User:FuelWagon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] check the history
to see if you are reading my last version of this page or some historical revisionism [1]. See ya. FuelWagon 23:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] In case I disappear in the middle of the night
In case I disappear in the middle of the night, see[2] or
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/FuelWagon_v._Ed_Poor
FuelWagon (talk · contribs · block log)
[edit] What's best for wikipedia
I keep hearing arguments that things are the way they are because that's "what's best" for wikipedia. Arbcom will invent evidence, misrepresent evidence, and rule that a relatively new editor "instigated an edit war" on the Terrorism article for inserting two sentences that quote a notable source. Meanwhile, an admin who misrepresents evidence to hide the fact that she followed me to the Words To Avoid article, and instead says I followed her, who declared she was "all out of good faith" in the morning and then stalked me to an RfC I filed against Bensaccount that evening, who shows a clear pattern of pushing pro-Israeli and pro-Animal-Rights POV's in multiple articles, well, arbcom is completely silent on her behaviour. Meanwhile, all the "old-timers" argue that this is what's best for wikipedia. Further arguments are given to support this idea, but it boils down to the notion that this is what's best for wikipedia. But the system doesn't reinforce what's best for wikipedia, it reinforces what's best for old-timers.
The old-timers support a system that overlooks the misbehaviour of old-timers, that allows old-timers to maintain ownership of their pet articles, quietly maintain biased articles about their favorite topics, and overlook the abuse of admin privildges that is needed to maintain such behaviour. The old-timers support a system that by design grants old-timers more priviledges than new editors, that treats newer editors with a hammer and old-timers with velvet gloves.
And the argument behind all this is "it's what's best for wikipedia". No, it isn't. It's what's best for old-timers. What's best for wikipedia is a system that welcomes new comers, treats them fairly, allows them to learn the ropes, make mistakes, and not get bannished for life for stepping on some Admin's favorite article. If you make an edit that is critical of Israel, SlimVirgin and Jayjg will try to hound you off the page, and RfC you if you fail to comply. And when this POV pushing is pointed out, Arbcom is silent because SlimVirgin is an admin and Jayjg (who may be or may have been her boyfriend) is on the arbitration committee.
This isn't what's best for wikipedia. This is a bunch of kings arguing for "divine rights". "if you run off a good admin for breaking policy, wikipedia will fall apart". No, if an admin was good, they wouldn't be breaking policy and they wouldn't need to be run off. This is something that admins are going to need to come to grips with: Wikipedia is large enough that the coming or going of one admin will not cause it's collapse. Being an admin is no big deal. That is the slogan, and wikipedia has grown big enough that it has become factually true. Find an admin who breaks policy, who stalks editors, who patrols their favorite articles and tries to bully off anyone who dares correct the biases they inserted, who misrepresents evidence to cover up their own wrong doing, and de-admin them, and wikipedia will not only not collapse, it will be better off for it.
Wikipedia doesn't "win" by maintaining a static community of preferred editors, chasing off new editors, and generating accusations of "cabal". Wikipedia wins when it creates an environment that encourages new editors to contribute positively to the encyclopedia. There is a reason wikipedia is licensed under the GFDL: to encourage people to edit it and make it better. And the more people that edit it, the better it will become, providing the environment is designed to handle new editors, encourage them to follow policy by holding everyone to the same policies fairly.
The old-timers make me think of a wave of immigrants who came to America only to turn around and try to stop any more immigration. The land of opportunity suddenly became "mine". Wikipedia is an opportunity, and if it creates an environment that encourages immigration, that encourages new people to come and plow the land, to come and follow policy because policy is applied fairly to everyone, that is an environment that is what is truly "best" for wikipedia. If it creates an environment that priveledges the few old-timers, and holds the newcomers at a disadvantage, then that isn't what's best for wikipedia, that's what's best for the old-timers.
The next time you hear someone talk about what's "best" for wikipedia, listen to what sort of environment they're proposing and look to see if it is really intended to benefit old-timers or benefit wikipedia.
Most of the old-timers I've heard recently are propsing environments that benefit them, claiming its for the good of wikipedia. Most of the newer editors are proposing environments that benefit everyone equally, which in the long run, is for the good of wikipedia. FuelWagon 23:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Some rules of thumb before I go
I thought I'd pass along some rules of thumb that I've learned while editing wikipedia.
[edit] Don't criticize an admin
Don't criticize an admin in any way. Don't criticize their content, don't criticize their behaviour on talk, don't tell them they're breaking policy. They'll get their other admin friends to rally around them, they'll start attacking you, and they'll block you for some non-existent policy violation.
