Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FuelWagon v. Ed Poor/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Contents 1 Evidence presented by User:FuelWagon 1.1 17 June 1.2 11 July 1.3 12 July 1.4 13 July 1.5 14 July 1.6 15 July 1.7 16 July 1.8 17 July 1.9 18 July 1.10 19 July 1.11 20 July 1.12 23 July 1.13 30 July 1.14 4 August 1.15 24 August 1.16 25 August 1.17 29 August 1.18 31 August 1.19 3 September 1.20 14 September 1.21 21 September 1.22 24 September 1.23 25 September 1.24 29 September 1.25 4 October 1.26 10 October 1.27 12 October 1.28 19 October 1.29 20 October 1.30 21 October 1.31 28 October 1.32 November 5 1.33 6 November 1.34 7 November 1.35 10 November 1.36 23 November 1.37 25 November 1.38 26 November 1.39 28 November 1.40 29 November 1.41 30 November 1.42 response to evidence presented by others 1.43 response to SlimVirgin's evidence 1.43.1 NPA attacks 1.43.2 The RfC against SlimVirgin 1.43.3 Pasting the RfC into user subspace 1.43.4 Terrorism and RfC 2 1.43.4.1 Terrorism article 1.43.4.2 How the RfC against me started 1.43.4.3 Tried to control the RfC 1.43.5 Use of dispute resolution process 1.43.6 Posting to mediation chairperson 1.43.7 Jayjg's reelection campaign 1.43.8 attack page 1.43.9 12 demands 1.43.10 stalking 1.43.11 Bensaccount RfC 1.43.12 A direct response to SlimVirgin's "stalking" evidence 1.43.13 The Animal Rights content dispute 1.44 response to El_C's evidence 1.44.1 Juvenile and sophomoric 1.44.2 Ministry of Truth 1.44.3 Ministry of Information 1.44.4 but it IS true 1.44.5 I dropped this. SlimVirgin brought it back 1.44.6 Spanish Inquisition 1.44.7 Completely confused 1.45 Response to evidence presented by Musical Linguist 1.45.1 Evidence that FuelWagon's statements are not always accurate 1.45.2 Evidence of NPOV violations by FuelWagon 1.45.3 Evidence of use or misuse of talk page during block 1.45.4 Evidence that two who left had violated WP:Civility etc 1.45.5 Evidence that FuelWagon caused other editors to leave 1.45.6 Ed Poor tried to be fair 1.45.7 Extracts from Neuroscientist's 5000-word critique 1.45.8 Evidence of numerous personal attacks by FuelWagon 1.45.9 Evidence that FuelWagon is causing disruption 2 Evidence presented by Fred Bauder 2.1 22 September 2.2 6 October 3 Statement by SlimVirgin 3.1 In brief 3.2 How it started 3.3 Examples of stalking 3.4 Attempts to resolve the dispute 4 Evidence presented by El_C 4.1 Response to "demands" 4.2 Addendum 1 4.3 Addendum 2 4.4 Addendum 3 4.5 Addendum 4 4.6 Addendum 5 4.7 Addendum 6 5 Evidence presented by Musical Linguist 5.1 Evidence that FuelWagon's statements are not always accurate 5.2 Evidence of NPOV violations by FuelWagon 5.3 Evidence of use or misuse of talk page during block (leading to protection of talk page) 5.4 Evidence to balance claim that Ed Poor and SlimVirgin caused "three valuable editors" to leave 5.4.1 Evidence that two who left had violated WP:Civility etc., and that one may have left for unrelated reasons 5.4.2 Evidence that FuelWagon may have caused some editors to leave 5.5 Evidence that Ed Poor tried to be fair 5.6 Extracts from Neuroscientist's 5000-word critique 5.7 Evidence of numerous personal attacks by FuelWagon 5.8 Evidence of FuelWagon and Duckecho taking ownership of the Terri Schiavo article 5.9 Evidence of FuelWagon causing disruption 5.10 Evidence that SlimVirgin and Ed Poor were civil and pleasant to FuelWagon after the July events

[edit] Evidence presented by User:FuelWagon

I realize this is a lot of evidence. I've presented proposed findings of facts here, which are a condensed version of all the findings of facts that I'm proposing. Members of arbcom can simply look at my proposals there rather than go through this entire history of evidence. This evidence is provided to present a single chronological narative of what happened. All of my proposed findings of fact contain diffs with dates, so if someone wants to look at the full context, they can simply come to this timeline to view the complete history. So, go to my proposed findings of fact first, and if you need more information, check out my history here.

I have created a section that responds to evidence presented by other editors here. This is also an attempt to keep things condensed. If a member of arbcom wants to view my response to a specific piece of evidence presented by someone else, they can view it here. Again, the complete timeline is presented to put everythign into a chronological order, but is not needed to understand a specific response to someone's evidence. Hopefully this helps.

[edit] 17 June

23:31, 17 June 2005 Ed Poor starts mediation. FuelWagon is one of first to agree to mediation. Article is marked as a "controversial topic".

[edit] 11 July

15:11, 11 July 2005 SlimVirgin starts first of 9 edits to Terri Schiavo article. SlimVirgin has no prior history editing the article and no prior history discussing edits on talk page.

15:11, 11 July 2005 SlimVirgin edit

16:42, 11 July 2005 SlimVirgin edit ("in use" tag placed)

17:16, 11 July 2005 SlimVirgin edit

17:55, 11 July 2005 SlimVirgin edit

17:58, 11 July 2005 SlimVirgin edit

18:13, 11 July 2005 SlimVirgin edit ("in use" tag removed)

18:28, 11 July 2005 SlimVirgin edit

18:38, 11 July 2005 SlimVirgin edit

An edit war erupts.

19:08, 11 July 2005 FuelWagon reverts SlimVirgin's edits.

19:10, 11 July 2005 SlimVirgin reverts FuelWagon.

19:17, 11 July 2005 FuelWagon reverts SlimVirgin.

19:17, 11 July 2005 SlimVirgin reverts FuelWagon.

19:19, 11 July 2005 SlimVirgin states "Fuelwagon, you're well out of order here. ... You're reintroducing errors."

19:47, 11 July 2005 Duckecho reverts SlimVirgin.

19:53, 11 July 2005 SlimVirgin reverts Duckecho.

20:09, 11 July 2005 FuelWagon reverts SlimVirgin

20:15, 11 July 2005 SlimVirgin states "Don't make unsubstantiated claims."

20:58, 11 July 2005 Ed Poor makes first appearance on talk page since announcing start of mediation 20:18, 20 June 2005. Warning editors that an edit summary of "revert" doesn't really sum anything up. (3 weeks of controversial mediation but Ed only shows up on the talk page when SlimVirgin gets reverted. Shows bias as a mediator.)

21:11, 11 July 2005 SlimVirgin accuses FuelWagon and Duckecho of "page ownership" for opposing her error-filled edit.

21:41, 11 July 2005 Musical Linguist reverts FuelWagon

22:21, 11 July 2005 Duckecho reverts Musical Linguist

[edit] 12 July

01:30, 12 July 2005 SlimVirgin accuses FuelWagon and Duckecho of violating NPOV, No Original Research, and Cite Sources for opposing her error-filed edits.

09:30, 12 July 2005 SlimVirgin states "I feel that FuelWagon and Duckecho are POV pushing too by insisting, for example, that no dissenting voice be heard in the intro." (note this quotation for later, Ed will suggest I should be forever banned for misquoting him. SlimVirgin here completely fabricated a quote that I never said.)

14:15, 12 July 2005 I lose it with SlimVirgin. She has completely fabricated a quote and attributed it to me. I never said any such thing. I violate NPA. (I give SlimVirgin a full apology here.)

19:52, 12 July 2005 I try to clean up my NPA.

21:02, 12 July 2005 Ed Poor blocked "User:FuelWagon" with an expiry time of 40 hours for "unrepentant personal attacks".

22:07, 12 July 2005 I discover that I am blocked because I tried editing the Terri Schiavo article. Ed Poor never put a notice on my talk page. An hour after being blocked, no notice from Ed. I post to my talk page taht I'm blocked to let folks know.

(Note: A complete lack of notification from Ed Poor about his block against me, showing Ed failing to follow basic procedures)

(Note: I accept Ed's block without protest, for violating NPA. I never post to Ed demanding I be unblocked.)

[edit] 13 July

05:59, 13 July 2005 User:Neuroscientist posts a 5,000 word, rather technical critique of the factual and NPOV problems with SlimVirgin's edit, including explaining "pyramidal neurons and accompanying multifocal laminar necrosis" and "gradient antero-posterior loss of cortical neurons".

07:04, 13 July 2005 SlimVirgin accuses editors of Bully or system-gaming, taking control of edits, and blind reverting for opposing her error-filled edits.

08:31, 13 July 2005 SlimVirgin states "Neuroscientist, I appreciate the sentiment, but I have to ask you to stop writing in such a patronizing tone. If I made a factual error, point to it. If you can't or won't, please stop the derogatory remarks. (Well, please stop them anyway; just point to the mistakes.)"

10:52, 13 July 2005 Ed Poor makes first post to my talk page since blocking me. Tells me that in 3.5 years at wikipedia he has "never" been blocked. He also tells me "you have to be more concerned with making the project succeed, than you are about "being treated fairly"." He concludes by telling me "Please use this time to tell the Administrators of this web site what contributions you plan to make to this encyclopedia.". (Showing "fairness" isn't Ed's priority)

15:46, 13 July 2005 Ed Poor issues a warning to Neuroscientist to avoid personal remarks. Neuroscientists "crime" was to say that SlimVirgin showed "poor judgment" in making her 9 edits. (Showing bias on Ed Poor's part, favoring SlimVirgin, opposing her critics. Also note that on 11:04, 15 July 2005 Mel Etitis will post that Ed Poor has shown "poor judgement" in endorsing the RfC against SlimVirgin, and Ed will not chastize Mel Etitis to avoid personal remarks.)

While I'm blocked, I make a number of edits to my talk page. I'm trying to accumulate a list of all the problems with SlimVirgin's edits. She has refused to acknowledge her edit contains a single error, even after Neuroscientist posted a 5,000 word essay listing all the things wrong with her edit.

17:05, 13 July 2005 SlimVirgin complains to Ed that a blocked editor can still edit his talk page. " The downside is that we now have talk pages turning into obsessive diatribes against the blocking admin, or against the editors involved in the dispute that led to the block,"

17:50, 13 July 2005 Ed replies to SlimVirgin that obsessive diatribes are not a good thing to be on the recieving end of.

18:07, 13 July 2005 Ed posts (edit summary "A tribe dies: to Slim") "Any particular talk pages I should look at?"

20:31, 13 July 2005 Ed moves anything on my talk page relating to SlimVirgin, Ed Poor, and Terri Schiavo to a /block subdirectory.

20:33, 13 July 2005 Ed informs me on my talk page "you have not said anything about how you intend to help this project. So I moved everything to the /block subpage and locked this page."

20:34, 13 July 2005 Ed changes his reason for locking me out of my talk page to "making personal remarks about others".

Ed's original reason for locking me out of my talk page was because SlimVirgin asked him to lock me out for my "diatribes". If you read the entire content that Ed Poor moved, available here, you will not find a single NPA violation. My comments are specifically about the factual and NPOV errors with SlimVirgin's edit and comments about SlimVirgin and Ed Poors behaviours on the Terri Schiavo article and talk page. When Ed first told me why I was locked, he ignored that it was at SlimVirgin's request and tried to say it was because I hadn'ed said how I intend to help this project. (apparently, listing numerous factual and NPOV problems with an edit is not "helping" because it was SlimVirgin's edit, rather than someone else's) He then quickly decided to cover his tracks by saying I made "personal remarks". There is nothing in the block directory worthy of a block by Ed. These last few diffs above show Ed Poor's bias in favor of SlimVirgin, locking me at her request, when no policy violation existed on my talk page.

The above constitutes a misuse of admin priveledges, locking me without any policy violaitons to justify it. It also shows a lack of neutrality on Ed's part as mediator on the Terri Schiavo article.

[edit] 14 July

06:43, 14 July 2005 Neuroscientist posts "a last response" to SlimVirgin's statement that no one has pointed out a single error in her edits, stating "SlimVirgin, this is rather extraordinary. I have written three extensive posts, with multiple subsections, related to your edits; the first two posts directly address in detail just one portion of the edits you made to the article (the introduction), and I've gone to some length to point out the errors in that edit and the errors in the factual assumptions underlying that edit."

16:31, 14 July 2005 SlimVirgin posts on Terri Schiavo talk page: "FuelWagon preventing someone from trying to improve the article. ... there are users who won't allow normal editing to take place. ... there needs to be ... no attititude of ownership."

17:56, 14 July 2005 SlimVirgin replies to Neuroscientist, "I must ask you again to change your tone. Concentrate on content, and stop the ad hominem remarks. If these are the only objections, the copy edit should be reinstated" (Note: this conflicts with SlimVirgin's claim that she had "withdrawn" from the debate. She was still denying her edits contained a single error, and she was calling for her edits to be reinstated.)

18:15, 14 July 2005 SlimVirgin tells an editor " you should write up your edit, if you want to, and then seek help from others in making sure it stays in, or at least, making sure it's edited and not simply deleted."

21:42, 14 July 2005 SlimVirgin states "Here we have a page where only "permitted" editors are allowed to edit, where a particular POV is being pushed"

22:04, 14 July 2005 (link to actual RfC) The block against me expires, and I file an RfC against SlimVirgin. At this point, SlimVirgin has still denied a single factual error exists in her edits, and that they should be reinserted. Since the talk page has gotten too hot, and since the mediator has engaged in the debate himself, using admin priveledges to favor one side, another means of resolving the dispute seems neccessary. The RfC lists numerous factual and NPOV errors with SlimVirgin's edit. It points to but, due to size, does not quote Neuroscientists critique of SlimVirgin's edit. It also lists a number of false accusations that SlimVirgin made against editors, and lists a number of posts by her that specifically deny even one factual error in her edits.

23:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC) link to actual RfC Duckecho certifies the RfC.

[edit] 15 July

00:41, 15 July 2005 Duckecho makes his last contribution to wikipedia. His goodbye statement clearly blames SlimVirgin.

00:47, 15 July 2005 (link to arctual RfC now that history is available) Ed Poor gives RfC "Partial and HESITANT endorsement" stating "I think FW has put together a fairly cohesive report - even if I don't "endorse it" in every detail. Basically, Slim moved too far, too fast at Terry Schiavo."

00:50, July 15, 2005 (link to actual RfC) Ed posts "I really had mixed feelings about the block. If I was wrong, I hope we can find a way that I can make it up to you."

02:12, July 15, 2005 (link to actual RfC) Calton endorses RfC

06:43, 15 July 2005. User:Musical Linguist (as User:Ann Heneghan at the time) asked me to fix a piece of evidence I submitted to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NCdave.

06:50, 15 July 2005 I fix my evidence on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NCdave.

07:22, 15 July 2005 SlimVirgin responds to RfC "I read the article, it clearly needed a copy edit, so I started to do one. I didn't rewrite anything or do any restructuring, ... I stuck to minor edits, tweaks of sentences, ... It was a long edit, ... but it wasn't a substantive one."

07:56, 15 July 2005 I tell Ed he can "make it up to me" by telling me what comments in my /block directory got me blocked.

09:34, 15 July 2005 El_C makes a combative post accusing Neuroscientist of reverting SlimVirgin en masse. Edit summary is "If the refutation is not methodic, it is not authoritative" But Neuroscienist never reverted a single time, and anyone who read Neuroscientist's 5,000 word explanation of the things wrong with SlimVirgin's edit should quickly be able to tell that his critique was methodic and authoritive. The guy is an expert in neurology and we were lucky enough to have him editing wikipedia.

11:04, 15 July 2005 (link to actual RfC now that history is availabe) Mel Etitis posts on RfC "Ed Poor has shown poor judgement in endorsing this" (Note that Ed Poor warned Neuroscientist for saying that SlimVirgin demonstrated "poor judgement", but in this case, Ed Poor will not chastize Mel Etitis for the same "personal comment" about "poor judgement", but instead will agree with Mel Etitis and withdraw his endorsement of the RfC. This shows Ed Poor considers a statement about "poor judgement" to be a violation of policy depending on who says it. This shows Ed Poor exhibited a lack of neutrality as a mediator.)

11:51, 15 July 2005 (link to actual RfC) Proto endorses RfC

12:05, July 15, 2005 (link to actual RfC) Neuroscientist endorses RfC

12:18, 15 July 2005 Once it's pointed out to El_C that Neuroscientist never made a single revert, El_C ammends his statement, changing "(Neuroscientist) should refrain from reverting hours of work en mass" to "(Neuroscientist) should refrain from commenting on the series of edits in their totality." El_C then jumps on the bandwagon that accused Neuroscientist of having a "condescending, patronizing overtone".

17:54, 15 July 2005 (link to actual RfC) Ed removes his endorsement.

19:33, 15 July 2005 Musical Linguist thanks me for fixing my evidence on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NCdave.

20:40, July 15, 2005 (link to actual RfC) Ed replies to Mel Etitis that he has withdrawn his endorsement.

