Wikipedia talk:Mediation Committee/Archive/2

I removed the following from the article because, while true, I think it implies that it's necessary to be an administrator to be a mediator, and that mediation has some connection to sysop duties or powers:

currently, all members are administrators.

-- BCorr|Брайен 12:12, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

---

Continuing the discussion at the message board [1], Brian and I are willing to be the next joint chairs of the committee. Are all other committee members OK with this? We have also talked about when we should rotate again. It seems sensible to have some cross over, so perhaps we should have a term of four months with one chair rotating out every two months? If this seems like a quick turn over for such a small group then perhaps six and three would be better. What do you think? -- sannse (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

I feel either of you would make an excellent chair; based on that, why should I object if you both want to share it? -- llywrch 01:18, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

what next?

Dear Mediation committee,

I have requested mediation regarding a dispute that involves myself, RK, and Zero. Those two have agreed to engage in mediation. The dispute is listed at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Where do we go from here? Thank you. DanKeshet 19:50, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay - there is a reply at "Requests for mediation" -- sannse (talk) 21:27, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Votes

Out of curiosity, how long do these MC votes go on for? A week? Ambivalenthysteria 06:56, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There is no defined amount of time. I suggest that since TUF-KAT is away for the summer, we now have 80% of the mediation committee supporting, so should officially admit these three new members. Angela. 19:01, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

I concur. I'll do so in 2 days if there are no objections. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 20:49, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Bboard

I'm not sure how often everyone is looking at the bulletin board - it's been very quiet there. So this is just to let all mediators know that there is a new post there. If you could all call in that would be great -- sannse (talk) 18:54, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Poor confused bigot

Does it make sense to have User:Ed Poor as a mediator when he holds opinions like "all terrorists are Islamic"? - Xed 21:33, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's a bit harsh, Xed. We have all some issues where we're too passionate, and probably shouldn't mediate. Ed is arguably unparalleled as far as his record of resolving disputes goes. Ambi 23:33, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, and besides, you're hurting my feelings by calling me names. Please don't call me a "confused bigot"; I'm a "nuanced bigot", in that I only tend to agree with the notion that "all terrorists are Islamic". That is, I concede that there have been significant exceptions to the rule - and thus I don't accept it as fully true: it's more like 90% or less, okay?

Provide figures for your estimate. - Xed 20:04, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cultural and historical background of Jesus

I am sitting on my hands awaiting the appointment of a mediator regarding this particular article. I believe FT2 will likely wish to be included in this mediation at this point. In the meantime, is it possible to revert this article and protect it? Again? - Amgine 22:24, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That would be a matter for an individual admin, or for a request on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. I am looking into who should mediate and hope to get back to you soon -- sannse (talk) 12:02, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mediation bulletin board

Has apparently vanished. I shouldn't be surprised; I haven't looked in there for many months. However, I am currently encountering a problem which I would like to discuss in a confidential location. Any sugestions? -- llywrch 05:15, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

IRC may be a possibility - or email. Basically, the boards were rarely being used, and a serious security hole was discovered in our forum software. Rather than spend ages fixing it, they decided it was easier to shut it down, considering the lack of use. Ambi 05:27, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

These new nominations

It seems that Habbit's nomination is doomed, and that there's no major objections to blankfaze and Improv's nominations. Would anyone mind if I archived the nominations and added the other two to the committee list? It's probably a bit soon for several of the others, as they've only had a couple of votes. Ambi 00:04, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Habbit has withdrawn. I think it best to wait a little longer with the other two though -- sannse (talk) 12:04, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

New nominations stalled

A good point was raised on the mailing lists that the current nominations have stalled, and it is harming the mediation process. So far all messages have been in favour of getting things started again, and I am strongly in support of that. As a kick-start measure I plan to promote all those with strong suppport in 24 hours or so, and we can deal with any reprecussions (I don't expect many) later. Pcb21| Pete 11:15, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think this would be a good step. Although in theory this should probably be done by a mediator, considering the current situation, I doubt it matters. I'm assuming those promoted would be Shane King, Whosyourjudas, Blankfaze, Improv and Jwrozenzweig. Ambi 11:56, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That list looks good to me - I think they are all the easy decisions and with speed in mind it is best to deal with them without trying to figure out the harder ones. Pcb21| Pete 14:44, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Eh sweety yous :-) I already promoted Jwrozenzweig and Improv yesterday. Support was wide enough :-) It was not so obvious for the other ones. SweetLittleFluffyThing

