Difference between revisions of "The case against Gwen Gale"

MyWikiBiz, Author Your Legacy — Tuesday December 24, 2024
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 184: Line 184:
 
#[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.]
 
#[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.]
  
 +
'''
 +
“We're not going to take it” (with respects to Pete Townshend)'''
 +
 +
I have made it to the mountaintop, met the messiah, and missed the morals there. Jimmy has been aware of the “Gwen Gale issue” for years, yet he continues to turn a blind eye to the problems. For instance, on 28 Jun 2010, she blocked three posts for being “(Potentially libelous/defamatory)”. If you were allowed to see the posts, they would be “(Potentially libelous/defamatory)” only to Gwen Gale. Yet she is allowed to block posts about herself. In the REAL WORLD that would be a clear conflict of interest. Not at Wikipedia, apparently.
 +
 +
What I am posting is long, a link should have done it. But anyone reading this knows how easy it is for Wiki Admins to delete, even completely disappear, anything they disagree with. So, read only what you want, you've seen the same stuff before, with other victims.
 +
 +
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Talk%3ADeath+of+Adolf+Hitler
 +
09:54, 28 June 2010 Gwen Gale (talk | contribs) changed visibility of a revision on page Talk:Death of Adolf Hitler: content hidden and edit summary hidden (Potentially libelous/defamatory)
 +
09:53, 28 June 2010 Gwen Gale (talk | contribs) changed visibility of a revision on page Talk:Death of Adolf Hitler: content hidden and edit summary hidden (Potentially libelous/defamatory)
 +
09:53, 28 June 2010 Gwen Gale (talk | contribs) changed visibility of a revision on page Talk:Death of Adolf Hitler: content hidden and edit summary hidden (Potentially libelous/defamatory)
 +
 +
The following came from: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wm5200&oldid=400169713
 +
What a Waste of Time
 +
“The Island being then hovering over a Mountain about two Miles from it, I was let down from the lowest Gallery, in the same Manner as I had been taken up.” Reference Jonathan Swift Gulliver’s Travels ISBN 195199782 Part Three Chapter Four page 171. Wm5200 (talk) 20:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 +
Off-topic screed
 +
 +
[hide]Inappropriate personal attack, based on content dispute. AN/I is not the appropriate forum. Horologium (talk) 17:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 +
 +
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
 +
 +
On 01:27, 5 August 2010 I posted a section on "Talk: Death of Adolf Hitler" titled “Random Questions” which started “I am not a scholar, I read Wiki but would not think of editing it. But I was disappointed in this article, and many points in the discussion, so I am asking some questions. Perhaps someone else will read and address them.” The section went on with several rethoritical questions, and ended with “As to sources, the last books I have read are The Murder of Adolph Hitler by Hugh Thomas (sort of shaky) and The Last Days of Hitler by Anton Joachimsthaler (English translation, I buy much of this).”
 +
Gwen Gale was apparently assigned me as an administrator, because at 09:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC) she replied with: ”As the article lead says,...This said, this talk page isn't a forum for talking about personal views or questions on a topic, it's meant for talking about sources and how to echo them in the text. I say this because the article seems to already cover, with thorough citations, most if not all of what you've brought up...dodgy. Gwen Gale (talk)”
 +
By this reply it appears that Gwen Gale is NOT FAMILIAR with the work of Joachimsthaler, who I have just referenced, and thinks that I am asking a personal question, not a rhetorical one. At that time I apologized, tried to explain myself, and restate my questions.
 +
 +
At 17:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC) I posted” If I had read Kershaw's Nemesis Chapter 17 note 156 and Epilogue note 1 I wouldn't have wasted your time. You can't get much clearer than that. Should be required reading. Perhaps someone else should read them, and possibly edit the article. Thank you for your time.99.41.251.5 (talk)”
 +
 +
At 16:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC) I posted “I would like to direct people to the work of Ian Kershaw Hitler, 1939-1945: Nemesis ISBN 0393322521. Chapter 17 and the epilogue relate to this article. Please pay attention to his notes and sources. Be warned, his book Hitler: a Biography is a kind of digest which does not include these resources....The source Joachimsthaler is basically an English translation of a German's analysis of 1950's post-Soviet interviews of bunker survivors. The original transcripts must be available somewhere. There are many other bunker interviews, some with questionable intent, and not all agree. Wm5200 (talk)“
 +
 +
Since those posts I have posted a huge amount on the talk page, much of which Gwen Gale has disputed. Much of the material I have posted I have later deleted, often because I felt that the endless conflict between Gwen Gale and myself is counterproductive to the article.
 +
 +
Anyone who is Wiki can probably bring back any of those posts. Was I sometimes rude and argumentative? Absolutely. Was I making legitimate points which related to the article? I thought so. Did I receive effective support and encouragement by my administrator? I think not, but you judge.
 +
 +
My main point was that Joachimsthaler had reviewed the information, and had made a solid case for positions which Kershaw backed. I repeatedly begged anyone, especially Gwen Gale, to read Joachimsthaler and Kershaw, specifically, two footnotes, I even told the pages of the footnotes. Gwen Gale clearly had not read either source.
 +
 +
18:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC) I posted, under the heading “Question for Gwen Gale” , the following: ”I lost you, but I’m confused myself. It appears as though the person with the least information available is most influential on the article.
 +
My very low budget suburb is in a system which serves 225,000 people with 4 MILLION titles (numbers approximate, thanks Carol). Kershaw, Joachimsthaler, Thomas, Trevor-Roper, Beevor, Shirer, Ryan, Toland, Eberle/Uhl, Lehmann/Carroll, O’Donnell, Victor, Petrova/Watson. (Vinogradov hit a snag, reordered). These are books which I have had in my possession and read parts of since Aug 2010. I can understand if others do not have access to the same resources, but I think that should be addressed. If someone does not have access to two footnotes which are critical in a discussion, that also should be addressed...I know that this is P.O.V., and that I am personally involved. But I can not help but believe that this article has problems with it’s process.Wm5200 (talk)'"
 +
 +
On 22:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC) Gwen Gale posted “For starters, the Russian autopsy bore overwhelming evidence he not only shot himself, but bit down on a cyanide capsule. Gwen Gale (talk)”. By this post it is clear http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wm5200&oldid=400169713to anyone familiar with either Joachimsthaler or Kershaw that Gwen Gale is still not familiar with either work. Joachimsthaler was first referenced by me at 0127 5 August 2010 and Kershaw was referenced by me at 17:48 6 August 2010, and I believe that they were both on the articles reference before that. Still, on 22:02 11 November 2010, Gwen Gale was apparently unaware of any of the content of either book, and was making posts as if they didn't exist.