21:07, July 15, 2005 (link to actual RfC) Ed Poor attacks RfC and those who filed it as a "sneaky way of building a case against an administrator", "gaming the system in a hypocrical way", and Ed suggests FuelWagon drop the RFc. (shows a complete lack of neutrality as a mediator)

12:10, 15 July 2005 Ed replies "I am frankly not sure I have any "right" to block other users at all, in situations such as you described above. Basically, I'm getting away with it because I've been around a long time". He doesn't answer my question as to what specifically in my /block subdirectory got me blocked.

20:44, July 15, 2005 Ed replies on RfC about SlimVirgin's false accusations, stating: "This is not an accusation. It is (1) an opinion and (2) a statement of policy. Both are permissible."

[edit] 16 July

statement 05:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC) User Ghost gives a statement that includes "Slim's edit gave the appearence of a major edit, contained factual errors, and worsened POV. Slim's later treatment of Neuroscientist was, at best, sub-optimal." Ghost abstained from endorsing because "FuelWagon and Duckecho overreacted. FW's language got out of line, but his behavior since has greatly improved."

19:29, 16 July 2005 I withdraw my own certification of RfC against SlimVirgin because "the entire wikipedia system appears to be punitive". I suggest everyyone read this post in its entirety. I think it clearly shows that my RfC against SlimVirgin was not filed to game the system or bully anyone, but to legitimately resolve an explosive dispute.

[edit] 17 July

04:10, 17 July 2005 Ed Poor deletes the RfC against SlimVirgin. I had withdrawn my own certification, leaving only one certifier, so it doesn't meet the requirements to remain. Ed states to me: " I don't know what you were trying to do there, but if it was anything other than harassment I failed to see it."

05:16, 17 July 2005 I tell Ed that he "saw it" at one point, when he partially endorsed the RfC. I tell Ed "And, as you said, we're all entitled to our opinion.".

10:45, 17 July 2005 Ed replies:

Yes and no. You're entitled to form whatever opinion you want, but not always to express it. There is no freedom of speech at Wikipedia in the same sense as America's First Amendment. I happen to think you're an asshole and a shit head, and that you're fucking everything up, you stupd, time-wasting bully!!! (This is inserted as an example of a forbidden comment, go ahead and complain about me if you want, but I was illustrating a point.

This is a clear violation of personal attack, behind a thin veil of "I'm just illustrating a point".

[edit] 18 July

18:50, 18 July 2005 I apologize to SlimVirgin.

SlimVirgin, I launched a number of personal attacks against you that were peppered with profanity. It was indefensible behaviour on my part. I am sorry. I was an ass. I did not protest the resulting block against me because I deserved it. And I promise you, such behaviour will not happen again. I hope this apology will find your honor fully restored. I am sorry. FuelWagon 18:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

20:05, 18 July 2005 I post an apology to Dbergan

Dave, I thought we were cool after we had that whole "Contact" conversation in a "agree to disagree" sort of way. But your comment on the RFC I filed a couple days ago on an edit by SlimVirgin would seem to say you're still begrudging me. I'm sorry for any and all personal attacks I leveled at you. I can be an ass sometimes. Anyway, if there's something more you need from me to wipe the slate clean, ya gotta let me know. I'm still learning.

20:51, 18 July 2005 I put up an "apology request form" on my user page.

Apparently wikipedia considers it uncivil to demand an apology. I declare that rule to be suspended on my talk page. If I ticked you off, and you need an apology to set things straight (because I was too clueless to know I ticked you off, or I thought I made amends some other way), please post something on my talk page.

[edit] 19 July

01:07, 19 July 2005 Ed Poor posts on mediation page to me, "why are you here?" Edit summary "You only get one shot at this. Make it count."

02:39, 19 July 2005 I post to Ed why I'm here.

I'm really good at two things: heavy lifting and word-cutting. Heavy lifting means I can read through text and sop it up like a sponge (if it's written well enough) and then squeeze out the important bits. And I can cut through words to get to the meat of what someone is saying or find out they're blowing smoke. I cannot stand lying. I detest when people abuse words to mislead or misdirect. I can smell it almost immediately. I generally pay no favorites but to the words. The words must be true, wherever truth may lead. That is who I am. As to why I am here, well, because wikipedia is the one place where I can get used up that way. It's like I'm fuel, looking for something that can consume me, a fire that can burn me, something that can use me for what I am. And to stumble across wikipedia, it's like, 'yes, I could throw myself on that fire and it would actually use up all the best parts of me.' To be put to full use, that is why I am here. FuelWagon 02:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

06:59, 19 July 2005 Dbergan posts to me "Sorry about my comments on the RfC thing. ... I actually tried to take down my comments against you. I wrote them on Saturday, logged off, and then after some more thinking I tried to go back Sunday to remove them... but the page completely vanished" Dave acknowledges that we had worked things out well before my RfC against SlimVirgin. Dbergan also states that SlimVirgin contacted him about my RfC against her.

18:46, 19 July 2005 SlimVirgin gives a long reply to my answer. "I wonder whether the fire analogy is part of the problem." She then goes on to attack an edit I made on the Intelligent Design article. "The problems at Terri Schiavo are the same - a strong atheist POV being pushed in the face of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, and also in the face of being encyclopedic i.e. writing in a dry, disinterested style."

19:35, 19 July 2005 I explain that SlimVirgin has taken the word "fire" and made it mean something else, and that Dave Bergan, the guy on the intelligent design article I had a dispute with, and I had a good discussion on our talk pages and eventually saw each other's point of view.

20:11, 19 July 2005 SlimVirgin posts on Schiavo mediation page:

Your edits weren't only not perfect. They were arguably false and a clear violation of the NOR policy, and yet you defended them at length, vociferously and abusively. It's the absolute certainty that you're right that I'm asking you to address. If you want to put forward arguments like that, you need scholarly sources to back you up, and if you had looked for any, I don't think you'd have found them, which would have told you something.

("It's the absolute certainty that you're right that I'm asking you to address." I apologized to SlimVirgin, Dbergan, and opened a "request for apology" form on my user page. I think it's clear that I don't have any delusions of grandeur about being perfect here. On the other hand, SlimVirgin has denied a dozen times that her 9 edits contained even a single error. Who has absolute certainty that they're right?)

21:17, 19 July 2005 ghost posts on mediation talk page:

Why are we turning this page into a defacto RfC on an editor? A question was asked, it was answered. Why isn't that the end of it? Why are the neutrality and religious beliefs of not only that editor, but a large number of other editors being considered? Why are those considered more relevant than editors that stand on the other side of an issue?

This borderline Inquisition into the motives of an editor needs to stop, and stop now. I appreciate the advice being given from one experienced editor to another, but that can be done elsewhere. This is the Talk:Terri Schiavo/Mediation page

22:25, 19 July 2005 SlimVirgin posts on Terri Schiavo mediation page "You could apologize to the people you've sworn at, or otherwise caused a problem for, without waiting for them to fill in your "apology request form." (Apparently, opening up the request lines isn't good enough, I need to go out and track down anyone who may be holding a grudge against me for whatever problem I may have caused for them.)

23:13, 19 July 2005 I post on Shiavo mediation page to SLimVirgin:

Ed asked me to avoid you, and I'm finding it quite difficult since you have posted some interesting comments directed towards me here and on other pages. I posted something on the Wikipedia:RFC page, and though you hadn't posted there in months, you replied to my thread soon after I started it [2] [3]. On the last one, you said I hadn't apologized, so I posted a formal apology to you on your talk page here. I made no excuses. I did not defend my actions. I said I was sorry. And I said it wouldn't happen again. Then I went over to Dave's page and apologized to him here. We had already seemed to have made ammends, but I figured what the heck. He posts his reply here, saying he "actually tried to take down my comments against" me, but that the RFC had already been deleted. He also said that you came to him and had him look at your situation with me, and that was part of the reason he weighed in on the RFC in the first place. But in the end he said "forgive and forget". You, on the other hand, never acknowledged my apology either way. And I see that you recently archived it without comment. I assumed it was sufficient to make ammends. But now when Ed asks me to write a hundred word essay about why I'm here, you make some interesting comments about my religion, and about stuff that happened on the ID page a month ago. Dave forgave me a month ago and the only reason he weighed in on the RFC was because you brought him in on it. The person who hasn't forgiven me is you. And I don't know what to do about it. I've made a flat-out, no excuses apology, and you made no reply. I am at a loss. Ed said it is uncivil to demand an apology (not sure if that meant it was against wikipedia guidelines or not) but anyway, to beat down that hurdle, I opened a section on my talk page saying "it is perfectly OK to demand an apology here". I might not grant exactly what you want, but at least we can be honest about it. Other than that, I don't know what to do. FuelWagon 23:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 20 July

03:15, 20 July 2005 Rather than admit she was turning the Terri Schiavo mediation page into an axe grinding campaign against me, SlimVirgin withdrew from mediation, calling it "silly".

03:35, 20 July 2005 ghost posts on my talk page: ::"Removed my name|it's too silly" was the edit summary by one of the Mediation editors. I'm dumbstruck. That takes real work. The self-centered, naked arrogance.... I'm going to bed

12:07, 20 July 2005 ghost posts to SlimVirgin " my (admittedly) poor respose last night was a combination of fatigue and shock caused not by your withdraw, but by the edit comment attached to that withdraw. The efforts of myself and others maybe alot of things, but "silly" is not one of them. If you're looking for a cease-fire, you've got one. But like any cease-fire, it takes both sides holding fire to succeed"

[edit] 23 July

02:47, 23 July 2005 Neuroscientist makes last contribution to wikipedia. His last posts to wikipedia include a post in response to El_C's combative statement on the RfC [4] and a comment on the RfC in response to El_C's accusation of revert-warring, clarifying that Neuroscientist had not taken part in the revert war and providing links to other clarifications [5].

[edit] 30 July

18:10, 30 July 2005 Ghost makes last contribution to wikipedia. Ghost had tried for some time to work things out on the Terri Schiavo article. He never took sides and was always willing to look at anyone's behaviour neutrally. And when he made mistakes, he was willing to acknowledge them.

[edit] 4 August

01:50, 4 August 2005 Robchurch files a request for arbitration against Ed Poor. The RFA summary says: "Ed Poor has ignored the standard consensus on Wikipedia operations, and has not paid attention to feedback from the Wikipedia community as a whole about his conduct. ... the double standard that he created by ignoring rules on one hand and enforcing the letter of them on the other is not acceptable. ... he has consequently abused his administrator rights. This sets a poor precedent for the rest of the community, and threatens the entire spirit of collaboration and co-operation that Wikipedia is built on, and re-enforces the divide between administrators and users - creating an unpleasant double standard that must be avoided."

[edit] 24 August

15:23, 24 August 2005 SlimVirgin accuses me of "ad hominem" attacks. (none exist)

15:58, 24 August 2005 SlimVirgin is still begrudging my RfC, stating that I'm making an edit "for personal reasons because of the RfC you filed."

19:17, 24 August 2005 SlimVirgin announces to me that "no credible editor, other than you, saw the merit in that RfC"

21:21, 24 August 2005 I upload a copy of the original RfC against SlimVirgin to show that the RfC was certified by myself and Duckecho, and endorsed by Calton, Proto, and Neuroscientist.

[edit] 25 August

01:10, 25 August 2005 SlimVirgin asks another user about appropriateness of having a deleted RfC in user subspace.

03:05, 25 August 2005 User tells SlimVirgin that its acceptable to keep an RfC in a user's namespace.

22:09, 25 August 2005 SlimVirgin states "as for one of the editors saying he was a neuroscientist, I'd say, first, you only had his word for it, secondly, he said on a talk page that he was 25, and third, even if he was an expert, they carry no extra weight at Wikipedia"

[edit] 29 August

23:45, 29 August 2005 I submit a statement to the arbcom case against Ed Poor. Two quotes Ed said to me seem to speak directly to the behaviour mentioned in the RfA summary.

[edit] 31 August

03:26, 31 August 2005 SlimVirgin tells me she is "all out of good faith" towards me.

22:47, 31 August 2005 With no prior involvement in the Bensaccount RfC or the Creation Science article from where it came, SlimVirgin takes sudden interest in the Bensaccount RfC, stating "This looks like another example of an inappropriate RfC filed by you"

SlimVirgin makes numerous edits to the Bensaccount talk page, making numerous accusations about the illegitimacy of the RfC and how it wasn't proper. [6] (Shows axe grinding on SlimVirgin's part)

[edit] 3 September

01:00, 3 September 2005 SlimVirgin asked some friend of hers to look at RfC and they tell her it looks acceptable. (no acknowledgement along the lines of "I made a mistake". No apology for axe grinding on an RfC she had no involvement in.)

[edit] 14 September

01:23, 14 September 2005 Jdforrester closes case against Ed Poor. Arbcom accepted Ed's resignation as bureaucrat. The case is closed concludeding Ed "remains a Wikipedia Administrator in good standing and a valued member of the Wikipedia community. The case is closed without further comment."

[edit] 21 September

16:44, 21 September 2005 Fred Bauder tells me my request to reopen the case has been rejected, and that I can appeal to Jimbo Wales.

[edit] 24 September

16:10, 24 September 2005 I appeal case to Jimbo Wales.

[edit] 25 September

18:47, 25 September 2005 I ask the mediation committee "Does the mediation committee self regulate its mediators?".

[edit] 29 September

21:34, 29 September 2005 Ed tells me "nobody's interested in your case", but says "why not talk to me directly - on my talk page - or even ask for mediation. You might ask User:BrandonYusufToropov about his experience being in mediation with me several months ago." (Ed's first direct suggestion of using mediation)

[edit] 4 October

16:18, 4 October 2005 I post a reply to Sam Spade's thread about removing Ed Poor as mediator, saying "I don't know if Ed Poor needs to be removed as mediator. I do think there ought to be some sort of review process or something that deals with a mediator when they botch a job pretty badly."

[edit] 10 October

16:31, 10 October 2005 Kelly Martin weighs in "since mediators have no special authority, there's not much to abuse"

[edit] 12 October

04:00, 12 October 2005 Redwolf24 replies "In light of Ed's record, for the time being I will have to reject any impeachment hearing."

04:13, 12 October 2005 I tell Redwolf24 that I never requested impeachment.

04:30, 12 October 2005 Redwolf24 states " there's a first offense clause", and asks "what ARE you requesting?"

04:47, 12 October 2005 I ask Redwolf24 "what's a first offense clause" and explain that his record should reflect that he failed to maintain neutrality in this case.

Redwolf24 declines to do anything about Ed Poor. That path becomes a dead end.

[edit] 19 October

22:33, 19 October 2005 I discuss with Ed, and again he suggests mediation. I request mediation. Redwolf24 opens mediation and assigns it to Improv.

[edit] 20 October

October 20, 2005 12:39 PM, Improv sends first round of mediation questions via email.

October 20, 2005 12:47 PM, I answer first round of questions. Answers can be read here.

[edit] 21 October

October 21, 2005 6:28 AM, Email from Ed states "I just need a little time"

[edit] 28 October

October 28, 2005 8:13 AM, No word from Ed in a week. Improv sends an email with subject heading "Prod".

[edit] November 5

November 5, 2005 4:33 AM, Still no word from Ed, 16 days since he said he needed time. Improv withdraws as mediator.

(This shows bad faith on Ed's part, recommending medation twice, agreeing to it, tieing up a mediator for two weeks, and not answering even the first round of questions)

17:39, 5 November 2005 I post a summary of Ed's complete non-response to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ed Poor and FuelWagon.

[edit] 6 November

01:13, 6 November 2005 further researching and I discover that during the 16 days (October 21 to November 5) that Ed said he needed more time to respond to half a dozen questions from the mediator, Ed managed to make 650 edits to wikipedia. I post this to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ed Poor and FuelWagon as well.

[edit] 7 November

14:39, 7 November 2005 In direct response to my posting criticism of Ed on the mediation page, Ed suddenly finds time to deal with me, posting to Jayjg, "Is there a policy against Wikistalking? Because it looks like that's what FuelWagon is doing to SlimVirgin."

14:56, 7 November 2005 Ed Poor endorses SlimVirgin's RfC against me. The RfC had been opened since October 16 without a single comment from Ed Poor. But the day after I report his behaviour in mediation, he piles his signature on an RfC he had no involvement in. (Shows Ed Poor axe grinding)

15:09, 7 November 2005 Ed Poor tells me " I've got enough pull around here to get you banned" Closing with "And one more thing: when someone throws you an olive branch, recognize it". What olive branch he is talking about, I have no idea.

[edit] 10 November

02:40, 10 November 2005 I comment on Ed's sudden interest in my RfC. Pointing out the connection between my posting about his complete lack of participation in mediation, and his sudden interest in an RfC that had been around for almost a month.

[edit] 23 November

(SlimVirgin and I are having a content dispute on the Animal rights article around this time.)

