the situation with this user:
:1. A new editor [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Nextbook made a few contributions.]
:2. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANextbook&action=historysubmit&diff=459501988&oldid=458203616 He is warned he has to use sources].
:3. So in his next two edits he tries to use sources.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pitcairn_Islands&action=historysubmit&diff=459856520&oldid=459856138 In this edit he provides not just one, but three sources almost for every sentence he adds, but he does it like this "(Marks, "Lost Paradise", page 292.) "] because he is not sure what is the right way to list references. In his next and the last edit he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pitcairn_Islands&action=historysubmit&diff=459857327&oldid=459856138 inserts the external link to the article in Guardian, which of course is a reliable source].
:4. The user [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANextbook&action=historysubmit&diff=459859217&oldid=459856885 is blocked] and never returns.

===Gwen Gale using unnecessary, rude edit summaries in the block log===
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Genieactionpaul On June2, 2010 a user was blocked with the edit summary: "smells like dirty laundry to me"].
===Gwen Gale responding to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing canvassing]===
I will provide only two example. More examples could be presented by request.

1. Here Gwen Gale responds to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing#Stealth_canvassing email canvassing] by user Daedalus969.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive19#Email.2C Here is an example of one such conversation about sent email]:
*''Ping!— Dædαlus+ Contribs 11:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)''
*''Pong! Gwen Gale (talk) 12:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)''

What Daedalus969 was doing just before he pinged Gwen Gale? He [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=403686336 was commenting on the same AN/I thread] that Gwen Gale [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=403691945#user:Kuguar03 closed] just before she ponged.
So as soon as Daedalus969 said "Ping" Gwen gladly responded "Pong".

2. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FBusterD&action=historysubmit&diff=467424231&oldid=467422483 With this edit the user admitted he canvassed Gwen Gale to co-nominate him in his RfA] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FBusterD&action=historysubmit&diff=467281585&oldid=467245749 Gwen Gale responded to canvassing]. It is funny that the user made his/her admission in response to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guerillero admin Guerillero] saying [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FBusterD&action=historysubmit&diff=467417317&oldid=467417178 that Gwen Gale does not instill any trust in him/her].

==Gwen Gale makes a fool of yourself and of Wikipedia==
A few days ago professor Timothy Messer-Kruse shared his experience in editing Wikipedia. In particular he recalls part of his exchange with Gwen Gale:[http://chronicle.com/article/The-Undue-Weight-of-Truth-on/130704/ "Explain to me, then, how a 'minority' source with facts on its side would ever appear against a wrong 'majority' one?" I asked the Wiki-gatekeeper. He responded, "You're more than welcome to discuss reliable sources here, that's what the talk page is for. However, you might want to have a quick look at Wikipedia's civility policy."]
The complete conversation is preserved [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Haymarket_affair&oldid=477110217#.22No_Evidence.22 here]:
{{cquote|Fine. I see I will have to fight these battles one at a time. I will start with the most obvious. Here is a "majority" source, indeed the most often-cited source for information on Haymarket there is, Paul Avrich, The Haymarket Tragedy: from page 190: "Spies had heard that two men had been killed, apparently the correct number, but when he picked up the Daily News, the paper reported six deaths." So, it should be evident that this authoratitive source also agrees the proper number should be TWO. As for you claim about Wikipedia's policy, your characterization of it is absurd, especially if the "majority" source that is cited can be shown to be factually wrong. Explain to me, then, how a "minority" source with facts on its side would ever appear against a wrong "majority" one?MesserKruse (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Gwen Gale was also the one who "welcomed" the professor to Wikipedia:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMesserKruse&action=historysubmit&diff=265745449&oldid=265745388 "Did you make this edit while not logged in to this account? You may want to have a look at Wikipedia's policy on sockpuppets. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)"]

Professor Timothy Messer-Kruse who is a world famous expert on the subject was ordered to review [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CIVIL "Wikipedia's civility policy"] although he was civil, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet "Wikipedia's policy on sockpuppets"] simply because he forgot to log in.

Here's a post at Gwen's talk page concerning her involvement in the matter:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gwen_Gale&oldid=477103224 "Hello. I just want to point out that I recently read an article in the chronicle here: http://chronicle.com/article/The-Undue-Weight-of-Truth-on/130704/ and it describes what amounts to an edit war that you were engaged in. I looked at the page and discussion in question, and it seems to me that you are boorish and a bully. I would like to suggest that you tone down your air of self-righteous authority, in order to encourage a more civil atmosphere on Wikipedia. It's especially ironic that when presented with what seems to be a very civil point by (presumably) the author of the blog, you ignored the substance of his argument and instead groundlessly accused him of being uncivil himself. If you're going to wear that hat of uncontested arbitrator of *TRUTH*, it would be helpful if you at least justified your claims in detail to those who go to the trouble of trying to actually discuss the truth in a balanced fashion using reliable sources. As it stands, you arbitrarily call seemingly reliable sources "unreliable", and other sources that support your preferred narrative "reliable," and this makes you an awful bully. Please consider changing your behavior and attitudes. Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashwinr (talk • contribs) 17:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)"]

==Wikipedians about bullying==

*When a 13-years old was asked why she would continue editing Wikipedia, she responded: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Trusilver&oldid=455609402 "Because almost everyone there is a bunch of fakes who like Wikipedia because they have power over others."]

*[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Elen_of_the_Roads#Meta_coda_by_Proofreader77:_.22Wikipedia_and_the_pleasure_of_bullying.22 "Of course, Wikipedia needs its bullies — it does not pay salaries, but there is the psychic pleasures of bullying. Obviously not everyone is a bully. There are some good-hearted admins. But the patterns of the social dynamics of Wikipedia are almost designed to cultivate a collection of bullies to do the work, and provide structural support for that bullying — as ArbCom's backing the bullying of Proofreader77 gives some flavor of.]

*A former wikipedian (probably an expert in Physics) had this to say about Wikipedia:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=205803614\#The_Conclusions ...Wikipedia, on the contrary, is the enshrinement of contempt for learning, knowledge and expertise. It is, for many, a diversionary hobby to which they are prepared devote a great portion of their time, as others do to computer based video games. Unfortunately, it has led also to an inner cult, shrouded in anonymity, with structures and processes of self-regulation that are woefully inadequate. Many of these tools and procedures are reminiscent, in parody, of those of the Inquisition: secret courts, an inner "elite" arbitrarily empowered to censor and exclude all those perceived as a threat to the adopted conventions of the cult; denunciations, character assassination, excommunication. An arbitrarily concocted "rulebook" and language rife with self-referential sanctimoniousness give a superficial illusion of order and good sense, but no such thing exists in practice.It is truly a "Tyranny of the Ignorant"].

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

==External links==
*[http://wikibrutewar.blogspot.com/2009/10/brutal-wikiwarrior-of-week-gwen-gale.html Brutal wikiwarrior of the week: Gwen Gale]
*[http://allswool.blogspot.com/2008/04/tyranny-of-ignorant.html Tyranny of the Ignorant ]
*[http://gwen-gale-heidi-wyss-tinpot-auteur.blogspot.com/ Gwen Gale -Tinpot Wikipedia Tyrant/Auteur ]
*[http://wackepediaheidichronicles.blogspot.com/2008/12/gwen-gale-heidi-wyss-wackipedia-fable_09.html The Heidi Chronicles]
*[http://gwen-gale-heidi-wyss-tinpot-auteur.blogspot.com/2009/03/gwen-galeheidi-wysss-gormglaith-review.html Gwen Gale/Heidi Wyss's Gormglaith Review]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Vote/Gwen_Gale Gwen Gale failure to become an arbitrator]
[[category:Wikipedia]]
*[http://youtu.be/OWN_FhUpp1c Gwen Gale's Wikipedia moments (Tyranny of the Ignorant )]
*[http://youtu.be/nrEdYyejlj8 Ding Dong the Wicked Witch is Dead]

==Share this page==
<sharethis />

[[Category:Wikipedia]]

<br>
<div style="overflow:auto;height:1px;">
[[Keyword:=Gwen Gale]]
[[Keyword:=bullying]]
[[Keyword:=suicide]]
[[Keyword:=the Wikimedia Foundation]]
[[Keyword:=Heidi Wyss]]
[[Keyword:=Gormglaith]]
[[Keyword:=Wikipedia]]
</div>
<br>

The case against Gwen Gale

2012-03-03T00:06:55Z

Kolobok:

[[File:Gwen Gale aka the Witch is roaming around wikipedia .jpg|thumb|300px|After Gwen Gale got her [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/Admin_mop.PNG administrative tool] she quickly turned the mop to a witch's broomstick. Now she uses this broomstick to fly around Wikipedia to collect heads of innocent editors while allowing trolls to troll. "The witch" was the name of one of Gwen Gale's sock accounts.]]
'''"I will kill myself tonight and it is all your fault."''' wrote 16-years old kid at the talk page of Wikipedia administrator Gwen Gale on February 3,2012.
This kid, as many other Wikipedia users has became a victim of bullying that is allowed on the site that belongs to non-profit charitable organization tax-exempt organization [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation the Wikimedia Foundation]. The scariest part is that the Wikimedia Foundation was aware about Gwen Gale bullying '''before''' the latest incident, and did nothing. The 16-years old kid sustained irreversible emotional damage and a Wikimedia Foundation bears a full responsibility for allowing this to happen. Although there is so called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Child_protection Child protection] policy on Wikipedia, but it does not protect a child from being bullying on Wikipedia. When specifically asked about protecting children from bullying on Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation's employee [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Philippe_%28WMF%29&diff=prev&oldid=3510606 refused to respond].

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

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

Below is a real request concerning Gwen Gale. This request was filed on one of Wikipedia sites, and it was deleted with no action taken. Read it and decide for yourself.

==The case against Gwen Gale==
===Some examples of unwarranted blocks and unwarranted removing of talk page access===
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Gwen+Gale&page=User%3AFunguy06&year=2009&month=December&tagfilter= On 26 April 2009 Gwen Gale blocked user Funguy06 with the edit summary "(Vandalism-only account: no meaningfully encyclopedic edits)"]. In her block message [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Funguy06#blocked she provided neither differences to support the block, nor an explanation how to request an unblock]. The user who [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&target=Funguy06 started contributing to wikipedia in 2006] was blocked over [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heidi_Montag&diff=prev&oldid=286162601 this 2009 edit] for "vandalism only". But please [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidi_Montag see the article]. Funguy06 did not vandalize the article.He made a good faith, encyclopedic edit. As a result of the block the user is gone. He did not even bother to write an unblock request.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Gwen+Gale&page=User%3ANug%20&year=2009&month=December&tagfilter= On 25 July 2009 Gwen Gale blocked user Nug for an alleged outing]. After being [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive14#Martintg_.22outing.22 contacted about the block at her talk] Gwen Gale unblocked the user with the edit summary "behaviour seems to be supported." This unblocked edit summary required a one second correction block, in which administrator wrote: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Theresa%20knott%20&page=User%3ANug%20&year=2009&month=December&tagfilter= I cannot believe that Gwen Gale would put that as an unblock reason!]

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Unknown+the+Hedgehog On August 10 August 2008 Gwen Gale blocked indefinitely Unknown the Hedgehog for "calling another Wikipedian his "friend"" with the edit summary: "Spam / advertising-only account:"]. At the same time she blocked a few other users indefinitely. A [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive161#WP_seemingly_used_as_a_social_network thread was started about these blocks]. Admin Oren0 wrote:"I'm greatly concerned about the block of Unknown the Hedgehog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) specifically. He has ~150 mainspace edits which, while small, seem to be improvements to articles. Why does calling another Wikipedian his "friend" get him banished for life? Is there really consensus that this user should be banned?Oren0 (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)" Oren0 also [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive6#Block_of_User:Unknown_the_Hedgehog_for_WP:MYSPACE started a thread at Gwen's talk]. Gwen did unblock the editor herself.

