Wikipedia:Requests for comment/FuelWagon 2

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: {insert UTC timestamp with 23:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 21:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC).

(FuelWagon | talk | contributions)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute[edit]

FuelWagon is often hostile towards editors that disagree with him, which results in an unpleasant editing environment. He also has a tendency to make disputes personal rather than focus on the content.

Description[edit]

FuelWagon has been an editor on Wikipedia since April 2005. After reverting warring on Terri Schiavo for several months, he was eventually blocked on 12 July 2005 by User:Ed Poor for 40 hours "unrepentant personal attacks" block log. I first encountered him on Wikipedia:Words to avoid, where he was openly hostile to editors who disagreed with his opinion (he was seeking to eliminate the use of the phrase "conspiracy theory"). More recently he's displayed similar behavior at Terrorism and Wikipedia:Request for comment.

Note about the reason for this RfC[edit]

FuelWagon implied in his response below that this RfC was the result of comments he made in Zephram Stark's RfC. This is incorrect, as I have explained to FuelWagon several times [1] [2].

This RfC was the due to FuelWagon's hostile behavior towards multiple editors over an extended period of time. His comments on Zephram's RfC did prompt me to inquire why he posted there. I also stated "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."

FuelWagon's implication that this RfC is only about a few comments he made on another RfC couldn't be further from the truth. A large number of diffs have already been provided below; the vast majority of which have nothing to do with Zephram's RfC. Carbonite | Talk 13:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This RfC was brought in accordance with the description on Wikipedia:Request for comment (I've emphasized several points):

Wikipedia:Requests for comment is the open part of the dispute resolution process, which seeks community input regarding specific topical, policy, and personality disputes. Ultimately, the content of Wikipedia is determined by making progress toward a community consensus. However, the size of Wikipedia prevents community members from actively following every development. As a result, sometimes it's useful to request broader opinions from the rest of the community.

FuelWagon has stated several times that I "threatened" him with this RfC. However, given his extensive editing of the RfC policy page, he's well aware that RfCs are not a punitive measure. I have no intention of using this RfC as anything other than a means to obtain community input. Carbonite | Talk 20:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of disputed behavior[edit]

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

[3] "Moron. Republican held senate majority for 6 of clinton's years. That is a simple fact. even if you whitewash it, the assert goes later. rewrote it."
[4] Implies that a revert of his edit was due to "POV pushing"
[5] After Slim Virgin provides a reason for the revert, FuelWagon's comment ends with "OK, that excuse didn't work, time to shift tactics and come up with a completely different one."
[6] Carbonite questions the inclusion of the quote by asking why a notable activist such as Chomsky should be quoted, but not another such as Sean Penn. FuelWagon again ends his comment with the sarcastic "Would you care to try again? Perhaps you can compare Noam Chomsky to Paris Hilton."
[7] Carbonite responds by saying "Once again, please tone down your hostility. I'd prefer that this discussion be a bit more civilized." FuelWagon response includes the statement "Hostility? Hey, man, you were the one who mentioned Sean Penn. Now that I come back with the same flippant attidute and mention Paris Hilton, you want to call it hostility. Sorry, it works both ways. If you can dish it out, be prepared to take some as well."
[8] After continues to push the Chomsky quote into the article, FuelWagon questions the motives of Jayjg and Carbonite with "Hey, carbonite, jayjg, fancy meeting you here. Fancier still seeing back to back reverts by you two. Imagine that."
[9] FuelWagon contimues to taunt Jayjg about the Chomsky quote. "Hey, Jayjg, the Chomsky quote is relevant and a bunch of POV pushers are trying to delete it. I found a verbatim quote, a URL, and sufficient justification for why Chomsky counts as a notable source. Now, I recall that during the "wikistalking" proposed policy, the great many people opposed the idea of making it policy because content wins out over someone's personal feelings. So, you wanna talk about how your feeling thinking I'm stalking you? Or you wanna talk about content?"
[10] FuelWagon taunts Carbonite on Carbonite's talk page "Nice to see the admins sticking together. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside."
[11] In response to a revert war he's engaged in on another page Wikipedia:Request for comment, FuelWagon tells Carbonite "As far as I'm concerned, you're all the same."
[12] FuelWagon posts an "outside" view on Zephram Stark's RfC, which had been inactive for over three weeks. He uses this forum to attack the actions of "SlimVirgin, Jayjg, Carbonite, and Texture...", while barely touching on the action of Zephram Stark.
[13] After Carbonite inquires as to why FuelWagon posted the hostile summary on Zephram's RfC, FuelWagon provides weak justification (a link to Zephram's ArbCom case had been posted on his talk page 9 days prior). FuelWagon also ignore Carbonite request "I'm asking you once again to be more civil and not create or exacerbate tension between editors.".
[14] FuelWagon responds with yet another hostile comment, accusing Carbonite of threatening him with an RfC.
[15] FuelWagon uses Zephram Stark's ArbCom evidence page to air his grievances about Carbonite, SlimVirgin and Jayjg.
[16] FuelWagon attacks Jayjg on Jayjg's talk page for reverting one of his edits on Wikipedia:Request for comment.
[17] Attacks a newbie, User:Adam1213 for his signature and misunderstanding the definition of vandalism. "Your signature is the sign of someone crying out for attention." and "Hey, vandalism boy, you get on the counter-vandalism unit, someone gives you a title, and you think you can declare whatever you want to be vandalism?"
[18] Responds to a comment from User:El C with hostile remarks: "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."
[19] Accuses Jayjg of being SlimVirgin's meatpuppet. "ANd the only reason you're here is because you're SlimVirgin's meatpuppet." Later retracts the statement with a similarly hostile remark [20] "I stand corrected. Jayjg is not a meatpuppet. He's simply a POV warrior."

Description of the dispute by SlimVirgin[edit]

FuelWagon has been engaged since July in a campaign of harassment against me, which recently extended to wikistalking. He has posted probably several hundred edits about me on various talk pages, around 100 on July 12-13 alone, some of which he keeps here. The background in brief: I first encountered him in June when an editor complained about FW's behavior at Nuclear option (filibuster), where he was reverting a lot and being aggressive on the talk page; as a result of the complaint, I blocked him for 3RR. [21] I received another complaint about him in July, where he and three new editors had allegedly taken ownership of Terri Schiavo. I did a copy edit of the article, which FW reverted, accompanied by personal attacks, in which he called me a "f**%!ng *$$s0le," a "f**%!ng jerk," "you arrogant cuss," a "jerkoff," and an "arrogant arse." [22] [23] Ed Poor subsequently blocked him for the attacks. Ann Heneghan has written an accurate account of the dispute here [24] if anyone wants more detail. This has led FW to start attacking Ann too.

Since then, FW has done almost nothing but attack Ed Poor and me. He filed an RfC on me in July, which was deleted because he couldn't show prior attempts at dispute resolution, but before deletion, it was clear it had gone firmly against him, with around 20 editors signing opposing views within 48 hours. (He claims now it was deleted because he kindly withdrew his certification, but that simply isn't true: he withdrew certification when he was told it was going to be deleted.) Despite this, he continues to bring up the Terri Schiavo copy edit, Ed's block, and the RfC at every available opportunity. He has restored the deleted RfC and its talk page to subpages here and here and he maintains an "attack" page about me here.

El C, Ann Heneghan, Willmcw, Marskell, FeloniousMonk, and Viriditas have tried to help resolve the dispute. FW's long, aggressive responses to some of them begin here and continue to almost the end of the page. The upshot was that he posted a list of 12 things that I must do before he will leave me alone, [25] which involve me posting confessions of my wrong-doing on various talk pages. Willmcw said the list reminded him of "what North Korean captors required their U.S. P.O.W.s to do." [26]

He has also started wikistalking me, appearing on pages he has never edited before, but which I have just edited, reverting me, and accusing me of bad-faith editing on the talk pages. These are just a few examples: on September 16, after I edited Wikipedia:Words to avoid, [27] he arrived there for the first time and reverted me. [28] On September 26 after I edited Refusal to serve in the Israeli military, [29] he arrived there for the first time and reverted me. [30] Also on September 26, I edited Israel, [31] and a few hours later he made an edit there for the first time. [32] On September 30, I edited Historical persecution by Jews, [33] and he arrived there for the first time, reverted me within six minutes of my edit, [34] and began attacking me on the talk page. I then edited Historical persecution by Christians [35] and he arrived there for the first time within eight minutes to revert me, [36] again attacking me on the talk page. In none of the articles he followed me to did he make a substantive edit, or a comment on the talk page about content. His comments were entirely about me.

In parallel to his behavior towards me, FW has engaged in a similar campaign against Ed Poor over the same issue. He went after Ed during Ed's RfAr, [37] also posting attacks on the talk page. When the case closed, he continued to attack Ed starting here until the end of the page, asking that the RfAr be re-opened, because in FW's view, Ed hadn't been punished enough. Because no one supported him, on September 22, he posted his complaints about Ed on Jimbo's talk page [38] and [39] and receiving no response, posted again to Jimbo on September 24, appealing the arbcom's ruling in Ed's case. [40] So far as I know, he received no response to that either. On September 25, he starting trying to have a black mark left on Ed's mediation record, and between then and October 16, he again posted several distorted accounts of the story to the Mediation Committee's talk page here. And in fact, as of October 18, he's still doing it [41] though it's not even clear what he wants. Redwolf has asked him: "Would you like me to stamp a warning on Ed's face?" [42]

It's difficult to convey the scale of FW's aggressive behavior, but it has reached the point of being worrying because of the obsessive nature of it, and because he seems to have no insight into how damaging it is, to himself and others. I've tried ignoring his comments and responding to them, ignoring his reverts, and reverting them, I sent him two friendly e-mails in August in an effort to appeal to him, and in September told him I was considering an RfAr, [43] but none of it has made any difference. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Applicable policies[edit]

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute[edit]

(provide diffs and links)

I (Carbonite) tried to resolve the Terrorism dispute with FuelWagon in several ways. First, although I strongly disagreed with inclusion of the quote, I never removed it. Instead I attempted to resolve the dispute through a compromise. In fact, I only edited the passage in question twice. I first removed some weasel words "Some maintain..."[44] and then [45] removed some language lauding Chomsky. During this whole dispute, I was discussing the matter on the talk page. Second, in response to FuelWagon's hostile remarks on the Terrorism talk page, I requested "FuelWagon, please try to tone down the hostility of your reponses (or at least the last sentences of them)." [46] After FuelWagon brought the dispute onto Zeprham's RfC, I tried to resolve the dispute on FuelWagon's talk page. It's also important to keep in mind that I was aware that numerous editors had tried (unsuccessfully) to resolve issues with FuelWagon's hostility. For this reason, I did spend less time than I would have if I knew the dispute was solely between FuelWagon and me. When viewed in conjunction with the many attempts by many other editors to resolve disputes with FuelWagon, I believe my dispute resolution attempts were adequate. Finally, I submitted this RfC to obtain community input, not as a punitive measure.
SlimVirgin sent two e-mails to FuelWagon on August 26 in an effort to resolve the dispute, but his responses were not conciliatory and there was no change in his subsequent behavior. SlimVirgin's e-mails can be read at User:SlimVirgin/FW, but FW's replies have been withheld (unless he gives his permission).
Viriditas exchanged about eight e-mails with FuelWagon between August 31 and September 5 in an attempt to resolve the dispute. This series of e-mails, entitled "SlimVirgin, RfC archive, etc", discussed various issues ranging from the RfC filed by FuelWagon, harassment of SlimVirgin, assuming good faith, allegations of ad hominem attacks, treating users with respect, not using Wikipedia as a battleground, diffusing conflict, and ending the dispute in general. There was no resolution.
El C posted several times to FuelWagon's talk page between October 3 and October 10 to ask him to delete the "attack page" on SlimVirgin and the deleted RfC he had copied to a subpage, and to tone down his approach, [47] [48] There was no resolution of the issue, and El C concluded: "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." [49]
Marskell also posted repeated comments on FuelWagon’s page in an attempt to mediate and offered the following compromise thrice to FW: "drop the pages and confrontational stance with SlimVirgin if she acknowledges she should have used Talk before editing Terri Schiavo and promises not to involve herself in FuelWagon's RfCs or similar without an invitation or obvious interest in the subject." [50] [51] [52] When last suggested Marskell specifically asked other editors not to gang-up and never accused FuelWagon, suggesting instead that expecting 12 points from SlimVirgin was unreasonable but that this compromise was not. FuelWagon's final response to the offer was clear: "Since you want a one-word reply, here it is: No." [53]
FeloniousMonk has attempted on his own accord to broker a resolution by email between FuelWagon and SlimVirgin as recently as 14 October.
Ann Heneghan asked FuelWagon on 17 June to stop using foul language and being aggressive, insulting, and hostile. [54] The foul language continued until 12 July, when FuelWagon was blocked. The hostily and insults continued after the block. On 15 September, when FuelWagon had posted another of his numerous attempts to have some action taken against Ed Poor, Ann appealed to him to drop the case and move on, reminding him that he had been welcomed back as a member in good standing after his block. [55] On 5 October, Ann left a note for FuelWagon pointing out that he was being selective in the information he submitted while making complaints against Ed Poor. She expressed admiration for some of FuelWagon's better qualities, but said that it was a pity he couldn't move on, because he was losing some of the respect he had gained. [56] Following several statements and/or insinuations from FuelWagon that Ann was commenting on the Ed Poor case simply because she had a grudge against FuelWagon, Ann left a note for him on 13 October [57] assuring him that she had no grudge, and explaining that her references to his past behaviour were made as a necessary part of defending people against whom he was continuously making accusations. She assured him that if he stopped trying to bring further humiliation upon Ed (who had resigned as bureaucrat) and if he deleted his accusation page against SlimVirgin, she would never again bring up his history of abuse.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

Carbonite | Talk 23:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Willmcw 23:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
El_C 21:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Viriditas | Talk 22:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 07:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Uncle Ed 03:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

Jayjg ^(talk) 19:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Slrubenstein | Talk 19:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
FeloniousMonk 01:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A sad and sordid tale. It's a shame good editors like Slim have to waste so much of their valuable editing and administrivia time with such menial tasks as making sure the garbage is properly marked. Tom e r ^TALK 09:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 19:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC) agreed, what a waste of energy on everyone's part[reply]
--MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 20:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
←Humus sapiens ←ну? 20:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ambi 00:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
JFW | T@lk 07:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
— goethean ॐ 15:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Cberlet 13:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Borisblue 19:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
– Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 20:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

Well, it would appear that the people who pushed this RfC are snowballing the evidence to include an ever wider and wider list of disputes in an effort to overwhelm. Since they've now expanded it to include multiple statements of disputes from different editors regarding different disputes they have with me, I'll attempt to break my response down into the various specific disputes.