01:45, 23 November 2005 SlimVirgin deletes a quote by professor of philosophy, Carl Cohen, criticizing animal rights on specific philosophical grounds. SlimVirgin replaces quote with text that say animal welfare groups "tend not to make any deeper philosophical claims about the status of animals" (shows POV pushing on SlimVirgin's part)

15:25, 23 November 2005 SlimVirgin deletes a quote by professor of philosophy, Carl Cohen, criticizing animal rights on specific philosophical grounds. SlimVirgin replaces quote with text that say animal welfare groups "tend not to make any deeper philosophical claims about the status of animals" (shows POV pushing on SlimVirgin's part)

[edit] 25 November

08:41, 25 November 2005 SlimVirgin deletes all critical POV's from introduction of Animal rights article. (shows POV pushing on SlimVirgin's part)

[edit] 26 November

06:54, 26 November 2005 SlimVirgin deletes all critical POV's from introduction of Animal rights article. (shows POV pushing on SlimVirgin's part)

07:02, 26 November 2005 SlimVirgin posts on Animal Rights talk page, accusing me of being "disruptive", "provocatively editing a page", "reverting against consensus". She tells me the intro should have an "acedemic" quote, because its about the "philosophical position" of animal rights.

14:43, 26 November 2005 I reply to SlimVIrgin "you're being a blatant pro-animal-rights editor" (Note: this is the post that Ed will block me for NPA violations. There is nothing in this post but responses to all the accusations made by SlimVirgin against me in the previous post 07:02, 26 November 2005. All comments about her behaviour as an editor.)

[edit] 28 November

07:32, 28 November 2005 SlimVirgin deletes all critical POV's from introduction of Animal rights article. (shows POV pushing on SlimVirgin's part)

(Note regarding SlimVirgin deleting all critical points of view from introdution: Compare this to: 09:30, 12 July 2005, where SlimVirgin accuses me of POV pushing for insisting that no dissenting voice be heard in the intro. Never mind the fact that she completely fabricated that quote.)

22:28, 28 November 2005 Jayjg deleting "Occupied territories" from mention of "Courage to Refuse" subsection.

22:35, 28 November 2005 SlimVirgin deleting "Occupied territories" from mention of "Courage to Refuse" subsection.

[edit] 29 November

01:17, 29 November 2005 SlimVirgin requested page protection for Animal rights, stating "FuelWagon is causing trouble on Animal rights as part of his long-term stalking campaign against me. He has added badly written nonsense to the intro,"

01:19, 29 November 2005 SlimVirgin posts to Jayjg that she's requested page protection of Animal rights and could he lock it.

01:21, 29 November 2005 In two minutes, Jayjg manages to view the history of Animal rights, and determine that a page lock is necessary. (A more cynical person might think that Jayjg didn't even bother to check the article and simply locked it immediately to make sure another editor didn't sneak in an edit and change the article to something SlimVirgin might consider "the wrong version". Given the policy that editors cannot lock the page they are editing, and given that 2 minutes is practically impossible to make an independent and neutral interpretation of what's going on at an article, this series of edits could support the idea that Jayjg was acting as SlimVirgin's meatpuppet here, allowing SlimVirgin to skirt around the restriction by pulling Jayjg's strings and essentially allowing SlimVirgin to lock a page she was editing, via a puppet user. Gaming the system? Misuse of admin priveledges. Using page protection to enforce page "ownership")

01:42, 29 November 2005 SlimVirgin posts to Ed Poor that I have started the "personal attacks" again on the Animal rights article.

02:02, 29 November 2005 Ed Poor blocks me for "attacks" that he says I made 14:43, 26 November 2005. There are no personal attacks on this post. (Showing Ed Poor misusing admin priveledges)

For reference, compare my post with SlimVirgin's post to me on 01:30, 12 July 2005 where she accuses Duckecho and me of violating NPOV, No Original Research, Cite Sources, engaging in the "Schiavo" dispute not describing, "holding the article hostage" "for too long" "and the result is POV and poorly cited article", "leading you two to become even more possessive", and "arguing now for the sake of it'. She criticizes my behaviour, and no comment from Ed. I criticize SlimVirgin's behaviour, and Ed blocks me.

03:01, 29 November 2005 I ask Ed what specifically got me blocked. (Never answered until arbitration is requested)

03:59, 29 November 2005 Ed finds new interest in the RfC against me, replying to my post from 14:39, 7 November 2005, where I paraphrase his message to Jayjg. Ed's edit summary is "This misquotation alone is really grounds for banning you indefinitely from this project." Ed quotes exactly what he said to Jayjg, closing the post with "This misquotation alone is really grounds for banning you indefinitely from this project."

(Note: compare Ed's threat to block me for "misquoting" him to Ed's non-reaction to SlimVirgin's complete fabrication of a quote and attributing it to me 09:30, 12 July 2005. Although I was upset at SlimVirgin fabricating a quote and attributing it to me, enough to end up violating NPA, Ed didn't tell SlimVirgin that her misquotation of me was grounds enough for an indefinite ban.)

[edit] 30 November

17:29, 30 November 2005 I file for an RfA against Ed Poor. The day after reporting that mediaiton had failed due to a lack of participation from Ed Poor, Ed Poor suddenly participates with me quite a bit, accuses me of wikistalking SlimVirgin [7], endorses SlimVirgin's RfC against me [8], and tells me he's got enough pull to get you banned [9]. Two weeks later, he's blocked me for non-existent personal attacks [10] because SlimVirgin asked him to and is telling me I should be permanently banned for misquoting him [11].

21:16, 30 November 2005 SlimVirgin deletes questions from Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2005/Candidate statements/Jayjg

23:11, 30 November 2005 I notice that the Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2005/Candidate_statements/Jayjg has been locked and no flag has been placed on the article. I request page be unlocked.

23:16, 30 November 2005 SlimVirgin states that she locked the Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2005/Candidate_statements/Jayjg page. Wikipedia:Protection policy clearly states Admins must not protect pages they are engaged in editing, except in the case of simple vandalism.

00:24, 3 December 2005 Viriditas states "There appears to be limits (~300 words) on candidate statements, but I don't see any guidelines for candidate questions." (There are no guidelines, such as word limits, for questions)

[edit] response to evidence presented by others

Well, it appears that Fred Bauder has gone digging for dirt. The main point of my request was two specific blocks by Ed Poor against me, and the posts he claims that contained personal attacks did not actually contain any. What has happened between myself and SlimVirgin should not justify Ed's unjustified block. It is quite simple: there are no personal attacks on my posts that Ed says contains personal attacks.

However, Fred has posted SlimVirgin's RfC against me, and SlimVirgin has apparently been asked to make a statement, so since arbcom is insistent on widening the disputants to include SlimVirgin, then so be it.

[edit] response to SlimVirgin's evidence

[edit] NPA attacks

SlimVirgin lists a number of diffs claiming they are all personal attacks. She gives no dates to any of them per standard arbcom formatting. I never disputed that I violated NPA against SlimVirgin in my post 14:15, 12 July 2005. But despite SlimVirgin's claims to the contrary, you will not find a violation of NPA being committed by me after that date. Ed Poor blocked me, and I accepted the block. I also gave SlimVirgin a full, unconditional apology here. I admit I violated NPA a number of times on Terri Schiavo prior to Ed's first block against me, however, just a note that SlimVirgin wasn't involved in the article at those times, though she reports them as if she witnessed them. I started editing wikipedia in 21:00, 2 April 2005, and Ed blocked me on July 12. In between those two dates, you will find a number of NPA violations by me as a newbie, but you will find none after 12 July 2005.

[edit] The RfC against SlimVirgin

SlimVirgin states that I opend the RfC against her because she "wouldn't apologize for my July 11 copy edit of Terri Schiavo -- even though, after being reverted three times, I made no further effort to reinstate it". That misrepresents several facts. First of all, after she ran out of reverts, SlimVirgin made no further effort to revert the page because another revert would have violated 3RR.

19:10, 11 July 2005 SlimVirgin reverts FuelWagon.

19:17, 11 July 2005 SlimVirgin reverts FuelWagon.

19:53, 11 July 2005 SlimVirgin reverts Duckecho.

SlimVirgin spent the next 24 hours advocating on the talk page for her edit to be reinstated. She denied there was even a single error in her edit, even after Neuroscientist's rather technical post. She also spent the next 24 hours making numerous accusations against the editors who had been involved in opposing her edit.

Please say what your specific objections are, rather than reverting. 19:16, 11 July 2005

please discuss your objections on talk. 19:19, 11 July 2005

I'm assuming the above can't be your only objection, so please lay them out 19:33, 11 July 2005

If you feel I've introduced errors, please list them on talk 20:15, 11 July 2005

You haven't yet explained why you want to exclude that information. 20:45, 11 July 2005

neither of you has said what your objection is. 21:11, 11 July 2005

User:FuelWagon and User:Duckecho have taken ownership of this page and won't allow others to edit without their consent. 21:11, 11 July 2005

If these are your only objections, I don't know why you reverted all my edits. 22:44, 11 July 2005

Show me one error I made in the article, either factual or grammatical. 01:16, 12 July 2005

SlimVirgin accuses Duckecho and myself of violating NPOV, No Original Research, and Cite Sources. Because I pointed out the American Neurological Association's prognosises change from "slight" to "poor", rather than just "poor" as SlimVirgin stated, she also states "Thank you Fuelwagon, I know what PVS is. The prognosis is always poor, but at the beginning it's more hopeful than after months and years. You're arguing now for the sake of it." 01:30, 12 July 2005

If this is the only issue you can find with my copy edit, why did you revert it? 02:10, 12 July 2005

I'm waiting for an answer from FuelWagon or Duckecho that might explain the blind reverts. Show me one factual or grammatical error that I edited into the article. 06:55, 12 July 2005

FuelWagon and Duckecho are POV pushing too by insisting, for example, that no dissenting voice be heard in the intro. 09:30, 12 July 2005 (I never said any such thing and lose my temper in my response)

14:15, 12 July 2005 This is where I violate NPA against SlimVirgin.

I've asked several times for someone to point to one error of fact I edited into the article and so far no one has come up with one. You also mention errors of fact, but again, don't cite any. 08:27, 13 July 2005

If I made a factual error, point to it. 08:31, 13 July 2005

05:55, 13 July 2005 User:Neuroscientist posts his 5,000 technical explanation of all the things wrong with SlimVirgin's post, factual and NPOV.

07:04, 13 July 2005 SlimVirgin replies to Neuroscientist that she is withdrawing from editing the article, denies there are any problems with her edit (see bullet 3 and 4), accused myself and Duckecho of "blind reverting" (see bullet 5). (Apparently, we had not pointed out a single factual or NPOV error in her edit this entire time.) And then tells Neuroscientist " I don't appreciate the personal comments you've lobbed at me."

08:27, 13 July 2005 SlimVirgin again accuses Neuroscientist of "personal" comments. She also states " I've asked several times for someone to point to one error of fact I edited into the article and so far no one has come up with one."

08:31, 13 July 2005 SlimVirgin accuses Neuroscientist of writing in a "patronizing tone" and states "If I made a factual error, point to it. If you can't or won't, please stop the derogatory remarks."

06:43, 14 July 2005 Neuroscientist posts "a last response" to SlimVirgin's statement that no one has pointed out a single error in her edits, stating "SlimVirgin, this is rather extraordinary. I have written three extensive posts, with multiple subsections, related to your edits; the first two posts directly address in detail just one portion of the edits you made to the article (the introduction), and I've gone to some length to point out the errors in that edit and the errors in the factual assumptions underlying that edit."

16:31, 14 July 2005 SlimVirgin posts on Terri Schiavo talk page: "FuelWagon preventing someone from trying to improve the article. ... there are users who won't allow normal editing to take place. ... there needs to be ... no attititude of ownership."

17:56, 14 July 2005 SlimVirgin replies to Neuroscientist, "I must ask you again to change your tone. Concentrate on content, and stop the ad hominem remarks. If these are the only objections, the copy edit should be reinstated" and "I'd appreciate it if my copy edit could be reinstated."

18:15, 14 July 2005 SlimVirgin tells an editor " you should write up your edit, if you want to, and then seek help from others in making sure it stays in, or at least, making sure it's edited and not simply deleted."

21:42, 14 July 2005 SlimVirgin states "Here we have a page where only "permitted" editors are allowed to edit, where a particular POV is being pushed"

22:04, 14 July 2005 I file the RfC against SlimVirgin.

22:09, 14 July 2005 I post to talk page that I have filed an RfC against SlimVirgin.

Summary: SlimVirgin states in her evidence:

Because I wouldn't apologize for my July 11 copy edit of Terri Schiavo — even though, after being reverted three times, I made no further effort to reinstate it — he opened an RfC against me on July 14. It was deleted 48 hours later because it wasn't properly certified, but Fred has restored it for this case. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/SlimVirgin and my response is here [4].

This makes it sound like she had made three reverts and withdrew from the article completely. However, right up until 20 minutes before I posted the RfC, she was engaged on the talk page saying Terri Schiavo was a page were only "permitted" editors were allowed to edit. About as little as 4 hours (see 17:56, 14 July 2005) before I post that the RfC has been filed, SlimVirgin is still accusing Neuroscientist of personal attacks, still vehemently denies that even a single error exists in her edit, and stating that her "copyedit should be reinstated".

So while she may wish to portray herself as withdrawn from editing, just hours before I posted the RfC had been filed, she was saying her edit was error free and should be put back in. And just to note the obvious here: it takes a few hours to compile and generate an RfC, so while she was engaged on the talk page, accusing us of all sorts of wrongdoing and arguing that her edit was completely error free and should be reinstated, that was the period of time when I was editing the RfC. SlimVirgin is saying she had "withdrawn" from editing, but her behaviour on the talk page shows she was completely engaged in having her edit reinstated.

[edit] Pasting the RfC into user subspace

SlimVirgin states in her evidence: "He cut and pasted a copy of the deleted RfC to his user subpage and won't allow it to be deleted;" But, she forgets to mention why I pasted it. She started outright lying that no one credible endorsed the RfC against her. I uploaded a copy to keep the truth straight. She also asked a friend of hers if it was agaisnt policy to keep a deleted RfC in a user's space, and her friend told her that it was acceptable to keep a deleted RfC in a user's subdirectory.

19:17, 24 August 2005 SlimVirgin announces to me that "no credible editor, other than you, saw the merit in that RfC"

21:21, 24 August 2005 I upload a copy of the original RfC against SlimVirgin to show that the RfC was certified by myself and Duckecho, and endorsed by Calton, Proto, and Neuroscientist.

01:10, 25 August 2005 SlimVirgin asks another user about appropriateness of having a deleted RfC in user subspace.

03:05, 25 August 2005 User tells SlimVirgin that its acceptable to keep an RfC in a user's namespace.

[edit] Terrorism and RfC 2

SlimVirgin states: "He took control of an RfC opened against him by Carbonite on October 16 (prompted in part by FuelWagon's behavior at Talk:Terrorism), moving comments he didn't like to the talk page and revert warring over them, to the point where all sensible editors eventually felt they had to stay away from the page, and he was blocked for 3RR. [5] See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/FuelWagon 2."

Well, let's break this down.

[edit] Terrorism article

I made a half dozen edits to the Terrorism article that generated the wrath of several editors. Those edits were opposed by a number of editors on the page.

03:53, 12 October 2005 FuelWagon

16:15, 12 October 2005 Texture reverts.

14:11, 13 October 2005 FuelWagon reverts Texture.

14:52, 13 October 2005 FuelWagon adds verbatim quote.

15:24, 13 October 2005 Carbonite opposes, rewords.

16:42, 13 October 2005 FuelWagon explains Chomsky's relevance considered "one of the most influential left-wing critics of American foreign policy" by the "Dictionary of Modern American Philosophers" (URL provided)

18:21, 14 October 2005 FuelWagon removes "linguistics professor" as that isn't why he's a notable source for this article.

18:28, 14 October 2005 Carbonite does a complete rewrite, saying "no need to describe how great Chomsky is".

20:10, 14 October 2005 FuelWagon explains that it isn't saying he's "great", it's explaining why he's a source.

20:15, 14 October 2005 Jayjg completely reverts me. calling mention of Chomsky's notability for this article is "gratuitous flattery".

21:31, 14 October 2005 Zephram Stark offers a compromise version.

01:33, 15 October 2005 SlimVirgin does a complete revert of Zephram Stark, calling it a "tweak".

16:25, 16 October 2005 FuelWagon adds "senior scholar with the Institute for Policy Studies".

All this opposition over two sentences:

Noam Chomsky, senior scholar with the Institute for Policy Studies, says that the U.S. qualifies as a state-terrorist government. After President Bush declared a "War on Terrorism," Chomsky stated:

The U.S. is officially committed to what is called “low–intensity warfare.” ... If you read the definition of low–intensity conflict in army manuals and compare it with official definitions of “terrorism” in army manuals, or the U.S. Code, you find they’re almost the same. [2]

So, if we're talking about my behaviour on the Terrorism article, we should talk about the page ownership that was demonstrated by SlimVirgin, Jayjg, Carbonite, et al, for opposing a verbatim quote, from a notable source, with a URL to verify it. I tried to put in two sentences and a gang of editors attack me.

[edit] How the RfC against me started

Given all the opposition I recieved for attempting to insert two sentences consisting of a verbatim quote from a notable source with a URL to verify, and given that the Zephram RfC pointed to the Terrorism article, I thought it relevant to post what just happened to me.

18:32, 16 October 2005 I post to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Zephram_Stark#Outside view by FuelWagon.

