The case against Gwen Gale

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 organization 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, 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 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

• On 26 April 2009 Gwen Gale blocked user Funguy06 with the edit summary "(Vandalism-only account: no meaningfully encyclopedic edits)". In her block message she provided neither differences to support the block, nor an explanation how to request an unblock. The user who started contributing to wikipedia in 2006 was blocked over this 2009 edit for "vandalism only". But please see the article. Funguy06 did not vandalize the article.He made a good faith, encyclopedic edit. As a result of the block the user is gone. He did not even bother to write an unblock request.

• On 25 July 2009 Gwen Gale blocked user Nug for an alleged outing. After being contacted about the block at her talk Gwen Gale unblocked the user with the edit summary "behaviour seems to be supported." This unblocked edit summary required a one second correction block, in which administrator wrote: I cannot believe that Gwen Gale would put that as an unblock reason!

• On August 10 August 2008 Gwen Gale blocked indefinitely Unknown the Hedgehog for "calling another Wikipedian his "friend"" with the edit summary: "Spam / advertising-only account:". At the same time she blocked a few other users indefinitely. A thread was started about these blocks. Admin Oren0 wrote:"I'm greatly concerned about the block of Unknown the Hedgehog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) specifically. He has ~150 mainspace edits which, while small, seem to be improvements to articles. Why does calling another Wikipedian his "friend" get him banished for life? Is there really consensus that this user should be banned?Oren0 (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)" Oren0 also started a thread at Gwen's talk. Gwen did unblock the editor herself.

• User Ludwigs2 was blocked on July 2, 2008. Administrator Lar requested review: "I suggest this block is excessive at best, and possibly completely unjustified. I'd suggest review by uninvolved admins. ++Lar: t/c 18:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)". The block was lifted.

• user:Malleus Fatuorum was blocked on June 10, 2009. The user was unblocked in an hour after an admin and a few users complained about the block. Over this block she was suggested "to spend some time reading WP:BLOCK and, frankly, not editing here." After a long threads at her and Malleus Fatuorum's talk pages Gwen Gale apologized for the block.

• User BioSynergy was blocked for user name by Gwen Gale on June 8, 2008. Gwen was also the one who declined the unblock request. It is unclear, if the user ever made a new account.

• This discussion is about the block imposed on user Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ).was blocked for 72 hours for this edit, in which the user corrected a punctuation typo. Please take a look at this comment Gwen Gale made, when asked about the block: "He was not moving on, he was hiding the warnings, knowing he would most likely be blocked for carrying on with his disruption and hoping that a careless admin would think he was blocked for correcting a punctuation typo. This is also why he put his unblock request at the top of the page, far away from the block notice. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)". The user was unblocked in a few hours with edit summary "Block not covered by Wikipedia:Blocking policy".

• User NWA.Rep was blocked at 20:36, 21 November 2008. She removed the editor talk page access only for removing block notice that the user could have done in accordance with the policy. Two hours later another administrator restored the talk page access. He wrote: "Looks like a misunderstanding of WP:USER - have reenabled talkpage editing". At 20:10, 29 November 2008 one second correction block was added to the editor block record: "Noting the block was at least somewhat questionable, enough to have a note in the block log. See blocking admins talk page." When asked why she removed the editor talk page access Gwen responded: "He edit warred over the block notice. I'm willing to re-enable his talk page editing in a couple of hours but I'm going out to dinner now."

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

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

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

• User Mbz1

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

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

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

Gwen Gale misusing her administrative tools when involved

The policy that clearly states:

“

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

”

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.

• The first time User Southerndata was blocked by Gwen Gale at 15:04, 28 June 2008 for alleged "vandalism" on Fred Noonan, although the user clearly made a good faith edits. In a few places (including the block log) she said that she edited the article after the block. Gwen Gale edited this article a lot, and before the block. Actually Gwen Gale wrote this article, when she still edited as Wyss, but let's see June 28,2008: Gwen Gale was edit warring with the very same editor she later blocked.After being questioned about the block while involved, she lifted the block just to re-block the user indefinitely two days later at 22:38, 30 June 2008. At that time she was even more involved with the user than when she blocked him the first time because of this post by the user.

• On October 1, 2010 Gwen Gale was reported for edit warring.

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)

”

• user Wallamoose was blocked on October 18, 2008 for a week for this edit at Talk:Hummus. Gwen Gale has been involved with the article for a long time. Her involvement with Hummus was even pointed out in her RFA:"I have interacted with Gwen Gaile on only one article, hummus, but I don't think her interactions on that article are consistent with Wikipedia policy. She treats the article as though she owns it, and seems not to understand the difference between reliable sources and unsupported assertions on random Web pages and cookbooks.". In her block rationale Gwen stated: "Following this edit by you after my warning, I've blocked you from editing one week for disruption, non-encyclopedic edits and trolling. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)". This one week block for editing an article talk page was wrong because Gwen Gale is heavily involved with the article and because she was edit warring with the editor, and because Wallamoose was not trolling. As it is seen from this reliable source Hummus was mentioned in the Torah. Although the editor tried to explain to Gwen why he posted the statement to the article's talk page Gwen Gale escalated the block to be indefinite,and then removed the editor talk page access. Gwen also allowed Dædαlus to harass the blocked editor on his talk page.

