Wikipedia:Requests for comment/FuelWagon 2/FuelWagonTalkPageSnapshot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:Requests for comment | FuelWagon 2

This is a snapshot of my (FuelWagon) talk page as of 20 October 2005. Please do not edit this page or modify it in any way. I'm cleaning up my talk page since the discussion on my talk page appears to have ended and moved to teh RfC. But the last time I did a delete on my talk page, I was accused of "cherry picking" the good stuff and deleting the bad stuff, so I'm archiving it here, since it seems relevant to the RfC. If the RfC gets deleted, this directory can get deleted along with it. I generally don't archive stuff from my talk page, I just delete it. But this seemed like it might be considered by some to be a controversial chunk to delete. FuelWagon 23:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RE: User_talk:FuelWagon/050825, User talk:FuelWagon/block and User_talk:FuelWagon/050714/1

Hi. Would you mind explaining to me why you are keeping these pages on-site instead of off-site for your own records? Since neither are part of an RFC, RFAr, etc., I'm inclined on viewing these as attacks pages and calling for their deletion. Thanks. El_C 19:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] user page subdirectories

Howdy El C, tell SlimVirgin I said hi when you report back to her. I assume she sent the request to you to harrass me about the contents of my talk page. As to labeling it an "attack" page, that's an interesting way of putting it. If you find one NPA violation, I'd appreciate you pointing it out so that I can correct the problem. The /block page was actually the first draft of an RfC against SlimVirgin a couple months ago. SlimVirgin asked Ed to block me for starting an RfC in my talk page, and Ed willingly complied. The pattern would now be that SlimVirgin has approached you to harrass me about it and attempt to get it deleted as well. Can you feel the intimate love that goes on between fellow admins? It just gives me a warm fuzzy feeling how they help each other in the face of criticism by blocking editors for imaginary NPA violations or harrassing them for the contents of a subdirectory in their talk page. You guys just make me proud. As it happens, SlimVirgin already complained to another one of her good buddies about a deleted RfC getting put into a user's talk page subdirectory, and that editor told SlimVirgin that it was acceptable. You can double-check it here [1]. I actually withdrew my own certifaction of my RfC against SlimVirgin and she has been badering me ever since. A month later, she was making up lies about the RfC, so I uploaded a copy of it to my user space for the record. And since then, her harrassment and stalking of me has started happening enough that I need to write it all down or I'll forget it. So, in answer to your quite innocent and I'm sure unprodded question, the /block directory was the initial draft of my RfC against SlimVirgin. Ed Poor moved it from my talk page into the /block directory and then blocked me for NPA violations. If you can find a single NPA in that subdirectory, again, I'd appreciate it. Ed has thus far declined to point out what specifically was contained in the page to get me blocked. Nice to see policy can be implemented in such broadly sweeping that I can't even be told what diff got me blocked. Apparently Ed knows it when he sees it and can't explain it to anyone else. After my falsely accused NPA block expired, I took the contents of the /block directory and used them in my RfC against SlimVirgin. Ed Poor, who was mediator at the time initially endorsed part of the RfC but then SlimVirgin emailed him a sob story and Ed then withdrew support and vehemently attacked the RfC. Several editors supported the RfC, enough to keep it around, but I decided to withdraw my own certification to allow it to be deleted. I was actually trying to give SlimVirgin a break. See where that got me? A month later, SlimVirgin is telling lies about my RfC against her. I uploaded a copy of it to my talk page to keep an online record of it. Since then she has been harrassing me on various articles and talk pages, and I've been trying to keep track of her stalking as an attempt to defend myself from various false accusations from her and her friends. Now, you're calling this an "attack" page, but a large part of this was an initial draft to an RfC (the /block) directory, another chunk of it is the deleted RfC itself (which was already established to be not against policy), and the last part is an explanation as to why the deleted RfC is under my talk page, and what SlimVirgin has done since I filed the original RfC. I have not advertised this talk page to anyone, which is one of the reasons I assume SlimVirgin asked one of her friends to lean on my to delete it. Nor does the page contain anything but a history of diffs and who did what. There are no NPA violations. There is no name calling. there is nothing in these subdirectories that is anything other than a simple record of what has happened since I filed an RfC against SlimVirgin and invoked said woman's fury. She has accused me repeatedly of NPA violations, ad hominem attacks, and similar violations, but she never points out a single, specific diff that is the basis of her accusations. She has followed me to a completely unrelated RfC I filed against user Bensaccoutn and jumped on it as an example of "another bad faith RfC" by me. She asked an Admin friend of hers to investigate it (all in the family), but unfortunately for SlimVirgin, her friend said the RfC looked acceptable. SlimVirgin never apologized for the "bad faith RfC" accusation though. So, that's the history behind the subdirectories under my talk page. Some of it is RfC stuff, some of it is SlimVirgin's interactions with me since I filed the RfC against her. She has shown a history of making totally unfounded accusations against me while being unwilling to point ot any specific edit that would qualify as a policy violation. And she is completely unwilling to apologize even when another admin tells her that her accusation is wrong. Until her behaviour changes (she admits she made false accusations, she admits she made significant errors in her Terri Schiavo edit, and she apologizes for both, at the very least), I need to keep a record of what she's been doing so her stories of false accusations don't get too far out of control. No, I will not keep it offline. I have not advertised the page. And I need to be able to access the information from different computers depending on where I am. There are no NPA violations, and the entire page is nothing but a record of diffs to document the interactions between SlimVirgin and I. Given her ability for making accusations without a single diff to support them, I think an objective record is the only way to defend myself. FuelWagon 21:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't particularly appreciate the insinuation, and I find that your note suffers from excessive verbosity. Withdrawing your RFC does not provide you with a license to keep its deleted content elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please try to remain on-topic and answer my specific querry in a more direct way, and with much, much less innuendo (preferably none). As mentioned, unless you are prepared to take formal steps, I fail to see a reason as to why you should be allowed to keep these pages on-site as some sort of advocacy in potential. El_C 21:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] insinuation

And I don't particularly like you telling me I need to prove myself or the content of my talk page to you, to get your permission to keep it. As for insinuation, please, tell me you weren't contacted by SlimVirgin to lean on my about my talk page, I need the laugh, it'll make me feel all giggly inside. woot woot! As for "formal steps", you seem to have an interesting version of reality. It was formal steps of a formal user RfC that invoked SlimVirgin's wrath in the first place. I voluntarily deleted the certification to let it get deleted to cut her some slack. The problem occurred in formal mediation, and the mediator was Ed Poor, who attacked the RfC and attacked me. I then took the problem to formal arbitration, where Fred Bauder said "yeah? well, maybe Ed Poor did attack you, but we dont have time to look into it". Then they gave Ed a medal. So please, spare me your precious "formal process". I've seen it from start to finish. User RfC, mediation, and arbitration. And it is a farce. All it showed me was just how much the administrators back each other up. And now you come along, at SlimVirgin's beck and call, to demand I take my complaint to your formal process or delete my page. Nice. Since it's already proven to me that admins don't police other admins, I really don't feel inclined to ask for more. But like I said, it's good to see the admins all working as one big happy family. The problem that SlimVirgin has is that there isn't a single NPA violation on my talk page. There isn't a single objective policy violation she can point to to get me banned or force me to take down my records and my diffs. So, instead she's got to call out her friends to harrass me to remove any criticism of her, and then have them act all indignant at the insinuation that perhaps they aren't acting in a neutral manner, that perhaps they aren't looking to resolve a dispute but to bury it, that perhaps they aren't looking to enforce policy but suppress any criticism of a fellow admin. Your formal process is a joke. The inmates are running the asylum. And when SlimVirgin brings me to arbcom (and don't worry, she's already threatened me with it again this week) I'll have a record of the whole history. So spare me your indignation. FuelWagon 03:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I... see. Anyway, you may submitt any and all pertinent material collected from of an off-site text editor and onto Wikipedia at that time. El_C 03:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] at that time

Uhm, no. There are no NPA violations on the pages in question. They are a legitimate record. One is a page that Ed Poor blocked me for NPA violations and moved to the /block subdirectory. That was the rough draft of the RfC. I've already asked Ed to point out any NPA violaitons on that page and he has refused. three or four other pages are copies of the deleted RfC, and I've already shown you that there is precedence that keeping a copy of a deleted RfC in a local user talk page is acceptable. As SlimVirgin continues to harrass me, I record some notes with diffs pointing to her behaviour. I have not publicized these pages. They are my personal record of her harrassment against me since I filed the RfC against her. She has already spread lies about the RfC on another talk page, so I uploaded the original copies to my talk page as a result. Do you understand? She keeps pushing this, and the only way to straighten out her false accusations against me is to keep the originals. Now she's harrassing me on other pages and threatening arbcom against me. at that time, I'll use these pages to at least show she is no innocent here. And until that time, I'll be keeping them in my subdirectories. There is no harassment if I'm not publicizing the page or threatening her with it. There is no harassment if it is simply a record of diffs. There is no NPA violations on any of these pages. There is no policy violations on any of these talk pages. You have no grounds to delete these pages. FeloniousMonk kept a running page about Sam Spade's hijinks for a long time (a year or so, I believe), and to my knowledge, no admin came in and leaned on him to delete it. No admin came in and demanded that he justify his page or delete it. No admin came in and demanded that he delete his page and use a formal process of dispute resolution. And FeloniousMonk is an admin now.