19:36, 16 October 2005 Carbonite posts on my talk page that he didn't like my post to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Zephram_Stark#Outside view by FuelWagon

20:47, 16 October 2005 Carbonite informs me that the case has moved on to arbitration. He also tells me "Still, if you wished to comment, it should have concentrated on Zephram's behavior" (I'm pretty sure that isn't how RfC's work. Clearly my arbcom case against Ed Poor quickly turned into a temporary injunction against me, so there you have it.) closing with "If an editor can't discuss edits without taking shots at others, an RfC may be an appropriate next step."

20:59, 16 October 2005 I post to Carbonite, "I make a comment on the Zaphram RfC that is counter to you, and you reply that you're thinking of RfCing me because I can't take comments that are counter to me?" (Carbonite says I'm hostile to criticism, but he threatens me with an RfC when I criticize his behaviour.)

21:35, 16 October 2005 I post Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zephram_Stark/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_User:FuelWagon

23:36, 16 October 2005 Carbonite opens an RfC against me. While the only interactions I know of that we had were on the Terrorism and Wikipedia:words to avoid pages, he submits evidence about all manner of events that he had no involvement in. Bullet 12 is actually kind of funny:

12 FuelWagon responds with yet another hostile comment, accusing Carbonite of threatening him with an RfC.

(I think that sort of proved itself out to be true.)

[edit] Tried to control the RfC

As for SlimVirgin's accusation that I "tried to take control of the RfC" against me, let's just examine that as well. First of all, the instructions for a User RfC state

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

21:17, 26 October 2005 Bishonen starts enforcing this rule by deleting a comment that is supportive of my position. (For the record, Bishonen supported SlimVirgin in both my RfC against SlimVirgin and SlimVirgin's RfC against me.)

02:56, 3 November 2005 I more a threaded comment by SlimVirgin that is against RfC procedural rules and move it to talk page.

03:02, 3 November 2005 I move a threaded comment by TShilo to talk.

03:14, 3 November 2005 SlimVirgin reverts me, reinserting threaded comments against RfC procedures.

03:23, 3 November 2005 I revert SlimVirgin, removing threaded commetns that are against procedure.

03:24, 3 November 2005 SlimVirgin reverts me, reinserting threaded comments against procedures.

03:28, 3 November 2005 I revert SlimVirgin. Edit summary: please follow RFC policy and keep threaded comments on the talk page

03:29, 3 November 2005 I move a block of threaded comments (several editors, including WAS4.250, TShilo, and FuelWagon) to talk page.

03:32, 3 November 2005 SlimVirgin reverts me, reinserting threaded comments in against RfC procedures.

03:36, 3 November 2005 SlimVirgin reverts me, reinserting threaded comments in against RfC procedures. SlimVirgin attempts to say her criticism in a threaded comment is actually an "endorsement".

03:38, 3 November 2005 I delete SlimVirgin's threaded comment, explaining that her comment was a criticims, not an endorsement.

14:59, 3 November 2005 Jayjg, SlimVirgin's long-time revert buddy, jumps in and deletes my endorsement of Vizcarra. (Note the statement ends "I endorse your statement otherwise". There appears to be some confusion as to SlimVirgin's criticism actually being an "endorsement" when she attempted to reinsert her threaded comment, and now Jayjg is confusing my endorsement, which says "I endorse", with a criticism/threaded comment.)

17:34, 3 November 2005 I revert Jayjg. Edit summary: "re-endorse Vizcarra's view"

17:55, 3 November 2005 Jayjg says "Now that you are "endorsing" it," And reinserts SlimVirgin's threaded comment which was a criticism, not an endorsement. Edit summary ends with "Glad we solved that problem"

18:10, 3 November 2005 I delete SlimVirgin's threaded comment. Edit summary states: I had endorsed Vizcarra's comment yesterday. It was never a threaded comment. it ended "I endorse your statement otherwise". SlimVirgin's comment is not an endorsement.

3 Admins jump in and block me for 3RR.

02:59, 4 November 2005 Geni blocked "User:FuelWagon" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR (WP:3RR) on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/FuelWagon 2)

02:39, 4 November 2005 Quadell blocked "User:FuelWagon" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR violation on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/FuelWagon 2)

00:42, 4 November 2005 Redwolf24 blocked "User:FuelWagon" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR on his 2nd RFC)

Even though I point out that SlimVirgin and Jayjg were breaking RfC procedures by reinserting threaded comments, the block lasts a full 24 hours, and SlimVirgin/Jayjg don't even get a scolding for violating RfC procedures from any of the 3 admins who were so happy to block me.

04:05, 5 November 2005 I report Jayjg for vandalism, since he deleted my endorsement of Vizcarra's statement.

SlimVirgin says I was "moving comments he didn't like to the talk page and revert warring over them, to the point where all sensible editors eventually felt they had to stay away from the page", but she conveniently fails to mention that the comments I was "moving" were in direct violation of RfC procedures. She also forgets to mention her part in the edit war or the fact that her reverts were directly violating RfC procedures or that Jayjg helped out and ended up deleting my endorsement of Vizcarra's statement, which qualifies as vandalism.

[edit] Use of dispute resolution process

SLimVirgin states in her evidence that "He has made statements against Ed and myself, or against editors like Jay or Carbonite who defended us, in several arbcom cases. He presented evidence in the September arbcom case against Ed [12]; made more comments about Ed here [13]; more about Ed here to the end of the page [14]; and more [15]. He wrote to Jimbo in September about Terri Schiavo, and how Ed and I supposedly acted in coordination [16]; and wrote again to him here [17]; then asked Jimbo to re-open the case against Ed. [18] He made a statement about Jay and Carbonite during the Zephram Stark case. [19] He made a statement about Rangerdude in the Rangerdude case, but turned it into a statement about me. [20]"

SlimVirgin provides diffs showing me submitting evidence to arbcom cases. If using the dispute resolution procedure is a violation of policy, then the procedures should be thrown out. I could point out that she filed an RfC against me, or that she is filing evidence against me here when the case is allegedly between Ed Poor and myself, but I wouldn't attempt to say that the simple act of filing an RfC against me or submitting evidence against me is a bad thing. I would point to specific accusations and show diffs that prove her accusations wrong.

[edit] Posting to mediation chairperson

SlimVirgin states in her evidence: "In September, he tried to have a black mark placed on Ed's mediation record, complaining again about Terri Schiavo here [21] until the end of the page, leading RedWolf24 to ask: "Would you like me to stamp a warning on Ed's face?" [22]"

By all means, read my post dated 18:47, 25 September 2005 and tell me what specific crime I committed. I asked if the mediation committee has a way to self-regulate its mediators when one of its mediators fails to stay neutral. The point, if it isn't obvious, is that Ed Poor is "innocent until proven guilty", so the only way to "prove" Ed failed to be neutral as a mediator is to bring it to the mediation committee and attempt to prove it to them. I was asking if they had some sort of procedure for submitting a complaint and proving a mediator wasn't neutral. They don't.

[edit] Jayjg's reelection campaign

In her evidence, SlimVirgin states, "Because Jay tried to defend me, FuelWagon targeted him, recently turning his arbcom-question page into a circus (along with Marsden and Ruy Lopez), posting around 54 times in four days to the question and talk pages, with over 25 questions and lots of long-winded insults, leading to the page being protected three times, and having to be refactored several times by about five editors. Examples of FuelWagon's edits to the question page [23] [24] [25] and to the talk page. [26] [27] [28]"

Well, no, I haven't recently disagreed with Jayjg. He was one of the first editors to support SlimVirgin in my RfC against her, so he's shown his bias since July. You can read all about it in my questions to Jayjg. You'll see that one section shows that Jayjg and SlimVirgin have a history of tag-teaming in support of one another on the Wikipedia: Requests for Comment page, the Refusal to serve in the Israeli military article, the Historical persecution by Jews, their tag-team effort to reinsert threaded comments on SlimVirgin's RfC against me, and you can look at the history of Jayjg's candidate for arbcom page and see SlimVirgin has been doing her best to support Jayjg's reelection by deleting questions that are critical of Jayjg. She also complains that I've posted to the article and talk page "54 times" in 4 days, but part of that is trying to jump through the hoops of SlimVirgin's imaginary "personal attacks" that she alleges are contained in my questions. I've tried rewriting and rephrasing my questions a number of different times and she continues to have them deleted, completely, from the page, without saying what specific thing got them deleted. I'm left only with that they are "personal attacks" and no amount of rewriting will satisfy her enough that she'll allow my questions. As I said, check my questions and tell me where the "personal attack" is so I can rewrite them.

An excerpt of one of my deleted questions shows quite a bit of tag-teaming between SlimVirgin and Jayjg. It seemed relevant to ask Jayjg about it as a candidate for arbcom:

In the Wikipedia:Requests for comment article, it appears that Jayjg is tag teaming with SlimVirgin with Jayjg with SlimVirgin

The Refusal_to_serve_in_the_Israeli_military article shows SlimVirgin is tag teaming with Jayjg with SlimVirgin with Jayjg with SlimVirgin with Jayjg with SlimVirgin

The Historical persecution by Jews, renamed Ancient historical persecution of non-Jews by Jews to avoid criticism of the modern state of Israel, shows tag teaming by SlimVirgin with SlimVirgin with Jayjg with SlimVirgin with Jayjg with SlimVirgin

[edit] attack page

SlimVirgin states "In August, he created an "attack page" about me at User talk:FuelWagon/050825, where until October 21 he made a note of anything I did that he could use against me. "

Well, that's ignoring a bit of history. I said some of this above, but I'll repeat the diffs here:

19:17, 24 August 2005 SlimVirgin announces to me that "no credible editor, other than you, saw the merit in that RfC"

21:21, 24 August 2005 I upload a copy of the original RfC against SlimVirgin to show that the RfC was certified by myself and Duckecho, and endorsed by Calton, Proto, and Neuroscientist.

01:10, 25 August 2005 SlimVirgin asks another user about appropriateness of having a deleted RfC in user subspace.

03:05, 25 August 2005 User tells SlimVirgin that its acceptable to keep an RfC in a user's namespace.

If you look at the page SlimVirgin complains about, you'll note that it points to the three RfC-related pages, the main page, the talk page, and another page showing Ed Poor's initial endorsement of my RfC against SlimVirgin. Since the original RfC page and history was deleted, I couldn't just point to diffs from the history of the RfC, I had to create a subdirectory for each. The rest of the page explains the history behind the RfC, and ended with a section titled Why this page is here, explaining the history leading up to and immediately after me uploading the RfC. During the month of August, I filed an RfC against user Bensaccount for POV pushing on the Creation science article. After I upload a copy of the RfC, SlimVirgin gets combative towards me. And although she had no prior involvement on the Creation science article, or the RfC against Bensaccount for the first week it was in existence, she soon jumped on it and turned it into her own personal battleground against me.

22:47, 31 August 2005 SlimVirgin states "This looks like another example of an inappropriate RfC filed by you"

03:26, 31 August 2005 Earlier that same day, SlimVirgin tells me she is "all out of good faith" towards me. Her involvement on the Bensaccount RfC was completely unjustified and qualifies as turning wikipedia into a battleground.

SlimVirgin makes numerous edits to the Bensaccount talk page, making numerous accusations about the illegitimacy of the RfC and how it wasn't proper. [29]

01:00, 3 September 2005 SlimVirgin asked some friend of hers to look at RfC and they tell her it looks acceptable.

[edit] 12 demands

SlimVirgin states "He has rebuffed all attempts at dispute resolution made by me and around 11 other editors. He has said he will stop his pursuit of me if I comply with 12 demands he has posted."

First of all, El_C came to me with a combative attitude, telling me to justify having a copy of a delted RfC in my talk page, or he'll make sure they get deleted. And, coincidently, although El_C had absolutely no involvement with me or my dispute with SlimVirgin, four days after SlimVirgin threatens to take me to arbcom, El_C mysteriously finds interest in the dispute.

For reference, El_C had a combative attitude on my RfC against SlimVirgin. His endorsement of SlimVirgin's statement was combative towards Neuroscientist

09:34, 15 July 2005 accusing Neuroscientist of reverting SlimVirgin en masse. Edit summary is "If the refutation is not methodic, it is not authoritative" But Neuroscienist never reverted a single time, and anyone who read Neuroscientist's 5,000 word explanation of the things wrong with SlimVirgin's edit should quickly be able to tell that his critique was methodic and authoritive. The guy is an expert in neurology and we were lucky enough to have him editing wikipedia.

12:18, 15 July 2005 Once it's pointed out to El_C that Neuroscientist never made a single revert, El_C ammends his statement, changing "(Neuroscientist) should refrain from reverting hours of work en mass" to "(Neuroscientist) should refrain from commenting on the series of edits in their totality." El_C then jumps on the bandwagon that accused Neuroscientist of making "condescending, patronizing overtone".

It seems clear to me that El_C had no intention of resolving anything, or getting to the facts of the case, but was simply out to suppress any and all criticism of SlimVirgin, regardless of the source.

El_C also started a long threaded debate with "I challenge."

22:04, 15 July 2005 El_C posts " I challenge".

23:12, 15 July 2005 El_C posts "To me, that appears to be an exercize in sophistry."

23:49, 15 July 2005 I explain to El_C "the reason I filed an RFC was in part because an attempt to work it out on talk simply exploded. ... If you want to ignore all the issues on an RFC because one point sounds sophist to you, fine. But I don't need people like you challenging me here. I'm trying to avoid another explosion."

00:03, 16 July 2005 El_C posts "I'll comment on and direct challenges toward whatever I see fit, I'm not bound by the conditions you set."

00:09, 16 July 2005 I post to El_C "I set no conditions. I said I don't need people like you challenging me. If you want to challenge whatever you see fit, fine. It's good to have a some purpose in life. If you'd like to help keep this RFC non-combative though, I would appreciate the help. If not, whatever. I just made a request. You get to choose."

00:16, 16 July 2005 El_C posts "I am not interested in responding to that at this time"

This shows to me that El_C had no interest in resolving anything, only putting an end to the RfC, and using a combative approach to try to accomplish it. I say "I'm trying to avoid another explosion", and his reply is "I'll comment on and direct challenges toward whatever I see fit".

22:00, 30 September 2005 SlimVirgin "puts me on notice" that if I continue, she "will file an RfAr" against me.

19:57, 3 October 2005 El_C, though I haven't heard from him since my RfC against SlimVirgin back in July, suddenly appears on my talk page, demanding that I justify having a copy of a deleted RfC in my subdirectory. (Could it be that SlimVirgin sent him on a mission as "combat negotiator" simply to meet arbcom's requirement for diffs showng attempts to resolve? El_C certainly wasn't approaching this with "dispute resolution" in his attitude.

18:18, 4 October 2005 El_C later states " I'll AfD whatever I deem fit, this was merely a note as per my intention"

El_C and I have a long discussion on my talk page (history here).

00:00, 6 October 2005 El C posts "In the most ideal terms, how do you envision a resolution to this dispute?"

03:54, 6 October 2005 I post an "ideal" reply, with an edit summary "ideal" and a new subsection titled "ideal".

21:41, 7 October 2005 I post to user Marskell a reduced list of 7 things in my reduced "ideal" situation.

22:21, 8 October 2005 I explain to Marskell that this is an "ideal" list, and list three acknowledgements that I need for my list: her edit on the Terri Schivo article was "reckless", the second block against me was underserved, and she shouldn't have gotten involved in the Bensaccount Rfc.

Note that neither SlimVirgin nor El_C engaged in this offer. El_C simply needed to show an attempt to resolve the dispute so SlimVirgin could take me to arbcom.

10:31, 10 October 2005 El_C posts on my talk page: "All I see is more of the same from FW: Longwinded diatribes with the usual bitter, sarcastic and juvenile provocations, sophomoric innuendo, repetitive tautologies and eliptical circularities, Spanish Inquisition, Ministry of Truth, Ministry of Information rewriting history, silly name calling, et cetera, etc., and otherwise personal attacks, and acts of incivility, breaches of wikiquette, and the endless, ceaseless. battleground."

So much for whittling the list down to three items. Better to present them in the arbcom case here as a list of 12 hard demands, non-negotiable, and ignore the context that they were in response to El_C's "most ideal terms" for a resolution. Ignore the fact that I whittled it down to three while talking with Marskell. Ignore the fact that El_C didn't follow up on this and attempt to resolve this or that SlimVirgin talked with me directly when I got down to three items. Ignore the fact that El_C's attitude is revealed with his litany post on October 10, with comments such as "juvenile" and "sophomoric" that qualify as personal attacks. Ignore all that, and just talk about my 12 "most ideal terms" as if they were 12 hard demands completely out of context.

[edit] stalking

SlimVirgin lists a number of articles and claims I was stalking her. Lets take a look, shall we?

First and foremost, SlimVirgin presents a number of diffs that occur in September through October, but she forgets to mention her own behaviour in August.

22:47, 31 August 2005 SlimVirgin states "This looks like another example of an inappropriate RfC filed by you" Note that SlimVirgin has no history on the Creation science article. Also note that the RfC for Bensacount has been around for a week now with no comment from SlimVirgin. The day she is "out of good faith" because I criticized her at arbcom, is the day SlimVirgin turns the RfC against Bensaccount into her personal battleground.