Response regarding NPA[edit]

I was blocked for 40 hours for NPA violations on 21:02 July 12 by Ed Poor. I accepted the block without protest and have not violated NPA since. There is no "dispute" regarding NPA because the dispute was resolved as of July 12. As it happens, I was in the process of cleaning up my NPA comments when Ed blocked me, so I was cleaning up my act. I apologized to SlimVirgin for NPA violations here. This issue was resolved. I was blocked. I served my time. I apologized. And I haven't violated NPA since. SlimVirgin is axe-grinding and bringing this up as if it were a current issue. I'm not sure if she expects a second apology, or if she wishes to see me get another block for the same NPA violation, or what.

I mention this first because the "evidence" against me includes the word "attack" approximately 12 times. Yet, the last attack you will see by me occurred July 12, I was blocked, served my time, and apologized. Every accusation of "attack" in the evidence above implies that it means "FuelWagon broke NPA policy", but actually it means "FuelWagon opposed someone and they didn't like it".

Response regarding 3RR violation[edit]

Wow. the 3RR violation was 21 June, so SlimVirgin is bringing out all the baggage, regardless of whether it is resolved or not. There has been no dispute on the Nuclear option (filibuster) article for months. When SlimVirgin blocked me, I emailed her to inform her that I was attempting to insert a quote from Al Gore [58] that another editor kept trying to take out. She said that since I was quoting Al Gore it showed that I was a "partisan" editor. I'm not exactly sure, but reporting the former vice president doesn't strike me as either 'partisan' or a violation of any policy. In any event the 3RR issue was resolved months ago. User A ghost came in and helped rewrite teh article and found a compromise. FuelWagon 06:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response regarding Terri Schiavo article[edit]

SlimVirgin walked into the Terri Schiavo article with absolutely no experience with the article or the topic. (in fact this edit shows her deleting an embedded note saying:

This paragraph is a direct quote from Dr. Bernat's testimony before the U.S. Senate in April 2005. Dr. Bernat's testimony was approved by the AAN Executive Committee. The two links provided document the testimony and the AAN approval

And inserting her own note saying:

Is this true? I seem to recall a case in England where a man woke up after a long time in PVS.

Her knowledge of teh issue appeared to be anecdotal at best. the article was also marked as a "controversial topic" and was in mediation for about a month. She proceeded to make a dozen edits to the article with the "edit in progress" tag in place. Even when an actual Neuroscientist posted a 5,000 word explanation listing all the factual and NPOV problems with her edit [59], SlimVirgin insisted her edit contained no errors and should be reinserted in teh article. In fact she denied at every turn that there was even a single factual error in her edit:

Please say what your specific objections are, rather than reverting. [60]

please discuss your objections on talk. [61]

I'm assuming the above can't be your only objection, so please lay them out [62]

If you feel I've introduced errors, please list them on talk [63]

You haven't yet explained why you want to exclude that information.[64]

neither of you has said what your objection is. [65]

If these are your only objections, I don't know why you reverted all my edits. [66]

Show me one error I made in the article, either factual or grammatical. [67]

If this is the only issue you can find with my copy edit, why did you revert it? [68]

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. [69]

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. [70]

If I made a factual error, point to it. [71]

Meanwhile, she accused the main editors who were criticizing her edit (myself, Duckecho, Neuroscientist, and A ghost) of all sorts of behavorial problems in response to any criticism of her content. Yet every time anyone asked for a specific diff to support her accusation, they were met with silence.

SlimVirgin wrote "I feel that FuelWagon and Duckecho are POV pushing too by insisting, for example, that no dissenting voice be heard in the intro." FuelWagon never made the claim that no dissenting voice be heard in the intro. When confronted with this, SlimVirgin never responded or corrected her statement.

SlimVirgin wrote It appears that a small group of editors, currently consisting of User:FuelWagon and User:Duckecho have taken ownership of this page and won't allow others to edit without their consent. This isn't allowed. No one was "owning" the page or wouldn't let others edit it without our "consent". Despite numerous posts describing all the factual errors in her massive edit, SlimVirgin refused to acknowledge a single error and instead blamed other editors.

Here, SlimVirgin accuses FuelWagon of violating NPOV and "No Original Research". FuelWagon asked for diffs to show where he violated NPOV or where he violated No original research. SlimVirgin never responded and never retracted her accusation.

SlimVirgin accused FuelWagon of "arguing for the sake of arguing" about the prognosis for PVS. SlimVirgin's edit questioned the American Association of Neurology's prognosis of persistent vegatative state based on a single anecdotal case she "heard" about in England.

Response regarding RfC against SlimVirgin[edit]

Just to be clear, SlimVirgin's opinion of an RfC is "An RfC is like putting someone in the stocks. In my view, it's a horrible process, and I would only do it to POV warriors and trolls who couldn't be blocked for disruption. I've never seen good come from an RfC" [72] This should explain her response to my RfC against her.

The RfC against SlimVirgin covered the number of factual and NPOV errors in her edit, her refusal to admit even a single error in any of her edits, her demand that her edit be reinstated, and her accusations against the editors who criticized her content. It can be read in full here. The RfC talk page is here. And an endorsement by Ed Poor supporting the RfC is posted here because Ed later retracted that comment and deleted it entirely. (interesting that SlimVirgin generally demanded that I not move any of my comments on the RfC, but that I strike them out. Funny she never demanded the same of Ed's comment) Ed's comment ended with "Basically, Slim moved too far, too fast at Terry Schiavo.".

The RfC recieved sufficient certification to remain active. SlimVirgin claims that there wasn't sufficient evidence showing attempts to resolve the dispute, but that's an interesing accusation given the ever-widening list of diffs on THIS RfC that people are trying to pass off as attempts to "resolve" this dispute. They still haven't hit it. But I'll get to that later.

Anyway, I withdrew certification, and the RfC was deleted. The hatchet was buried as far as I was concerned.

A month later, SlimVirgin is opposing one of my edits on another page. She says I must be pushing teh edit "because of the RfC you filed" [73] and then tells me that "no credible editor, other than you, saw the merit in that RfC" [74]. Witihin a month, SlimVirgin has officially unburied the hatchet, and is trying to use it againt me.

I upload a copy of the RfC to my userspace [75] and tell her that User:Neuroscientist was an actual neurological specialist. Rather than admit that someone credible supported the RfC, she questioned whether he was really a neuroscientist. I mentioned that User:Proto also endorsed the RfC and he showed up to defend his "credibility". SlimVirgin made no retraction.

A few hours after I upload the RfC to my user space, SlimVirgin asks user Maurreen about the "appropriateness" of having a deleted RfC in a user's subdirectory. [76]. The reply comes back that precedence allows for a deleted RfC to be kept in a user's subdirectory [77].

There is no "dispute" remaining around keeping a copy of a deleted RfC in my subdirectory. It is not against policy. More about this later.

Response regarding Bensaccount RfC[edit]

I filed the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bensaccount 22 August. It Was certified by myself, Banno, Parker Whittle, and endorsed by Clair de Lune, Ec5618, Robert McClenon, Linuxbeak, and Synaptitude. SlimVirgin was not involved in any of the cited articles, she was not involved in the dispute, she made no comments on the RfC. Bensaccount makes a short reply to the RfC saying little but ending with "I won't even bother any more". He makes no further reply, and makes no edits at all to wikipedia. After a week, I talk with the certifiers about withdrawing certification in an attempt to give Bensaccount a second chance and start with a clean slate. They agree, we move our "certification" to "endorse", and I post a request to have the RfC deleted 21:56, 31 August 2005

I offered to delete an RfC against an editor to give them a clean slate. This was teh same reason I deleted my own certification of the RfC against SlimVirgin, to wipe the slate clean. This is just the sort of a thing a person who uses wikipedia as a battleground would do.

Earlier that day, SlimVirgin posted on my talk page that she is "all out of good faith" [78]. 03:26, 31 August 2005

SlimVirgin saw the request to delete the Bensaccount RfC and jumps on it within an hour. "This looks like another example of an inappropriate RfC filed by you" [79] 22:47, 31 August 2005

The discussion moves to the Bensaccount RfC talk page, and SlimVirgin is crusading to call this an "inappropriate" RfC, which means everyone who certified or endorsed it were part of an inappropriate RfC, and they don't particularly like that.

Banno posted "Perhaps you should leave your baggage behind you, and look at the evidence anew." [80]

SlimVirgin posted "I'm not quite sure what you mean by baggage." (to use the words of Bishonen, with "injured innocence") [81]

Banno posted to SlimVirgin "It was you who referred to this being "another example of an inappropriate RfC filed by fuelwagon" (my emphasis) - I assume you are referring to some other correspondence with him: this is the baggage to which I referred. ... I am insulted and angered at your lack of good faith in my actions, which you impugn along with Fuelwagon's." [82]

FuelWagon posted to SlimVirgin "You are biased against the editor who filed this RFC. you are involved. And now you're usign this as ammunition to prove to wikipedia what a horrible, bad-faith editor I am. Go away. You don't care whether procedure was followed for this RFC, you are looking for mud to sling." [83]

PWhittle posted to SlimVirgin "I'm rather at a loss to determine how one might have even suggested a compromise, other than to attempt to resolve the dispute, as the links provided showed." [84]

FuelWagon posted "SlimVirgin has now twice deleted my comments on her behaviour here, once declaring them a "personal attack" and once simply saying "reverting". [2], [3]. Can someone explain to me how comments on an editor's BEHAVIOUR as an editor qualifies as a personal attack? Can someone explain to me why anyone would "revert" comments on a talk page? SlimVirgin is now suppressing criticism of her behaviour on the grounds that it is a personal attack. She has publicly declared she will not assume good faith on my part, and so her questioning the legitimacy of this RFC cannot lead to any other conclusion from her other than it being an illegitimate RFC. She is biased. She is now suppressing criticism of her behaviour as an editor." [85]

Ec5618 posted "SlimVirgin, stop it. You're being extremly petty."[86]

Just recently, Bensaccount shows up on one of the disputed articles and makes what appears to be another disputed edit. I decide to add the diff to teh RfC, and archive the talk page in case there is a discussion. SlimVirgin ends up reverting my archive. [87]. There is no reason for her to this other than to harass. The discussion page had been inactive for six weeks.

So, tell me again about making wikipedia a "battleground". SlimVirgin had nothing to do with this RfC for a week, she was not editing any of the articles in the dispute prior to this. The day she tells me shes all out of good faith, she lunges on this RfC and goes on a crusade to nail me for an "inappropriate" RfC. Several of the other editors who supported the RfC see her actions as "baggage" and as "petty".

Response regarding Ed Poor[edit]

Ed Poor was mediating the Terri Schiavo article for about a month before SlimVirgin came into teh article.

Ed blocked me for violating NPA against SlimVirgin. I didnt protest it and accepted the block.

User Neuroscientist posts a 5,000 word criticism of the content of SlimVirgin's edit, including numerous factual and NPOV problems. It gets into a lot of technical and neurological detail. [88]. SlimVirgin replies "I don't appreciate the personal comments you've lobbed at me" and she acknowledges not a single factual error on her part. Instead she announces she is withdrawing from editing to decide if she should deal with the page as an admin instead of an editor. [89]. Ed Poor responds to Neuroscientist by warning him not to violate NPA [90]. Neither Ed nor SlimVirgin acknowledge a single factual or NPOV error pointed out by Neuroscientist.

I start working on an RfC against SlimVirgin on my talk page. SlimVirgin complains. Ed asks her if there's any specific talk page he should look at [91]. Two hours later [92], Ed moves all the edits on my talk page that are critical of SlimVirgin to a /block subdirectory and blocks me because "you have not said anything about how you intend to help this project." [93] He quickly realized that was a silly excuse for blocking someone and then adds that I was making "personal remarks" [94]. The entire /block directory can be read here. If you can find a violation of NPA, please let me know.

I asked Ed to "point out what exactly on my talk-page was "hurtful" that got me completely locked (I was doing my best to write my objections to SlimVirgin's edit without any mention of personal character)" [95]. Ed avoided answering teh question, responding "If you want to dig into whether I've "followed the rules", if you're more interested in that than in making a good article, go ahead and RFC/RFA/RFdeadmin me or whatever. We can have a mud-wrestling contest, but neither or us will enjoy it much and we'll both get filthy." [96]. This to me basically says that there were no NPA violations on my talk page that he moved to teh /block directory, and that he did it solely because I was working on the RfC against SlimVirgin, and SlimVirgin was a personal friend.

