Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/FuelWagon v. Ed Poor/Proposed decision

banned without any evidence

The proposed decision says "Vandal|FuelWagon is banned, until the conclusion of this Arbitration" and I find it interesting that no one has produced a single diff as evidence that shows vandalism being committed by me, nor does the proposal say any other reason as to why I should be banned until arbitration is finished. Would it have anything to do with the fact that I am actively campaigning against the re-election of two arbcom members, Jayjg and Fred Bauder? If charges can be invented out of thin air without a single diff of evidence to even attempt to show "vandalism" on my part, let me know now, because if that's the case, then you're basically telling me that you've already made up your mind about this case, and It will a waste of my time formatting my evidence into your desired format, because you've already decided I'm the guilty party here. FuelWagon 19:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

You produced it against yourself, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/FuelWagon_v._Ed_Poor#Statement_by_FuelWagon Fred Bauder 19:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

My statement is vandalism? FuelWagon 19:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Not vandalism, but if you follow the links they go to making trouble, not to editing of the encyclopedia. Fred Bauder 19:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Could you be a little more specific as to which links point to me "making trouble"? FuelWagon 19:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

What the hell?

Can someone explain to me how the proposed remedies in this case relate to the findings of fact, because I'm having a great deal of trouble seeing it. PurplePlatypus 11:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The facts are uncovered in the backchannel. It's already been decided there that FuelWagon is a dangerous troll and vandal in need of banning. It's just a matter of making the case fit the ends required. If you don't know that, you haven't been paying much attention to the whole arbitration process! -- Grace Note

stalking

I see in the proposals that there is "substantial evidence" that I'm stalking SlimVirgin? Why? Because SlimVirgin said so? I provided a history of diffs that show exact dates as when and how I came to the articles I was working on. The thing about accusing someone of "stalking" is its an easy accusation to make in an atmosphere of "guilt until proven innocent", because its so hard to disprove that you were not stalking someone. But then again, if it were an environment of innocent until proven guilty, then the person making the accusation would have to do the work to prove stalking. No one has shown I stalked SlimVirgin. SlimVirgin made the accusation, and provided scant evidence, some of it flat out wrong, of stalking.

Here are some quick examples of SlimVirgin's evidence:

• On September 16, after I edited Wikipedia:Words to avoid, [1] he arrived there for the first time and reverted me. [2]

No, I've already shown that on 23:26, 15 September 2005 I quote the "Words to avoid" article to SlimVirgin and then after that, 22:57, 17 September 2005 SlimVirgin follows me to the "Words to avoid" article and deletes the entire entry for the word "however", and then after that I revert her deletion. She makes the accusation and provides my reversion as "proof", but she conveniently forgot to mention that I had mentioned the "words to avoid" article to her days before that.

• On September 26, after I edited Refusal to serve in the Israeli military, [3] he arrived there for the first time and reverted me. [4]
• On September 26, I edited Israel, [5] and a few hours later he made an edit there for the first time. [6]
• On September 30, I edited Historical persecution by Jews, [7] and he arrived there for the first time within six minutes, reverted me, [8] and began attacking me on the talk page.

I've already explained how I was involved in a discussion about adding "Conspiracy theory" to the words to avoid list, and the two exampled provided in that discussion of conspiracy theories were teh "protocols of the elders of zion" and the claim that israeli's were warned before 9-11. It was in the middle of this debate (which started 22:37, 16 September 2005) that I went looking for examples of articles mentioning conspiracy theories, starting with the two examples given, and ended up at the Refusal to serve in the Israeli military and Historical persecution by Jews.

• On September 30, I edited Historical persecution by Christians [9] and he arrived there for the first time within eight minutes, reverted me, [10] and began attacking me on the talk page. In none of the above did he make a substantive edit, or a comment on the talk page about content. His comments were entirely about me.

Again, SlimVirgin conveniently forgets to mention that on the Historical persecution by Jews talk page, she specifically states that she deleted a large block of text from the Christian version of the article. It isn't a mystery how I ended up there. She announced she had deleted a block of text on the Christian article, so I went to look and didn't see any consensus to have it deleted (or any discussion at all), so I reinstated the text. The current version of the article still contains the text, suggesting that it was legitmate to keep the text.

• On October 12, he arrived at Terrorism, [11] an article he had never edited, but I had edited recently, and teamed up with banned user Zephram Stark, insulting Jayjg, Carbonite, and me.

Again, SlimVirgin conveniently forgets to mention that Vizcarra complained about the case against Zephram Stark that was currently in motion [12]. The case clearly states the issue was centered around the Terrorism article. She also fails to mention that my only edit to the Terrorism article was the "crime" of inserting two sentences containing a verbatim quote from a notable source with a URL to verify. This was a small and legitimate edit by me [13].

• On November 5, he arrived at Animal rights, which he had never edited before and which I had edited several times, adding a section to the intro with an inappropriate source. [14] I waited until November 21 before tidying it, but he reverted. I posted suggestions for compromise, but he kept re-inserting his own intros (which got worse each time he rewrote them, ending up as just a collection of quotes from one website [15]), reverting against Babajobu, FeloniousMonk, Scales, and myself, so I posted a request for protection. [16] He then posted insults about me to talk, for which Ed blocked him for three hours on November 29. FuelWagon responded with this RfAr on November 30.

Once again, SlimVirgin only present part of the story. I first happened upon the Veganism article while on vandal patrol. This history of my contributions will show that I did nothing on wikipedia for about three days straight but revert vandalism. During this time, I reverted an anonymous IP that had made three edits to the article, some of which contained unsourced claims and problematic text. I went back later because I didn't feel 100% about the revert. I find some disputes going on, and insert one sentence in the introduction, an intro otherwise devoid of any dissenting views.

SlimVirgin's presentation of evidence starts out with a complete misrepresentation of facts. She followed me to the words to avoid article after I quoted the article to her. The remainder of her evidence shows only part of the history that might support stalking, but she never mentions any of the diffs that would show I ended up at an article for legitmate reasons. Vizcarra told me about the Zephram Stark case and the Terrorism article. So, I put two whole sentences into the Terrorism article, and SlimVirgin says I'm stalking her. No, I've shown how I ended up at the article, and I've shown that my edit to the article was legitimate. SlimVirgin shows an edit by me on the Animal Rights article claiming it shows stalking, but I've shown I ended up at the Veganism article while on vandal patrol, went back to the article to make an edit, and Veganism took me to Animal Rights.

I provide a sequential list of evidence to show that I haven't been stalking SlimVirgin here and here.

More importantly, SlimVirgin makes a number of accusations about "Stalking" but not once does she mention her behaviour way back in August on the Bensaccount RfC. The RfC had been around for a week, she had no involvement in the Creation Science article or the RfC during that time. The day she declares she is "all out of good faith" is the day she suddenly injects herself into the Bensaccoutn RfC.

While I've explained how I arrived at different articles, and I've shown that my edits were reasonable (for example, two sentences reporting a sourced quote in the Terrorism article), I'm still accused of wikistalking. Meanwhile, I've shown that Slimvirgin announced that she was all out of good faith to me on my talk page [17], and that later that same day, she's suddenly found interest in the Bensaccount RfC as being "another example of an inappropriate RfC" by me [18], so her motivations are obviously not neutral, and her behaviour should be futher questioned when the end result is that another admin tells her that the RfC looks OK [19].

I've shown how I arrived at various pages for legitimate reasons, and I've shown that my edits were reasonable. I've also shown that SlimVirgin arrived at the Bensaccount RfC with highly questionable motiviations, and I've shown that her protestations about the RfC were shown to be unjustified by another admin. Yet I'm the one charged with stalking. FuelWagon 16:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Another signature saying I'm stalking SlimVirgin, despite all the evidence to the contrary. I wonder if anyone on arbcom will find the fact that SlimVirgin stalked me to the Bensaccount RfC. Or will this case be simply a finding of enough facts to get me banned and ignore all other facts.... FuelWagon 21:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Poor Fuel! Still expecting justice to prevail! You are going to be punished. You crossed a well-liked admin, and regardless what she did or didn't do, that is a recipe for disaster. Like most of us, including most of the administrapo, you've done things that are a bit iffy, sometimes even plain naughty, so it's not hard to find reasons to exclude you. Pointing out that the same reasons apply to others is simply not getting the point. Your trial was over long ago. If you had any sense, you'd do what I did. Refuse to take part and accept that it's pointless to fight it. -- GN

edit wars???

I "instigated" edit wars on teh Terrorism and Creation Science articles? Say what? On the terrorism article, I inserted two sentences into the article, reporting a verbatim quote from a notable source with a URL to verify. And for this, I was mobbed. How is that instagation by me? I'm not even sure how the Creation science article got into the charges against me, but I'll refer to the RfC against Bensaccount that I filed, and was endorsed by a number of editors, was opposed by no one but Bensaccount, and that pretty much ended the edit war on Creation science. Perhaps someone should contact the other editors who endorsed/certified teh RfC if they wish to investigate the truth. FuelWagon 17:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I actually had to go check my evidence, because I was starting to think that maybe I left out some diffs. In my reply to SlimVirgin's accusation regarding the Terrorism article here, I show that I insert two senteces consisting of a verbatim quot from a notable soruce 03:53, 12 October 2005 and that the next edit is a full revert by Texture 16:15, 12 October 2005. Exactly how is the blame for "instagating a revert war" fall on me? I made a valid edit. I was reverted immediately. FuelWagon 19:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Patronizing remarks???