23:26, 15 September 2005 I quote the "Words to avoid" article to SlimVirgin, saying her use of "however" should be avoided.

22:57, 17 September 2005 SlimVirgin follows me to the "Words to avoid" article and deletes the entire entry for the word "however".

While I'm on the "Words to avoid" article, I get involved with a dispute about whether to add the phrase "conspiracy theory" to the list of phrases to avoid. The article The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is cited as an example of an article using the "conspiracy theory" phrase. Another example given is the conspiracy theory that 4,000 Israeli's were warned to get out of the world trade center the morning of 9-11, just before the planes hit. I keep saying that the "Protocols" article is well written, only using the phrase "conspiracy theory" as the point of view of a source (John called blah a conspiracy theory). I ask a number of times on the "words to avoid" page if anyone has an example of an article that states it as a fact. (Blah is a conspiracy theory.) No one answers my question.

I start looking for "conspiracy theory" articles, starting with "Protocols of Elders of Zion" and looking for the article containing the "Israelis warned on 9-11" conspiracy theory. That's when I happen upon the Refusal to serve in the Israeli military and the Historical persecution by Jews articles. The examples given all relate to Zionism and Israel, so it isn't much of a stretch to get to "israeli military" and "persecution by jews", both are related topics.

02:52, 27 September 2005 I make my first edit to Refusal to serve in the Israeli military, inserting a verbatim quotation from the source being mentioned. (A URL was already provided.) There was an edit war going on about whether to use the phrase "occupied territories" or "gaza strip". I figure quoting the source rather than paraphrasing would be a quick solution to the dispute.

21:12, 30 September 2005 On the Talk:Historical persecution by Jews page, SlimVirgin states "I've removed the contemporary sections, and the reference to them in the intro. I've done the same at the Christian article. The Muslim page didn't have a contemporary section, so they're all the same now." SlimVirgin deleted a large block of well-referenced information related to the topic. I assume she did this because it was critical of the modern state of Israel. This deletion is in direct opposition to arbcom precedence here (first bullet).

21:14, 30 September 2005 I reinstate the text.

21:27, 30 September 2005 Because SlimVirgin mentioned on the Talk:Historical persecution by Jews that she "did the same at the Christian article", I see she's deleted a bunch of well-referenced text related to the topic here too. I reinsert the text. Clearly not stalking, because she declared her deletion on the talk page. And the deletion was clearly unwarranted and against arbcom precedence.

06:05, 7 October 2005 Vizcarra posts on my talk page: Take a look at this as well: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zephram Stark/Evidence. Some day, someone will be able to do something about POV-pushing. In the meantime, nothing seems to be effective

I look at the page. It talks about a big dispute between Zephram Stark and SlimVirgin, Jayjg, Carbonite, and others that is occuring on the Terrorism article. I read through the RfC and get interested in the Terrorism article.

03:53, 12 October 2005 I make my first edit to the Terrorism article. This was in response to Ashenai's edit 23:09, 11 October 2005 paraphrasing Noam Chomsky. I figure inserting a verbatim quote from a notable source with a URL to verify would be an improvement. But I came here via Vizcarra's post on my talk page about the Zephram arbitration case.

[30] I've gotten completely frustrated with getting harrassed for everything I do on wikipedia, so I go on vandal patrol. Everyone hates a vandal. From October 24 to October 26, I monitor recent additions (I had just discovered the "recent changes" feature and how it could be useful) and revert about 230 different pieces of vandalism. On october 25th alone, I spend about 6 manhours throughout the day on the lookout for vandalism. The 24th and 26th are also spent on vandal patrol, though not quite a many hours worked. While on vandal patrol, I come across a series of edits on Veganism by an anon IP.

20:23, 25 October 2005 While on vandal patrol, I revert an IP edit on Veganism to a version by Viriditas. I'm not entirely sure if it qualifies as vandalism or not. It seems to be inserting some legitimate stuff, but it seems to be inserting some unsourced claims too, so I revert to a known named editor. Some POV pushing seems to be going on, so I make a note to go back to the article.

03:05, 29 October 2005 I go back to the Veganism article and insert a single sentence in the introduction to report a desenting point of view. The intro introduces the topic of "animal rights" and I mention "animal welfare".

SlimVirgin has tried to paint this as stalking, but I stumbled upon this article wihle on vandal patrol, clicking "recent changes" over and over, looking for possible vandalism. I saw an IP edit, so I checked it out, and it looked like it was some good and some bad, so I reverted it, but I never had a completely good feeling about the revert, and I got the impression there was some edit warring going on the article, so I went back to the article to follow up.

05:27, 5 November 2005 I make my first edit to Animal rights, balancing the introduction. The intro implies that not supporting animal rights is supporting "exploitation" of animals, immoral, "torture". I insert a quote by the National Cattleman's Beef Association which defines Animal welfare as "taking reasonable care of all animals". The NCBA website also defines animal rights and states that it does not support animal rights, but it does support animal welfare. It seems like a relevant source to me.

SlimVirgin has also tried to paint this as stalking, but the first non-vandal-patrol edit I make to the Veganism article is to insert a sourced pov discussing the difference between Animal Rights and Animal welfare, so I end up at the Animal rights article.

While I'm talking about stalking, I should mention the Bensaccount RfC.

[edit] Bensaccount RfC

03:34, 22 August 2005 I file an RfC against user Bensaccount for POV pushing on the Creation science article.

03:26, 31 August 2005 Because I submit a statement to arbcom critical of SlimVirgin, she posts on my talk page that she is "all out of good faith".

22:47, 31 August 2005 SlimVirgin states "This looks like another example of an inappropriate RfC filed by you" Note that SlimVirgin has no history on the Creation science article. Also note that the RfC for Bensacount has been around for a week now with no comment from SlimVirgin. The day she is "out of good faith" because I criticized her at arbcom, is the day SlimVirgin turns the RfC against Bensaccount into her personal battleground.

03:26, 31 August 2005 Earlier that same day, SlimVirgin tells me she is "all out of good faith" towards me. Her involvement on the Bensaccount RfC was completely unjustified and qualifies as turning wikipedia into a battleground.

SlimVirgin makes numerous edits to the Bensaccount talk page, making numerous accusations about the illegitimacy of the RfC and how it wasn't proper. [31]

01:00, 3 September 2005 SlimVirgin asked some friend of hers to look at RfC and they tell her it looks acceptable.

I don't care what you call this behaviour. Stalking. Battleground. Whatever. But SlimVirgin clearly showed her willingness to take a legitimate RfC that she had absolutely no involvement in, and turn it into her personal vendetta.

[edit] A direct response to SlimVirgin's "stalking" evidence

I see in the proposals that there is "substantial evidence" that I'm stalking SlimVirgin? Why? Because SlimVirgin said so? I provided a history of diffs that show exact dates as when and how I came to the articles I was working on. The thing about accusing someone of "stalking" is its an easy accusation to make in an atmosphere of "guilt until proven innocent", because its so hard to disprove that you were not stalking someone. But then again, if it were an environment of innocent until proven guilty, then the person making the accusation would have to do the work to prove stalking. No one has shown I stalked SlimVirgin. SlimVirgin made the accusation, and provided scant evidence, some of it flat out wrong, of stalking.

Here are some quick examples of SlimVirgin's evidence:

• On September 16, after I edited Wikipedia:Words to avoid, [32] he arrived there for the first time and reverted me. [33]

No, I've already shown that on 23:26, 15 September 2005 I quote the "Words to avoid" article to SlimVirgin and then after that, 22:57, 17 September 2005 SlimVirgin follows me to the "Words to avoid" article and deletes the entire entry for the word "however", and then after that I revert her deletion. She makes the accusation and provides my reversion as "proof", but she conveniently forgot to mention that I had mentioned the "words to avoid" article to her days before that.

• On September 26, after I edited Refusal to serve in the Israeli military, [34] he arrived there for the first time and reverted me. [35]
• On September 26, I edited Israel, [36] and a few hours later he made an edit there for the first time. [37]
• On September 30, I edited Historical persecution by Jews, [38] and he arrived there for the first time within six minutes, reverted me, [39] and began attacking me on the talk page.

I've already explained how I was involved in a discussion about adding "Conspiracy theory" to the words to avoid list, and the two exampled provided in that discussion of conspiracy theories were teh "protocols of the elders of zion" (listed on 21:59, 16 September 2005) and the claim that israeli's were warned before 9-11. (listed on 07:32, 17 September 2005) It was in the middle of this debate (which I started 22:37, 16 September 2005 and which my involvement in continued until 22:06, 7 October 2005) that I went looking for examples of articles mentioning conspiracy theories, starting with the two examples given, and ended up at the Refusal to serve in the Israeli military and Historical persecution by Jews.

• On September 30, I edited Historical persecution by Christians [40] and he arrived there for the first time within eight minutes, reverted me, [41] and began attacking me on the talk page. In none of the above did he make a substantive edit, or a comment on the talk page about content. His comments were entirely about me.

Again, SlimVirgin conveniently forgets to mention that on the Historical persecution by Jews talk page, she specifically states that she deleted a large block of text from the Christian version of the article. It isn't a mystery how I ended up there. She announced she had deleted a block of text on the Christian article, so I went to look and didn't see any consensus to have it deleted (or any discussion at all), so I reinstated the text. The current version of the article still contains the text, suggesting that it was legitmate to keep the text.

• On October 12, he arrived at Terrorism, [42] an article he had never edited, but I had edited recently, and teamed up with banned user Zephram Stark, insulting Jayjg, Carbonite, and me.

Again, SlimVirgin conveniently forgets to mention that Vizcarra complained about the case against Zephram Stark that was currently in motion [43]. The case clearly states the issue was centered around the Terrorism article. She also fails to mention that my only edit to the Terrorism article was the "crime" of inserting two sentences containing a verbatim quote from a notable source with a URL to verify. This was a small and legitimate edit by me [44].

• On November 5, he arrived at Animal rights, which he had never edited before and which I had edited several times, adding a section to the intro with an inappropriate source. [45] I waited until November 21 before tidying it, but he reverted. I posted suggestions for compromise, but he kept re-inserting his own intros (which got worse each time he rewrote them, ending up as just a collection of quotes from one website [46]), reverting against Babajobu, FeloniousMonk, Scales, and myself, so I posted a request for protection. [47] He then posted insults about me to talk, for which Ed blocked him for three hours on November 29. FuelWagon responded with this RfAr on November 30.

Once again, SlimVirgin only present part of the story. I first happened upon the Veganism article while on vandal patrol. This history of my contributions will show that I did nothing on wikipedia for about three days straight but revert vandalism. During this time, I reverted an anonymous IP that had made three edits to the article, some of which contained unsourced claims and problematic text. I went back later because I didn't feel 100% about the revert. I find some disputes going on, and insert one sentence in the introduction, an intro otherwise devoid of any dissenting views.

SlimVirgin's presentation of evidence starts out with a complete misrepresentation of facts. She followed me to the words to avoid article after I quoted the article to her. The remainder of her evidence shows only part of the history that might support stalking, but she never mentions any of the diffs that would show I ended up at an article for legitmate reasons. Vizcarra told me about the Zephram Stark case and the Terrorism article. So, I put two whole sentences into the Terrorism article, and SlimVirgin says I'm stalking her. No, I've shown how I ended up at the article, and I've shown that my edit to the article was legitimate. SlimVirgin shows an edit by me on the Animal Rights article claiming it shows stalking, but I've shown I ended up at the Veganism article while on vandal patrol, went back to the article to make an edit, and Veganism took me to Animal Rights.

I provide a sequential list of evidence to show that I haven't been stalking SlimVirgin here and here.

More importantly, SlimVirgin makes a number of accusations about "Stalking" but not once does she mention her behaviour way back in August on the Bensaccount RfC. The RfC had been around for a week, she had no involvement in the Creation Science article or the RfC during that time. The day she declares she is "all out of good faith" is the day she suddenly injects herself into the Bensaccoutn RfC.

While I've explained how I arrived at different articles, and I've shown that my edits were reasonable (for example, two sentences reporting a sourced quote in the Terrorism article), I'm still accused of wikistalking. Meanwhile, I've shown that Slimvirgin announced that she was all out of good faith to me on my talk page [48], and that later that same day, she's suddenly found interest in the Bensaccount RfC as being "another example of an inappropriate RfC" by me [49], so her motivations are obviously not neutral, and her behaviour should be futher questioned when the end result is that another admin tells her that the RfC looks OK [50].

I've shown how I arrived at various pages for legitimate reasons, and I've shown that my edits were reasonable. I've also shown that SlimVirgin arrived at the Bensaccount RfC with highly questionable motiviations, and I've shown that her protestations about the RfC were shown to be unjustified by another admin. Yet I'm the one charged with stalking. FuelWagon 16:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Animal Rights content dispute

SlimVirgin cites in her evidence that on the Animal rights article, I was guilty of "adding a section to the intro with an inappropriate source" with a link to my edit 05:27, 5 November 2005. Please follow the NCBA URL and note that the page defines Animal rights and animal welfare and states that they support "animal welfare" and "monitors the animal rights issue if it develops in the courts and in Congress and take appropriate action when necessary." I think this national organization qualifies as a notable source to provide a dissenting poitn of view to the "animal rights" point of view.

01:00, 21 November 2005 SlimVirgin rewrote my addition, weakening the criticism of animal rights POV and adding criticism of the animal welfare POV.

23:31, 22 November 2005 Because of repeated complaints from SlimVirgin that the NCBA does not "qualify" as a source, and suggestions that it should be an "academic" source, I replace the NCBA quote with some information from the "Foundation for Animal Use Education" website, including a quotation by Carl Cohen, professor of philosophy at the University of Michigan, stated, "The holders of rights must have the capacity to comprehend rules of duty governing all, including themselves." [51]

01:45, 23 November 2005 SlimVirgin reverts that version as well.

21:22, 23 November 2005 I perform a number of edits to shorten the criticism (because SlimVirgin complained it was too long). The introduction reports the criticism in one paragraph.

08:41, 25 November 2005 SlimVirgin reverts that version as well.

05:43, 26 November 2005 I reinsert one paragraph of dissenting views in introduction. verbatim quotes from notable sources with URL's to verify each and every one.

06:54, 26 November 2005 SlimVirgin reverts that as well, deleting criticism comletely.

15:44, 27 November 2005 I add a definition of "animal welfare" because SlimVirgin complained that it wasn't defined.

07:32, 28 November 2005 SlimVirgin reverts that version as well, deleting all criticism from intro.

16:23, 28 November 2005 I reinsert criticism in intro.

01:17, 29 November 2005 SlimVirgin requested page protection for Animal rights, stating "FuelWagon is causing trouble on Animal rights as part of his long-term stalking campaign against me. He has added badly written nonsense to the intro,"

01:19, 29 November 2005 SlimVirgin posts to Jayjg that she's requested page protection of Animal rights and could he lock it.

01:21, 29 November 2005 In two minutes, Jayjg manages to view the history of Animal rights, and determine that a page lock is necessary. (A more cynical person might think that Jayjg didn't even bother to check the article and simply locked it immediately to make sure another editor didn't sneak in an edit and change the article to something SlimVirgin might consider "the wrong version". Given the policy that editors cannot lock the page they are editing, and given that 2 minutes is practically impossible to make an independent and neutral interpretation of what's going on at an article, this series of edits could support the idea that Jayjg was acting as SlimVirgin's meatpuppet here, allowing SlimVirgin to skirt around the restriction by pulling Jayjg's strings and essentially allowing SlimVirgin to lock a page she was editing, via a puppet user. Gaming the system? Misuse of admin priveledges. Using page protection to enforce page "ownership")

01:42, 29 November 2005 A few minutes later, SlimVirgin posts to Ed Poor that I've started my "personal attacks" again. She gives three examples 14:43, 26 November 2005 01:17, 29 November 2005 01:24, 29 November 2005 that she claims are attacks.

02:02, 29 November 2005 In half an hour, Ed Poor blocks me for NPA violations. He lists the first link that SlimVirgin provided him (14:43, 26 November 2005) as the reason for my block. By all means, look at my post and show me where I make a personal attack. SlimVirgin has been a deleting any and all criticism from the Animal rights intro, and I tell her that she's biased and POV pushing for her editing behaviour. (Misuse of admin priveledges by Ed Poor, gaming the system by SlimVirgin)

This was exactly what happened on the Terri Schiavo article. I start editing a list of all the problems with SlimVirgin's edits on my talk page, she tells Ed Poor that I'm attacking her, and he obligingly uses admin priveledges to block me for "personal attacks" when none existed. Criticizing an editors behaviour cannot qualify as a personal attack or all of SlimVirgin's accusations on the Terri Schiavo article should have quickly gotten her blocked.

So, SlimVirgin reverts the animal rights page to the version she wants, request her buddy Jayjg to lock it, which he does in less than two minutes. Once it's locked, SlimVirgin then goes to her blocking buddy Ed Poor and tells him that I'm attacking her, and Ed Poor obligingly complies within a half hour. SlimVIrgin and Jayjg have a long history of supporting each other to enforce a POV that they want. ANd Ed Poor has now twice blocked me at SlimVirgin's request, for personal attacks that did not exist on the diff that he claims got me blocked.