*User Ludwigs2 was blocked on July 2, 2008. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lar Administrator Lar] requested review: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive441#Block_review_of_User:Ludwigs2 "I suggest this block is excessive at best, and possibly completely unjustified. I'd suggest review by uninvolved admins. ++Lar: t/c 18:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)"]. The block was lifted.

*user:Malleus Fatuorum was blocked on June 10, 2009. The user was unblocked in an hour after [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive13#Malleus an admin and a few users complained about the block]. Over this block [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive13#Recall she was suggested "to spend some time reading WP:BLOCK and, frankly, not editing here."] After a long threads at her and Malleus Fatuorum's talk pages Gwen Gale [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum/Archives/2009/June#I_was_mistaken apologized for the block].

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BioSynergy User BioSynergy was blocked for user name by Gwen Gale on June 8, 2008. Gwen was also the one who declined the unblock request]. It is unclear, if the user ever made a new account.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive17#Unblock_request This discussion] is about the block imposed on user Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ).[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Richard_Arthur_Norton_%281958-_%29&diff=prev&oldid=364916173 was blocked] for 72 hours for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_May_24&diff=prev&oldid=364914402 this edit, in which the user corrected a punctuation typo]. Please take a look at this comment Gwen Gale made, when asked about the block: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive17#Unblock_request "He was not moving on, he was hiding the warnings, knowing he would most likely be blocked for carrying on with his disruption and hoping that a careless admin would think he was blocked for correcting a punctuation typo. This is also why he put his unblock request at the top of the page, far away from the block notice. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)"]. The user was unblocked in a few hours with edit summary "Block not covered by Wikipedia:Blocking policy".

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3ANWA.Rep User NWA.Rep] was blocked at 20:36, 21 November 2008. She removed the editor talk page access only for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANWA.Rep&action=historysubmit&diff=253259006&oldid=253258844 removing block notice] that the user could have done in accordance with the policy. Two hours later another administrator [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANWA.Rep&action=historysubmit&diff=253276995&oldid=253259979 restored the talk page access]. He wrote: "Looks like a misunderstanding of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_pages WP:USER] - have reenabled talkpage editing". At 20:10, 29 November 2008 one second correction block was added to the editor block record: "Noting the block was at least somewhat questionable, enough to have a note in the block log. See blocking admins talk page." When asked why she removed the editor talk page access Gwen responded: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=253260480 "He edit warred over the block notice. I'm willing to re-enable his talk page editing in a couple of hours but I'm going out to dinner now."]

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ASuper+Badnik User Super Badnik] was blocked indefinitely at 21:03, 9 August 2008. The block was overturned by another administrator.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3ABreathing_Dead User Breathing Dead] at 20:51, 23 July 2009 Gwen removed his talk page access. The talk page access was restored by another administrator.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Douglas_M._Smith On July7, 2010 a new user Douglas M. Smith was blocked indefinitely with the edit summary: "‎ (Personal attacks or harassment: potential libel, outing)"]. I looked over user contributions, and could not find anything that warranted an indefinite block (will appreciate if somebody looks at this block and tell me, if I am missing on something). [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Douglas_M._Smith It does not look like the user was issued any warning before the block].

*User Mbz1

On December 23, 2010 Gwen Gale responded to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mbz1#Per_your_request canvassing] and blocked the editor for a week.
She made the block to be indefinite after [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMbz1%2Fa7&action=historysubmit&diff=403914418&oldid=403912569 the editor made this post]. She removed the editor's talk page access without warning only because the editor added an indefinite blocked user template to her talk page two times. The talk page access was restored by another administrator.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AOgioh user Ogioh] was blocked indefinitely. The block was reverted in less than an hour.

*Gwen Gale removed the talk page access to the editor she blocked for this post: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RCS&diff=prev&oldid=356584362 "Harmful? My dear Gwen, you seem not to know what the case in question was all about. The irony of my edit - which I find funny - can be understood with the hindsight of how that case turned out, i. e. that the rape in question never took place and that the so-called victim was in fact a compulsive liar with a history of court convictions that has continued since. But I suppose that you are another of these self-righteous people with a mission with whom arguing is nothing but a waste of time."] When asked by another wikipedian how the editor could request to be unblocked Gwen responded [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive17#RCS "His email is still enabled"].

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

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

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

In [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive3#Re:_Edit_Warring this thread] Gwen Gale stated:"First, if you are an admin and get involved in a content dispute like this, you cannot use your admin powers to resolve it." It was said on May 16, 2008.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Gwen+Gale&page=User%3ASoutherndata&year=2009&month=December&tagfilter= The first time User Southerndata was blocked by Gwen Gale at 15:04, 28 June 2008] for alleged "vandalism" on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Noonan Fred Noonan], although the user clearly made a good faith edits. In a few places (including the block log) she said that she edited the article after the block. Gwen Gale edited this article a lot, and before the block. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_Noonan&oldid=2399161 Actually Gwen Gale wrote this article, when she still edited as Wyss], but let's see June 28,2008: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_Noonan&action=historysubmit&diff=222286333&oldid=222286201 Gwen Gale] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_Noonan&action=historysubmit&diff=222287525&oldid=222287133 was edit warring] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_Noonan&action=historysubmit&diff=222288253&oldid=222288170 with the very same editor she later blocked].[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive5#Your_Block_on_User:Southerndata After being questioned about the block while involved], she lifted the block just to re-block the user indefinitely two days later at 22:38, 30 June 2008. At that time she was even more involved with the user than when she blocked him the first time because of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bzuk&diff=prev&oldid=222544929 this post by the user].

*
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive141#User:Gwen_Gale_reported_by_User:John_J._Bulten_.28Result:_protected.29 On October 1, 2010 Gwen Gale was reported for edit warring].
:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Magog_the_Ogre Administrator Magog the Ogre Magog the Ogre] had this to say about Gwen's conduct:
{{cquote|Gwen is very very much out of line, not only with the rollback tool but threatening to block a user in a dispute: future edit warring of this type will receive a block.}}
:After Gwen Gale yet another time claimed a good faith edit to be "vandalism" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HJ_Mitchell administrator HJ Mitchell] had this to say about Gwen's conduct:
{{cquote|In this case, while it might not have been your intention to get into a dispute, you did step over the bright-line rule and, as far as I can see, none of the reverted edits were vandalism. I would suggest being more careful with rollback at the very least. Non-admins have been known to lose it for less. In this case, while it might not have been your intention to get into a dispute, you did step over the bright-line rule and, as far as I can see, none of the reverted edits were vandalism. I would suggest being more careful with rollback at the very least. Non-admins have been known to lose it for less. }}
:Gwen also received a personal message about this incident.
{{cquote|[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive18#3RR_violation_.2B_misuse_of_admin_tools '''3RR violation + misuse of admin tools'''. Please see WP:AN3#User:Gwen Gale reported by User:John J. Bulten (Result: protected). I am also rescinding the warning you gave the user you were opposed to, and replacing it with a proper warning for edit warring. Please consider this a warning: if you believe it is inappropriate and/or would like to appeal it, you may take it to WP:ANI. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)]}}

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Gwen+Gale&page=User%3AWallamoose&year=2009&month=December&tagfilter= user Wallamoose was blocked on October 18, 2008 for a week] for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHummus&diff=246116334&oldid=246061640 this edit] at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hummus Talk:Hummus]. Gwen Gale has been involved with the article for a long time. Her involvement with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hummus Hummus] was even pointed out in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Gwen_Gale_2#Oppose her RFA:"I have interacted with Gwen Gaile on only one article, hummus, but I don't think her interactions on that article are consistent with Wikipedia policy. She treats the article as though she owns it, and seems not to understand the difference between reliable sources and unsupported assertions on random Web pages and cookbooks."]. In her block rationale Gwen stated: "Following [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHummus&diff=246116334&oldid=246061640 this edit by you] after my warning, I've blocked you from editing one week for disruption, non-encyclopedic edits and trolling. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 16:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)". This one week block for editing an article '''talk page''' was wrong because Gwen Gale is heavily involved with the article and because she was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHummus&action=historysubmit&diff=246061640&oldid=246047546 edit] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHummus&action=historysubmit&diff=246120404&oldid=246116334 warring] with the editor, and because Wallamoose was not trolling. As it is seen from [http://www.haaretz.com/misc/comment-page/hummus-in-the-torah-19.44445 this reliable source] Hummus was mentioned in the Torah. Although the editor tried to explain to Gwen why he posted the statement to the article's talk page Gwen Gale escalated the block to be indefinite,and then removed the editor talk page access. Gwen also allowed Dædαlus to harass the blocked editor on his talk page.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/74.233.165.176 This IP was blocked on June 24, 2009 for ‎"personal attacks or harassment"] after Gwen Gale was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADeath_of_Neda_Agha-Soltan&action=historysubmit&diff=298378688&oldid=298378421 edit] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADeath_of_Neda_Agha-Soltan&action=historysubmit&diff=298381919&oldid=298380458 warring] with him over quite innocent post to an article talk page. Gwen Gale was heavily involved in editing this article's talk page. Then IP [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gwen_Gale&diff=prev&oldid=298380525 ranted at Gwen's talk page]. Of course IP post to Gwen's talk was not very nice, but even, if this IP deserved to be blocked, it should have been blocked by an uninvolved admin.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AJayeba User Jayeba was blocked at 23:18, 26 August 2009 for "spamming] right after the user [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maureen_McCormick&diff=prev&oldid=310260822 reverted] Gwen Gale at the article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maureen_McCormick&action=historysubmit&diff=310259889&oldid=310259713 she] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maureen_McCormick&action=historysubmit&diff=310260525&oldid=310260330 was] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maureen_McCormick&action=historysubmit&diff=310261166&oldid=310260822 edit warring] with this very user she later blocked.The user was unblocked with the summary "no spamming".

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User%3AProofreader77&type=block User:Proofreader77]

**[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Gwen+Gale&page=User%3AProofreader77&year=2009&month=December&tagfilter= was blocked at 23:03, 29 December 2009 for making $1,000 donation to wikipedia.] Gwen Gale issued the block after she was asked by another administrator to leave the editor alone: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AProofreader77&action=historysubmit&diff=333349988&oldid=333285633 Gwen,you have gotten too personally involved. I urge you to leave further admin actions with respect to this editor to other administrators. '''User:DGG| DGG''' 20:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)]
**[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Gwen+Gale&page=User%3AProofreader77&year=2010&month=February&tagfilter= was blocked indefinitely at 22:16, 14 February 2010 for requesting a blocked user template]. This block was overturned by another administrator.
**[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Proofreader77&diff=prev&oldid=345321695 This edit made on 21 February 2010 is the last edit made by Proofreader77]. After this Gwen Gale removed his talk page access. She did it during [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=344569343#Proofreader77_blocks the request for arbitration] that was initiated to discuss prior unwarranted and overturned blocks of this editor the very blocks that were imposed by the very same Gwen Gale.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AScias76 On May 12, 2010 Gwen Gale blocked Scias76] for edit warring at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hummus Hummus]. Gwen Gale was involved in edit warring of this article. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hummus&action=historysubmit&diff=357403536&oldid=357400663 She] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hummus&action=historysubmit&diff=357451756&oldid=357449920 reverted] a few editors [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hummus&action=historysubmit&diff=357829370&oldid=357828550 including the one she later blocked.]

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Gwen+Gale&page=User%3ATombaker321&year=2012&month=December&tagfilter= User Tombaker321 was blocked on July 15,2010] after the user [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARoman_Polanski&action=historysubmit&diff=373514166&oldid=373498413 directly accused Gwen in "squashing the dialog by using her admin role"] and after Gwen [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tombaker321#disruption continued to engage the user at his talk page].