You missed ShaneKing (unanimous support, no objections). Whosyourjudas seems fairly clear-cut as well. Blankfaze is borderline (Danny's objection could be considered a veto), and I guess fvw's could be considered failed. Ambi 10:57, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I hesitate to be so strident as to point this out, but unless I'm reading wrong, I'm in the same position as Blankfaze, if not slightly better as sannse is definitely not on the mediation committee right now... though I have no opinion whatsoever on whether or not I have sufficient support. I just figured I should at least be on the list of people being wondered about. :) Snowspinner 13:56, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Gah, sorry, I can't read. That too. :) Ambi 14:16, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Note that neither ShaneKing nor Whosyourjudas have edited Wikipedia for about three weeks now, so it's uncertain what good promoting them would do at this point. --Michael Snow 22:32, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Meeting

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Mediation meeting.

Candidate for being chair

Due to recent arbitration elections and Brian's (Bcorr's) outside activities and many new candidates for mediation committee, I suggest that we hold new elections for the chair.

Jwrosenzweig has suggested he would be interested. I personally support very much him as a chair. Are there other candidates? Is there opposition to his nomination?

Please comment (let's avoid falling into full bureaucratic heaviness here). Thanks. SweetLittleFluffyThing 12:08, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid my comments were misinterpreted on the mailing list -- I only intended to indicate that I was a candidate for membership on the Mediation Committee. I am happy to serve as chair, though, if there is support for such a measure, with two caveats: I never log in on the weekends (though I can try to, if selected for the position) and I have never been a mediator (it might be better to have someone with experience). Basically if any experienced mediator wants the job I think they should get it, and if they don't and people want me to serve, it needs to be with the understanding that I do not have ideal access to Wikipedia for as many hours as other editors seem to. I am very open to any comments on my suitability for the position, and I accept the "nomination" though I wouldn't ever have intentionally presented myself as a candidate, being new here. Jwrosenzweig 20:14, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I support Jwrosenzweig becoming the chair. Angela. 00:43, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Due to several supports on ml and here, and no opposition anywhere, I made Jwro the chair. SweetLittleFluffyThing

Thanks! I appreciate everyone's patience with me being unavailable, James for agreeing to be the new chair, and ant for making it official! BCorr|Брайен 00:51, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Requirements or Resume?

Are there any of these? I ask because I would be interested in something like mediation. I've always liked solving disputes between people, and this seems like something I could actually help with on wikipedia. However, I am admittedly new, unknown to put it clearer. Are there any specific requirements to be a Mediatior? All responses, positive and negative thanked, Pess 01:20, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No real requirements exist. All you need is to inspire the confidence of the MC and the community. I'd suggest that, if you want a sense of what the unpoken-but-generally-understood requirements might be, you assume that a user with less than 4 months editing experience here would not receive support. A user would probably also need to establish some track record of dealing well with disputes that involve them personally. If you took the initiative to try and resolve disputes you weren't involved in (i.e., informally drop in at the talk page and try to help calmly sort things out), that would also be a major plus. Other than that, I suggest you look at the list of current mediators, flip through their user pages, and have a look at their contributions here. That may give some indication. Thanks for your interest, Jwrosenzweig 04:02, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

New proposal

There's a new proposal related to mediation at Wikipedia:Mediation (2005). Angela. 02:34, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Mediation Overhaul Proposal

There have been some recent comments in Arbitration regarding the lack of any meaningful mediation going on and that cases that do go to mediation seem to be abandoned or loiter there without any attention. After discussion with a lot of people it appeared to me that this was the time for a new proposal on overhauling mediation.

Inter did a good part of the initial work on this but I added the informal mediation portion which I think is a key part of the proposal. I have the proposal up and active but it is very much under construction. Comments are encouraged!!

You can view the proposal at Wikipedia:Mediation (2005). --Wgfinley 02:35, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

And I see that Angela beat me by one minute announcing it here!! --Wgfinley 02:36, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Simplified Mediation

For people who can stomach things like WP:SR and WP:TRI, there's also a simplified version actually complete and fully operational right now at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal, in case you need rapid assistence, big or small, but especially in small matters before they actually blow up.

This ad-hoc system was already functional for quite a while already. Adding a page to the wiki to provide people access to it was a fairly trivial act. :-)

Currently the cabal page will do fine as a stopgap measure, but it seems robust enough that it might be called on to serve in the General Mediation role as per Wgfinley's proposal above. After a good shakedown of course.

