User talk:Robert McClenon/FuelWagon Archive
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] 3 October 2005, 0258 GMT
Robert,
There is a dispute going on between myself and SlimVirgin and her meatpuppet Jayjg. (Jayjg edits in support of SlimVirgin but seldom bothers to explain himself. He is simply backing SlimVirgin at whatever page she requests).
The dispute is whether or not the instructions for the user RfC reflect the way arbitration and user RfC's actually work or whether they invoke the boogeyman and push SlimVirgin's personal opinion of user RfC's.
Do you wish to help settle this dispute? Or do you wish to bootstrap the dispute into changing policy?
You can only do one or the other.
Now, the thing of it is that you've been showing up at user RfC's and article RfC's offering your opinions on the various matters at hand attempting to resolve problems, point out troubles, and whatnot.
But in the dispute between SlimVirgin and myself, you aren't actually resolving our dispute, you've been advocating your own crusade to change policy.
At this point you are becoming part of the problem. I have a feeling that you think you're doing what you think is best, but you're not. If you haven't noticed, SlimVirgin has not once attempted to resolve anything around this or any other dispute. Never. If you haven't noticed, she reverts to her own version and claims it is Sams. If you haven't noticed, Jayjg has been her meat puppet from the beginning. He doesn't even care about the process, but he's backing up SilmVirgin because she backs him up. If you haven't noticed, they will use any argument necessary to get their way without conceeding anything, including your little history lesson of years past.
You are either completely unaware of their behaviour or you are simply too wrapped up in your crusade to "fix" the dispute resolution system based on your impression of flaws.
Lemme clue you in here. SlimVirgin and Jayjg are part of the problem with the dispute resolution system. And admin and an arbiter that act as a tag team on content disputes and on policy disputes.
You seriously need to get a reality check here. It isn't simply an issue with policy. SlimVirgin is a POV warrior and Jayjg is her backup man.
She is fighting my attempts to add "conspiracy theory" to the "words to avoid list" because she wants to label as fact that the claim that Isreal knew of the 9-11 attack and warned Jews to get out of the towers as a conspiracy theory. Never mind the fact that colloquial usage of the term "conspiracy theory" means "what you are about to hear is a load of crap".
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Words_to_avoid&di ff=23367021&oldid=23366368
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Words_to_avoid&di ff=24104720&oldid=24104657
In the Refusal to serve in the isreali army, slimvirgin deletes the phrase "occupied terrirties" from the article. I add it as a sourced quote with a URL. Jayjg deletes it calling it "POV pushing" and SlimVIrgin gets in on the act. They delete sourced quotations clearly attributed to the source, calling these quotaions "POV pushing".
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Refusal_to_serve_in_the_Israeli_ military&diff=next&oldid=24130066
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Refusal_to_serve_in_the_Israeli_ military&diff=next&oldid=24193638
SlimVirgin and Jayjg attempt to delete the section about modern day Israel from the "Historical persecution by Jews"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historical_persecution_by_Jews&d iff=24428026&oldid=24241129
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historical_persecution_by_Jews&d iff=24430846&oldid=24430761
Now, you can either pretend that the only problems with wikipedia are "policy" and how the "dispute resolution" process works, or you can get that SlimVirgin and Jayjg are part of the problem. Their attitude is non-negotiable. They do not tolerate content they do not agree with and they do not compromise.
Have you been keeping track? I have been willing to use different versions of text proposed by Sam or some changes proposed by you on the RfC instruction page. SlimVirgin and Jayjg have not.
They are calm, cool, collected, very friendly, POV warriors. They do not compromise. And they will use your history lesson and your attempts to "fix" the dispute resolution process to make sure that RfC policy is worded exactly the way they want it.
So, do you want to focus strictly on fixing policy? Or do you want to solve a very real problem? Do you want to worry about how the dispute resolution process should be designed, or do you want to resolve a real dispute?
Have you been paying attention to SlimVirgin and Jayjg at all? Have you not noticed how they have never once compromised? How SlimVirgin asks for specific objections to her wording but provides no specific objections to Sam's compromise? Have you not noticed the one-way street with these two?
Have you noticed that SlimVirgin cannot stand criticism? She pushed her way into the Bensaccount RfC and attempted to call it "another" bad faith RfC by me. THe only other RfC that I initiated was the one against her. On the Bensaccoutn RfC, she ended up deleting criticism of her behaviour on the Bensaccount RfC talk page, twice, until someone else told her she was being petty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comm ent/Bensaccount&diff=next&oldid=22336736
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comm ent/Bensaccount&diff=next&oldid=22337240
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comm ent/Bensaccount&diff=next&oldid=22337760
An admin who cannot stand criticism. An admin who calls criticism of her editing behaviour to be a personal attack, an ad hominem attack, an NPA violation. She did the exact same thing on the Terri Schiavo article. WHen she made a massively bad edit of the article and recieved a massive critical response, she NEVER acknowledge that her edit contained a single mistake. NOT ONCE. When user Neuroscientist wrote a very detailed and technical explanation as to all the problems with her edit, all she ever said was she didn't like his personal remarks. And Ed Poor warned him to be careful of violating NPA.
Admins who cannot stand criticism of their behaviour, who cannot stand criticism of their edits, who respond to legitmate criticism as a NPA violation. This is a far bigger problem to wikipedia than what steps are designed into the dispute resolution process or whether a user RfC should be called a Request for user inquiry or not.
So, I'm asking you that if you really want to help improve wikipedia as much as I do, then do not get lost in the details of designing process. Deal with the problems that come with haveing a POV warrior tag team who also happen to be some of the highest ranking editors at wikipedia. Deal with the problems that come with having administrators who must put themselves in teh middle of a dispute, but who cannot stand criticism of their actions, no matter how legitimate the criticism.