Does this not strike you as a little odd? A little strange? A little unique? It seems to be fine in one case and fine enough that an editor can do something like this and make administrator, while another case is demanding the pages be removed. You don't see a bit of favoritism? Special treatment? An interesting interpretation of policy? Could it be that the difference is due to the fact that the topic of my page is an Administrator? Just a thought. Any answer to that?

Oh, and are you telling me that you werent' contacted by SlimVirgin? Rather interesting given that I don't make these pages public and I don't advertise them to people. Really, I'm asking. Are you saying SlimVirgin didn't email you and ask you to look at these pages? An honest question. FuelWagon 03:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

First, please explain more clearly to me what purpose it serves to keep a copy of a deleted RFC on-site El_C 04:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] precedence overrides purpose

I don't have to show you what "purpose" my edits have. They do not violate policy. And I've already shown you a diff that shows there is already precedence to allow a deleted user RfC to remain in a user's private space. As soon as I uploaded the RfC to my space, SlimVirgin complained to Maureen, and Maureen shows precedence is that it is acceptable.

And you didn't answer my question. Did SlimVirgin contact you about the subdirectories?

Your answer true or false (or complete lack thereof) will reveal your intentions going forward. I know the truth, its really just a matter of whether you can admit it. Your answer will reveal whether you wish to bury a dispute or resolve it. What say you? FuelWagon 04:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

But in this case, the person who was RFC'd feels uneasy with it being on-site, so again, please state the purpose. In answer to your question/s, I don't report to anyone, I forward my own querries, and at the event, I am an avid reader of Robert_McClenon's talk page. El_C 04:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] report versus initiate

Uhm,

The question was "Did SlimVirgin ask you to look into the subdirectories?" The question was not "Who do you intend to report to?" Care to answer my question? As for Robert McClenon's talk page, there is no mention of these subdirectories, so that could not have pointed to these subdirectories. So, who initiated your "querry"? FuelWagon 15:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

You are being quite melodramatic and continue to be evasive as per stating the purpuse, I find. Anyway, as I said, I made some querries, and that is all I care for you to know at this time. I do note that while you have 4443 edits, you've only edited 265 distinct pages for an average of 16.77 pp (whereas my average, for ex., is 2.79 pp), so it isn't that difficult to spot unusually-titled pages on your contributions. El_C 16:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The purpose is irrlevant. I've already shown you precedence that deleted RfC's are acceptable to have in a private page. You continue to be evasive as per stating who initiated your querries. I do not that while you have a lot of edits yourself, your history around SlimVirgin extends at least as far back as the RfC in question and your comments there showed an indifference to facts and a sense of your alliances. You don't care about my purpose. SlimVirgin asked you to push me to delete these pages, and you're kindly obliging to your friend. It isn't difficult to spot unusually tilted appearances from you around this discussion. Just say "SlimVirgin asked me" and be straight about it. Or, keep dancing and keep looking for an excuse to delete that which has no other reason to justify deletion. FuelWagon 17:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The purpose is not irrelevant to me. I have no intention of dancing by your tune, I'm ready to guage on the opinions of other editors. El_C 18:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

And I will not dance by your tune either. You're here as a "heavy hitter" at SlimVirgin's request. You've already shown your bias in this dispute when the original RfC was filed against her, and this is simply more of the same. Let's just remember that you started this little dispute about the subdirectories, and it was purely because your pal SlimVirgin asked you to find a way to delete it. Your combativeness now only shows your intent was to get your way. Why don't you threaten me with arbcom next? Tell me you're going to get me banned? Nice dispute resolution, there, El_C. FuelWagon 18:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I am incresingly under the impression that your overall conduct is lacking. El_C 19:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

You come to my talk page at SlimVirgin's request demanding I explain a subdirectory in my talk page and you want to talk about my conduct? You can't even admit straight out that SlimVirgin sent you. FuelWagon 19:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

That's because she hasn't "sent" me. Yes, I want to talk about your conduct.El_C 19:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

You just stumbled onto this subdirectories on your own? She didn't contact you in any way and tell you about them? I don't advertise these directories. And why did you notice them now? FuelWagon 20:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

No willingness to resolve the dispute — no report, FuelWagon. El_C 22:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

What report are you talking about? FuelWagon 11:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I thought that name was familiar

So, I thought the name El_C rang a bell. Turns out you were one of the first admins to support SlimVirgin in my RfC against her.

If our resident neorologist cannot find the time "to methodically go through each of [SV's] edits in the way [s/he] did with [her] introduction," then I am of the opinion that s/he should refrain from reverting hours of work en mass commenting on the series of edits in their totality. I am also hopeful s/he can refrain from a condescending, patronizing overtone. El_C 09:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Care to tell me again that this "querry" of yours is completely neutral? That you just happened upon the subdirectories which you now demand I explain my purpose lest they be deleted? You know, Neuroscientist wrote a rather detailed and indepth neurological criticism of SlimVirgin's edit. It was something like 5,000 words long. Apparently that wasn't enough for you, and you decided to lean on Neuroscientist and tell him he shouldn't revert poor helpless SlimVirgin unless he explains each and every revert. As it happens, I explained nearly every factual and POV problem in the User RfC against SlimVirgin, but apparently that wasn't enough for you either. You didn't find a single error of fact or introduction of bias in SlimVirgin's edit? Not after reading Neuroscientist's post or the various issues listed in the RfC? Not a one? Rather you thought you needed to lean on Neuroscientist like you're leaning on me now?

Tell me that you're a neutral party here, El_C. Tell me that you hold the facts of the matter to be more important than your history with SlimVirgin. Tell me this is about the truth and not just that SlimVirgin "feels uneasy with it being on-site". Tell me that you're interested in resolving a dispute rather than simply burying legitimate criticism of SlimVirgin. Tell me she didn't ask you to look at my subdirectories. Tell me she didn't tell you what a horrible person I am. Tell me she didn't come to you with a bias. Tell me you didn't take on that bias because of your history with her. Tell me you haven't given her the complete benefit of the doubt. Tell me that your criticism of Neuroscientist was an attempt to get to the facts and not an attempt to suppress the RfC in totality.

And if you can't tell me that, then at least tell me one honest thing about your reason for Neuroscientist being here and your intentions going forward. FuelWagon 15:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

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. El_C 16:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

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, simply because your friend SlimVirgin asked you to find a way to delete it. And since you already weighed in quite biasedly on the original RfC in the process that is the center of the question, please don't expect me to believe you are anything other than here by proxy for SlimVirgin. You engaged me a couple of times on the original RfC. Your alliances are clear. As for "burying it" on a talk page versus "follow through", I told you I already took it through process and your precious process was found lacking. I do not need to justify a record of a deleted RfC when I've already shown that there is precedence that a private copy is acceptable. I do not need to justify a record of diffs to an admin who was part of the original dispute with SlimVirgin and who is now acting on her behalf and at her request. Your complete lack of neutrality here disqualifies you. And your continued efforts to dance around simple facts like saying as something as straightforward as "SlimVirgin asked me to delete these pages" and instead skirt direct questions with obtuse answers about whether you report to anyone or whether you handle your own queries only reinforces your loyalties. I don't care if SlimVirgin is "uncomfortable" with these pages. It is not her decision to delete them. I don't care if she is not at-ease about these pages, she's on several occaisions attempted to rewrite history and a record of what really happened is a legitimate defense. How about me being not at ease that after I allowed the original RfC to be deleted, SlimVirgin attempted to rewrite history by saying that no one legitimate endorsed my RfC. Or that she's came after me on the RfC I filed against Bensaccount though she had no business on that page. Or that she's announced on my talk page publicly that she will no longer assume any good faith of me. Or that she's recently threatened me with arbitration. Her actions make me uncomfortable. And the only way to defend myself is with a record of what has really happened.

Tell me, El_C, do you really care about the truth? Or do you simply want ot suppress criticism of your friend? Would you go so far as to admit that your criticism of Neuroscientist was unwarranted? Would you go so far as to admit that SlimVirgin's edit on the Terri Schiavo article was full of factual errors and POV biases? Would you admit that her edit was reckless? That Ed Poor's block of me was unwarranteed? That Ed Poor vilated NPA? That SLimVirgin's actions on the Bensaccount RfC qualifies as harrassment? WOuld you be willing to acknowledge some of these basic facts? Would you be willing to mount a fair and neutral investigation to see if they're true? Or are you simply interested in doing SlimVirgin's bidding while pretending that she never asked you to do this, while pretending that you're neutral here, while pretending that your own actions in the original RfC show that your precioius "dispute resolution" process doesn't necessarily resolve a dispute? FuelWagon 17:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

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. El_C 18:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course you're not here as an admin. There is no policy violations occurring. we're talking about a deleted RfC that I've already shown precedence for keeping around. That you have no policy to enforce means you cannot enforce deletion of the directories that you want ot delete as an admin. You have always been here as SlimVirgin's proxy. She asked you to lean on me, and you happily complied. You want to talk about harbouring ill-will? Then you'd be more concerned about resolving the dispute and investigating the issue than you would be about suppressing a record of past events. Your intention was clear from the beginning: you are SlimVirgin's proxy warrior. You were involved in teh original RfC against SlimVirgin and you were her heavy hitter then, assaulting Neuroscientist for criticising poor helpless SlimVirgin. And now you're swinging the bat again in SlimVirgin's defense. You are biased. You are engaged. and you are acting at her request now as before. Don't get all self righteous on me, it doesn't suit you. FuelWagon 18:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm still not following why you wish to keep those subpages on-site indefinitely; on account of an unstated purpose? El_C 19:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

