I'm surprised not to have noticed a thread on the way that Gwen has so far this month managed to block both a former arbcom member http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...=User%3ARebecca and a then Arbcom candidate http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...=User%3ANWA.Rep. Meanwhile a mudslinging campaign has been launched against her by an IP user who, amongst other things, has been attacking her user and talk pages which means that a third arbcom candidate has decided to protect them http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history

Where's the discussion of these Arbcom interactions or the speculation as to when Gwen will block Jimbo Wales? We ordinary users who haven't been around since the beginning of this need guidance on how to cast our votes.

Were you the ip that made that post you refer to? You seem to have the same batshit obsession.

No I'm not. If you read carefully, you'll notice I 've not mentioned what the IP was saying about her. The blocks are discussed on her talk page by a number of editors other than the IP and their views vary.

You link to the pages, and therein a short step to the history which (barring Oversight) will contain the ip's comments... I don't know you, and you have only these contributions on which to judge you. Per AGF I should accept your statement - but this aint WP, there is no AGF applicable and... I don't.

There are a lot of examples of genuine admin abuse on Wikipedia. This is not one of them. BTW, as far as I can see at a quick skim, the only editor in that discussion not to support her block of NWA.rep was FT2, and I'm not entirely sure he's the best placed person to defend someone for adding inappropriate sexual content to Wikipedia.

If this paranoia is typical of the thinking patterns of Wikipedia admins when they come near Wikipedia Review, I can see why we're warned about being public about our identities here.


Thanks it's nice to have someone reply sensibly to the thread instead of being paranoid about my motives. I've noticed people around here complaining about arbcom as a committee of yes-men (with the occasional yes-woman). So is Gwen's boldness in who she blocks (although I notice she denies knowing the status of either of the blocked users) what people want from an arbcom member?

No, you are mistaking this place for WP - where I am Mark James Slater of Helston, Cornwall, editing under the admin account of LessHeard vanU. Here, I don't have to give a fuck about WP civility - you posted in your first edit to WR a mention of GG's blocks of an ex and a candidate ArbCom members, and as someone who responded to the AN comments I am placing my opinion that you are the same person trolling for the same reasons as you did there. Don't like it? Tough (you should have been here a couple of years back, when it really was rough)!

Everyone supported the block. I agree with LessHorrid, this is the "troll" IMHO. And I'll be voting for Gwen.

I've been following the NWA situation quite closely. And frankly, both FT2, Bishonen, and a few others were against the block because it seems to violate the idea that Wikipedia is not censored. It seems to be more of a testament to Gwen's fiercely feminist view, rather than actual WP Policies. My impression of Rebecca is also mostly positive. This editor is too trigger happy to be an administrator or arb for my taste.

You've been following the NWA situation quite closely? Funny, a couple of hours ago you "didn't follow the details".

Isn't it nice not to be on WP, sometimes?

This argument seems to be more of a testament to the amount of calculated mud-slinging you'll stoop to in order to make your man—and I do mean man—seem more electable by comparison.

Opinionated spectator, would you mind telling us whom you will be supporting and why? That would at least give your other rhetoric the context it lacks.

These both look like good blocks, improving my previously rather uninformed assessment of Gwen. I'm happy to see someone actually had the guts to block Rebecca (though she deserves a block much longer than what she got).

Well, personally, I've had a fair amount of previous contact with Gwen which has generally been positive and was disappointed when she appeared to rule herself out of standing. I was surprised that the arbcom election overview material on Wikipedia itself has quite a few people declaring against her.

I may shock some purists by saying I'm not going to wade through the 10 million screens of repetitive questions and answers by all the candidates before deciding on my votes. But I thought I would get an alternative view ont he candidates here which would help me form my ideas. Unfortunately some people seem more interested in complaining about James - someone else I had been going to vote for - being a conformist who muddles words such as "jurisprudence" and "jurisdiction". Anyway it's nice to have had a couple of people taking my comments seriously.

There can be different views on whether ARBCOM needs lots of safe pair of hands or someone who is bold but it would be nice if the bold were actually discussed.

A prominent view here used to be that ARBCOM was a drama lightening rod, a complete waste of time ,and merely an excuse for pseuds to pretend to be lawyers on the internet. And that the elections in particular serve as destructive dramatic Acts in the on-going soap opera/MMORPG that keeps Jimbo Wales in gold plated Washing Machines.

That was until this site was overrun with Wikipedos and WReview became little more than, in the words of drama queen supreme Giano, "a slightly risque, but far more interesting, version of ANI".