 +
 +
At 02:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC) I posted, under the title “Gwen Gale’s sources”, the following: “I think the rest of us in this discussion would benefit from knowing what Gwen Gale is using as sources, which sources that are on the article and the rest of us are familiar with is she NOT familiar with, which sources she has access to, and when she last familiarized herself with the ones which she is currently using. It appears that we are talking about a person who is "informationally challenged" relative the others in this discussion. Perhaps some arrangement might be made so she has a level of knowledge that could make her be an asset. I have both Kershaw Nemisis and Fest Hitler which I will donate, if it will bring her up to speed so this article is not impeded any more.(User:Wm5200)”
 +
 +
At 04:59, 12 November 2010 Kierzek deleted my post “per Wiki talk page guidelines”. Okay, how do I address this continued refusal to read the source material? I have offered to mail Kershaw half way around the world so that Gwen Gale can read two crummy footnotes. But my offer is not only not taken up, but is apparently not in good faith, and even “snarky”. What can I do to get my administrator to read the source material?
 +
 +
I would like to bring up two Wiki terms which I do not understand. It appears that Gwen Gale and I have a different “P.O.V.” about the usage of these terms.
 +
 +
Assume Good Faith. I first thought that Gwen Gale would be a good administrator, after what I have been through, would YOU assume she is acting in good faith?
 +
 +
Original Research. I have never been to Berlin, read any original documents, or talked to any eyewitness. The ONLY information I have about the subject is what I have read in published works. How is it that Gwen Gale finds so much of my work “O.R.”?
 +
 +
Am I the only person who has had problems with Gwen Gale? Not if you read her contribs, and certainly not if you Google her name.
 +
 +
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY SUGGESTIONS HOW TO GET GWEN GALE TO READ ABOUT THE SUBJECT?Wm5200 (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 +
 +
Besides being massively WP:TLDNR, this is clearly a content dispute/discussion about the reliability of the source, disguised as a concern about an administrator. None of which belong here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 +
 +
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 +
 +
I do not understand. The conflict is not about the content, it is about her not reading it to start with. Where should I go when the administrator responsible for the article will not inform herself about the article. Several other persons in the conversation are familiar with the content, shouldn't the administrator know the subject she is administering? Have you read the discussion, and realize how the subject is being manipulated to reflect only Gwen Gale's postition?Wm5200 (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 +
 +
Gwen Gale does not appear to be using admin powers to maintain that position, thus it is not a question of Gwen's admin capability and doesn't belong here. As noted, if it is a question of source reliability, that should be taken to the Reliable Sources noticeboard, if it is a question about Gwen's discussion/participation (as a regular editor) behavior, that should go to Wikiquette alerts. --MASEM (t) 17:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 +
 +
Thank you for taking time. However, I doubt that you could familiarize yourself with the subject in only four minutes. I am trying to be polite. Joach and Kershaw (along with several other noted authors referenced in discussion) cast doubt on the "Russian Autopsy" in general and Lev Bezymenski's book in specific, yet Gwen Gale will not entertain such a thought, on 11 November she still is using an almost universally discredited "Russian Autopsy" as fact. I do not see how she is qualified to administer the discussion. Anyone who will read Kershaw's two footnotes will see the problems with her position. We are not disputing Kershaw, she won't even read him!Wm5200 (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 +
 +
You are confused about how Wikipedia works, Wm5200. There is no "administrator responsible for the article". Agreement regarding content disputes is reached by consensus on the talk page of the article. The role of administrators is to enforce Wikipedia's agreed policies. David Biddulph (talk) 18:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 +
 +
David is correct, Wm5200, but he understates your apparent misunderstanding. Not only is there no "administrator responsible for the article", you have not had an administrator "assigned to you" and no such assignments exist. Furthermore, no editor can demand that another editor carry out a reading assignment before editing or engaging in discussion, thus your view on what "should be required reading" is of no particular consequence. Right now you are engaged in a content dispute and a dispute over the reliability of a source, which is not what this noticeboard is for. In addition to the other avenues of dispute resolution, one of the two of you may wish to seek assistance at WP:FTN. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 +
 +
Admin’s volunteer for article? Does this mean that she is not assigned me, also? An admin is responsible for policy only? She appears to be controling not only policy but content as well. The apparent problem is that she is not as informed as others in the discussion. Possible solution other admin’s to look in on article? The article is not terribly attractive, there are editors, not effective admin. I am also part of problem, need way out. Thank you.Wm5200 (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 +
 +
Absolutely right; that's what Steven just told you; an admin is not "assigned" to an individual editor. You say "I am also part of problem, need way out"; your way out is to accept the consensus reached by other editors, or otherwise to follow the processes defined in WP:DR. - David Biddulph (talk) 19:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 +
 +
There was a time lag between Steven and I. I do not dispute the consensus between the editors. I have the utmost respect for Kierzek and Farawayman. Their two days work was masterful, and greatly improved the article. I dispute Gwen Gale as an admin using her power to influence the editing, which is beyond her base of knowledge. She is beyond policy, and into content.
 +
This is a good exit, though. I have stated my concerns, you will do with them as you wish. This is the fairest venue I’m going to find inside Wiki.Wm5200 (talk) 20:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 +
 +
I have read that talk page and it seems to me that excellent and detailed work was done by the editors in analysing what the sources actually say. The page was entirely civil and hard working until the entry of Gwen Gale when she and the other editors seemed to rub each other up the wrong way somehow. But Wm5200 - as has been said above, you have misunderstood how wiki works in this regard. Gwen was not there as an admin - just an editor, giving her view on the talkpage as she is entitled to do as much as any other editor. Admins have no superior position or powers when it comes to writing articles. Their job as admins is to try and keep wiki clean, as it were, for content editors to create the encyclopaedia. Beyond that they are editors like everyone else. I note that all of your edits have been to the talkpage. I applaud the process of trying to work out the best summary of the many sources in a controversial area on the talkpage, but you are as entitled as anyone else is to actually edit the articles. There are no ranks here.Fainites barleyscribs 20:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 +