So that when someone like you comes along, I can look at the RfC and find out that you lambasted Neuroscientist because he didn't criticize all of SlimVirgin's edits. So that when someone like you comes along and wishes to dance around a simple question such as "Did SlimVirgin send you?" that I can look up for myself where the person's loyalties may lie. So that when SlimVirgin claims I am stalking her (she just did it again today), I have a record that she's been harassing me since the RfC I filed against her. That is purpose enough. And you continue to ignore the precedence I already pointed out that a deleted RfC is acceptable on a users talk page, and users like FeloniousMonk kept running records of other editors and no one harrassed him. I keep answering your questions, and you keep avoiding answering mine. How about a straight answer to some simple questions: Did you demand FeloniousMonk delete his page on Sam Spade? Did you threaten to AFD it if he didn't explain his purpose to your satisfaction? Did your harass him when he didn't delete it and tell him his behaviour has been less than exemplary? Did SlimVirgin send you? FuelWagon 19:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I've already answered your question, more than once, whereas you continue to fail in answering my own. Anyway, as I said, I encourage you to follow through the dispute resolution procedures rather than burying your grievnces in a manner which facilitates their escalation rather than resolution. El_C 19:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Did you give FeloniousMonk the same encouragement? FuelWagon 20:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

No, not the same. El_C 20:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Did SlimVirgin inform you of these directories? FuelWagon 20:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

As said, I querried her about you. I won't divulge the contents of our conversation at this time . El_C 20:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anns reply

FuelWagon, I have been aware of the existence of these directories for several weeks, and SlimVirgin has never contacted me about them. Nor do I monitor your contributions. You edit some of the pages on my watchlist (Requests for Comment, Words to Avoid, etc.), and on one of those pages, SlimVirgin complained directly to you about your keeping those directories. You responded. I then looked through your contributions to find them, just out of curiosity. I haven't looked through your contributions since. If I hadn't found the pages then, I would have been able to find one of them a few weeks later when SlimVirgin commented on your constant attempts to get the Ed Poor case reopened, and said that she'd add that to the list you were compiling against her, to save you the trouble. A quick look through her contributions that day would have been enough to locate the page. I'm sure that my opinion (which is that the pages should be deleted) doesn't interest you, but if it is put to a vote, you can be quite certain that I'll vote "delete". You mentioned above that you need to write it all down because otherwise you'll forget it. That would actually be A Good Thing. You're not doing any favour to yourself or to Wikipedia by holding onto all this. Anyway, I just wanted to point out that a person's awareness of these pages does not mean that that person was sent by SlimVirgin. Aren't you jumping to conclusions a bit, like when you claim that SlimVirgin sent Ed a sob e-mail? Shouldn't you assume good faith? Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 21:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Ann, I can always count on you to show up at the most interesting pages to chastize me. That we were both involved in teh Terri Schaivo article way before Ed Poor and Slim Virgin showed up likely has more to do with your awareness of these subdirectories than anything else. How'd you end up here, by the way? Just thought to drop me a quick hello, how you doing, and saw the post from El_C? By the way, hello, how you doing? The fact that you supported SlimVirgin on the RfC, that you opposed my arbitration with Ed Poor, and that you generally allied yourself with everyone that is the subject of this dispute sort of rules you out as someone that I would take advice from. Ya know what I mean?

you asked if I was jumping to conclusions a bit when I claim that SlimVirgin sent Ed a sob email. Well, I give you the following diffs to look at [2][3] [4] [5] That last one was just before I got blocked. So, I don't think it's jumping to conclusions that SlimVirgin asked Ed to block me for starting an RfC on my talk page, I believe it is clearly documented. So, here's the test for you: given the above diffs, would you be willing to concede that I didn't jump to conclusions? Or will you continue to ally yourself with SlimVirgin and Ed Poor, and find some justification for them? Ed's second block against me was completely undeserved. There are no NPA violations on my tlak page. The only reason Ed blocked me the second time was because I had started an RfC against SlimVirgin on my tlak page and SlimVirgin asked Ed to block me. I've even attempted to ask Ed to point out specific NPA violations and he ahs refused. Please Ann, enlighten me. FuelWagon 21:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

You keep saying that Ed blocked you twice. But he didn't. He blocked you once for disruption because of the personal attacks on Talk:Terri Schiavo. Here is the block log. [6] And for the umpteenth time, I didn't ask him to block you; the first I knew of it was after you started posting about it to your talk page. The block log also shows that I blocked you for 3RR in June, which is where your animosity springs from. This is October. Ann is right: for your own sake, if not for anyone else's, put it behind you, because you're making no friends for yourself by going on about it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The four diffs show you complained to Ed about my talk page and two hours later Ed moved my tlak page to /block and blocked me for "personl remarks". There are no NPA vioaltions. If you find any, please, point them out to me. Only problem is there aren't any NPA violations on my talk page. No one can admit that, though. FuelWagon 11:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon, I have explained to you how I came across the directories. It's amazing that you would then say that another reason is more likely. How did I end up here? Your userpage has been on my watchlist for months, as have Gordon's, NCdave's, Ghost's, Patsw's, Duckecho's, Neuroscientist's, SlimVirgin's, Ed's, Tony Sidaway's, and a few more. I've just added El C's page. When I want a break from my studies, and don't want the trouble of writing anything lengthy, I just refresh my watchlist and see if some of the people I know have written anything interesting each other. I don't read all the messages; some of them have no interest for me, and I often don't have time, anyway.

Because WP:RfAr and Ed's page were both on my watchlist, I knew about Ed's RfAr. I put that and all related pages on my watchlist. So I saw your efforts to have the case reopened. I thought your comments were unfair, so I tried to defend Ed. I didn't post comments on your comments about SlimVirgin on the RfAr page, as I didn't have time. I didn't post any comments on your lengthy posts to Jimbo either, as I thought it would seem petty. But I did see them all.

In what way did I think your comments were unfair? Well, here are a few points:

If someone reads your comments and knows nothing about the background, he'll think (correctly) that Ed made a personal attack against you, with obscene language, but will not realize that you had been making personal attacks that bad and worse for months. Dozens of them. (I have some diffs here.) Also, you don't make it clear that in the context, Ed was giving an example of something that nobody (including himself) has the right to say.

How many of those diffs occurred during mediation? FuelWagon 22:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
You claim that Ed's behaviour (and in other places you claim that SlimVirgin's behaviour) drove away three good editors. You fail to mention that Duckecho had a history of very nasty personal attacks, and had indeed been reprimanded for them. You also fail to mention that Ghost also criticized your behaviour, that he mentioned afterwards that his response to SlimVirgin was partly a result of tiredness and that things would improve, and that he never blanked his user page. Lots of editors disappear. They can get run down by a bus. Since we don't know their names, we can't track them down. He had disappeared once before, and had returned saying that his whole family had been ill. Have you had private e-mails from Ghost to say that he left because of Slim and Ed? If not, you shouldn't make that claim. If so, well it's still not a verifiable claim, even if it's true. I've personally had e-mails from three editors who left the Terri Schiavo article (or in two cases, left Wikipedia) after being treated rudely by you, but you just have my word for that.
You claim frequently that Ed blocked youafter you had removed your obscenities from the talk page. You never mention that he blocked you after you had said that you weren't sorry for using those words and making those attacks, and that you wouldn't apologize.
You claim that Ed blocked you twice. He blocked you once, and then you started flooding your talk page with comments about him and SlimVirgin – creating a heading called "SlimVirgin lies", which you later changed, saying that being an admin meant never having to admit you were wrong, hinting that you'd got either Slim or Ed desysopped, posting the contents of a private e-mail that Slim had sent you. Now if you had been blocked a month earlier, you wouldn't have been able to post messages on your talk page. It was a new facility, which Ed had brought in. It can be useful, because a blocked user can use his own talk page to apologize or to clarify something, in the case of an unjust block. All you did was to post stuff about SlimVirgin. Ed asked you to use the time to show how you were going to help Wikipedia. You ignored his request, and kept posting new remarks. After you had posted about a hundred, Ed protected your page, which meant that you couldn't edit it. He didn't give you an additional block. It's very misleading to keep claiming that he did.

Is there a single NPA violation, Ann? No, there isn't. I was working on an RfC against SlimVirgin and SlimVirgin saw it and asked Ed to block me and Ed obliged. SlimVirgin tried to suppress the RfC against her before I filed it by having her good buddy Ed Poor lean on me and block me a second time. Even if I came out and said "SlimVirgin should be stripped of her adminship", that is not an NPA violation, and is not justification for getting blocked again. FuelWagon 22:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
You claim that Ed and SlimVirgin are friends who work together closely on other articles. Have you any evidence of that? I've had both of their talk pages on my watchlist for months, and I've never seen any indication that they're buddies. I often used to read messages that you and Ghost and Neuroscientist and Duchecho were sending each other.
I looked at the links you provided. Actually, I had seen them before. My understanding is that SlimVirgin was not aware of the new facility to allow blocked users to edit their talk pages. She therefore thought that there was some bug in the system and that your block hadn't worked. Then she quite openly said that she wasn't that keen on the feature. I can't see any connection between that and your allegations of e-mailing a sob story.

