Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gwen Gale 2

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Gwen Gale

Final (93/12/5); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 23:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Gale (talk · contribs) - Ladies and Gentlemen, I offer you Gwen Gale, my next candidate for adminship.

Gwen Gale joined Wikipedia in early 2004 under the account Wyss, which she amassed over 13,000 edits under, and used up until late 2006. With Gwen Gale, she has over 17,000 edits, totaling over 30,000 under both. To move away from edit counts, Gwen’s article writing is impressive: she has significantly edited and improved articles ranging from topics such as Amelia Earhart and Apollo 1 to Lesbian and Shamrock Hotel. In addition to her great article-writing skills, Gwen is also at good vandal-fighting, knowing when to use and when not to use the rollback feature, which I granted to her. She is also very active on WP:ANI, giving regular input to issues raised there.

This is her second request for adminship. She was nominated by Epbr123 in January. However, that RfA did not pass because a lot of the users opposing were concerned about past disputes, and whether she had learned from and moved past them; and also some minor issues about her temperament. I do believe that Gwen has indeed taken the concerns raised in that RfA to heart, and will make an excellent administrator.

In my own interactions with Gwen Gale, I have found her to be very civil to me and with other users: she’s great at communicating, and it’s a delight when talking to her. She has E-mail enabled, which will be useful when editors will need to contact her in private.

I believe that Gwen Gale is easily experienced enough to be an administrator. I am honored to be able to nominate her. Acalamari 22:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Co-nomination from Antandrus

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you Gwen Gale, already known to many of you as a calm, helpful, and respectful presence and voice of reason in many parts of Wikipedia. I had opposed her on her last run, and it's the oppose I most wish I could retract of any I've ever made: a lapse in judgement on my part. I'm making it right by co-nominating here, for people this good we should not pass by. Gwen has already been acting as an administrator, as anyone who has followed her posts on the noticeboards has observed. Every time she posts, it's helpful in some way. This is as rare as it is wonderful, and a refreshing change from the negativity which is so common there.

For her exceptional talents, which include finely-articulated common sense, skill at defusing conflicts and de-escalating dramas, being bold where appropriate, kind always, and being an exemplary Wikipedian in every way, I co-nominate Gwen, in conjunction with Acalamari. We need more people like her in the admin corps. For integrity and wise advice, with a delightful dash of humor, I rate her among the best we've got. People this good need to be given keys to the mop closet: please join me in supporting Gwen. Antandrus (talk) 00:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Acalamari and Antandrus, thanks. I accept your nomination. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: For the past few months I've spent much time at WP:ANI. Lots of the posts there don't need admin attention but rather, an experienced editor and I've tried to help out with many of those, as time has allowed. However, more admins are always needed at ANI and I'd be one of them, same goes for WP:AIV, WP:RFP, CAT:CSD and WP:AN3 along with anywhere else I might be asked to pitch in.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I tend to work on topics which for me, represent an overlap of two or more core areas of my own interest. I try to combine WP:V and WP:WEIGHT with a steadfastly wide historical perspective and coherent writing style. I always see an article as a "whole" so my edits are often targeted at integrating helpful but perhaps carelessly written edits into a smoothly flowing narrative. I think my most helpful contributions have had to do with putting all this together, with all kinds of editors. More often than not, one can nudge a very knowledgeable but inexperienced editor towards sharing what amounts to their acquired knowledge of verifiable sources.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I've had no meaningful disputes since my last RfA in January. Although, having come to understand something about how and why Wikipedia works, I'd already snugly settled into my peaceful, "hard core cooperative" editing outlook at the time, I took the lingering criticism I got back then truly and deeply to heart and I must say, the past three months have been by far the smoothest and happiest I've ever spent editing Wikipedia. While you're reading this though, we very much need reliable sources about the history of Hummus. Please help us out if you know anything about scholarly or near-scholarly sources on this topic.

4. What are your thoughts on the drama in your past RfA? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

A: It was drama! But it helped a lot. When all was done, the support and kind words I got were wonderful and I was very pleased with the net outcome. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, perhaps I wasn't very clear. There are a lot of legitimate issues raised in your past RfA. There were also come cases where the signal-to-noise ratio was low. What are your thoughts on both of these cases? (ie. what do you take out of the legit. issues, and out of the all noise parts of the RfA?) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 02:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

As Antandrus so insightfully noted above, after my last RfA I deliberately began acting and editing everywhere as I had already planned, like an admin (in so much as an editor could do this without misleading anyone) and was very thankful for the added input. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Option Question By Trees Rock

5. How can we trust you as a admin?

Note that as per this discussion, no-one will object if you don't answer this — iridescent 02:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Note I still can ask the question Trees Rock^MyGoal 02:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

A: Cuz :) Which is to say, if I botch something, please tell me and I'll fix it, fast (the fun link says 12 months but the community should take this as a "lifetime" thing). This said, I'm familiar with admin policies and often check them anyway before doing something on a project page, I always try to be civil as can be (even if it hurts during the odd, weak moment, eek!), I haven't mis-used the rollback rights and I've very much taken heed of and addressed any past concerns. I hope my contributions and behavior speak for themselves. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Optional Question By Zginder

6. What do you consider the most important Wikipedia policy and why?

A: WP:V, because we're building an encyclopedia, a widely noted and consulted tertiary reference source. Every other Wikipedia policy is meant to get us there as smoothly and with the least kerfuffle as can be. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from Dlohcierekim

7. Just finished reading your prior RfA and the talk page. At the time, others seemed to share the concerns raised by BobTheTomato in this one. Some opposers took issue with your responses to opposes. What has changed since then?