 +
I don't seem to be able to find the talk:death of hitler discussion prior to 20 September. Have I misplaced the archives? Thank you.Wm5200 (talk) 02:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 +
 +
Where are the "Talk: Death of Adolf Hitler" posts between 8 August and 20 September?Wm5200 (talk) 03:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 +
 +
An IP made a vandalism edit that had the effect of hiding those comments. I've reverted and it seems fine now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 +
 +
Does that seem suspicious to anyone else? That discussion directly relating to this thread was vandalized? Or do you think I am being paranoid? Thank you Ken.Wm5200 (talk) 04:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 +
 +
You people are lamer than the League of Nations. You all know what is going on, but none have the guts to oppose her. Not one of your own friends. Better block me instead. Wm5200 (talk) 05:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 +
 +
Who is "her"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 +
 +
Wait, you mean Gwen Gale is the IP who made that edit? No freakin' way. I may have disagreed with Gwen Gale on some things in the past, but there's no way that I can see her doing something like that. Your paranoia (and lack of Wiki-sense) is showing. Come back when you have a clue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 +
 +
"Wiki-sense"? Are you jolking? Still, I suppose it's more fun to live in your delusional world than my sometimes paranoid one. Who told you about clues, you certainly don't recognize them when you see them. "Not one of your own friends. Better block me instead."Wm5200 (talk) 09:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 +
 +
Do you think you can sell me on that “vandalism” being random? Are you telling me that you think that a discussion pertaining to, and not reflecting well on, Gwen Gale should suddenly disappear at the very time this thread is dealing with just that info is mere coincidence? Do I accuse Gwen Gale of specifically pressing “return”? No, I doubt that she did. But I do believe that someone did, thinking it was in her best interest. I do wonder why these numbers keep showing up around her. I do believe that she has an alliance. Perhaps George Smiley, or Intrepid, can come out of retirement. "Not one of your own friends. Better block me instead." Wm5200 (talk) 13:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 +
 +
Please read WP:BLOCK. If you want to stop editing, do so. We don't block on request. Also, please read WP:CABAL. This is not a conspiracy against you, and Gwen Gale is a long-standing member of Wikipedia with an excellent track record. Accusing her of this is rather silly. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 +
 +
Hmm? User:Beeblebrox, and probably others, do block on request. Providing it's a good-faith request. Please ignore me if I've taken this out of context, I noticed the edit summary in passing but haven't had chance to read the thread. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 +
 +
Eh. Admins can do so if they wish. But it's their baby if the person changes their mind, which gets ugly sometimes. Generally, admins won't do it because either A) the user winds up coming back, often demanding their block log be cleared; or B) the user was just baiting, so they can claim how poorly treated they were. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 +
 +
Any time anyone who is informed on this issue wants to break in, I’m waiting. Perhaps actually reading the material, especially the closed up thing on the top, may help.
 +
 +
I know some Wiki are literate. Kierzek knows everything, Farawayman may be close. Why do I seem to meet the people who will not read a book?
 +
 +
Now, for those who won’t read, let me try once more.
 +
1. Gwen Gale has dominated the article “Death of Adolf Hitler” for years.
 +
2. Gwen Gale is not informed about the “Death of Adolf Hitler”. She refuses to acknowledge the work of Sir Ian Kershaw, about who Wiki itself (no books needed) says “He is regarded by many as one of the world's leading experts on Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany and is particularly noted for his monumental biography of Hitler, which has been called "soberly objective." “. She continues to use Bezymenski, a 1968 admitted fraud, as a source over numerous other authors.
 +
3. Any time anyone will keep Gwen Gale away from “Death of Adolf Hitler”, serious scholars will fix it and get stars or whatever, Wiki will be accurate, and proud.
 +
4. Any time anyone will keep Gwen Gale away from “Death of Adolf Hitler”, I and all my posts become moot. All I have ever wanted was to get the “popular press” out of what I consider a serious subject.
 +
"Not one of your own friends. Better block me instead."Wm5200 (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 +
 +
You're not helping yourself here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 +
 +
“not helping yourself”? “not helping yourself”? Really? You don’t think so?
 +
When has this ever been about me? “I am not Wiki.” First sentence I ever posted. Do you flatter yourself by thinking I want to be? For me the “mission” has always been “the article”!
 +
When I got here the article belonged in one of Rupert Murdoch’s rags. I had read Joachimsthaler, who sounded rational, and thought he could be of some use in the article. That’s it. My whole goal in Wiki.
 +
Since being re-buffed by “my admin” (I don’t care about the assignments), I have read virtually everything about Hitler’s Death, becoming a world expert. About someone who I find distasteful, and doesn’t really interest me. And apparently to no avail. I can not get Gwen Gale to read two footnotes. Or get out of the way. That’s all I ask.
 +
Apparently I am the only person who thinks that possibly Gwen Gale might recluse herself from this one article, for the good of Wiki. It appears that the quality of the article is less important than the ego of one admin.
 +
I have said before, I don’t understand, or much care, for Wiki politics. Is this just a case of “old boy network”, where no one wants to offend a “friend”, or is there an actual “Gwen Gale maffia” who scares the rest of you?
 +
I’m still waiting for any kind of informed answer. Or are you just waiting for 24 hours to come, and archive me, out of sight, out of mind?
 +
And many of you miss the bitter irony of my now standard closing. "Not one of your own friends. Better block me instead."Wm5200 (talk) 13:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 +
 +
Closing this; it will just go on and on and is simply a content dispute. Recommend WP:RFC as an avenue for Wm5200 to explore --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 13:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 +
 +
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 +
 +
'''Cowards'''
 +
Well, I guess that's it. Do not addres any point, just close the discussion. "Not one of your own friends. Better block me instead."Wm5200 (talk) 13:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC) Wm5200 (talk) 14:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 +