For example, when Neuroscientist posts a 5,000 word post on numerous errors contained in an SlimVirgin's (an admin) edits to Terri Schiavo [3], SlimVirgin ignores all cited errors and simply responds "stop writing in a patronizing tone" [4]. Neuroscientist wasn't patronizing, go ahead and read his post. Ed Poor, mediating the Terri Schiavo article at the time, warns Neuroscientist about violating NPA [5]. And El_C, an admin and friend of SlimVirgin, tells Neuroscientist "if the refutation is not methodic, it is not authoritive" (apparently some argument that Neuroscientist's criticism wasn't valid because it wasn't thorough enough) and then accuses Neuroscientist of engaging in an edit war [6]. When it's explained to El_C that Neuroscientist never engaged in any edit warring, rather than apologize for a false accusation, El_C says that Neuroscientist should not comment on SlimVirgin's edits "in their totality" (apparently some argument to the effect that Neuroscientist is too thorough). Is anyone surprised that Neuroscientist stopped contributing to wikipedia a week later? [7]
When I told SlimVIrgin she was POV pushing, showing bias, and violating NPOV here [8], SlimVirgin complains to Ed Poor that I'm violating NPA for that very same post [9]. Ed Poor obligingly complies and blocks me for NPA [10].
Do not criticize an admin, they have lots of power and lots of friends with power, and none of them are afraid to use it.
Oh, and don't complain if an admin criticizes you, your content, or your behaviour on talk. There's nothing you'll be able to do about it. SlimVirgin accused me of "POV pushing ... by insisting ... that no dissenting voice be heard in the intro". Despite a number of posts by me saying that this is completely false, that I never said any such thing, and that my edits on Terri Schiavo (and other articles) have always shown my highest priority being to follow NPOV, SlimVirgin refuses to acknowledge her mistake.
A month later, SlimVirgin is harrassing me on the Bensaccount RfC [11]. Never mind that she didn't have anythign to do with the Creation Science article where the dispute occurred, never mind that she didn't have anything to do with the RfC for a week, never mind that she announced she was all out of good faith to me in the morning and then started harrassing me on the RfC later that day. Never mind any of that. The rule of thumb is "Do not criticize an admin". This applies even if their campaign of harrassment is obvious and publicly declared. There is nothing you can do to critcize their behaviour that will not get you tagged as a trouble maker.
[edit] Dispute resolution against an admin is harrassment
This rule of thumb is an extension of "Don't criticize an admin". Whatever you do, do not criticize an admin by using the dispute resolution process.
If you have a dispute with an admin, don't use the dispute resolution system. It isn't for that purpose. If you do use the system in an effort to deal with an admin who is violating policies such as NPOV or who is misusing their admin privileges, such as handing out undeserved blocks, you'll be accused of gaming the system to bully an unpaid volunteer. [12]. Friends of the administrator will call you "abusive" and call their friend "exemplary" [13]. Suddenly the most minor requirement for using the process will become major hurdles that you'll never satisfy [14]. That there is a legitimate dispute and legitimate bad behaviour on the part of the admin does not matter. What will matter is to find some way to suppress the process, either through a techinicality or through brow beating.
[edit] Continued use of the dispute resolution system against an admin will mark you as a vexious litigant
If you fail to heed the first two rules of thumb and the first attempt at dispute resolution with an admin fails (and it will, because to resolve the dispute would require the admin actually admit they made a mistake), then continued attempts to go up the dispute resolution process will mark you as a vexious litigant, a stalker, an axe grinder, and a harrasser.
It doesn't matter how legitimate your complaint is. It doesn't matter how many people have left wikipedia because of the admin's bad behaviour. You cannot criticize an admin. And to criticize an admin through formal channels will only get you marked as a trouble maker.
[edit] How to use the dispute resolution system
There are two types of cases that you can use the dispute resolution system for: (1) editor against editor and (2) admin against editor. You cannot use the system for a case of (3) editor against admin. See the previous rules as to why.
The editor against editor disputes are handy ways of keeping things running along and gives the pleasent appearance that all is well, that all problems can be dealt with. The Admin-against-editor is used when an admin has a legitimate dispute against an editor, or when an admin is being criticized by an editor, and that admin needs to beat the critic into submission.
If you are an editor, know that the only acceptable use of the dispute resolution system will be against another editor. Administrators are off limits. If you are an editor and use the process against an administrator, be aware that the system is designed to stop that simply by allowing administrators to use the same process to accuse the editor of policy violations, and that admin will be supported through the process by other admins all the way through arbcom.
