Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Willmcw and SlimVirgin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The original request in full, please do not edit it.

Contents

[edit] User:Willmcw and User:SlimVirgin

Summary

Willmcw is stalking and harassing other editors who disagree with his political POV for disruptive purposes. SlimVirgin has engaged in extreme personal belligerency toward other editors, has made repeated personal attacks, and has engaged in coordinated disruptive actions with Willmcw.

[edit] Involved parties

An administrator incident complaint was filed by User:Rangerdude against Willmcw for wiki-stalking and general harassment on June 15th. [1] Willmcw filed a retaliatory RfC against Rangerdude later the same evening, alleging that Rangerdude's wiki-stalking allegation against him was a personal attack.[2] Mediation was suggested in response to Rangerdude's complaint, both parties agreed to mediation with User:Andrevan, notice was posted to the incident board and the RfC, which was then withdrawn. Attempts to proceed with mediation from then until the present have been unproductive due to mediation backlogs and disagreement over the format for conducting mediation. In the meantime the conflict has intensified. Allegations of Willmcw's harassing behavior and wiki-stalking of Rangerdude continue to the present. User:SlimVirgin has also become involved in the controversy, supporting Willmcw. Additional incident complaints were filed yesterday by Rangerdude against Willmcw[3] for disruption of Rangerdude's edits and against SlimVirgin for harassment, promotion of Willmcw's disruptive activities, and abuse of her administrator powers in page protecting Rangerdude's user page at a time she was a party to the disputes.[4] Page protection was removed by SlimVirgin after Rangerdude complained, but additional disputes remain. Rangerdude subsequently posted an additional request for mediation disputing Willmcw's recent activities as harassment and requesting mediation with SlimVirgin for the same.[5] SlimVirgin refused this mediation [6] and Willmcw denied that Rangerdude's original complaint, located here had ever been filed against him.[7]

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  • [8] Post by Rangerdude informing SlimVirgin of RfAr after SlimVirgin refused mediation.
  • [9] SlimVirgin acknowledges Rangerdude's intent to file RfAr
  • [10] Notice posted to Willmcw of Rangerdude's intent to file RfAr
  • [11] Willmcw acknowledges RfAr has been filed
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

If not, then explain why that would be fruitless

  • [12] - Incident complaint by Rangerdude against Willmcw for wikistalking and harassment, June 15th.
  • [13] - Incident complaint against Willmcw for continued harassment, August 18th
  • [14] - Incident complaint against SlimVirgin for harassment and abuse of page protection policy, August 18th
  • [15] - Request for Mediation by Rangerdude with SlimVirgin & Willmcw.
  • [16] - SlimVirgin refuses mediation request.
  • [17] - Willmcw denies original complaint was ever made against him.