People are called on to Be Bold and help out! :-)

Kim Bruning 11:33, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm greatly in favor of this. Please go forward boldly, whether you really exist or not! -- Uncle Ed (talk) 17:57, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

JCarriker

Any reason not to appoint JCarriker (talk · contribs) to the committee? The vote stands 4-0 in favor. Uncle Ed 00:14, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

No reason. I've done this now. Angela. 04:56, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Angela, I've been a bit leery of "deciding" anything like adminship (Dr. C) or committee membership lately - especially since Un-C saved me from myself. And now that this bit is out of the way...

Welcome, JCarriker! Uncle Ed 15:02, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Removed nominations

Coolcat has been listed here since the start of April with no support, so I've removed him. WGFinley hasn't edited, other than a note on his user page to say he's on WikiBreak, for almost two months, so it doesn't make much sense to appoint him at this time. I've removed the nomination, but he is free to replace it when or if he ever returns. The previous votes can be found in the page history. Angela. 04:56, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Simplify

As you've probably been aware, there have lately been many dispute resolution systems on Wikipedia. Three of those (TINMC, Wikimediation and Mediation2005) have the same aims and goals as WP:RFM. I believe these overlapping processes to be confusing, and would prefer if the several committees joined forces and created one centralized process. Since this one is the most active of the four, I've redirected TINMC and Wikimed here, so that users seeking mediation will end up here. The text at Wikipedia:Mediation (2005) strikes me as an inactive proposal and potentially instruction creep; I've flagged it as historical for now, but please change that if it is actually in use by the people here. Radiant_>|< 10:05, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

WP:TINMC provides a concrete alternative to the MedCom; it is not duplicative or repetitive. And I'm still looking for the discussion that you claim exists to support this move. Kelly Martin 11:43, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

The Mediation 2005 proposal was an attempt to revive the MedCom, but it instead led to the TINMC. Which is fine by me as I have no respect for the revived MedCom. The TINMC have done quite alot of good things, but I do see the point in merging instances. So if the MedCom wishes to incoporate the different instances into one, the MedCom, I will not oppose, despite personal opposition. Inter\^Echo 01:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

A surprised AMA member

Hi! I'd like to say that, if someone didn't notice, there's a whole pile of mediation requests without being replied in WP:RFM. You surely would understand that we AMA are very interested in having a really working MedCom. I don't expect you to accept all cases, but, at least, to respond the posts! --Neigel von Teighen 17:41, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

self regulating mediators

Does the mediation committee self regulate its mediators?

Ed Poor was mediating the Terri Schiavo starting June 17. About a month later, an admin and fellow friend of his, SlimVirgin, performed a massive edit of the article. Several editors on the article said such an edit contained numerous factual errors and NPOV problems, was inappropriate for an article marked "controversial" and "in mediation", and that an admin should have known better.

Ed Poor's actions around this dispute showed him failing to act as mediator and taking SlimVirgin's side in the dispute to the point of warning editors who criticized SlimVirgin, blocking editors for preparing an RfC against SlimVirgin, and attacking editors working on the article he was supposed to be mediating.

I don't know how the mediation committee regulates its mediators or how it handles when a mediator fails to do their job in a blatant way. The specifics are listed below:

Ed Poor warned User:Neuroscientist about possibly violating NPA [2] when Neuroscientist had done nothing but criticize the neurological and medical accuracy of SlimVirgin's edit [3].

I began preparing an RfC against SlimVirgin on my talk page [4]. SlimVirgin complained to Ed about it, and they discussed it. Ed's last comment was

And the beauty of it is, the very last comment on their talk page would most likely be a clear and obvious personal attack. (I think the expression I'm looking for goes something like "fried in their own juice".) [5]

He then blocks me for "NPA violations" and moves my RfC stuff to a /block subdirectory. [6] There are no NPA violations on my talk page. The entire contents are visible here [7]. I asked Ed what specific remarks got me blocked [8]. Ed ignores the question [9].

I file an RfC against SlimVirgin. Ed attacks it as a "sneaky way of "building a case"", gaming the system, hypocritical bullying, and suggests those filing it withdraw the RFC. [10]

Ed then attacks me personally, "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." [11]

Ed's actions while mediator reflect someone who had engaged in the dispute, taking SlimVirgin's side to the point of handing out undeserved warnings, undeserved blocks, and attacking editors on the article.