Once I file teh RfC against SlimVirgin, Ed gave it hesitant and partial endorsement saying " Basically, Slim moved too far, too fast at Terry Schiavo." [97]. Mel Etitis opposed the RfC saying "Ed Poor has shown poor judgement in endorsing this, in my opinion. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)" to which Ed Poor responded "I have withdrawn my endorsement - which was only partial and tentative. Uncle Ed 20:40, July 15, 2005 (UTC)" [98]. Ed then goes on the RfC talk page and attacks it and anyone supporting it as "building a case", gaming the system in a hypocritical bullying way, and "spurious". [99]

I withdraw my certification and the RfC is deleted. Ed then gives me a lesson in free speech:

You're entitled to form whatever opinion you want, but not always to express it. There is no freedom of speech at Wikipedia in the same sense as America's First Amendment. I happen to think you're an asshole and a shit head, and that you're fucking everything up, you stupd, time-wasting bully!!! (This is inserted as an example of a forbidden comment, go ahead and complain about me if you want, but I was illustrating a point. [100]

So, basically, I have 4 points of issue regarding Ed Poor's behaviour while mediating the Terri Schiavo article. (1) there are no NPA violations in my /block directory and his second block against me was underserved and simply an attempt to stop the RfC against SlimVirgin (2) Ed warns Neuroscientist for violating NPA when all Neuroscientist did was critique SlimVirgin's edit (3) Ed Poor engaged in teh debate on the RfC and attacked it and the people who filed it as building a case, gaming the system, bullying, and spurious (4) Ed Poor then attacked me under the justification of teaching me a lesson about free speech.

I submitted this information to arbcom, but they chose not to make any findings of fact on the issue, and instead accepted Ed Poor's resignation as Bureaucrat without saying anything about what he may have done wrong. Effectively, arbcom pardoned Ed Poor of any wrong doing in exchange for his resignation as bureaucrat. I asked arbcom to reopen the case. Fred Bauder said they declined, but I could appeal to Jimbo Wales. I did. Got no response. Then I took it to the mediation committee, and am still trying to work something out there.

SlimVirgin posts " And in fact, as of October 18, he's still doing it [41] though it's not even clear what he wants. Redwolf has asked him: "Would you like me to stamp a warning on Ed's face?"". The section she refers to starts by me asking the mediation person if there is something that can be done that is NOT impeachment about a mediator who doesn't mediate.

Response regarding "attack"[edit]

In her narative above, SlimVirgin states "Since then, FW has done almost nothing but attack Ed Poor and me." This is convenient for her, since she gets to make the accusation without supplying a single diff. I filed an RfC against SlimVirgin. She has begrudged me since.

She also says "In parallel to his behavior towards me, FW has engaged in a similar campaign against Ed Poor over the same issue." I've explained above the issue around Ed Poor. I am trying to take my issue with Ed Poor through the dispute resolution system. That shouldn't be a policy violation.

SlimVirgin also states "He has restored the deleted RfC and its talk page to subpages here and here and he maintains an "attack" page about me here." First of all, SlimVirgin already knows that there is precedence that it is not against policy to keep a copy of a delete RfC around on a user's subdirectory. Second of all, she was the one who unburied that hatchet, and third of all, the "attack page" contains no NPA violations or any other violations, and simply lists a history of how things have come about. What she calls an "attack" page was something I started when she started trying to rewrite history around the RfC I filed against her, and it became clear that I would need to keep track of what has happened in the past.

Most of this response is taken from that history page. Without it, it would take days to track through the individual articles and attempt to rediscover what someone said where and when. And given that she has been intent on rewriting history to the point of RfC'ing me for all sorts of non-existent or already-resolved disputes, for accusing me of "attacks" when there were none, for accusing me of all manner of harrassment while conveniently forgetting to mention her contribution to the dispute, it would seem a page of relevant diffs was justified.

Response to EL_Cs attempts to resolve[edit]

SlimVirgin states "El C, Ann Heneghan, Willmcw, Marskell, FeloniousMonk, and Viriditas have tried to help resolve the dispute. FW's long, aggressive responses to some of them begin here and continue to almost the end of the page".

Interesting. Lets just be clear. El_C was an editor who supported SlimVirgin on my RfC against her. And he was rather vocal about it on the talk page to the point of saying "I challenge" to some issues. He was not attempting to resolve the dispute, he wanted it to go away. From the RfC against SlimVirgin [101]

Actually, no. Citing official Wikipedia policy is not a personal attack, I challenge. El_C 22:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

She didn't CITE it. She accused me of violating it, which I didn't do. Citing it would be something like "taking ownership of a page violates wikipedia policy". She just came out and said I've violated it. And if saying "it appears" in front of something gives you a blank check to say anything, sign me up. As for whether or not I did or did not violate "ownership", I answered that on the talk page due to length. FuelWagon 22:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To me, that appears to be an exercize in sophistry. El_C 23:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for Assuming Good Faith on my part. FuelWagon 23:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise. I never claimed it was intentional, but I feel it is the reality nonetheless, and I am entitled to hold that opinion. El_C 23:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Look, the reason I filed an RFC was in part because an attempt to work it out on talk simply exploded. I thought that perhaps an RFC could bring in an outside, unbiased voice. SlimVirgin made a reckless edit and she still holds that it should be reinserted. If you want to ignore all the issues on an RFC because one point sounds sophist to you, fine. But I don't need people like you challenging me here. I'm trying to avoid another explosion. FuelWagon 23:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll comment on and direct challenges toward whatever I see fit, I'm not bound by the conditions you set. El_C 00:03, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

El_C is the person that SlimVirgin says "have tried to help resolve the dispute." Well, lets look at that "attempt to resolve", shall we? Quite out of teh blue, El_C comes onto my talk page and posts the following demand:

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) [102][reply]

Basically, justify to me why you are keeping these pages or I'll have them deleted. I tell him that precedence already shows that having deleted RfC pages around is within acceptable policy, and that the only other page is an explanation of the history as to how and why the deleted RfC has been uploaded in the first place. There are no NPA violations on any of tehse pages.

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) [103]

I also point out that users like FeloniousMonk kept running records of other editors and no one harrassed him. I ask El_C if he encouraged FeloniousMonk to follow through the dispute resolution procedures as El_C is encouraging me? Did he give FM the same encouragement he is giving me?

No, not the same. El_C 20:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC) [104][reply]

I don't personally approve of FuelWagon keeping records of his disputes with other editors, but I support his right to do so. Yes, a few records hither and yon are important to document, but this is, in my honest opinion, unhealthy for Wagon. That said, in response to El_C, yes, it may not be the same, but Wagon still has the right to keep records on his user and talk pages. I don't see how it harms anybody else. For all I know, he may have records on me, but I don't see how that changes things: If I did something, I did it, and if I didn't, then I didn't. Can someone say "making a mountain out of a molehill?" I think all parties are to some extent guilty of this, and I say this as outside info, to be helpful, not to be offensive.--GordonWatts 06:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So, SlimVirgin's invocation of El_C as an attempt to "resolve" this dispute is rather laughable. El_C was combative on the RfC against SlimVirgin, defending SlimVirgin and attacking and challenging the poeple who filed it. He was likewise equally combative on my talk page, opening "discussion" by demanding I properly justify my subdirectories to him or that he will have them deleted. It was only after I pointed out that deleted RfC's aren't against policy that he admitted that he wasn't approaching me an administrator. And it was clear that while some editors can have running records of what editors do and not get harassed, El_C, who has a history of combatively defending SlimVirgin, decided to get combative on my talk page.

This sort of behaviour hardly qualifies as an attempt to "resolve" anything. And what he was attempting to "resolve" isn't even a policy violation. Keeping records of another editor has been acceptable behaviour of other editors. In fact, SlimVirgin, and Robert McClenon, both have subdirectories about my editing behaviour, and I'm not demanding they delete them.

So it seems to be a bit of a one-way street in that regard.

Also, note that on September 30, SlimVirgin threatened to bring me to arbcom [105]. El_C's attempt to "resolve" this issue started four days later on October 3 [106]. So, you'll forgive me if I find El_C's appearance on my talk page to be any real attempt to "resolve" anything, and simply an ally of SlimVirgin operating at her request to fullfill the eventual requirements to bring me to arbcom. i.e. she would need to show two attempts to resolve the dispute on an RfC, and interestingly enough a few days after SlimVirgin mentions bringing me to arbcom, her good buddy and combative friend, El_C, shows up on my talk page with a combative attitude demanding I justify my pages to him or he'll delete them. He didn't want to resolve anything, he wanted the problem to go away, the pages to be deleted, or failing that, he wanted to be able to satisfy the requirements to RfC me and eventually get me before Arbcom. A nice tag team effort.

Response to accusations of wikistalking[edit]

SlimVirgin in her narative accuses "He has also started wikistalking me".

I quote Wikipedia:Words to avoid which specifically says using "however" in her form is not neutral.[107]

Three days later, SlimVirgin deletes teh entire "however" entry from the "words to avoid" page[108]

So, I'm not sure how she claims that I was stalking her to this page. I mention "words to avoid" and three days later, she follows me there to delete the very policy I used to criticize her edit.

Because SlimVirgin is deleting policy, I add the "Words to avoid" page to my watchlist.

Later, an editor on that page attempts to add "conspiracy theory" to the list of words to avoid. I support the addition, and get opposed by SLimVirgin, Jayjg, willmcw, and several other editors whose names are getting quite familiar. Many editors oppose adding "conspiracy theory" to the list, but all I'm proposing is that "conspiracy theory" only be used when reporting someone's point of view, rather than having an editor decide whether a claim should be labeled "conspiracy theory". The whole debate strikes me as rather odd, because an article using "conspiracy theory" is mentioned by someone (The Protocols of the Elders of Zion) and it seems to do exactly what I think should be done, i.e. "so-and-so says this is a conspiracy theory" rather than "this is a conspiracy theory". I keep asking on the talk page for an example of a situation where reporting a conspiracy theory as a fact is important, but get no reply. SlimVirgin is on the talk page and mentioned "the theory that Israelis and/or Jews were warned to stay away from the World Trade Center on 9/11" was factually a conpsiracy theory. I start looking for articles about Isreal knowing about the 9/11 attacks beforehand and using the phrase "conspiracy theory". The next day, I find the "Refusal to serve in the Israeli army" article.

In the "Refusal to serve in israeli army" article, the "Courage to Refuse" organization refers specifically to the "occupied terrirtories". SlimVirgin deletes that phrase and inserts her own POV wording [109].

I insert a quote from the "Courage to refuse" URL, citing their statement verbatim, which uses the term "Occupied Territories". [110]. I also fix the intro to cite a specific example, namely the "Courage to refuse" organization, using their vocabulary, reporting their point of view. [111].

Jayjg reverts the entire thing back to SlimVirgin's version, calling my insertion of sourced quotations with URL's "POV pushing" [112].

I revert, saying that "Sourced quotes do not equal POV pushing" [113]. SlimVirgin joins in the act [114].

SlimVirgin deletes contemporary history from Jewish article [115]. I revert it [116].

SlimVirgin deletes contemporary history from christian article [117]. I revert it [118].

While I don't find an article using "conspiracy theory" as a statement of fact, I stand by my edits on these articles as legitimate content making the articles better, involving sourced information with URL's. And I was supported by other editors in these additions.

In contrast, SlimVirgin involved herself in the Bensaccount RfC the same day she claimed she could no longer assume any good faith of me, and until that point, she had no involvement with the Bensaccount RfC or the pages on which the dispute occurred. Her behaviour could be considered "wikistalking". And it turns out that her accusations on the bensaccount RfC were wrong. So I find her accusation of wikistalking to be just a tad hypocritical. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/FuelWagon_2#Response_regarding_Bensaccount_RfC for specific info and links.

Response regarding Terrorism article[edit]

Vizcarra informed me of the RfC against Zaphram. (I believe it was because Vizcarra was involved in a dispute with SlimVirgin and Jayjg, and somehow he learned that I was involved in a dispute with SlimVirgin and Jayjg as well.) I check out the RfC. It points to the Terrorism article. I go to the Terrorism article and try to insert a verbatim quote from a notable source with a URL to verify its accuracy. Many of the editors who had RfC'ed Zaphram attempt to revert my quotation and work in unison to delete it, downplay it, or similar.

the RfC against Zaphram opens with the following 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.

It seemed obvious to me that this "Statement of Dispute", which was certified and endorsed by many editors, had made Zaphram into a scapegoat, blaming him for all the troubles at Terrorism, and whitewashing the behaviour of any other editors involved. I posted a comment on the RfC. You can read it in full here Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Zephram Stark#Outside_view_by_FuelWagon. By all means, if you find a breach of policy in that comment, then please point it out. My crime was simply opposing the whitewashing.

Within an hour of posting my comment to the RfC, Carbonite comes to my talk page and accuses me of being disruptive, hostile, and uncivil, and indicates he is thinking of RfC'ing me. He can claim that it wasn't my comments that were the cause of this RfC, but events clearly show that one hour after I make a comment critical of his behaviour as an editor on the Zaphram RfC, Carbonite is threatening me with an RfC. Five hours after putting my comment on the Zaphram RfC, Carbonite has created this RfC.