Neuroscientist's critique contained "patronizing remarks" against SlimVirgin??? And the diff to "prove" this is a diff by SlimVirgin telling Neuroscientist that his post was patronizing??? What??? How does that prove they were patronizing? What comments by Neuroscientist exactly is arbcom saying were patronizing??? There are none. FuelWagon 17:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

You could simply make the correct inference, which is that if Slim says your comments are patronising, they're patronising. You're not judged in the arbcom, Fuel, you're judged in the field. -- GN

Disrupting wikipedia to prove a point

The only thing FuelWagon is guilty of is MASSIVE disruption of Wikipedia to prove the point that: consensus OFTEN is about factors related to friendship and not factors related to logic/evidence/truth. WAS 4.250 19:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to think that's largely false, but the proposed remedies here certainly have bugger-all to do with logic, evidence, or truth - including, I say again, the Findings of Fact right above them! PurplePlatypus 20:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

By the end of July, three good editors, Duckecho, Neuroscientist, and Ghost, all stopped contributing to wikipedia. Duckecho specifically blamed the botched handling of the Terri Schaivo dispute with SlimVirgin. I think my attempts in August/September to get arbcom to address Ed Poor's handling of the dispute was in proportion to the severity of a situation that had caused 3 good editors to leave wikipedia. I clearly do not consider using the dispute resolution system when things go so wrong that 3 good editors leave wikipedia in disgust to be "disrupting wikipedia". I saw a legitimate problem, and I was trying to get it addressed. But I had considered all options exhausted when one-on-one mediation with Ed Poor failed in November. I figured that was the end of it, there was nothing more I could do, and I was prepared to suck it up and move on.

The only problem was that the day after I post the results of mediation (that mediation failed because after 16 days, Ed Poor hadn't responded to the first round of questions, and the mediator withdrew due to lack of participation), then Ed Poor suddenly had a lot of time to deal with me. Ed accused me of stalking SlimVirgin, signed an RfC against me, and said he had the pull to get me banned. Two weeks later, Ed blocked me again for non-existent NPA's and said I should be permanently banned.

I requested arbitration before Ed figured out a way to use his "pull" to get me banned for life. I specifically stated that I was limiting my case to Ed Poor because he was the one whose behaviour I was having a problem with. But Fred Bauder submitted my 12 "demands" of SlimVirgin (even though they were actually my "most ideal terms", and even though I reduced it to 3 items in the next day or so, and even though it had nothing to do with Ed Poor). And someone (Fred, was that you?) requested SlimVirgin submit evidence to the case. So, I wasn't trying to bring SlimVirgin up on charges here, and I specifically stated that I was excluding her, but someone widened the case to include her, so I pretty much have to respond to her accusations against me. That SlimVirgin is involved in this case is not my doing, nor should it reflect "disrupting wikipedia" that she is here. Fred Bauder brought her in here. I was willing to deal specifically with Ed's blocks and threats against me. FuelWagon 21:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

retrofiting history???

What exactly is the poitn of this finding of fact?

Ed Poor has a history of misusing any permissions given him, which resulted in Ed losing both his developer and bureaucrat access.

The only purpose I can see is to justify that since Ed Poor lost his Developer and Bureaucratic status in September, then that will somehow mean that Ed's misuse of admin priveledges in the Terri won't require any corrective action. Interesting since, arbcom refused to comment on any evidence I submitted in september and didn't find any facts about his behaviour in my evidence.

Furthermore, this finding of fact should have no bearing on Ed Poor's actions since losing his priveledges in september. Ed's behaviour in November is new behaviour. including his suggestion to use mediation then completely lack of participation, his sudden interest in addressing me after I reported that mediation had failed including accusing me of stalking, signing an RfC, and saying he had teh "pull" to get me banned. Then two weeks later blocking me for non-existent NPA's at slimVirgin's request, and saying I should get banned for life. FuelWagon 00:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Please don't read so much into this, FuelWagon. I don't think it is helpful to get so worked up over a single sentence, and behavior like this likely contributed to the problems you are facing in this dispute. This finding of fact certainly is a fact, and the arbitrators are free to note which facts they wish. You may dispute a proposed decision based off of it but getting worked up over a statement like this is counterproductive at best. This finding of fact just as easily could be used to show a pattern of misuse of powers: that a user initially possessed developer, bureaucrat, and administrator status; due to misuse he lost developer and bureaucrat status, and perhaps now should lose administrator status as well. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

multiple users left

Given the dedication that Fred Bauder has shown in expressly laying blame and wrongdoing at my feet for various events, such as edit wars on the Terrorism article that I started by inserting a two-sentence, verbatim quote, I'm a little surprised that this statement is rather non-directive.

As a result of this dispute, multiple users (Ghost, Neuroscientist, Duckecho) have left Wikipedia.

May I suggest something that is a little more clear as to the cause of the event.

As a result of SlimVirgin's refusal to admit a single error in her 9 edits, her accusations in response to various criticisms of her 9 edits, and as a result of Ed Poors undeserved warning to Neuroscientist for NPA, and Ed Poor's undeserved block for FuelWagon's talk page, and Ed Poor's broad-based attack on all supporters of the RfC against SLimVirgin, multiple users (Ghost, Neuroscientist, Duckecho) have left Wikipedia.

Seems a little more direct. FuelWagon 02:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

at his discretion

The latest proposal says

For repeated abuse of his sysop powers, both past and present, Ed Poor is desysopped. At his discretion, he may reapply for them

If arbcom is acknowledging repeated abuses of sysop powers by Ed Poor, shouldn't there at least be some period of time before Ed can reapply for them, rather than "at his discretion"? One month? Six months? FuelWagon 13:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

We'll let the community decide how long is enough. They are not obligated to approve his request. Raul654 14:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Not even a one month wait time before he can run for re-adminship? Ed Poor blatantly threw his weight around in a dispute he was supposed to be mediating, he misused admin priveleges, and three good editors leave, and you say "leave it to the people ot decide?" I insert two sentences in the Terrorism article reporting a verbatim quote from a notable source and I'm "harrassing" and "instigating an edit war" and should be banned for months? Well, when you put it to the community vote for Ed's re-adminship, put down four editors who vote against, because Ed Poor has managed to chase off most of his critics.

This is not a punishment. If he can be trusted with administrative powers, his request will be approved. If not, it will be denied. It is quite likely that if he were to reapply immediately after this case concludes, he would be opposed due to lack of delay. There is no need to prohibit him from reapplying early, if he wishes, although I wouldn't advise that he do it. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

A wider case

Since arbcom widened this case to request SlimVirgin submit evidence against me, and since arbcom has used that evidence to propose various findngs against me, will arbcom also be looking at my proposed findings that are part of my dispute with SlimVirgin?

Slimvirgin's behaviour on Terri Schiavo articl

SlimVirgin's stalking/combativeness on the Bensaccount RfC

SlimVIrgin's misuse of admin priviledges on Jayjg's candidate page

SlimVirgin/Jayjg's misuse of admin priviledges to page protect Animal Rights

SlimVirgin's POV pushing on animal rights article

SlimVirgin/Jayjg pushing a pro-Israel POV

I originally stated that I was restricting this case to Ed Poor's misuse of admin priveledges to block me, but since you've widened the case to involve SlimVirgin, I would expect that you would look at her behaviour, and not just her evidence. FuelWagon 15:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Is arbcom going to use SlimVirgin's evidence against me, without addressing any of my evidence against SlimVirgin? FuelWagon 16:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Ed Poor misuse of admin privileges?

While Ed Poor has made errors in the past, I think his actions in this case were done in good faith. I don't think he should be desysopped. Kim Bruning 05:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Whether they were in good faith or not is not relevant. A bull in a china shop may be acting in good faith, but the china is getting broken anyway. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I unfortunately must agree. I have talked to Ed in the past (and was still continuing), trying to get him to moderate his behavior, but it continued even including three inappropriate (and quickly overturned) blocks in the past couple weeks alone. I don't believe the incidents here to be isolated events; rather, they appear as part of a general trend. We have plenty of administrators; we don't need administrators who use their powers to gain advantages, even if they mean well (and I have no doubt that Ed means well—he sincerely believes he is doing what's best for Wikipedia). But I do think he's better off without them—too high a percentage of his use has been controversial, and without them he can edit without causing himself and others so much stress. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, hmm well he is my client for this case. Here he did actually use his admin powers for good I feel, taking some of the heat off of Slimvirgin. Using your strength in defence of self and others can usually be justified to some extent.

If he's been using his admin powers for evil elsewhere, I think you'd need to show some diffs of "elsewhere" in the proposed descision. Are you thinking of any in particular?

Kim Bruning 07:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think anyone thinks he used his powers for evil, but they do feel he misused them. If examples are required, a quick glance through Ed's recent talk page archives should yield several; if the arbitration committee would find it helpful, I would be willing to list some diffs. If not, I don't wish to make this more painful than it already is for Ed. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, well if they've not been used for evil, can we argue they've been misused at all? But ok, if you can come up with an example, let's take a look. Kim Bruning 07:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I may be somewhat biased, having exchanged disagreements with Ed Poor a few times in recent weeks. But, at the risk of beating a dead horse, I believe his recent blocking activity is certainly enough to justify removal of sysop rights. If recent blocks had been isolated incidents I might feel differently, but his history and his apparent unwillingless to change his behavior are troubling. For examples, his most recent block of Duncharris speaks the loudest. This block, over an edit summary disagreement, caused considerable outcry. This was not long after a couple other controversial blocks. In my opinion, any reasonable admin would have heeded the calls to be more conservative in applying blocks. Friday (talk) 14:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Kim on this. Desysopping seems a rather harsh and drastic action to take, and should, in my view, be reserved for cases of absolute blatant unrepentant abuse, rather than impulsive behaviour followed by apologies. I personally supported Ed's block of FuelWagon, and suspect that the arbitration committee are basing their decision on other cases, which have not been presented in evidence here, and which have therefore probably not been properly examined (i.e. with defence evidence submitted if appropriate). In my view, a six-month blocking parole (in which Ed is forbidden to block anyone other than IP vandals and newly-created vandalism-only accounts) would be far more appropriate, and he could be desysopped if he violated that. AnnH ^(talk) 16:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

P.S. As I'm not an arbitrator, I don't want to interfere with what's on the proposed decision page, but there is a typo in the "Fuelwagon revert limitation" section. "Make" should be "may". AnnH ^(talk) 16:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I'm the only one who sees it that way, but isn't a de-sysoping a bit like a parole? He's not to use sysop features for now. The parole is being enforced by actually removing his ability to use those features, because otherwise it would have no effect, as he's demonstrated his willingness before to do what he's not "supposed" to do, as long as he has the technical ability to do so. The parole continues until such a time as the community feels he should have sysop privileges again, rather than having a set duration. This ensures that his parole ends as early or as late as the community feels is warranted. To me, desysopping seems like a fairly sensible way to achieve a parole. Friday (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Have the arbitrators made an error about Ed's locking of FuelWagon's page?