Is there some way the mediation committee would address this behaviour? FuelWagon 18:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I wish you'd stop following me around the wiki, it's getting annoying. Some Wikipedians have tried creating a Wikipedia:Stalking policy to forbid this kind of thing.

If nobody's interested in your case (as a punitive action), why not talk to me directly - on my talk page - or even ask for mediation. You might ask User:BrandonYusufToropov about his experience being in mediation with me several months ago. Uncle Ed 21:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm aware of the "stalking" proposal. A number of folks opposed it because they felt that following a bad editor around and fixing bad edits was neccessary. I consider this issue to be a bad mediator. As for asking for mediation, the problem occurred in mediation. Forgive me if I don't request more of the same just yet. FuelWagon 21:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Does the mediation committee have any way to deal with a mediator who fails to do his job? Does the mediation committee care if a mediator abuses his position? FuelWagon 15:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Most mediations fail because the parties refuse to mediate; this is not a reflection on the mediator. And since mediators have no special authority, there's not much to abuse. Kelly Martin 16:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Kelly, this wasn't about the editors "refused to mediate". We had been in mediation around the Terri Schiavo article for about a month and had been doing just fine. What happened was that after a month, SlimVirgin entered the article out of the blue, performed a large number of edits with the "edit in progress" flag and her edit contained numerous factual and NPOV problems. What happened at that point was not that the poeple on the article "refused to mediate", what happened was that the mediator himself refused to mediate. The mediator, Ed Poor, defended SlimVirgin and attacked people who criticized her edit. Ed engaged in the debate. Ed warned user Neuroscientist about violating NPA when all Neurscientist had done was give a rather technical (neurological) explanation of what was wrong with SlimVirgin's edit. I started working on an RfC against SlimVirgin on my talk page and Ed blocked me for violating NPA and put the RfC stuff in my /block subdirectory. Once the block expired, I filed the RfC against SlimVirgin and Ed attacked the RfC. The RfC was supported by 5 people, but I removed my own certification to allow it to be deleted. Once it was deleted, Ed attacked me personally. So, this isn't about the editors "refusing to mediate", it's about Ed Poor refusing to act as mediator once SlimVirgin entered the article. He engaged in the dispute. He took sides. He defended SlimVirgin and he attacked people who criticized her edits. He blocked me when there are no NPA violations on my talk page. And then he violated NPA himself. I've asked Ed Poor to point out a specific NPA violation in my /blockdirectory that caused him to block me, but he has refused, which indicates to me that there weren't any violations, and he blocked me solely because I was working on an RfC against his friend, SlimVirgin. No one has been able to point out an NPA violation in my /blockdirectory. But it isn't just Ed's block against me, it was his entire behaviour once SlimVirgin entered the article that showed his complete lack of neutrality and failure as a mediator. FuelWagon 16:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

In light of Ed's record, for the time being I will have to reject any impeachment hearing. Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 04:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Uhm, where exactly did you hear the word "impeachment" in this request? And if you won't consider looking at the issue, then how exactly would you know when Ed's "record" is bad enough to consider impeachment, if you won't even look at a single instance that might at least be worthy of noting on his "record"? Isn't that a bit of a catch-22 that leaves Ed Poor's record spotless until some arbitrary time in the future when someone decides his "record" is no longer quite so defendible? So, lemmee try again. I am looking for some sort of way for the mediation committee to deal with a case where a mediator failed to mediate, to the point of engaging in the debate, taking sides, and attacking editors. And you're telling me the only tool you have for dealing with rogue mediators is "impeachment" or nothing at all? There is nothing in between? There are no other options? FuelWagon 04:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Impeachment was suggested two or so sections down, sorry I didn't realize that wasn't what you're asking for. It's not a Catch 22 as there's a first offense clause, and I was referring to how I haven't seen Ed let go of a case before, so his record as a mediator seems pretty good. But back to you... what ARE you requesting? If you don't want some sort of impeachment, what do you want me to do? You'll have to elaborate. Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 04:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, you referred to Ed's "record", is there a way to put something on a mediator's "record" that says they failed to mediate or something? If so, I would request that someone take a look at the issues I pointed to above (listed below again for your convenience):

Ed blocking me for npa violaitons and moving the offending content to a/block directory. However, I've asked Ed to point out specific violations and he refused. I was working on compiling a list of issues with SlimVirgin in preparation for filing an RfC against her. SlimVirgin saw the page and asked Ed to block me. He did. But there are no policy violations on the page.

Ed warning Neuroscientist about possibly violating NPA when all Neuroscientist did was give a rather detailed neurological explanation for all the things wrong with SlimVirgin's edit.