Carbonite tells me the RfC against Zaphram was inactive, but since RfC's basically live forever and the "summary of dispute" was so grossly one-sided, I thought it warrranted a comment. Carbonite informed me that the RfC had moved on to arbitration, so I submit the same evidence to arbitration (reformatting to meet arbcom requirements). You can read that evidence here. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zephram_Stark/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_User:FuelWagon And by all means, if you can find a single policy violation in that evidence, I'd appreciate anyone pointing it out.

Finally, some editors are now trying to retrofit the charges to make it appear as if they had a dispute with me for many, many months. I was blocked by Ed Poor on 21:02 July 12 for NPA violations. And I have not broken NPA since. There is no NPA violation "dispute" because it was resolved as of July 12, 2005.

My "crime" is filing a comment on an RfC and submitting evidence to arbcom that was critical of a number of the editors who created this RfC and who have certified or endorsed it. Any other "evidence" against me basically boils down to calling an editor's behaviour like I see it: the blame for the dispute around the Terrorism article didn't rest solely on Zaphram's shoulders. I tried to insert a verbatim quote from a notable source with a URL to verify it's accuracy into the Terrorism article. Carbonite, Texture, SlimVirgin, and Jayjg acted as a pack to keep it out. There is no justification that I can see for them to do this, other than they are used to getting their way, and will RfC people who oppose them. There are no policy violations in the evidence I submitted to RfC or to arbcom regarding Zephram. There are no policy violations by me in the various talk pages. I simply opposed Carbonite, Texture, SlimVirgin, and Jayjg's edits, so they RfC'ed me.

Users who endorse this summary[edit]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

FuelWagon 13:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Zephram Stark 21:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A pack of editors, who use all means available bar actual discourse to get their way on many pages, are using the dispute process to attack an editor they have clashed with. Sadly, this will lead to arbitration, more frustration for FuelWagon, a decent guy who is striving for NPOV on very difficult articles, and eventually the cabal will ban him. I urge the editors involved to cease patrolling pages, to cease disputation with editors who do not agree with them, and to work to lessen, not increase, discord. I urge the same on FuelWagon too. Grace Note 23:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The lies/misrepresentations that constitute this hatchet job can be appreciated by studying the involved set-up behind this misrepresentation: "he posted a list of 12 things that I must do before he will leave me alone". How about: "He was goaded into stating what would make him comfortable enough to throw away the subpages he thought he might need if an attack like this one were to occur." So that it could here be taken out of context, misrepresented, and used as a weapon against him. These bullying tactics make me sick. WAS 4.250 10:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That would have been the "combat negotiator", El_C. Mutually resolving the dispute obviously wasn't his focus. Meeting the requirements for RfC was. four days after SlimVirgin threatened me with arbcom [119], El_C, former combative commentor on the RfC against SlimVirgin, shows up on my talk page with a "justify yourself or be deleted" attitude [120]. But I'm sure that's a bit of a stretch, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FuelWagon (talk • contribs) 13:34, October 19, 2005
Vizcarra 20:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

disputing evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute[edit]

There are three diffs listed for trying and failing to resolve Carbonite's dispute. They certainly qualify as interesting examples of trying to "resolve" anything. The first one shows him comparing Noam Chomsky to Sean Penn (this is a compromise???), the second one is a threat to RfC me if I do not comply with his demands (aye aye, captain), and the third one is an email from SlimVirgin after she unburied the hatchet about my RfC against her, after I had withdrawn my own certification of the RfC to allow it to be deleted. i.e. the third "attempt" to resolve the dispute is about an unrelated dispute, and SlimVirgin is now grinding a wiki-axe.

1 [121] Carbonite replies to FuelWagon "FuelWagon, please try to tone down the hostility of your reponses (or at least the last sentences of them."

Carbonite compares Noam Chomsky to Sean Penn in this diff. That's his version of "resolving" the dispute.

2 [122] Carbonite tells FuelWagon "I'm finding your behavior to be rather disruptive and running counter to the goal of creating an encyclopedia."

Carbonite criticizes my comments on the RfC against Zaphram as nothing but a rant, calls me disruptive, hostile, and threatens an RfC against me.

3 SlimVirgin sent two e-mails to FuelWagon on August 26 in an effort to resolve the dispute, but his responses were not conciliatory and there was no change in his subsequent behavior. SlimVirgin's e-mails can be read at User:SlimVirgin/FW, but FW's replies have been withheld (unless he gives his permission).

I had filed an RfC against SlimVirgin on July 14. It was certified by myself and another editor and supported by three additional editors. I withdrew certification to allow it to be deleted. On August 24, SlimVirgin unburies the hatchet saying I'm doing something "because of the RfC you filed." [123]"no credible editor, other than you, saw the merit in that RfC" [124]. I upload a copy of the deleted RfC which shows a number of editors had supported it. She then emails me that "This thing between us seems to have started up again. I don't want it to, and don't see why it did". Well, she knew exactly why it started up: she brought it up and tried to use it against me. This qualifies as axe-grinding.

4 Viriditas exchanged about eight e-mails with FuelWagon between August 31 and September 4 in an attempt to resolve the dispute. There was no resolution.

These emails were all regarding me uploading a copy of my RfC against SlimVirgin to my user space. There is already precedence that keeping a copy of a deleted RfC is not against any policy and is acceptable behaviour. Therefore, this is not an attempt to resolve any policy violation.

5 El C posted several times to FuelWagon's talk page between October 3 and October 10 to ask him to delete the "attack page" on SlimVirgin and the deleted RfC he had copied to a subpage, and to tone down his approach.

El_C was a combative editor supporting SlimVirgin and attacking editors who had RfC'd her, including a rather combative remark to Neuroscientist on the RfC, and a number of combative challenges to me on teh RfC. El_C's attempt to "resolve" this dispute consisted of him showing up on my talk page, rather out of teh blue, with a blunt demand that I explain why I have a deleted RfC in my user space or he will delete them. When I explain that (1) a deleted RfC already has precedence for not violating policy, and (2) none of teh pages contain any NPA violations despite calling them "attack" pages, he admits he isn't there as an admin. When I point out that FeloniousMonk had maintained a history of edits by another editor, El_C admits that he did not approach FM the same way he was approaching me. Furthermore, SlimVirgin and Robert McClenon have subdirectories specifically about me, and I am not demanding they delete them. So it seems a bit odd that I'm being singled out. El_C's attempt to "resolve" was little more than an abrupt demand to satisfy his requirements or face having my directories deleted. Only when I pointed out there wasn't a single violatin of policy did he back off. And he never explained why I am being treated differently than a number of other editors. If sending a combative editor to my talk page qualifies as an attempt to "resolve" a dispute, then I'd hate to see what "harrassment" looks like. Oh, and one other thing, SlimVirgin threatened to bring me before arbcom a few days before El_C happened to show up on my talk page. My guess is that she asked him so that she could mee the RfC requirements for showing an attempt to resolve the dispute, knowing that El_C would fight for her and would either get my pages deleted (making the problem go away) or get a diff showing an attempt to "resolve" the dispute, satisfying the RfC requirement, setting me up for arbcom to get me banned and making the problem go away. The diffs for all this are given here.

response to description of the dispute by SlimVirgin[edit]

SlimVirgin has posted a rather skewed description of teh dispute above. I asked her to post it in the form of individual diffs as evidence. She has thus far refused. I have broken down her "decription" into individual accusations and replied to each. This is sort of related to "evidence", so I'm putting it next to the response to evidence section.

FuelWagon has been engaged since July in a campaign of harassment against me,

An RfC, which I withdrew, evidence submitted to arbcom, and some articles that we had content disputes over.

which recently extended to wikistalking.

Ask SlimVirgin about stalking/harrassing me on the Bensaccount RfC, six weeks ago.

He has posted probably several hundred edits about me on various talk pages, around 100 on July 12-13 alone, some of which he keeps here.

Actually, Ed Poor put it there, and I've left it there since. I had been working on a list of issues with her edit on the Terri Schiavo article, and was preparing evidence for an RfC when Ed Poor blocked me again for personal remarks, and moved my work to the directory you point to. I've asked Ed to point out what specific remarks got me blocked, but he has not yet replied. I figured I should keep it around in case he wants to answer my question.

The background in brief: I first encountered him in June when an editor complained about FW's behavior at Nuclear option (filibuster), where he was reverting a lot and being aggressive on the talk page; as a result of the complaint, I blocked him for 3RR. [125]

I was trying to insert a quote from Al Gore. A vandal kept trying to delete it. For quoting Al Gore, SlimVirgin called me a partisan editor.

I received another complaint about him in July,

From GordonWatts, who was pushing quite a bit of POV on the article at the time.

where he and three new editors

"new"? I'd been working on the article since April. Two others had been working on it for a month or so apiece. One was a neuroscientist, whose expertise on Terri Schiavo's neurological condition was extremely helpful.

had allegedly taken ownership of Terri Schiavo.

As accused by GordonWatts, who at the time, was pushing POV.

I did a copy edit of the article,

9 consecutive edits [126][127][128][129][130][131][132][133][134], with the "in use" flag, on an article marked "controversial" and "in mediation". Neuroscientist posted a 5,000 word explanation of all the things wrong with her "copyedit".

which FW reverted, accompanied by personal attacks, in which he called me a "f**%!ng *$$s0le," a "f**%!ng jerk," "you arrogant cuss," a "jerkoff," and an "arrogant arse." [135] [136] Ed Poor subsequently blocked him for the attacks. Ann Heneghan has written an accurate account of the dispute here [137] if anyone wants more detail. This has led FW to start attacking Ann too.

I was cleaning up my posts when Ed blocked me. I accepted teh block without protest. I served my time.

Since then, FW has done almost nothing but attack Ed Poor and me.

attempt to use the dispute resolution process, and disagree on the content of some articles that we both worked on.

He filed an RfC on me in July,

certified by myself and Duckecho, endorsed by 3 others.

which was deleted because he couldn't show prior attempts at dispute resolution, but before deletion, it was clear it had gone firmly against him, with around 20 editors signing opposing views within 48 hours. (He claims now it was deleted because he kindly withdrew his certification, but that simply isn't true: he withdrew certification when he was told it was going to be deleted.)

I withdrew certification on teh Bensaccount RfC a month later because Bensaccount had stopped editing wikipedia for a week after the RfC had been filed, and I wanted to give him a clean slate. Same with SlimVirgin.

Despite this, he continues to bring up the Terri Schiavo copy edit, Ed's block, and the RfC at every available opportunity. He has restored the deleted RfC and its talk page to subpages here and here and he maintains an "attack" page about me here.

I withdrew certification, the RfC was deleted. a month later, SlimVirgin and I are in dispute on the RfC instruction page and she tells me I'm only making the edit "because of the RfC I filed" and that no one "credible" supported it. I upload a copy of the deleted RfC. I tell her that Neuroscientist was pretty credible. She questioned whether he was a neurologist. She asks her friend Maurreen if its acceptable to keep a deleted RfC. Maurreen tells her that its acceptable.

El C, Ann Heneghan, Willmcw, Marskell, FeloniousMonk, and Viriditas have tried to help resolve the dispute. FW's long, aggressive responses to some of them begin here and continue to almost the end of the page.

SlimVirgin threatened me with arbcom on Sept 30 [138], and El_C shows up on my talk page four days later with a post that basically says "justify why you have these subdirectories or I'll have them deleted" [139]. El_C also had thte same combative atttiude on the RfC against SlimVirgin. It was in this mix that several others attempted to gang up with El_C and "resolve" this. It is only a long response because so many people decided to jump in, and it was no more aggressive than El_C's initial aggressiveness.

The upshot was that he posted a list of 12 things that I must do before he will leave me alone, [140] which involve me posting confessions of my wrong-doing on various talk pages. Willmcw said the list reminded him of "what North Korean captors required their U.S. P.O.W.s to do." [141]

The combat negotiator, El_C asked me what would be my "ideal" resolution. I made the mistake of answering him honestly. Note ideal and reality are quite a ways apart. However, relating to them as "reality" sure makes it easier to dismiss as a North Korean captor. Note to self: when someone asks what would be your "ideal" result, remember that it's a trap.

He has also started wikistalking me,

Ask SlimVirgin what she calls her involvement on teh Bensaccount RfC back in August. She had no involvement in the RfC for a week, she had no involvement in the articles in question, she had no involvement in the dispute in any way. But an hour after she posts to my talk page that she is "all out of good faith" [142], she appears on teh Bensaccount RfC, trying to turn it into evidence of "another inappropriate RfC" [143]

appearing on pages he has never edited before, but which I have just edited, reverting me, and accusing me of bad-faith editing on the talk pages. These are just a few examples: on September 16, after I edited Wikipedia:Words to avoid, [144] he arrived there for the first time and reverted me. [145] On September 26 after I edited Refusal to serve in the Israeli military, [146] he arrived there for the first time and reverted me. [147] Also on September 26, I edited Israel, [148] and a few hours later he made an edit there for the first time. [149] On September 30, I edited Historical persecution by Jews, [150] and he arrived there for the first time, reverted me within six minutes of my edit, [151] and began attacking me on the talk page. I then edited Historical persecution by Christians [152] and he arrived there for the first time within eight minutes to revert me, [153] again attacking me on the talk page. In none of the articles he followed me to did he make a substantive edit, or a comment on the talk page about content. His comments were entirely about me.