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iloveredhair&oldid=399168659#only_warning On November 26, 2010 user Iloveredhair was blocked] for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lesbian_sexual_practices&diff=prev&oldid=399035544 silly posts] at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lesbian_sexual_practices Talk:Lesbian sexual practices]. In a few minutes after the initial block [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AIloveredhair Gwen removed the user's talk page access], claiming "vandalism" in the edit summaries. There are two problems with the block. First of all it was not vandalism (the user made posts only to the talk and not to the article), and they could have been called "trolling", but definitely not "vandalism". Second of all Gwen Gale [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lesbian_sexual_practices&oldid=172122298 is the author of the article] which means once again she misused her tools while involved.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive20#Austrian_School Here is only one exchange] between user Misessus and Gwen Gale that took place after [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austrian_School&action=historysubmit&diff=441938928&oldid=441937995 Gwen reverted the user]. There were more exchanges at the article talk page like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Austrian_School&oldid=446927564#Sec_Break_1 for example here]. In a little bit more than a month after this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Gwen+Gale&page=User%3AMisessus%20&year=2012&month=December&tagfilter= Gwen blocked this user for edit warring on this article on September 4, 2011 ]. Gwen blocked the user just two days after another user had this to say about her: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive166#User:Misessus_reported_by_User:Dark_Charles_.28Result:_Both_restricted_to_1RR.29 "Gwen Gale is an involved admin. She has been actively supporting one side of this debate for years. She should not have been the admin to decide on this case. I would like to formally request a review of this action. LK (talk) 03:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC) "]. Gwen was involved with this article and with the user, and although it looks like the block itself was proper, it should have been imposed by an uninvolved admin.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=422603670 This comment was made by Gwen in a section of arbitration enforcement request concerning Mbz1 on April 5, 2011 ]. The problem with this comment is that it was made in the section that is clearly marked as "This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above." "Uninvolved administrator" means an administrator, who never edits content of the articles that belongs to the topic of the specific sanctions. Gwen Gale have been editing these articles for years. She was edit warring and pushing her point of view in these articles. I have never seen any other admin who made even small edits in the articles under ARBPIA commenting in the section for uninvolved administrators. Most of the times the really uninvolved administrators even will not revert either clear vandalism violations.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A208.102.209.78&action=historysubmit&diff=474506962&oldid=474505344 On February 2,2012 Gwen Gale declined unblock request of the user who complained about her in his unblock request, which makes her involved]. This unblock request should have been declined, but Gwen Gale should not have been the one to do it. This example demonstrates that Gwen Gale has difficulties in understanding what "involved" administrator means. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alison&oldid=474697911#Zhand38 And this thread explains how this all ended up]. It is sad.

===Biting newbies===
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jamiroquai&diff=prev&oldid=308136584 User Hatcrazy was blocked two times in August of 2009].
The first block was 24 hours for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lady_Victoria_Hervey&diff=prev&oldid=306484174 this edit].
The user was right [http://books.google.com/books?id=RH5JXwAACAAJ&dq=Lady+Victoria+Frederica+Isabella+Hervey&hl=en&sa=X&ei=17AtT7idLIijiQLMpsmjDA&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA "Lady Isabella Frederica Louisa Hervey (born 9 March 1982) is a British socialite, model, and actress.] The second block was for two weeks for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jamiroquai&diff=prev&oldid=308136584 this edit] in which the user changed "are an English" to "is a British". Please look at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamiroquai article] now. It has "British" not "English" . Looks like the user was right because [http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/jamiroquai-latest-act-to-sign-on-to-f1 a] [http://articles.chicagotribune.com/keyword/jamiroquai few] [http://www.romania-insider.com/british-jamiroquai-to-bring-jazz-funk-to-the-romanian-seaside-this-summer/25776/ newspapers] call them "British". The user was also [http://books.google.com/books?id=2nxLkMspauIC&pg=PA59&dq=Stella+Nina+McCartney+is+a+british+fashion+designer&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Vq8tT7eXGOigiQKr5cXDCg&ved=0CFQQuwUwAQ#v=onepage&q=Lady%20Victoria%20Hervey&f=false right] in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stella_McCartney&diff=prev&oldid=306338679 this edit],
and the user was [http://books.google.com/books?id=SWUEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA86&dq=Queen+%28band%29+%22Freddie+Mercury+%22+%22British%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QrctT4DMEtLSiAKKpIG5Ag&ved=0CEoQuwUwAQ#v=onepage&q=Queen%20%28band%29%20%22Freddie%20Mercury%20%22%20%22British%22&f=false right] in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Queen_%28band%29&diff=prev&oldid=306338771 this edit] and probably in all other edits as well.

Gwen Gale [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hatcrazy#August_2009 warned the user], but a new user could not have known what "consensus" and "sourcing" means.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ANextbook User Nextbook was blocked at 20:56, 9 November 2011] after [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pitcairn_Islands&action=historysubmit&diff=459856138&oldid=459853639 Gwen Gale] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pitcairn_Islands&action=historysubmit&diff=459856594&oldid=459856520 was] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pitcairn_Islands&action=historysubmit&diff=459858526&oldid=459857327 edit warring] with him. Gwen Gale claimed BLP. Another admin [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive20#Why.3F questioned the block, saying in particular "I don't think BLP concerns are a carte blanche for disregarding AGF like this and especially not BITE since we can't expect newcomers to understand these complex policies within their first 10 edits. I would appreciate if you would be more polite and welcoming towards new editors in the future, and not be as quick with the block-hammer, if you feel you don't have the patience for giving adequate explanations to a newcomer feel free to contact me and I'll gladly take over"], but Gwen failed to clarify her position.

:Here's an analysis of the situation with this user:
:1. A new editor [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Nextbook made a few contributions.]
:2. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANextbook&action=historysubmit&diff=459501988&oldid=458203616 He is warned he has to use sources].
:3. So in his next two edits he tries to use sources.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pitcairn_Islands&action=historysubmit&diff=459856520&oldid=459856138 In this edit he provides not just one, but three sources almost for every sentence he adds, but he does it like this "(Marks, "Lost Paradise", page 292.) "] because he is not sure what is the right way to list references. In his next and the last edit he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pitcairn_Islands&action=historysubmit&diff=459857327&oldid=459856138 inserts the external link to the article in Guardian, which of course is a reliable source].
:4. The user [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANextbook&action=historysubmit&diff=459859217&oldid=459856885 is blocked] and never returns.

===Gwen Gale using unnecessary, rude edit summaries in the block log===
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Genieactionpaul On June2, 2010 a user was blocked with the edit summary: "smells like dirty laundry to me"].
===Gwen Gale responding to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing canvassing]===
I will provide only two example. More examples could be presented by request.

1. Here Gwen Gale responds to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing#Stealth_canvassing email canvassing] by user Daedalus969.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive19#Email.2C Here is an example of one such conversation about sent email]:
*''Ping!— Dædαlus+ Contribs 11:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)''
*''Pong! Gwen Gale (talk) 12:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)''

What Daedalus969 was doing just before he pinged Gwen Gale? He [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=403686336 was commenting on the same AN/I thread] that Gwen Gale [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=403691945#user:Kuguar03 closed] just before she ponged.
So as soon as Daedalus969 said "Ping" Gwen gladly responded "Pong".

2. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FBusterD&action=historysubmit&diff=467424231&oldid=467422483 With this edit the user admitted he canvassed Gwen Gale to co-nominate him in his RfA] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FBusterD&action=historysubmit&diff=467281585&oldid=467245749 Gwen Gale responded to canvassing]. It is funny that the user made his/her admission in response to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guerillero admin Guerillero] saying [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FBusterD&action=historysubmit&diff=467417317&oldid=467417178 that Gwen Gale does not instill any trust in him/her].

==Gwen Gale makes a fool of yourself and of Wikipedia==
A few days ago professor Timothy Messer-Kruse shared his experience in editing Wikipedia. In particular he recalls part of his exchange with Gwen Gale:[http://chronicle.com/article/The-Undue-Weight-of-Truth-on/130704/ "Explain to me, then, how a 'minority' source with facts on its side would ever appear against a wrong 'majority' one?" I asked the Wiki-gatekeeper. He responded, "You're more than welcome to discuss reliable sources here, that's what the talk page is for. However, you might want to have a quick look at Wikipedia's civility policy."]
The complete conversation is preserved [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Haymarket_affair&oldid=477110217#.22No_Evidence.22 here]:
{{cquote|Fine. I see I will have to fight these battles one at a time. I will start with the most obvious. Here is a "majority" source, indeed the most often-cited source for information on Haymarket there is, Paul Avrich, The Haymarket Tragedy: from page 190: "Spies had heard that two men had been killed, apparently the correct number, but when he picked up the Daily News, the paper reported six deaths." So, it should be evident that this authoratitive source also agrees the proper number should be TWO. As for you claim about Wikipedia's policy, your characterization of it is absurd, especially if the "majority" source that is cited can be shown to be factually wrong. Explain to me, then, how a "minority" source with facts on its side would ever appear against a wrong "majority" one?MesserKruse (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Gwen Gale was also the one who "welcomed" the professor to Wikipedia:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMesserKruse&action=historysubmit&diff=265745449&oldid=265745388 "Did you make this edit while not logged in to this account? You may want to have a look at Wikipedia's policy on sockpuppets. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)"]

Professor Timothy Messer-Kruse who is a world famous expert on the subject was ordered to review [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CIVIL "Wikipedia's civility policy"] although he was civil, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet "Wikipedia's policy on sockpuppets"] simply because he forgot to log in.

Here's a post at Gwen's talk page concerning her involvement in the matter:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gwen_Gale&oldid=477103224 "Hello. I just want to point out that I recently read an article in the chronicle here: http://chronicle.com/article/The-Undue-Weight-of-Truth-on/130704/ and it describes what amounts to an edit war that you were engaged in. I looked at the page and discussion in question, and it seems to me that you are boorish and a bully. I would like to suggest that you tone down your air of self-righteous authority, in order to encourage a more civil atmosphere on Wikipedia. It's especially ironic that when presented with what seems to be a very civil point by (presumably) the author of the blog, you ignored the substance of his argument and instead groundlessly accused him of being uncivil himself. If you're going to wear that hat of uncontested arbitrator of *TRUTH*, it would be helpful if you at least justified your claims in detail to those who go to the trouble of trying to actually discuss the truth in a balanced fashion using reliable sources. As it stands, you arbitrarily call seemingly reliable sources "unreliable", and other sources that support your preferred narrative "reliable," and this makes you an awful bully. Please consider changing your behavior and attitudes. Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashwinr (talk • contribs) 17:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)"]

==Wikipedians about bullying==

*When a 13-years old was asked why she would continue editing Wikipedia, she responded: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Trusilver&oldid=455609402 "Because almost everyone there is a bunch of fakes who like Wikipedia because they have power over others."]

*[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Elen_of_the_Roads#Meta_coda_by_Proofreader77:_.22Wikipedia_and_the_pleasure_of_bullying.22 "Of course, Wikipedia needs its bullies — it does not pay salaries, but there is the psychic pleasures of bullying. Obviously not everyone is a bully. There are some good-hearted admins. But the patterns of the social dynamics of Wikipedia are almost designed to cultivate a collection of bullies to do the work, and provide structural support for that bullying — as ArbCom's backing the bullying of Proofreader77 gives some flavor of.]

*A former wikipedian (probably an expert in Physics) had this to say about Wikipedia:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=205803614\#The_Conclusions ...Wikipedia, on the contrary, is the enshrinement of contempt for learning, knowledge and expertise. It is, for many, a diversionary hobby to which they are prepared devote a great portion of their time, as others do to computer based video games. Unfortunately, it has led also to an inner cult, shrouded in anonymity, with structures and processes of self-regulation that are woefully inadequate. Many of these tools and procedures are reminiscent, in parody, of those of the Inquisition: secret courts, an inner "elite" arbitrarily empowered to censor and exclude all those perceived as a threat to the adopted conventions of the cult; denunciations, character assassination, excommunication. An arbitrarily concocted "rulebook" and language rife with self-referential sanctimoniousness give a superficial illusion of order and good sense, but no such thing exists in practice.It is truly a "Tyranny of the Ignorant"].