A. Hopefully, my answer here might also be taken as having further to do with User:Dihydrogen Monoxide's q4. In the aftermath of my last RfA, Slim Virgin said something which I've carried with me ever since: Gwen, the lesson here is that, as an admin, you have to learn to take the blame for everything that goes wrong with the website -- including things you have done, things you have not done, and things you couldn't even imagine doing. Otherwise, you'll be accused of being thin-skinned and will probably spend your entire adminship in tears. Meanwhile, I decided straight off to edit following my notions of how the "most helpful admin on Wikipedia" would do things. This shift wasn't hard to make and it wasn't all that big, but there was a shift, which I had planned on making by then anyway. If you want to ask a followup for more specifics, please go ahead, but it mostly has to do with skirting confrontation even in the most daunting of source disagreements and instead, doing everything I can to bring editors of many and sundry outlooks together in building stable articles. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I still get the sense that you have no idea how someone could have been incredibly off-put by your actions at Abraham Lincoln, and by your closing "statement" at your last RfA. By citing SV's note, you seem to lump those of us with concerns into the "take the blame for everything that goes wrong with the website" crowd. I say, no. There were specific, incredibly rude things you did at Abraham Lincoln that do not involve "taking" blame at all. They involve admitting you were wrong, before I, for one, can even consider trusting you again. BobTheTomato (MrWhich) (talk) 11:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Abraham Lincoln is unattractively long, and has archives. Perhaps you could supply diffs for these "specific, incredibly rude things". -- Hoary (talk) 11:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe User:Hoary is aware of this (and I'm sure Bob the Tomato is aware), but for those interested and unaware, I was keeping a painfully long personal archive of the relevant talk for a time. I now use this same space for a collaborative effort Gwen and I have agreed to develop together (punningly, an effort to build the three "The Manchurian Candidate" articles into a Featured topic cluster), but at the time, I was concerned (and in retrospect, perhaps unduly so) because of what I've mentioned in my neutral statement below as "manicuring" of her talkspace. I asked Gwen to work with me on the collaboration to show I'd moved past any grudges. Using the same space had ironic symmetry. The choice of subject matter, while agreed, was my suggestion, but had no ironic intention. BusterD (talk) 12:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey everyone, please assume the presence of a belly-button. I'm not going to fight a war, neither here nor anywhere, over anything. I didn't even want or mean for that one to blow out all kerfuffle when it happened. Eek. I take the whole blame and I'm sorry. As for lessons learned (thanks for asking, Kingturtle), I came out of all that trying to edit in every little deed as an admin if not in bit. I have far more wholesome crops to tend, keener scythes to swing, tumbling fields of wheat to glean and babies to bear. Now, BobTheTomato's history has been restored today because he's come back only to talk about this. Although I wholly agree with the reasoning as to why his history was put back, I hope common sense will out and this one time, he'll be allowed RTV again. Meanwhile Rklawton, about whom I have nothing but good things to say, seems to understand all this spot on and dropped a canny hint at the bottom of this page: My contribs tell the tale more helpfully than I ever could. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• If I can find the time (I'm very busy right now) I will dig up the diffs. She accused me of all manner of wikipolicy violations (none--and I mean none--of which I'd committed), badgered against consensus, and edit-warred in favor of adding a site as a source that was so far from reliable that no one but her believed it was reliable, or that it conformed with her beloved WP:V. This isn't about "having a belly button", it's about a user who is incredibly unsuited to exercise the tools. I don't "unvanish" lightly, nor do I wish to vanish again. Gwen doesn't scare me now, and the other situation (the MAIN reason I vanished) is no longer a problem. As I said, I will attempt to provide some diffs showing what I assert above very shortly. If Rklawton, or BusterD have the diffs readily available, I'd ask that they post them for me, as a courtesy. Trust me, they're not pretty. BobTheTomato (MrWhich) (talk) 14:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Four questions from The Transhumanist:

8. Why do you believe you would make a good admin?

A: I believe in this project, the world's most widely consulted free and open encyclopedia. Having edited Wikipedia for a few years I've seen most of its ups and downs, its strengths and weaknesses close up and have come to more or less understand how this website is able to build so many helpful articles, which draw so many readers (though I'll never stop learning). Much of being an admin has to do with trust and I think the sweep of my contributions and experiences here speak to this. I think I can help out.

9. What are your WikiPhilosophies?

A: I hadn't seen this page. Using its terminology as much as I can (I don't agree with all of the cats but like what the page tries to do), I'd say I tend to hover somehwere between moderate eventualism and moderate immediatism. I'm neutral as to statusquo, being both wary of it and drawn to it. We're building an encyclopedia first and last, but through a community. Helpful articles are written by self-selected groups of authors, not by committee or commune but in neighbourliness, bringing many skills and outlooks to bear. Sysopism is helpful but only with many free and stirred up sysops tending to self-selected tasks, the goal for which is helping editors learn how we do things here (the easy to use, intuitive editing interface can lead some new, wholly good faith and knowledgeable editors to think they already know how Wikipedia should work, hence they sometimes need nudging to read the root policy pages), along with nipping conflict and keeping this open garden tidy. Speaking of weeds, a young vandal might be easy to turn into a helpful editor. An older vandal is more rare but also carries less hope. Politics are most often a scourge, free volunteers are most often a help. I'm a wikipacifist. Edit wars are always hurtful. There is always a quicker and happier way. Gone are the days when adminship was "no big deal." It's a big deal now and trust is everything, which means people are everything. I think neutrality is core and on Wikipedia, this will mostly spring from community consensus and outlook (flaws and all) but can also be dealt with as a professional skill: Some have an easy knack for it, others must climb steep slopes to grok it, still others will never understand or even care to, all for many and sundry reasons. Either way, notions of neutrality will shift through time. I tend to look for ways to knead all outlooks which can bear WP:WEIGHT into a smooth, readable narrative, with the most widely and steadfastly noted takes on a topic getting the most words, since the path to neutrality is WP:V. Factions will always tend to arise in human groups, there are survival benefits to this, it's how our minds are wired, the trick is to nudge factions towards being wide and overlapping as possible, then understanding their wants and needs in common. Most of us have both individualistic and social streaks woven together. All the given takes on a topic can't be true, but all will be at least a bit mistaken on some level. Given the terms on the project page I'd say I'm a proceduralist (ew, yucky etymology that!), but please beware bureaucracy and all its heady vices, including centralization with the vanity and greed for sway over others it can bring, thwarting collaboration.

10. What's Wikipedia's biggest problem, and what do you intend to do about it?'

A: I have to bring my own coffee. Since there is no end to this in sight I make mine with a cafetière, 100% Arabica. It's frothy and yummy. I'm also keen on Raul654's discussion page on civil PoV pushing, along with his take on it.

11. A user emails you that another user (with a nym rather than a name) stated in a reverted edit on her user page that she intends to commit suicide. You check the edit, and it's there - she wrote it, then immediately reverted it. Then there are no more edits after that from her, period. What would you do?'