[edit] Statement by Rangerdude

[edit] Rangerdude complaint against Willmcw
  • Willmcw has engaged in a pattern of harassment, disruption, and wiki-stalking towards Rangerdude from February 2005 to the present and involving over 40 different articles (evidence). This stalking has been disruptive including dismantling of Rangerdude's additions without justification, removal of source material for political and POV reasons, and general harassment aimed at pestering Rangerdude's day-to-day edits on unrelated articles. This violates Wikipedia's policies on civility, disruption, assuming good faith, and existing Arbcom precedent and Jimbo Wales' Recycling Troll case ruling about pestering other users with stalking [18][19].
  • Willmcw's stalking of me has included disruption of the Houston Chronicle mediation including the unilateral addition of himself to a closed mediation between Rangerdude and another editor[20] and revert warring to retain his self-addition after it was removed.[21]
  • Willmcw has repeatedly attempted to disrupt Rangerdude's efforts in the current guideline proposal of Wikipedia:Stalking. This includes multiple bad faith edits aimed at dismantling, weakening, and deleting the proposal's text [22], revert warring to add an unfriendly and undesired change to the proposal [23], [24], [25] [26] and removing material authored by Rangerdude from the proposal while it was being drafted on account of its authorship. [27]
  • Willmcw has made WP:POINT disruptions aimed at harming the Wikipedia:Stalking proposal. Willmcw announced his intent to file a counter-complaint of wiki-stalking against Rangerdude for the purpose of disruption after objections were made to his dismantling edits to the proposal that are described above.[28] He was warned of WP:POINT in response [29], but subsequently followed through with the complaint posted to Rangerdude's talk page.[30]
  • Willmcw has repeatedly attempted to alter and remove a question posed to him by Rangerdude regarding his purposes and disruptive edits on the Stalking article from that article's talk page. Edits were for the purposes of removing the fact that the question was addressed at his edits specifically. [31] [32][33]
  • Willmcw has engaged in and promoted revert warring against Rangerdude's edits and in disregard of talk page discussions that are pending. [34] [35] Note: this particular case of revert warring was on an article that Willmcw has repeatedly stalked me to dating back to February 2005 and has edited in a disruptive manner previously.
  • Willmcw has a history of filing retaliatory motions against Rangerdude in response to reports of his policy violations and bad behavior by Rangerdude. Examples include [36] filed 4 hours after Rangerdude reported Willmcw for wikistalking on the administrator incident board [37]; Threats to post [38] and followthrough on posting a retaliatory wikistalking counter-complaint[39] against Rangerdude after Rangerdude voiced concerns about Willmcw's intent in editing the wiki-stalking proposal despite having a long history of having been accused of that same practice in the past; and filing a retaliatory RfAr against Rangerdude 4 days after this RfAr was posted regarding him[40]. These examples are violations of WP:POINT and are attempts at gaming the system in response to complaints that call his editing behavior into question.
  • Willmcw recently responded by disrupting several Wikipedia articles when Rangerdude removed a POV qualifier added by another Wikipedia newcomer from the name of Thomas DiLorenzo, a libertarian economist who Willmcw dislikes, in an article that quoted DiLorenzo. The qualifier attempted to bias the introduction of DiLorenzo's quote with a politically charged statement about his membership in a controversial group & Rangerdude removed it to bring the article into NPOV compliance noting in the edit description "rem. non-encyclopedic non-neutral fact ref. (see WP:NPOV) - already mentioned on DiLorenzo article in fuller context." Willmcw responded by disrupting at least four different articles in which he removed a directly quoted and sourced self-description of Ed Sebesta - a liberal political activist he likes - while mockingly copying Rangerdude's note to apply to Sebesta "rem. non-encyclopedic non-neutral fact ref. (see WP:NPOV) - already mentioned on Sebesta article in fuller context"[41] [42] [43] [44] It appears that Willmcw's sole intent in making these changes was to prompt a reaction and foster further ill will with Rangerdude, all the while disrupting existing Wikipedia content.
  • Willmcw has engaged in heavy POV pushing to promote a liberal/leftist political agenda and to disparage conservative/libertarian viewpoints that disagree with his own. Example: Willmcw added the scare term "controversial" to the opening sentence of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, a libertarian philsopher,[45] yet removed it from the opening sentence of Southern Poverty Law Center, a liberal organization that he agrees with.[46] In pursuing this political agenda Willmcw has become unusually skilled at content manipulation on wikipedia articles about conservative and libertarian writers, politicians, organizations, and think tanks. One of his most common tactics is to insert insinuations of racist, anti-semitic, neo-nazi, KKK, and other hate group affiliations into articles about mainstream conservative and libertarian topics, thereby trying to discredit them through guilt-by-association links with notorious political extremists. Example: Willmcw attempted to insert David Duke quotations into an article about a libertarian think tank.[47]