This started on the "words to avoid article", I cited the "words to avoid" article explaining why one of SlimVirgin's edit was biased [154], three days later, she deleted that entire entry from the "words to avoid" article [155]. So, she "arrived" there first, but I had cited the piece that she had just deleted. She was deleting policy that was critical of her editing, so I reverted the Words to avoid article. The words to avoid article then gets involved in a debate about adding "conspiracy theory", someone mentions "the protocols of the elders of zion" and Israel knowing about 9-11 and warning Jewish people who worked in teh WTC, and I started looking for conspiracy theory articles. That's how I got to "Refusal to serve in israeli army" and then "historical persecution by Jews". The Refusal to serve article, I insert a quote and a URL. The historical persecution by Jews article, SlimVirgin deletes the section critical of Israel saying that the "historical persecution by Islam" doesn't have a conemporary section. But it turns out that the "historical persecution by Christians" article did. I revert both contemporary sections.

In parallel to his behavior towards me, FW has engaged in a similar campaign against Ed Poor over the same issue. He went after Ed during Ed's RfAr, [156] also posting attacks on the talk page.

I submitted evidence to arbitration. There are no attacks.

When the case closed, he continued to attack Ed starting here until the end of the page, asking that the RfAr be re-opened, because in FW's view, Ed hadn't been punished enough.

"because ed hadn't been punished enough"? No, because Arbcom accepted Ed's resignation as punishment but never said as punishment for what. I asked for them to make a finding of fact like any other case. Several other editors agreed Ed Poor's case was handled rather oddly.

Because no one supported him, on September 22, he posted his complaints about Ed on Jimbo's talk page [157] and [158] and receiving no response, posted again to Jimbo on September 24, appealing the arbcom's ruling in Ed's case. [159]

Because Fred Bauder said arbcom rejected the request to reopen the case and that it may be appealed to Jimmy Wales, with an edit summary "How to appeal" [160].

So far as I know, he received no response to that either. On September 25, he starting trying to have a black mark left on Ed's mediation record, and between then and October 16, he again posted several distorted accounts of the story to the Mediation Committee's talk page here. And in fact, as of October 18, he's still doing it [161] though it's not even clear what he wants. Redwolf has asked him: "Would you like me to stamp a warning on Ed's face?" [162]

I asked the mediation committee if there is any process for handling a mediator who doesn't mediate. Apparently there is not. Ed Poor and I are now in one-on-one mediation.

It's difficult to convey the scale of FW's aggressive behavior, but it has reached the point of being worrying because of the obsessive nature of it, and because he seems to have no insight into how damaging it is, to himself and others. I've tried ignoring his comments and responding to them, ignoring his reverts, and reverting them, I sent him two friendly e-mails in August in an effort to appeal to him, and in September told him I was considering an RfAr, [163] but none of it has made any difference. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RfC against her had been deleted for a month in august when she started using it against me saying no one "credible" supported it. To keep a record of the truth, I uploaded a copy of the RfC to my user space. She tried to find a way to say it was against policy. when that failed, she sent the emails. SlimVirgin has not once admitted to a single contribution to this dispute. It is all my fault. Even after a Neuroscientist pointed out a 5,000 word explanation of problems with her edit, she refused to admit an error on her part and accused us of "owning" the article, POV pushing, etc. The RfC was filed against her while the dispute was still going and her response was to call her changes a "copyedit" a "minor edit" and that "All the objections were minor". When we had a dispute a month later, she blamed it all on me saying it was "because of the RfC you filed" and that no one "credible" supported it. When she showed up on the Bensaccount RfC the same day she told me she's "all out of good faith", she blames it all on me by saying "it looks like another inappropriate RfC" by me. She has not once acknowledged any contribution to this dispute since its beginning, and continues to not only blame me, but to rewrite history to cast me as evil incarnate.

SlimVirgin tells half the story. She reports my actions out of context with her actions. She also reports her interpretations of my actions as if they were fact. The Words to Avoid example clearly shows she is either making mistakes in her reporting or is misrepresenting the true sequence of events. She also fails to mention her own actions that might reflect poorly on her. She constantly refers to her edit as a "copyedit" despite a 5,000 word critique from an actual neuroscientist. She refers to my preparation for an RfC (100 hundred edits on July 12) as if it were against policy to RfC someone (I've since learned to use an offline editor and then cut and paste teh text). She fails to mention that teh RfC had been deleted for a month before she decided to use it against me, and that I uploaded it in response to her attempts to rewrite history. She fails to mention that she followed me onto teh Bennsaccount RfC for no other reason than to find something to use against me.

response to individual "evidence" of violations[edit]

The individual pieces of evidence are disputed below. First a note about descring the observed behaviour of editors.

On the Terri Schiavo article, SlimVirgin accused editors of "POV pushing", "owning the page", being "patronizing" and "deragratory", "arguing for the sake of arguing", and violating "No original Research". This was the subject of an RfC against SlimVirgin. The overwhelming response was that statements describing observed behaviour are not violations of policy, even as many times as SlimVirgin did it on the Terri Schiavo article. If this has changed, perhaps we should reopen the RfC against SlimVirgin as well. Otherwise, I take it that describing observed behaviour of other editors is not a violation of policy.

Second a note on "hostile". Pretty much the evidence above often accuses me of a "hostile" response. This apparently is defined to mean "anything opposing the editors who support the RfC against me". If this is a wiki, then opposing someone's edits that I think are POV or defending my edits that I think are NPOV is completely valid behaviour. That I defend my edits shouldn't be considered a violation of policy. That I oppose someone else's edits shouldn't automatically be deemed "hostile" behaviour. I also like how Carbonite threatens me with an RfC, and then calls my response "hostile". Just some notes on the repeated use of the word "hostile" in the "evidence".

1. [164] "Moron. Republican held senate majority for 6 of clinton's years. That is a simple fact. even if you whitewash it, the assert goes later. rewrote it."

Old news (a diff from May 2005?). Dispute resolved.

2. [165] Implies that a revert of his edit was due to "POV pushing"

Describing observed behaviour.

3. [166] After Slim Virgin provides a reason for the revert, FuelWagon's comment ends with "OK, that excuse didn't work, time to shift tactics and come up with a completely different one."

Describing observed behaviour. For example, Carbonite came to my talk page an hour after I commented on the Zaphram RfC and threatened to file an RfC against me. He has since attempted to change his strategy and claim I have a history of breaking policy. That's what I would call "shift tactics"

4. [167] Carbonite questions the inclusion of the quote by asking why a notable activist such as Chomsky should be quoted, but not another such as Sean Penn. FuelWagon again ends his comment with the sarcastic "Would you care to try again? Perhaps you can compare Noam Chomsky to Paris Hilton."

I'm talking about Noam Chomsky, a guy who wrote at least 40 books about politics, a guy who is considered the most influential critic of US foreign policy by the Dictionary of American Philosophers, a guy who is senior scholar with the Institute for Policy Studies. Carbonite compares him with Sean Penn. I say that's equivalent to comparing him to Paris Hilton. Please show me the policy violation here.

5. [168] Carbonite responds by saying "Once again, please tone down your hostility. I'd prefer that this discussion be a bit more civilized." FuelWagon response includes the statement "Hostility? Hey, man, you were the one who mentioned Sean Penn. Now that I come back with the same flippant attidute and mention Paris Hilton, you want to call it hostility. Sorry, it works both ways. If you can dish it out, be prepared to take some as well."

see 4

6. [169] After continues to push the Chomsky quote into the article, FuelWagon questions the motives of Jayjg and Carbonite with "Hey, carbonite, jayjg, fancy meeting you here. Fancier still seeing back to back reverts by you two. Imagine that."

describing observed behaviour, the same editors are working in unison on multiple pages that are in dispute.

7. [170] FuelWagon contimues to taunt Jayjg about the Chomsky quote. "Hey, Jayjg, the Chomsky quote is relevant and a bunch of POV pushers are trying to delete it. I found a verbatim quote, a URL, and sufficient justification for why Chomsky counts as a notable source. Now, I recall that during the "wikistalking" proposed policy, the great many people opposed the idea of making it policy because content wins out over someone's personal feelings. So, you wanna talk about how your feeling thinking I'm stalking you? Or you wanna talk about content?"

describing observed behaviour. defending a verbatim quotation from a notable source with a URL to verify. Policy violation?

8. [171] FuelWagon taunts Carbonite on Carbonite's talk page "Nice to see the admins sticking together. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside."

describing observed behaviour. admins working in unison to revert valid content.

9. [172] In response to a revert war he's engaged in on another page Wikipedia:Request for comment, FuelWagon tells Carbonite "As far as I'm concerned, you're all the same."

describing observed behaviour.

10. [173] FuelWagon posts an "outside" view on Zephram Stark's RfC, which had been inactive for over three weeks. He uses this forum to attack the actions of "SlimVirgin, Jayjg, Carbonite, and Texture...", while barely touching on the action of Zephram Stark.

barely touching on the actions of Zephram is a violation of policy????? Apparently I wasn't critical enough of Zephram, and that's a problem with Carbonite. That would seem to sum up a lot of his problems here.

11. [174] After Carbonite inquires as to why FuelWagon posted the hostile summary on Zephram's RfC, FuelWagon provides weak justification (a link to Zephram's ArbCom case had been posted on his talk page 9 days prior). FuelWagon also ignore Carbonite request "I'm asking you once again to be more civil and not create or exacerbate tension between editors.".

Carbonite demanded I justify why I posted on the RfC against Zaphram. I told him that Vizcarra had told me about it on my talk page. He may not like the reasoning, but it is no violation of policy.

12. [175] FuelWagon responds with yet another hostile comment, accusing Carbonite of threatening him with an RfC.

hostile? I think it was a rather measured response to being threatened with an RfC. By all means, read it for yourself.

13. [176] FuelWagon uses Zephram Stark's ArbCom evidence page to air his grievances about Carbonite, SlimVirgin and Jayjg.

Carbonite complained about me filing an outside comment on the RfC against Zaphram because it had moved on to arbitration. So, I post the evidence to arbcom. This is not a violation of policy, unless submitting evidence and diffs is a violation of policy.

14. [177] FuelWagon attacks Jayjg on Jayjg's talk page for reverting one of his edits on Wikipedia:Request for comment.

"attack"? Jayjg has a history of reverting on that page without making a single comment on the talk page to explain why. this is describing observed behaviour.

15. [178] Attacks a newbie, User:Adam1213 for his signature and misunderstanding the definition of vandalism. "Your signature is the sign of someone crying out for attention." and "Hey, vandalism boy, you get on the counter-vandalism unit, someone gives you a title, and you think you can declare whatever you want to be vandalism?"

Adam1213 did a blanket deletion of valid content containing 6 URL's [179] calling it "nonsense" and "vandalism" [180].

16. [181] Responds to a comment from User:El C with hostile remarks: "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."

Describing Observed Behaviour. El_C was SlimVirgin's advocate, attacking people who supported the RfC against her (you can read the original RfC with his comments here [182] [183]). Months later, El_C came to my talk page demanding I justify to him why I had a copy of the RfC against SlimVirgin in my userspace. [184]. El_C only later admitted that he wasn't coming into my talk page as an Admin, and only later admitted that keeping a copy of the RfC wasn't a violation of any policy.

17. [185] Accuses Jayjg of being SlimVirgin's meatpuppet. "ANd the only reason you're here is because you're SlimVirgin's meatpuppet." Later retracts the statement with a similarly hostile remark [186] "I stand corrected. Jayjg is not a meatpuppet. He's simply a POV warrior."

describing observed behavior. Jayjg and SlimVirgin are a tag-team that work together on several pages to oppose edits they don't like. It isn't surprising that they both opposed my edits on the Terrorism article, they both supported teh RfC against Zaphram, and they both support this RfC against me. If it's a policy violation to report this behaviour, I'd like to see it.

SlimVirgin has just dumped a huge number of rambling accusations into narative form. This is impossible to respond to. She needs to reformat them in the "evidence" section so that I can respond to tehm one at a time. Unless of course, you just want her to make blanket accusations and not give me any direct DIFF to look at to prove or disprove the accusation. Well, I'm sure you'd love to do that, but this RfC is clearly showing how many axes are being brought to the table.

Actually, accusing me of something like "harrassment" without providing a diff sure makes a witchhunt easier, eh, SlimVirgin???

Response to users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

Make your own judgements as to the involvement between the editors supporting this RfC.

editor	Terri Schiavo	RfC SlimVirgin	Request for Comment	words to avoid	Refusal to serve	persecution Jews	persecution Christians	RfC Bensaccount
FuelWagon	[187]	[188]	[189] [190]	[191] [192]	[193]	[194]	[195]	[196]
SlimVirgin	[197]	[198]	[199]	[200] [201]	[202]	[203]	[204]	[205] [206]
Jayjg	.	[207]	[208]	[209]	[210]	[211]	.	.
El_C	.	[212] [213]	.	.	.	[214]	.	.
Viriditas	.	[215]	.	.	.	[216]	.	.
Willmcw	.	[217]	.	[218]	.	.	.	.
Ann Heneghan	[219]	[220]	.	.	.	.	.	.
Bishonen	.	[221]	.	.	.	.	.	.
Carbonite	.	.	[222]	[223]	.	.	.	.

Hey, I see goethean, a POV pusher I butted heads with on the Intelligent design article, just endorsed this RfC. Nice snowball effect here.

Ed Poor, long time, no see. Literally. Nice to see you could join the ever increasing snowball effect here. What a coincidence.

01:13, 6 November 2005 I post on Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ed Poor and FuelWagon that while Ed Poor had agreed to enter mediation with me (mediated by improv), that after 16 days of waiting, Ed never answered the first round of questions from Improv, and the mediator withdrew from mediation due to lack of response from Ed. Although Ed couldn't find the time to answer half a dozen questions by Improv, he did manage to make 650 edits to wikipedia.

14:39, 7 November 2005 Ed Poor posts to Jayjg, how can we nail FuelWagon for wikistalking?