A: Truth be told I think we need a simple, easy to follow, low key policy on this. While these are never easy to look at, they're most often pranks or harmless flashes of angst. The edit described above would strike me as more than likely a teen thinking through sundry notions beyond the edge, which teens do. Either way, serious suicide risks will tend to send lots of signals over time. Through over 30,000 edits I've never once stumbled across (or been emailed) an edit like this so I'd likely post it quietly to ANI anyway, with but a link and little drama as can be. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Razorflame

12. Suppose that a user requests you to semi-protect a page, but instead, you fully protect it. Why would you have done this?

A: Registered users were either edit warring or vandalizing the page. Sometimes, a registered user may be edit warring with an IP and ask for semi-protection hoping for an edge.

13a. Suppose a user is giving you personal attacks on your userpage. How would you proceed?

A: Shrug it off, I've found this always brings by far the happiest outcome. I would not rm the text. If I show the attacks aren't nettling me, they'll likely wind down much faster (and I won't be accidently disrupting by making a fuss over it).

13b. Would you block that user?

A: Nope. If it got tiresome, I'd let someone else handle it. Now and then I'll see a widely trusted admin indef block IPs and accounts showing limited contribs for this kind of thing (calling it trolling or whatever) but if the attack was leveled at me I wouldn't do this.

14. Suppose that you suspect a user of being another user. How would you proceed?

A: If I had a strong and thoroughly thought-through notion about what was happening and was not involved in a content dispute with that user, I'd list it at WP:RCU straight off, otherwise I'd either ask another admin to have a look, or put a note up at WP:ANI. Either way I might first ask the user about other accounts. In a true emergency I might go straight to someone with CU permission.

15. To make sure that you understand the policies, please answer these questions:

15a. Why do we block users?

A: Only to deal with a meaningful likelihood of further and ongoing disruption. Blocks are never used to punish or stop content disputes. Following this basic notion, users may be blocked for trying to evade other blocks or bans, for sockpuppetry or for legal threats (which are a particularly corrosive kind of disruption).

15b. Why do we protect pages?

A: To stop disruptive waves of vandalism or edit warring. A few core, non-article space pages are permanantly protected to safeguard stuff like legal language, vandal-pulling images and the main page. Since disruption typically comes in waves, short protection durations will often work. The open nature of Wikipedia fails however, the longer protection is implemented on an article.

15c. What is the difference between a ban and a block?

A: A ban arises through wide consensus as a community or arbcom decision not to allow an individual person to edit Wikipedia (Jimbo can also do this). A block is only a technical step which removes any ability from the wiki software to edit a Wikipedia page from a given IP, range of IPs or user account.

16. How do you apply WP:IAR to your contributions?

A: Warily. WP:IAR is mostly meant as a means to skirt wikilawyering and gaming of the system, to skirt bureaucracy creep, to follow the spirit of policies rather than their wording but moreover in an uncontroversial, undisruptive way. Most often, when WP:IAR has been followed helpfully, few editors will notice or even care. Mind, dreamy notions of ignoring all rules in good faith by say, doing some mass deletion or move and then being showered with barnstars and cute little pictures of cookies has been shown to be, erm, a deeply flawed way of thinking. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

General comments

• See Gwen Gale's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Gwen Gale
• Requests for adminship/Gwen Gale 2

• Links for Gwen Gale (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi), 23 November 2006 to present.
• My old user account was Wyss (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi), from 14 February 2004 to 22 November 2006. Following a helpful suggestion by Fred Bauder, over privacy worries at the time, I changed my username to Gwen Gale. Also on 22 November 2006, by my request, he hid the user pages of both this account and the one below.
• I tried out The Witch (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) for less than a day on 18-19 January 2006.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Gwen Gale before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Support, seen her around enough, no issues. Wizardman 01:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
2. Support. I wholeheartedly support Gwen for administrator. She is balanced, coolheaded, insightful, open-minded, and thoughtful... all qualities demanded of a good administrator. Pinkville (talk) 01:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
3. Support Strong support We need more Gwens who actually think about what they're doing and less human-bot hybrids. I don't always agree with her but at least she understands what we're supposed to be doing here. — iridescent 01:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

   Change to Strong support thanks to a perfect answer to Q6. Gwen is WP:NOT#MYSPACE made flesh. — iridescent 19:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

4. Support per my co-nom, of course! Antandrus (talk) 01:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
5. Support, I had some reservations last time around, but I believe that those concerns have been addressed and that the tools will be well-placed here. Best of luck. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
6. Support, per the reasons I gave during the first RfA. Majoreditor (talk) 01:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
7. Support, obviously. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
8. Support of course, per Pinkville, Iridescent, and of course Majoreditor. -- Hoary (talk) 02:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
9. Support. Tons of experience and a very prolific mainspace contributor. I don't really like her shortcutting in the edit summaries, "c", "flw", "det", "capt", but I can get over that. Useight (talk) 02:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
10. Support. Trust nominaters. Gwen Gale is very reliable, net gain and more. Good luck. --Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 02:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
11. I strongly support this nomination for the reasons I listed in my nomination statement and the reasons I supported last time. Acalamari 02:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
12. Support No problems here. Sp encer^T♦C 02:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
13. Strong support. I didn't realize that this User was User:Wyss, but I have a great deal of respect for Wyss. Corvus cornix_talk 02:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
14. Impressed with wisdom and overall high clue quotient shown in frequent comments and actions at WP:AN/WP:ANI. Thoughtful, helpful, cool, and (based on the fact that I agree about 75% of the time) smart. ("Very smart" would have required agreeing with me over 90% of the time...) Significant mainspace contributions help make up for all the useless admins like me who don't write. --barneca (talk) 03:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
15. A "high clue quotient" is what we need in administrators. Daniel (talk) 03:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
16. Support -- Ready for the mop. --Sharkface^T/_C 03:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
17. Strong support - absolutely no problems here - Alison ^❤ 03:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
18. Support - Past experience with this editor gives me great confidence that she will make a great admin. --Kralizec! (talk) 04:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
19. Support Midorihana^{contribs~ userpage} 05:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
20. Support No problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 05:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
21. Support - Incredible article work. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 06:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
22. Strong support Sensible, good grip on policy, civil. Outstanding candidate. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
23. —Dark ^talk 06:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
24. Supported last time. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
25. My interactions with Gwen/Wyss back in 2006/early 2007 were shaky, but I've been impressed by her civility and cool-headedness as of late. At this time, I don't see any concerns granting her adminship. Ral315 (talk) 07:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
26. GOAL! O I mean Support MBisanz ^talk 07:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