Oh give me a break. SlimVirgin didn't understand that I was allowed to edit my talk page while blocked. She complains to Ed. Ed explains it to her. She then says she doesn't like the idea because it allows a blocked editor to start "diatribes" against the editor who glocked them. Ed said "is there any page I should look at?" Two hours later, Ed blocks me. SlimVirgin's "diatribes" post was a sob story. There were no legitimate NPA violations on my talk page. You can hand wave this one all you want, but SlimVirgin directed Ed to my talk page and I got blocked without a single NPA violation on my page. FuelWagon 22:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
You have also claimed that Ed, as mediator, should not have criticized your RfC. I can see that some people might think a mediator should stay entirely distant from disputes, although I wouldn't go that far myself. Out of curiosity, when he originally endorsed the RfC, did you secretly think, Well, really, he shouldn't get involved in this: he's the mediator?

Read up on what mediators are "not" [7]. Mediators are not Security Guards. Mediators are not there to protect an article or talk pages and will not watch for improper behavior or violations of rules or guidelines. Nor will they report any incidents or document what happened in an incident report. A mediator should remain neutral. A mediator should clearly not defend one side and attack another side of a dispute. I could just pick random J. editor to take sides. Ed shouldn't have blocked me. he should have gotten another admin to do it. He clearly should not have blocked me the second time, because there are no policy violations on my talk page, and he was doing it based on his allegiances. FuelWagon 22:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
You have claimed that Ed failed to show neutrality. He blocked you for extremely aggressive and obscene personal attacks. Was there anyone on the side of the Schindlers who made similar attacks and whom Ed did not block? I think not. You were the only one who went that far. So, you can't complain that he treated you differently for the same offences. He never tried to lock the Terri Schiavo page in his preferred version – that would have been a failure to maintain neutrality.

You have a conveniently forgetful memory. Ed gave Neuroscientist a warning about possibly violating NPA when all Neuroscientist did was criticize the neurological content of SlimVirgin's edit. Flip that arround and SlimVirgin accused several editors of NPOV violations, owning the article, POV pushing, gaming the system, and other stuff. Ed was silent, despite the fact that SlimVirgin never provided a single diff to support any of her accusations. This was so a one-way street its not even funny. The only reason you don't have a problem with it is because the street is going in your direction. FuelWagon 22:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I will say that after you were blocked, and after Duckecho left, I had some admiration for you because you didn't leave. I also appreciate that when you were giving out barnstars to your fellow editors at the Terri Schiavo article, you included me and two other editors who frequently opposed you – for which I thank you. And there may have been some generosity in your staying away from Gordon's RfA. It's a terrible pity that you can't let go now. You're losing a lot of the respect that you gained. And it's completely contrary to all the stuff you put on your user page and your talk page after your block. I'm not going to hunt out the diffs now, but you probably remember that you wrote about how you were an impolite ass, but full of honour and integrity, and that you stare at people in bewilderment when they refer to an old dispute, because as far as you're concerned, it's over – you're so good at moving on, and they should try to move on too. Then, when I read your recent contributions, the fury almost leaps out at me from the computer screen – repeating yourself, using excessive capitals (Ed blocked ME) etc.

Can you not see the contradiction? Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 00:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

It stopped being over when SlimVirgin stalked me into an RfC I filed agianst Bensaccount, she said it looked like "another example of a bad faith RfC". She had another admin look into it, and they told her that it looked OK. But she never apologized or retracted her accusations. She started rewriting history how no one "credible" supported the RfC. The RfC had been deleted for about a month, but since she was going to start spreading lies about it, I uploaded a copy to a subdirectory of my talk page to set the record straight. She then started harrassing me for that, and finding other things to complain about. See, the thing is that when I'm walking down a busy, crowded sidewalk, I expect to get bumped. But in this case, SlimVirgin has been bumping me ever since I filed the RfC. Her edit was reckless, it was full of factual errors and NPOV errors, she bulldozed into the article without any understanding of the topic except for a soundbite she heard on TV. When disputed, rather than admit a single error, she got all huffy and started slinging accusations. After I allowed the RfC to be deleted, she tried to announce that no one credible had supported it and that it was a bad faith RfC. As long as she continues to push that fantasy, the only thing I can do is keep a copy of what really happened around so I can tell the truth when she tries to distort it. FuelWagon 22:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

"and after Duckecho left, I had some admiration for you because you didn't leave." Good point. In addition, FuelWagon at least hangs around an argues his point, unlike Calton, who is a hit-and-run editor that frequently reverts and posts brief, snide, and rather cryptic comments as justification. "you're so good at moving on" I admit it's hard to move on, but you bragged about it, as Ann points out, and so you should practice what you preach. I myself am not above that. I got torn apart in that RfA, mostly unjustly (some of the criticism was justified, but most, I think, was not; Ann was one of the few people whose criticisms were valid). So, since I can move on an overlook and forgive those involved in the RfA (and, I shall forgive MYSELF too for my own mistakes), maybe you can see that it isn't killing me, and maybe you can be encouraged to follow suit. Marskell also makes some good points below, which I generally support, even if I was not so critical of SlimVirgin's edits on that occasion. "And there may have been some generosity in your staying away from Gordon's RfA." Wagon may have simply been too busy, but you are correct, Ann: He could have followed the others who ganged up on me, and I'm thankful he didn't: I'm sure he would not have torn me apart had he voted, and I will be thankful for his honor in that regard. --GordonWatts 10:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I arrived at your talk page for unrelated reasons but I thought I'd give my two cents:

Edit Terri Schiavo like, say, George Bush (ie., use Talk and be very sure). Ann and FW know what I mean. Slim jumped in, was reprimanded, apologized for unqualified edits. No problem? I'm glad FW watches the page and know it's burdensome.
I followed your user contributions FW a couple of nights ago because of our own long debate and I can't help but say the following: I don't think you nosed around and found a couple of SlimVirgins edits incidentally. I think you clicked on her contributions and randomly reverted her for the sake of being annoying. To forestall any accusation: I do not know Slim in the least and have never had anything to do with her. It is my own conclusion based on your contributions. At 16:25, 1 October 2005 you commented on my talk page; at 16:30 you reverted Slim on Requests for comment in what seemed to me a retaliatory edit (a comment I raised in regard to GordonWatts that you never rebuttted).
I absolutely agree with Ann: "You're losing a lot of the respect that you gained." Your work on Terri Schiavo is absolutely, 100% applauded from me. You're long winded diatribes here are not. You've criticized GordonWatts for similar grand-standing yet you indulge in it. Marskell 01:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Not a lot of time to reply, but.. "Slim jumped in ... apologized for unqualified edits." No. She didn't. Never. In fact, the entire time she insisted that her edit was legitimate and continued to ask us to point out any errors, despite numerous errors pointed out. FuelWagon 11:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I misinterpreted an above comment. Marskell 17:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

more corrections: "Slim jumped in, was reprimanded, apologized for unqualified edits." Actually, this is completely wrong. SlimVirgin was never reprimanded by anyone. A number of editors familiar with the article (myself, Duckecho, Neuroscientist, and to some extent Ghost), opposed her edit. The user RfC was filed to point out the numerous factual errors in her edit and to say that SlimVirgin's edit was reckless given the size of the edit and the fact that the article was controversial, in mediation, and she had absolutely no knowledge of the topic. In her response on the user RfC, she claims her edits were limited only to minor copyediting and "I still haven't properly understood his objections to the edit". Ed Poor, the "mediator" of the article at the time, defended SlimVirgin at every stage and attacked some people who dared criticize her even as neutrally as Neuroscientist did. Ed also attacked the user RfC. So, there was no reprimand. Also, her response clearly avoids any apology. A month later, after I had allowed the original RfC to be deleted, SlimVirgin not only didn't apologize, but she said here that "no credible editor, other than you, saw the merit in that RfC". It was at that point that I copied the RfC up to a subdirectory under my talk page to show that it was supported by 5 people total. That is what caused me to upload the RfC's because after I allowed them to be deleted, SlimVirgin not only never apologized, not only continued to deny any problems with her edit, but she then went on to lie about my RfC and the people who supported it, which was why I uploaded the old RfC to my talk page in the first place. She started rewriting history claiming no one "credible" supported it.

"You've criticized GordonWatts for similar grand-standing yet you indulge in it." Let's just be clear here: Everything you see on this talk page right now regarding this topic is a direct result of El_C coming in to defend SlimVirgin and demand I justify having a deleted RfC in my user space and demanding I explain to him what I intend to do with the various subdirectories. I'm not grandstanding. El_C came in and demanded I explain myself. Only after I looked at the user RfC against SlimVirgin did I remember that he had been one of SlimVirgin's strongest advocates and defenders (who, as it happened, had no presence on the Terri Schiavo article to speak of). Once I pointed that out to him, El_C clarified that he wasn't here as an administrator. And once Ann saw all the activity going on, she couldn't help but chime in with her version of reality. Then Gordon, then you. I've done no "grandstanding" around this. I tried to file the diffs with arbcom but they said they "didn't have the time" to worry about Ed Poor. I then pinged the mediation committee to see if they would do anything. I haven't checked in with them to see if they've replied. Hardly what I would call "grandstanding". FuelWagon 22:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I absolutely misinterpreted "Until her behaviour changes (she admits she made false accusations, she admits she made significant errors in her Terri Schiavo edit, and she apologizes for both, at the very least)..." as stating she has apologized rather than she ought to. Honestly, just read it wrong (it can be read both ways).