Not what I said at all. What I actually said is this:

Is there a policy against Wikipedia:Wikistalking? Because it looks like that's what FuelWagon (talk · contribs · block log) is doing to user:SlimVirgin.
FW is also a very difficult person to deal with. His complaints against others echo what I see him doing himself.
What shall we do? Is there any hope that this Wikipedian can be taught to make useful contributions to the project AND avoid hurting other contributors' feelings with personal remarks, "stalking" behavior, and so on? Uncle Ed 14:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This misquotation alone is really grounds for banning you indefinitely from this project. Uncle Ed 03:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

14:56, 7 November 2005 Ed Poor suddenly takes interest in the RfC against me.

Or maybe it isn't coincidence at all? If you really are "at wits end", then perhaps you could have tried responding to mediation on some level or another. Funny how you accused me of "building a case" against SlimVirgin on my RfC against her, but then you appear to be in communication with Jayjg as to how to build a case against me. Not resolve a dispute, mind you, because if you wanted to resolve a dispute, you could have used the mediation channel. But that wasn't your intent, was it? Once again, the whole gang has come together in unison to back one of their own. Always like to see the objectivity and neutrality that goes on around here.

the edit war, RfC violations, vandalism, and selective enforcement of policy[edit]

Well, that was interesting. Since an edit war erupted on this very page, RfC procedures were directly violated, an editor committed vandalism, and selective enforcement of policy has been handed out, it seems that it needs an official response. Enjoy.

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

21:17, 26 October 2005 Bishonen starts enforcing this procedural rule and moves a threaded comment by Zen Master from the RfC page to the talk page. Note that complaints lodged by SlimVirgin at a later date that I am "moving comments to talk, and that's inappropriate" were never lodged against Bishonen for the exact same behaviour.

21:21, 26 October 2005 I move a threaded comment by SlimVirgin from the RfC page to the talk page as per the same RfC procedure.

04:38, 2 November 2005 I move another threaded comment by SlimVirgin to talk

19:40, 2 November 2005 Jayjg reinserts the threaded comment in violation of RfC procedures.

02:56, 3 November 2005 I move the threaded comment to talk .

03:02, 3 November 2005 I move another threaded comment to talk .

03:14, 3 November 2005 SlimVirgin reinserts the threaded comments, in direct violation of procedures.

03:23, 3 November 2005 I move comments to talk as per RfC procedure.

03:24, 3 November 2005 SlimVirgin reinserts the same threaded comments, in direct violation of RfC procedures.

03:28, 3 November 2005 I move comments to talk as per RfC procedures .

03:29, 3 November 2005 I move another block of comments to talk as per RfC procedure.

03:32, 3 November 2005 SlimVirgin reinserts a threaded comment back into the RfC, in direct violation of RfC procedures.

03:36, 3 November 2005 SlimVirgin reinserts more threaded comments in direct violation of RfC procedures.

03:38, 3 November 2005 I move threaded comments to talk as per RfC procedures .

14:59, 3 November 2005 Jayjg removes my endorsement of Vizcarra's outside comment. This qualifies as vandalism. .

17:34, 3 November 2005 I reinsert my endorsement of Vizcarra's outside comment.

17:55, 3 November 2005 Jayjg reinserts SlimVirgin's threaded comment, in direct violation of RfC procedures. .

18:10, 3 November 2005 I move SlimVirgin's threaded comment to talk as per RfC procedures.

I have been trying to keep the RfC within procedure, moving the inappropriate comments to talk. SlimVirgin and Jayjg take part in a revert war, reverting me, and violating RfC procedure.

19:05, 3 November 2005 Jayjg reports me for 3RR violation. Basically, I violated 3RR in an effort to keep the RfC within procedure.

Which is interesting because three weeks earlier, Mel Etitis states on the RfC against him Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mel Etitis that "because my view that persistent reverting of edits that brought an article in line with MoS, naming policies, etc., is vandalism, I didn't deliberately or knowingly break 3RR" Mel Etitis had violated 3RR trying to keep an article within policy. Another editor reverted his attempts, and Mel Etitis says that he considered those reverts to be vandalism, therefore he didn't think 3RR applied. Jayjg 03:36, 9 October 2005 endorsed Mel Etitis's response.

When I violate 3RR in an attempt to keep the page within procedures against edits that are obvious violations, Jayjg reports me for 3RR violation. Nice to see that the rules are applied evenly, and people are treated based on their actions versus who they know. (yeah, right).

Oh, and Jayjg not only participated in an edit war, not only did he do a number of reverts in direct violation of procedures, he committed vandalism by removing my endorsement of an outside comment by Vizcarra.

Now, so far, the response to handle Jayjg's vandalism has been interestingly lacking. Apparently, my violation of 3RR is inexcusable, and not subject to mitigating circumstances, such as the fact that I was reverting a direct violation of RfC procedures being committed by the person who reported me for 3RR violations. No. That doesn't matter. The rules are the rules. You do the crime, you pay the time.

But that exact same attitude, you do the crime, you pay the time, for some reason, is not being applied to Jayjg. He was directly violating RfC procedures, and he removed my endorsement of an outside comment. It's always interesting to find how the policies suddenly become malleable as to their enforcement when an admin is involved.

Again, I tried keeping the RfC within procedures, but am blocked for 3RR violations, those are simply the rules, nothing personal. Jayjg violates RfC procedures and also commits vandalism by moving a vote to the talk page, and for some reason, the rules aren't quite so rigid. Excuses are given, exceptions are made, circumstances are considered. Welcome to the wikipedia cabal. Whoever holds the conch gets to speak. FuelWagon 03:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(the following was moved from my talk page. It is some posts that occurred while I was blocked, and are relevant to the edit war.)

"Vandalism"

Since I'm blocked, could someone report Jayjg for deliberate vandalism on an RfC and request a 24 hour block for him? On 14:59, 3 November 2005 Jayjg removes my endorsement of Vizcarra's outside comment. This qualifies as vandalism. Now, will wikipedia rules be evenly enforced? or will Jayjg somehow get an "exclusion" for his vandalism while I get blocked for 3RR? Just how fairly are wikipedia rules enforced? Let's wait and find out. FuelWagon 04:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This was the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/FuelWagon 2 RfC filed against me by SlimVirgin, Jayjg and cabal. Jayjg attempted to remove my endorsement of an outside comment by Vizcarra. That Vizcarra was critical of the RfC against me and the people who filed it, that Vizcarra was supportive of me, likely had everything to do with the fact that Jayjg attempted to slip this over to the talk page. I await the spin machine to tell me why Jayjg is excluded from his removal of my endorsement from being labeled the simple vandalism that it is. FuelWagon 04:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That was the same comment you had inserted a number of times before, was not numbered as an endorsement, and started with "Just a note to point out etc."; I removed your comment, just as you removed other comments. Oh, and I have not filed any RfC against you - in fact, Carbonite filed the RfC against you. I'm not even ~~an endorser~~ a certifier of the RfC. It no longer astonishes me that you try to get away this this kind of spin, but it still surprises me that you think others will be fooled by it. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That was the same comment you had inserted a number of times before, Wrong, the history is shown below. I NEVER moved ANY comments from the talk page to teh article page, except for this endorsement. And I only did that ONCE, and that was AFTER you tried to delete my endorsement. Every other edit by me around this was to move threaded comments to the talk page as per RfC procedures.

was not numbered as an endorsement, Sure, and the last sentence that says "I endorse" was... what exactly? A declaration of non-endorsement?

and started with "Just a note to point out etc."; Yeah, just a note to point out the only thing that I did not endorse about Vizcarra's comment. I endorsed everything else about his comment.

I removed your comment, just as you removed other comments. No, you removed my endorsement. I removed threaded comments that were combative or disagreeing with whatever the previous statement was. I agreed with Vizcarra, I endorsed his comment. But you remove my endorsement. SlimVirgin disagreed with my comment, she disagreed with Vizcarra's comment, and you reinserted that comment.

Oh, and I have not filed any RfC against you - in fact, Carbonite filed the RfC against you. I'm not even ~~an endorser~~ a certifier of the RfC. I feel so sorry for someone with such a terrible short term memory. You initially were the fourth person to certify the RfC. Only after it was pointed out that your certification was not legitimate, did you become the number one endorser of the RfC.

It no longer astonishes me that you try to get away this this kind of spin, but it still surprises me that you think others will be fooled by it. It no longer surprises me that you violate RfC procedures with impunity, directly violating the requirement to keep threaded comments on the talk page. It no longer surprises me that you vandalized the RfC against me by removing an endorsement to talk page, yet are enough of an old-timer that vandalism rules won't be applied to you. It no longer surprises me that you would put so much spin on your own defense that youd blatantly lie by saying it was "the same comment you had inserted a number of times before" when the edit history below clearly shows your lie, that you blatantly lie saying "I'm not even an endorser of the RfC" when the links show you first tried to certify this RfC and are now the number 1 endorser. And it no longer surprises me that in spite of these blatant lies with diffs to prove you are the one lying here, you have the gall to say I am the one putting the spin on things. FuelWagon 06:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Zephram Stark[edit]

Picture a little Cartman running around Wikipedia saying, "Respect my authority, or I will RfC you!" Now read what Carbonite said on FuelWagon's talk page and see if you can tell the difference.

When FuelWagon refused to join Carbonite's lynch mob, Carbonite threatened to RfC him. Anyone with self-respect is naturally going to tell Cartmanite to stick his threats directly up his over-sized big-wheel. Any "evidence" that C-man presents wasn't a problem until FuelWagon refused to subjugate himself. --Zephram Stark 00:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Gordon Watts[edit]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

DISCLAIMER: I am not directly involved with the Terrorism dispute, and don't know one of the editors certifying this dispute. The other editor, Carbonite, I do know, but I am not involved with his dispute with FuelWagon, so I qualify as an outside view.

FuelWagon has indeed caused problems by exaggerating the weight of some matters of minimal importance and trivializing the weight of other matters, and taking pot-shots at The Register newspaper I edit sometimes, when it was used as a source to document some event(s) that was not covered in mainstream media, and this after my use of my "vanity" link was approved by at least one other editor not affiliated with The Register: "The only link of yours that is proper is one that covers important legal information covered nowhere else. I'll let other editors decide if that article is important enough, but the others have to go...- Taxman Talk 23:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)" [224]

In addition, he did use inappropriate language in a burst of anger on one occasion to User:SlimVirgin.

However, he has since not used rude language, and furthermore, he has contributed greatly to the article, with one result being that I recently awarded him a barnstar and encouraged him to keep an eye on things if I got too busy to edit due to real life things.

Carbonite is not totally wrong in his RfC here, and in his criticisms of me in my recent RfA, he was not totally wrong, but in both my RfA and FuelWagon's RfC, I think that Carbonite exaggerates a little bit the magnitude of the problems. Finally, even were all the accusations of the two certifying editors true, we must remember that this is an unpaid job, and thus not expect too much: If we make a mountain out of a molehill, we will get an ulcer or stress out over an unpaid job. Do we really want to do that?? (Can't we all just get along?)

That being said, Wagon does make mistakes, and I can direct you to the Terri Schiavo article and talk pages. Are not all the works, both good and evil, of User:FuelWagon recorded in the Chronicle of the acts of Terri Schiavo?--GordonWatts 05:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

--GordonWatts 05:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Hipocrite - retracted[edit]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

Fuel was slightly overagressive in his behavior, and needs to focus on WP:COOL. The attempts to resolve the dispute by Carbonite were incredibly weak. Threatening an RFC is not an attempt to resolve a dispute. Having attempted to edit the article in question before, I find the behavior of the endorsers to be overagressive in defending the status quo - and I was not doing anything with respect to POV. Apologies, I confued my parties.

By request, I have returned to reevaluate. I stand by my initial statements that Fuel needs to focus on WP:COOL, and given the additions, I reenforce this statement with bolds. Fuel needs to focus on WP:COOL. He does incredibly valuable work that needs doing on the Terri Schiavo article - and does it well, and would have the same article-space impact in other sections of this encyclopedia if he kept his cool there. I continue to find some of the attempts to resolve the dispute by the endorsers as relayed in the attempts section to be incredibly weak. In turn:

Carbonite: Believed that others had tried dispute resolution on same issues, and thus reasonably put in less efort than usual. This would not be adequate in my mind as a basis for an RFC.

SlimVirgin: While a poisoned well due to actions on Terri Schiavo (I stand strongly behind Fuel with respect to the editing dispute in this case, as an irrelevent aside, and strongly behind Slim on the post-editing actions, as another totally irrelevent aside), did enough dispute resolution to be adrequate in my mind as a basis for an RFC.

Viriditas: Not enough information to comment is in the public perview. This would be inadequate untill the content of sent emails was disclosed.

El C: Reviewing the userspace page in question, it is clearly not an attack page. Both of them look to be biased accounts of wikipedia events. WP:USER specifcally allows user subpages for things as broad as a weblog related to a users wikipedia experience, opinion pieces related to wikipedia. In excessive cases, which it appears that this is an allegation of - "your user subpage may be deleted, following a listing on Miscellaneous deletion, subject to deletion policy." Deletion policy for "Inappropriate user pages in excessive or stubborn cases." is to "List on Wikipedia:Miscellaneous deletion (WP:MD)." While FuelWagon might not have done as good a job defending his user page as I just did, it's hard to RFC someone for being right. Perhaps WP:IAR lets you delete the page, but if I had page deletion powers, I wouldn't feel all that comfortable doing it. Finally, "I won't divulge the contents of our conversation at this time," is a response that will always serve to make resolution more difficult. However El C's attempts to resolve disputes worked out, however, they were extensive. While I disagree with methods, they serve as an adequate basis for an RFC.