    I would suggest Gwen try and put a bit more effort/thought into giving fuller answers to questions asked of her in an administrative capacity. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC) (opposing)

27. Certainly. I think she'll do great work as an admin. --PeaceNT (talk) 10:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
28. Aye - no problems here now, good candidate. Black Kite 10:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
29. Agree: her answers to our questions were good enough. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 10:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
30. · AndonicO ^Engage. 11:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
31. Support I agree with Iridescent: we need more human Gwens and less human-bot hybrids. jmcw (talk) 12:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
32. Support Marginly "light" answers to the questions are no match to a review of contributions - which shows a dedicated policy and guideline wise editor. In addition the candidate has clearly worked hard to address the concerns from the last RfA. Definetly a net positive to our work. Pedro :  Chat  12:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
33. Support seems to be a cool headed, civil person. Good skills in deletion and article building.--Lenticel ^(talk) 12:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
34. Strong support. Rudget (Help?) 12:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
35. Support I've nothing that would indicate she'd have any trouble as an admin. CrazyChemGuy (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
36. Drama-free support. Learned her lesson, will be a fine admin - Revolving Bugbear 13:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
37. Support wonderful candidate, brilliant article work. Good luck! --Cameron (t|p|c) 16:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
38. Support. Good editor. Hope to be working with you on the admin team soon! Malinaccier (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
39. Sí. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
40. Support Everyone who got here ahead of me said it best...and first! Ecoleetage (talk) 19:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
41. Support Per ANswer to my question. Trees Rock^MyGoal 20:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
42. Support A very experienced and knowledgeable user who is able to learn from her mistakes. Epbr123 (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
43. Support no reason not to. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 21:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
44. Support I'd say why, except it might get me in trouble. Keepscases (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
45. Support - Smart lady. I perceive no problems with this wonderful user gaining the tools. Good luck! Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 22:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
46. Support. I love Iridescent's comment about wanting fewer "human-bot hybrids"; that really comes across in the candidate's answers. I see lots opinions from people I trust here, too. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
47. Support I supported Gwen last time, and I still do. --Rodhullandemu 23:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
48. Support Looks good to me. --CapitalR (talk) 23:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
49. Support I don't think anybody's perfect, so a few transgressions are not to be unexpected. Vishnava_(talk) 00:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
50. Support In my experience Gwen has shown excellent wisdom and care. . . dave souza, talk 08:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
51. Support Merzbow (talk) 08:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
52. Support, no concerns. Neıl 龱 11:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
53. Support I believed the candidate to have been capable of fulfilling the responsibilities in the earlier RfA, and conclude that we are simply going to get a better prepared sysop this time round. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
54. Support --jonny-mt 13:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
55. Yup. ➨ REDVEЯS is now 40 per cent papier mâché 14:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
56. Support Appears to have overcome past difficulties. Opposes seemed based on past events or on non events. Dlohcierekim 14:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
57. Support My own interactions with Gwen ahve been very positive. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 15:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
58. Support SexySeaShark 16:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
59. Support: I see a lot of progress since the prior RfA, and she's been a helpful and sensible presence around administrative areas. The current opposes don't concern me overly, and I think we should encourage someone who's obviously learned from past experiences. Good luck. MastCell ^Talk 17:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
60. Strong Support per User:BobTheTomato, who does not appear to have moved on since the last RfA, in marked contrast to the candidate. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

    Before offering a support comment like you did, I would encourage you to actually do some investigation into this user's "contributions" at Abraham Lincoln. My oppose has much more to do with that than with her strange closing statement at the last RfA. BobTheTomato (MrWhich) (talk) 11:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

    I couldn't find any contribs to that page by Gwen Gale since Nov 2007. Are you accusing her of sockpuppetry since her 1st RfA, or am I missing something else? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

    I think it's pretty clear what I mean: her behavior 6 months ago (and four months ago at the close of her last RfA) is problematic enough to disqualify her from properly using the tools. There were some very serious issues, that I don't think 4 months of "good behavior" outweigh. Others disagree, and this is their right. Writing a snarky support message just seems a bit over-the-top. BobTheTomato (MrWhich) (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

    And I think it's pretty clear what I mean: The candidate has moved on. If you have a problem with my "snarkiness", I have a Talk page for that. There's no reason to disrupt this RfA further. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

    I have not "disrupted" this RfA any more than you did by leaving a snarky support, which referenced my oppose. You did that here, I dealt with it here. Simple as that. BobTheTomato (MrWhich) (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

61. Support. Gwen would be a strong contributor as an admin. She is a great communicator and has demonstrated excellent dispute resolution skills—handling difficult cases with fairness and competence. Sunray (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
62. Support I've had nothing but good interactions with Gwen, and she would be a credit to Wikipedia as an admin. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
63. Support per Mastcell. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
64. Support per answer to my question. Zginder 2008-05-19T21:00Z (UTC)
65. Strong support: Through dozens of interactions with this editor over the past several months, I have developed the highest respect for himher. I would have offered to nominate himher if I had known heshe wasn't already and admin. Toddst1 (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

    With respect, I can assure you that Gwen Gale is indeed a "she" and not a "he". :) Acalamari 21:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

    No disrespect intended. I thought I remembered a gender identification - obviously not. Support all the same.Toddst1 (talk) 05:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