As for "grandstanding" I essentially mean bite your tongue and keep it simple in replying—100 words could have sufficed where you are using a 1000 above and while piling on clever shots may seem a good idea it just appears foolish to other editors. Marskell 23:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

apology for the ambiguity in my sentence structure. The facts are clear now, yes? As for 100 word replies, I'll work on it. When El_C came in with a blanket "prove to me that there is justification for you keeping this" demand, I assumed he wasn't familiar with the history. Once I saw he was on the original RfC, my posts got shorter. I'll work on it though. FuelWagon 23:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Fuel! I have your user pages on my watchlist as well! It's the most happenin' place in Wikiland! I also look forward to future arbcom pages (not passing judgement, it just seems inevitable) for even more entertainment! I have nothing to contribute to this conversation! It just seemed like the social event of the season! I can't stop shouting! Fox1 12:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Fox, SlimVirgin has already threatened me with arbcom a week ago and has been marshalling her troops ever since. Her good buddy El_C visited soon after. And her other buddy, Jayjg, keeps accusing me of stalking (and pov pushing for inserting a sourced, attributed, quotation with a URL). So, yeah, it seems clear that she will have me banned before she will admit any wrongdoing of her own. FuelWagon 22:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ideal

In the most ideal terms, how do you envision a resolution to this dispute? Just to save your breath, consider that myself, Ann, Gordon, etc., were out of the picture. What is it that you wish to happen, what is it that you would like to accomplish? El_C 00:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

(1) SlimVirgin acknowledges that her 9 edits [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] to the Terri Schiavo article qualified as a reckless edit (i.e. an edit containing numerous factual and NPOV problems as listed here performed on an article marked controversial and in mediation.)

(2) Having acknowledged factual errors as pointed out by Neuroscientist here, she either points out where neuroscientist was "patronizing" and "deragotory", or she retract her accusation [17] as unfounded.

(3) given the following posts by SlimVirgin:

Please say what your specific objections are, rather than reverting. [18]

please discuss your objections on talk. [19]

I'm assuming the above can't be your only objection, so please lay them out [20]

If you feel I've introduced errors, please list them on talk [21]

You haven't yet explained why you want to exclude that information.[22]

neither of you has said what your objection is. [23]

If these are your only objections, I don't know why you reverted all my edits. [24]

Show me one error I made in the article, either factual or grammatical. [25]

If this is the only issue you can find with my copy edit, why did you revert it? [26]

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. [27]

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. [28]

If I made a factual error, point to it. [29]

SlimVirgin acknowledge that she dismissed valid criticism about the content of her edits the entire time she was working on the Terri Schiavo article.

(4) SlimVirgin either provides a diff showing where I am "insisting that no dissenting voice be heard in the intro" [30] or she retracts her accusation of POV pushing as unfounded.

(5) SlimVirgin either provides diffs showing me violating "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Cite sources" [31] or she retract the accusations as unfounded.

(6) SlimVirgin admit that she asked Ed to block me [32] for the second block, and she either point out a specific NPA violation here or she acknowledge the second block was undeserved.

(7) SlimVirgin acknowledge that 5 credible editors supported the RfC against her and that her accusation here was unfounded.

(8) SlimVirgin acknowledge that there was a valid and legitimate complaint at the heart of the RfC filed against her. (Which is independent of her opinion as to whether or not a user RfC is horrendous or not, or whether it was the proper way to resolve the dispute. i.e. I don't want this part turning into a conditional or qualified apology.)

(9) SlimVirgin either point out the ad hominem attack referred to here or she retract the accusation as unfounded.

(10) SlimVirgin acknowledge that the RfC against Bensaccount was not "another example of an inappropriate RfC" filed by me [33],

(11) Given that SlimVirgin had just announced the day before coming into the Bensaccount RfC that she could not "assume any good faith of me" [34], SlimVirgin acknowledge that she shouldn't have involved herself in the Bensaccount RfC in the first place.

(12) SlimVirgin write this all up in first-person narative form ("I made a recless edit", etc) and post the answer to (1),(3), and (8) on the talk pages of Neuroscientist, Duckecho, and A ghost, the answer to (2) to Neuroscientist's talk page and (1) through (11) on my talk page and her talk page. See also my User:FuelWagon page for an explanation about "qualified" and "conditional" apologies as an explanation of what sort of narative is not acceptable here. As an example of a proper apology, see this one.

If she does all of that, it will be difficult for her to attempt to rewrite history again, casting herself as a complete innocent in the Terri Schiavo article, claiming her edit was fine, claiming the RfC wasn't "credible" and claiming it was all just a bad faith RfC, And then I won't need to keep a copy of it online anymore. Anything short of that means she's holding onto the right to rewrite history at a later point, in which case I'm keeping a record of what really happened around to protect myself. That would do it. FuelWagon 03:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, forgot one more. SlimVirgin publicly declare whatever personal bias she has around Israel and Judaism on her user page. Her edits on these topics are consistently pro-Israel, pro-Jewish. A little public honesty goes a long way. FuelWagon 04:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

That's quite a list. It reminds me of what North Korean captors required their U.S. P.O.W.s to do. Let's assume that no editor is going to grovel in the manner you've indicated is necessary. The goal of this project is to write good articles. Creating long attack pages devoted to particular edits is not helpful to that goal. If you want to post an RfC then do so. But to simply add to an attack page, day after day, is an example of bad faith. Let's resolve this situation and move forward with this encyclopedia project. Thanks, -Willmcw 09:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is quite a list. SlimVirgin finds it quite easy to make numerous blanket accusations of policy violaitons without being willing to provide a single diff. Funny how she made almost a dozen unfounded accusations, and it's my fault that the list is so long. FuelWagon 21:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

It's the job of every Wikipedia editor to be collegial and work towards consensus. No editor is perfect, but creating attacks pages listing all of the (supposed) faults of an editor is not the best way to change an editor's behavior. This is increasingly looking like harassment rather than constructive criticism. Whatever happened in the past is past. Let's move on. -Willmcw 22:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that when SlimVirgin jumped on my RfC against Bensaccount and tried to nail me for filing "another bad faith RfC", I think that qualified as harassment. But you won't have the guts to suggest that, will you Willmcw? You'll only see harrassment one way? Forgive me if I fail to see any neutrality in your statements. FuelWagon 17:54, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not talking about SV's behavior, I'm talking about yours. -Willmcw 23:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, good for you. The word you're looking for to describe your behaviour is "biased". When you're willing to look at all the facts, from both points of view, let me know. An undeserved block and harrassment on an unrelated RfC, that's SlimVirgin's behaviour. When you're willing to weigh in on that as well, lets talk. Until then.... FuelWagon 03:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The power of SlimVirgin/Jayjg

I am amazed of the power this user(s) have of turning valuable contributors into parties of futile discussions. They contribute quite a bit to wikipedia, but also prevent others from doing so when they come with opposing views. --Vizcarra 01:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

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. --Vizcarra 06:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Followup to deleted comment

There's nothing to break up, FuelWagon, as I don't ever recall interacting with Vizcarra at any time. My comment was slightly satricial, and a general observation which relates to yourself, too. That is, the failure to act decisively and bring your grivences to the attention and under the scrutiny of the community at large, through a coherent, cohesive and well documented narrative, directed to achieve a specific aim through whichever relevant channels. Rather than scattered in userpages, some of which indeed more hidden than others. And just as an aside, you did not, in fact, have a need to consult your records on-site to learn of my role in that RFC, because an off-site text editor can store the same diffs, and these could be copied and pasted on-site whenever needed. Finally, if you wish for me to depart from your talk page, simply say the word. I am hopeful I could find something productive to do, but also, that my time here wasn't entirely unproductive. El_C 04:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

A failure to act decisively? Gee, Wally, I'm sorry. I attempted to resolve some of the initial issues in mediation, but the mediator engaged in teh dispute. I RfC'ed SlimVirgin about a legitimate dispute and was mobbed, including getting attacked by the mediator himself. I took some of my grievences to arbcom and they said they're not in the business of reprimanding priveledged individuals. The end result is saying that if you have enough edits under your belt, if you're an admin, and if you've got friends in arbcom, you can pretty much break any policy you wish and never have to worry about it. So it appears that my "specific aim" was overruled by heavily biased "relevant channels". As for whether your time here was "productive" or not, you tell me. Did you resolve anything? You did manage to create a rather longish debate on my talk page when you started with your demands that I justify some subdirectories. We went around for a bit, some other editors glommed onto things, and you asked me what my ideal resolution was. I told you. Now what? I see no way to get that resolution through the currently existing and highly biased relevant channels. So, I don't know what your point in asking me that was. FuelWagon 04:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Whether or not it was productive wasn't phrased as a question, actually, just as [w]ould you mind explaining to me, isn't a demand (rather, is a question) and wasn't designed to come across as one. Anyone may call for the deletion of any page, and it is courteous to consult/inform the author in advance. I'm uncertain that Cool Cat, for ex., was informed that his subpage was to be subject to an AFD. As for a "longish debate," for my part, I attempted to be concise and to the point, aiming at clarity. El_C 05:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

I don't think I'm "globbing on" but trying to be helpful. Anyhow: I followed the nine edits and while I would have opposed them myself I don't see them as exceptionally egregious.

A suggestion: if Slim acknowledges that she should have used Talk on a page in mediation before editing (and yes, she should have) will you drop the rest of it, including moving the User pages to your Word or Notepad? Expecting her to come on here and acknowledge twelve points to your satisfaction is unrealistic and ultimately humilating.

To forestall "why should I drop it..." and/or "I have violated no specific rule...", fine, in terms of letter of the law you may be in the right but in terms of the spirit of collaborativeness I think you're being unreasonable.