Marskell: Substantial attempts to resolve disputes. Fuel's response in his "No" comment is a demonstration of a failure to follow WP:COOL. Of all the endorsers, I find his comments the most persuasive. Marskell proposed a perfectly reasonable solution to the problem, did so in a neutral way, and had not previously poisoned the well.

Willmcw: Innapropriate ceritifier. No evidence of attempts to resolve anything presented.

Jayjg: Innapropriate ceritifier. No evidence of attempts to resolve anything presented.

Ann Heneghan: Inappropriate ceritifier. No evidence of attempts to resolve anything presented.
Finally, this RFC will resolve amicably when Slim says that (she, right? Sorry if I mixed up my admistrator genders) was hasty on the Terri Schiavo article and Fuel admits to losing (his, right? I know someone is female here) cool. Everything since then should be bygones. Bygones. Especially the tome-like response by Fuel that I certainly hope gets retracted.

~~--Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC). Revisited, extended and resigned Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)~~[reply]

-- FuelWagon 21:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC) -- I lost my WP:COOL leading up to July 12th. I promise to focus on becoming more WP:COOL. --Hipcrite has retracted his comment, but I still stand by my admission that I lost my cool. I'll just leave it here. FuelWagon 01:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to note for the record that I didn't retract because I didn't believe, but just because I'm done with this "encyclopedia" for the forseeable future, and I didn't want to hit and run. Hipocrite - «Talk» 01:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~--Zephram Stark 00:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC) Can I be the female next?~~[reply]
~~Outside view by Marskell[edit]~~
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.
I broadly agree with FuelWagon's analysis of SlimVirgin's edits on Terri Schiavo. I don't know if I'd call them reckless but they appear hasty and should have gone to Talk.

That FuelWagon deliberately followed Slim's contribs and reverted in an attempt to piss her off strikes me as obvious. Maybe Wiki-stalking, maybe not, but at the very least an attempt to enflame things. Honestly FW, what possible purpose does it serve to suddenly inject yourself at pages Slim works on?

That FuelWagon doesn't view Slim's e-mails as an attempt at resolution is really sort of staggering. Considering the circumstances, they're as friendly as I can imagine. I agree with Hip that Carbonite's attempts to resolve were indeed incredibly weak.

I have added number 6 at attempts to resolve and this was very clearly an attempt. I did not accuse or come on aggressively as El C did. I even took the time to going to one of the pages you were revert warring over (Historical persecution by Jews) and came up with a solution. FW's grudging non-acceptance of the compromise really made me wonder if he wants the dispute to continue (see talk there).

Note, I don't have a content dispute with you FW. We nearly always agree on TS.

All of my suggestions still stand.
--Marskell - Marskell 11:52, 18 October 2005

Robert McClenon 12:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I generally concur with this view. Rangerdude 21:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Outside view by Bishonen[edit]~~
FW uses a narrow, technical definition of what a "personal attack" is in his response to this RfC (and all over the usertalk pages he frequents [225]), a definition that allows him to claim he hasn't attacked anybody since he turned over a new leaf on July 12:
"I apologized to SlimVirgin for NPA violations here. This issue was resolved. I was blocked. I served my time. I apologized. And I haven't violated NPA since. SlimVirgin is axe-grinding and bringing this up as if it were a current issue. I'm not sure if she expects a second apology, or if she wishes to see me get another block for the same NPA violation, or what."
FW doesn't seem to be aware that WP:NPA can be violated without invective and prophanity, or that insinuations, expressed contempt, inappropriate sarcasm, and demonization are means of insulting people, or that they poison the climate of the Wiki just as much as cuss words do. After an incessant three-month shitstorm against SlimVirgin, FW asks in injured innocence if she expects a second apology for the same old pre-July 12 PAs "or what". And it's not only SlimVirgin, though that's certainly the worst part of it (I'm rather surprised she's still here). Unfortunately it is a current issue, as FW's amazing productivity is directed more and more to hostility and, as El C says, the endless, ceaseless battleground.
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
Bishonen | talk 01:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 05:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Viriditas | Talk 09:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FuelWagon 14:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC) -- partial and hesitant endorsement. my only question is whether SlimVirgin's crusade against me on the Bensaccount RfC (described here) would also qualify as a "battleground", or if "battleground" only applies to my behaviour.[reply]

I have had no previous dealings with "FuelWagon", and I do not think we have ever edited the same pages. Having looked at all the links concerned with this case, it appears that Bishonen is quite correct in her evaluation and summary of the situation. Slim Virgin has indeed been troubled by FW in a manner which is beyond what can reasonably be described as justifiable behaviour. FW admits to various infringements of what can be considered polite, courteous and expected behaviour. In short, he does not behave in a manner which can be tolerated in a project such as this dependent on mutual respect, or at least tolerance of the views of others. FW has behaved in an intimidating and reprehensible fashion. It must be made quite clear to him that for the good of the project conduct such as his will not be endured. Perhaps he should be advised against editing politically and emotionally sensitive subjects, if he finds this difficult, then perhaps an enforced ban of a month would be in order while he reviews his position here. Giano | talk 20:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I support these Bishonen's claim that Wagon has a more restricted view, a "narrow, technical definition of" a personal attack, and I also support her claim that "FW's amazing productivity is directed more and more to hostility," but I would add that FuelWagon's contributions have not all been negative, and yet, his great attention to these violations, real of imagined, is a waste of time and resources and borders on marginal utility after which he can properly expect diminishing returns from his additional efforts and input. In other words, he has accomplished about as much as he can here, and additional efforts would generally bring in less benefits than the effort expended, I think.--GordonWatts 05:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg ^(talk) 22:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto Bishonen's succinct encapsulation of what is probably at the core of the dispute between the subject of the RfC at hand and SlimVirgin [who it seems has gotten dragged into this whole affair rather despite her best efforts to avoid it], as well as dittos to the preceding comments by Giano and Gordy Watts. ~~The fact that FW has endorsed this summary is, at least in my view, somewhat encouraging...~~ What I find the most disturbing about the ongoing dispute FW seems to believe he has to pursue with SV, is that SV has proven herself on innumerable occasions to be level-headed and fair even in the midst of the most heated raging firestorm, and FW has managed to effectively sidestep [or sideswipe?] her every attempt at peacemaking in the interest of avoiding productive editing in favor of dispute promulgation rather than resolution. This is disturbing at best, and that which shall not be spoken at worst... Tom e r ^TALK 10:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've stricken part of my earlier comments, as further analysis has demonstrated that my hope was quite clearly in vain... Tom e r ^TALK 10:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 20:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ambi 00:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Limited support as I don't know the full details. I support the following sentence: "WP:NPA can be violated without invective and prophanity, or that insinuations, expressed contempt, inappropriate sarcasm, and demonization are means of insulting people, or that they poison the climate of the Wiki just as much as cuss words do." - Ta bu shi da yu 14:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Uncle Ed 14:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Middle View by McClenon[edit]~~
I am not labeling this an "outside" view because I have been aware of and sometimes involved in the controversies in which FuelWagon is involved that have resulted in this RfC. To oversimplify this dispute, the basic problem that I see is, first, FuelWagon is angry at particular editors and about specific incidents, and, second, FuelWagon has a different concept of what sort of electronic community Wikipedia should be than most of its editors.
~~Terri Schiavo[edit]~~
It is not possible to address this dispute without going back to the Terri Schiavo edit wars again. I was not a participant in the Terri Schiavo edit wars, but at FuelWagon's request I have reviewed that history in considerable but not complete detail. Here is my assessment of what happened. FuelWagon had been involved in editing of the article since early June 2005. There were major content disputes, and mediation began on or about 17 June 2005. However, the mediation was not successful. The mediator, Ed Poor stated that some of the participants in the mediation were not cooperating. In my opinion, FuelWagon's edits were constructive and improved the quality of the article, but his talk page comments were harsh.
It appears that SlimVirgin began editing on 11 July 2005. She promptly made some substantial edits. It is my opinion that she was acting in good faith and boldly, but that by making substantial edits to an article where mediation was being attempted, without familiarizing herself with the history, her edits were reckless. FuelWagon has since then been demanding that she admit that her edits were reckless. FuelWagon resorted to profanity and was blocked. The situation immediately deteriorated.
I reviewed SlimVirgin's edits at the time of the dispute, and I vaguely recall that she made a few dumb typos hither and yon, but nothing substantially wrong; I.e., I approved of the vast majority of her edits. To Wagon's credit, he was right in his assertion that SlimVirgin did not acknowledge her few mistakes, but he made a mountain out of a molehill and -in my opinion -exaggerated the errors by SlimVirgin. Your assessment of the interactions of Neuroscientist in this arena seem to be mostly correct, but I think he made a few errors, but not many. His analysis was more of a subjective opinion of how much emphasis the article should give to certain details, such as brain weight, which, in his opinion, was not as important as brain quality. These criticisms only detracted little from SlimVirgin's many contributions, most of which seemed right at the time, and some of which were in fact not minor edits or copy edit, but nonetheless OK.--GordonWatts 04:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I don't think that you (or I) should be replying here; if someone wants to move your comment along with this one of mine to the Talk page, I for one would not object, but I'm not sure whether I would be overstepping my bounds to do so myself.

Having said that - "in his opinion"?!? Wow. Just wow. This is science, not literary criticism. There is no "opinion" involved, or at any rate, as little as humanly possible. "Correct" and "incorrect" simply are not equally valid viewpoints. PurplePlatypus 06:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neuroscientist posted a long criticism of SlimVirgin's edits. His criticisms were in a style that is characteristic of scientific peer review of questionable research, which pulls no punches and can be harsh and abrasive. As a newcomer to Wikipedia, he apparently did not realize that this style of criticism is, in the Wikipedia community, construed as a personal attack. He was warned by Ed Poor that his comments were out of line. Ed was, in my view, acting in good faith, but unknowingly made the mistake of biting the newcomer.
By 18 July 2005, it appears that the mediation made progress. On 20 July 2005, Ed Poor declared the mediation a success, and noted that FuelWagon and SlimVirgin were on speaking terms again. FuelWagon responded: "progress made, but there is also unresolved stuff, which may never get resolved I suppose. You deserve a break, Ed."
Since then, FuelWagon has however stated that wrongs were done by Ed as mediator, and has apparently been asking for some sort of finding of wrong against Ed or explicit admission of wrong from Ed. He has similarly been complaining that he was wronged by SlimVirgin.
My own assessment is that the Terri Schiavo content dispute was one of the most contentious that Wikipedia has ever had. In that situation, it must be understood that editors will do things that will, after the fact, be visible to have been mistakes. It is not useful to go back and attempt to assign blame because mistakes were made by all parties. Such a retrospective would almost certainly conclude that SlimVirgin engaged in reckless edits and was stubborn, and that FuelWagon engaged in personal attacks and was stubborn and uncivil. Based on my reading, a retrospective will conclude that Ed Poor can be second-guessed in hindsight for biting a newcomer, but such second-guessing would not be productive. Also, a retrospective would, in my view, conclude that FuelWagon's incivility (not limited to the occasional profanity) was a contributing factor to the overall hostile atmosphere of the dispute, increasing the number of mistakes made.
~~FuelWagon's concept of the community[edit]~~
The Terri Schiavo content dispute and its aftermath illustrates how FuelWagon's concept of how an electronic community should function is different from that of some other Wikipedians. He places an extremely high value on integrity, honesty, and respect for truth. That is his strength, and should make him a valued member of the Wikipedia community. However, he often appears to think that respect for the truth involves the assignment of blame for mistakes. If that is not his actual view, then I suggest that he look at why he is projecting that view. He also appears to place a lower value on civility than the Wikipedia culture does.
I do not fully understand FuelWagon's view of what an ideal electronic community would be. It appears to be a somewhat utopian sort of anarchy in which there are few friendships and much public criticism.
FuelWagon does frequently remark about how Wikipedia is administered by cabals and cliques. It is not entirely clear to me what he expects to accomplish by stating this, but he is being honest if that is his opinion.
~~FuelWagon's response to this RfC[edit]~~
FuelWagon's response to this RfC appears to overlook the basic reasons for the RfC, and to focus on trees rather than a forest. While he addresses all of the specific complaints, his response is argumentative and confrontational, and illustrates what the certifiers and endorsers are saying.
~~Certifiers and endorsers[edit]~~
Some of the certifiers of this RfC do not appear to have tried to resolve the problem by reasoning with FuelWagon. I would suggest that they cancel their certifications and sign as endorsers instead. This will still be a validly certified RfC.
~~Conclusion[edit]~~
It appears that FuelWagon has expectations about what he wants from Wikipedia as a community that will not be met. I hope that he will adjust his expectations and accept Wikipedia more or less as it is and help to change it in small ways rather than criticize and express anger. If he can become more realistic in his expectations, and can improve his civility, he will be a valuable member of the community.
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
Robert McClenon 00:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Carbonite | Talk 00:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to being true, this is helpful. In that vein, I would like to request someone illuminate those of us that can't see the personal attacks you and others see in Neuroscientist's posted criticism of SlimVirgin's edits. Other comments on this page by FW indicating he was describing behavior rather than attacking people indicate this difference in perception of what constitutes an attack may be a key to the participants seeing from the eyes of the other. WAS 4.250 01:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FuelWagon 02:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC) partial endorsement. Most of what you say is true, but you don't say all that is true. Don't confuse taking something "personally" with a "personal attack". Don't turn "truth" into "blame". Don't turn friendships built on truth and honesty into a "utopian sort of anarchy in which there are few friendships and much public criticism." And I haven't missed the forest for the trees. When SlimVirgin took her battle with me onto the Bensaccount RfC, it was clear to me that she wanted to get me banned so she could rewrite history and cast me as a bad guy and her as the innocent editor. I've tried every level of the dispute resolution process to get some honesty about what happened so that rewriting history would not be possible, and the dispute would be resolved. But if I'm the only one critical of her, and she can get me banned, then she can say stuff like "well, no one credible supported that RfC". So, it was clear to me that SlimVirgin would eventually try to get me banned as long as I opposed her attempts to rewrite history. She was using the Bensaccount RfC as part of her crusade. She was looking for something that could get me banned. So keeping a record of diffs, a record of truth, seemed the only reasonable defense. Funny, I'm accused of turning wikipedia into a battleground for keeping a record of the truth. And even though teh Bensaccount RfC has shown itself to be a perfectly acceptable RfC about a completely legitimate dispute, no one has said one word about SlimVirgin turning it into her own personal battlefield against me. FuelWagon 02:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
FW, you say "but you don't say all that is true". Exactly, right. This focuses on the half the truth that covers your questionable behavior in this matter. Your response above that I also endorsed focuses on the half the truth that covers the questionable behavior of your attackers whose attack on you is culminated in this compendium of misrepresentations. WAS 4.250 05:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am mainly endorsing the first half or so. I, like WAS 4.250, fail to see anything even vaguely resembling a personal attack in Neuroscientist's 5000-word post, and furthermore would point out that anything in there that SV might have taken that way is no harsher than any number of things she herself has said to Fuelwagon and various other editors, sometimes for what seem to me to be far worse reasons. [added a little later - Nor for that matter does FW's response to this RFC seem any more confrontational than I would expect given some of the things said about him; here I don't agree with this summary.] If something like Neuroscientist's post - filled to the brim with expert-level factual knowledge of the topic at hand, and very little else as far as I can see - is seen as a "personal attack", then it seems to me that the problem is not with anything he said, it is that skins are unreasonably thin. PurplePlatypus 03:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't being rhetorical, and I don't think WAS was either. What, specifically, about the Neuroscientist post could a reasonable person possibly percieve as a personal attack? PurplePlatypus 20:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am writing chiefly to expand my earlier, somewhat tepid endorsement to cover this comment as a whole. However, I would add that I have some issues with the kind of community the majority seem to want, though I shall not air them in detail here, and can sympathize with many of FW's responses even as I recognize their non-constructive nature.