 +
Talk:Jimmy Wales‎
 +
Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article. What do your comments have to do with improving the Jimmy Wales article? --Onorem♠Dil 00:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 +
I am so sorry. I thought this was "to" Jimmy Wales. Please delete it, and accept my apologies.Wm5200 (talk) 00:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 +
 +
Please Stop
 +
I'm sorry you don't feel like you've gotten justice in your problems with Gwen Gale, but other editors and admins have looked at your complaints and seen nothing actionable there. If you wish to be blocked, please just stop editing. There's no need to carry a grudge onto other pages. Dayewalker (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 +
 +
Not until you keep her away from "Death of Adolf Hitler", or at least make her read the sources."Not one of your own friends. Better block me instead"Wm5200 (talk) 00:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 +
 +
This is your final warning. Your recent interactions, in particular this, constitute harassment, which cannot be tolerated. You have been told, multiple times, that Gwen Gale has not acted as an administrator on that article, that admins are not "assigned" to articles or editors, and that if you have a content dispute, the proper places to address these could be the reliable sources noticeboard if you're disputing sources, or a content Request For Comments if you're disputing tone and coverage more specifically.
 +
 +
You are to cease and desist from any further hounding of Gwen Gale, immediately. You are further put on notice that you cannot lobby to have an editor removed from an article just because you don't like them, and asked to cease your campaign. Any continuation of your current course of action will lead to a removal of your editing privileges. MLauba (Talk) 02:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 +
 +
"Not one of your own friends. Better block me instead."Wm5200 (talk) 02:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 +
 +
Has anyone noted that this account was created three months ago, and has 400 live edits, but only 1 of those edits is to an article? That is a pretty interesting editing profile that brings to mind a word that begins with "Tr" and rhymes with "coal". But even if I open the AGF hamper and pull out a handful, it doesn't seem as if this person is here to improve the encyclopedia, does it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 +
 +
'''Am I the only one'''
 +
Am I the only one who thinks that an easy end to this conflict would be for Gwen Gale to actually read the two crummy footnotes in Kershaw? Why has that option never been on the table? Inform herself on the subject? "Not one of your own friends. Better block me instead."Wm5200 (talk) 03:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 +
 +
NO, the best way forward is for you to read policy, smarten up, and stop being disruptive. I came here to block you myself, but am not surprised that someone beat me to it (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 +
December 2010
 +
 +
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here [[User:The Pluton|The Pluton]] 15:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. MLauba (Talk) 09:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 +
 +
You were told to knock it off but couldn't stop yourself. At this stage, considering that your only input to Wikipedia save one single edit were to argue on talk pages or harass another user, your contributions are imposing more hassle on the community than they are worth.
 +
 +
As a consequence, you have been indefinitely blocked from editing. You may appeal this block, but in order to be successful, your appeal should acknowledge:
 +
That you will immediately and definitely suspend your harassment campaign against Gwen Gale
 +
That you will follow proper dispute resolution processes in issues going forward
 +
That you will comment on content not on contributors going forward
 +
That you will undertake to discuss in a constructive, civil, collegial manner
 +
That you will abstain from needlessly personalizing disputes.
 +
These are the conditions for an unblock. If you cannot subscribe to all of these, please kindly find another site to contribute to. MLauba (Talk) 09:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 +
 +
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
 +
Wm5200 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock)
 +
 +
'''Request reason:'''
 +
You people still will not read. Posting “At this stage, considering that your only input to Wikipedia save one single edit were to argue on talk pages or harass another user” clearly shows that you have not read any of my posts prior to my attack on the Agressivly Ignorant Admin Gwen Gale. I have repeatedly explained my reason for staying in the talk pages, I am surprised that ANY edit I have made was to an article. I have controlled myself, would you have preferred me to have dumped all this recent crap on an actual article? I have also posted a huge amount of good work, if you won’t read, ask Kierzek, Dr Dan, or Farawayman if any of my posts have been reasoned and useful.
 +
Gwen Gale is clearly compromising the article “Death of Adolf Hitler”, yet she stands on her right to remain ignorant. I will defend most of Gwen Gale’s rights to the bitter end, but this is not one I will tolerate. Any time she reads those two footnotes, this is over. Otherwise, my wife has a laptop, how many “hotspots” do you think there are within 100 miles of Chicago? Any one of you can read something to stop this farce, none will.
 +
Read. Library. Books. Do you have a “cute-link” to any of those? Until you do, I’ll be back. You decide.
 +
 +
'''Decline reason:'''
 +
You should read WP:NOTTHEM. Accusing other editors of being "Agressivly Ignorant" is not going to get your account unblocked. Favonian (talk) 13:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 +
 +
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you abuse this procedure by making too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page as long as you are blocked.
 +
.
 +
'''Partially in defence of WM5200'''
 +
I think this has been a rather harsh resolution! I agree that WM5200 is outspoken and at times, lacking in sensitivity or tact. The Gwen Gale issue is also not as simplistic as it appears...there may be some validity to WM5200's very poorly expressed concerns! I really think he means good! Farawayman (talk) 17:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 +
 +
Whatever happens outside of Wikipedia has exactly zero influence on the fact that harassing someone on Wikipedia is totally unacceptable. That's the short and the long of it. MLauba (Talk) 17:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 +
 +
Now you are censoring Farawayman, also? His post was longer than it is now. Old boy or mafia?Wm5200 (talk) 18:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 +
 +
His post, much like yours, was harassment and outing. That's not allowed on Wikipedia, as you have learned. Dayewalker (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 +
 +
She has posted on both Wiki and the internet as "Gwen Gale", yet she is afraid of someone else Googling her name? "Old boy or Mafia?"Wm5200 (talk) 18:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 +
 +
'''That's enough from me for now.''' Perhaps the liars will learn. Otherwise, later.
  