"Just forget it" is often good advice and I mean it nicely. Marskell 13:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Marskell, ya see, here's the problem: I did forget it. I withdrew certification of my own RfC against SlimVirgin specifically so that it could be deleted. Do you understand? I dropped the issue and allowed the whole thing to be forgotten. But a month later, SlimVirgin is not only bring up that same deleted RfC, she was rewriting history around it, saying it was a "bad faith RfC", saying that "no one credible" supported it. The thing is that she refuses to acknowledge any wrongdoing on her part and the only way to justify that in her mind is if she can make the entire dispute be my fault (and Duckecho, and Neuroscientist, and A ghost). The problem is that SlimVirgin didn't forget it, and she was carrying it forward and trying to use it against me in the Bensaccount RfC. She won't even acknowledge that she shouldnt' have involved herself with the Bensaccount RfC in the first place, that it was tantamount to harrassment given that no other admin even batted an eye at that RfC. She was looking for something to pin on me.

Do you understand?

Now, given that SlimVirgin will not let this be "forgotten", the only solution is to resolve it to a minimum that she acknowledge some basic facts. Otherwise, I'll delete these subdirectories and another month later, I'll file an RfC or something and she'll say "See, this is another example of a bad faith RfC" like she did with the Bensaccount RfC. So, she must acknowledge some basic facts about the Terri Schiavo stuff and what's happened since then or I have to keep the subdirectories around. She has already demonstrated that she is not only unwilling to forget this, but that if the original evidence is gone, she is quite willing to rewrite history to cast herself as a complete innocent and cast me as bad guy. She tried to burn me with the Bensaccount RfC and that was my reward for "forgetting" this the first time. She's the one who has burned up the "good faith" around here.

If I take the list above and throw out the ones dealing with SlimVirgin's numerous blanket accusations, it still leaves half a dozen issues that need to be acknowledged for me to have any sort of faith that SlimVirgin won't try to burn me again once I delete these subdirectories.

(1) SlimVirgin acknowledges that her 9 edits to the Terri Schiavo article qualified as a reckless edit (i.e. an edit containing numerous factual and NPOV problems as listed here performed on an article marked controversial and in mediation.)

(3) SlimVirgin acknowledge that she dismissed valid criticism about the content of her edits the entire time she was working on the Terri Schiavo article.

(6) SlimVirgin admit that she asked Ed to block me [35] for the second block, and she either point out a specific NPA violation here or she acknowledge the second block was undeserved.

(8) SlimVirgin acknowledge that there was a valid and legitimate complaint at the heart of the RfC filed against her.

(11) Given that SlimVirgin had just announced the day before coming into the Bensaccount RfC that she could not "assume any good faith of me" [36], SlimVirgin acknowledge that she shouldn't have involved herself in the Bensaccount RfC in the first place.

(13) SlimVirgin publicly declare whatever personal bias she has around Israel and Judaism on her user page.

That's the minimum list. FuelWagon 21:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

"Slim acknowledges that she should have used Talk on a page in mediation before editing" and further "that she will not involve herself with any of your RfCs (or similar) that she has no obvious involvement in." I don't know what more you can realistically expect.

Listen FW, in the interests of having my facts straight I went back to the Talk posts that got you banned. You called her an "arrogant cuss," a "jerkoff" and a "hypocrite" amongst other things—how can you possibly expect her to come here and answer a half-dozen let alone a dozen of your points? I wouldn't and I actually consider such attacks of a greater order of magnitude than questionable edits. Whether she asked Ed to block you strikes me as irrelevant—you deserved a block. She should not poke around an unrelated RfC bringing up tangential, prior points, granted, and you should not poke around her edits and revert her. Indeed, "Slim agrees to leave me alone if I leave her alone" may be the best list of all! Marskell 22:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Marskell, your facts are not straight at all. I was blocked twice. The first one was for cussing at SlimVirgin and I didn't protest that one. The second time, SlimVirgin tells Ed Poor about the edits on my talk page, and Ed blocks me for personal attacks and moves the "offending" material to the /block subdirectory. I then asked Ed to point out the specific violations and he refused. The reason is obvious: There are no policy violations in the content deserving a block. If you wish to get your facts straight, take a look here. That is the directory that Ed Poor himself created. There are no personal attacks. The reason I was blocked the second time was not because of NPA violations but because I was working on an RfC against SlimVirgin on my talk page. SlimVirgin wanted to stop me before I filed it, so she asked her good buddy Ed to block me. There isn't a single policy violation in the /block directory. The second block was undeserved. Unless you can find a policy violation in my /block directory, the second block is undeserved. And those are your straight facts. FuelWagon 17:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

OK now, my facts are half straight, yes? My tracking of and commenting on the first block is not at all inaccurate and the point still holds: why would she possibly want to come on here and grovel?

I'm going to point back to "in terms of letter of the law you may be in the right but in terms of the spirit of collaborativeness I think you're being unreasonable." "There is no specific policy violation in the content" strikes me as the same as "there's nothing illegal about posting my plans to fire you in the company newsletter." Ya, sure, but it's still a fucking annoying thing to stumble across.

And to take a step back, what matters at this moment? The ought to be or the what may be? Perhaps Slim ought to come on here and meet all of your points. But she's not going to. She's just not, and I more or less understand why, even if she is not entirely blameless. I think she may very well come here, make the two basic acknowledgments I suggested above and agree "ya, OK, we leave each other alone—end of story." I've looked at your contributions (and I don't see anything wrong with that if one is up front) and a lot of your time now seems to be spent on Talk pages accusing Slim of X, Y, Z. Honestly, is that how you want to spend your time here? She makes a concession and you agree to drop it (and the pages). Do you see that this would ultimately be better for both of you? Marskell 22:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

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)

"That she will not involve herself with any of your RfCs (or similar) that she has no obvious involvement in." In short, she will leave you alone. If she agrees to this, will you drop it and the pages? Marskell 22:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

No, that isn't the problem. The problem is that SlimVirgin refused to ever acknowledge any wrongdoing on her part in the past. Once the RfC was deleted the first time, she then took that as an opportunity to rewrite history to say that it was all my fault. That was when I uploaded the deleted RfC. She rewrote the past and tried to blame it all on me. The only way I will have any reason to trust her going forward around this is if she acknowledges some facts about the past, and then I'll have some confidence that she won't try to rewrite history again in the future. She needs to acknowledge that her edit was reckless, that it contained numerous factual and NPOV problems, that she asked Ed to block me the second time, that the second block was undeserved, and that she should not have involved herself with the Bensaccount RfC. If she acknowledges this, then I have no need to keep all these subdirectories around to keep history straight. If not, I have no reason to believe that once the pages are deleted she wont try to rewrite history yet again, and she's already demonstrated her willingness to do so. FuelWagon 18:03, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Again: "Slim acknowledges that she should have used Talk on a page in mediation before editing" and further "that she will not involve herself with any of your RfCs (or similar) that she has no obvious involvement in." So a no to this just to be clear? Marskell 20:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] undeserved block

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. El_C 10:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

El_C, find me a policy violation here that is worthy of a second block by Ed Poor. If you can't find anything, then I expect you to be as brutal to Ed's behaviour as you have been to mine. If you can find something, please, by all means, point it out, because I've been asking Ed and SlimVirgin and several others to point out anything worthy of a second block, and so far everyone has remained unresponsive. Go on, show me what was so horrendous in that subdirectory that got me blocked the second time. I double-dog dare you. FuelWagon 14:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon, why do you keep going on and on about the second block, with protests that nobody is answering your questions, when I have pointed out at least twice [37] and [38] and SlimVirgin has pointed out at least once [39] that there was no second block? SlimVirgin even gave you a link to the block log. You never respond to that. You complain that the second block was unjust. Someone points out that there was no second block. And then you complain again that the second block was unjust. Then someone else points out again that Ed blocked you once, and then you post another really long message about your undeserved second block. Could you imagine how scathing you'd be if someone else kept on repeating something you disagreed with after he had been given evidence that it wasn't true. "Never underestimate the power of a moron with a conspiracy theory" was one of your remarks about NCdave, and then you were so charmed with your own wit that you placed that quotation on your user page as "quote of the month". You've probably noticed that the people who disagree with your positions are generally a lot politer than you are, so I don't think anyone is going to call you a moron. But the way you go on and on posting long, increasingly furious and incoherent messages to talk pages of Jimbo Wales, Mediation Committee, Ed Poor Arbitration, etc., about how you were blocked a second time (when you weren't), and how the Arbitration Committee gave Ed a medal (which they didn't), and how Ed sided with SlimVirgin because they were friends and had worked together closely on other articles (which may or may not be true, but you've provided no evidence), and how SlimVirgin asked Ed to block you (which I'm sure is not true, and which she denies) and how all the administrators are siding with SlimVirgin and Ed Poor because they're sticking together – is it any wonder that the phrase "conspiracy theory" might come into people's minds?