[edit] Rangerdude complaint against SlimVirgin
  • SlimVirgin assisted Willmcw in the WP:POINT disruption described above by posting a coordinated note publicizing it to the Village Pump announcement where community input was solicited for the Wikipedia:Stalking guideline proposal.[48] This was done for the apparent purpose of disrupting or discrediting the Village Pump request for community input on forming the guideline, as indicated by her edit summary description and accompanying comments.
  • Moments later SlimVirgin abused her administrative powers to page protect my user page[49], apparently aimed at preserving and promoting Willmcw's WP:POINT complaint that she had just linked to. Wikipedia:Page protection prohibits administrators from protecting pages in disputes where they are involved. The protection was removed after Rangerdude complained on both the Admin noticeboard and the Page Protection board. SlimVirgin also made an accompanying second post at this time to the Village Pump aimed at promoting Willmcw's note after another editor removed it apparently for WP:POINT reasons. This post demonstrates that her purpose in protecting the userpage and pursuing the other editor was motivated primarily by her coordinated promotion of Willmcw's note for purposes of disrupting the guideline proposal Rangerdude was working on, rather than a simple case of vandalism as she has claimed.[50]
  • SlimVirgin has made repeated personal attacks and bad faith allegations against Rangerdude. SlimVirgin rudely accused Rangerdude of deleting another unrelated user's comments from a noticeboard when the culprit was an apparent scripting bug that has been causing problems to that particular board.[51] SlimVirgin made a similar bad-faith accusation of deletion agaisnt Rangerdude for merging a simultaneous and duplicate request for input on the Wikipedia:Stalking proposal into one notice post.[52] SlimVirgin responded with extreme belligerency and personal attacks when Rangerdude responded to this allegation by stating it was a simple attempt to merge two redundant posts. SlimVirgin also removed Rangerdude's comments explaining this merge.[53]
  • SlimVirgin has engaged in multiple personal attacks including demeaning personal comments in response to the incidents mentioned above. Examples: "What is wrong with you" [54] and "You're a disruptive editor" [55].
  • SlimVirgin has made similar personal attacks towards Rangerdude previously, has exhibited extreme personal belligerency toward Rangerdude as an editor ("What's wrong with it Rangerdude, is in part that it's you who's suggesting it. My position is that you should not be editing this page") and has made attacks against Rangerdude that could be construed as a legal threat. [56]Note: SlimVirgin has been cautioned by the Arbcom previously for making personal attacks.[57]
  • SlimVirgin has engaged in edits aimed at benefitting, insulating, and/or protecting other editor friends of her own, including Willmcw, from adverse scrutiny in the dispute resolution process. In a recent case Rangerdude filed an RfC regarding an edit where Willmcw deleted approx. 72% of the article text on Thomas Woods[58] and revert warred 3 times to retain this deletion. Willmcw attempted to sway the RfC by changing its description to claim the deletion was significantly less than what was noted.[59] Rangerdude restored the original RfC and documented the accurate deletion size on the article talk page[60] but SlimVirgin, seeking to insulate Willmcw, has attempted to revert the RfC to a text more favorable to Willmcw with the intentionally smaller size estimation.[61]

[edit] Statement by 216.112.42.61; complaint against Willmcw

May I say something here? I just noticed this complaint by chance when looking at this page. Rangerdude is not the only one that has been stalked by Willmcw. I too have been stalked by said user, though it was a while ago so I don't remember it well. I just gave up rather than reporting it, but since others are now reporting on Willmcw, I am also. If I remember correctly, Willmcw was trying to push his own biased POV in the article 'terrorism', and I reverted his edits for a while, then gave up. Willmcw then stalked my IP to the article 'ballotechnics', which I had done substantial work on, in which Willmcw falsely portrayed it by classifying it as a pseudoscience, to discredit my contributions in anger over my attempt to prevent his pushing his biased POV. Being as others have also been stalked by Willmcw, it is clear that he has got to go.

[edit] Statement by Herschelkrustofsky; complaint against Willmcw

I wish to second the remarks of 216.112.42.61; I too have been stalked by said user. Willmcw has anticipated my contribution to this discussion in his response below, but I would like to make it official. --HK 14:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

...And, Willmcw has resumed stalking me. I have begun compiling a log of frivolous edits, which I will submit as evidence if the Arbcom decides to accept this case. --HK 00:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Jonah Ayers; complaint against Willmcw

I too have been stalked by WillmcwJonah Ayers

[edit] Recusals

As this RfAr involves two fairly well known administrators on Wikipedia, I am also requesting in compliance with Wikipedia:Arbitration policy on conflict of interest for any arbitration participant who has a strong historical editing relationship with or other personal allegiance to SlimVirgin, Willmcw, or both to disclose this information and, if applicable, recuse him or herself in accordance with this policy. Thank you. Rangerdude 00:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Willmcw

Rangerdude raises five points in his complaint against me. I consider two of them (#1 & #4) serious enough for the ArBCom to arbitrate. I believe that the other three complaints are minor and/or are based on mistaken interpretations of events. Here are my specific responses:

1. I previously responded to Rangerdude's "wiki-stalking" allegation here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rangerdude#Description. Rangerdude also made this accusation during my Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Willmcw. At that time three editors, each barely or not known to me, wrote to say that they'd checked the "wiki-stalking" evidence and found no wrongdoing.[62][63][64]. However Rangerdude has continued to attack me with this charge for months. I request that the ArbCom decide whether my own behavior towards Rangerdude has been wikistalking harassment, or whether his repetition of the charges has been harassment. I am eager to reply in detail to any of Rangerdude's specific charges that the ArbCom wishes.