66. Support intelligent, able, committed to making the project a better place ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
67. Support, as last time. krimpet✽ 14:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
68. Support Philip Trueman (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
69. Strong support Especially for taking a strong stand against racist editors. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
70. Support Gwen is a force for good here and makes appropriate course corrections when needed. She has my trust. alanyst ^/talk/ 16:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
71. Support I have worked with this editor and found her to be intelligent, helpful, trustworthy, useful and dedicated. If there's any part of the Girl Scout oath I've overlooked, she's probably got that too. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
72. Support Assumed she was an admin already. That's a good sign in my book... // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 18:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
73. Support per above, has a good grip on policy and isn't giving second thought to rotten tomatoes. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
74. Support Has a clue, always a good thing in an admin. Issues from last RFA appear to have been addressed, despite a few claims to the contrary from her primary detractor. Horologium (talk) 22:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
75. Support - trustworthy and competent. PhilKnight (talk) 23:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
76. Support I supported Gwen Gale's first RfA and am happy to support again. I'm impressed by her ability to remain polite and rational when others don't extend her the same courtesy. faithless (^speak) 02:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

    I assume you're talking about me. Please point out where I wasn't polite or rational (which is what I assumer you meant). BobTheTomato (MrWhich) (talk) 02:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

    I was not talking about you. faithless (^speak) 02:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

77. miranda 03:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
78. Support. Editor is civil above pretty much everything else, which is exactly what we need considering the current active admin pool. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 05:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
79. Support No problems here. ( I borrow Siva1979's comment this time) . -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 12:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
80. Support Candidate will be a solid and welcome addition to the current admin roster, no reasons for concern. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
81. Support, good editor. Everyking (talk) 18:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
82. Support without hesitation. Great contributions. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
83. With pleasure. Valtoras (talk) 06:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
84. Support - wasn't aware there was an RfA on - my interactions with her and my observations of her interactiosn with others meanI would trust her to be an admin --Matilda ^talk 00:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
85. Support Catchpole (talk) 10:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
86. Support per the answer to my questions. The answers you gave to my questions show that you have an understanding of the policies that administrators must have in order to do the job properly. I must say that I did not like the short responses, though. I would much rather have seen longer responses, but you answered them (especially Q16) well. Cheers, Razorflame 14:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
87. Support per overall review of editor's generally careful, considered posts and edit summaries.  Frank  |  talk  16:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

    Are you referring to edit summaries like this one, in which she (as she approaches 3RR herself) warns another editor about 3RR? There are dozens more where this came from. BobTheTomato (MrWhich) (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

    I chose the words "overall" and "generally" very specifically to indicate that I looked at Honest Abe as well as a selection of more recent edits from among thousands since then.  Frank  |  talk  17:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

88. Support, Wow! Prideful answers! WikiZorro^sign 23:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
89. Support. While BobTheTomato's oppose did make my eyebrow raise, I'd have to say I'm still leaning on the side of support with regards to this editor, there is a potential for a temper issue, but it thats gonna be an issue it'll become aparant fairly quickly. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 10:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
90. Support. Gwen Gale is more than qualified to be an admin, and it is very disappointing that we've allowed an admitted sockpuppet to disrupt this RfA. Gwen Gale has been beneficial as an editor, and will be even more beneficial as an admin. - auburnpilot talk 16:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

    Be "disappointed" all you like. I've done nothing wrong here, and haven't come close to "disruption." Not even close. Opposing a candidate vigorously, and with cause, is not disruption, in any way shape or form. Your accusations are beneath the dignity of what an administrator of this project should aspire to. Disgusting. BobTheTomato (MrWhich) (talk) 17:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

    What's disgusting is that you have been allowed to use a sockpuppet to oppose this candidate, in order to keep your new account clean from this debate. What's disgusting is that you were allowed to use RtV and vanish, when you weren't leaving at all. What's disgusting, is that all of this has gone unimpeded. - auburnpilot talk 18:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

    Would someone get this guy under control? He's now making veiled block threats for my supposed "disruption" of this RfA. Is this acceptable for an administrator? Vigorously opposing a candidate for RfA -- which I've RARELY, if ever, done -- is not disruption. Period. BobTheTomato (MrWhich) (talk) 18:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

    Oh, please. Lying on a project like this will get you nowhere, as diffs so easily prove the truth. I said you should probably be blocked for sockpuppetry,[1] and that I had zero intentions of doing it myself.[2] However, since you've now identified the connection between the two accounts, there really is no problem. - auburnpilot talk 19:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

    Who's lying? I said it was a "veiled" threat for a reason. You didn't just say "I'm going to block you." But there's little other way that most lowly editors would take "you should be blocked" when written by a person with the ability to do so. BobTheTomato (MrWhich) (talk) 19:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

91. Strong Support Great editor, sad this has needed a second request. --Ave Caesar (talk) 17:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
92. Support, seems to be a decent editor and wouldn't likely abuse the mop. --Rory096 21:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
93. Support Have seen candidate around and have never failed to be impressed with what I've seen. Definite case of net benefit to the project. Orderinchaos 22:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. As before, so I copy the text from my previous oppose: In my dealings with her at Abraham Lincoln, I was accused of edit-warring, personal attacks, and all manner of wikipolicy violations, none of which I'd committed. She couches her accusations of bad faith in faux politeness, but they remain unsubstantiated allegations, as she never supported them in any way. In addition, she edit-warred at that page, badgered against consensus, and displayed some quite blatant POV problems at the talkpage as pointed out above. It's disturbing to me that this candidacy is on track for promotion. BobTheTomato (MrWhich) (talk) 08:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

   An interesting thread she started on the talkpage of her last RfA, basically insulting all of those who dared oppose her. BobTheTomato (MrWhich) (talk) 08:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

   I'd also like to add that this oppose is at least partially per her non-answer to the perfectly legitimate Q#4. BobTheTomato (MrWhich) (talk) 08:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

   No the only reason that wasn't answered was because she was offline and has only answered now that she's come back and seen it.--Phoenix-wiki 11:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

   To judge from the timestamps of Bob's comment and her answer to question 4, I assume that by 'non-answer' he means 'inadequate answer' Olaf Davis | Talk 12:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

   BobTheTomato, I'm fascinated by your list of contributions: since 23 January, you appear to have been exclusively interested in Gwen Gale. Care to comment on what might be taken or mistaken for somewhat obsessive behavior? -- Hoary (talk) 12:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

   Comment Something of a mystery here as user has asked to Vanish. Dlohcierekim 15:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

   And Gwen's treatment of me at Abraham Lincoln was part of the reason why. I will gladly unvanish this account to oppose this nominee. Apparently, she will get the tools notwithstanding my oppose, but the oppose should stand, even if it means unvanishing my account. BobTheTomato (MrWhich) (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