Perhaps we could come to some agreement that Ed blocked you once, and protected your talk page once, after you had flooded it with about a hundred (I'm not making that up) messages criticizing him and SlimVirgin, creating a heading "SlimVirgin Lies", revealing the contents of a private e-mail from SlimVirgin to you, writing that being an administrator meant never ever having to admit that you were wrong, hinting that one or other of them might have administrator status removed, and writing, "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." (Wasn't that a bit of a sweeping statement?) Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 17:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Ann, you can call it whatever you wish, but it was an abuse of admin priviledges. There is no policy violations on my /block directory. None. Please tell me how preparing an RfC is a policy violation. Please tell me how criticising the BEHAVIOUR of two editors is grounds for a block or "page lock" or whatever you wish to call it. There is NOTHING on my talk page that is worthy of a block or a page lock or whatever. Nothing. Unless, of course, criticizing the behaviour of administrators is against policy. That was my only "crime". I criticized SlimVirgin adn Ed Poor's BEHAVIOUR. I was preparing an RFC against SlimVirgin. And Ed Poor used his admin powers to try and prevent it. The thing is you can't show me a single NPA violation on the /block directory. You can't show me a single policy violation of ANY KIND on my /block directory. BECAUSE THERE ARE NO POLICY VIOLATIONS. You haven't listed a single policy violation. You've only listed edits that I was critical of SlimVirigan end Ed Poor's behaviour around teh Terri Schiavo article. But being critical of someone's behavioiur is not against policy. FuelWagon 17:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

"how SlimVirgin asked Ed to block you (which I'm sure is not true, and which she denies)"

Wow. I just caught that one. It takes quite a bit of willpower to avoid looking at a couple of diffs which make it pretty plain that you are wrong and that SlimVirgin did, in fact, ask Ed to block me.

Ed posts [40]

You made a very good point, Slim:

obsessive diatribes against the blocking admin, or against the editors involved in the dispute that led to the block, not a good thing to be on the receiving end of

Can we deal with this by then (1) giving them a clear Wikipedia:No personal attacks block and then (2) protecting their talk page? (If we had to continue talking about the block - everyone but them of course - we could do it on an unprotected subpage.) Uncle Ed 17:50, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

(bold emphasis added by me)

SlimVirgin is replying via email or some other back channel, so her exact reply is unknown.

Ed then posts [41]

Exactly. And the beauty of it is, the very last comment on their talk page would most likely be a clear and obvious personal attack. (I think the expression I'm looking for goes something like "fried in their own juice".)

Any particular talk pages I should look at? Uncle Ed 18:07, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin again replies via some back channel.

Ed Poor then blocks me the second time [42]

So, you can be "sure its not true" that SlimVirgin didn't ask Ed to block me, and you can take her word for it when she denies as much, but a couple of diffs say otherwise to anyone who isn't invested in a certain interpretation here. Go on, tell me she didn't ask Ed.

Then find anything in my /block directory that is NOT criticism of SlimVirgin or Ed's behaviours. Personal attacks are comments about an editor's character. I was criticizing their behaviour as editors, which is strictly within policy. The only reason I got blocked is because SlimVirgin saw me working on an RfC on my talk page and she asked Ed to lean on me. FuelWagon 03:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

What, Ann? No reply? a couple of simple questions, really. First, show me anything here that justifies a block. That would be something like an NPA violation, such as comments about an editors personal character or comments that include swearing at them, stuff like that. All that you'll find on that page is criticism of SlimVirgin and Ed Poor's behaviour as editor and mediator. And that is completely fair game. Second, given the above diffs I just pointed out, explain to me how SlimVirgin did not ask Ed to block me?

I am sure you realize that this is taking up a lot of time. My exams will be over next week. I'm doing a little bit of quick editing and reverting of vandalism. If I have time, it's actually more important to post a message to one of the numerous pages where you're trying to get some kind of action taken against Ed, but really, if it weren't for the necessity of preventing injustice (i.e. the danger of misleading information or half information about Ed, and possibly SlimVirgin, being believed and acted upon), I'd much rather let the subject drop. I read all the diffs about communication between Ed and SlimVirgin. I read them at the time, since I was reading your talk page at the time of your block, and you provided the diffs then. It looks like a perfectly open, above-board communication that anyone could have read, although for you to have stumbled upon them just then suggests that you were tracking their contributions, which is something you've accused SlimVirgin (and half accused me) of doing with you. If you're objecting to the fact that they communicated openly, I don't see that you have any case. If you're stating that they communicated privately, that's only your opinion, and even if it were true, it's not forbidden. I have communicated privately with several Wikipedians including a few admins. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 11:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Ann, I love your version of half information. Clearly you're half is quite a bit skewed too. If it were left to you, anyone, anywhere, anytime would be able to make personal attacks against me for all eternity, because I violated NPA when I first joined wikipedia. And since no one blocked me, you seem to have taken it upon yourself to make sure anyone who does attack me is defended to the end. Here's another half of the truth that you keep failing to bring up. I didn't violate NPA for a month while mediation was going on until SlimVirign arrived, and then I paid for that NPA violation with a 40 hour block. After that, Ed blocked me again for starting an RfC on my talk page. He says it was for NPA violations, but he refused to point out specific comments. You keep trying to spin it like I was violating NPA, but all you've pointed out was that I edited my talk page a lot and I criticized SlimVirgin and Ed Poor's behaviours. Wow. what a criminal thing to do. All Neuroscientist did was point out that SlimVirgin's edit was rife with factual errors about neurology. Wow. He said her edit was wrong. Ed then attacked the RfC, I'm sure because the RfC was full of NPA violations. And then Ed attacked me directly. That's at least half the truth that you're missing. FuelWagon 14:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

You didn't violate NPA for a month while mediation was going on until SlimVirign arrived????

[43][44][45][46]

[47][48][49]

Those diffs are the result of a quick look. As I've said, I have exams next week. Can you not take my word for it that you have been abusive without demanding any further research? And please don't say that the last one is dated 28 June and that you were blocked on 12 July. I haven't looked at July. I took a quick look, starting at the beginning, because you claimed that you hadn't violated NPA between the start of mediation and Slim's arrival.

Please be aware that my references to your past behaviour are made only because I think they are necessary as part of the defence of people against whom you are continuously making accusations. I am likely to see (and, if I have time, to respond to) any of your attempts to bring further humiliation on someone who has already resigned as bureaucrat, as these attempts are likely to made on pages that are on my watchlist. I have lots of Wikipedia policy pages on my watchlist, but as far as I know the Terri Schiavo article is the only article you edit which I am interested in. If you start editing articles about apricots or purple butterflies or space travel, you can be quite sure that I will not suddenly appear on the scene to tell other editors about your behaviour. I don't track your contributions. The only thing I intend to do is to make sure that anyone in authority who might consider opening some case against Ed or against SlimVirgin based on the half story that you have supplied will be made aware that there is another half.

I wish you well. I'd like to see you happily editing other articles. But as long as the prosecution continues against Ed and Slim, a defence witness will come forward. There's nothing personal about it. If you delete your accusations against SlimVirgin, and stop trying to get Ed's case reopened, and you can be quite sure that I will never again bring up your past record of abuse. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 15:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, so let's have a full reckoning, if that's what you want, Ann. Lets look at every one of my posts that you say violated NPA. Then lets look at every post I was responding to. If I violated NPA, give me a block. If the person I was responding to violated NPOV or NPA or whatever, they get a block too. How's that sound? See, you keep talking about "half" the truth, but what you're doing is taking "half" of the history (all of my edits) and comparing it with no one else but Ed Poor. What I'm asking is to look at my /block page and see if it warrants Ed's second block against me. I'm asking to look at my RfC against SLimVirgin and see if it warrants Ed's attack of the RfC. I'm asking to look at Neuroscientists criticism of SlimVirgin's edit and see if it warrants Ed's warning of violating NPA. I'm asking to look at my conversation with Ed where he "illustrates a point" and see if it warrants his personal attack against me. If you want to open it up to my entire editign history, by all means, lets have a full reckoning. If you look at those diffs, you'll see that they are in response to some blatant POV pushing of one sort or another. If you want to look at them, I'm perfectly fine with looking at each diff and whatever it was in response to, and handing out blocks all around. So, I'm asking mediation committee to look at the diffs directly between Ed and myself, my talk page and Ed's immediate response to block me again. Neuroscientists criticism of SlimVirgin and Ed's reponse to warn him of NPA violation. My RfC and Ed Poor's attack. My conversation with Ed after the RfC was deleted and his NPA violation/"illustrating a point" post. Either way, that request stands. If you think the only way to really clean the slate is to open it up to a full reckoning all the way back to when mediation started, then you can request that, and I'll be willing to submit to that, but only if t is a full reckoning and any post I was responding to gets looked at as well. But if you keep looking at my edits and wish to ignore anyone else's edit it may be in response to, then that would qualify as "half" the truth that you keep talking about. FuelWagon 15:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rewriting history to avoid criticism of Israel

This message is regarding the article Historical persecution by Jews. Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. [ contribs • block • block log ]

☺Adam1213☺|talk 17:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

what are you on about

☺Adam1213☺|talk 17:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment

You seem to be allowing yourself to become over-heated, so that you're not only attacking editors on the Talk page itself (which isn't on) but in edit summaries (which is mentioned in Wikipedia policy as being especially unacceptable). I haven't looked at the content of the issue yet, so don't know where I stand on it; I'll try not to let your behaviour prejudice me as I try to trace back the arguments (though be aware that it's likely to have that effect on many people), but I strongly advise you to calm down, at least outwardly. Whether you're in the right or in the wrong, you're heading for an editing block for pesonal attacks, which won't help anyone. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:17, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I've been looking at the debate; it's difficult to see what it is about the substantial issues that has you so enraged. I'm afraid that I've just reverted your latest edit, as its only function seemed to be to fragment the text (and see the MoS about avoiding one-sentence paragraphs) and to add a pointless and debatable claim about what the subjects of RfCs might feel. Whatever the basis and origin of your animus against SlimVirgin, it's led you into some odd claims. For example, you use an example of her saying that she'd looked at your contributions list on a particular occasion as proof that she monitors your contributions (rather like taking "I called to see you yesterday" as proof that I'm stalking you). As you have clearly been in conflict, it's not surprising that you check each other's User and Talk pages occasionally; it's clear that you've been doing to her exactly what you complain that she's been doing to you. In neither case is it stalking. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:40, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

With regard to the text you referred to:

"Although not formally required before proceeding to arbitration, many arbitration cases begin as RfCs, and arbitration can bring punitive action against an editor. Remember that filing an RFC over a trivial matter is unlikely to receive much attention from the community, and may diminish other users' opinions of you. The RfC may even backfire on you and turn into an RfC against you. Filing an RfC is therefore not a step to be taken lightly or in haste."