When arbitrators come to a decision there will inevitably be some who agree, some who think it's too harsh, and some who think it's too lenient. Since it's a question of personal judgment, I don't necessarily expect that my agreement or disagreement should carry any special weight. However, I think that an actual error has been made – one which relates more to objective facts than to opinions as to how rude one party was or how appropriately or inappropriately another party behaved.

My problem is with the proposed finding of fact which states that Ed protected protected FuelWagon's talk page, claiming (falsely) it contained personal attacks (my emphasis).

This statement was made by Raul654, and has been endorsed by Fred Bauder, ➥the Epopt, Kelly Martin, and James F..

Three diffs are given [20][21][22] , but, at least on my computer, the second and third come out as identical, despite the different coding.

The diffs in my view should have been [23] [24], and [25]. In the last of these, Ed says, "You just continued making personal remarks about others." Contrary to the proposed finding of fact, Ed did not claim that it contained personal "attacks". If there is a diff to show that he used that word to justify the block, perhaps someone could refer me to it.

• From special:log (time given in UTC): 20:32, July 13, 2005 Ed Poor protected User talk:FuelWagon (personal attacks) Raul654 18:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

A personal remark ("your hair is quite greasy") is, in my view, less serious than a personal attack ("you stupid, arrogant piece of dirt"). It may be difficult in some cases to judge whether something is a more serious remark or a less serious attack. I do not argue as to what the comments on FuelWagon's talk page were prior to its protection, but argue simply that Ed used the word "remarks".

Unless I have missed a diff which showed that Ed said "attacks", I would request that the arbitrators who worded and endorsed that proposed finding of fact would change "attacks" to "remarks".

We would then be left with the wording claiming (falsely) it contained personal remarks.

I ask the arbitrators to read this and to clarify if they believe that Ed's accusation of personal remarks was false.

Do the five arbitrators who signed the proposed finding of fact all stand over the claim that none of the following

• SlimVirgin lies
• The benefits of adminship is never having to admit you're wrong and never having to say you're sorry
• Despite this laundry list of problems, SlimVirgin has NOT ONCE conceeded that there is ANY PROBLEM with ANY PART of his ENTIRE EDIT
• (SlimVirgin) also happens to be an administrator, which, apparently has its perks, not the least of which is never having to say your sorry for unrepentant bad edits or unrepentant false accusations
• SlimVirgin seemed to be throwing hand grenades at this point.
• I'm starting to get the distinct impression that one major perk of being an administrator is never having to admit you're wrong, never having to admit you made a bad edit, and NEVER having to apologize for your behaviour.
• And I just gotta wonder how much back-channel communication goes on between admins. Hey, SlimVirgin, did you know I got blocked because you were the one who requested it?
• I'm starting to get the distinct impression that we're dealing with a persecution complex. SlimVirgin accuses everyone of launching personal attacks against SlimVirgin if the editor does not wholeheartedly agree with SlimVirgin's edits.

contains any personal remarks?

I would ask you all please to take a little time to go through those posts, and perhaps reconsider your proposed finding of fact. I realize you may still decide that Ed was wrong to protect FuelWagon's talk page after the 108 posts (though I have known other admins to take similar action, and personally supported it), but at least it should be worded in such a way as not to accuse Ed of something which he did not do.

The following passage from the proposed finding of fact

When confronted with this, Ed states that "I am frankly not sure I have any "right" to block other users at all, in situations such as you described above. Basically, I'm getting away with it because I've been around a long time" [26]

looks quite bad, but if Ed did not abuse his admin privileges in that case, then it was simply unwise (tactless, perhaps) for him to say that, but nothing worse, in my opinion.

A less serious error is the proposed finding of fact which states that As a result of this dispute, multiple users (Ghost, Neuroscientist, Duckecho) have left Wikipedia. That should read "Duckecho, Neuroscientist, and possibly Ghost". Ghost left at a later stage, and did not symbolically blank his user page. People do disappear from Wikipedia without a trace. He may have been killed in an accident. FuelWagon has constantly claimed that all three left in disgust, but in my view that is a Post hoc ergo propter hoc argument. (I have also given evidence on the evidence page that other users left after FuelWagon had been rude to them, but I would not wish to state as a fact that there was a connection, whatever I might personally believe.)

I can hardly blame the arbitrators for making (what I believe to be) errors, with so much evidence to wade through. My own evidence may be less coherent than it would normally be. I had hoped that the voting would not start for another few weeks, so that I would have time to write a clear and brief account. I am quite busy at the moment. AnnH ^(talk) 15:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

How is this a personal remark deserving a block, lock, or admin intervention????

"Despite this laundry list of problems, SlimVirgin has NOT ONCE conceeded that there is ANY PROBLEM with ANY PART of his ENTIRE EDIT"

SlimVirgin made a dozen posts that repeatedly show she denies even a single error in her edits and that her edits should be reinstated, even in response to Neuroscientist's 5,000 word critique, she denied any errors. How does describing that behaviour require admin intervention, when the description can be backed up by a dozen posts by SlimVirgin herself?????

Please say what your specific objections are, rather than reverting. [27]

please discuss your objections on talk. [28]

I'm assuming the above can't be your only objection, so please lay them out [29]

If you feel I've introduced errors, please list them on talk [30]

You haven't yet explained why you want to exclude that information.[31]

neither of you has said what your objection is. [32]

If these are your only objections, I don't know why you reverted all my edits. [33]

Show me one error I made in the article, either factual or grammatical. [34]

If this is the only issue you can find with my copy edit, why did you revert it? [35]

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. [36]

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. [37]

If I made a factual error, point to it. [38]

Criticizing an editor's behaviour can't be a personal attack when there is so much evidence to support the criticism. "Despite this laundry list of problems, SlimVirgin has NOT ONCE conceeded that there is ANY PROBLEM with ANY PART of his ENTIRE EDIT" This is not an attack. it is a legitimate criticism of an editor's behaviour that contributed to part of the dispute. FuelWagon 16:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Raul654, for pointing me to the log. Okay, I accept that Ed used the word "attacks". However I would like to know if the five ArbCom members who signed that particular finding of fact still wish, having read the extracts I provided above, to endorse a statement that Ed claimed falsely that FuelWagon's talk page contained personal attacks. The understanding of "attack" is rather subjective, and it's hard to say exactly at what stage something crosses the line from being a personal remark to being a personal attack. I was online when at the time of FuelWagon's block, and I had his page on my watchlist. I recall finding it very aggressive, with the capital letters, the sarcasm, and the sneers. If it wasn't actually making personal attacks, it was, in my view bordering on it, so I feel that a fairer wording should be sought. To use the words "claiming falsely" could give the impression that the ArbCom found FuelWagon's 108 posts acceptable. I am positive that it was not the intention of the people who brought in the facility to edit one's own talk page during a block, that someone would make 108 posts in less than 24 hours, many of them full or sneers and sarcasm about adminitrator perks. Thanks anyway. AnnH ^(talk) 01:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

This has already been covered here. For any editor to be able to resolve a dispute with another editor, they need to be able to discuss the other editor's behaviour, because the root of all disputes is someone's behaviour. Editors must be able to tell other editors that their edits contain numerous factual errors or there is no way to resolve a bad edit. FuelWagon 02:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

revert limit

Given the proposed revert limit against me, will a similar revert limit be placed on SlimVirgin and Jayjg for likewise reversions on a similar scale? Both of these proposals [39] [40] show SlimVirgin and Jayjg performing numerous POV reverts. And while I know I've been blamed for instigating a revert war on the terrorism article, my crime was to insert two sentences to quote a notable source, and Texture (who was later supported by SlimVirgin and Jayjg) reverted me. I'm not sure what level of reverting on my part warrants this revert limit, but whatever reverting I've committed, the content was always NPOV, while SlimVirgin and Jayjg did a similar amount of reverting, but their content was generally POV. FuelWagon 20:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

instigating an edit war on Creation Science

THe proposed finding is that "FuelWagon has instigated a number of edit wars across numerous articles, including Terrorism, creation science, etc". For reference, I submit the RfC filed against Bensaccount listed here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bensaccount. I think this RfC clearly shows that Bensaccount was failing to follow basic NPOV policy and was trying to report a disputed topic to be factually proven as "pseudoscience", rather than reporting that some hold creation science to be pseudoscience. Perhaps you can contact the endorsers/certifiers of the RfC to get their view of the RfC. I don't believe there is anything here that shows I instigated an edit war on the Creation Science article. FuelWagon 20:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

deleted RfC

From this:

Pigsonthewing stirs up trouble

Finding out about notes Karmafist was making on a user page, Pigsonthewing contacted those mentioned on Karmafist's user page, describing it as a "hate page" Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing/Evidence#Attacks.