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

==External links==
*[http://wikibrutewar.blogspot.com/2009/10/brutal-wikiwarrior-of-week-gwen-gale.html Brutal wikiwarrior of the week: Gwen Gale]
*[http://allswool.blogspot.com/2008/04/tyranny-of-ignorant.html Tyranny of the Ignorant ]
*[http://gwen-gale-heidi-wyss-tinpot-auteur.blogspot.com/ Gwen Gale -Tinpot Wikipedia Tyrant/Auteur ]
*[http://wackepediaheidichronicles.blogspot.com/2008/12/gwen-gale-heidi-wyss-wackipedia-fable_09.html The Heidi Chronicles]
*[http://gwen-gale-heidi-wyss-tinpot-auteur.blogspot.com/2009/03/gwen-galeheidi-wysss-gormglaith-review.html Gwen Gale/Heidi Wyss's Gormglaith Review]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Vote/Gwen_Gale Gwen Gale failure to become an arbitrator]
[[category:Wikipedia]]
*[http://youtu.be/OWN_FhUpp1c Gwen Gale's Wikipedia moments (Tyranny of the Ignorant )]
*[http://youtu.be/nrEdYyejlj8 Ding Dong the Wicked Witch is Dead]

==Share this page==
<sharethis />

[[Category:Wikipedia]]

<br>
<div style="overflow:auto;height:1px;">
[[Keyword:=Gwen Gale]]
[[Keyword:=bullying]]
[[Keyword:=suicide]]
[[Keyword:=the Wikimedia Foundation]]
[[Keyword:=Heidi Wyss]]
[[Keyword:=Gormglaith]]
[[Keyword:=Wikipedia]]
</div>
<br>

2012-02-27T03:43:00Z

Kolobok:

[[File:Gwen Gale aka the Witch is roaming around wikipedia .jpg|thumb|300px|After Gwen Gale got her [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/Admin_mop.PNG administrative tool] she quickly turned the mop to a witch's broomstick. Now she uses this broomstick to fly around Wikipedia to collect heads of innocent editors while allowing trolls to troll.]]
'''"I will kill myself tonight and it is all your fault."''' wrote 16-years old kid at the talk page of Wikipedia administrator Gwen Gale on February 3,2012.
This kid, as many other Wikipedia users has became a victim of bullying that is allowed on the site that belongs to non-profit charitable organization tax-exempt organization [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation the Wikimedia Foundation]. The scariest part is that the Wikimedia Foundation was aware about Gwen Gale bullying before the latest incident, and did nothing. The 16-years old kid sustained irreversible emotional damage and the Wikimedia Foundation bears a full responsibility for allowing this to happen. Although there is so called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Child_protection Child protection] policy on Wikipedia, but it does not protect a child from being bullying on Wikipedia.

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

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

Below is a real request concerning Gwen Gale. This request was filed on one of Wikipedia sites, and it was deleted with no action taken. Read it and decide for yourself.

==The case against Gwen Gale==
===Some examples of unwarranted blocks and unwarranted removing of talk page access===
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Gwen+Gale&page=User%3AFunguy06&year=2009&month=December&tagfilter= On 26 April 2009 Gwen Gale blocked user Funguy06 with the edit summary "(Vandalism-only account: no meaningfully encyclopedic edits)"]. In her block message [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Funguy06#blocked she provided neither differences to support the block, nor an explanation how to request an unblock]. The user who [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&target=Funguy06 started contributing to wikipedia in 2006] was blocked over [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heidi_Montag&diff=prev&oldid=286162601 this 2009 edit] for "vandalism only". But please [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidi_Montag see the article]. Funguy06 did not vandalize the article.He made a good faith, encyclopedic edit. As a result of the block the user is gone. He did not even bother to write an unblock request.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Gwen+Gale&page=User%3ANug%20&year=2009&month=December&tagfilter= On 25 July 2009 Gwen Gale blocked user Nug for an alleged outing]. After being [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive14#Martintg_.22outing.22 contacted about the block at her talk] Gwen Gale unblocked the user with the edit summary "behaviour seems to be supported." This unblocked edit summary required a one second correction block, in which administrator wrote: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Theresa%20knott%20&page=User%3ANug%20&year=2009&month=December&tagfilter= I cannot believe that Gwen Gale would put that as an unblock reason!]

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Unknown+the+Hedgehog On August 10 August 2008 Gwen Gale blocked indefinitely Unknown the Hedgehog for "calling another Wikipedian his "friend"" with the edit summary: "Spam / advertising-only account:"]. At the same time she blocked a few other users indefinitely. A [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive161#WP_seemingly_used_as_a_social_network thread was started about these blocks]. Admin Oren0 wrote:"I'm greatly concerned about the block of Unknown the Hedgehog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) specifically. He has ~150 mainspace edits which, while small, seem to be improvements to articles. Why does calling another Wikipedian his "friend" get him banished for life? Is there really consensus that this user should be banned?Oren0 (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)" Oren0 also [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive6#Block_of_User:Unknown_the_Hedgehog_for_WP:MYSPACE started a thread at Gwen's talk]. Gwen did unblock the editor herself.

*User Ludwigs2 was blocked on July 2, 2008. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lar Administrator Lar] requested review: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive441#Block_review_of_User:Ludwigs2 "I suggest this block is excessive at best, and possibly completely unjustified. I'd suggest review by uninvolved admins. ++Lar: t/c 18:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)"]. The block was lifted.

*user:Malleus Fatuorum was blocked on June 10, 2009. The user was unblocked in an hour after [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive13#Malleus an admin and a few users complained about the block]. Over this block [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive13#Recall she was suggested "to spend some time reading WP:BLOCK and, frankly, not editing here."] After a long threads at her and Malleus Fatuorum's talk pages Gwen Gale [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum/Archives/2009/June#I_was_mistaken apologized for the block].

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BioSynergy User BioSynergy was blocked for user name by Gwen Gale on June 8, 2008. Gwen was also the one who declined the unblock request]. It is unclear, if the user ever made a new account.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive17#Unblock_request This discussion] is about the block imposed on user Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ).[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Richard_Arthur_Norton_%281958-_%29&diff=prev&oldid=364916173 was blocked] for 72 hours for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_May_24&diff=prev&oldid=364914402 this edit, in which the user corrected a punctuation typo]. Please take a look at this comment Gwen Gale made, when asked about the block: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive17#Unblock_request "He was not moving on, he was hiding the warnings, knowing he would most likely be blocked for carrying on with his disruption and hoping that a careless admin would think he was blocked for correcting a punctuation typo. This is also why he put his unblock request at the top of the page, far away from the block notice. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)"]. The user was unblocked in a few hours with edit summary "Block not covered by Wikipedia:Blocking policy".

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3ANWA.Rep User NWA.Rep] was blocked at 20:36, 21 November 2008. She removed the editor talk page access only for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANWA.Rep&action=historysubmit&diff=253259006&oldid=253258844 removing block notice] that the user could have done in accordance with the policy. Two hours later another administrator [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANWA.Rep&action=historysubmit&diff=253276995&oldid=253259979 restored the talk page access]. He wrote: "Looks like a misunderstanding of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_pages WP:USER] - have reenabled talkpage editing". At 20:10, 29 November 2008 one second correction block was added to the editor block record: "Noting the block was at least somewhat questionable, enough to have a note in the block log. See blocking admins talk page." When asked why she removed the editor talk page access Gwen responded: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=253260480 "He edit warred over the block notice. I'm willing to re-enable his talk page editing in a couple of hours but I'm going out to dinner now."]

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ASuper+Badnik User Super Badnik] was blocked indefinitely at 21:03, 9 August 2008. The block was overturned by another administrator.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3ABreathing_Dead User Breathing Dead] at 20:51, 23 July 2009 Gwen removed his talk page access. The talk page access was restored by another administrator.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Douglas_M._Smith On July7, 2010 a new user Douglas M. Smith was blocked indefinitely with the edit summary: "‎ (Personal attacks or harassment: potential libel, outing)"]. I looked over user contributions, and could not find anything that warranted an indefinite block (will appreciate if somebody looks at this block and tell me, if I am missing on something). [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Douglas_M._Smith It does not look like the user was issued any warning before the block].

*User Mbz1

On December 23, 2010 Gwen Gale responded to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mbz1#Per_your_request canvassing] and blocked the editor for a week.
She made the block to be indefinite after [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMbz1%2Fa7&action=historysubmit&diff=403914418&oldid=403912569 the editor made this post]. She removed the editor's talk page access without warning only because the editor added an indefinite blocked user template to her talk page two times. The talk page access was restored by another administrator.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AOgioh user Ogioh] was blocked indefinitely. The block was reverted in less than an hour.

*Gwen Gale removed the talk page access to the editor she blocked for this post: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RCS&diff=prev&oldid=356584362 "Harmful? My dear Gwen, you seem not to know what the case in question was all about. The irony of my edit - which I find funny - can be understood with the hindsight of how that case turned out, i. e. that the rape in question never took place and that the so-called victim was in fact a compulsive liar with a history of court convictions that has continued since. But I suppose that you are another of these self-righteous people with a mission with whom arguing is nothing but a waste of time."] When asked by another wikipedian how the editor could request to be unblocked Gwen responded [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive17#RCS "His email is still enabled"].

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

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

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

In [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive3#Re:_Edit_Warring this thread] Gwen Gale stated:"First, if you are an admin and get involved in a content dispute like this, you cannot use your admin powers to resolve it." It was said on May 16, 2008.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Gwen+Gale&page=User%3ASoutherndata&year=2009&month=December&tagfilter= The first time User Southerndata was blocked by Gwen Gale at 15:04, 28 June 2008] for alleged "vandalism" on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Noonan Fred Noonan], although the user clearly made a good faith edits. In a few places (including the block log) she said that she edited the article after the block. Gwen Gale edited this article a lot, and before the block. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_Noonan&oldid=2399161 Actually Gwen Gale wrote this article, when she still edited as Wyss], but let's see June 28,2008: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_Noonan&action=historysubmit&diff=222286333&oldid=222286201 Gwen Gale] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_Noonan&action=historysubmit&diff=222287525&oldid=222287133 was edit warring] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_Noonan&action=historysubmit&diff=222288253&oldid=222288170 with the very same editor she later blocked].[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive5#Your_Block_on_User:Southerndata After being questioned about the block while involved], she lifted the block just to re-block the user indefinitely two days later at 22:38, 30 June 2008. At that time she was even more involved with the user than when she blocked him the first time because of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bzuk&diff=prev&oldid=222544929 this post by the user].