FYI, since Rangerdude began calling me a wikistalker I also have been accused of it by these editors:

2. The mediator invited me to join the Houston Chronicle mediation on June 10th and I promptly accepted.[65]. After hearing no reply I posted a note asking if anything was happening then, having seen a notice of mediation, I just dove in on June 14th. Rangerdude made repeated efforts to remove me from the mediation.[66][67] Rangerdude had previously demanded that I not be included and the mediator had agreed, but no one had informed me of this agreement. When the mediator asked me to leave the mediation I did so promptly.[68] Prior to my participation, Rangerdude promised to limit his edits "to existing texts to a minimum during mediation excepting extraordinary unforseen circumstances".[69] That restriction did not cover the large new, POV section [70] and other POV material that he added to the article over the next two days. [71][72] After June 15, Rangerdude never made another contribution to the mediation or to the article.

3. Rangerdude has reverted as much or more than I have. In fact, he recently amended this charge against me after having just violated the 3RR himself.[73][74][75]

4. My charge of "wikistalking" against Rangerdude is based on his following me with the apparent intent of harassment. [76] I will address his harassment of myself and other editors in a separate request for arbitration.

5. Rangerdude's question on Wikipedia talk:Stalking asked about the personal motivation of my edits and had my username in the heading, both of which I consider to be violations of talk page wikiquette. I first responded by simply removing my name from the header, but Rangerdude wouldn't settle for that. Then I tried to move it to my talk page, but that not would do either. Rangerdude reverted three times, demanding that it be on the proposal's talk page with my name in the header. I finally gave in. [77][78][79][80]

Submitted by -Willmcw 08:24, August 23, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Statement by SlimVirgin

It's hard to know how to respond to this, because I don't feel I have a dispute with Rangerdude. My interest in him is only as an admin. I see him as a disruptive editor and a vexatious litigant, who seems to spend most of his time on Wikipedia complaining about people.

Rangerdude takes a tiny factoid about an editor, twists it out of all recognition, then inserts it into multiple complaints in long-winded, quasi-legalistic posts to anyone he thinks might listen. Within the last month, he's filed two RfCs — Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cberlet & Willmcw and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/FuelWagon, the latter deleted as uncertified and apparently filed because FuelWagon supported Will and Chip during the first RfC, making it WP:POINT — at least one RfM, and now this RfAr. It's practically impossible to defend yourself against his complaints, because he twists any response you make and uses it against you.

I first became aware of him, and began to think he was a disruptive editor, on June 15 when someone set up SlimVirgin's Left Boob (talk · contribs) and used it to post encouragement to Rangerdude on WP:AN/I [81] regarding one of his complaints about Willmcw allegedly "stalking" him. This was the first I'd heard of the allegation against Will. My next encounter with him also saw him on the same side as sockpuppets. On June 18, he defended a malicious vandalism listing [82] made against Will by Poetatoe (talk · contribs), a new account believed to be a sockpuppet of Thodin (talk · contribs), another disruptive editor who thinks everyone's stalking him.