Would something similar apply to SlimVirgin's response to my uploading a copy of the deleted RfC? A day after I uploaded it, SlimVirgin was informed by another admin that it was within policy to upload a deleted RfC into a user's space, but SlimVirgin has consistently referred to it, and the page that explained why it was there, as an "attack page". FuelWagon 21:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Cherry picking

It has been an interesting sequence of proceedings. I request arbitration against Ed Poor because he blocked me without cause in November and threatened to ban me for life. Fred Bauder, who I've shown has cause to be recused from this case, becomes a prosecuter rather than neutral arbiter, submitting mislabeled evidence out of context, and inviting SlimVirgin to submit evidence against me. Arbcom then goes out of its way to take SlimVirgin's word on all her accusations against me. When I then submit evidence that directly counter's many of SlimVirgin's accusations and also shows she has been combative on the Bensaccoutn RfC, misusing admin priveledges, and pushing POV, arbcom demonstrates an amazing force of will to ignore all of that evidence, continue to vote for findings that my evidence shows is wrong, and has still managed to avoid a single finding of fact against SlimVirgin. Her behaviour on the Bensaccount RfC should have been enough to suspend admin priveledges for a week, combined with her misuse of admin priveledges on Jayjg's candidate statement page, and her tag-team use of admin priveledges on the animal rights page, should see her suspended for a month. Her and Jayjg's pro-Israel pushing is blatantly obvious to anyone who looks at the diffs I provided, yet arbcom cannot bring itself to rule on those obvious and repeated policy violations. Arbcom has not been a neutral judger of facts presented to it, but an advocate for a certain ruling, searching for evidence that supports it, inviting uninvolved parties to submit unrelated evidence, and then cherry picking the bits and pieces presented to convict me and ignore all wrong-doing on SlimVirgin's part. I am impressed by the sincerity that long-time wikipedian's will show when denying that a cabal exists at wikipedia in lieu of all the evidence to the contrary. FuelWagon 14:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I think they've given up denying there's a cabal and now say it's because they need to mutually support "good" editors (that they define themselves as "good" is understandable; we all think we're doing the right thing). That this all arose from a "good" editor's making mistakes in a careless edit of a contentious article is not taken into account, and none of your judges is willing to consider whether that is for the "good" of WP -- you must surely know that some people's actions are considered "good" regardless what they are (I direct you, Fuel, to look back through Dave Gerrard's work, and consider his contributions to ancient Egyptian history). I make no comment on the notion that POV pushing in one direction doesn't prevent you from being a "good" editor, while taking the other side makes you suspect. -- Grace Note

Policy does not support stalking

I see the finding of "fact" that I'm "stalking" SlimVirgin is still getting supported.

Never mind examples that show SlimVirgin's evidence misrepresents dates. I quoted "however" from the "words to avoid" article to SlimVirgin first [41], and then after that she followed me to that page and deleted the entire entry for "however" [42], and her claimed evidence of "stalking" is that I restored valid content that she had deleted [43].

And never mind that I've shown legitimate reasons here that show how I came to other articles, such as Vizcarra telling me about the Zephram Stark case which brought me to the Terrorism article[44]. And in the Terrorism article, I add two sentences that quote a source [45].

But then I just noticed this guideline says wikistalking "does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy". And that would apply to every other edit I made to every article SlimVirgin claims is "wikistalking".

IN the Refusal to serve in the Israeli military, article, SlimVirgin is POV pushing by using misquoting the "Courage to Refuse" group. I quote the group [46].

In the Historical persecution by Jews article, SlimVirgin is POV pushing by deleting valid content because it criticizes the modern state of Israel. I reinsert the text [47].

In the Historical persecution by Christians article SlimVirgin is covering her POV-pushing tracks, deleting valid content of "contemporary" history so that she can justify deleting "contemporary" history from the Historical persecution by Jews article. I reinsert the text [48]

My first edit to Animal rights was to insert a dissenting point of view in the introduction [49]. SlimVirgin responded by POV pushing, rewriting the dissenting view to water it down, to criticize the dissenting view [50]. And later deletes all dissenting views from teh introduction [51].

My first edit to Veganism was to insert the only dissenting point of view in the introduction [52]. SlimVirgin shows more POV pushing by deleting all dissenting views from the introduction [53].

Never mind that I've shown SlimVirgin misrepresented evidence in cases such as "words to avoid". Never mind that I've shown legitimate reasons that brought me to the articles in question. If this guideline is true, then the idea of "stalking" should still not apply here either because all of my edits ended up fixing NPOV policy violations. FuelWagon 20:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin's behaviour

Slimvirgin's behaviour on Terri Schiavo article

SlimVirgin's stalking/combativeness on the Bensaccount RfC

SlimVIrgin's misuse of admin priviledges on Jayjg's candidate page

SlimVirgin/Jayjg's misuse of admin priviledges to page protect Animal Rights

SlimVirgin's POV pushing on animal rights article

SlimVirgin/Jayjg pushing a pro-Israel POV

Will arbcom be commenting either way on any of the evidence regarding SlimVirgin's behaviour? FuelWagon 01:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I doubt it. She is not perfect but the focus of this case is on you and Ed Poor. Fred Bauder 02:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

So, the two sentences I added to the Terrorism article, a verbatim quote from a source with a URL, is instigating an edit war? But SlimVirgin declaring she's all out of good faith on my talk page in the morning, and then stalking me to teh Bensaccount RfC that evening, even after an another admin told her that her the RfC was OK, is acceptable behaviour not worthy of comment from arbcom? Funny thing about being "in", you can do all sorts of stuff that would get any other editor banned, and arbcom will conveniently refuse to comment. But if you're not "in", arbcom will go hunt for evidence against you, present evidence against you, and find you guilty of instigating an edit war on the Terrorism article for inserting a verbatim quote from a notable source because someone else reverted you. FuelWagon 13:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps arbcom could issue a list of all the people who are "in", so that editors who are not "in", will know not to bother to report policy violations by these individuals to arbcom. That way, everyone saves time, no one submits evidence on a case that arbcom won't comment on, arbcom won't have to go find evidence against the editor bringing the case against the "in" editor, and there won't be that uncomfortable silence when arbcom doesn't comment on any of the policy violations committed by the editor who is "in". FuelWagon 13:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Or, alternatively, TRINC. Ambi 14:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Edit summary by Fred Bauder says Ed Poor is "IN". Had arbcom dealt with the issue then (September 15), when I submitted the original evidence, rather than glossing over Ed's inappropriate behaviour because he was "IN", and closing the case without finding any facts, this would have been resolved months ago. As for SlimVirgin, I didn't bring this case against her, arbcom took it upon themselves to expand the case to include SlimVirgin's evidence against me, but they've chosen to ignore my evidence against SlimVirgin. Whether you want to call this a cabal is up to you, Ambi, but it seems pretty obvious that there is clear favoritism that allows policy violations by the "in" editors to be overlooked. FuelWagon 15:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

(T)he focus of this case is on (Fuelwagon) and Ed Poor

First of all, is it not standard operating procedure, in any ArbCom case, to look at the behaviour of all participants?

If the focus in this case is not supposed to be on her, why was she brought in to begin with? Fuelwagon explicitly said the case was not about her. It was she - and therefore, ultimately, whoever brought her in, which I thought was you Fred - who expanded the case to include FW's dealings with SV. Are those part of the case or not? If they are then you seem to be obliged to look at her behaviour too, if they are not then you can't very well hand out "remedies" based on them. I don't see how you can have it both ways; it seems to me SlimVirgin is being given some sort of special status here that would not be open to a normal editor, and frankly, that stinks. PurplePlatypus 22:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that SlimVirgin is officially a participant in this case. The Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FuelWagon v. Ed Poor page specifically says,

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) . . . Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at Evidence.

My understanding is that by making a statement against Ed Poor, FuelWagon made himself a participant, and therefore laid himself open to ArbCom investigations and decisions. Ed Poor simliarly made a statement, though I suppose that he was already a participant by virtue of the fact that FuelWagon brought the case against him. Kim Bruning and Snowspinner also made statements on that page, as did I. That means that I have (willingly) accepted the risk that ArbCom members might start looking into my history. SlimVirgin did not edit that page.

As for expanding the case to include FuelWagon's behaviour towards SlimVirgin, we must remember that FuelWagon, in bringing this case against Ed, made accusations of improper blocking. Surely that leaves the defence side open to trying to show that the block was not improper? Since Ed blocked because of FuelWagon's treatment of SlimVirgin, of course that treatment has to be looked at. That's part of the evidence, but it does not make SlimVirgin a participant.

Besides, if they did start looking at her behaviour, they would find a dignified, restrained response to the utterly disgusting obscenities hurled at her, a gracious acceptance of the apology (once she was sure that it was meant), a pleasant, collaborative thanking of FuelWagon for working on the introduction to the article, and an endorsement of FuelWagon's response to a spurious (in my view) RfC brought against him. AnnH ^(talk) 23:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Ann H. who carries some secret grudge against me for some unforgivable sin that I committed against her, who is unwilling to bring this sin to me directly and give me a chance to make it right, instead follows me to every attempt I've made to resolve my disputes with Ed Poor and SlimVirgin, and basically argues to the effect that since I violated policy, I can not expect admins to follow policy when dealing with me. Never mind that my last NPA was July 12, that I was cleaning it up when Ed blocked me, that I accepted the block, that I apologized to SlimVirgin, that I apologized to Dbergan, that I opened an Apology Request Form on my talk page, that I haven't violated NPA since. No, this is apparently an unforgivable sin that deserves an eternity of punishment to ammend. Ed Poor's block/lock on my talk page for non-existent NPA's can be justified on the grounds of my prior and unforgivable sins. Ed Poor's block against me in November for non-existent NPA's can still be justified on the grounds of my prior and unforgivable sins. Any time I've attempted to resolve this dispute, Ann H. is there, arguing basically taht I shouldn't expect admins to ever follow policy when dealing with me. She never does say when I can expect to not be blocked when I haven't violated NPA. But then, she never has brought directly to me whatever grudge she bears either. It isn't like talking to me directly doesn't work. The one time she came directly to me wtih an issue was to ask me to correct some evidence I submitted to NCdave's RfC, which I fixed that very same day. Yet, whatever wrong I've done to her, she won't bring to me, but rather lets it sit and brood and instead comes at me from the side, on unrelated pages, arguing basically that I'm unforgivable and therefore should never expect policy to apply to me. The above post, and the totality of Ann's evidence is simply more of the same behaviour. Now, apparently, Ann is arguing that since I was so horrible to SlimVirgin in July, regardless of me cleaning up my NPA, being blocked, and apologizing, that apparently SlimVirgin's behaviour towards me in August on the Bensaccount RfC is beyond reproach, that her behaviour on the various article that show pro-Israel or pro-animal-rights months later, is also above reproach. FuelWagon 00:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Besides, if they did start looking at her behaviour, they would find (sugar and spice and everything nice).