Despite your issues with the MMORPG, you do seen to be quitean avid participant in the threads around here. So, do you think we'll get better drama with Gwen on ARBCOM? (Obviously the attacks on her by the anon are part of the bad aspect of the drama.)

For those who dislike ArbCom and wish to see its stature (such as it is) reduced, or those who appreciate it solely for its drama-generating function, a GG vote would certainly be sensible. But her civility issues already undercut her effectiveness as an administrator; they're unlikely to help her approach the iron-hand-in-a-velvet-glove ideal of ArbCom.

(Partial disclosure of bias: in a perfect world, I'd want the project run as an enlightened despotism by Newyorkbrad.)

classic FT2

As far as I can tell, Ms. Gale is an ideologue who has simply decided that Wikipedia will be the battlefield on which she will fight the good fight for her ideology. Exactly the sort of thing that Wikipedia does not need if it wishes to be a respectable encyclopedia. She only does well because her ideological point of view is not too far from Wikipedia's own house point of view (we all know that there is no such thing as a "neutral point of view", right?).

She has withdrawn from the election.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=255139723

My interaction with NWA.Rep (previously known as Certified.Gangsta) has been surprisingly positive. I heard of his numerous run-ins in controversial issues and I previously despised him. But after interacting with him in a discussion about contents, I found him to be well-meaning and articulate. It's a shame that Gwen Gale blocked him (and sabotaged his "ultra-populist", "fighting-for-the-little-man" candidacy) so she can have one less competitor before launching her own candidacy.

On a sidenote, Cacaroth also makes a good arb. I rest my case.

I was the one who unblocked Rebecca. When I confronted Gwen Gale about it, she lied about templating a regular and then tried to say she was back to her old stuff just minutes afterwards. Coupled with the east718 stuff on the talk page of his voting guide, she's just mad that she got found out that she's a big liar. I don't feel sorry for her one bit.

And the fact that she tried to lie and bring me into stupid drama is testament to why I only do admin actions like four times a year. I just don't have time for bullshit like hers.

I'm hoping an Admin or two takes the time to look into these curious facts--two articles that Gwen Gale created, "Heidi Wyss" and "Gormglaith," are up for deletion, the first a stub about a Swiss author and the second about her self-published e-book. Now the first curious fact is that Gwen's former Wiki ID was Wyss, the name under which she was involved in quite a few brouhahas. The second curious fact is that if you read the interview linked to the Heidi Wyss article, Heidi's long, literary and very distinctively phrased answers certainly seem to be redolent of Gwen. Thirdly, why does Gwen keep blanking questions about this on her Talk Page? Gwen is the one who is always blocking people for COI and taking Admins to task for not behaving correctly--is it "correct" to write an article about oneself and one's self-published e-book? I'm sure Gwen's many friends are going to circle the wagons once again, but when is this kind of unacceptable behavior going to finally catch up to her?

Welcome to the Review Mr Chutney

It would seem that events have caught up with her.

From experience, what happens next depends on who her allies are and who she offends. She is either suited for the highest offices in Wikipedia, or is heading for the door.

I've looked at the recent blankings of posts by anons and it is other editors doing so on Gwen's behalf. And they give a reason within Wikipedia policy, one that apparently puts everyone in this thread at risk of being blocked on Wikipedia judging by what's happening with Giano. Come to think of it, didn't I link one such "blanking" by an experienced admin at the head of this thread? So the answer to that question is that other editors keep on blanking those threads on her behalf because Wikipedia policy requires it. The content issue seems to be in the process of being fixed and the COI issue will be solved at the same time. So unless you want her blocked for a year or something, there's nothing to worry about.

BTW, now that Gwen has withdrawn from the election, I'm not sure what a thread positioned here is achieving. I started it because of her having blocked big name targets and I wondered whether this is what people wanted in an ARB. On the other matter there is another one about her over at the Editors part of the board anyway.

This shameless administrator needs to be shown the door. Admin abuse and self-promotion have no place in Wikipedia.

Does this all translate to "she deleted an article on my band/employer/self even though I had a link to Myspace to prove how important it was" by any chance?

Yes. Drop it, Joe.

Why don't you treat yourself to a pineapple - and remember to pull the pin out before you swallow?

Why did you unblock Rebecca? She's one regular who ought to be templated--I think one of those templates like Peter Damian has on his user page would look good on her.

these threads should be tarpitted and the culprits banned from the site. Just my opinion, though.

Moderator note: as this appears to discuss a BLP and there have been various calls for tar pitting, moving this thread to the BLP forum where it is not searchable by Google et al. (Apart from I think it was already there so I'm confused now)

I agree. But I don't think they do that here. Too much like the 'pedia.