Because of his support of abusive sockpuppets and their support of him, and because he was making (as I saw it, absurd) complaints against a good editor, I formed a view of Rangerdude as disruptive. I therefore left a note on his talk page asking him to reconsider his complaints against Will, and to consider taking a break from interacting with him. [83] He replied complaining about Will's editing of Eric Foner but when I checked the page, it was clear that Rangerdude was reverting to unsourced material, and all Will was doing was politely asking for a source. I therefore told Rangerdude that Will was following policy, as he always does in my experience. [84]

It seems this was enough to turn me into one of Rangerdude's targets. Since then, he was posted a lot of criticism of me (which I see as personal attacks), for example this [85]. I won't give detailed responses to his specific charges unless the case is accepted, except to say that they're nonsense, and in particular I haven't abused any admin powers in relation to him. I once protected his talk page for 10 minutes when a new account Bigelow (talk · contribs) (another abusive sockpuppet who strongly supported Rangerdude) kept deleting a message that Will had posted, [86] so I briefly protected the page from being reverted until I could work out what to do about Bigelow (who responded to the page protection with a personal attack [87] and was therefore blocked). Rangerdude writes above that I unprotected the page only after he complained about the protection, but that isn't correct. The protection log shows:

  • 08:48, August 18, 2005 SlimVirgin protected User talk:Rangerdude (vandalism);
  • 08:57, August 18, 2005 SlimVirgin protected User talk:Bigelow (abusive account; blocked indefinitely)
  • 08:58, August 18, 2005 SlimVirgin unprotected User talk:Rangerdude (vandal has been blocked). [88]
  • It was at 09:05 August 18 that Rangerdude made his first complaint. [89] SlimVirgin (talk) 12:20, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by third party (Rangerdude RFA v Willmcw and SlimVirgin): FuelWagon

My involvment in this situation stems from an RFC that Rangerdude filed against Willmcw. I was not involved in the original dispute and saw the RFC and made a comment as an outside, uninvolved, and neutral party. Rangerdude was complaining about Cberlet and Willmcw's edits on the Ludwig Von Mises Institute (LVMI) article. I looked at the evidence given and the responses made, then looked at the article and talk page histories, and made my comment that the three people who certified the RFC (DickClarkMises, an LVMI employee, Nskinsell, an "adjunct scholar" for LVMI, and Rangerdude) were far more the root of any POV problem around the LVMI article than Cberlet and Willmcw. [90]

Rangerdude related to this RFC as if he "owned" it. He reacted to my comment by going in and reformatting my comment [91] [92] and then he replied to my comment, calling it "extremely one-sided", "troubling", and "revolting". He claimed my "insinuation ... plainly violates Wikipedia:assume good faith" He claimed I "misrepresented" his edits. And he concluded "Given these clear cases of misrepresentation, bad faith personal insinuations, and inconsistenly-applied 'conflict of interest' allegations, I am disinclined to give further credence to the neutrality or accurracty of FuelWagon's take on this matter." [93]

I got the feeling that Rangerdude was using the RFC as an attempt to punish editors who disagreed with him. I told Rangerdude that "an RFC is a mechanism intended to resolve a dispute. It is not a place to "build a case" against an editor to bring punitive measures againt them"[94]

Rangerdude's reply indicated that he believes an RFC is needed prior to arbitration. "Were I to seek arbitration at this point before conducting an RfC into user conduct as this one is plainly categorized and designated, the request would likely be denied"[95]

This only reinforced my opinion that Rangerdude was not using the RFC as a way to resolve his dispute with Cberlet/Willmcw, but as a way to build a case so he could eventually take it to arbitration and punish them. "You're attempting to convict someone of being rude when you broke nearly every traffic law in the book before coming before the judge. ... Take a break. give yourself a day to breathe." [96]

Rangerdude's reply indicated his refusal to change course. "this RfC can and will proceed in a proper and responsible fashion be it with or without your assistance"[97]

Rangerdude continued relating to the RFC as if he "owns" it, and opened an RFC-in-a-RFC, commenting on my comments and asked other editors to endorse his comments. [98]

Throughout that RFC, Rangerdude related to the entire RFC page as if he owned it. He responded to many editors who commented against his position, he resisted attempts to move his replies to that talk page, and he even took it upon himself to put his own comments in the "response" section normally reserved for the individuals being accused of violating policy.[99] He even declared the "requirement" to close the RFC was that "the new revisions (to the LVMI page) are allowed to remain" [100]

Soon thereafter, and in a further demonstration of using RFC's for punitive means, Rangerdude filed an RFC against me for some comment I made on another RFC, accusing me of personal attacks. No one else certified it, so it was removed.