They would also find unilateral changes to a policy central to a dispute she was directly involved in, reckless editing followed by obstinate denial of any wrongdoing even well after being shown otherwise, misrepresentation of evidence in this very case, and that not all of her contributions were so dignified and restrained, including some that were in response to things that fell far short of being "disgusting obscenities". PurplePlatypus 06:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Ann H. would like you to think that what I did in April-July, cleaned up, served a block for, and apologized for, justifies Ed Poor's actions in November, including a block against me for non-existent NPA's, his threats about his "pull" to get me banned, and his statement that I should be banned for life. [54] [55] Ann H. would also like you to think that whatever I did in April to July, cleaned up, served a block for, and apologized for, justifies SlimVirgin's combativeness on a legitimate RfC against Bensaccount in August [56]. Ann H. would also like everyone to think that SlimVirgin can accuse me of stalking her from August to November, Arbcom can find me guilty of stalking her and point to her evidence as "proof", but that my defense to the charge of stalking, which includes wikipedia policy saying that stalking excludes fixing other policy violations, must exclude SlimVirgin's behaviour. Apparently, SlimVirgin can make an accusation of stalking, but I cannot defend myself on the grounds that my edits fixed NPOV policy violations, most of which were committed by SlimVirgin [57] [58] [59] .

No, Ann H. submitted a bucket of evidence to arbcom, citing posts by me in the April-July time frame, stuff I already admitted to doing, stuff I've already been blocked for, stuff I've apologized to various people for, (never mind that anything that happened in the April through first half of June didn't have any involvement with Ed Poor or SlimVirgin because they weren't even on the article, and never mind that anything that happened up until July 11 didn't have anything to do with SlimVirgin because she wasn't on the article). Then Ann H. uses that evidence as the basis for her argument that whatever actions I did in April through July (even if Ed Poor and SlimVirgin weren't even around) excuses any actions Ed Poor took against me in November and excuses any possible policy violations SlimVirgin may have committed in August through November. Finally, not only does Ann H. want everyone to think that my actions in April prohibit SlimVirgin's behaviour from August to November from being reviewed, but she puts the icing on the cake with her rather slanted assessment of SlimVirgin's behaviour being "dignified", "restrained", "gracious", "pleasant", and "collaborative". So, SlimVirgin's behaviour is open to positive review from Ann H. but not objective review from arbcom.

The short of it is that Arbcom has used SlimVirgin's evidence and accusations that I stalked SlimVirgin from August to November. I've shown SlimVirgin misrepresents the dates on "words to avoid", I've shown she stalked me to the bensaccount RfC, I've shown legitimate causes that brought me to each article, and I've shown that rather than "instigating an edit war" on the Terrorism article, I inserted two sentences, reporting a verbatim quote from a notable source. And lastly, an objective review of SlimVirgin's behaviour will show that a number of my edits she claims are "stalking" are actually attempts by me to fix NPOV violations committed by her. And given that the stalking policy excludes fixing policy violations, her behaviour should be reviewed. FuelWagon 16:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Collaborative?

Ann H. describes SlimVirgin's behaviour as "dignified", "restrained", "gracious", "pleasant", and "collaborative". And I'm just wondering how someone is considered to be "pleasant", "collaborative", and "pleasant", when they can't admit a single error in their edits, even after repeated attempts by multiple editors to point out her errors, including an actual honest-to-god neuroscientist? Not only did SlimVirgin not admit any errors, but she actively denied them a dozen times.

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]

SlimVirgin continues the denial in the RfC against her: "I read the article, it clearly needed a copy edit, so I started to do one. I didn't rewrite anything or do any restructuring, ... I stuck to minor edits, tweaks of sentences, ... It was a long edit, ... but it wasn't a substantive one." [72]

I'd also like to understand how SlimVirgin's behaviour qualifies as "dignified", "restrained", "gracious", "pleasant", and "collaborative", when she makes numerous accusations against editors of violating policy, when one of those accusations includes a fabrication of a quote attributed to me that I never said:

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."

I never insisted any such nonsense. This misquote was pointed out numerous times. SlimVirgin never acknowledged it or corrected it or retracted it.

While it may not be a violation of policy to actively deny your edits contain even a single error (even in the face of actual expert advice), and while making false accusations and fabricated quotes may not be a violation of policy, it certainly doesn't see to qualify as "dignified", "restrained", "gracious", "pleasant", and "collaborative".

Other, more direct violations of policy, would include SlimVirgin's stalking me to the bensaccount RfC [73]. That should actually qualify as a violation of assume good faith, harrassment, civility, stalking, etc. And she certainly wasn't "dignified", "restrained", "gracious", "pleasant", and "collaborative" there.

There is also evidence of SlimVirgin misusing admin priveledges and POV pushing in the September, October, November time frame, which doesn't look "collaborative" or "pleasant", but that's just me. FuelWagon 16:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin's violations of policy

Since SlimVirgin introduces a number of these articles, and since her evidence has been used to say I've stalked her to these pages, SlimVirgin's behaviour on these pages should also be subject to review. Not only have I shown her dates are wrong in some cases, not only have I shown legitimate causes that brought me to each page, not only have I shown all of my edits were valid in content, but wikipedia guidelines on "stalking" says it excludes following an editor to fix policy violations, and SlimVirgin was clearly violating NPOV policy. The evidence also shows that SlimVirgin very early on, way back in August actually stalked me to the Bensaccount RfC when she had no involvement in the Creation Science article, when she had no involvement in the RfC for the week it had been around, and she turned it into a battleground to prove it was "another example of an inappropriate RfC" hours after she declared she was "all out of good faith".

Slimvirgin's behaviour on Terri Schiavo article

SlimVirgin's stalking/combativeness on the Bensaccount RfC

SlimVIrgin's misuse of admin priviledges on Jayjg's candidate page

SlimVirgin/Jayjg's misuse of admin priviledges to page protect Animal Rights

SlimVirgin's POV pushing on animal rights article

SlimVirgin/Jayjg pushing a pro-Israel POV

Since fixing policy violations is specifically excluded from "stalking", and since the above links show SlimVirgin clearly violating NPOV policy, her behaviour should be reviewed here as well. FuelWagon 00:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

lack of insight?

The latest proposal says:

"In view of the dissatisfaction expressed by FuelWagon with the decisions reached in this case and the apparent lack of insight into any role his own behavior played in the creation and aggravation of the problems which gave rise to this case"

How about I apologized to SlimVirgin, Dberban, and anyone else who wanted an apology, way back on July 18 and SlimVirgin responded with three combative posts towards me on the mediation page the next day, to the point where one editor asked her why was she turning the mediation page into an RfC against me [74], then a month later, SlimVirgin was denying anyone "credible" endorsed the RfC against her, questioned whether Neuroscientist was really a neuroscientist [75], and stalked me to teh Bensaccount RfC [76] ? How about the "lack of insight" that SlimVirgin's behaviour had in how her actions contributed to this? How about I acknowledged that I committed a number of NPA's prior to July 12, I apologized to some people such as Dbergan before administrators got involved, and I even suggested a block against me to pay for any dangling NPA's [77].

If you want to talk about "apparrent lack of insight into any role" someone's behaviour may have had in "creating and aggravating a problem", how about I brought my issue with Ed Poor to arbcom back in August, but arbcom refused to comment on it, and buried it instead, only to have Ed Poor then harrass me after he suggested (then failed to show up for) mediation, and then Ed blocked me again for more non-existent NPA's? I've admitted I violated NPA the first couple months I was on wikipedia, I also apologized for it, haven't violated it since, and I suggested a block to cover any violations I missed. All I've done since then is ask arbcom to look at Ed Poor's behaviour, which you refused back in August. You want to talk about "apparent lack of insight"? How about this would have been handled in august/september if you had made a ruling of fact then, rather than avoid saying anything specific about Ed Poor's behaviour because he was "in" [78] ? Is it any wonder that after having arbcom treating him with kid gloves in September that two months later, Ed Poor is telling me he still has the "pull" to get me banned [79] ? That Ed Poor still acts as if he is "in"? Do you think that might have had any contribution to how this mess ended up? You treated Ed Poor as if he were untouchable and low and behold, he acts as if he is untouchable. FuelWagon 20:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The thing is: we can look forward to more trouble and need a way to deal with it. Fred Bauder 22:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The only "trouble" you got from me was a complaint in august about Ed Poor's misuse of admin priveledges in July, and then this complaint in November for another misuse of admin priveledges by Ed Poor on November 29. That you expanded the case to include SlimVirgin, well the only "trouble" there from me is that you've decided I instigated an edit war on Creation Science? and Terrorism? And that I'm "stalking" SlimVirgin? The creation science article had an edit war, and an RfC against Bensaccount stopped the problem. Check the RfC and the people who supported it. In the Terrorism article, I inserted two sentences quoting Noam Chomsky, and for that I "instigated an edit war"? And as for "stalking", I've already shown SlimVirgin misrepresents dates on some of her evidence, I've already shown legitimate causes that brought me to the various articles, and most importantly, I've already shown that all of my edits were not only valid but generally fixing NPOV policy violations.

When you say you expect more trouble, if by "trouble" you mean more RfC's against POV pushers like Bensaccount, more verbatim quotes from notable sources with URLs to verify, and a bunch of edits that fix NPOV violations, then, yeah, you can expect more of that. And not just from me, but from any editor who edits an article according to NPOV policy. I sort of thought that a two-sentence quote from a notable source is the sort of thing that wikipedia likes, not the sort of thing a guy gets accused of "instigating an edit war" for, or the sort of thing that wikipedia considers "trouble".

Look at the content of my edits, and tell me I violated policy. Better yet, look at the content of SlimVirgin and Jayjg's edits, and it should be pretty clear that these two violated NPOV on numerous occaisions, even using admin priveledges to lock articles and control content. Now that is trouble. [80] [81] [82] [83]. Or look at the Bensaccount RfC, look at the fact that SlimVirgin told me in the morning that she was all out of good faith towards me, and then look at how she stalked me to the Bensaccount RfC (even though she had no prior involvement in the Creation Science article or the Bensaccount RfC), and look at the fact that another admin told SlimVirgin that it looked acceptable [84] and tell me that isn't "trouble". FuelWagon 23:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

What's with the Witch Hunt?