*
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive141#User:Gwen_Gale_reported_by_User:John_J._Bulten_.28Result:_protected.29 On October 1, 2010 Gwen Gale was reported for edit warring].
:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Magog_the_Ogre Administrator Magog the Ogre Magog the Ogre] had this to say about Gwen's conduct:
{{cquote|Gwen is very very much out of line, not only with the rollback tool but threatening to block a user in a dispute: future edit warring of this type will receive a block.}}
:After Gwen Gale yet another time claimed a good faith edit to be "vandalism" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HJ_Mitchell administrator HJ Mitchell] had this to say about Gwen's conduct:
{{cquote|In this case, while it might not have been your intention to get into a dispute, you did step over the bright-line rule and, as far as I can see, none of the reverted edits were vandalism. I would suggest being more careful with rollback at the very least. Non-admins have been known to lose it for less. In this case, while it might not have been your intention to get into a dispute, you did step over the bright-line rule and, as far as I can see, none of the reverted edits were vandalism. I would suggest being more careful with rollback at the very least. Non-admins have been known to lose it for less. }}
:Gwen also received a personal message about this incident.
{{cquote|[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive18#3RR_violation_.2B_misuse_of_admin_tools '''3RR violation + misuse of admin tools'''. Please see WP:AN3#User:Gwen Gale reported by User:John J. Bulten (Result: protected). I am also rescinding the warning you gave the user you were opposed to, and replacing it with a proper warning for edit warring. Please consider this a warning: if you believe it is inappropriate and/or would like to appeal it, you may take it to WP:ANI. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)]}}

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Gwen+Gale&page=User%3AWallamoose&year=2009&month=December&tagfilter= user Wallamoose was blocked on October 18, 2008 for a week] for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHummus&diff=246116334&oldid=246061640 this edit] at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hummus Talk:Hummus]. Gwen Gale has been involved with the article for a long time. Her involvement with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hummus Hummus] was even pointed out in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Gwen_Gale_2#Oppose her RFA:"I have interacted with Gwen Gaile on only one article, hummus, but I don't think her interactions on that article are consistent with Wikipedia policy. She treats the article as though she owns it, and seems not to understand the difference between reliable sources and unsupported assertions on random Web pages and cookbooks."]. In her block rationale Gwen stated: "Following [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHummus&diff=246116334&oldid=246061640 this edit by you] after my warning, I've blocked you from editing one week for disruption, non-encyclopedic edits and trolling. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 16:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)". This one week block for editing an article '''talk page''' was wrong because Gwen Gale is heavily involved with the article and because she was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHummus&action=historysubmit&diff=246061640&oldid=246047546 edit] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHummus&action=historysubmit&diff=246120404&oldid=246116334 warring] with the editor, and because Wallamoose was not trolling. As it is seen from [http://www.haaretz.com/misc/comment-page/hummus-in-the-torah-19.44445 this reliable source] Hummus was mentioned in the Torah. Although the editor tried to explain to Gwen why he posted the statement to the article's talk page Gwen Gale escalated the block to be indefinite,and then removed the editor talk page access. Gwen also allowed Dædαlus to harass the blocked editor on his talk page.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/74.233.165.176 This IP was blocked on June 24, 2009 for ‎"personal attacks or harassment"] after Gwen Gale was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADeath_of_Neda_Agha-Soltan&action=historysubmit&diff=298378688&oldid=298378421 edit] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADeath_of_Neda_Agha-Soltan&action=historysubmit&diff=298381919&oldid=298380458 warring] with him over quite innocent post to an article talk page. Gwen Gale was heavily involved in editing this article's talk page. Then IP [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gwen_Gale&diff=prev&oldid=298380525 ranted at Gwen's talk page]. Of course IP post to Gwen's talk was not very nice, but even, if this IP deserved to be blocked, it should have been blocked by an uninvolved admin.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AJayeba User Jayeba was blocked at 23:18, 26 August 2009 for "spamming] right after the user [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maureen_McCormick&diff=prev&oldid=310260822 reverted] Gwen Gale at the article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maureen_McCormick&action=historysubmit&diff=310259889&oldid=310259713 she] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maureen_McCormick&action=historysubmit&diff=310260525&oldid=310260330 was] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maureen_McCormick&action=historysubmit&diff=310261166&oldid=310260822 edit warring] with this very user she later blocked.The user was unblocked with the summary "no spamming".

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User%3AProofreader77&type=block User:Proofreader77]

**[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Gwen+Gale&page=User%3AProofreader77&year=2009&month=December&tagfilter= was blocked at 23:03, 29 December 2009 for making $1,000 donation to wikipedia.] Gwen Gale issued the block after she was asked by another administrator to leave the editor alone: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AProofreader77&action=historysubmit&diff=333349988&oldid=333285633 Gwen,you have gotten too personally involved. I urge you to leave further admin actions with respect to this editor to other administrators. '''User:DGG| DGG''' 20:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)]
**[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Gwen+Gale&page=User%3AProofreader77&year=2010&month=February&tagfilter= was blocked indefinitely at 22:16, 14 February 2010 for requesting a blocked user template]. This block was overturned by another administrator.
**[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Proofreader77&diff=prev&oldid=345321695 This edit made on 21 February 2010 is the last edit made by Proofreader77]. After this Gwen Gale removed his talk page access. She did it during [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=344569343#Proofreader77_blocks the request for arbitration] that was initiated to discuss prior unwarranted and overturned blocks of this editor the very blocks that were imposed by the very same Gwen Gale.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AScias76 On May 12, 2010 Gwen Gale blocked Scias76] for edit warring at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hummus Hummus]. Gwen Gale was involved in edit warring of this article. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hummus&action=historysubmit&diff=357403536&oldid=357400663 She] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hummus&action=historysubmit&diff=357451756&oldid=357449920 reverted] a few editors [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hummus&action=historysubmit&diff=357829370&oldid=357828550 including the one she later blocked.]

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Gwen+Gale&page=User%3ATombaker321&year=2012&month=December&tagfilter= User Tombaker321 was blocked on July 15,2010] after the user [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARoman_Polanski&action=historysubmit&diff=373514166&oldid=373498413 directly accused Gwen in "squashing the dialog by using her admin role"] and after Gwen [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tombaker321#disruption continued to engage the user at his talk page].

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iloveredhair&oldid=399168659#only_warning On November 26, 2010 user Iloveredhair was blocked] for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lesbian_sexual_practices&diff=prev&oldid=399035544 silly posts] at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lesbian_sexual_practices Talk:Lesbian sexual practices]. In a few minutes after the initial block [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AIloveredhair Gwen removed the user's talk page access], claiming "vandalism" in the edit summaries. There are two problems with the block. First of all it was not vandalism (the user made posts only to the talk and not to the article), and they could have been called "trolling", but definitely not "vandalism". Second of all Gwen Gale [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lesbian_sexual_practices&oldid=172122298 is the author of the article] which means once again she misused her tools while involved.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive20#Austrian_School Here is only one exchange] between user Misessus and Gwen Gale that took place after [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austrian_School&action=historysubmit&diff=441938928&oldid=441937995 Gwen reverted the user]. There were more exchanges at the article talk page like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Austrian_School&oldid=446927564#Sec_Break_1 for example here]. In a little bit more than a month after this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Gwen+Gale&page=User%3AMisessus%20&year=2012&month=December&tagfilter= Gwen blocked this user for edit warring on this article on September 4, 2011 ]. Gwen blocked the user just two days after another user had this to say about her: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive166#User:Misessus_reported_by_User:Dark_Charles_.28Result:_Both_restricted_to_1RR.29 "Gwen Gale is an involved admin. She has been actively supporting one side of this debate for years. She should not have been the admin to decide on this case. I would like to formally request a review of this action. LK (talk) 03:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC) "]. Gwen was involved with this article and with the user, and although it looks like the block itself was proper, it should have been imposed by an uninvolved admin.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=422603670 This comment was made by Gwen in a section of arbitration enforcement request concerning Mbz1 on April 5, 2011 ]. The problem with this comment is that it was made in the section that is clearly marked as "This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above." "Uninvolved administrator" means an administrator, who never edits content of the articles that belongs to the topic of the specific sanctions. Gwen Gale have been editing these articles for years. She was edit warring and pushing her point of view in these articles. I have never seen any other admin who made even small edits in the articles under ARBPIA commenting in the section for uninvolved administrators. Most of the times the really uninvolved administrators even will not revert either clear vandalism violations.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A208.102.209.78&action=historysubmit&diff=474506962&oldid=474505344 On February 2,2012 Gwen Gale declined unblock request of the user who complained about her in his unblock request, which makes her involved]. This unblock request should have been declined, but Gwen Gale should not have been the one to do it. This example demonstrates that Gwen Gale has difficulties in understanding what "involved" administrator means. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alison&oldid=474697911#Zhand38 And this thread explains how this all ended up]. It is sad.

===Biting newbies===
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jamiroquai&diff=prev&oldid=308136584 User Hatcrazy was blocked two times in August of 2009].
The first block was 24 hours for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lady_Victoria_Hervey&diff=prev&oldid=306484174 this edit].
The user was right [http://books.google.com/books?id=RH5JXwAACAAJ&dq=Lady+Victoria+Frederica+Isabella+Hervey&hl=en&sa=X&ei=17AtT7idLIijiQLMpsmjDA&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA "Lady Isabella Frederica Louisa Hervey (born 9 March 1982) is a British socialite, model, and actress.] The second block was for two weeks for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jamiroquai&diff=prev&oldid=308136584 this edit] in which the user changed "are an English" to "is a British". Please look at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamiroquai article] now. It has "British" not "English" . Looks like the user was right because [http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/jamiroquai-latest-act-to-sign-on-to-f1 a] [http://articles.chicagotribune.com/keyword/jamiroquai few] [http://www.romania-insider.com/british-jamiroquai-to-bring-jazz-funk-to-the-romanian-seaside-this-summer/25776/ newspapers] call them "British". The user was also [http://books.google.com/books?id=2nxLkMspauIC&pg=PA59&dq=Stella+Nina+McCartney+is+a+british+fashion+designer&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Vq8tT7eXGOigiQKr5cXDCg&ved=0CFQQuwUwAQ#v=onepage&q=Lady%20Victoria%20Hervey&f=false right] in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stella_McCartney&diff=prev&oldid=306338679 this edit],
and the user was [http://books.google.com/books?id=SWUEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA86&dq=Queen+%28band%29+%22Freddie+Mercury+%22+%22British%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QrctT4DMEtLSiAKKpIG5Ag&ved=0CEoQuwUwAQ#v=onepage&q=Queen%20%28band%29%20%22Freddie%20Mercury%20%22%20%22British%22&f=false right] in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Queen_%28band%29&diff=prev&oldid=306338771 this edit] and probably in all other edits as well.

Gwen Gale [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hatcrazy#August_2009 warned the user], but a new user could not have known what "consensus" and "sourcing" means.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ANextbook User Nextbook was blocked at 20:56, 9 November 2011] after [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pitcairn_Islands&action=historysubmit&diff=459856138&oldid=459853639 Gwen Gale] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pitcairn_Islands&action=historysubmit&diff=459856594&oldid=459856520 was] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pitcairn_Islands&action=historysubmit&diff=459858526&oldid=459857327 edit warring] with him. Gwen Gale claimed BLP. Another admin [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive20#Why.3F questioned the block, saying in particular "I don't think BLP concerns are a carte blanche for disregarding AGF like this and especially not BITE since we can't expect newcomers to understand these complex policies within their first 10 edits. I would appreciate if you would be more polite and welcoming towards new editors in the future, and not be as quick with the block-hammer, if you feel you don't have the patience for giving adequate explanations to a newcomer feel free to contact me and I'll gladly take over"], but Gwen failed to clarify her position.

:Here's an analysis of the situation with this user:
:1. A new editor [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Nextbook made a few contributions.]
:2. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANextbook&action=historysubmit&diff=459501988&oldid=458203616 He is warned he has to use sources].
:3. So in his next two edits he tries to use sources.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pitcairn_Islands&action=historysubmit&diff=459856520&oldid=459856138 In this edit he provides not just one, but three sources almost for every sentence he adds, but he does it like this "(Marks, "Lost Paradise", page 292.) "] because he is not sure what is the right way to list references. In his next and the last edit he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pitcairn_Islands&action=historysubmit&diff=459857327&oldid=459856138 inserts the external link to the article in Guardian, which of course is a reliable source].
:4. The user [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANextbook&action=historysubmit&diff=459859217&oldid=459856885 is blocked] and never returns.

===Gwen Gale using unnecessary, rude edit summaries in the block log===
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Genieactionpaul On June2, 2010 a user was blocked with the edit summary: "smells like dirty laundry to me"].
===Gwen Gale responding to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing canvassing]===
I will provide only two example. More examples could be presented by request.

1. Here Gwen Gale responds to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing#Stealth_canvassing email canvassing] by user Daedalus969.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive19#Email.2C Here is an example of one such conversation about sent email]:
*''Ping!— Dædαlus+ Contribs 11:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)''
*''Pong! Gwen Gale (talk) 12:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)''

What Daedalus969 was doing just before he pinged Gwen Gale? He [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=403686336 was commenting on the same AN/I thread] that Gwen Gale [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=403691945#user:Kuguar03 closed] just before she ponged.
So as soon as Daedalus969 said "Ping" Gwen gladly responded "Pong".

2. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FBusterD&action=historysubmit&diff=467424231&oldid=467422483 With this edit the user admitted he canvassed Gwen Gale to co-nominate him in his RfA] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FBusterD&action=historysubmit&diff=467281585&oldid=467245749 Gwen Gale responded to canvassing]. It is funny that the user made his/her admission in response to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guerillero admin Guerillero] saying [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FBusterD&action=historysubmit&diff=467417317&oldid=467417178 that Gwen Gale does not instill any trust in him/her].

==Gwen Gale makes a fool of yourself and of Wikipedia==
A few days ago professor Timothy Messer-Kruse shared his experience in editing Wikipedia. In particular he recalls part of his exchange with Gwen Gale:[http://chronicle.com/article/The-Undue-Weight-of-Truth-on/130704/ "Explain to me, then, how a 'minority' source with facts on its side would ever appear against a wrong 'majority' one?" I asked the Wiki-gatekeeper. He responded, "You're more than welcome to discuss reliable sources here, that's what the talk page is for. However, you might want to have a quick look at Wikipedia's civility policy."]
The complete conversation is preserved [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Haymarket_affair&oldid=477110217#.22No_Evidence.22 here]:
{{cquote|Fine. I see I will have to fight these battles one at a time. I will start with the most obvious. Here is a "majority" source, indeed the most often-cited source for information on Haymarket there is, Paul Avrich, The Haymarket Tragedy: from page 190: "Spies had heard that two men had been killed, apparently the correct number, but when he picked up the Daily News, the paper reported six deaths." So, it should be evident that this authoratitive source also agrees the proper number should be TWO. As for you claim about Wikipedia's policy, your characterization of it is absurd, especially if the "majority" source that is cited can be shown to be factually wrong. Explain to me, then, how a "minority" source with facts on its side would ever appear against a wrong "majority" one?MesserKruse (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Gwen Gale was also the one who "welcomed" the professor to Wikipedia:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMesserKruse&action=historysubmit&diff=265745449&oldid=265745388 "Did you make this edit while not logged in to this account? You may want to have a look at Wikipedia's policy on sockpuppets. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)"]

Professor Timothy Messer-Kruse who is a world famous expert on the subject was ordered to review [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CIVIL "Wikipedia's civility policy"] although he was civil, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet "Wikipedia's policy on sockpuppets"] simply because he forgot to log in.

Here's a post at Gwen's talk page concerning her involvement in the matter:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gwen_Gale&oldid=477103224 "Hello. I just want to point out that I recently read an article in the chronicle here: http://chronicle.com/article/The-Undue-Weight-of-Truth-on/130704/ and it describes what amounts to an edit war that you were engaged in. I looked at the page and discussion in question, and it seems to me that you are boorish and a bully. I would like to suggest that you tone down your air of self-righteous authority, in order to encourage a more civil atmosphere on Wikipedia. It's especially ironic that when presented with what seems to be a very civil point by (presumably) the author of the blog, you ignored the substance of his argument and instead groundlessly accused him of being uncivil himself. If you're going to wear that hat of uncontested arbitrator of *TRUTH*, it would be helpful if you at least justified your claims in detail to those who go to the trouble of trying to actually discuss the truth in a balanced fashion using reliable sources. As it stands, you arbitrarily call seemingly reliable sources "unreliable", and other sources that support your preferred narrative "reliable," and this makes you an awful bully. Please consider changing your behavior and attitudes. Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashwinr (talk • contribs) 17:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)"]

==Wikipedians about bullying==

*When a 13-years old was asked why she would continue editing Wikipedia, she responded: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Trusilver&oldid=455609402 "Because almost everyone there is a bunch of fakes who like Wikipedia because they have power over others."]

*[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Elen_of_the_Roads#Meta_coda_by_Proofreader77:_.22Wikipedia_and_the_pleasure_of_bullying.22 "Of course, Wikipedia needs its bullies — it does not pay salaries, but there is the psychic pleasures of bullying. Obviously not everyone is a bully. There are some good-hearted admins. But the patterns of the social dynamics of Wikipedia are almost designed to cultivate a collection of bullies to do the work, and provide structural support for that bullying — as ArbCom's backing the bullying of Proofreader77 gives some flavor of.]

*A former wikipedian (probably an expert in Physics) had this to say about Wikipedia:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=205803614\#The_Conclusions ...Wikipedia, on the contrary, is the enshrinement of contempt for learning, knowledge and expertise. It is, for many, a diversionary hobby to which they are prepared devote a great portion of their time, as others do to computer based video games. Unfortunately, it has led also to an inner cult, shrouded in anonymity, with structures and processes of self-regulation that are woefully inadequate. Many of these tools and procedures are reminiscent, in parody, of those of the Inquisition: secret courts, an inner "elite" arbitrarily empowered to censor and exclude all those perceived as a threat to the adopted conventions of the cult; denunciations, character assassination, excommunication. An arbitrarily concocted "rulebook" and language rife with self-referential sanctimoniousness give a superficial illusion of order and good sense, but no such thing exists in practice.It is truly a "Tyranny of the Ignorant"].

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

==See also==
*[http://wikibrutewar.blogspot.com/2009/10/brutal-wikiwarrior-of-week-gwen-gale.html Brutal wikiwarrior of the week: Gwen Gale]
*[http://allswool.blogspot.com/2008/04/tyranny-of-ignorant.html Tyranny of the Ignorant ]
*[http://gwen-gale-heidi-wyss-tinpot-auteur.blogspot.com/ Gwen Gale -Tinpot Wikipedia Tyrant/Auteur ]
*[http://wackepediaheidichronicles.blogspot.com/2008/12/gwen-gale-heidi-wyss-wackipedia-fable_09.html The Heidi Chronicles]
*[http://gwen-gale-heidi-wyss-tinpot-auteur.blogspot.com/2009/03/gwen-galeheidi-wysss-gormglaith-review.html Gwen Gale/Heidi Wyss's Gormglaith Review]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Vote/Gwen_Gale Gwen Gale failure to become an arbitrator]
[[category:Wikipedia]]
*[http://youtu.be/OWN_FhUpp1c Gwen Gale's Wikipedia moments (Tyranny of the Ignorant )]
*[http://youtu.be/nrEdYyejlj8 Ding Dong the Wicked Witch is Dead]
==Share this page==
<sharethis />

[[Category:Wikipedia]]

<br>
<div style="overflow:auto;height:1px;">
[[Keyword:=Gwen Gale]]
[[Keyword:=bullying]]
[[Keyword:=suicide]]
[[Keyword:=the Wikimedia Foundation]]
[[Keyword:=Heidi Wyss]]
[[Keyword:=Gormglaith]]
</div>
<br>

The case against Gwen Gale

2012-02-26T17:07:01Z

Kolobok: /* Wikipedians about bullying */

[[File:Gwen Gale aka the Witch is roaming around wikipedia .jpg|thumb|300px|After Gwen Gale got her [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/Admin_mop.PNG administrative tool] she quickly turned the mop to a witch's broomstick. Now she uses this broomstick to fly around Wikipedia to collect heads of innocent editors while allowing trolls to troll.]]
'''"I will kill myself tonight and it is all your fault."''' wrote 16-years old kid at the talk page of Wikipedia administrator Gwen Gale on February 3,2012.
This kid, as many other Wikipedia users has became a victim of bullying that is allowed on the site that belongs to non-profit charitable organization tax-exempt organization [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation the Wikimedia Foundation]. The scariest part is that the Wikimedia Foundation was aware about Gwen Gale bullying before the latest incident, and did nothing. The 16-years old kid sustained irreversible emotional damage and the Wikimedia Foundation bears a full responsibility for allowing this to happen.

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

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

Below is a real request concerning Gwen Gale. This request was filed on one of Wikipedia sites, and it was deleted with no action taken. Read it and decide for yourself.

==The case against Gwen Gale==
===Some examples of unwarranted blocks and unwarranted removing of talk page access===
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Gwen+Gale&page=User%3AFunguy06&year=2009&month=December&tagfilter= On 26 April 2009 Gwen Gale blocked user Funguy06 with the edit summary "(Vandalism-only account: no meaningfully encyclopedic edits)"]. In her block message [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Funguy06#blocked she provided neither differences to support the block, nor an explanation how to request an unblock]. The user who [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&target=Funguy06 started contributing to wikipedia in 2006] was blocked over [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heidi_Montag&diff=prev&oldid=286162601 this 2009 edit] for "vandalism only". But please [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidi_Montag see the article]. Funguy06 did not vandalize the article.He made a good faith, encyclopedic edit. As a result of the block the user is gone. He did not even bother to write an unblock request.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Gwen+Gale&page=User%3ANug%20&year=2009&month=December&tagfilter= On 25 July 2009 Gwen Gale blocked user Nug for an alleged outing]. After being [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive14#Martintg_.22outing.22 contacted about the block at her talk] Gwen Gale unblocked the user with the edit summary "behaviour seems to be supported." This unblocked edit summary required a one second correction block, in which administrator wrote: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Theresa%20knott%20&page=User%3ANug%20&year=2009&month=December&tagfilter= I cannot believe that Gwen Gale would put that as an unblock reason!]

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Unknown+the+Hedgehog On August 10 August 2008 Gwen Gale blocked indefinitely Unknown the Hedgehog for "calling another Wikipedian his "friend"" with the edit summary: "Spam / advertising-only account:"]. At the same time she blocked a few other users indefinitely. A [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive161#WP_seemingly_used_as_a_social_network thread was started about these blocks]. Admin Oren0 wrote:"I'm greatly concerned about the block of Unknown the Hedgehog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) specifically. He has ~150 mainspace edits which, while small, seem to be improvements to articles. Why does calling another Wikipedian his "friend" get him banished for life? Is there really consensus that this user should be banned?Oren0 (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)" Oren0 also [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive6#Block_of_User:Unknown_the_Hedgehog_for_WP:MYSPACE started a thread at Gwen's talk]. Gwen did unblock the editor herself.

*User Ludwigs2 was blocked on July 2, 2008. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lar Administrator Lar] requested review: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive441#Block_review_of_User:Ludwigs2 "I suggest this block is excessive at best, and possibly completely unjustified. I'd suggest review by uninvolved admins. ++Lar: t/c 18:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)"]. The block was lifted.

*user:Malleus Fatuorum was blocked on June 10, 2009. The user was unblocked in an hour after [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive13#Malleus an admin and a few users complained about the block]. Over this block [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive13#Recall she was suggested "to spend some time reading WP:BLOCK and, frankly, not editing here."] After a long threads at her and Malleus Fatuorum's talk pages Gwen Gale [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum/Archives/2009/June#I_was_mistaken apologized for the block].

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BioSynergy User BioSynergy was blocked for user name by Gwen Gale on June 8, 2008. Gwen was also the one who declined the unblock request]. It is unclear, if the user ever made a new account.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive17#Unblock_request This discussion] is about the block imposed on user Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ).[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Richard_Arthur_Norton_%281958-_%29&diff=prev&oldid=364916173 was blocked] for 72 hours for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_May_24&diff=prev&oldid=364914402 this edit, in which the user corrected a punctuation typo]. Please take a look at this comment Gwen Gale made, when asked about the block: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive17#Unblock_request "He was not moving on, he was hiding the warnings, knowing he would most likely be blocked for carrying on with his disruption and hoping that a careless admin would think he was blocked for correcting a punctuation typo. This is also why he put his unblock request at the top of the page, far away from the block notice. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)"]. The user was unblocked in a few hours with edit summary "Block not covered by Wikipedia:Blocking policy".

