Just what is Meta for, anyways? Options

[Tarc]

Not technically "Wikipedia" related, but WMF in general. Its kinda nuts up there, as our dear WR contributor Mbz1 is using Meta's RfC process as her sole remaining battleground from which to fire salvos at Gwen Gale; http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_fo...mment/Gwen_Gale

I called for the whole thing to be shit-canned but they quickly shat upon that idea and shuffled it off to a sub-section of the RfC itself.

Mbz1's formerly "voluntary indef" on en.wiki has been made into a real one, due to harassment of Gwen at....ding ding ding...Meta. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

This post has been edited by Tarc:

[mbz1]

Also I'd like to ask everybody to tell me what is the difference between Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ and RFC for Gwen Gale or rather what is the difference between the stories of an admin Fæ and an admin gwen gale.

*They both had prior accounts.
*They both went for a clean start after they have problems.
*They both were eventually identified as having prior accounts.
*Fæ wrote some articles that were BLP violations. Gwen Gale wrote two articles about not-notable herself, and added numerous links to her own bio written by her at the feminist.net to a few Wikipedia articles.
*They both were not exactly honest in their RfAs, except Gwen Gale made a few openly false or half-true statements during her RfA, while Fæ simply failed to disclose his prior accounts.
*Maybe I am mistaking, but I believe Fæ is not an abusive as admin at English wiki, Gwen Gale is.

I am simply trying to understand how somebody who read this section http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_fo...s_when_involved could claim that Gwen Gale is an average admin. She's probably not the worst one, but I am sure, she is well below average .

Please forget that this RFC was submitted by me. Let's assume it was submitted by a different person. Let's assume it was submitted on English wiki. Just tell me please, where I got it wrong, except submitting it on meta. I will really appreciate your comments. Thanks.

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[Tarc]

Also I'd like to ask everybody to tell me what is the difference between Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ and RFC for Gwen Gale or rather what is the difference between the stories of an admin Fæ and an admin gwen gale.

*They both had prior accounts.
*They both went for a clean start after they have problems.

I'd say the difference can be seen in a comparison of the nomination statements;

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gwen Gale (T-H-L-K-D)

Gwen Gale (talk · contribs) - Gwen Gale has been editing Wikipedia under her current user name for over a year, during which time she has made over 13,000 edits. She made a further 13,000 edits under her previous account User:Wyss. She is an excellent article writer, developing articles on a range of subjects, some up to Good Article level. She is experienced at XfD and guideline discussions, and has taken part in vandal fighting. Gwen Gale is an experienced and knowledgable user who can be trusted with the tools, in whatever area she decides to use them. Epbr123 (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gwen Gale 2 (T-H-L-K-D)

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.

[...]

Acalamari 22:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fae (T-H-L-K-D)

Fæ (talk · contribs) – Fæ is a highly active and experienced contributor (for those who like stats: 50,000 edits over 12 months) in a variety of areas in which having the tools would benefit the project. I highlight the following reasons why Fæ should be given the tools:

Fæ is an OTRS volunteer and has been since August 2010. The fact of being an OTRS volunteer already demonstrates a high degree of trustworthiness. But also, having the administrative tools will help Fæ to carry out important OTRS-related functions, like dealing with copyright and BLP violations that get reported via email.
Fæ has a demonstrated commitment to, and proficiency in, content work, with three good articles and one featured article.
Fæ's one featured article, Hoxne Hoard, demonstrates exactly the qualities the project needs in an administrator. The article passed FA as the result of an organised collaboration between multiple editors on- and off-wiki. It's one thing to write an FA yourself; it's another thing entirely to demonstrate the people skills, teamwork and leadership needed to get a large collaboration across the line. I'd also suggest having a look at WP:GLAM/BM and WP:GLAM/BL for Fæ's ongoing collaborative work in GLAM projects.
Fæ is very competent in deletion policy and practice. Fæ makes well-reasoned nominations (eg Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Francis Xavier Montmorency and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irena Lipienė) and arguments.
Fæ is a proficient vandal fighter.
Fæ deals with complaints well - one of the most important parts of being an admin. A review of Fæ's talk page articles reveals that editors do disagree with Fæ from time to time: but the disagreements and complaints are dealt with courteously and constructively. Mkativerata (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

What's different?