Once I filed the RfC against SlimVirgin, Ed initially gave it hesitant and partial endorsement, then turned around and attacked the RfC and the people who filed it.

Ed used the excuse of "illustrating a point" to violate NPA against me personally.

And if it's found that Ed failed to mediate neutrally, that it be noted on his mediator "record" in some way. Also, what's "a first offense clause"? FuelWagon 04:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I think this dispute may need to be resolved confidentially. Ann has unresolved disputes with me about other issues and is bringing it to my dispute with Ed Poor. She has brought up the same unrelated issues on my RfC against SlimVirgin, on my evidence against Ed Poor submitted to arbcom, and more recently on my talk page, before bringing her dispute here. She appears to have no intention of resolving her dispute with me, but rather simply wishes to bring up her dispute as an attempt to sidetrack my dispute with Ed Poor. At the very least, my dispute with Ed needs some sort of mediation or formal process so that other disputes aren't brought into the mix. I don't know if there is some formal process for dealing with a mediator's behaviour, or how this would get handled. Some direction would be appreciated. FuelWagon 16:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

No, I have no disputes with FuelWagon, resolved or unresolved. His attacks have been against others, and I have witnessed them with a certain amount of shock and disgust. I would be most happy to let everything drop, if FuelWagon would drop his accusations against Ed and Slim. I don't even mean if he retracted them – just if he didn't make any more. I would never bring up his past behaviour if it were not relevant to the accusations he keeps making. I even endorsed his response to a now-deleted, spurious (in my view) RfC brought against him after the events of July, because I did not wish to let my knowledge of his behaviour on the Terri Schiavo article compromise my fairness in looking at that particular case. Anyway, I am going on a wikibreak, so even if he continues his accusations, I will not be responding. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 17:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Ann, you bring up stuff that has nothing to do with Ed Poor's block, nothing to do with Ed Poor's warning to Neuroscientist, nothing to do with Ed Poor's attack of the RfC against SlimVirgin, and nothing to do with Ed Poor's attack against me personally. What you continue to bring up is basically that I violated policy previously, so any policy violations against me do not count, therefore any improper behaviour on Ed Poor is excusable. Obviously, there's no convincing you otherwise, you've brought up the same material on the RfC against SlimVirgin, at arbcom, on my talk page, and now here on the mediation commmittee page. FuelWagon 21:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Redwolf24, is there any process for looking at possibly improper behaviour by a mediator? Is there some process to look at some diffs and decide if Ed's record should note this incident? Not an impeachment, but some sort of official "yeah, that wasn't the sort of thing a mediator should do" note? And if so, could we do it in some formal process so that Ann's grudges against me can be separated out from the interactions between Ed and myself? FuelWagon 21:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Response from another party to Ed's mediation

I was a party to the mediation, and a witness to the events that led to FuelWagon's block. I have posted a few clarifications to other pages, and I hope that this can be my last post on this subject until my exams are over (or better still, for ever). For the last few months, FuelWagon has been repeatedly trying to get some action taken against Ed Poor. The events of last July were extremely unpleasant, and it would be wonderful if FuelWagon would allow everyone to forget about them and to move on. But if he is determined to keep posting harmful messages about Ed Poor and SlimVirgin to administrators, to committees, and even to Jimbo, I think it is necessary to respond, though I do so with regret. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 00:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