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3ANWA.Rep User NWA.Rep] was blocked at 20:36, 21 November 2008. She removed the editor talk page access only for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANWA.Rep&action=historysubmit&diff=253259006&oldid=253258844 removing block notice] that the user could have done in accordance with the policy. Two hours later another administrator [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANWA.Rep&action=historysubmit&diff=253276995&oldid=253259979 restored the talk page access]. He wrote: "Looks like a misunderstanding of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_pages WP:USER] - have reenabled talkpage editing". At 20:10, 29 November 2008 one second correction block was added to the editor block record: "Noting the block was at least somewhat questionable, enough to have a note in the block log. See blocking admins talk page." When asked why she removed the editor talk page access Gwen responded: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=253260480 "He edit warred over the block notice. I'm willing to re-enable his talk page editing in a couple of hours but I'm going out to dinner now."]

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ASuper+Badnik User Super Badnik] was blocked indefinitely at 21:03, 9 August 2008. The block was overturned by another administrator.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3ABreathing_Dead User Breathing Dead] at 20:51, 23 July 2009 Gwen removed his talk page access. The talk page access was restored by another administrator.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Douglas_M._Smith On July7, 2010 a new user Douglas M. Smith was blocked indefinitely with the edit summary: "‎ (Personal attacks or harassment: potential libel, outing)"]. I looked over user contributions, and could not find anything that warranted an indefinite block (will appreciate if somebody looks at this block and tell me, if I am missing on something). [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Douglas_M._Smith It does not look like the user was issued any warning before the block].

*User Mbz1

On December 23, 2010 Gwen Gale responded to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mbz1#Per_your_request canvassing] and blocked the editor for a week.
She made the block to be indefinite after [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMbz1%2Fa7&action=historysubmit&diff=403914418&oldid=403912569 the editor made this post]. She removed the editor's talk page access without warning only because the editor added an indefinite blocked user template to her talk page two times. The talk page access was restored by another administrator.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AOgioh user Ogioh] was blocked indefinitely. The block was reverted in less than an hour.

*Gwen Gale removed the talk page access to the editor she blocked for this post: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RCS&diff=prev&oldid=356584362 "Harmful? My dear Gwen, you seem not to know what the case in question was all about. The irony of my edit - which I find funny - can be understood with the hindsight of how that case turned out, i. e. that the rape in question never took place and that the so-called victim was in fact a compulsive liar with a history of court convictions that has continued since. But I suppose that you are another of these self-righteous people with a mission with whom arguing is nothing but a waste of time."] When asked by another wikipedian how the editor could request to be unblocked Gwen responded [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive17#RCS "His email is still enabled"].

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

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

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

In [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive3#Re:_Edit_Warring this thread] Gwen Gale stated:"First, if you are an admin and get involved in a content dispute like this, you cannot use your admin powers to resolve it." It was said on May 16, 2008.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Gwen+Gale&page=User%3ASoutherndata&year=2009&month=December&tagfilter= The first time User Southerndata was blocked by Gwen Gale at 15:04, 28 June 2008] for alleged "vandalism" on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Noonan Fred Noonan], although the user clearly made a good faith edits. In a few places (including the block log) she said that she edited the article after the block. Gwen Gale edited this article a lot, and before the block. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_Noonan&oldid=2399161 Actually Gwen Gale wrote this article, when she still edited as Wyss], but let's see June 28,2008: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_Noonan&action=historysubmit&diff=222286333&oldid=222286201 Gwen Gale] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_Noonan&action=historysubmit&diff=222287525&oldid=222287133 was edit warring] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_Noonan&action=historysubmit&diff=222288253&oldid=222288170 with the very same editor she later blocked].[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive5#Your_Block_on_User:Southerndata After being questioned about the block while involved], she lifted the block just to re-block the user indefinitely two days later at 22:38, 30 June 2008. At that time she was even more involved with the user than when she blocked him the first time because of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bzuk&diff=prev&oldid=222544929 this post by the user].

*
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive141#User:Gwen_Gale_reported_by_User:John_J._Bulten_.28Result:_protected.29 On October 1, 2010 Gwen Gale was reported for edit warring].
:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Magog_the_Ogre Administrator Magog the Ogre Magog the Ogre] had this to say about Gwen's conduct:
{{cquote|Gwen is very very much out of line, not only with the rollback tool but threatening to block a user in a dispute: future edit warring of this type will receive a block.}}
:After Gwen Gale yet another time claimed a good faith edit to be "vandalism" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HJ_Mitchell administrator HJ Mitchell] had this to say about Gwen's conduct:
{{cquote|In this case, while it might not have been your intention to get into a dispute, you did step over the bright-line rule and, as far as I can see, none of the reverted edits were vandalism. I would suggest being more careful with rollback at the very least. Non-admins have been known to lose it for less. In this case, while it might not have been your intention to get into a dispute, you did step over the bright-line rule and, as far as I can see, none of the reverted edits were vandalism. I would suggest being more careful with rollback at the very least. Non-admins have been known to lose it for less. }}
:Gwen also received a personal message about this incident.
{{cquote|[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive18#3RR_violation_.2B_misuse_of_admin_tools '''3RR violation + misuse of admin tools'''. Please see WP:AN3#User:Gwen Gale reported by User:John J. Bulten (Result: protected). I am also rescinding the warning you gave the user you were opposed to, and replacing it with a proper warning for edit warring. Please consider this a warning: if you believe it is inappropriate and/or would like to appeal it, you may take it to WP:ANI. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)]}}

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Gwen+Gale&page=User%3AWallamoose&year=2009&month=December&tagfilter= user Wallamoose was blocked on October 18, 2008 for a week] for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHummus&diff=246116334&oldid=246061640 this edit] at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hummus Talk:Hummus]. Gwen Gale has been involved with the article for a long time. Her involvement with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hummus Hummus] was even pointed out in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Gwen_Gale_2#Oppose her RFA:"I have interacted with Gwen Gaile on only one article, hummus, but I don't think her interactions on that article are consistent with Wikipedia policy. She treats the article as though she owns it, and seems not to understand the difference between reliable sources and unsupported assertions on random Web pages and cookbooks."]. In her block rationale Gwen stated: "Following [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHummus&diff=246116334&oldid=246061640 this edit by you] after my warning, I've blocked you from editing one week for disruption, non-encyclopedic edits and trolling. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 16:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)". This one week block for editing an article '''talk page''' was wrong because Gwen Gale is heavily involved with the article and because she was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHummus&action=historysubmit&diff=246061640&oldid=246047546 edit] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHummus&action=historysubmit&diff=246120404&oldid=246116334 warring] with the editor, and because Wallamoose was not trolling. As it is seen from [http://www.haaretz.com/misc/comment-page/hummus-in-the-torah-19.44445 this reliable source] Hummus was mentioned in the Torah. Although the editor tried to explain to Gwen why he posted the statement to the article's talk page Gwen Gale escalated the block to be indefinite,and then removed the editor talk page access. Gwen also allowed Dædαlus to harass the blocked editor on his talk page.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/74.233.165.176 This IP was blocked on June 24, 2009 for ‎"personal attacks or harassment"] after Gwen Gale was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADeath_of_Neda_Agha-Soltan&action=historysubmit&diff=298378688&oldid=298378421 edit] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADeath_of_Neda_Agha-Soltan&action=historysubmit&diff=298381919&oldid=298380458 warring] with him over quite innocent post to an article talk page. Gwen Gale was heavily involved in editing this article's talk page. Then IP [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gwen_Gale&diff=prev&oldid=298380525 ranted at Gwen's talk page]. Of course IP post to Gwen's talk was not very nice, but even, if this IP deserved to be blocked, it should have been blocked by an uninvolved admin.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AJayeba User Jayeba was blocked at 23:18, 26 August 2009 for "spamming] right after the user [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maureen_McCormick&diff=prev&oldid=310260822 reverted] Gwen Gale at the article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maureen_McCormick&action=historysubmit&diff=310259889&oldid=310259713 she] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maureen_McCormick&action=historysubmit&diff=310260525&oldid=310260330 was] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maureen_McCormick&action=historysubmit&diff=310261166&oldid=310260822 edit warring] with this very user she later blocked.The user was unblocked with the summary "no spamming".

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User%3AProofreader77&type=block User:Proofreader77]

**[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Gwen+Gale&page=User%3AProofreader77&year=2009&month=December&tagfilter= was blocked at 23:03, 29 December 2009 for making $1,000 donation to wikipedia.] Gwen Gale issued the block after she was asked by another administrator to leave the editor alone: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AProofreader77&action=historysubmit&diff=333349988&oldid=333285633 Gwen,you have gotten too personally involved. I urge you to leave further admin actions with respect to this editor to other administrators. '''User:DGG| DGG''' 20:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)]
**[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Gwen+Gale&page=User%3AProofreader77&year=2010&month=February&tagfilter= was blocked indefinitely at 22:16, 14 February 2010 for requesting a blocked user template]. This block was overturned by another administrator.
**[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Proofreader77&diff=prev&oldid=345321695 This edit made on 21 February 2010 is the last edit made by Proofreader77]. After this Gwen Gale removed his talk page access. She did it during [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=344569343#Proofreader77_blocks the request for arbitration] that was initiated to discuss prior unwarranted and overturned blocks of this editor the very blocks that were imposed by the very same Gwen Gale.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AScias76 On May 12, 2010 Gwen Gale blocked Scias76] for edit warring at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hummus Hummus]. Gwen Gale was involved in edit warring of this article. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hummus&action=historysubmit&diff=357403536&oldid=357400663 She] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hummus&action=historysubmit&diff=357451756&oldid=357449920 reverted] a few editors [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hummus&action=historysubmit&diff=357829370&oldid=357828550 including the one she later blocked.]

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Gwen+Gale&page=User%3ATombaker321&year=2012&month=December&tagfilter= User Tombaker321 was blocked on July 15,2010] after the user [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARoman_Polanski&action=historysubmit&diff=373514166&oldid=373498413 directly accused Gwen in "squashing the dialog by using her admin role"] and after Gwen [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tombaker321#disruption continued to engage the user at his talk page].

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iloveredhair&oldid=399168659#only_warning On November 26, 2010 user Iloveredhair was blocked] for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lesbian_sexual_practices&diff=prev&oldid=399035544 silly posts] at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lesbian_sexual_practices Talk:Lesbian sexual practices]. In a few minutes after the initial block [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AIloveredhair Gwen removed the user's talk page access], claiming "vandalism" in the edit summaries. There are two problems with the block. First of all it was not vandalism (the user made posts only to the talk and not to the article), and they could have been called "trolling", but definitely not "vandalism". Second of all Gwen Gale [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lesbian_sexual_practices&oldid=172122298 is the author of the article] which means once again she misused her tools while involved.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive20#Austrian_School Here is only one exchange] between user Misessus and Gwen Gale that took place after [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austrian_School&action=historysubmit&diff=441938928&oldid=441937995 Gwen reverted the user]. There were more exchanges at the article talk page like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Austrian_School&oldid=446927564#Sec_Break_1 for example here]. In a little bit more than a month after this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Gwen+Gale&page=User%3AMisessus%20&year=2012&month=December&tagfilter= Gwen blocked this user for edit warring on this article on September 4, 2011 ]. Gwen blocked the user just two days after another user had this to say about her: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive166#User:Misessus_reported_by_User:Dark_Charles_.28Result:_Both_restricted_to_1RR.29 "Gwen Gale is an involved admin. She has been actively supporting one side of this debate for years. She should not have been the admin to decide on this case. I would like to formally request a review of this action. LK (talk) 03:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC) "]. Gwen was involved with this article and with the user, and although it looks like the block itself was proper, it should have been imposed by an uninvolved admin.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=422603670 This comment was made by Gwen in a section of arbitration enforcement request concerning Mbz1 on April 5, 2011 ]. The problem with this comment is that it was made in the section that is clearly marked as "This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above." "Uninvolved administrator" means an administrator, who never edits content of the articles that belongs to the topic of the specific sanctions. Gwen Gale have been editing these articles for years. She was edit warring and pushing her point of view in these articles. I have never seen any other admin who made even small edits in the articles under ARBPIA commenting in the section for uninvolved administrators. Most of the times the really uninvolved administrators even will not revert either clear vandalism violations.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A208.102.209.78&action=historysubmit&diff=474506962&oldid=474505344 On February 2,2012 Gwen Gale declined unblock request of the user who complained about her in his unblock request, which makes her involved]. This unblock request should have been declined, but Gwen Gale should not have been the one to do it. This example demonstrates that Gwen Gale has difficulties in understanding what "involved" administrator means. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alison&oldid=474697911#Zhand38 And this thread explains how this all ended up]. It is sad.