2. Oppose 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. Her unsubstantiated personal opinion (what she calls a "glark") that hummus is very ancient is treated as the touchstone of correctness in sources, and she seems to think that modern folklore reported on random Web pages (not even reports in serious ethnographies etc.) is more worthy of attention than scholarly books. She also doesn't bother to try to refute others' arguments, but instead repeats her claims over and over. I'd ask other editors to look over Talk:Hummus and see if this sort of approach is consistent with Wikipedia policy. By the way, I have > 10,000 edits on Wikipedia, including on food articles like baklava, where I think we've successfully kept up high standards in the face of spurious claims (mostly by nationalists). --Macrakis (talk) 20:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

   I'd like to answer that, if it's not incorrect. After my previous negative interaction with candidate, I started watching her talk page, just to keep an eye open (I don't do this often, btw). I decided that watching her talk page's edit summaries was indeed entertaining ("Your immediate attention is needed on Hummus", for example), but when looking at candidate's work on food pages, it would be hard to find significant evidence of inherent bias even on content pages which reflect the occasionally spicy character of the societies and cultures from which such delicacies arise, IMHO. BusterD (talk) 20:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

   Hi there. I'd like to ask whether what User:Macrakis did here, is in accord with the rules of WP. Isn't he trying to influence an admin? Thanks in advance. ktr (talk) 22:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

   I don't suppose there's anything wrong with inviting somebody to participate in this event. -- Hoary (talk) 22:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

   Could be interpreted as canvassing. Last I looked, it is not strictly forbidden, merely discouraged because disruption and turmoil sometimes ensue. Dlohcierekim 14:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

   It is not canvassing, but a friendly notice, by the definitions of the canvassing page which clearly states that informing one editor (who happens to be an admin, but that's not the issue) that there is a discussion on a topic to which he has contributed (see Talk:Hummus) is perfectly fine. --Macrakis (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

   Why are we discussing Gwen Gail? This is the Gwen Gale RfA (although, it should be noted, that both are very likely to have belly buttons). LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

3. Oppose My one interaction with her was not too pleasant. It was the edit summary which I considered out of line. [3] I might add that another user replaced the link .[4] The edit summary was uncivil and uncalled for. While a good editor, I feel that she might not have the temperament to be an administrator.— Ѕandahl 21:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

   Perhaps I am not correctly understanding why you oppose the nomination, but how do you see " interview of former celeb is not necessarily notable, + the link is to a copyvio " as uncivil? Was there more to the discussion between the two of you than this one edit? I do think civility is a critical issue in admin candidates, and if there was indeed a civility issue here I would not want to support, however, in all honesty, I can't quite understand how that summary was uncivil.CrazyChemGuy (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

   Agree with CrazyChemGuy (LOL). That's not uncivil, it's telling it as it is. Youtube should not be used in Wikipedia articles anyway. Cheers, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 23:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

   I saw being accused of a copyright violation as uncivil, and objected to the edit summary . That was an with an interview with a decades long out of the spotlight film star which I saw as relevant to the article . Here is a link to the external links policy. [5] There is no ban on linking to YouTube. This is the only communication I have had with this user [6]— Ѕandahl 00:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

   If Gwen had good reason to think that you had violated copyright, she would have been quite justified in saying so. (Or anyway, if you ever have good reason to think that I have violated copyright, please say so and don't mince your words.) But she didn't say so, and there's no sign that this is what she thought. She did not say the link is a copyvio, she said the link is to a copyvio (my emphasis). The violation she perceived was by the person who uploaded the file to YouTube and perhaps also by YouTube, and anyway not by you. -- Hoary (talk) 01:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

4. Oppose (at least for now). I am surprised that Gwen only hinted at the Abraham Lincoln article in her statement and answers. Seems a few people are still feeling the sting of her actions after all these months. She says in her answer to Q3 "having come to understand something about how and why Wikipedia works" and "I took the lingering criticism I got back then truly and deeply to heart". I'd like elaboration here. I'd really like to understand from her what went wrong on her part, what she learned, and how what she has learned will make her a better editor, and a good admin. Kingturtle (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

   Gwen, I've continued to read the conversations here, but I still haven't seen exactly how you have "come to understand" or "took the lingering criticism [you] got back then truly and deeply to heart". The answers seem rather vague. Kingturtle (talk) 10:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

5. Oppose per Gwen's closing statement from her last RfA. Given her seeming obsessiveness about deflecting blame, I'm not sure I see the temperament to be an admin. Ronnotel (talk) 19:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

   I didn't even bother to read it for one reason. Why would you hold something against her that occurred four months ago and involves the last RfA? We are supposed to judge between then and now. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

   It occurred only four months ago. And her despicable (and I don't use that word lightly) behavior at Abraham Lincoln occurred only about 7 or 8 months ago. I've been editing this project (off and on) for quite some time, and I've never been treated worse than this user treated me. BobTheTomato (MrWhich) (talk) 11:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

6. Per some valid concerned raised above. Also, the last RFA was a few months ago. The suggestion to ignore her history before that time seems quite ridiculous to me. Why would we not consider all available information about a candidate? Anyone can act reasonable for a short period of time, but this means nothing. It's the true nature of the candidate that RFA attempts to divine, not some ability to act differently in the short term. Friday (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
7. Per Friday; all past behavior is to be considered. east.718 at 16:35, May 21, 2008
8. Oppose. I am aware that the candidate has made considerable efforts to behave like a good admin over the past four months, and that everyone has bad days and bad periods. However, I am concerned enough with the previous behaviour and attitudes displayed to feel that four months of deliberate good behaviour is not quite enough to make me feel comfortable. There is no rush here, and I'd feel more secure if the candidate was naturally behaving in a positive light over a more extended period than say yes at this point with the concerns raised and my own general uncertainty. There is a bit of wikidrama over some of what Gwen Gale does - the closing statement of the previous RfA still casts a shadow over the candidate. It will go. But at this moment it is still there - and I'd like to see a bit more light before giving my support. SilkTork *^YES! 00:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

   Now this I could agree with. If I saw a longer--much longer--track record of Gwen not POV-pushing, badgering against consensus, and wikilawyering, even I could support her. For me, it would probably take an entire year from the last poor interaction I had with her, which if I remember correctly, was in early December 2007. Four months since her last RfA (in which she offered the odd "closing statement") is simply not enough, at least for me. BobTheTomato (MrWhich) (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