[edit] response to El_C's evidence

[edit] Juvenile and sophomoric

El_C seems to think there is some conspiracy about me deleting references to Despite Jayjg's Ministry Of Truth attempt and revert attempts by the "ministry of information" to rewrite history,

No, the point of 10:31, 10 October 2005 was to show EL_C's own combative attitude in his post:

All I see is more of the same from FW: Longwinded diatribes with the usual bitter, sarcastic and juvenile provocations, sophomoric innuendo, repetitive tautologies and eliptical circularities,

"longwinded diatribes", "bitter", "sarcastice", "juvenile", and "sophomoric" are all El_C words. All are clearly combative. Some qualify as personal attacks. He also quotes back to me something I said about "ministry of truth" and "ministry of information", which are my words. I didn't delete them to hide them, I deleted them so that he wouldn't be blamed for using the phrase "ministry of truth" when it was my phrase. He clearly gets ownership of teh other words and phrases, and that was the point.

I think I've shown from the beginning my willingness to be straight about my mistakes. My RfC against SlimVirgin started out with a rather large block of text at the bottom reporting the fact that I violated NPA, that I had been blocked by Ed Poor for it, and that I didn't contest that block. [52].

So, here's teh history behind the other two phrases.

[edit] Ministry of Truth

There is a content dispute on Wikipedia:Requests for comment.

Some diffs show Jayjg is tag teaming with SlimVirgin with Jayjg with SlimVirgin

20:57, 25 September 2005 Sam Korn suggests a compromise.

16:20, 2 October 2005 It's discussed, with some tweaks, and I post the resulting version.

17:38, 8 October 2005 I post. Edit summary "reinsert Sam Korn's compromise version. Contains Robert's "cautionary" language and still contains SlimVirgin's "horrendous" opinion."

02:17, 9 October 2005 Jayjg reverts me. Edit summary "restore compromise version from talk"

18:12, 9 October 2005 I revert. Edit summary "Despite Jayjg's Ministry Of Truth attempt to the contrary, this is the compromise version suggested by Sam Korn on talk."

The "compromise" version was proposed most recently by Sam Korn and worked out on the talk page. Jayjg's attempt to call his version the "compromise version on talk" is a flat out lie. Perhaps those who haven't read George Orwell's book won't get the reference to "Ministry of Truth", but they're an organization known for lying. Jayjg knew of the compromise version by Sam Korn, knew that there were no new compromises since then, but Jayjg called his version the "compromise version on talk" anyway.

[edit] Ministry of Information

This is around a content dispute on Historical persecution by Jews.

SlimVirgin and Jayjg et al are attempting to delete a large chunk of text containing referenced material only because it is critical of the modern state of Israel. It is valid content. It contains a number of URL's. The Historical persecution by Christians article contains a similar contemporary section on the United States of America, but they will not allow this text to remain.

The Historical persecution by Jews, renamed Ancient historical persecution of non-Jews by Jews to avoid criticism of the modern state of Israel, shows tag teaming by SlimVirgin with SlimVirgin with Jayjg with SlimVirgin with Jayjg with SlimVirgin

21:56, 7 October 2005 Humus sapiens deletes the content, edit summary "RV FuelWagon's attempt to politicize the topic" (politicizing is irrelevant to whether or not the content is relevant to the topic of "persecution by Jews", whether or not it is referenced/verifiable/sourced. That it is controversial is not criteria for deleting it. Wikipedia does not delete information because it is unpopular, but disputed information should be reported from the sources who espouse them.)

17:43, 8 October 2005 I reinsert the text. Edit summary "revert attempts by the "ministry of information" to rewrite history to somehow not include the last 60 years of Israel." The Ministry of Information is another reference to the Ministry of Truth, an organization known for deleting history that is unpopular to those currently in power and rewriting it. The continued attempts to delete valid, sourced, verifiable material because it is is unpopular is against policy.

[edit] but it IS true

El_C states 15:44, 7 December 2005

This was more of the same from FW; it did involve longwinded diatribes; these were coupled with the usual (yes, usual) bitter, sarcastic and juvenile provocations; there was plenty of sophomoric innuendo, repetitive tautologies and eliptical circularities; FW continued to engage in silly name calling ("Spanish Inquisition, Ministry of Truth, Ministry of Information rewriting history"); the aforementioned misconduct did amount to personal attacks, acts of incivility & breaches of wikiquette; and that it did perpetuate an endless, ceaseless. battleground is clearly evident.

First, in response to El_C's emphasis on "it was juvenile" and similar statements, I'll quote arbcom precedence that states "Personal attacks are not excused or justified by offers of demonstration of their truth." [53]

Second, I believe El_C's behaviour on the RfC against SlimVirgin, on my talk page, and here, shows a combative attitude. I don't care what arbcom does with that bit of information. But if the question arises as to why I didn't respond to El_C's advances on my talk page with the warmest wishes, I believe the attitude he has consistently shown me in all our interactions should be taken into consideration.

Finally, my point of all this was to show that my 12 "hard demands" were actually quickly whittled down to 3 items on 22:21, 8 October 2005, but the only response I got from El_C on this was his list of apparent "truths" about my juvenile and sophomoric behaviour 10:31, 10 October 2005. No one took this list of 3 items and tried to resolve anything. Instead I got attacked by El_C. And when it was brought up on this case, I was accused of making 12 "hard demands", completely out of context of what the question was before I answered, or the complete lack of response after I whittled it down to 3 items. I was willing to resolve this, they weren't.

[edit] I dropped this. SlimVirgin brought it back

Well, I wouldn't accuse El_C of deliberately selecting only part of a post to hide something, because he was so upset by me apparent attempt to hide some words when I quoted him, but, when the shoe fits, no sense in going to the store to buy a new one. The offending post to Marskell, quoted in part by El_C, is shown in full here. (Note, text missing from El_C's version, the part he replaced with [...], is in bold italics here)

I didn't demand she grovel, El_C came in and first demanded I justify my talk pages to him. After that, he asked me what my ideal solution would be that would get me to delete this stuff. I told him. A lot of my time now is spent on talk pages lately because El_C came in and gave me the spanish inquisition, then when I answered his "ideal" question, more people came in and piled on that. I dropped this. SlimVirgin brought it back up a month after that and started rewriting history. I uploaded the old RfC. If she wants me to delete those pages, she needs to fix some things. If not, I have no reason to believe that she won't try to screw me over again once I delete these pages. Her edit was reckless, the second block against me was undeserved, and she shouldn't have gotten involved in teh bensaccount RfC. FuelWagon 22:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC) [54]

So the "screw me over again" refers to me withdrawing certification on my RfC to allow it to be deleted 19:29, 16 July 2005, giving a full, unconditional apology to SlimVirgin for my NPA 18:50, 18 July 2005, to Dbergan, and on my talk page, only to have one day later, SlimVirgin attack an edit I made on Intelligent Design and tell me I'm making the same mistake on Terri Schiavo, "a strong atheist POV being pushed in the face of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR" 18:46, 19 July 2005, have SlimVirgin tell me "Your edits weren't only not perfect. They were arguably false and a clear violation of the NOR policy, and yet you defended them at length, vociferously and abusively. It's the absolute certainty that you're right that I'm asking you to address." 20:11, 19 July 2005,

Then a month later, after the RfC is long gone, after Duckecho, Neuroscientist, and Ghost have all left wikipedia, SlimVirgin accuses me of "ad hominem" attacks 15:23, 24 August 2005, begruding the RfC I filed against her 15:58, 24 August 2005, and telling me "no credible editor, other than you, saw the merit in that RfC"' 19:17, 24 August 2005.

I withdraw certification to allow the RfC to be deleted, and this is the response I get. I think Ed Poor chastized me at one point about when you see an olive branch, take it. ([55])

This is the "again" to which I am refering. It was actually in the diff but El_C managed to ignore that part. Oh well.

[edit] Spanish Inquisition

As for the "spanish inquisition" about El_C, I think this page already does a good job of reflecting exactly how he behaved on my talk page. The history of my talk page shows he posted about 14 edits to my talk page on October 2 and 3 alone, with about the same attitude as he demonstrates here. The entire history is here. [56]

Some specific links are interesting:

16:43, 4 October 2005 El_C stated "I have no need to claim "neutrality." I'm here to tell you that I find your methods to be out of process, that if you have grievences, you need to follow through, applying the dispute resolution channels. As you keep repeating, stop burying it indefinitely within subpages on-site."

18:18, 4 October 2005 El_C states "I'm not here as an admin, and what I want is for your "criticism" to be brought out to the open and taken to its logical conclusion, not indefinitely buried on-site so as to harbour more ill-will. I'll AfD whatever I deem fit, this was merely a note as per my intention."

Well, he claims no neutrality, and that is pretty much what I've been saying all along here. And I'd call "I'll AfD whatever I deem fit" to be just a little bit combative. As for the rest, it's interesting that El_C stated on my talk page, twice, that he wanted me to bring this out into the dispute resolution process, rather than bury it. Now that I've done that, he seems equally combative that I stop. Apparently I can't win with him.

[edit] Completely confused

El_C, I challenge you to find a single post from you to me that is clearly non-combative. [57]

This could be a post from you to me on (1) my RfC against SlimVirgin, (2) my talk page talking about SlimVirgin, or (3) this arbitration case.

If you can't, then I'm left with posts like this.

Furthermore, on at least two occaisions [58] [59], you seemed to be telling me to stop "burying" this and take it through the proper dispute resolution channels. Now that I'm doing that, you seem completely opposed to the idea. I'm completely confused here. Do you want me to use the dispute resolution channels or not? Are you trying to resolve the disputes between me and Ed Poor, SlimVirgin, or yourself?

In the most ideal terms, how do you envision a resolution to this dispute? [60]

And just so you know, I won't relate to your answer as hard demands. Perhaps we can work something out.

[edit] Response to evidence presented by Musical Linguist

[edit] Evidence that FuelWagon's statements are not always accurate

Musical Linguist would like to suggest that there is some evil afoot because I use the word "block" when talking about Ed Poor's reaction to the contents of my talk page. Ed Poor moved a large block of legitimate text from my talk page to a subdirectory called "/block" (he picked the name, not me) and locked my talk page. Call it what you want, but it was a misuse of admin priviledges.

Musical Linguist would also like to suggest that I'm misrepresenting the truth when I say that SlimVirgin asked Ed Poor to block me. I present these diffs

17:05, 13 July 2005 SlimVirgin complains to Ed that a blocked editor can still edit his talk page. " The downside is that we now have talk pages turning into obsessive diatribes against the blocking admin, or against the editors involved in the dispute that led to the block,"

17:50, 13 July 2005 Ed replies to SlimVirgin that obsessive diatribes are not a good thing to be on the recieving end of.

18:07, 13 July 2005 Ed posts (edit summary "A tribe dies: to Slim") "Any particular talk pages I should look at?"

To me, it seems pretty clear that she initiated the conversation with Ed that resulted in a block.

Musical Linguist also would like to suggest that Ed Poor's misuse of admin priveledges was justified because I had previously violated NPA. Of interest is that some of those NPA attacks happened while Ed Poor was around but SlimVirgin was not. Interestingly enough, Ed Poor didn't block me until the NPA was directed at SlimVirgin.

[edit] Evidence of NPOV violations by FuelWagon

I delete the weasel word "probably" [61]. That isn't POV.

I delete teh weasel word "some" [62]

No notable source that I know of disputes that the brain damage was caused by cardiac arrest [63].

The "sensational language" was a cut and paste from the newspaper article, I could have attributed it better, but it was a cut and paste. [64]

As to whether I follow NPOV on other articles:

An outside comment on SlimVirgin's Rfc against me:

FuelWagon must be given a great deal of credit for his focus on true content of the encyclopedia. He often comes across as a POV warrior. He is not. He is a truth warrior. He has more trust in his concept of what is NPOV than he does in consensus, and he is usually right, even if he goes against consensus. He has a better idea of what really is NPOV and POV than most Wikipedians. He needs to be listened to. He is abrasive, but he is almost always right on what is and what is not POV and NPOV. 22 October

Regarding some work I did on the Landmark Education article

I acknowledge you for the clarity you have brought to the troublesome Landmark Education article. There has been more progress on that page in the last two days or so than in the whole of the last year and a half 16 November

I agree, congratulations. I've been watching this article for months and have despaired for its future. You've made a significant improvement. Thanks for your careful work on this obscure and sensitive topic 16 November

And while Musical Linguist provides all this evidence to support SlimVirgin's accusations of NPOV, she fails to differentiate these edits (which happened in april, my first month editing wikipedia) from the edits made by SlimVirgin (which happened in July). SlimVirgin wasn't even around in April. SlimVirgin's accusations fo POV pushing came from reverting her edit, not because I deleted the word "probably". This is dredging unrelated mud.

Finally, Musical Linguist fails to address a multitude of other accusations made by SlimVirign, not the least of which is the most important one, namely SlimVirgin's accusation that I had insisted no dissenting view be reported in the introduction. I told SlimVirgin her accusation was wrong, but she never retracted it.

[edit] Evidence of use or misuse of talk page during block

Musical Linguist lists all sorts of stuff on my talk page that she would like to say justifies Ed Poor's use of admin priviledges to lock the page. However, everything on that page is crticisms of SlimVirgin's edits (which she still denied contained even a single error and was calling to be reinstated), and criticism of her behaviour as an editor. There are no violations of NPA, there are only criticisms of behaviour, which is not against policy.

[edit] Evidence that two who left had violated WP:Civility etc

Duckecho's record doesn't have any blocks that I know of. He doesn't have a history of blocks, that's for sure.

Neuroscientist's concern was only about the facts of the medical case. He crticized SlimVirgin's edits and her behaviour as an editor. That isn't an NPA. I'm pretty sure that Neuroscientist doesn't have any blocks at all. But he was sure abused enough for criticizing SlimVirgin. SlimVirgin, Ed Poor, and El_C all accused him of being patronizing for, of all things, saying SlimVirgin's edit contained numerous errors.

[edit] Evidence that FuelWagon caused other editors to leave

Tropix: This is like SlimVirgin dragging up a dispute I had with Dbergan that had long since been resolved. Tropix showed up and made some edits that made some editors think he was a sockpuppet of NCdave. I think Ghost actually made the suggesting that he may be a puppet. I put the "sockpuppet notice" on his user page like policy says to do on April 11. But Tropix and I sorted it out that he wasn't a sockpuppet and by April 13, we were working together amiably [65] [66].

NCdave: Wow. Please review Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NCdave for whether or not it was FuelWagon who ran NCdave off, or whether it was a large group of editors who told him his edits were blatant violatins of NPOV and his behaviour was intolerable.

[edit] Ed Poor tried to be fair

Ed Poor was a passive mediator on Terri Schiavo for three weeks before SlimVirgin showed up. Whatever was going on in the Terri Schiavo article, the talk page, the interactions between users, Ed Poor didn't block anyone, lock pages, hand out warnings, or attack anyone. As soon as SlimVirgin showed up, Ed Poor engaged in the debate, took SlimVirgin's side, warned editors that criticized her, locked my talk page for criticizing her, attacked the RfC against her, and then attacked me directly.

[edit] Extracts from Neuroscientist's 5000-word critique

Musical Linguist would like you to believe that Neuroscientist made comments that were unacceptable to the Terri Schiavo talk page, therefore Ed Poor's warning was justified, however, compare Neuroscientists criticism of SlimVirgin with any of the following:

SlimVirgins' criticism of the editors for reverting her edits.

Ed Poors critcisim of the RfC against SlimVirgin

El_C's criticism of Neuroscientist

Ed Poor's educational lesson at which he blatantly violates NPA to "illustrate a point".

Neuroscientist's comments pale in comparison to anything that SlimVirgin, Ed Poor, or the editors who attacked the RfC said.

[edit] Evidence of numerous personal attacks by FuelWagon

I don't know why Musical Linguist is presenting this evidence other than to dredge up the mud. I never disputed I violated NPA up to July 12. I have followed NPA policy since July 12.

[edit] Evidence that FuelWagon is causing disruption

Musical Linguist hasn't submitted evidence to this point, but I just want to point out that I never had issue with Musical Linguist on the Terri Schaivo page. We disagreed on almost every point of content, but I do not recall ever feeling like she was editing in bad faith. I do recall one time Musical Linguist approached me with a dispute she had with me regarding the RfC against NCdave. She requested that I change a point of evidence that I had submitted because she said it was inaccurate[67]. I fixed it[68]. And she thanked me. [69]

This occurred while my RfC against SlimVirgin was open, and it shows I was willing to work with editors and acknowledge my mistakes when someone brought me an issue.

[edit] Evidence presented by Fred Bauder

[edit] 22 September

Comment by Musical Linguist [70]

[edit] 6 October

• <timestamp1>
  • FuelWagon lists his demands of SlimVirgin [71]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/FuelWagon 2

[edit] Statement by SlimVirgin

I've been asked to make a statement in evidence. I'm alleging violations of Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Civility, and Wikipedia:Harassment.