It would be wonderful if the issues were dealt with rather than buried, and then we all move on. FuelWagon 02:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon had been extremely abusive and obscene on the Terri Schiavo talk page and related pages for several months. ([12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]) For some reason, no action was ever taken against him. Because of the hostility, etc., Ed Poor was asked to come and mediate. He did so properly, and courteously. He did not take sides on the issue of Terri Schiavo. He did say a few times that he was not happy with the behaviour of the contributors. At one stage, he rolled the page back to some (randomly-chosen, I believe) point before an edit war had started, and locked it, telling us to sort out our differences on the talk page. He unlocked it a few days later. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 00:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Uhm, no, ghost requested mediation [25] his main concern was POV pushing (three bullets) and behaviour on talk page (one bullet). I know you'd like to blame that all on me, but we were dealing with POV warriors like NCdave at the time, since it was just after Terri Schiavo's death and every one and their mother was pushing POV on the article about how Terri was murdered. Up until that point, the article had no resolution system engaged at all. looking back, we probably should have requested the article be locked until the heat blew over, but instead we were dealing with POV vandals who kept trying to change the article to say Terri was playing tennis at night and her evil husband murdered her with the help of the judge and police. Mediation officially began on June 20th. [26], by the way, and none of the diffs of me swearing occurred after that date. Actually, my first edit occurred on April 2, and those diffs are all from the first couple months of my experience on wikipedia. I believe that be the time mediation started, I was more experienced, and I was also trying to give medation a chance to work out the POV issues. SlimVirgin performed the first of her massive error filled POV edit on July 11 [27]. About a month later. I believe I managed to avoid NPA violations during those few weeks of mediation until SlimVirgin arrived on the scene. So, my complaint is about Ed Poor's mediation of the article. If you want to start looking at diffs when mediation started June 20th, go for it. A month later, SlimVirgin shows up, a revert war occurs, the talk page explodes, and I violated NPA. I start cleaning my comments up, and Ed blocks me. I do NOT protest. I start working on an RfC on my talk page, and Ed blocks me for that. I protest that. Ed warns Neuroscientist for criticizing the content of Slim's edit. I file the RfC, and Ed attacks that. Ed then attacks me. So, you say you're worried about only "half" the truth being told, well, then let's talk about the whole truth. Ed Poor mediated for four weeks and there wasn't a problem. As soon as SlimVirgin showed up, he took her side and engaged in the debate. FuelWagon 02:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid your memory of your behavious between Ed's arrival and SlimVirgin's arrival is rather inaccurate. As I have explained, I am revising for exams, and do not wish to waste time searching for diffs. You continued to be abusive and to use foul language between those two dates. If you don't believe me, go to theTalk:Terri_Schiavo/Mediation page, look at the history, and click on diffs for FuelWagon. Here are a few examples to get you started:

(An editor's comment or edit is) "total POV bullshit".

"Give me a fucking break"

(Another contributor's post is) a "bucket of vomit", which "should be deleted on sight". He is "a menace".

"You're a menace nearly as bad as NCdave. . . . Despite your delusions of grandeur . . ."

"You are such a pain in the ass."

"This is a load of crap. . . What a bunch of bunk."

I'm sure I could find more diffs, but I'm in the middle of revision. Also, I find it quite distasteful, and I would definitely not bring up any of this except that FuelWagon seems to be trying to have a prosecution case against Ed without any defence evidence. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 15:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I happen to think you're an asshole and a shit head, and that you're fucking everything up, you stupd, time-wasting bully!!!

By all means, please show me the defense evidence for the above comment by Ed Poor. And no, what happened weeks before do not qualify. Where exactly does this comment get around being a policy violation? If anyone but Ed Poor had made this comment, they would have been blocked in a heartbeat. And does this qualify as the sort of comment that a mediator should make to someone they are supposed to be neutrally mediating? FuelWagon 16:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Wow, for someone who is reluctant and busy and all the other things you keep mentioning, you sure do find the time to say what an evil man I am. As I said in another post, if you want to open up for a full reckoning all the way back to the beginning of mediation, then I'd be willing to do that if we look at every diff and every post it was in response to. If I violate NPA and the post it was in response to violated NPOV, then both editors get a block. I know you like to talk about "half" the truth, but if you want a full truth, a full reckoning, then we'll have to look at all the posts, not just mine. The other half of the truth that you avoid is that these edits are in response to POV pushing and I would guess the reason that no one complained about me was because they knew they were in violation as well. Now, months later, you want to look at just my posts. If you want to look at all the edits, fine, lets have a full reckoning and hand out blocks all around, but if you want to look at my diffs out of context to the posts they were in reply to, then that's just more of "half" the truth. I'm asking mediation committee to look at my talk page and see if it warranted Ed's response to block me. You cannot justify Ed's block of my talk page based on something I did weeks prior. I keep talking about looking at a post and a response. You keep bringing in stuff I did before out of context to what it was in response to. If you want to open up the investigation to when mediation started, fine, but then we'll start looking at ALL the posts, not just mine, and we'll start handing out blocks to ALL the editors who violated policy, not just pick and choose my edits. Look at my talk page and show me a POLICY VIOLATION that deserved a block. DONT TELL ME ED BLOCKED ME BECAUSE OF SOME POST I MADE WEEKS PRIOR. Look at my talk page and show me where it violated policy. Look at Neuroscientists criticism of SlimVirgins edit and show me a POLICY VIOLATION that warranted his warning. Look at the RfC and show me how it warranted Ed's attack. Look at the conversation Ed and I were having when he illustrated a point and show me how that warranted his attack against me directly. If you want to drag up everything that happened up until that point, then we will drag up everything that happened up to that point. You can spin this any way you want, Ann, but this keeps coming down to Ed blocked me and you think it was a justified block because you want to take my posts out of context. If you want a full reckoning, then we will have a full reckoning. FuelWagon 16:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