  

Revision as of 15:32, 18 July 2012

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

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









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


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



  • User Mbz1

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


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



Gwen Gale misusing her administrative tools when involved

The policy that clearly states:

“ In general, editors should not act as administrators in cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute. ”

This section states:

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


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


Administrator Magog the Ogre Magog the Ogre had this to say about Gwen's conduct:
“ Gwen is very very much out of line, not only with the rollback tool but threatening to block a user in a dispute: future edit warring of this type will receive a block. ”
After Gwen Gale yet another time claimed a good faith edit to be "vandalism" administrator HJ Mitchell had this to say about Gwen's conduct:
“ In this case, while it might not have been your intention to get into a dispute, you did step over the bright-line rule and, as far as I can see, none of the reverted edits were vandalism. I would suggest being more careful with rollback at the very least. Non-admins have been known to lose it for less. In this case, while it might not have been your intention to get into a dispute, you did step over the bright-line rule and, as far as I can see, none of the reverted edits were vandalism. I would suggest being more careful with rollback at the very least. Non-admins have been known to lose it for less. ”
Gwen also received a personal message about this incident.
“ 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) ”










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


Biting newbies

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

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


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

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

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

Gwen Gale responding to canvassing

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

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

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

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

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


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


Gwen Gale makes a fool of yourself and of Wikipedia

A few days ago professor Timothy Messer-Kruse shared his experience in editing Wikipedia. In particular he recalls part of his exchange with Gwen Gale:"Explain to me, then, how a 'minority' source with facts on its side would ever appear against a wrong 'majority' one?" I asked the Wiki-gatekeeper. He responded, "You're more than welcome to discuss reliable sources here, that's what the talk page is for. However, you might want to have a quick look at Wikipedia's civility policy." The complete conversation is preserved here:

“ Fine. I see I will have to fight these battles one at a time. I will start with the most obvious. Here is a "majority" source, indeed the most often-cited source for information on Haymarket there is, Paul Avrich, The Haymarket Tragedy: from page 190: "Spies had heard that two men had been killed, apparently the correct number, but when he picked up the Daily News, the paper reported six deaths." So, it should be evident that this authoratitive source also agrees the proper number should be TWO. As for you claim about Wikipedia's policy, your characterization of it is absurd, especially if the "majority" source that is cited can be shown to be factually wrong. Explain to me, then, how a "minority" source with facts on its side would ever appear against a wrong "majority" one?MesserKruse (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

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

”

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

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

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

Wikipedians about bullying



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

“We're not going to take it” (with respects to Pete Townshend)

I have made it to the mountaintop, met the messiah, and missed the morals there. Jimmy has been aware of the “Gwen Gale issue” for years, yet he continues to turn a blind eye to the problems. For instance, on 28 Jun 2010, she blocked three posts for being “(Potentially libelous/defamatory)”. If you were allowed to see the posts, they would be “(Potentially libelous/defamatory)” only to Gwen Gale. Yet she is allowed to block posts about herself. In the REAL WORLD that would be a clear conflict of interest. Not at Wikipedia, apparently.

What I am posting is long, a link should have done it. But anyone reading this knows how easy it is for Wiki Admins to delete, even completely disappear, anything they disagree with. So, read only what you want, you've seen the same stuff before, with other victims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Talk%3ADeath+of+Adolf+Hitler 09:54, 28 June 2010 Gwen Gale (talk | contribs) changed visibility of a revision on page Talk:Death of Adolf Hitler: content hidden and edit summary hidden (Potentially libelous/defamatory) 09:53, 28 June 2010 Gwen Gale (talk | contribs) changed visibility of a revision on page Talk:Death of Adolf Hitler: content hidden and edit summary hidden (Potentially libelous/defamatory) 09:53, 28 June 2010 Gwen Gale (talk | contribs) changed visibility of a revision on page Talk:Death of Adolf Hitler: content hidden and edit summary hidden (Potentially libelous/defamatory)

The following came from: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wm5200&oldid=400169713 What a Waste of Time “The Island being then hovering over a Mountain about two Miles from it, I was let down from the lowest Gallery, in the same Manner as I had been taken up.” Reference Jonathan Swift Gulliver’s Travels ISBN 195199782 Part Three Chapter Four page 171. Wm5200 (talk) 20:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC) Off-topic screed

[hide]Inappropriate personal attack, based on content dispute. AN/I is not the appropriate forum. Horologium (talk) 17:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

On 01:27, 5 August 2010 I posted a section on "Talk: Death of Adolf Hitler" titled “Random Questions” which started “I am not a scholar, I read Wiki but would not think of editing it. But I was disappointed in this article, and many points in the discussion, so I am asking some questions. Perhaps someone else will read and address them.” The section went on with several rethoritical questions, and ended with “As to sources, the last books I have read are The Murder of Adolph Hitler by Hugh Thomas (sort of shaky) and The Last Days of Hitler by Anton Joachimsthaler (English translation, I buy much of this).” Gwen Gale was apparently assigned me as an administrator, because at 09:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC) she replied with: ”As the article lead says,...This said, this talk page isn't a forum for talking about personal views or questions on a topic, it's meant for talking about sources and how to echo them in the text. I say this because the article seems to already cover, with thorough citations, most if not all of what you've brought up...dodgy. Gwen Gale (talk)” By this reply it appears that Gwen Gale is NOT FAMILIAR with the work of Joachimsthaler, who I have just referenced, and thinks that I am asking a personal question, not a rhetorical one. At that time I apologized, tried to explain myself, and restate my questions.

At 17:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC) I posted” If I had read Kershaw's Nemesis Chapter 17 note 156 and Epilogue note 1 I wouldn't have wasted your time. You can't get much clearer than that. Should be required reading. Perhaps someone else should read them, and possibly edit the article. Thank you for your time.99.41.251.5 (talk)”

At 16:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC) I posted “I would like to direct people to the work of Ian Kershaw Hitler, 1939-1945: Nemesis ISBN 0393322521. Chapter 17 and the epilogue relate to this article. Please pay attention to his notes and sources. Be warned, his book Hitler: a Biography is a kind of digest which does not include these resources....The source Joachimsthaler is basically an English translation of a German's analysis of 1950's post-Soviet interviews of bunker survivors. The original transcripts must be available somewhere. There are many other bunker interviews, some with questionable intent, and not all agree. Wm5200 (talk)“

Since those posts I have posted a huge amount on the talk page, much of which Gwen Gale has disputed. Much of the material I have posted I have later deleted, often because I felt that the endless conflict between Gwen Gale and myself is counterproductive to the article.