I went back to editing articles and didn't bump into Rangerdude again until I happened upon the proposed policy against "stalking". Rangerdude seemed intent on making it against policy to "stalk" another editor. The overall consensus was largely against the proposed policy, and it was eventually merged in with "harassment". I believe Rangerdude became heavily involved in the policy proposal for wikipedia:stalking with the specific intention of accusing Willmcw of "stalking" him. "stalking" is an accusation that is easy to make and is extremely difficult even for an innocent editor to disprove.

While I haven't been involved in the current dispute that Rangerdude is requestion arbitration for around Willmcw and SlimVirgin, it is my opinion that Rangerdude's edits qualify as POV-pushing and he wikilawyers against anyone who opposes his POV edits. In my opinion, this request for arbitration was his intention from the start when he filed the RFC against Willmcw and Cberlet. Rangerdude's edits were consistently POV. And he consistently reacted to anyone who opposed his POV edits by RFC'ing them, building a case against them, and accusing them of countless policy violations. His reaction to my comment read more like a prosecuting attorney than someone attempting to resolve anything: "Given these clear cases of misrepresentation, bad faith personal insinuations, and inconsistenly-applied 'conflict of interest' allegations, I am disinclined to give further credence to the neutrality or accurracty of FuelWagon's take on this matter." [101])

It's my opinion that Rangerdude's approach to dealing with editors who have a different point of view than him is to wikilawyer them, find a way to punish them, file RFC's and negotiate a change to the article in exchange for closing the RFC, attempt to change policy to make it easier to accuse them of policy violations, and accumulate enough empty charges to bring it to arbitration. FuelWagon 16:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I endorse the summary and conclusions above by FuelWagon. --Cberlet 15:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


I don't have direct experience of SlimVirgin's behaviour around this specific incident. However, my experience of SlimVirgin saw three good editors leave wikipedia in disgust after a run-in with her. While not directly related, it may reflect a pattern of behaviour on SlimVirgin's part that may have contributed to the above situation.

On 11 July, 2005, the Terri Schiavo article looked like this. The talk page marked the article as "controversial topic" and "in mediation". Ed Poor was mediator. SlimVirgin came into the article, performed 9 edits [102][103][104][105][106][107][108][109][110] over the course of 3 hours. During that time SlimVirgin inserted the "in use" tag [111], which displays "This article is actively undergoing a major edit."

Several long term editors on the article protested that SlimVirgin's edit qualified as reckless for an article listed as "controversial" and in "mediation" and that her edit contained numerous factual errors.

SlimVirgin never once acknowledge a single factual error in her edit, although she continued to ask us to point out any error. "If I made a factual error, point to it" [112], "You also mention errors of fact, but again, don't cite any. Please do." [113], "Show me one factual or grammatical error that I edited into the article" [114], "Show me one error I made in the article" [115], "neither of you has said what your objection is" [116], "If you feel I've introduced errors, please list them on talk" [117], "please discuss your objections on talk" [118], "Please say what your specific objections are" [119].

Several editors pointed out factual errors in her edit, including user:Neuroscientist who posted a 5,000 word explanation here [120]. Rather than acknowledge a single error, SlimVirgin replies " I don't appreciate the personal comments you've lobbed at me." [121] SlimVirgin accused several editors of various policy violations including "POV pushing" [122], "taking ownership of the page" [123], "violating NPOV and No original research" [124], and "arguing for the sake of arguing" [125]. When asked to support her accusations, she neither provided evidence nor withdrew her accusations. Demands for evidence to support these accusations were met with silence. I filed an RFC against SlimVirgin and it was supported by 5 editors. I eventually withdraw my certification to allow the RFC to be deleted.

When the RFC fails to resolve anything, a long time contributer to the Terri Schiavo article, User:Duckecho quit wikipedia, citing SlimVirgin's "arrogance" as one reason for leaving [126]. User:Neuroscientist quits wikipedia soon after [127].

SlimVirgin withdraws from Terri Schiavo mediation, saying it was "silly". [128]. One editor who had been working on the article "A ghost" called it "self-centered, naked arrogance" [129]. Ten days later, "A ghost" stops contributing to wikipedia [130].

These three editors (Duckecho, Neuroscientist, A ghost) had been working on the Terri Schiavo and other articles on wikipedia for several months and had 2,000 edits combined. And all of them leave wikipedia immediately after this incident with SlimVirgin. Despite SlimVirgin's accusations of rampant policy violations by these editors on the Terri Shiavo article, none of these three editors had any RFC's or admin blocks against them.