If you are an administrator, know that the acceptable use of the process is against another editor. Even admins cannot criticize other admins. If a case of admin-to-admin enters the dispute resolution process, the result will depend on which admin has the most admin friends, not which admin is causing trouble or violating policy.
[edit] arbcom is part of the process
Arbcom is part of the dispute resolutino process. Therefore all the rules of thumb above apply. If you are an editor and have a legitimate dispute with an admin and bring it to arbcom, do not be surprised if arbcom itself turns the case against you, goes out and looks for evidence in unrelated areas, submits evidence against you, and generally does whatever it wants. (All members of arbcom are administrators, so all previous rules of thumb apply as before.)
If an editor has a legitimate complaint against an admin, the editor will be found guilty of harrassment.
If the editor submits evidence that an admin has actually been harrassing him in specific situations, arbcom will remain silent on the matter.
[edit] The emperor's new clothes
Review The Emperor's New Clothes. Learn from it. The emperor, in wikipedia's case, is an admin who violates policy. The dispute resolution system works on the principle of the Emperor's new clothes. If they don't speak about the admin's misbehaviour, it didn't happen.
The difference between wikipedia and The Emperor's new clothes is that on wikipedia, when the child shouts "But he has nothing on at all", the emperor's guard's whisk the child to the dungeon, charge him with being "uncivil", give him an immediate temporary injunction, and hold him until they find evidence that he stole candy from his parent's cookie jar a year ago, and then lock him up for life.
Welcome to the cabal. FuelWagon 14:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] The case
By the end of July, three good editors, Duckecho, Neuroscientist, and Ghost, all stopped contributing to wikipedia. Duckecho specifically blamed the botched handling of the Terri Schaivo dispute with SlimVirgin. I think my attempts in August/September to get arbcom to address Ed Poor's handling of the dispute was in proportion to the severity of a situation that had caused 3 good editors to leave wikipedia. I clearly do not consider using the dispute resolution system when things go so wrong that 3 good editors leave wikipedia in disgust to be "disrupting wikipedia". I saw a legitimate problem, and I was trying to get it addressed. But I had considered all options exhausted when one-on-one mediation with Ed Poor failed in November. I figured that was the end of it, there was nothing more I could do, and I was prepared to suck it up and move on.
The only problem was that the day after I post the results of mediation (that mediation failed because after 16 days, Ed Poor hadn't responded to the first round of questions, and the mediator withdrew due to lack of participation), then Ed Poor suddenly had a lot of time to deal with me. Ed accused me of stalking SlimVirgin, signed an RfC against me, and said he had the pull to get me banned. Two weeks later, Ed blocked me again for non-existent NPA's and said I should be permanently banned.
I requested arbitration before Ed figured out a way to use his "pull" to get me banned for life. I specifically stated that I was limiting my case to Ed Poor because he was the one whose behaviour I was having a problem with. But Fred Bauder submitted my 12 "demands" of SlimVirgin (even though they were actually my "most ideal terms", and even though I reduced it to 3 items in the next day or so, and even though it had nothing to do with Ed Poor). And someone (Fred, was that you?) requested SlimVirgin submit evidence to the case. So, I wasn't trying to bring SlimVirgin up on charges here, and I specifically stated that I was excluding her, but someone widened the case to include her, so I pretty much have to respond to her accusations against me. That SlimVirgin is involved in this case is not my doing, nor should it reflect "disrupting wikipedia" that she is here. Fred Bauder brought her in here. I was willing to deal specifically with Ed's blocks and threats against me.
[edit] The judgement has been made. All that's left is to find the evidence to make it fit.
It appears that Arbcom has already made up their mind and is simply looking for evidence to fit the ruling they want to hand out. They invoked a temporary injunction against me when I filed the request for arbitration without a single diff of evidence listed to justify it. I assume that when they rule on the banishment, it will come without warning. Enjoy.