As to my earlier comments, I'm not inclined to change anything, but one thing deserves a final counterpoint. A few people have pointed out that personal comments, not personal attacks, was the language used, and seem to feel this at least partially invalidates comments such as mine. However, there seem to be a large number of Wikipedians, including some influential individuals like SlimVirgin, who treat the two interchangably, and prefer that other do so as well. (I don't know whether Ed holds this view, but it seems clear that SV does). These people want the two accusations to be treated the same, at least when it's convenient for them - so they have no business complaining when people do in fact treat them that way, just because it sometime happens at times, such as this, when they don't find it so convenient. It should go without saying that I have a problem with that, but it appears to be reality. I will not deny that NS made comments it is reasonable to construe as personal, but he had good reasons and I do not think these were out of line. But apparently there are some who consider that a contradiction in terms.

I would also point out that some who attack his - and even more, FuelWagon's - behaviour apparently feel a great deal less constrained about such personal comments compared to the standards to which they wish to hold others. PurplePlatypus 18:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC); expanded and clarified PurplePlatypus 00:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse in part, dissent in part. See my comments above and elsewhere on this page.--GordonWatts 04:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~I endorse everything in this statement except that I believe Ed Poor's warning to Neuroscientist was incorrect. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)~~[reply]

Endorse in full. This is the best summary I have seen to date of the situation. Uncle Ed 15:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Follow-Up to Middle View[edit]~~
FuelWagon has posted a lengthy and informative response to my middle view on my user talk page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Robert_McClenon#viewpoint_of_community. He was responding largely to my puzzled comment: I do not fully understand FuelWagon's view of what an ideal electronic community would be. It appears to be a somewhat utopian sort of anarchy in which there are few friendships and much public criticism. His own summary is: True content, true editors, true friendships, in that order. I partly agree and partly disagree with the specific details that he provides to illustrate those points, and I will not comment on those details at this time, but his emphasis on truth is exemplary. I will comment on his statement of principles.
FuelWagon must be given a great deal of credit for his focus on true content of the encyclopedia. He often comes across as a POV warrior. He is not. He is a truth warrior. He has more trust in his concept of what is NPOV than he does in consensus, and he is usually right, even if he goes against consensus. He has a better idea of what really is NPOV and POV than most Wikipedians. He needs to be listened to. He is abrasive, but he is almost always right on what is and what is not POV and NPOV.
His undoing is that he also demands what he considers "true content" on talk pages. Single-minded pursuit of true (verifiable, NPOV) content is essential on article pages, and is a virtue worth fighting for, even if it makes one unpopular. He has done that. He also fights for truth about the history of Wikipedia interactions on talk pages. That is not worth fighting for.
Truth of encyclopedic content is worth fighting for. It is even worth losing over, because in the long run, the truth will be defended somehow. Truth of what happened in the interactions is not worth fighting for. FuelWagon is spending most of his energy fighting to preserve the truth of what happened in particular edit wars. It does not matter. The encyclopedia is what matters. On article talk pages, the past is not that important. FuelWagon has every right to record his opinion of the truth on his talk pages and his user page, and no one should criticize him for that. If he uses space on article talk pages, that is another matter.
He then refers to true editors. That is essential. However, he omits the Wikipedia obligation to Wikipedia: Assume good faith. That is, assume that other editors are true editors. Both FuelWagon and SlimVirgin have, in my opinion, very seriously departed from that policy. This dispute is the result of two failures. First, FuelWagon has been uncivil. Second, both FuelWagon and SlimVirgin have accused bad faith, when that was not warranted. They are both good faith, and very dedicated, editors. They have different faults, but neither should accuse the other of bad faith. SlimVirgin has explicitly accused FuelWagon of bad faith. FuelWagon has made many statements that are implicit accusations of bad faith.
FuelWagon is absolutely right about the need for true editors. I will mention the need for true editors to recognize other true editors, even if they are mistaken. FuelWagon is a true editor. SlimVirgin is a true editor.
FuelWagon then goes on to accuse SlimVirgin and her associates of "stonewalling". He should realize that that accusation, with roots in the Watergate case, can be seen as a personal attack. It is good politics, but it is not good Wikipedia. At the same time, SlimVirgin should realize that her refusal to respond to FuelWagon is good Usenet, but it is not good Wikipedia.
FuelWagon needs to understand that SlimVirgin appears to be following an approach that is the only workable one in dealing with Internet trolls and bullies. That is, "never complain, never explain." I have seen enough trolls and bullies on Wikipedia to know that SlimVirgin is acting reasonably. She is assuming that an editor who has behaved as badly as FuelWagon has is a troll. He is not. She is mistaken, but he needs to consider that he did act like a troll, or at least a flamer.
FuelWagon should take a look at the Requests for Comment that I filed against [[226]] and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/24.147.97.230 ]]. These users were bullies. I tried to reason with them, and they simply accused me further of bullying them. This behavior is characteristic of bullies and trolls. SlimVirgin is behaving in the way that she has, in "stonewalling", because she has assumed that a user who uses as much profanity has FuelWagon did in the summer is a bully or a troll.
They are both wrong. FuelWagon is wrong for thinking that history in Wikipedia is that important. SlimVirgin has a history of reverts without proper talk on talk pages. Each of them has provoked the other one. FuelWagon should consider that he overstepped the line more obviously than SlimVirgin did, and should stop pressing for a finding of "truth" about what is not encyclopedic content. Encyclopedic content is worth fighting for. History of interaction is not.
In particular, FuelWagon: Please stop demanding "truth" about the past, and work on the present and the future.
Robert McClenon 02:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly on target. 100% correct. WAS 4.250 08:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FuelWagon 01:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC) 90% endorse. I admit I have gone against the views of multiple editors when I think they are not following NPOV. The dispute at the Terrorism article was me trying to insert a verbatim quote from a notable source with a URL to verify its accuracy. Carbonite, Texture, SlimVirgin, and Jayjg all opposed my edit. I provided an outside comment on the Zaphram RfC which revolved around the Terrorism article here reporting what had happened to me. And that's when Carbonite started this RfC against me. The 10% I would disagree with relates to your plea to me that assumes I demand truth of about the past. I am not demanding any truth of SlimVirgin. I tried with my RfC against her. But I gave up on that some time ago. I do, however, intend to keep a copy of the truth under my userspace given that everyone (including SlimVirgin) knows that it is NOT against policy to do so, given that precedence shows it is acceptable practice followed by many editors (including admins), and given that SlimVirgin has threatened to bring me to arbcom. I assume arbcom will be happening after she's gotten enough of her buddies to rubberstamp this RfC in her support, all conveniently ignoring her behaviour on teh Bensaccount RfC. FuelWagon 01:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neuroscientist[edit]~~
I never said that Neuroscientist did make a personal attack. I did say that Ed Poor apparently took Neuroscientist's critique of SlimVirgin's post as a personal attack on her. If so, they were both wrong. However, it is not that important to determine who made mistakes in the past. It is more important to move on. Robert McClenon 02:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Outside view by Rangerdude[edit]~~
It is my view that both the accuser and the subject of this RfC share heavily in the fault behind this growing and increasingly public battle between the two of them. FuelWagon is correct in his description of SlimVirgin's actions on Terri Schiavo & some other places, which have been hasty, rude, condescending, prone to extreme incivility, and often breaching the spirit and/or letter of the rules as to the proper use of her administrator authority. At the same time, however, FuelWagon has been very uncivil in his own right during the response to her and others and, rather than attempting to solve this dispute, has tended to throw fuel on the flames.
It should be noted that SlimVirgin is not exactly prone to kind responses when her edits or administrator actions are questioned, and also tends to be very protective of her self and her close friends whenever one or more of them misbehaves. So FuelWagon likely responded in frustration, however inexcusable it may be. What SlimVirgin did on Terri Schiavo was disruptive, reckless at times, and generally unacceptable for an administrator. FuelWagon's rude and at times profane response was similarly disruptive and uncalled for. What has essentially resulted is a clash between two of the most frequent breachers of civility on Wikipedia. If anything both should reflect on what this incident says about themselves and their editing styles respectively as that is the heart of the matter.
~~Rangerdude 21:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Outside View by Synaptidude[edit]~~
I have little or no involvement with most of the comments/problems in this RFC. I can, however, be something of a "character witness" for FuelWagon. I was a party associated with the Bensaccount RFC, and with the events that led to that RFC. In that particular case, I think that FuelWagon's actions were very reasonable. He, and many other users were involved in a long and very frustrating "argument" with Bensaccount on the talk page to Creation Science. There were many many many reasonable attempts to deal with Bensaccount's unreasonable editing behavior by FuelWagon and others. He finally resorted to an RFC. This, honestly, seemed to be a reasonable solution. He even reasonably withdrew the RFC when things seemed to be resolving themselves. I've never encountered Slim Virgin or most of the other parties to this particular dispute. All I can say is the in my experience, FuelWagon has been a strong and fair participant on the pages we have co-contributed to. Synaptidude 00:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Outside view by Vizcarra[edit]~~
I have been looking edit history of the Terri Schiavo article. And have seen how for months a group of dedicated editors shaped the article. Then one day SlimVirgin comes in and makes significant changes that contradict points that had been discussed before. When he's called on it, he refuses to compromise and resorts to arguments that seem to keep escalating. It is true that FuelWagon's language has been insulting at times. But it is also true that SlimVirgin's behavior did not contribute to an atmosphere of collaboration.
This is the equivalent of a frivolous lawsuit. One of many that have occurred where administrators are both editors and prosecutors, using other admins as witnessess. There is certainly no sense of justice here because those experienced editors can prevent someone to edit their pages by using these rules which they are familiar with.
Many of the "evidence" presented is faulty, such as SlimVirgin's version of the e-mails he sent, which is no evidence at all since he snipped all of the replies by FW while qualifying them negatively. Some of this attempts to compromise by EL_C and others must be taken in context. Words and suggestions to "calm down" may be seen as negative, intimidating and condescending when accompanied with hostile behavior. Certainly, the "accusing" parties' behavior contributed to these incidents and have indeed, brought their "friends" to bail on them.
The focus of all of these rules is to foster a more collaborative environment. Certainly, playing the rules, because you can get away with it is not the best option. When these issues keep escalating these admins must accept that they were incapable of resolving them and should ask the assistance of other admins. However, these admins must be either chosen at random or those admins that won't be partial. In most cases, instead of objective admins, friends of the "accuser" or those who tend to side with them on issues are called to action instead. --Vizcarra 20:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Users who endorse this view
Rangerdude 07:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to point out that SlimVirgin is a "she" not a "he". Her page is not clear about this and the same confusion occurred when she started editing the Terri Schiavo article. Duckecho referred to her as "madam" at one point, and she became indignant, which further confused things because most of us took her indignation to mean that SlimVirgin was a "he". It eventually came out that SlimVirgin was a "she", but not after much consternation. Anyway, we had the same confusion before. I endorse your statement otherwise. FuelWagon 02:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC) (endorsed again with "pound sign" FuelWagon 17:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
~~Discussion[edit]~~
All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.