Anyone who is Wiki can probably bring back any of those posts. Was I sometimes rude and argumentative? Absolutely. Was I making legitimate points which related to the article? I thought so. Did I receive effective support and encouragement by my administrator? I think not, but you judge.

My main point was that Joachimsthaler had reviewed the information, and had made a solid case for positions which Kershaw backed. I repeatedly begged anyone, especially Gwen Gale, to read Joachimsthaler and Kershaw, specifically, two footnotes, I even told the pages of the footnotes. Gwen Gale clearly had not read either source.

18:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC) I posted, under the heading “Question for Gwen Gale” , the following: ”I lost you, but I’m confused myself. It appears as though the person with the least information available is most influential on the article. My very low budget suburb is in a system which serves 225,000 people with 4 MILLION titles (numbers approximate, thanks Carol). Kershaw, Joachimsthaler, Thomas, Trevor-Roper, Beevor, Shirer, Ryan, Toland, Eberle/Uhl, Lehmann/Carroll, O’Donnell, Victor, Petrova/Watson. (Vinogradov hit a snag, reordered). These are books which I have had in my possession and read parts of since Aug 2010. I can understand if others do not have access to the same resources, but I think that should be addressed. If someone does not have access to two footnotes which are critical in a discussion, that also should be addressed...I know that this is P.O.V., and that I am personally involved. But I can not help but believe that this article has problems with it’s process.Wm5200 (talk)'"

On 22:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC) Gwen Gale posted “For starters, the Russian autopsy bore overwhelming evidence he not only shot himself, but bit down on a cyanide capsule. Gwen Gale (talk)”. By this post it is clear http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wm5200&oldid=400169713to anyone familiar with either Joachimsthaler or Kershaw that Gwen Gale is still not familiar with either work. Joachimsthaler was first referenced by me at 0127 5 August 2010 and Kershaw was referenced by me at 17:48 6 August 2010, and I believe that they were both on the articles reference before that. Still, on 22:02 11 November 2010, Gwen Gale was apparently unaware of any of the content of either book, and was making posts as if they didn't exist.

At 02:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC) I posted, under the title “Gwen Gale’s sources”, the following: “I think the rest of us in this discussion would benefit from knowing what Gwen Gale is using as sources, which sources that are on the article and the rest of us are familiar with is she NOT familiar with, which sources she has access to, and when she last familiarized herself with the ones which she is currently using. It appears that we are talking about a person who is "informationally challenged" relative the others in this discussion. Perhaps some arrangement might be made so she has a level of knowledge that could make her be an asset. I have both Kershaw Nemisis and Fest Hitler which I will donate, if it will bring her up to speed so this article is not impeded any more.(User:Wm5200)”

At 04:59, 12 November 2010 Kierzek deleted my post “per Wiki talk page guidelines”. Okay, how do I address this continued refusal to read the source material? I have offered to mail Kershaw half way around the world so that Gwen Gale can read two crummy footnotes. But my offer is not only not taken up, but is apparently not in good faith, and even “snarky”. What can I do to get my administrator to read the source material?

I would like to bring up two Wiki terms which I do not understand. It appears that Gwen Gale and I have a different “P.O.V.” about the usage of these terms.

Assume Good Faith. I first thought that Gwen Gale would be a good administrator, after what I have been through, would YOU assume she is acting in good faith?

Original Research. I have never been to Berlin, read any original documents, or talked to any eyewitness. The ONLY information I have about the subject is what I have read in published works. How is it that Gwen Gale finds so much of my work “O.R.”?

Am I the only person who has had problems with Gwen Gale? Not if you read her contribs, and certainly not if you Google her name.

DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY SUGGESTIONS HOW TO GET GWEN GALE TO READ ABOUT THE SUBJECT?Wm5200 (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Besides being massively WP:TLDNR, this is clearly a content dispute/discussion about the reliability of the source, disguised as a concern about an administrator. None of which belong here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I do not understand. The conflict is not about the content, it is about her not reading it to start with. Where should I go when the administrator responsible for the article will not inform herself about the article. Several other persons in the conversation are familiar with the content, shouldn't the administrator know the subject she is administering? Have you read the discussion, and realize how the subject is being manipulated to reflect only Gwen Gale's postition?Wm5200 (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Gwen Gale does not appear to be using admin powers to maintain that position, thus it is not a question of Gwen's admin capability and doesn't belong here. As noted, if it is a question of source reliability, that should be taken to the Reliable Sources noticeboard, if it is a question about Gwen's discussion/participation (as a regular editor) behavior, that should go to Wikiquette alerts. --MASEM (t) 17:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking time. However, I doubt that you could familiarize yourself with the subject in only four minutes. I am trying to be polite. Joach and Kershaw (along with several other noted authors referenced in discussion) cast doubt on the "Russian Autopsy" in general and Lev Bezymenski's book in specific, yet Gwen Gale will not entertain such a thought, on 11 November she still is using an almost universally discredited "Russian Autopsy" as fact. I do not see how she is qualified to administer the discussion. Anyone who will read Kershaw's two footnotes will see the problems with her position. We are not disputing Kershaw, she won't even read him!Wm5200 (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

You are confused about how Wikipedia works, Wm5200. There is no "administrator responsible for the article". Agreement regarding content disputes is reached by consensus on the talk page of the article. The role of administrators is to enforce Wikipedia's agreed policies. David Biddulph (talk) 18:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

David is correct, Wm5200, but he understates your apparent misunderstanding. Not only is there no "administrator responsible for the article", you have not had an administrator "assigned to you" and no such assignments exist. Furthermore, no editor can demand that another editor carry out a reading assignment before editing or engaging in discussion, thus your view on what "should be required reading" is of no particular consequence. Right now you are engaged in a content dispute and a dispute over the reliability of a source, which is not what this noticeboard is for. In addition to the other avenues of dispute resolution, one of the two of you may wish to seek assistance at WP:FTN. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Admin’s volunteer for article? Does this mean that she is not assigned me, also? An admin is responsible for policy only? She appears to be controling not only policy but content as well. The apparent problem is that she is not as informed as others in the discussion. Possible solution other admin’s to look in on article? The article is not terribly attractive, there are editors, not effective admin. I am also part of problem, need way out. Thank you.Wm5200 (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely right; that's what Steven just told you; an admin is not "assigned" to an individual editor. You say "I am also part of problem, need way out"; your way out is to accept the consensus reached by other editors, or otherwise to follow the processes defined in WP:DR. - David Biddulph (talk) 19:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