9. Weak oppose per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leo J. Meyer (2nd nomination). Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
10. Oppose. Per Friday. The dispute at Abe Lincoln is way too recent and disconcerting for me to be comfortable that fringe POV pushing would not recur. I strongly dispute the assertion that someone with a Bachelors degree in English is a "degreed scholar" whose essentially self-published claims about Abraham Lincoln merit consideration. This appears to me to be complete, and unacknowledged, failure to understand even a very lax reading of WP:UNDUE. --JayHenry (talk) 04:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

    Ah, good, something clearer to work with. So, this is an argument over whether to add this page at lewrockwell.com to the list of external links of the article on Lincoln. Gwen wanted it, most others didn't. Both sides seem irritated but polite. The page itself is a list of links. Judging by their titles and brief descriptions, all are highly critical of Lincoln. Most are hosted by lewrockwell.com and some (most?) of the others are hosted by some "institute" (yet another "free market"-glorifying US thinktank) that has Rockwell as its prez. Whatever Rockwell is (and I'd never heard of him), he shows no sign of being a historian; even if the essays hosted by his website were written by historians, he'd be a curious choice of historical editors. Tom (North Shoreman) -- who, with BusterD, conducts himself particularly well throughout -- states that Most of the contributors have no record of print publications and no history degrees. Those few that do have publications are either not historians or have not published serious works about Lincoln. Gwen disappointingly doesn't argue against this but instead points out that academic credentials aren't required of the authors of external links. True, they aren't, but I don't see any compelling reasons described in this section for why the link should be added. ¶ Judging by what I see in this discussion, I'd side against Gwen. However, I think JayHenry's charge above is a bit overdone. All of this was (or seems to have been) about the addition of a discrete external link. I don't see any charge here that Gwen was trying to add material sourced to essays by non-historians, "libertarian" or other. -- Hoary (talk) 05:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

    Thanks for a thoughtful reply and careful analysis, Hoary. I perhaps didn't state my case as clearly as I could have since I focused on just one episode at the exclusion of others. It looks to me as if the Abraham Lincoln situation, however, was a rather protracted dispute of which this was but one of many alarming contours. (And there were definite problems from others here. I would be unable to support an RFA for TheTomato or his successor account for quite some time.) UNDUE in ELs is still a necessary consideration, though perhaps less so than as a citation. Now, had it been this one bad call in a vacuum, I'd agree with Hoary that opposing would be overdone. But it was a history of edits such as Pervez Musharraf on Lincoln or statements here that are concerning to me (I don't blame IvoShandor for disengaging once the claim that Lincoln was a genocidal tyrant emerged). From "genocidal tyrant" to Musharaff, to the Web site, to the general tenor of the discussion I do see a pattern of deep concern. --JayHenry (talk) 06:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

    Thank you for the thoughtful and informative reply. I look at Pervez Musharraf on Lincoln and I see Gwen vigorously proposing a PoV about the article. I think there's a lot in favor of what she's saying, which she says courteously -- although sign-offs such as "Cheers to all!", while perhaps well meant, grate horribly to me now and probably grated more to you then. I also see grounds for concern, yes. ¶ Well, many admins are opinionated. Certainly I am. I have opinions and I express them: it's not hard to find talk pages where I'm knocking "junk" this and "crap" that. But I try to keep my fourth-rate pundit persona separate from my (fourth-rate?) admin persona: when I find myself disagreeing with non-vandals about an article, I'm particularly careful to limit my administrative shillelaghmop-swinging there to the disposal of the perpetrators of what anybody, even my opponents, would call vandalism. While voting for Gwen, I can't promise that as an editor she'd raise no hackles. But I trust her not to use the administrative mop on sober, good-faith editors who disagree with her. I'm sorry that you can't trust her to behave responsibly, but I respect your decision. -- Hoary (talk) 07:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

    POV-pushing is certainly a bad thing, but the other issue here is that she does not seem to understand the central WP concepts of verifiability and reliable sources. I was not involved in the Abraham Lincoln business, but having looked at it, it seems to be a similar problem with the problem I had with her on Talk:Hummus, namely that she treats random Web pages as good sources, indeed as better sources than published scholarly books. It is hard to know for sure, but I am guessing that she thinks that Verifiability means that something should be readily accessible on the Web, and that therefore a published book is not as verifiable as a random Web page; but in fact, the policy is the opposite of that. Until she shows by her actions that she understands this bedrock principle of WP, I don't see how she can be an effective admin. --Macrakis (talk) 22:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

    I think you're referring to this part of that long talk page, and that (even before you make your guess) you are caricaturing her position. My impression is that she thinks that recipe books and the like, and ho-hum web pages (but hardly random ones) are at times worth consideration, as long as their use is careful and explicitly flagged. This isn't a position that I much care for but it does not show disregard for WP:V. She also doesn't seem to object to the fact that you were using and citing an academic book, but instead seems to be objecting to what she thought was too sweeping an inference from it. Incidentally, this exchange followed what seems to have been a sustained effort by her (and others) to calm down tempers and avoid name-calling. I can't say I've done more than skimread it, but what I've read looks good. -- Hoary (talk) 11:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

    Just to be clear, I wasn't involved in the Abraham Lincoln dispute. I reviewed it with an open mind, or maybe even a bias against BobTheTomato's perspective. I found that despite his behavior here, I don't think he was entirely incorrect to be concerned. --JayHenry (talk) 17:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

    What exactly are your concerns with how I've comported myself here? Have I been rude or disrespectful in some way? In the past, I rarely oppose RfAs. I simply feel strongly that this candidate is not a good one. BobTheTomato (MrWhich) (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

11. Considering the other issues raised alongside my unresponsiveness concern above (in support). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

    To state the obvious, it's a bit hard to spot your concern (especially in the "support" section) amongst the 80 or so other people endorsing Gwen's request for adminship... —Dark ^talk 09:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

    It's below support #26. I'm not sure I agree with you. Just use Ctrl-F on his username... two seconds and not difficult. --JayHenry (talk) 17:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

    You've missed the point...how did Gwen know that DM had a concern prior to this oppose? —Dark ^talk 22:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