First of all, Wikipedia policy is that POV edits should be reverted, not that POV editors should be blocked or attacked. Secondly, you were passionately on the side of Terri Schiavo's husband, and it often showed in your edits; others were passionately on the side of Terri's parents, and it showed in their edits. It's just easier for you to see POV in other people's edits. Thirdly, as I've said repeatedly, I don't want any reckoning. I'd like people to move on. I explained on your talk page that if you go and edit some new article about apricots or butterflies, I will not appear on it to tell other editors about your NPA attacks. I never check your contributions. The only thing that leads me to reply to the accusations you constantly make against Ed and SlimVirgin on pages which are on my watchlist is a fear that your one-sided story could lead those in authority to an unfair judgment against those two editors. Finally, I'm about to go on a wiki-break before my exams next week, so I hope that everyone will realize that if your next accusations pass without comment, it doesn't mean that there is no comment to make. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 17:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin came to the Terri Schiavo article as a newcomer and made some edits which FuelWagon didn't like. He reverted them, and in the course of their disagreement, he called her a f**%!ng *$$s0le, a f**%!ng jerk,[28], an arrogant cuss, an arrogant arse [29] etc. SlimVirgin withdrew from editing the article [30] Ed blocked FuelWagon. FuelWagon then began to fill his talk page with remarks about how being an administrator meant never having to admit you were wrong. He was uploading these remarks every few minutes. Ed asked him to use the time productively to show how he intended to help Wikipedia. FuelWagon carried on uploading criticisms of SlimVirgin and Ed. When he had uploaded about a hundred times, Ed locked the talk page, and moved everything to a subdirectory. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 00:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I violated NPA, was blocked, and did not protest the block. After that, I uploaded comments to my talk "every few minutes" up until I had done so "a hundred times"??? Please, explain to me how editing every few minutes for a hundred times is a policy violation worthy of a block? Being critical of an editor's "behaviour" is not a violation of policy. After all the issues raised on the talk page, SlimVirgin still insisted her edit was perfectly fine and should be reinserted in teh article. I was compiling a list of factual and NPOV problems with her edit. Wow. I should be crucified. FuelWagon 02:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Ed did, indeed, make the "asshole and shithead" attack, but the context shows clearly that he was using this language to give FuelWagon an example of the kind of remarks we shouldn't make, and which FuelWagon had been making for months without being blocked. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 00:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Exactly how long can editors violate NPA against me before I've paid my dues, Ann? When I started editing wikipedia, I swore at some POV pushers like NCdave. Once I had been on wikipedia for a couple months, mediation started, and I tried to avoid such comments. If someone violates NPA against me a year from now, am I still unable to have someone enforce policy against them because I swore at folks when I first got on wikipedia? Just curious if there is a time limit or if people should be allowed to swear at me forever. FuelWagon 02:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, as I pointed out above, you had not been polite and clean-tongued during the entire mediation period before Ed's arrival. I don't particularly condone Ed's remark towards you, but I think you present it out of context. Ann Heneghan ^(talk)

FuelWagon claims that Ed "attacked" people who "criticized" SlimVirgin. I think it would be fairer to say that he once attacked one person who had repeatedly attacked (not just criticized) SlimVirgin (and many other editors). One could also argue that Ed criticized one person who had criticized SlimVirgin. That does not seem to be a crime. I believe it is misleading to say that all Neuroscientist had done was to give a neurological analysis of SlimVirgin's edit. Here are some extracts from his post:

