Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Gwen Gale

message: I've moved some of Gwen's reponses, and the responses to them, from the oppose section to here, because there were so many that it was getting hard to see where to place a vote. See below. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 19:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Threaded comments

message: Gwen Gale's edit stats using "wannabe Kate" tool as of 22:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Stats

message: #:Lastly (per above) construing my absence in any manner whatsoever is also highly inappropriate. I don't understand. Could you elaborate? -- Hoary (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Threaded comments from project page 1 

message: Re: Oppose reverts too much. See the history of Abraham Lincoln around 9-11 Nov 2007. She definitely broke the 3RR only two months ago and did about 7 reverts in about 27 hours [although she wasn't blocked]. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 22:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Threaded comments from project page 2

message: Re: Oppose, the editor has a history of POV pushing and edit-warring at Abraham Lincoln. An admin should abide by WP:NPOV. --STX 21:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Threaded comments from project page 3

message: I'm actually surprised at the outcome of this RfA. I expected Gwen would get the mop here, and didn't think my questions or comments sufficient to change many minds. I even said as much in my opposition comments. For fullest transparency, I'd like to disclose that I contacted three editors to alert them to this process: I placed a message on User talk:North Shoreman, since I'd mentioned an edit of his which demonstrated what I was seeing at Talk:Abraham Lincoln; I emailed User:Rklawton and User:MrWhich because I believed in their absence they were being characterized poorly by the candidate. IMHO, the biggest issue in this RfA has been the defensive posture taken by the candidate. The more the candidate argued and contested she was a victim in this process designed to examine her, the less admin-like she appeared. Because I took such a harsh stance in this RfA, when she runs again (and I encourage her to do so), I pledge to take a neutral stance, and not repeat the questions asked here. BusterD (talk) 23:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. :-) SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 23:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement of disclosure from BusterD

message: First, although this RfA failed, I'm happy because the outcome has been so helpful in many meaningful ways. I consider my RfA to have been wholly productive, constructive and correctly closed. My thoughts above have already been swiftly addressed and fully resolved through discussion, straightforwardly and in exemplary ways. Thanks again everyone for your time and for participating, both on this project page and elsewhere. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Candidate's statement of agreement with closure