12. Oppose after having read both RfAs in their entirety (and their talk pages) and several of the disputes which were linked in both support and opposition. — Athaenara ✉ 22:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral - it's been four months since this candidate' last nomination. I think any opposition votes should focus on this time period. Her obvious and blatant prior misdeeds should be overlooked as a courtesy to the nominating admins who have, no doubt, been providing the appropriate mentoring and oversight. Rklawton (talk) 13:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

   Neutral -Pending answer to my question. Trees Rock^MyGoal 14:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

   User switched to support. Indenting accordingly. Acalamari 20:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

2. Neutral - I was one who expressed difficulty with this candidate in the previous RfA process. At some considerable length (I made 36 edits to that earlier process page, and perhaps a few dozen more between her and my talk pages at the time), I raised questions concerning 1) transparency regarding failure to disclose the account User:The Witch prior to the process; and 2) what I viewed as "manicuring" her talk page to leave a favorable impression after the Abraham Lincoln talk discussion back in December 2007. Further, I admitted to what could be viewed as "canvassing" by notifying both users Bob the Tomato (vanished) and Rklawton (on wikibreak) of her RfA process. Candidate's defensive manner in answering my (perhaps) leading questions might have contributed to a somewhat negative impression conveyed to those reading the process. I once shared some of the concerns raised by Bob the Tomato in his opposition, but I urge those who do read candidate's previous RfA (and I'd like to think that's required reading here) to follow Rklawton's suggestion above: since then, candidate has demonstrated transparency and trust appropriate to such high responsibility. BusterD (talk) 20:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
3. Neutral leaning towards oppose - Slightly worried about this editor, mostly per BobTheTomato. asenine ^{say what?} 21:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

   In lieu of diffs of the talkpage, I'm posting this for the perusal of anyone considering supporting (or even staying neutral) on this candidate. A full reading should give anyone pause. Additionally, I will try to find some diffs from the actual main article history that show her uncivil (accusing others of wikipolicy violations is uncivil that they didn't commit is uncivil, period) edit summaries, and edit-warring. BobTheTomato (MrWhich) (talk) 14:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

   There's some truth in what you say, Bob. Viz A full reading should give anyone pause. Yes, the page is 224 kilobytes long. Call me lazy, but I'm not going to give that a cursory reading, let alone a full one. You said earlier that I've never been treated worse than this user treated me. Where's the beef? Your contributions history suggests that it's been gnawing at you (if beef can gnaw). Diffs, please. -- Hoary (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

   A simple text search for Gwen's name will reveal plenty of POV-pushing grist for your perusal. For instance, at one point she called Lincoln a "genocidal tyrant." She pushed for inclusion of LewRockwell.com as a source, even though it's a clearly POV-pushing website, with articles titled things like "King Lincoln" and other tripe that fit right in with Gwen dropping the G-bomb. She pushed for inclusion of this site against overwhelming consensus, assumed bad faith of those who wouldn't let her include it, and accused me of all sorts of policy violations for resisting her POV-pushing. She often did this in edit summaries on the main article as well. BobTheTomato (MrWhich) (talk) 19:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

   I haven't yet seen anywhere where she called Lincoln a "genocidal tyrant". She did however stick Lincoln in the same sentence as that phrase: this is discussed by Pinkville below. She pushed for inclusion of one page of lewrockwell.com within the list of external links; I haven't seen her making substantive changes and sourcing any of these to any page of lewrockwell.com. If a simple text search by me would reveal worse things than what I've yet noticed, presumably a simple text search by you would do the same. Gwen signs her comments, so it would be easy for you to serve up the diffs as evidence for your allegations. -- Hoary (talk) 11:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

   I perused this and could not identify the places where I've never been treated worse than this user treated me occurred. Could you supply some diffs? I would like to try and understand the emotions involved here. jmcw (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

   That link leads to a few examples of Gwen badgering against consensus, actively promoting fringe POVs, and wikilawyering by accusing me of at least three (that I found in a quick look) policy violations that I did not commit. She does so with a faux politesse in which she attempts to disguise the real content of her posts, but for anyone who looks, you will see it. She had done so for such a long time that I finally just gave up and quit editing AL at all. I have little doubt that had she had the tools, she would have blocked me. BobTheTomato (MrWhich) (talk) 00:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

   I've read through most of the material in question and what I see is an often heated discussion in which Gwen asserted an unpopular but not unreasonable position, supported when necessary by citing Wikipedia policy. I haven't yet seen an example of the "despicable" treatment you mention and, on the contrary, I note the repeated misrepresentations by various editors (including you) of her comment regarding Lincoln as a "genocidal tyrant". The passage in question is this: There are lots of verifiable, reliable and independent secondary sources... to support an assertion Lincoln was a genocidal tyrant... Notice that she herself never claims that Lincoln was a genocidal tyrant, only that she can find sources that do make that (or similar) claims. This is another case of killing the messenger. As evidence against her candidature it's worthless and malign. As to the other charges, POV - even extremist - sources can be included if they are verifiable, germane, properly contextualised, and maintain article balance; proposing to include such a source isn't in itself an indication of "actively promoting fringe POVs". I wonder what, exactly, you mean by "the real content of her posts" that "anyone who looks" will see? What you take for "faux politesse" seems to me to be exactly the spirit of discussion that Wikipedia policy is intended to support , namely, courteous, rational communication even when editors disagree. Again, we're waiting to see an example of how Gwen mistreated you. Pinkville (talk) 02:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

4. Neutral This one was realy tough. After reading the comments (and various comments on the comments), I just had to look at the Lincoln material. Frankly, I was not impressed by either side. Looked to me like two who could not/would not step back from a confrontation. Even though it was several months ago, Gwen, I found several instances of behavior that trouble me. A more up-front acknowledgement of what happened, and how you changed behavior before the community weighed in would have helped. Unfortunately, I can't support at this time. However, I won't oppose as it seems there have been improvements, and quite frankly, the opposes led me to think you were a cross between Lucifer and the NY Yankees (I despise them!) The results were not nearly as bad as anticipated. King Pickle (talk) 02:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
5. Totally pointless unvote to note that I'd like to support but I'm a little hesistant to after seeing you around. Good luck, though. </end pointlessness> naerii - talk 18:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.