For geez sake you guys, if you spent 1/10th the time working on articles as you do sniping at each other, a lot more constructive work would get done around here! I tried to wade through all the crap above, but it's just a waste of time - everyone is so entrenched they can't see their own roles in all of this. I popped in here because I supported Fuelwagon's RFC against Bensaccount. I'm kind of surprised to see all the venom that has arisen from that. Bensaccount had it coming. Fuelwagon rfc'ed him out of frustration with his editing behavior. Within the ariticle we've co-edited, I've always found him to be reasonable and willing to discuss points of disagreement. It is only when he seems to run up against someone with an unmovable agenda that trouble seems to happen. So why don't we just stop all this nonsense and go back to making Wikipedia better? Synaptidude 00:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Not only has arbcom already voted that I "instigated an edit war" on the Creation science article, which was the subject of teh Bensaccount RfC [85]. Not only has arbcom ignored the fact that whatever edit war there was on Creation Science, it went away when Bensaccount stopped editing. But also SlimVirgin stalked and harrassed me on the Bensaccount RfC [86] and arbcom won't comment on her behaviour. FuelWagon 16:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Ed Poor DeSysopped - that is too much

This is too much - at a time that we need people to be more aggressive in identifying and blocking trolls and other disruptive users - to desysop Ed is a serious mistake. Trödel|talk 01:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Might be, but he worked hard for this. Fred Bauder 01:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I know he makes decisions that are at times controversial - the moving the VfD page was just wild. But if we are to really stop the trolling, the ownership, the personal attacks, and the other things that FuelWagon did we need to support Sysops who just say Stop even if in retrospec it looks too harsh. Or wikipedia will keep running off good editors, because sysops will be too scared to act, assuming correctly that they will be second guessed and lose their reputation in the community. Especially with occasional editors, who don't have time for RfC or RfAr - they will just say to hell with it - the admins don't care - I don't need this anymore. Trödel|talk 01:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Just so you know - I disagree with this particular decsion - but think you, and the arbitration committee as a whole, have done an excellent job and even support Fred Bauder, David Gerard, James, Fennec, JayJG, Mindspillage and Kelly Martin as arbitrators if you intend to continue in a timeconsuming, thankless and difficult job. I calmed, and toned things, down a little above.

I just hope you will reconsider the deterrent effect of your decision in this case to prevent the banning of disruptive users. As I have said elsewhere we should ban more frequently those that are disruptive, they can quickly assume a new identity and mend their ways if they want to continue as a part of the community, and we should support admins that take action, even if those actions are later overturned or are believed to be too aggressive later - that is why all admins can undo the action by any admin, imho. Trödel|talk 02:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

This line of argument was so familiar and I just figured out why: it's the standard argument for Dirty Harry and similar cartoon characters. Cops can't play by the rules because the rules will let all the bad guys get away. The only way to get the bad guys is to break all the rules, so the rules should only apply to the bad guys. Meanwhile, SlimVirgin is violating NPOV on a regular basis on every Israel and Jewish article she touches, but because she's an admin, the rules can't be enforced with her, because if we lose one admin, all of wikipedia will fall apart. That's equivalent to saying you're the only ship in the quadrant. wikipedia's moral process about as mature as a comic book story. Batman doesn't make a good basis for real law enforcement. FuelWagon 22:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

If you look at edits I have made on articles SlimVirgin has also edited - you will see that we do not share the same viewpoint. However, that is just a distracting tactic - the behavior I have seen is unacceptable - and civil wikipedians should not have to put up with it. If you want to treat others with respect - then I welcome you. Your superlatives don't properly reflect my comments. Trödel|talk 23:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

To prevent trolls and vandals, we need admins who troll and vandalise? To prevent a bad atmosphere, we need admins who have no regard for their fellow editors? Jeez man, do you not realise that what you are saying is that there should be one rule for admins and another for everyone else, so long as the admins' fellows agree that it's on balance for the good? Do you not realise that that notion of the good may not be shared by all? -- Grace Note

No we need sysops that are willing to stop a troll immediately, even if they are wrong sometimes. And when they are wrong, another admin can undo the block, but we should subject them to desysopping. This is one rule for all - it is a wiki and any editor can undo the actions of an editor without fear of blocking (unless violates 3RR or personal attacks or other community standard), similarly an sysop should not be afraid of using the additional features available to him because he will be desysopped. A short term ban on use of admin powers would be an example of a similar rule - but the current situation is more analagous to a lifetime ban rather than the normal 1 mo, 3 mo, 6 mo, 1 yr bans that the arbitration committee normally hands out.

If you are User:Grace Note, did Ed contribute to you leaving the wiki - if so please come back - even if it is in a more limited fashio Trödel•talk 10:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

and yet accusations of "cabal" continue to arise

Fred Bauder states on the mailing list Dec 3 14:48:37 UTC 2005 " we have all encountered FuelWagon doing his thing." This was cleaerly based on Fred Bauder's personal prejudice rather than any evidence presented because just half an hour prior, 14:01, 3 December 2005, there was no evidence on the /evidence page at all, until Fred Bauder submitted his own evidence against me. Fred's presentation of evidence is also telling of his bias because El_C had asked me in my "most ideal terms" to explain how I wanted to resolve this, and Fred points to my answer and describes them as my "demands of SlimVirgin". This could be explained as an honest mistake, but when I pointed out the misrepresentation of evidence [87], Fred chose to leave the evidence with his own editorial [88]. And yet after Fred's behaviour and statements show he has prejudice in this case, even before any evidence is presented, he refuses to recuse.

I opened this case against Ed Poor because he blocked me for non-existent NPA attacks, again, in November, threatened that he had the "pull" to get me banned, and said I should be banned for life. I specifically excluded SlimVirgin because some of my evidence shows posts by SlimVirgin and I wanted to be clear that I wasn't trying to bring her to arbcom. Fred Bauder, showing yet more of his prejudice, widens the case in an interesting manner: He allows SlimVirgin to submit evidence against me, allowing SlimVirgin to make numerous accusations against me, but Fred Bauder excludes any review of her accusations or any review of SlimVirgin's behaviour. Rather than have one side make accusations and submit evidence, and then have the otehr side respond to the accusations and respond to the evidence, and then have a neutral arbiter judge what really happened, arbcom accepts SlimVirgin's evidence and accusations at her word, and then cites her evidence directly in the proposed finding of facts [89].

Further examples that would make Kafka grin occurs when arbcom then proposes that I "instigated edit wars" on Terrorism and Creation Science. On the Terrorism article, I made a total of seven edits over the course of four days [90]. The first of which was to insert two sentences quoting a notable source [91]. For this, I "instigated an edit war". The Creation science article isn't even mentioned in the evidence except in reference to the Bensaccount RfC. This shows amazing skill at cherry picking evidence, because to ignore what SlimVirgin did on the Bensaccount RfC [92], but to be able to then follow the evidence mentioning the Bensaccount RfC and go to the Creation science article, to be able to find me guilty of "instigating an edit war" on the Creation science article, ignoring that the Bensaccount RfC shows the source of the problem, and ignore that the Bensaccount RfC evidence shows that SLimVirgin was stalking me in August, simply reveals just how selective arbcom is willing to be in looking at the evidence and even making up evidence.

Finally, arbcom has accepted SlimVirgin's evidence about "stalking" at her word too, citing her evidence in arbcom's proposal [93]. Arbcom refuses to give an objective review of her evidence, despite a sequence of diffs by me that show legitimate causes that brought me to various pages [94], which shows that SlimVirgin misrepresented evidence about the words to avoid article, when the facts show that I quoted the article to her first [95], and then she goes and deletes the part of the article that I quoted [96]. Not only did she misrepresent evidence to accuse me of stalking when its clearly the other way around, but she also covers up the fact that she modified policy that was used to criticize her, which itself, is a violation of policy.

Meanwhile, the stalking policy specifically excludes edits which "fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy" [97]. And although I've presented a bunch of evidence that shows SlimVirgin and others violating policy:

Slimvirgin's behaviour on Terri Schiavo article

SlimVirgin's stalking/combativeness on the Bensaccount RfC

SlimVIrgin's misuse of admin priviledges on Jayjg's candidate page

SlimVirgin/Jayjg's misuse of admin priviledges to page protect Animal Rights

SlimVirgin's POV pushing on animal rights article

SlimVirgin/Jayjg pushing a pro-Israel POV

If this evidence showed policy violations by SlimVirgn and others, then my edits would be excluded from being labeled "stalking". However, arbcom has decided that reviewing SlimVirgin's behaviour is a separate matter and is not related to this case. Which is interesting, because I started this case saying it was separate, specifically excluding SlimVirgin, but then Arbcom took it upon themselves to invite SlimVirgin to submit evidence against me. Now that review of SlimVirgin's behaviour would have direct bearing on whether my edits qualify as "stalking" or not, arbcom suddenly moves in to protect SlimVirgin from criticism.

If this is the case, then the "stalking" policy page should be modified to say that stalking does not include fixing another editor's errors or policy violations unless that other editor is an admin, at which point, fixing an admin's policy violations still qualifies as stalking.

You have to accept that that's the "de facto" policy, Fuel. It's one of the ones that are sorted out in the backchannel but never written down. -- Grace Note

In their eagerness to nail me, you would think they would at least do a little research in their back channel communications. inserting two sentences quoting a source in the Terrorism article is "instigating an edit war"? Oh well, if this case is really entirely for show, then it doesn't matter how hollow the charges match reality, they could say I was violating "Civil" because I posted an "apology request form" on my talk page, when I should have gone out and apologized to every single editor on wikipedia, just in case they passed through the talk pages without editing, and I happened to offend them by my remarks. Nice, eh? Clearly, the back channel is where things get done. Nothing can be said about SlimVirgin's POV pushing because not only would that deflate the bogus "stalking" charge against me, but it would also get her into trouble as well. And the secret ballots have already been passed out. FuelWagon is guilty. SlimVirgin is beyond reproach. The rules cannot be applied to admins because that would allow the trolls and vandals to do naughty things. And if it weren't for (insert name of admin here), then wikipedia would collapse, so lets just overlook their behaviour. FuelWagon 00:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Nice to see your grip on reality is improving, FW. It's all rigged. It's ALWAYS all rigged. The important stuff anyway. Try messing with the grasp on power of the rich, or try publishing a book detailing the CIA selling cocaine to blacks in Los Angeles to fund torturing and killing people in Nicaragua. (The author committed "suicide" by shooting himself in the BACK of the head.) Glad to see you wiseing up before your "integrity" causes you to take on the big boys that fight for keeps. Cheers. WAS 4.250 00:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

He's a witch! Burn him!