There was a time lag between Steven and I. I do not dispute the consensus between the editors. I have the utmost respect for Kierzek and Farawayman. Their two days work was masterful, and greatly improved the article. I dispute Gwen Gale as an admin using her power to influence the editing, which is beyond her base of knowledge. She is beyond policy, and into content. This is a good exit, though. I have stated my concerns, you will do with them as you wish. This is the fairest venue I’m going to find inside Wiki.Wm5200 (talk) 20:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I have read that talk page and it seems to me that excellent and detailed work was done by the editors in analysing what the sources actually say. The page was entirely civil and hard working until the entry of Gwen Gale when she and the other editors seemed to rub each other up the wrong way somehow. But Wm5200 - as has been said above, you have misunderstood how wiki works in this regard. Gwen was not there as an admin - just an editor, giving her view on the talkpage as she is entitled to do as much as any other editor. Admins have no superior position or powers when it comes to writing articles. Their job as admins is to try and keep wiki clean, as it were, for content editors to create the encyclopaedia. Beyond that they are editors like everyone else. I note that all of your edits have been to the talkpage. I applaud the process of trying to work out the best summary of the many sources in a controversial area on the talkpage, but you are as entitled as anyone else is to actually edit the articles. There are no ranks here.Fainites barleyscribs 20:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't seem to be able to find the talk:death of hitler discussion prior to 20 September. Have I misplaced the archives? Thank you.Wm5200 (talk) 02:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Where are the "Talk: Death of Adolf Hitler" posts between 8 August and 20 September?Wm5200 (talk) 03:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

An IP made a vandalism edit that had the effect of hiding those comments. I've reverted and it seems fine now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Does that seem suspicious to anyone else? That discussion directly relating to this thread was vandalized? Or do you think I am being paranoid? Thank you Ken.Wm5200 (talk) 04:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You people are lamer than the League of Nations. You all know what is going on, but none have the guts to oppose her. Not one of your own friends. Better block me instead. Wm5200 (talk) 05:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Who is "her"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Wait, you mean Gwen Gale is the IP who made that edit? No freakin' way. I may have disagreed with Gwen Gale on some things in the past, but there's no way that I can see her doing something like that. Your paranoia (and lack of Wiki-sense) is showing. Come back when you have a clue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

"Wiki-sense"? Are you jolking? Still, I suppose it's more fun to live in your delusional world than my sometimes paranoid one. Who told you about clues, you certainly don't recognize them when you see them. "Not one of your own friends. Better block me instead."Wm5200 (talk) 09:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you think you can sell me on that “vandalism” being random? Are you telling me that you think that a discussion pertaining to, and not reflecting well on, Gwen Gale should suddenly disappear at the very time this thread is dealing with just that info is mere coincidence? Do I accuse Gwen Gale of specifically pressing “return”? No, I doubt that she did. But I do believe that someone did, thinking it was in her best interest. I do wonder why these numbers keep showing up around her. I do believe that she has an alliance. Perhaps George Smiley, or Intrepid, can come out of retirement. "Not one of your own friends. Better block me instead." Wm5200 (talk) 13:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLOCK. If you want to stop editing, do so. We don't block on request. Also, please read WP:CABAL. This is not a conspiracy against you, and Gwen Gale is a long-standing member of Wikipedia with an excellent track record. Accusing her of this is rather silly. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm? User:Beeblebrox, and probably others, do block on request. Providing it's a good-faith request. Please ignore me if I've taken this out of context, I noticed the edit summary in passing but haven't had chance to read the thread. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Eh. Admins can do so if they wish. But it's their baby if the person changes their mind, which gets ugly sometimes. Generally, admins won't do it because either A) the user winds up coming back, often demanding their block log be cleared; or B) the user was just baiting, so they can claim how poorly treated they were. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Any time anyone who is informed on this issue wants to break in, I’m waiting. Perhaps actually reading the material, especially the closed up thing on the top, may help.

I know some Wiki are literate. Kierzek knows everything, Farawayman may be close. Why do I seem to meet the people who will not read a book?

Now, for those who won’t read, let me try once more. 1. Gwen Gale has dominated the article “Death of Adolf Hitler” for years. 2. Gwen Gale is not informed about the “Death of Adolf Hitler”. She refuses to acknowledge the work of Sir Ian Kershaw, about who Wiki itself (no books needed) says “He is regarded by many as one of the world's leading experts on Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany and is particularly noted for his monumental biography of Hitler, which has been called "soberly objective." “. She continues to use Bezymenski, a 1968 admitted fraud, as a source over numerous other authors. 3. Any time anyone will keep Gwen Gale away from “Death of Adolf Hitler”, serious scholars will fix it and get stars or whatever, Wiki will be accurate, and proud. 4. Any time anyone will keep Gwen Gale away from “Death of Adolf Hitler”, I and all my posts become moot. All I have ever wanted was to get the “popular press” out of what I consider a serious subject. "Not one of your own friends. Better block me instead."Wm5200 (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You're not helping yourself here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