FuelWagon (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) has been engaged in an almost non-stop campaign of harassment against me since July, triggered because I made a copy edit of Terri Schiavo that he didn't like. There have been occasional lulls which made me think it had stopped, but he always started up again. He has posted thousands of words about me, making long-winded accusations and insults, and when I stayed away from pages he was editing, he stalked me, so that I found I couldn't shake him off. He has attacked people who tried to stop him, including Ed Poor and Jayjg. Because Ed blocked him in July for making personal attacks on me, FuelWagon has hounded him too. This RfAr is part of it.

Throughout this, I have come to see him as a highly disruptive user: a revert warrior who takes control of pages; makes personal attacks; harbours grievances for months about the tiniest thing; engages in endless wikilawyering and rhetorical questioning; and distorts events so that he is always the innocent party.

[edit] In brief

• Examples of his personal attacks are below.
• Because I wouldn't apologize for my July 11 copy edit of Terri Schiavo — even though, after being reverted three times, I made no further effort to reinstate it — he opened an RfC against me on July 14. It was deleted 48 hours later because it wasn't properly certified, but Fred has restored it for this case. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/SlimVirgin and my response is here [72].
• He cut and pasted a copy of the deleted RfC to his user subpage and won't allow it to be deleted; see User talk:FuelWagon/050714 and User talk:FuelWagon/050714 1.
• He took control of an RfC opened against him by Carbonite on October 16 (prompted in part by FuelWagon's behavior at Talk:Terrorism), moving comments he didn't like to the talk page and revert warring over them, to the point where all sensible editors eventually felt they had to stay away from the page, and he was blocked for 3RR. [73] See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/FuelWagon 2.
• He has made statements against Ed and myself, or against editors like Jay or Carbonite who defended us, in several arbcom cases. He presented evidence in the September arbcom case against Ed [74]; made more comments about Ed here [75]; more about Ed here to the end of the page [76]; and more [77]. He wrote to Jimbo in September about Terri Schiavo, and how Ed and I supposedly acted in coordination [78]; and wrote again to him here [79]; then asked Jimbo to re-open the case against Ed. [80] He made a statement about Jay and Carbonite during the Zephram Stark case. [81] He made a statement about Rangerdude in the Rangerdude case, but turned it into a statement about me. [82]
• In September, he tried to have a black mark placed on Ed's mediation record, complaining again about Terri Schiavo here [83] until the end of the page, leading RedWolf24 to ask: "Would you like me to stamp a warning on Ed's face?" [84]
• Because Jay tried to defend me, FuelWagon targeted him, recently turning his arbcom-question page into a circus (along with Marsden and Ruy Lopez), posting around 54 times in four days to the question and talk pages, with over 25 questions and lots of long-winded insults, leading to the page being protected three times, and having to be refactored several times by about five editors. Examples of FuelWagon's edits to the question page [85] [86] [87] and to the talk page. [88] [89] [90]
• In August, he created an "attack page" about me at User talk:FuelWagon/050825, where until October 21 he made a note of anything I did that he could use against me.
• He has stalked me to articles to revert my edits and insult me on the talk pages (see below for examples).
• He has rebuffed all attempts at dispute resolution made by me and around 11 other editors. He has said he will stop his pursuit of me if I comply with 12 demands he has posted. [91]

[edit] How it started

I first encountered him on June 21 when I received a complaint that he had taken ownership of Nuclear option (filibuster). I blocked him for 24 hours for 3RR, though I unblocked him 14 hours early as a gesture of goodwill. [92]

On July 11, I received another complaint that Fuelwagon and a group of new users had taken ownership of Terri Schiavo and that FuelWagon was making personal attacks. The article was very long, not well written or properly referenced, and the talk page and archives were toxic. There were lots of personal attacks from FuelWagon, including:

• "You f**king moron." [93]
• "Take the red freaking pill and for once in your otherwise automaton life, THINK." [[94]
• " ... flat-earthers like you can't seem to get it into your thick skull that she was PVS ..." [95]
• "Hey, Dick, I mean, Prick, er, uhm Rick, I get uncivil when assholes accuse me of deleting their links and harassing me about it, WHEN I DIDN"T FUCKING DELETE THEM ... And I get uncivil when someone gets condescending towards me, telling everyone how "uncivil" I am, WHEN THEY"RE OBVIOUSLY TALKING OUT THEIR ASS AND HAVE NO CLUE WHAT"S BEEN GOING ON LATELY." [96]
• "look, jerkoff, you're really pissing me off now ... My logic is convoluted and hard to follow? What the fuck? You don't HAVE any logic." [97]
• "You fucking asshole." "Fuck off" [98]
• "Hey, asshole. Printing stuff that basically say "FuelWagon makes errors from time to time" may seem like trivia to you, but it's fucking bullshit to me. Your "ommission error" argument is bullshit. It ain't trivial anymore. comprende? Here's the problem: You fucked up and you're too fucking immature to own it as your own problem ..." [99]
• "You're an idiot running amuck with a keyboard ... You're a Don Quixote, a meglomaniac with delusions of grandeur, and a self image as a knight in shining armor, unwilling or unable to notice that you're behaviour is more like a drunken bum staggering through the streets ..." [100]
• You're just a bunch of fucking excuses, aren't you? It's my fault you misread your words as coming from me. It's my fault that I might get upset at yet another one of your false accusations. And you again show a lack of balls in either giving a simple apology with no excuses or simply shutting up. Instead you put it back on me, again. No. Sorry. You fucked up. Not me." [101]
• "Could you be any more emotionally loaded? un-fucking-believable." [102]
• "Look pal, I don't know where you get off coming in out of the blue and gutting an article that I've been working on for weeks, but you're pissing me off. I don't give a rat's ass what excuse you give about "organization" or whatever, your edits are crap ..." [103]

I started a copy edit on July 11. [104] (The diff makes the edit look more extensive that it was because some of the sections moved, which created a lot of red.) Here is an explanation of what I intended to do. [105] Halfway through it, FuelWagon and one other reverted me. FuelWagon started insulting me on the talk page, calling me a "f**%!ng *$$s0le," a "f**%!ng jerk," "you arrogant cuss," a "jerkoff," and an "arrogant arse." [106] [107] He peppered his posts with capital letters and comments like: "Source your edits. Squawk! Ownership, Ownership, Squawk! Remember what you did last month, SQUAWK!" [108] He then insisted that I apologize to him for the copy edit. This is the talk page as it was at the time. [109]

Because of the attacks, I temporarily withdrew from editing the article on July 12. Musical Linguist has written an accurate account of what happened. [110]

After FuelWagon said that he was "not particularly sorry" for the attacks, [111] Ed blocked him. While blocked, FuelWagon started posting insults about me to his talk page (100 posts between July 12-13), including a conspiracy theory about why he'd been blocked, with headers like "SlimVirgin lies," and indicating that he was going to have me de-sysopped. Ed protected the talk page during the block, and moved the posts to User_talk:FuelWagon/block. The block and the page protection turned Ed into one of FuelWagon's enemies and he has been harassing Ed and me ever since, starting with his July 14 RfC against me. [112]

[edit] Examples of stalking

He has stalked me to articles he has never edited before to try to start revert wars. Examples:

• On September 16, after I edited Wikipedia:Words to avoid, [113] he arrived there for the first time and reverted me. [114]
• On September 26, after I edited Refusal to serve in the Israeli military, [115] he arrived there for the first time and reverted me. [116]
• On September 26, I edited Israel, [117] and a few hours later he made an edit there for the first time. [118]
• On September 30, I edited Historical persecution by Jews, [119] and he arrived there for the first time within six minutes, reverted me, [120] and began attacking me on the talk page.
• On September 30, I edited Historical persecution by Christians [121] and he arrived there for the first time within eight minutes, reverted me, [122] and began attacking me on the talk page. In none of the above did he make a substantive edit, or a comment on the talk page about content. His comments were entirely about me.
• On October 12, he arrived at Terrorism, [123] an article he had never edited, but I had edited recently, and teamed up with banned user Zephram Stark, insulting Jayjg, Carbonite, and me.
• On November 5, he arrived at Animal rights, which he had never edited before and which I had edited several times, adding a section to the intro with an inappropriate source. [124] I waited until November 21 before tidying it, but he reverted. I posted suggestions for compromise, but he kept re-inserting his own intros (which got worse each time he rewrote them, ending up as just a collection of quotes from one website [125]), reverting against Babajobu, FeloniousMonk, Scales, and myself, so I posted a request for protection. [126] He then posted insults about me to talk, for which Ed blocked him for three hours on November 29. FuelWagon responded with this RfAr on November 30.
• During the three-hour block, he posted to his talk page what sounded like a threat of more disruptive editing: "You go girl ... [S]ince I'm blocked, I won't be able to work on the Animal Rights page. And since I won't be able to work on teh animal rights page, any agreement you come to will not include me. And since I won't be able to be part of the negotions, whatever "consensus" you come to is not binding to me ... So, don't you worry, honey, when this strawman block against me expires, we'll work out the animal rights article just right. m'kay? Sure. See you then." [127]

[edit] Attempts to resolve the dispute

I sent him two friendly e-mails in August to try to make the situation go away, but I got more of the same accusatory responses in return. I can't reproduce his e-mails without his permission, but mine are at User:SlimVirgin/FW with his responses deleted.

A number of editors have intervened to ask him to stop, including Ed, Musical Linguist, Willmcw, Jayjg, Viriditas, Carbonite, El C, FelonoiusMonk, Mel Etitis, Aaron Brenneman, and Marskell. In October, he responded to a query from El C by posting a list of 12 demands of things I had to do before he'd end the dispute, including make an unconditional apology in the "first-person narative [sic] form" [128] on a number of talk pages specified by him. The whole discussion can be read here [129] and it gives the flavor of the situation.

[edit] Evidence presented by El_C

[edit] Response to "demands"

1. "First of all, El_C came to me with a combative attitude, telling me to justify having a copy of a delted RfC in my talk page, or he'll make sure they get deleted. And, coincidently, although El_C had absolutely no involvement with me or my dispute with SlimVirgin, four days after SlimVirgin threatens to take me to arbcom, El_C mysteriously finds interest in the dispute."

   As mentioned then, my arrival can be easily demystified via a glance at FW's contributions at the time.

1. "19:57, 3 October 2005 El_C, though I haven't heard from him since my RfC against SlimVirgin back in July, suddenly appears on my talk page, demanding that I justify having a copy of a deleted RfC in my subdirectory. (Could it be that SlimVirgin sent him on a mission as 'combat negotiator' simply to meet arbcom's requirement for diffs showng attempts to resolve? El_C certainly wasn't approaching this with "dispute resolution" in his attitude."

   In fact, the question was: "do you mind explaining to me why..." That is hardly phrased as a demand. As for "certainly [not] approaching this with "dispute resolution" in [my] attitude," I urge a closer review of WP:AGF on FW's part. "Combat negotiator on a mission" is a gross mischaracterization I take exception to, and arguably amounts to, and certainly borders on, a personal attack.

1. "18:18, 4 October 2005 El_C later states 'I'll AfD whatever I deem fit, this was merely a note as per my intention'"

   This was in response to FW's attempt to portray my 'calling for an article being deleted' (AfD) as deleting it administratively. As I mention (see bottom of diff) "I'm not here as an admin." I explain to FW that him having the opportunity to explain himself on his talk page is a bonus (which he could decline at any time), that I could simply place it on AfD without notice. Let's excerpt. FW states, in part: And I have no need to meet the arbitrary demands of a non-neutral admin who is coming into my talk page in an attempt to enforce a deletion of content that does not violate policy. Of course there was no demand or attempt to enforce deletion. While in a hypothetical AfD, a consensus of a Badfaith-AFD Speedy-Keep could emerge, in my mind, enforcing means clicking the delete button. Then FW respond to my "but I'm not here as an admin," in part with: Of course you're not here as an admin. Right, of course I'm not. Why FW goes on to depict a question from me in my capacity as an editor as (arbitrary, no less) demands by an admin remains an open question.

1. For reference, El_C had a combative attitude on my RfC against SlimVirgin, starting a long threaded debate with "I challenge." 22:04, 15 July 2005, accusing me of "sophistry." 23:12, 15 July 2005, and "I'll comment on and direct challenges toward whatever I see fit," 23:31, 15 July 2005.

   I challenge that these diffs establish FW as the one exhibiting combative tendencies. Note also that what I considered then as I do now to be sophistry in FW's responses is not without clear basis. Fast-forward-back-to the 'negotiation,' I challenged at the time, for instance, that any diffs could be extracted from an off-line text editor as effectively as they could from being online (and since offence was taken toward the latter, why not have it deleted and keep it offsite?), FW's did not address this question in any meaningful way, I found, instead mostly personalizing the discussion with evasive 'who sent you,' over & over again.

1. El_C and I have a long discussion on my talk page (history here).

   As I said then, and as is evident, for my part, I attempted to be concise and to the point, aiming at clarity. I did not, however, found FW to have been exhibiting the same efforts at concision, topicality and clarity. I challenge that this is evident in each one of his lengthy (and less lengthy) responses.

1. 00:00, 6 October 2005 El C posts "In the most ideal terms, how do you envision a resolution to this dispute?" 03:54, 6 October 2005 I post an "ideal" reply, with an edit summary "ideal" and a new subsection titled "ideal". 21:41, 7 October 2005 I post to user Marskell a reduced list of 7 things in my reduced "ideal" situation.

   I should note that FW's list of terms took me by surprise (with or without the reduction to 'needed terms'). See also my comments on the workshop regarding this (most ideal terms) question.

1. 22:21, 8 October 2005 I explain to Marskell that this is an "ideal" list, and list three acknowledgements that I need for my list: her edit on the Terri Schivo article was "reckless", the second block against me was underserved, and she shouldn't have gotten involved in the Bensaccount Rfc.

   Whether it conforms to the truth or not (in my opinion, not), it seems markedly one-sided, seemingly ignoring any acknowledgements on FW's part for reckless edits, thus, it hardly seem conciliatory at all.

1. Note that neither SlimVirgin nor El_C engaged in this offer. El_C simply needed to show an attempt to resolve the dispute so SlimVirgin could take me to arbcom.

   Actually, that is wholly false. I did not at all pose that question with that purpose in mind — I was genuinely fascinated by what solution toward a resolution FW had in mind. And why would'nt I be? (I didn't at all know what to expect; I didn't expect terms, perhaps I should have, but I especially didn't expect those type of terms)

1. 10:31, 10 October 2005 El_C posts on my talk page: "All I see is more of the same from FW: Longwinded diatribes with the usual bitter, sarcastic and juvenile provocations, sophomoric innuendo, repetitive tautologies and eliptical circularities, Spanish Inquisition, Ministry of Truth, Ministry of Information rewriting history, silly name calling, et cetera, etc., and otherwise personal attacks, and acts of incivility, breaches of wikiquette, and the endless, ceaseless. battleground."

   I think it is important to note how this edit by myself to the workshop was followed by FW's removal of key words (on account that at the time I cited himself) as seen in this diff. My response, therefore, reflects the reality, wherein lenghty discussion of the dispute and what it would take to resolve it was pursued (by others), but the problematic conduct, in general, remained unchanged.

1. So much for whittling the list down to three items. Better to present them in the arbcom case here as a list of 12 hard demands, non-negotiable, and ignore the context that they were in response to El_C's "most ideal terms" for a resolution. Ignore the fact that I whittled it down to three while talking with Marskell. Ignore the fact that El_C didn't follow up on this and attempt to resolve this or that SlimVirgin talked with me directly when I got down to three items. Ignore the fact that El_C's attitude is revealed with his litany post on October 10. Ignore all that, and just talk about my 12 hard demands completely out of context.

   What isn't mentioned above is that FW already made it clear he believed I was a proxy and intended to treat me with the disrespect that such would-be position on my part entails, and that he continued to evade my simple questions (off-line versus online storage of diffs, for example). That I saw no further productive purpose in discussing the matter with him, I believe, is reasonable considering his hostile, unprofessional and highly personalized responses. I may expand on this at a later point. Thanks for reading closely. El_C 23:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Addendum 1

1. I say "I'm trying to avoid another explosion", and his reply is "I'll comment on and direct challenges toward whatever I see fit".

   First, note that the username of the (at the time, new-to-me) editor claiming they wished to avoid another explosion is FuelWagon. That certainly wasn't insignificant in my mind. Secondly, the aforementioned exchange slightly expanded actually reads thusly:

I don't need people like you challenging me here. I'm trying to avoid another explosion. FuelWagon 23:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC) [emphasis added]

I'll comment on and direct challenges toward whatever I see fit, I'm not bound by the conditions you set. [meaning: we are encyclopedia editors and are not expected to act as social-workers — but you are expected to adhere to policy as anyone else, the previous explosion/s (and in that short-tempred sense, the suggestive username) cannot be applied as an immunity from facing the consequences for your actions] El_C 00:03, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I set no conditions. I said I don't need people like you challenging me. If you want to "direct challenges toward whatever (you) see fit", fine. It's good to have a some purpose in life. FuelWagon 00:09, 16 July 2005 (UTC) [emphasis added]

I am not interested in responding to that at this time. El_C 00:16, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Addendum 2

1. For reference, El_C had a combative attitude on my RfC against SlimVirgin. His endorsement of SlimVirgin's statement was combative towards Neuroscientis 09:34, 15 July 2005 accusing Neuroscientist of reverting SlimVirgin en masse. Edit summary is "If the refutation is not methodic, it is not authoritative" But Neuroscienist never reverted a single time, and anyone who read Neuroscientist's 5,000 word explanation of the things wrong with SlimVirgin's edit should quickly be able to tell that his critique was methodic and authoritive. The guy is an expert in neurology and we were lucky enough to have him editing wikipedia 12:18, 15 July 2005 Once it's pointed out to El_C that Neuroscientist never made a single revert, El_C ammends his statement, changing "(Neuroscientist) should refrain from reverting hours of work en mass" to "(Neuroscientist) should refrain from commenting on the series of edits in their totality." El_C then jumps on the bandwagon that accused Neuroscientist of making "condescending, patronizing overtone".