SlimVirgin . . . has an exceptionally poor understanding of elementary neuroanatomy. . . . Now, I’d like to put this very gently, but I do not know how else to accurately convey it except to say that this person has absolutely, totally, completely, no idea of what she’s talking about. This is an example of the worst in Wikipedia, when complete, arrant nonsense serves as the basis for editorial decisions. . . .SlimVirgin is also wrong when she writes . . . . This is nonsense, of course. . . . Seriously guys, don't you think this is clunky? . . . Most of her assumptions were wrong. . . . [Some of her edits were] woefully ill-informed, or weak. . . . Leaving aside the hubris it must take [for SlimVirgin] to say that . . . . I have already shown that her assumptions of fact in her version of the introduction are riddled with error. . . . My final impressions here are that this User demonstrated very, very, very poor judgment by doing what she did.[31] Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 00:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Let's see. SlimVirgin has poor understanding of neuroanatomy. What? How is this a violation of NPA??? This isn't a personal attack because it isn't a comment on her character as a person. It is a comment about her edit. Her edit was factually wrong. Wow. And saying her edit is factually wrong is a personal attack??? "her assumptions are wrong"??? How is that an NPA violation? "her assumptions of fact are riddled with errors"??? Again, exactly how is this an NPA violation? How exactly are we supposed to be able to tell an editor that they have committed errors of fact if even saying that is a violation of No Personal Attacks? That would seem to be teh root fo the problem with SlimVirgin in the first place: Every criticism of her content was responded with "I don't like your tone" or similar comments. The entire time leading up to the RfC, SlimVirgin never admitted a single error of fact. Apparently, to tell her she made a factual error is an NPA violation. FuelWagon 02:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

All I am claiming is that Neuroscientist went further than criticizing the points she made. He went on to talk about her "hubris", her "exceptionally poor understanding" (I've emphasized the word that you omitted), and her "very, very, very poor judgment". I never claimed and Ed never claimed that he attacked her character. In any case, Ed used the word "remarks", not "attacks". You keep saying that Ed attacked people who criticized SlimVirgin. If you're talking about yourself, you didn't criticize her; you attacked her. If you're talking about Neuroscientist, Ed didn't attack him, he asked him to try not to hurt people's feeling with personal remarks. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 15:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I would like to make it clear, in case anyone is misled by FuelWagon's posts, that Ed did not "attack" Neuroscientist. Nor did he caution him against "Personal Attacks". He asked him, quite politely, to avoid "Personal Remarks", and to try not to hurt other editors' feelings.[32]

The mediation did stop after these events, but the atmosphere at the Terri Schiavo talk page became much better, so I don't see that Ed "failed". Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 00:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Ed, for blocking me for NPA violations in my /block directory and then refusing to point out a single specific violation. I feel so much better. Thank you for attacking the RfC against SlimVirgin, I now understand that to criticize one of your friends is wrong. Thank you for teaching me a valuable lesson about "free speech" by swearing at me as if you really were swearing at me. I'm sure I would not have learned the lesson any other way. You've made the world a better place, Ed Poor. FuelWagon 02:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I am not trying to have any action taken against FuelWagon, but since he keeps making accusations against Ed Poor (and also against SlimVirgin), I feel that it is necessary that his audience should be given the other side. I wish he didn't keep forcing me to do this. I would so much rather just edit the encyclopaedia. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 00:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Once again, Ann Heneghan comes forward as reluctant and regretful witness to testify to the world that FuelWagon is evil incarnate, that SlimVirgin is the immaculate editor, and that Ed Poor can do absolutely positively nothing wrong in the slightest way, that Ed Poor is beyong reproach. FuelWagon 01:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I think you've already proven I'm not above reproach. I've seen quite a few reproaches from you in the last couple of months. I wish you would agree to a Mediation between you and me, as I suggested before. This constant berating is getting us nowhere. Uncle Ed 23:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

This is no longer even about mediation. Go file an RfC, but you'll need some certification. Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 22:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

There are at least four things that relate directly to Ed Poor's behaviour while he was mediating Terri Schiaov. (1) Ed Poor's second block against me while I was creating an RfC against SlimVirgin. He says there were NPA violations, but has refused to point out anything specific. He moved everythign to a /block directory. (2) Ed Poor's warning to Neuroscientist for possibly violating NPA when Neuroscientist had criticized the content of SlimVirgin's edit. (3) Ed Poor's attack of the RfC against SlimVirgin (4) Ed Poor's personal attack against me. All this occurred while Ed Poor was mediation Terri Schiavo. All of this occurred on the Terri Schiaov page or related pages. Ann is basically arguing that if I bring these issues up against Ed, she'll try to bring up my past offences that she wasn't even involved with and no admin found cause to block me for. Can you comment on the request to look at Ed Poor's behaviour as mediator on the Terri Schiavo article? This is separate from Ann's attempt to threaten me into silence using unrelated issues. Ed's block against me had nothing to do with any past NPA violations and had everything to do with the fact that I was working on an RfC against his friend. So, if a mediator doesn't mediate, can teh mediation committee address it somehow? FuelWagon 22:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)