“not helping yourself”? “not helping yourself”? Really? You don’t think so? When has this ever been about me? “I am not Wiki.” First sentence I ever posted. Do you flatter yourself by thinking I want to be? For me the “mission” has always been “the article”! When I got here the article belonged in one of Rupert Murdoch’s rags. I had read Joachimsthaler, who sounded rational, and thought he could be of some use in the article. That’s it. My whole goal in Wiki. Since being re-buffed by “my admin” (I don’t care about the assignments), I have read virtually everything about Hitler’s Death, becoming a world expert. About someone who I find distasteful, and doesn’t really interest me. And apparently to no avail. I can not get Gwen Gale to read two footnotes. Or get out of the way. That’s all I ask. Apparently I am the only person who thinks that possibly Gwen Gale might recluse herself from this one article, for the good of Wiki. It appears that the quality of the article is less important than the ego of one admin. I have said before, I don’t understand, or much care, for Wiki politics. Is this just a case of “old boy network”, where no one wants to offend a “friend”, or is there an actual “Gwen Gale maffia” who scares the rest of you? I’m still waiting for any kind of informed answer. Or are you just waiting for 24 hours to come, and archive me, out of sight, out of mind? And many of you miss the bitter irony of my now standard closing. "Not one of your own friends. Better block me instead."Wm5200 (talk) 13:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Closing this; it will just go on and on and is simply a content dispute. Recommend WP:RFC as an avenue for Wm5200 to explore --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 13:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cowards Well, I guess that's it. Do not addres any point, just close the discussion. "Not one of your own friends. Better block me instead."Wm5200 (talk) 13:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC) Wm5200 (talk) 14:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Jimmy Wales‎ Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article. What do your comments have to do with improving the Jimmy Wales article? --Onorem♠Dil 00:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC) I am so sorry. I thought this was "to" Jimmy Wales. Please delete it, and accept my apologies.Wm5200 (talk) 00:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Please Stop I'm sorry you don't feel like you've gotten justice in your problems with Gwen Gale, but other editors and admins have looked at your complaints and seen nothing actionable there. If you wish to be blocked, please just stop editing. There's no need to carry a grudge onto other pages. Dayewalker (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Not until you keep her away from "Death of Adolf Hitler", or at least make her read the sources."Not one of your own friends. Better block me instead"Wm5200 (talk) 00:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC) 

This is your final warning. Your recent interactions, in particular this, constitute harassment, which cannot be tolerated. You have been told, multiple times, that Gwen Gale has not acted as an administrator on that article, that admins are not "assigned" to articles or editors, and that if you have a content dispute, the proper places to address these could be the reliable sources noticeboard if you're disputing sources, or a content Request For Comments if you're disputing tone and coverage more specifically.

You are to cease and desist from any further hounding of Gwen Gale, immediately. You are further put on notice that you cannot lobby to have an editor removed from an article just because you don't like them, and asked to cease your campaign. Any continuation of your current course of action will lead to a removal of your editing privileges. MLauba (Talk) 02:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

"Not one of your own friends. Better block me instead."Wm5200 (talk) 02:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone noted that this account was created three months ago, and has 400 live edits, but only 1 of those edits is to an article? That is a pretty interesting editing profile that brings to mind a word that begins with "Tr" and rhymes with "coal". But even if I open the AGF hamper and pull out a handful, it doesn't seem as if this person is here to improve the encyclopedia, does it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Am I the only one Am I the only one who thinks that an easy end to this conflict would be for Gwen Gale to actually read the two crummy footnotes in Kershaw? Why has that option never been on the table? Inform herself on the subject? "Not one of your own friends. Better block me instead."Wm5200 (talk) 03:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

NO, the best way forward is for you to read policy, smarten up, and stop being disruptive. I came here to block you myself, but am not surprised that someone beat me to it (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC) December 2010

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text Template:Unblock below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. MLauba (Talk) 09:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

You were told to knock it off but couldn't stop yourself. At this stage, considering that your only input to Wikipedia save one single edit were to argue on talk pages or harass another user, your contributions are imposing more hassle on the community than they are worth.

As a consequence, you have been indefinitely blocked from editing. You may appeal this block, but in order to be successful, your appeal should acknowledge: That you will immediately and definitely suspend your harassment campaign against Gwen Gale That you will follow proper dispute resolution processes in issues going forward That you will comment on content not on contributors going forward That you will undertake to discuss in a constructive, civil, collegial manner That you will abstain from needlessly personalizing disputes. These are the conditions for an unblock. If you cannot subscribe to all of these, please kindly find another site to contribute to. MLauba (Talk) 09:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Wm5200 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock)

Request reason: You people still will not read. Posting “At this stage, considering that your only input to Wikipedia save one single edit were to argue on talk pages or harass another user” clearly shows that you have not read any of my posts prior to my attack on the Agressivly Ignorant Admin Gwen Gale. I have repeatedly explained my reason for staying in the talk pages, I am surprised that ANY edit I have made was to an article. I have controlled myself, would you have preferred me to have dumped all this recent crap on an actual article? I have also posted a huge amount of good work, if you won’t read, ask Kierzek, Dr Dan, or Farawayman if any of my posts have been reasoned and useful. Gwen Gale is clearly compromising the article “Death of Adolf Hitler”, yet she stands on her right to remain ignorant. I will defend most of Gwen Gale’s rights to the bitter end, but this is not one I will tolerate. Any time she reads those two footnotes, this is over. Otherwise, my wife has a laptop, how many “hotspots” do you think there are within 100 miles of Chicago? Any one of you can read something to stop this farce, none will. Read. Library. Books. Do you have a “cute-link” to any of those? Until you do, I’ll be back. You decide.

Decline reason: You should read WP:NOTTHEM. Accusing other editors of being "Agressivly Ignorant" is not going to get your account unblocked. Favonian (talk) 13:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the Template:Unblock template again. If you abuse this procedure by making too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page as long as you are blocked. . Partially in defence of WM5200 I think this has been a rather harsh resolution! I agree that WM5200 is outspoken and at times, lacking in sensitivity or tact. The Gwen Gale issue is also not as simplistic as it appears...there may be some validity to WM5200's very poorly expressed concerns! I really think he means good! Farawayman (talk) 17:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Whatever happens outside of Wikipedia has exactly zero influence on the fact that harassing someone on Wikipedia is totally unacceptable. That's the short and the long of it. MLauba (Talk) 17:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Now you are censoring Farawayman, also? His post was longer than it is now. Old boy or mafia?Wm5200 (talk) 18:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

His post, much like yours, was harassment and outing. That's not allowed on Wikipedia, as you have learned. Dayewalker (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

She has posted on both Wiki and the internet as "Gwen Gale", yet she is afraid of someone else Googling her name? "Old boy or Mafia?"Wm5200 (talk) 18:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

That's enough from me for now. Perhaps the liars will learn. Otherwise, later.


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

See also

External links

Share this page

<sharethis />



Retrieved from "https://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=The_case_against_Gwen_Gale&oldid=159566"