I was, when it first came to my attention, about as neutral as one could get in this matter. I first became aware of these disputes when they were peripherally mentioned in the Rangerdude case, which was newly submitted when I first started following the activities of the ArbCom. I have had had no involvement with Fuelwagon, Ed or SlimVirgin except for participating, in minor ways, in one of the RfCs that led to this case. I have not edited any of the articles mentioned here that I recall and the only one I would really even pay attention to in the normal course of events is Intelligent Design. I have made relatively few but, I think, high-quality edits, the most notable of which is probably the complete overhaul of Asperger Syndrome that was, I believe, the single biggest factor in that article maintaining its Featured Article status in the face of a recent challenge to same.

And as this whole sad affair draws to its rather tragic close, I have this to say:

The ArbCom's handling of this case has been completely disgusting. They, and Fred in particular, have shown themselves to be completely lacking in integrity, contemptuous of the truth, highly selective in their reading of evidence and more concerned with the relative popularity and political pull of the editors involved than with their actual activities on Wikipedia.

A six-month ban - which several members of the committee would have preferred to see at a year - is among the harshest penalties within the power of the ArbCom to hand out. One would expect it to be reserved for outright vandals and others with no positive contributions to their name; and certainly only for behaviour for which irrefutable proof exists. In this case, the alleged reason for the six-month ban is "extensive campaigns of harassment". Very well, let's go to the Findings of Fact and see what specific campaigns this is about. If we do, we find that the only relevant finding is this: "There is substantial evidence that FuelWagon has begun wiki-stalking SlimVirgin".

However, if we follow the accompanying link, what we find is interesting indeed. As just one example - chosen, to be honest, on the sole basis that it happened to be the first one I clicked on - this diff shows (on the left-hand side, click for the previous diff if necessary) SlimVirgin deleting, for stated reasons that are patent nonsense, sourced and relevant information that clearly belongs in the article. This behaviour at least borders on Vandalism. On the right we see FuelWagon quite rightly putting this content back. I note that this is SlimVirgin's own choice of link - she appears to, as one might say, lack insight into the fact that this reflects more badly on her than on FuelWagon.

Now, I am not going to make any claims about the motives or other mental states of either editor. Unlike, apparently, both FuelWagon and SlimVirgin, I make no claims to be a mind-reader - indeed, quite the opposite. But regardless of such peripheral matters - and all cries of "Stalking!" be damned, they are peripheral - as who got there first or exactly what they were thinking at any given moment, it seems clear that it is SlimVirgin's behaviour, in this instance, which is questionable. As evidence of this, at least two editors besides FuelWagon reverted her changes, not one person spoke up in favour of them, and ultimately, the section she was trying to delete has survived to this day, albeit in slightly altered form. In short, there was a clear consensus to keep this material, and the edit war in defiance of that consensus was initiated and prosecuted entirely by SlimVirgin, not FuelWagon. I have no idea what political agendas either side may or may not have had, but one possible motive - building a factually accurate encyclopedia via consensus - can be safely ruled out on SlimVirgin's part.

If this is at all representative, the ArbCom has made the wrong call. Not all following of a user is harassment. To quote the relevant policy:

• (Harassment) does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. The important part is the disruption - disruption is considered harmful.

But if the above link - and several others I could discuss in equal detail – shows any disruption, it is clearly on the part of SlimVirgin, not FuelWagon. The former borderline-vandalized, and the latter restored, the consensus version of the article in question, as confirmed by the later statements and behaviour of several other editors. This is not harassment, it is quality editing of a sort Wikipedia normally encourages. Imposing a six-month ban when your own evidence shows the exact opposite of what you say it shows is sheer lunacy.

But perhaps it will be said that this is somehow unrepresentative, that the real problem lies elsewhere than in this one unwisely chosen link. Let’s see if this is the case. The "stalking" incident over which the most virtual ink has been spilled seems to be the Words to Avoid one; no-one can reasonably argue that this one is irrelevant. But there too, it is clear to anyone who actually follows the links that the various parties have provided that it is SlimVirgin's behaviour, not FuelWagon's, that is questionable. SlimVirgin removed wholesale, without any discussion beforehand, the advice on the useful but occasionally weaselish word “however” after having violated that guideline, and being called on it by FuelWagon. Even SlimVirgin herself admits as much. Once again, there was no discussion beforehand, no consensus for her version (like the above one, this page still has the material she tried to delete), and FuelWagon's actions, not SlimVirgin's, proved to be in accord with consensus.

(And incidentally, it seems incredible to me that someone like SlimVirgin – who is clearly a fairly good writer, even if rather overrated around here as an encyclopedia writer – could not recognize that the page in question accurately describes how most English speakers take the word “However”, in that particular context.)

Moreover, SlimVirgin's attempted unilateral policy change here was, in fact – and here I will speak to motivation – a naked attempt to pull the rug out from under her opponent in a separate dispute. This, not anything FuelWagon did with regard to “However”, is what should be censured by the ArbCom – the exact opposite of what has as good as happened here.

Let us put the point another way. On the one hand, we have

1. A reasonable non-stalking explanation of what FuelWagon was doing there
2. Clear evidence that SlimVirgin’s edits had the purpose, or at least the potential effect, of changing a policy directly relevant to a dispute she was involved in elsewhere, in her favour – providing a possible motive to an otherwise very strange edit
3. Clear evidence that it was FuelWagon, not SlimVirgin, who was in accord with community consensus
4. No attempt on SlimVirgin’s part to seek such consensus until after she blanked the relevant section

On the other we have

1. One editor – and one with a clear non-evidential incentive to do so – claims it was stalking

Which one wins? From an impartial body, the first, easily. But here, where the relative popularity of the two editors apparently matters more than the truth, I guess it’s the second one.

I freely admit I don’t know what is going on here. I would like very much to believe that the conspiratorial whispers of the above section are without merit, but in the face of this ruling – a ruling that prima facie could not possibly have come from an impartial body – it is awfully difficult to assume good faith. I therefore call upon the ArbCom to make its reasoning clear, and to show that the balance of evidence - not anyone’s relative liking for the editors involved – really does support the remedies proposed here, because right now, it looks from the outside like a majority of the ArbCom sufficient to decide a case is in the grip of some sort of temporary (I hope) insanity.

As a final comment, which may seem unrelated but I have a sinking feeling is very closely related indeed: recently a fairly large proportion of the limited time I can devote to Wikipedia has been spent on the proposed policy Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct, and this for reasons directly related to this case. I proposed the following policy, and in case there was any doubt, I hereby publicly state and, indeed, call attention to the fact that it is aimed squarely at Fred Bauder’s several flagrant breaches of impartiality in this very case:

What circumstances are grounds for recusal? Arbitrators are obliged to recuse themselves when:

• (among others…)
• They present evidence to the case themselves, solicit evidence or other contributions from any individual not named as a party to the case, or coach any individual, whether a party to the case or not, on the content (as distinct from the preferred format, length etc) of their evidence or other contributions. Any activity relating to an open or newly submitted ArbCom case which violates the spirit or letter of this guideline constitutes a conflict of interest.

I defy anyone to tell me with a straight face that the above principle is anything other than simple common sense. I do not see how anyone can claim there is no conflict of interest, real or apparent, in acting as a prosecutor and a supposedly impartial arbitrator on the same case. It would be like having one member of a team of prosecuting attorneys on a real-life court case also serve on the jury. This is particularly odious in Fred’s case because – and under other circumstances I would say this was to his credit – he is, without a doubt, far and away the most influential member of the ArbCom. While it is not always the case that what he says goes, the fact remains that he is the primary or even sole author of most of the rulings that come out of these hallowed virtual halls. And if this case is anything to go by, when he goes batshit errs, apparently so does the rest of the ArbCom. PurplePlatypus 07:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Purple, I've stayed away from this page so as not to trigger another 30,000-word rebuttal, but I take exception to your post. You cite my removal of a section in Historical persecution by Christians, [98] saying I was wrong to delete it. But perhaps you ought to read what was removed. First paragraph:

Since the nineteenth century non-Western Christians have been more likely to be victims of persecution than persecutors. However, some Muslims believe that recent geopolitical conflicts constitute a new "crusade" against Muslim peoples by the Christian west. The number of Muslims killed by other Muslims and the number of Christians killed by Muslims, however, are both about ten times as large as the number of Muslims killed by Christians.

It amounts to "my dad's bigger than your dad," it was entirely unsourced, and it's exactly the kind of POV personal essay that has no place in articles. It's not even clear what it could mean: "The number of Muslims killed by other Muslims and the number of Christians killed by Muslims, however, are both about ten times as large as the number of Muslims killed by Christians." Did someone interview killers and victims just before the acts to determine their ethnicity or religion? Did that someone keep a close count?

Then from www.religioustolerance.org, a website run by a retired engineer and an unemployed waitress, we got the second paragraph: "In some US jurisdictions legal restrictions on atheists or agnostics as well as to some extent Buddhists, who do not believe in a personal deity, some Unitarian Universalists and New Age followers who do not believe in the existence of a personal deity holding public office still exist ..." [99]

There followed a list of states which allegedly impose these restrictions, according to the retired engineer, with no effort made to determine whether the legislation has been successfully challenged; or if the restrictions do still apply de jure, whether they could in fact ever be enforced. This was just bad research relying on a poor source, and there's currently a discussion going on elsewhere about whether this source should ever be used anywhere on Wikipedia. And that's not even to mention whether not being allowed to hold office in some U.S. states if you don't believe in God, as some of the restrictions seem to state or imply, amounts to "historical persecution by Christians," the title of the article. Or that some of the states listed didn't even have the restrictions claimed of them e.g. Pennsylvania, whose Declaration of Rights: Article 1, Section 4, apparently states: "No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth." This says that people may not be barred from office for believing in God; not that they may not hold office if they don't believe.