   It is true that, as per reverts, I mistook NS for someone else, he then brought that oversight to my attention, and I amended my statement accordingly. That's it. There was nothing combative about that. It is easy to say "and anyone who read Neuroscientist's 5,000 word explanation," but who has actually read it? I have. And it was 7500 words. The fact is that NS' piece was both correct and excessive, as well as relatively narrow in its overall focus, emphasizing only on a few edits to the intro. It was also somewhat patronizing in its tone. But also, it un-methodically juxtaposed correct criticism in one section to other sections, so I maintain (or challenge, even) that my criticism was valid. That is, if SV made an error in one section, it does not necessarily follow that she made similar errors in other sections, still, that is what was implied. Finally, I firmly believe NS could have gotten his point across (whose substance I never disputed) in less than 500 words. This mis-attribution on my part has been blown out of all proportion by FW, possibly with the expectation that few will end up reading NS' 7500-word piece, not to mention be able to place it in context. El_C 23:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Addendum 3

Please note that FW has been changing the order of his evidence, which is fine, but also note that my response follows the original order. El_C 00:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Addendum 4

Sometimes the benefits of being blunt outweigh the risks of being somewhat harsh, and this is (and has been) such a time. So let me be clear: This was more of the same from FW; it did involve longwinded diatribes; these were coupled with the usual (yes, usual) bitter, sarcastic and juvenile provocations; there was plenty of sophomoric innuendo, repetitive tautologies and eliptical circularities; FW continued to engage in silly name calling ("Spanish Inquisition, Ministry of Truth, Ministry of Information rewriting history"); the aforementioned misconduct did amount to personal attacks, acts of incivility & breaches of wikiquette; and that it did perpetuate an endless, ceaseless. battleground is clearly evident. El_C 15:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Addendum 5

Before I responded to the infamous list, and indeed before it was reduced, FW writes in response to Marskell on Oct. 8, in part: I didn't demand she grovel, El_C came in and first demanded I justify my talk pages to him. After that, he asked me what my ideal solution would be that would get me to delete this stuff. I told him. A lot of my time now is spent on talk pages lately because El_C came in and gave me the spanish inquisition, then when I answered his "ideal" question, more people came in and piled on that [...] I uploaded the old RfC. If she wants me to delete those pages, she needs to fix some things. If not, I have no reason to believe that she won't try to screw me over again once I delete these pages. [italics are in the original; bold is my emphasis] El_C 23:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Addendum 6

FW writes a few minutes ago that: As for the "spanish inquisition" about El_C, I think this page already does a good job of reflecting exactly how he behaved on my talk page. The history of my talk page shows he posted about 14 edits to my talk page on October 2 and 3 alone, with about the same attitude as he demonstrates here. I disagree with FW attempt to portray my "attitude" as the spanish inquisition. That is an extremely insulting term and personal attack. That FW attempts to justify it now without even a hint that such an attack is inappropriate, is, in my opinion, to his discredit. El_C 00:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

FW writes a few minutes ago, in part: El_C, I challenge you to find a single post from you to me that is clearly non-combative. I'm uninterested in engaging FW's "challenge" at this time since I percieve the risk of innuendo to be great. El_C 14:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Musical Linguist

[edit] Evidence that FuelWagon's statements are not always accurate

FuelWagon has claimed in various pages that Ed Poor "attacked" Neuroscientist (or that he "warned" him, or that he "threatened" him with a block)[130] for criticizing SlimVirgin, and has also claimed that Neuroscientist had done nothing had done nothing but criticize the neurological and medical accuracy of SlimVirgin's edit[131]. I have evidence elsewhere in this page that Neuroscientist went much further than pointing out medical errors. I also point out that Ed merely asked Neuroscientist to try not to hurt other editors' feelings.

FuelWagon frequently accused Ed of blocking him a second time in July. It was pointed out to him several times that Ed had merely protected his talk page, but he continued to make the same accusations. FuelWagon has frequently asserted (e.g. here) that SlimVirgin asked Ed to block him in July. There is no evidence for such a claim – there was an open discussion which anyone could read in which she wondered after the block if it had taken effect (since she saw he was editing his talkpage, and that facility was very new at the time) and then expressed reservations about that new facility. SlimVirgin has denied that she asked Ed to block FuelWagon, yet he continues to assert it, and even included on his list of "ideal solutions" that she would admit it it.

In defense of Ed, I pointed out here (with diffs) that FuelWagon had been abusive and obscene for months before the block. FuelWagon responded that those diffs were of previous attacks, and that he had tried to avoid personal attacks after mediation started [132]. I pointed out [133] that the attacks had continued during the mediation period, and provided diffs. There was never any admission from FuelWagon that he had made a mistake, despite his frequent accusations that SlimVirgin wouldn't admit she had made a mistake.

[edit] Evidence of NPOV violations by FuelWagon

Note: I do not consider NPOV violations to be a matter for the ArbCom under normal circumstances; they can often happen through inexperience. However, FuelWagon has frequently defended his incivility on the grounds that it was directed towards "POV pushers" and has called for blocking of his opponents who violate NPOV.

• 4 April 2005, tried to assert as fact something which was disputed [134]
• 5 April 2005, again. [135]
• 6 April 2005, again [136]
• 6 April 2005, again [137]
• 9 April 2005 again [138]
• 11 April 2005 again [139]
• 11 April 2005 again [140]
• 14 April 2005 again [141]
• 11 August 2005, use of sensational language ("the governor sent armed men to Terri's death bed, took her to a hospital and had surgery performed on her to reinsert her feeding tube") [142]

Note: I am aware that Wikipedia policy does not favour the word "allegedly". The problem was that FuelWagon, in removing it, was asserting as a fact something which was disputed, and that he has always claimed that he is removing the the NPOV violations of other editors. There are many other examples. When the autopsy report discouraged the bulimia theory, once again, there was no admission that he had been wrong. (Note: that's not of great importance, except that he has flooded talk pages with his constant refrain about SlimVirgin admitting no error.)

[edit] Evidence of use or misuse of talk page during block (leading to protection of talk page)

FuelWagon was blocked at 21:02 on 12 July 2005. [143]

• 12 July 21:17 His first post after his block (at 21:17) was to create the heading "SlimVirgin lies" [144] (which he subsequently changed to SlimVirgin quote) [145].

• 12 July "The benefits of adminship is never having to admit you're wrong and never having to say you're sorry." [146]

• "Despite this laundry list of problems, SlimVirgin has NOT ONCE conceeded that there is ANY PROBLEM with ANY PART of his ENTIRE EDIT." [147]

• Sarcastic remarks about how being an administrator has its perks. (Context that FuelWagon has been blocked and SlimVirgin hasn't) [148]

• More of the same (the perks are "never having to say your sorry for unrepentant bad edits or unrepentant false accusations.") [149]

• Hints of having Ed (or SlimVirgin?) desysopped [150]

• "SlimVirgin seemed to be throwing hand grenades at this point."[151]

• 13 July 03:12 Created a heading called "Administrator perks" [152]

• 13 July 03:13 Added "I'm starting to get the distinct impression that one major perk of being an administrator is never having to admit you're wrong, never having to admit you made a bad edit, and NEVER having to apologize for your behaviour." [153]

• 13 July 05:30 Posted text of SlimVirgin's query to Ed about how a blocked user can still edit – heading "Interesting Edit". (The facility to edit one's talk page during a block was fairly new) [154]

• 13 July 05:46 Having found SlimVirgin's post to Ed Poor (either through tracking SV's contributions or through looking at Ed's talk page) FuelWagon accused SlimVirgin tracking his contributions, because she had seen his edits to his own talk page. (Note: most people who become involved in Terri Schiavo put FuelWagon's talk page on their watchlist. It's not tracking contributions.) He wrote "And I just gotta wonder how much back-channel communication goes on between admins. Hey, SlimVirgin, did you know I got blocked because you were the one who requested it?" [155]

• 14 July 13:03 Claimed falsely that Neuroscientist had not made any personal comments. (See examples in section below.) Added, "I'm starting to get the distinct impression that we're dealing with a persecution complex. SlimVirgin accuses everyone of launching personal attacks against SlimVirgin if the editor does not wholeheartedly agree with SlimVirgin's edits." [156]

• 14 July 13:58 Misrepresented his "repentance" (If I'm in the process of cleaning up my posts, how exactly does that qualify as "unrepentant"?) Ignores the fact that he had said, after removing the swear words, that he wasn't particularly sorry and wouldn't apologize. Also contradicts his later frequent claim that he accepted the block without protest. [157]

• 14 July Misrepresented Ed's appropriate administrator warning against reversions, by insinuating that it is a defence of SlimVirgin "A month of silence from Ed Poor, and 20 posts after SlimVirgin gets her edit reverted, Ed Poor shows up with a "stern warning" defending SlimVirgin." [158] A look at the history of the Mediation page would show that Ed was posting there regularly (apart from when he spent a few days at the lake). There was some confusion among contributors as to which page our concerns should be posted on, and many people began to use the mediation page as an alternative to the Terri Schiavo talk page. (On 4 July, Ed asked us to stop bickering, and said that he wanted to go to the lake without bringing his laptop [159])

• 14 July 18:57 Publicly posted the text of a private e-mail from SlimVirgin without her permission. [160] (Note that SlimVirgin in the second RfC on FuelWagon and also in this RfAr posted the text of her e-mails to FuelWagon, but not the text of his to her, as she had not received his explicit permission.)

• 14 July 20:21 Insinuated that his block was in violation of policy, by quoting policy that "users should not block those with whom they are currently engaged in conflict." [161] (Note that SlimVirgin did not block FuelWagon, and Ed Poor was not engaged in conflict with him.)

• 14 July 20:31 Ed Poor protected his talk page and moved everything to a subpage [162], claiming that FuelWagon had "just continued making personal remarks about others." [163]

Note: FuelWagon made 54 edits to his talk page between being blocked and being asked by Ed Poor to use the time to show how he was going to help the encyclopaedia. He continued to make personal remarks, sometimes posting every minute or two minutes, with just a short sentence. After he had made 108 posts, Ed locked the page. (In fairness, I add that some posts were simply tidying and moving, rather than making personal remarks, but I have provided a lot of evidence of personal remarks above.)

[edit] Evidence to balance claim that Ed Poor and SlimVirgin caused "three valuable editors" to leave

[edit] Evidence that two who left had violated WP:Civility etc., and that one may have left for unrelated reasons

Duckecho edited for some time as an unregistered user signing himself LRod. For proof, see his reference to his personal website here and here. There were other indications such as his linguistic style, family details, POV, personal attacks direceted against people who supported the Schindlers)

• 17 May 2005 Duckecho added a skit about GordonWatts to his own talk page [164] and then posted an invitation on the Terri Schiavo talk page for readers to come and have a look. [165]
• 20 May 2005 he altered his own userpage to make fun of NCdave[166]
• 27 May 2005, Duckecho moved all of GordonWatts's contributions to the bottom of the Terri Schiavo talk page with the edit summary "Created a sandbox for the kids to play in while the adults work on the article" and with the heading "Don Quixote's Whack-a-Mole Corral -- a place where you-know-who's off topic rants 'n ramblings belong. Respond at your peril. If someone's responses got here in error, feel free to move them back"[167]
• 17 June 2005 Duckecho posted on Tony Sidaway's talk page that people had driven away "one of our better editors, LRod, never to return", by reverting him on sight simply because he wasn't registered. (Emphasis mine.)[168]
• 21 June 2005 Duckecho created a heading "Everything you need to know about NCdave's cognition" [169]
• 14 July 2005 Duckecho left a very offensive farewell message on his talk page, referring to another editor as "a demonstrated perjurer who couldn't pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel" [170]

[edit] Evidence that FuelWagon may have caused some editors to leave

1. Tropix [171], [172], [173]. Note that at the time that FuelWagon wrote that, Tropix had reverted once only [174]. (Indeed, his proportion of reverts to other edits was very low.) He always remained polite and calm, and was willing to discuss. He left Wikipedia on 19 April, after encountering enormous hostility, mainly from FuelWagon. There may be no connection, but there is at least as much evidence for blaming his departure on FuelWagon as there is for blaming Ghost's departure on Ed Poor.
2. NCdave. This was a user who did not respect POV. Nevertheless, the abuse and obscenities hurled at him by FuelWagon can not be justified. Many of the diffs suplied elsewhere on this page give examples. I may add some later. NCdave left on 8 July.
3. At least four other users left or took breaks from Terri Schiavo and/or Wikipedia after encountering the toxic atmosphere. I may provide more evidence later.

[edit] Evidence that Ed Poor tried to be fair

Ed was pleasant and courteus when he arrived at Terri Schiavo mediation. He did not attempt to take sides. He asked for more civility on occasion. After an edit war he reverted the article to a randomly-chosen version, and protected it, telling us to work out our problems on the talk page.

When Ed blocked FuelWagon, he was aware of earlier NPA violations by FuelWagon, not just those that happened during mediation. I had mentioned them here after FuelWagon had said that NCdave should be blocked from any Schiavo-related pages. I had provided a diff [175] for a particularly nasty attack, and had also referred to this.

Contrary to what FuelWagon has repeatedly claimed, Ed did not "attack" Neuroscientist. Nor did he caution him against "Personal Attacks". He asked him, quite politely, to avoid "Personal Remarks", and to try not to hurt other editors' feelings. His words were:

There is a fine line between making personal remarks, and criticizing someone's contributions to Wikipedia. I hope you will read Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks. Please be careful not to hurt other editors' feelings with comments like:

• • this User demonstrated very, very, very poor judgment by doing what she did
  • the 12,000-edit administrator who doesn’t seem to have learned ... do not be reckless. (cut for discussion by Ed Poor)[176]

[edit] Extracts from Neuroscientist's 5000-word critique

SlimVirgin . . . has an exceptionally poor understanding of elementary neuroanatomy. . . . Now, I’d like to put this very gently, but I do not know how else to accurately convey it except to say that this person has absolutely, totally, completely, no idea of what she’s talking about. This is an example of the worst in Wikipedia, when complete, arrant nonsense serves as the basis for editorial decisions. . . .SlimVirgin is also wrong when she writes . . . . This is nonsense, of course. . . . Seriously guys, don't you think this is clunky? . . . Most of her assumptions were wrong. . . . [Some of her edits were] woefully ill-informed, or weak. . . . Leaving aside the hubris it must take [for SlimVirgin] to say that . . . . I have already shown that her assumptions of fact in her version of the introduction are riddled with error. . . . My final impressions here are that this User demonstrated very, very, very poor judgment by doing what she did.[177]

[edit] Evidence of numerous personal attacks by FuelWagon

There are already numerous diffs on this page. I add the following:

• (An editor's comment or edit is) "total POV bullshit".
• "Give me a fucking break"
• (Another contributor's post is) a "bucket of vomit", which "should be deleted on sight". He is "a menace".
• "You're a menace nearly as bad as NCdave. . . . Despite your delusions of grandeur . . ."
• "You are such a pain in the ass."
• "This is a load of crap. . . What a bunch of bunk."

[edit] Evidence of FuelWagon and Duckecho taking ownership of the Terri Schiavo article

More evidence will follow, in particular of both editors using the word "vandalism" for non-vandalism edits by other contributors with whom they disagreed, aggressively reverting, aggressive edit summaries, making big changes without consensus, despite denying others the right to do so, inserting "do not change this" in embedded notes, etc.

28 June to 2 July. Duckecho inserted the word [sic].[178] Tony Sidaway, through error or software bug, reverted, thinking that he [Tony] was adding [sic].[179] Duckecho reverted with hostile sarcastic edit summary.[180] Tony apologized, explaining it was an error.[181] Duckecho replied in belligerent tone (IMHO), saying that he was "one of the respected editors" who "deserve[d] at least a complete look before acting", and that he didn't "take it kindly" when "a perfectly sound edit" of his was undone.[182] (He also accused Neutrality of vandalism.[183]) Tony warned him (mildly) about a proprietorial attitude [184], and Duckecho responded even more belligerently [185] See also [186], [187], where Duckecho "take[s] exception to people putting hard work and effort into a project only to have it undone by a party, who by virtue of their position should be very sensitive to structure and policy, coming by, without any participation in the discussion page and makes an ill advised edit". Note that this was in response to the accidental removal of the word "sic", for which Tony had apologized!) [188] [189] [190]

[edit] Evidence of FuelWagon causing disruption

[edit] Evidence that SlimVirgin and Ed Poor were civil and pleasant to FuelWagon after the July events