The end result of SlimVirgin's behaviour was that three valuable editors left wikipedia in disgust, two specifically blaming her of arrogance. FuelWagon 19:02, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

update: Having filed the above comment, SlimVirgin informed me she can no longer assume any good faith of me [131]. Later that same day, she questioned the validity of an RFC that I filed against another editor (Bensaccount) about a week and a half prior. SlimVirgin said it looks like "another example of an inappropriate RfC filed by" me [132]. She questioned several aspects of the legitimacy of the RFC on the RFC talk page. I told her that given her declared bias against me, and given that she hadn't said one word about this RFC up until this point, that she shouldn't be involved with this RFC at all. We went back and forth on the talk page. SlimVirgin eventually deleted two posts of mine that comment about her behaviour, she attempted to justify the first delete as a personal attack and saying "reverting" for the second one. [133][134]. I tell her she's trying to suppress criticism of her behaviour as an admin and as an editor. Some time later, SlimVirgin says that she asked another admin to look at the RFC, and based on what they said, she wasn't going to delete it. [135], which means the RFC was fine in the first place.

[edit] Statement by third party: Cberlet

I find myself in the odd position of agreeing with Fuelwagon regarding Willmcw and disagreeing over SlimVirgin. I have been involved with editing pages with both Willmcw and SlimVirgin over many months. My experience with SlimVirgin has been that she is devoted to crafting NPOV and accurate text. She does rap Wikieditors cyberknuckles when they get unruly, but that is a proper role for an Admin. She is willing to engage in extensive discussions on Talk pages--often to great lengths. I see that this Arb is being merged, and I will try to fogure out how to respond on the proper pages, but I did want to leave this statement here to keep the record clear.--Cberlet 16:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Statement made by third party User:Zeq

Summary: I am new to wikipedia but i would like to stay and contribute. My minimal interaction with slim has the influence that caused me to consider if, as an new user, I would continue to contribute to Wikipedia. So far I have decided to stay despite her actions and personal attacks .

  1. My first interaction with her was on the contentious issue of the Israeli west bank barrier. Slim have "floated" or "landed out of the blue" once in a while in the middle of heated discussion edits and did one simple thing: Reverted well sourced edits.
  2. It was not long when I understood that such a discouraging acts are targeted at edits which do not fit her political POV. To be clear: I understand very much that an editor or an admin protecting pages from vandalism have got used to revert pages that have been vandalized, but to act in this manner in the middle of discussions on issues that require real, deep understanding and participation is counter productive.
  3. next, I was subject to several name calling by slim when I commented on an RfA by herWikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ramallite. She wanted to appoint to an admin a user who was engaged in edit war and POV pushing and when I objected she called me "difficult editor".
  4. Later I noticed that this RfA is not the first in which she tries to push to amidships an editor who's anti-Israel bias is clear. Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Anonymous_editor

As I am new to Wikipedia, I don't know what of wikipedia rules has she violated but I clearly feel she is pushing a certain POV in more than one legitimate way.


[edit] Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

[edit] Further comments

[edit] Arbitration merge problems

As I understand it, both my original case against user:Willmcw and user:SlimVirgin and a second case filed later by user:Willmcw against me were accepted by the Arbcom. Yet in reviewing the Arbcom votes on both cases it appears clear to me that the votes on arbitration for Willmcw's complaint against me (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rangerdude) were to accept and merge that case into the first case, which I filed (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Willmcw and SlimVirgin), not the other way around as has been done. This is explicitly stated in James F.'s vote "Accept. Merge into below case, if both are accepted" and indicated in the three subsequent votes, which all state "Accept and merge." None of the Arbcom votes on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Willmcw_and_SlimVirgin had a merge stipulation, indicating it was understood that the other case would be merged into it - not the other way around. Given this, I am posting this note to ask an Arbcom member correct the listings on these two cases to reflect these votes. I apologize if this appears to be nitpicking and I believe it was simply an honest mistake, but I want to make sure that this case proceeds by the books out of fairness to myself and to all parties involved. Thanks - Rangerdude 16:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)