[edit] Actually, I'm quite impressed
Actually, I'm quite impressed with arbcom's ability to cherry pick the evidence. They haven't said "boo" about SlimVirgin's combativeness on teh Bensaccount RfC. They haven't said boo about SlimVirgin locking Jayjg's candidate page while she was editing it. They haven't said boo about SlimVirgin/Jayjg doing a page lock on the Animal rights article, or their POV-pushing. No, they are finding just enough facts to say that Neuroscientist made "patronizing" remarks to SlimVirgin and cite SlimVirgin's post to Neuroscientist as proof, and that I am stalking SlimVirgin and cite SlimVirgin's statement that I'm stalking her as proof. They've managed to ignore my diffs that prove a completely different timeline on her "stalking" evidence. I didn't think it would be quite so blatant. Really, I'm impressed. FuelWagon 21:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
User:Musical Linguist submitted a bunch of evidence against me here, which I find interesting because other than disagreeing on content, as far as I know we never had a direct dispute on the Terri Schiavo article. In fact, the only time I know of that Musical Linguist brought a dispute to me directly was here, when she complained about some evidence I submitted against Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NCdave was inaccurate. I fix it that day [15]. And she thanked me [16]. So, if Musical Linguist has a dispute with me about something, if I ever directly wronged her, she hasn't brought it to me directly. She has only brought to me a complaint she regarding evidence I submitted against NCdave. Other than that, she has shown a history of showing up any time I tried to resolve my dispute with either Ed Poor or SlimVirgin, submitting evidence of what a terrible editor I was before I had a dispute with Ed Poor and SlimVirgin, apparently with the line of thinking that I was such a bad person that any misdeed that Ed Poor or SlimVIrgin committed against me is pardoned, even though it is completely unrelated, even though I cleaned up my act, apologized, and have followed policy since July. Anyway, the short of it is that Musical LInguist appears to have an interesting idea of justice and an complete inability to bring disputes directly to me, but a tendancy to argue against me indirectly by submitting unrelated evidence in cases I'm involved in. Yet I've shown that the one time she brought a dispute directly to me, I fixed it, and she thanked me [17].
Oh well, Arbcom is cherry picking the evidence and is going to ban me based on incorrect evidence that I've pointed out is wrong, and is going to ignore SlimVirgin's behaviour, so, the fact that Musical Linguist is submitting unrelated evidence about stuff that happened long before SlimVirgin arrived on teh Terri Schiavo article is just more of the same. FuelWagon 14:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] "Stalking" is another way of owning an article
This is interesting. I just realized that you could be the biggest POV-pushing editor on wikipedia, but if you were editing an article before another editor shows up to fix your POV mess, just accuse them of "stalking" you. "Stalking" is the perfect accusation. All you have to do is show that you edited an article, and then sometime after that, someone else edited it, and therefore they must have stalked you to the article. Never mind that your edits were a bunch of POV-pushing policy violations. Never mind that this is a wiki and anyone can edit any article. No sir, "stalking" is the approved way to claim ownership of an article without being accused of "owning" an article. Just make the accusation, and all editors must comply or be banned for stalking you. What a perfect setup. FuelWagon 20:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Sorely missed
The following friends of mine left wikipedia some time ago for all the wrong reasons, and they are sorely missed by me: User:Duckecho User:Neuroscientist User:A ghost
[edit] Conspiracy Theories
"Never underestimate the power of a moron with a conspiracy theory."--FuelWagon, 06/16/05
[edit] The only rule you need to know at wikipedia
I used to have some garbage here about integrity, honesty, owning up to your mistakes, and restoring honor. I wrote that a while ago when I was relatively new to wikipedia. Now that I've been here a while, I've figured out that none of that matters at wikipedia. There is only one rule you need to know here:
Welcome to the cabal.
[edit] Barnstars
 The Barnstar of Diligence is awarded in recognition of a combination of extraordinary scrutiny, precision and community service. I, Neuroscientist, hereby award you this star in recognition of your tireless efforts to improve Wikipedia, for your bold writing and editing of works commonly acknowledged to be uncommonly controversial, for your attention to detail and fair scrutiny of ideas not your own, and for your willingness to speak the truth even when it may be unpopular to do so. |
 In spite of our marked differences of opinion on weight of some issues, I feel you make a diligent effort and greatly watchguard the Terri Schiavo article's well-being, a thankless and unpaid job which you've done well for numerous months. In addition, I note that on August 25, you took the time to award barnstars to numerous individuals, thanking them for work on this very divisive and sometimes combative article. Therefore, I shall award you what appears to be the rotating barnstar of diligence and give my blessings for your further assistance in these areas, since I am sure to become too busy and need to extend my already lengthy Wikibreak. Best of luck and/or blessings in this electronic jungle.--GordonWatts 00:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC) |
[edit] Summary of edits
My first edit on Wikipedia was cleaning up some vandalism. [18]
I've been busy ever since.
Baby done a bad, bad thing. [19] (Three blocks for the same 3RR violation. The admins just wanted to be thorough, I guess.)