I won't say any more than this, and I won't respond to any further posts. I apologize if this seems rude, but there will be no end to it otherwise. My failure to respond to anything else you write doesn't mean I can't refute it. Finally, I take issue with your claim to be an impartial observer. Of your 500 edits, 28 have been to pages related to FuelWagon's RfC or RfAr in support of him since October. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

In similar fashion, I'll just fire off quick responses to a few things. Again, non-response to a given point reflects other things chewing up time, not necessarily unwillingness or inability to respond.

1. I didn't say I'm an impartial observer now, I said I was when I first became aware of the issues here. (I don't know whether it's something innocent like reading too fast, or purposeful spin-doctoring - I tend to assume a little of both - but you seem to arrive at that type of misunderstanding a lot, by the way.) I had, at the time, had no interaction with any of the principals here; I believe that your above post, for example, was the first time either of us has directly addressed the other. The point was I was not a party to the any of the original disputes as of a few months ago, not that I have no views now, which would clearly be nonsense in light of the strong words I use in the very next full paragraph.
2. The Web site in question cites its sources to my satisfaction.
3. I don't see what the occupations of the people who run the site have to do with anything. I am mainly a philosopher but my biggest contributions here have been to a psychology article and a music article, and no-one seems to think I'm not well-informed on the relevant issues. If someone says I'm mistaken about a fact, I pay attention; if someone were to say I was mistaken on the basis of my discipline, I would blow them off, not that anyone's been silly enough to do so. The same principle applies here; it is if anything even less clear why being an engineer would preclude competent fact-gathering of the sort done there.
4. I agree with you on a few of the issues you raise, in particular de facto versus de jure. But surely the solution is to add information, not subtract it. I don't see any way in which any of that even begins to justify blanking whole sections of articles.
5. I find it puzzling why you say it's unclear the laws given there are examples of persecution by Christians. Consider a law prohibiting an atheist from holding public office. Is that persecution? Yes, it bloody well is. Is it being carried on by Christians? In the main, yes. So it's an example of persecution by Christians. It's just that simple.
6. You were pretty roundly roasted on the Talk page of the article, or so it seems to me, including some of the same points I raise above. (I note that this is another example of your maintaining the same claims even after they've been shown to be incorrect, as your arguments above are largely the same ones refuted there.) Whatever else you may think of what went on there, the core of what I said remains untouched; you made large-scale changes in the face of clear consensus against you.

PurplePlatypus 09:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Wrong again. The deletion of the section was opposed by FuelWagon (as part of his stalk-and-revert activities) and Liftarn, which is what you seem to think amounts to me being "roundly roasted." Ta bu shi da yu agreed there was original research there and elsewhere in the article, writing at one point: "sheesh this article is TERRIBLE!!!! how many weasel words are in it masking original research?" [100] as did MusicalLinguist and Mkmcconn. And anyway, what matters is who is opposing or supporting, not just the numbers on either side. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

PurplePlatypus, the only reason SlimVirgin deleted the contemporary section from the historical persecution by Christians article is simple: she wanted to delete the contemporary history from the "historical persecution by Jews" article, and she needed to square up the christian article so they all followed suit. She cited as an excuse for her deletion that the "historical persecution by Muslims" article did not contain any "contemporary" history, and she needed to bring the "christian" article in line, so she could then justify deleting the "contemporary" history from the "jewish" version. Why did she do all this? Because she has a blatant pro-Israel POV and pushes it in every article that discusses the topic of Israel or Jews, and the block of text she wanted to delete in the "Persecution by Jews" article was critical of the modern state of Israel, showing Jews in Israel persecuting non-Jews. So, whatever reasoning SlimVirgin gives for her edits on the "historic persecution by ..." articles, must be viewed in light of her overall goal: to delete content critical of the modern state of Israel. When you look at the evidence I present at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/FuelWagon_v._Ed_Poor/Workshop#Jayjg_and_SlimVirgin_pushing_a_pro-Israel_POV, it becomes pretty clear that this deletion was part of pushing a larger, pro-Israel POV. FuelWagon 16:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

You'll also note that SlimVirgin has accused me of stalking her to the "words to avoid" article in her evidence in this arbcom case. Not only have I pointed out that she went there after I quoted the article to her in my evidence here, but I said exactly the same thing when she RfC'ed me in October Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/FuelWagon_2#Response_to_accusations_of_wikistalking [101]. So it isn't like she doesn't know her evidence is wrong, she just doesn't care, and she keeps saying that I stalked her there, even though the evidence shows she went there only after I quoted the page to her. But you won't find her mentioning that sequence of events. You also won't find her mentioning anything about the Bensaccount RfC Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/FuelWagon_2#Response_regarding_Bensaccount_RfC, which shows her stalking me way back in August. She tells me she's all out good faith towards me in the morning, and that evening, she's suddenly interested in the Bensaccount RfC, even though she has never edited the Creation Science article, and even though she had never been on the Bensaccoutn RfC, which had been around for a week. But arbcom manages to ignore that and decide that I "instigated an edit war" on the Creation Science article? Even after one of the original editors comes here and testifies that I had tried to work with Bensaccount and that Bensaccount wouldn't follow policy? FuelWagon 16:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, just at the moment I'm more interested in the ArbCom's reasoning than in Slim's motives. As I do not, as noted above, have a functioning telepathy helmet, I make no comment whatsoever on whether you're right about the latter, but I don't think it matters much. There seems to be plenty to criticize there without assuming any particular political agenda.

I have gone over most of your evidence, so I've seen you post all of the above before, most of it multiple times. I'd rather see a response from someone in the ArbCom, not that I'm holding my breath. PurplePlatypus 21:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

My point was just that SlimVirgin's deletion of text on the "Persecution by Christians" article was a piece of a larger pattern of behaviour. While she shouldn't have deleted the text in the "Christians" article, that, by itself, isn't too large a problem. But when viewed in totality with other articles etc, it shows a pattern of POV behaviour. FuelWagon 21:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not holding my breath either. Fred Bauder just proposed on the arbcom case about Neuro-Linguistic Programming that I was violating NPOV because I quoted sources, attributed the quotes to the sources, and provided URL's to verify those quotes [102]. NPOV says to report the views of the sources. There is no "neutral" source to quote in hotly disputed topics. Believe me, I spent several months editing the Terri Schaivo article and there is no single source that qualifies as neutral. All you can do is quote the advocates, quote the critics, and call it a day. For this, Fred says I violated NPOV. Ah well, apparently it's more of me doing my "thing". FuelWagon 01:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

what's best for wikipedia

What's best for wikipedia.. FuelWagon 23:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

A Ghost speaks

I can't begin to descibe how sad this makes me feel. Wikipedia is and has the potential to become something far greater than any of us. Something not seen since the glory days of Alexandria. And yet we spend our energies beating one another without taking the time to step back and realize something important:

Just because we're partially right, the other side is not entirely wrong and therefore their views are to be dismissed (or surpressed).

I would strongly suggest that all involved with this matter ask for Jimmy Carter's Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis for the holidays. Although I don't entirely agree with Fmr. Pres. Carter, he makes a good point that taking on a fundementalist mentality about anything is distructive. May the Universe bless and keep us all.--ghost 15:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

A final analysis of this "case"

Before any evidence had been submitted to arbcom, Fred Bauder stated on the mailing list "we have all encountered FuelWagon doing his thing". [103]. Despite this showing Fred was prejudiced in this case, he refused to recuse himself. [104]. Fred was also the first person to submit evidence to the arbcom case, presenting a post by me listing my "most ideal terms" as hard "demands". Despite this misrepresentation of evidence, Fred Bauder refused to correct his evidence [105]. At the same time, Fred Bauder expands a case about Ed Poor's misuse of admin priveledges and invites SlimVirgin to submit evidence against me [106]. So, it is no wonder that arbcom found the decisions that it wanted to find, it is no wonder that arbcom ignored misrepresentations in SlimVirgin's evidence, it is no wonder that arbcom ignored any evidence I presented that directly disproved SlimVirgin's evidence, it is no wonder that arbcom refused to look into policy violations by SlimVirgin that would directly disqualify the charge against me of "stalking" SlimVirgin on multiple articles. Meanwhile, Jayjg, who is clearly implicated in teh evidence, and who is shown by the evidence to have violated several policies alongside SlimVirgin, who some suggest may actually be SlimVirgin's boyfriend, never came out and announced he woudl recuse, and arbcom remains silent on his behaviour as shown by the evidence as well.

Fred Bauder's statement before any evidence was submitted shows his prejudice, his active seeking of evidence, misrepresentation of evidence, willingness to expand the case to accept SlimVirgin's evidence against me, but refusal to expand the case to actually review SlimVirgin's behaviour in her alleged events, is nothing more than an extension of his previously declared prejudice. When this case was requested, Fred Bauder knew what ruling he wanted, and he simply went around looking for whatever would make that ruling look good. The simplest investigation into the Terrorism article [107] clearly shows that rather than "instigating an edit war" as arbcom has found as "fact", I had actually inserted two sentences quoting a notable source. A cursory look at the Creation Science article shows that I RfCed a POV pusher named Bensaccount [108], rather than "instigating an edit war on the Creation Science" article as arbcom has found as "fact". A quick look at SlimVirgin's stalking evidence shows not only did she misrepresent dates [109], but she also uses "stalking" as a way to claim ownership on a number of articles that she has a history of POV pushing on. SlimVirgin clearly shows a history of pushing a pro-Israel and pro-Animal-Rights POV in a number of articles. [110] [111] [112]. But arbcom made up its mind before the first evidence was presented, and arbcom has demonstrated that the evidence doesn't really matter. And all the old-timers will run to the defense of arbcom and other old-timers, saying how this is what's best for wikipedia. A fair and impartial determiniation of facts is whats best for wikipedia, in its articles and in its decisions by arbcom. FuelWagon 16:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Arbcom made up its mind before the first evidence was presented, and arbcom has demonstrated that the evidence doesn't really matter. I agree completely. Now will you drop the avatar FuelWagon who wields the sword of Integrity to battle the Old-Timers with Disruption to prove the point that The System Is Not Fair (TM) and return in your next incarnation as an avatar that spends his energies ... ummm ... differently? WAS 4.250 18:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)