You say that the bolded part speculates about editors' feelings, but the only part that comes close to doing that is "and may diminish other users' opinions of you". That is, in fact, not really about how people feel, and in any case is simple fact (bad-faith or weak RfCs often have just that effect, which is evidenced by subsequent comments and behaviour).

I've now been filled in on the background to this, so I realise that there's a lot of bad feeling — but the current battle isn't likely to help. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gang-ups and my question

Ganging-up: K folks, FW isn't going to suddenly abrogate his points because five editors pile in to accuse. In fact, he is going to become more trenchant (as people are wont to do in such cases). So, you know, offer a suggestion/fair question or leave off; the details and accusations have been rehearsed repeatedly.

So here is my suggestion/fair question, which I'll repeat for the third time (tho I understand if it's got lost in the noise): you drop your pages and the accusatory stance generally if "Slim acknowledges that she should have used Talk on a page in mediation before editing" and further "that she will not involve herself with any of your RfCs (or similar) that she has no obvious involvement in." Yes or no? Honestly, don't unpack it—just "oui ou non." Marskell 23:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. You act as if I've never answered the question. I think I've answered a number of times now. Since you want a one-word reply, here it is:

No.

I rather thought I was clear that the whole problem here is SlimVirgin's penchant for rewriting history. Her promises going forward are rather hollow. I tried "forgetting about it" once already, and a month later she was telling all sorts of untruths about my RfC, me, and the people who signed it.

Since SlimVirgin reserves the right to rewrite history, the only thing that will tell me that she won't do it again would be her acknowledgement of certain facts of history.

She made a reckless edit on Terri Schiavo.

She asked Ed to block me the second time,

there is nothing on my /block page that is a policy violation

She should have stayed out of the Bensaccount RfC

She could promise up and down that she won't do this-or-that in the future, or that she'll stay away from any RfC I file in the future. But she would still reserve the right to go back and rewrite history as soon as I delete these subdirectories. She's already down it once. And I'm have no reason to believe she won't do it again. FuelWagon 03:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, no. Yes, you responded, but tangentially. I was just being clear. That's it for me on this particular topic. Marskell 12:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Holiday

I'm sure you have enough on your plate, but if you have time I'd like your input on this: In spite of three sources that justify "thanks to God" in the Thanksgiving section of Holiday, Prosfilaes keeps reverting this inclusion. Since of his siding with SlimVirgin/Jayjg this fact doesn't surprise me, and his last revert was "justified" with "Who cares about the Merriam Webster?". --Vizcarra 00:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)--Vizcarra 00:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Medcom

Alright, how's that there now? Comment back, its on my watchlist. R e dwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 04:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorism

I saw that you added a quote and that Texture deleted it. In my opinion, the quote is relevant to the article, but it could have been integrated with the rest of the information better. If you would like to discuss it in Talk:Terrorism, I would support its inclusion. --Zephram Stark 13:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your summary on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Zephram Stark

Could you tell me why you decided to comment on this old RfC that's been inactive for weeks? It's especially puzzling that the entire comment is essentially a rant against me and other editors that disagree with you at Terrorism. You even admit in the comment that "I didn't get involved in the Terrorism article until October 12th, after the incidents above had already occurred."

I'm finding your behavior to be rather disruptive and running counter to the goal of creating an encyclopedia. FYI, I am considering an RfC to address your hostility against multiple editors on multiple pages. I've personally asked you several times to cease the hostile attitude, but that doesn't appear to have worked. I'm asking you once again to be more civil and not create or exacerbate tension between editors. Carbonite | Talk 19:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

On 06:05, 7 October 2005, Vizcarra posts to my talk page:

The RfC cites the Terrorism article, so I take a look at it. I make my first contribution on 03:53, 12 October 2005 a week later, inserting a verbatim quotation with a URL to verify it. I am immediately reverted. A pack of editors revert me, and the only one who actually PROPOSED A COMPROMISE was Zaphram Stark on 21:31, 14 October 2005. The rest of you simply revert or attempt to downplay or disregard.

I decide the behaviour warrants a comment on the RfC. Vizcarra brought the RfC to my attention. I read it and discover a possible problem on the Terrorism article. I go there and insert a verbatim quote with a URL and immediately get reverted by the people who filed the RfC against Zaphram Stark. Zaphram Stark is the only one who suggested a compromise.

It would appear to me that content is not winning in that article.

I was not aware that the RfC against Zaphram Stark was closed. If you wish to RfC me for commenting on an open RfC, please explain. If you wish to RfC me for going to the RfC in the first place because Vizcarra told me about it, please explain what policy that violates. If you wish to RfC me for inserting a verbatim quotation from a notable source with a URL to verify it, please explain what policy that violated. I don't know why Vizcarra posted that link on my talk page, but if you wish to cry "harrassment" or "stalking", it will be a weak case. Someone reported what they felt was a problem RfC, I took a look, followed it to the article, ran into problems wtih the editors invovled with the RfC, and thought it deserved comment. If this is a violation of policy, I was unaware. FuelWagon 19:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The RfC wasn't "closed", but it was inactive since no one edited it for over three weeks. I'm concerned that you used Zephram's RfC mainly as a forum to air grievances against other editors. Your comment only mentions Zephram in a passing manner instead of focusing on his behavior.

However, your comment on the RfC would only be a minor reason for considered an RfC on your behavior. I've requested several times that you try to be less hostile towards me or other editors that may disagree with you. Your comments on talk pages often end with a snide remark and you have a tendency to demonize anyone with a different opinion. It makes discussion unpleasant and reduces the likelihood of achieving a compromise. I've noticed this behavior on numerous pages with multiple editors, so it's not an isolated incident. Honestly, I don't want to go through the hassle of an RfC, but I do want to make it clear that I find this behavior unacceptable. Carbonite | Talk 20:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

"I'm concerned that you used Zephram's RfC mainly as a forum to air grievances against other editors." Yeah, I used it as a forum to air grievances against editors on the Terrorism article who filed the RfC agaisnt Zaphram.

Just to remind you, teh RfC against Zaphram opens with the following rather neutral statement of dispute:

Zephram Stark, and nobody else, has persistently claimed that there is something deeply and fundamentally wrong with the article's introduction. Despite receiving no support whatsoever and overwhelming opposition, he has stubbornly continued repeating the same complaints and frequently making low-quality changes agreed to by nobody except himself.

With his thick-headedness he is single-handedly holding this article hostage.

do you think the RfC dispute summary is 100% accurate and honest? Or do you think it might have put a little bit of spin on things? I think that dispute summary needed a response. My experience of the article starting on October 12 was that the old-timers reverted me blindly, so I doubt the veracity that Zephram was the only stubborn editor on the article, and I doubt that he was single-handedly holding the article hostage. FuelWagon 20:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The Zephram matter had already moved to arbitration, the RfC was serving little purpose at this point. I only noticed your comment because it was still on my watchlist. Still, if you wished to comment, it should have concentrated on Zephram's behavior, not on what may have occurred with other editors over a month after the RfC was initiated (and weeks after anyone else had edited it).

As I already mentioned, your comments on the RfC are not my main concern. I'm concerned that you often seem to be quite hostile towards editors who disagree with you. I know that I've received a few less-than-civil comments when I've expressed an opinion counter to yours. If an editor can't discuss edits without taking shots at others, an RfC may be an appropriate next step. Carbonite | Talk 20:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

So, 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? I suppose you could argue that threatening me with an RfC still qualifies as "civil", but it's coming across as rather "hostile" to me. And you didn't answer my question, do you think the RfC summary is 100% on? or do you think a comment counter to it could be legitimately made? As far as I know, an RfC hangs around forever, and since it hadn't been closed, since it was still fairly recent, since Vizcarra pointed it out to me, it seemed acceptable to make a comment. But it was only when I posted the outside comment on the RfC that disagreed with you that you came to me with threats of RfC because I'm hostile to editors who disagree with me. Interesting. FuelWagon 20:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

An RfC isn't a "threat", it's a chance to get the community's opinions. In fact, I will be proceeding with writing up an RfC due to the fact that haven't addressed the central issue of your continuing hostility. I've mentioned several times that your comments on Zephram's RfC is not a major issue for me, but I was curious at to why you posted there. I also notice that you posted a rather detailed list of my edits on Terrorism, while barely mentioning Zephram Stark. I've attempted to address issues with you outside of the dispute resolution process, but these attempts have failed. Hopefully the community will be able to provide some helpful opinions on the RfC. Carbonite | Talk 22:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I picture Carbonite as a little Cartman, running around in a cop uniform saying, "Respect my authority!!" --Zephram Stark 23:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FuelWagon RfC

Please add you comments to this RfC. Thanks. Carbonite | Talk 23:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome, Cartmanite. --Zephram Stark 00:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_comment_FuelWagon_2_FuelWagonTalkPageSnapshot_1ab2.html"