===Biting newbies===
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jamiroquai&diff=prev&oldid=308136584 User Hatcrazy was blocked two times in August of 2009].
The first block was 24 hours for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lady_Victoria_Hervey&diff=prev&oldid=306484174 this edit].
The user was right [http://books.google.com/books?id=RH5JXwAACAAJ&dq=Lady+Victoria+Frederica+Isabella+Hervey&hl=en&sa=X&ei=17AtT7idLIijiQLMpsmjDA&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA "Lady Isabella Frederica Louisa Hervey (born 9 March 1982) is a British socialite, model, and actress.] The second block was for two weeks for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jamiroquai&diff=prev&oldid=308136584 this edit] in which the user changed "are an English" to "is a British". Please look at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamiroquai article] now. It has "British" not "English" . Looks like the user was right because [http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/jamiroquai-latest-act-to-sign-on-to-f1 a] [http://articles.chicagotribune.com/keyword/jamiroquai few] [http://www.romania-insider.com/british-jamiroquai-to-bring-jazz-funk-to-the-romanian-seaside-this-summer/25776/ newspapers] call them "British". The user was also [http://books.google.com/books?id=2nxLkMspauIC&pg=PA59&dq=Stella+Nina+McCartney+is+a+british+fashion+designer&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Vq8tT7eXGOigiQKr5cXDCg&ved=0CFQQuwUwAQ#v=onepage&q=Lady%20Victoria%20Hervey&f=false right] in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stella_McCartney&diff=prev&oldid=306338679 this edit],
and the user was [http://books.google.com/books?id=SWUEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA86&dq=Queen+%28band%29+%22Freddie+Mercury+%22+%22British%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QrctT4DMEtLSiAKKpIG5Ag&ved=0CEoQuwUwAQ#v=onepage&q=Queen%20%28band%29%20%22Freddie%20Mercury%20%22%20%22British%22&f=false right] in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Queen_%28band%29&diff=prev&oldid=306338771 this edit] and probably in all other edits as well.

Gwen Gale [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hatcrazy#August_2009 warned the user], but a new user could not have known what "consensus" and "sourcing" means.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ANextbook User Nextbook was blocked at 20:56, 9 November 2011] after [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pitcairn_Islands&action=historysubmit&diff=459856138&oldid=459853639 Gwen Gale] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pitcairn_Islands&action=historysubmit&diff=459856594&oldid=459856520 was] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pitcairn_Islands&action=historysubmit&diff=459858526&oldid=459857327 edit warring] with him. Gwen Gale claimed BLP. Another admin [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive20#Why.3F questioned the block, saying in particular "I don't think BLP concerns are a carte blanche for disregarding AGF like this and especially not BITE since we can't expect newcomers to understand these complex policies within their first 10 edits. I would appreciate if you would be more polite and welcoming towards new editors in the future, and not be as quick with the block-hammer, if you feel you don't have the patience for giving adequate explanations to a newcomer feel free to contact me and I'll gladly take over"], but Gwen failed to clarify her position.

:Here's an analysis of the situation with this user:
:1. A new editor [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Nextbook made a few contributions.]
:2. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANextbook&action=historysubmit&diff=459501988&oldid=458203616 He is warned he has to use sources].
:3. So in his next two edits he tries to use sources.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pitcairn_Islands&action=historysubmit&diff=459856520&oldid=459856138 In this edit he provides not just one, but three sources almost for every sentence he adds, but he does it like this "(Marks, "Lost Paradise", page 292.) "] because he is not sure what is the right way to list references. In his next and the last edit he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pitcairn_Islands&action=historysubmit&diff=459857327&oldid=459856138 inserts the external link to the article in Guardian, which of course is a reliable source].
:4. The user [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANextbook&action=historysubmit&diff=459859217&oldid=459856885 is blocked] and never returns.

===Gwen Gale using unnecessary, rude edit summaries in the block log===
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Genieactionpaul On June2, 2010 a user was blocked with the edit summary: "smells like dirty laundry to me"].
===Gwen Gale responding to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing canvassing]===
I will provide only two example. More examples could be presented by request.

1. Here Gwen Gale responds to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing#Stealth_canvassing email canvassing] by user Daedalus969.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive19#Email.2C Here is an example of one such conversation about sent email]:
*''Ping!— Dædαlus+ Contribs 11:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)''
*''Pong! Gwen Gale (talk) 12:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)''

What Daedalus969 was doing just before he pinged Gwen Gale? He [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=403686336 was commenting on the same AN/I thread] that Gwen Gale [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=403691945#user:Kuguar03 closed] just before she ponged.
So as soon as Daedalus969 said "Ping" Gwen gladly responded "Pong".

2. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FBusterD&action=historysubmit&diff=467424231&oldid=467422483 With this edit the user admitted he canvassed Gwen Gale to co-nominate him in his RfA] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FBusterD&action=historysubmit&diff=467281585&oldid=467245749 Gwen Gale responded to canvassing]. It is funny that the user made his/her admission in response to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guerillero admin Guerillero] saying [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FBusterD&action=historysubmit&diff=467417317&oldid=467417178 that Gwen Gale does not instill any trust in him/her].

==Gwen Gale makes a fool of yourself and of Wikipedia==
A few days ago professor Timothy Messer-Kruse shared his experience in editing Wikipedia. In particular he recalls part of his exchange with Gwen Gale:[http://chronicle.com/article/The-Undue-Weight-of-Truth-on/130704/ "Explain to me, then, how a 'minority' source with facts on its side would ever appear against a wrong 'majority' one?" I asked the Wiki-gatekeeper. He responded, "You're more than welcome to discuss reliable sources here, that's what the talk page is for. However, you might want to have a quick look at Wikipedia's civility policy."]
The complete conversation is preserved [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Haymarket_affair&oldid=477110217#.22No_Evidence.22 here]:
{{cquote|Fine. I see I will have to fight these battles one at a time. I will start with the most obvious. Here is a "majority" source, indeed the most often-cited source for information on Haymarket there is, Paul Avrich, The Haymarket Tragedy: from page 190: "Spies had heard that two men had been killed, apparently the correct number, but when he picked up the Daily News, the paper reported six deaths." So, it should be evident that this authoratitive source also agrees the proper number should be TWO. As for you claim about Wikipedia's policy, your characterization of it is absurd, especially if the "majority" source that is cited can be shown to be factually wrong. Explain to me, then, how a "minority" source with facts on its side would ever appear against a wrong "majority" one?MesserKruse (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Gwen Gale was also the one who "welcomed" the professor to Wikipedia:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMesserKruse&action=historysubmit&diff=265745449&oldid=265745388 "Did you make this edit while not logged in to this account? You may want to have a look at Wikipedia's policy on sockpuppets. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)"]

Professor Timothy Messer-Kruse who is a world famous expert on the subject was ordered to review [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CIVIL "Wikipedia's civility policy"] although he was civil, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet "Wikipedia's policy on sockpuppets"] simply because he forgot to log in.

Here's a post at Gwen's talk page concerning her involvement in the matter:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gwen_Gale&oldid=477103224 "Hello. I just want to point out that I recently read an article in the chronicle here: http://chronicle.com/article/The-Undue-Weight-of-Truth-on/130704/ and it describes what amounts to an edit war that you were engaged in. I looked at the page and discussion in question, and it seems to me that you are boorish and a bully. I would like to suggest that you tone down your air of self-righteous authority, in order to encourage a more civil atmosphere on Wikipedia. It's especially ironic that when presented with what seems to be a very civil point by (presumably) the author of the blog, you ignored the substance of his argument and instead groundlessly accused him of being uncivil himself. If you're going to wear that hat of uncontested arbitrator of *TRUTH*, it would be helpful if you at least justified your claims in detail to those who go to the trouble of trying to actually discuss the truth in a balanced fashion using reliable sources. As it stands, you arbitrarily call seemingly reliable sources "unreliable", and other sources that support your preferred narrative "reliable," and this makes you an awful bully. Please consider changing your behavior and attitudes. Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashwinr (talk • contribs) 17:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)"]

==Wikipedians about bullying==

*When a 13-years old was asked why she would continue editing Wikipedia, she responded: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Trusilver&oldid=455609402 "Because almost everyone there is a bunch of fakes who like Wikipedia because they have power over others."]

*[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Elen_of_the_Roads#Meta_coda_by_Proofreader77:_.22Wikipedia_and_the_pleasure_of_bullying.22 "Of course, Wikipedia needs its bullies — it does not pay salaries, but there is the psychic pleasures of bullying. Obviously not everyone is a bully. There are some good-hearted admins. But the patterns of the social dynamics of Wikipedia are almost designed to cultivate a collection of bullies to do the work, and provide structural support for that bullying — as ArbCom's backing the bullying of Proofreader77 gives some flavor of.]

*A former wikipedian (probably an expert in Physics) had this to say about Wikipedia:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=205803614\#The_Conclusions ...Wikipedia, on the contrary, is the enshrinement of contempt for learning, knowledge and expertise. It is, for many, a diversionary hobby to which they are prepared devote a great portion of their time, as others do to computer based video games. Unfortunately, it has led also to an inner cult, shrouded in anonymity, with structures and processes of self-regulation that are woefully inadequate. Many of these tools and procedures are reminiscent, in parody, of those of the Inquisition: secret courts, an inner "elite" arbitrarily empowered to censor and exclude all those perceived as a threat to the adopted conventions of the cult; denunciations, character assassination, excommunication. An arbitrarily concocted "rulebook" and language rife with self-referential sanctimoniousness give a superficial illusion of order and good sense, but no such thing exists in practice.It is truly a "Tyranny of the Ignorant"].

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

==See also==
*[http://wikibrutewar.blogspot.com/2009/10/brutal-wikiwarrior-of-week-gwen-gale.html Brutal wikiwarrior of the week: Gwen Gale]
*[http://allswool.blogspot.com/2008/04/tyranny-of-ignorant.html Tyranny of the Ignorant ]
*[http://gwen-gale-heidi-wyss-tinpot-auteur.blogspot.com/ Gwen Gale -Tinpot Wikipedia Tyrant/Auteur ]
*[http://wackepediaheidichronicles.blogspot.com/2008/12/gwen-gale-heidi-wyss-wackipedia-fable_09.html The Heidi Chronicles]
*[http://gwen-gale-heidi-wyss-tinpot-auteur.blogspot.com/2009/03/gwen-galeheidi-wysss-gormglaith-review.html Gwen Gale/Heidi Wyss's Gormglaith Review]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Vote/Gwen_Gale Gwen Gale failure to become an arbitrator]
[[category:Wikipedia]]
*[http://youtu.be/OWN_FhUpp1c Gwen Gale's Wikipedia moments (Tyranny of the Ignorant )]
*[http://youtu.be/nrEdYyejlj8 Ding Dong the Wicked Witch is Dead]
==Share this page==
<sharethis />

[[Category:Wikipedia]]

<br>
<div style="overflow:auto;height:1px;">
[[Keyword:=Gwen Gale]]
[[Keyword:=bullying]]
[[Keyword:=suicide]]
[[Keyword:=the Wikimedia Foundation]]
[[Keyword:=Heidi Wyss]]
[[Keyword:=Gormglaith]]
</div>
<br>