this is a follow up criticism of gwen gale's improper deletion of the alex jones criticism section i have tried to have this discussed in a responsible way on her talk page but she has outrageously deleted all the critiques i have posted there in my view gwen gale's actions and judgement are seriously called into question by her conduct apparent in this thread and subsequent attempts to discuss it i will post the text of the complaint i made below if you agree that she has acted improperly please respond saying so two people of this opinion one other are required before a request for comment on her actions can be made this is a complaint relating to the conduct of administrator gwen gale with specific reference to her summary deletion of the section labelled criticism in the alex jones talk show host page on march her most substantive comments relating to the summary deletion were as follows single source cited says it's not clear what even happened i've removed it following wp blp and wp weight given the single cited source says it's not even clear what happened it's nothing but a non notable second hand anecdote about what may or may not have been a parking lot brawl gwen gale talk the grounds as you put it are wp blp gwen gale talk the complaint is based on five points gwen gale failed to follow proper policy with regard to deleting biographical material on living persons viz discussing it beforehand the section had existed for some time had been discussed and commented on extensively and had been edited by several persons as far as i am aware gwen gale had no prior involvement in the page or the section concerned certainly i had never seen her name in any of the page history unless it constituted a grave breach of some other policy which not even gwen gale has claimed any possible deletion should have been discussed beforehand and not executed summarily to quote the blp policy biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified if this is not possible then it should be removed no complaint about the nature of the material was made beforehand no opportunity for improvement or rectification was offered having failed to discuss it properly beforehand gwen gale also failed to discuss it properly afterwards she made a few general remarks using terms which as will be discussed later do not form part of any wikipedia policy viz single sourced anecdotal and breezily referred those who wanted to discuss the matter with her to general wikipedia policy documents such as biography of living persons or verifiability as will be shown in what follows the text did not violate either of these policy documents gwen gale refused multiple specific requests to quote the exact passages of the biography on living persons or verifiability policies which she claimed had been violated this refusal to properly discuss a summary deletion is against wikipedia conduct guidelines and not acceptable behaviour in an administator gwen gale s comments on the summary deletion reveal that she does not understand the core wikipedia policy on reliable sources gwen gale s comments indicate that she does not understand the proper scope of wikipedia s policy on verifiability gwen gale s comments reveal that she does not understand wikipedia s biography on living persons policy the only serious grounds on which deletion of the deleted text could be justified is weight this is not the ground on which gwen gale chose to defend it she repeatedly cited blp and v as the core defence of her actions demonstrating that her judgement is massively flawed and that her administrative powers should be revoked the core issue here is not the content the core issue is gwen gale s conduct and judgement the weight issue will however be discussed at the end gwen gale s misunderstanding of the wikipedia s guidelines on reliable sourcing it is clear that gwen gale does not understand wikipedia s policy on sourcing in stating that the claims embodied in the deleted text were anecdotal she is effectively second guessing the judgement of the original reliable source viz the austin chronicle she is implicitly expressing the view that the austin chronicle s assembled journalists editors sub editors and lawyers made an error in judgement in publishing the article in the first place this is completely unacceptable and represents a fundamental error in judgement it is in no way appropriate for wikipedia editors to make their own subjective judgements about the editorial standards of highly reputable and professional publications it is the equivalent of an editor disputing a reference to a professional academic journal on