• This IP was blocked on June 24, 2009 for ‎"personal attacks or harassment" after Gwen Gale was edit warring with him over quite innocent post to an article talk page. Gwen Gale was heavily involved in editing this article's talk page. Then IP ranted at Gwen's talk page. Of course IP post to Gwen's talk was not very nice, but even, if this IP deserved to be blocked, it should have been blocked by an uninvolved admin.

• User Jayeba was blocked at 23:18, 26 August 2009 for "spamming right after the user reverted Gwen Gale at the article she was edit warring with this very user she later blocked.The user was unblocked with the summary "no spamming".

• User:Proofreader77

• • was blocked at 23:03, 29 December 2009 for making $1,000 donation to wikipedia. Gwen Gale issued the block after she was asked by another administrator to leave the editor alone: Gwen,you have gotten too personally involved. I urge you to leave further admin actions with respect to this editor to other administrators. User:DGG| DGG 20:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  • was blocked indefinitely at 22:16, 14 February 2010 for requesting a blocked user template. This block was overturned by another administrator.
  • This edit made on 21 February 2010 is the last edit made by Proofreader77. After this Gwen Gale removed his talk page access. She did it during the request for arbitration that was initiated to discuss prior unwarranted and overturned blocks of this editor the very blocks that were imposed by the very same Gwen Gale.

• On May 12, 2010 Gwen Gale blocked Scias76 for edit warring at Hummus. Gwen Gale was involved in edit warring of this article. She reverted a few editors including the one she later blocked.

• User Tombaker321 was blocked on July 15,2010 after the user directly accused Gwen in "squashing the dialog by using her admin role" and after Gwen continued to engage the user at his talk page.

• On November 26, 2010 user Iloveredhair was blocked for silly posts at Talk:Lesbian sexual practices. In a few minutes after the initial block Gwen removed the user's talk page access, claiming "vandalism" in the edit summaries. There are two problems with the block. First of all it was not vandalism (the user made posts only to the talk and not to the article), and they could have been called "trolling", but definitely not "vandalism". Second of all Gwen Gale is the author of the article which means once again she misused her tools while involved.

• Here is only one exchange between user Misessus and Gwen Gale that took place after Gwen reverted the user. There were more exchanges at the article talk page like for example here. In a little bit more than a month after this Gwen blocked this user for edit warring on this article on September 4, 2011 . Gwen blocked the user just two days after another user had this to say about her: "Gwen Gale is an involved admin. She has been actively supporting one side of this debate for years. She should not have been the admin to decide on this case. I would like to formally request a review of this action. LK (talk) 03:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC) ". Gwen was involved with this article and with the user, and although it looks like the block itself was proper, it should have been imposed by an uninvolved admin.

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

• On February 2,2012 Gwen Gale declined unblock request of the user who complained about her in his unblock request, which makes her involved. This unblock request should have been declined, but Gwen Gale should not have been the one to do it. This example demonstrates that Gwen Gale has difficulties in understanding what "involved" administrator means. And this thread explains how this all ended up. It is sad.

Biting newbies

• User Hatcrazy was blocked two times in August of 2009.

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

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

• User Nextbook was blocked at 20:56, 9 November 2011 after Gwen Gale was edit warring with him. Gwen Gale claimed BLP. Another admin questioned the block, saying in particular "I don't think BLP concerns are a carte blanche for disregarding AGF like this and especially not BITE since we can't expect newcomers to understand these complex policies within their first 10 edits. I would appreciate if you would be more polite and welcoming towards new editors in the future, and not be as quick with the block-hammer, if you feel you don't have the patience for giving adequate explanations to a newcomer feel free to contact me and I'll gladly take over", but Gwen failed to clarify her position.

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

• When a 13-years old was asked why she would continue editing Wikipedia, she responded: "Because almost everyone there is a bunch of fakes who like Wikipedia because they have power over others."

• "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:...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".

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

• Brutal wikiwarrior of the week: Gwen Gale
• Tyranny of the Ignorant
• Gwen Gale -Tinpot Wikipedia Tyrant/Auteur
• The Heidi Chronicles
• Gwen Gale/Heidi Wyss's Gormglaith Review
• Gwen Gale failure to become an arbitrator
• Gwen Gale's Wikipedia moments (Tyranny of the Ignorant )
• Ding Dong the Wicked Witch is Dead

Share this page

<sharethis />

Gwen Gale bullying suicide the Wikimedia Foundation Heidi Wyss Gormglaith