Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ed Poor and FuelWagon

User:FuelWagon and User:Ed Poor[edit]

Ed Poor suggested he and I try mediation by email to resolve a longstanding dispute. If I could pick, I'd probably go with User:Andrevan as mediator, assuming he doesn't have a conflict of interest regarding Ed Poor or myself. FuelWagon 21:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to mediation. If I could pick, I would go with Improv or Catherine. Uncle Ed 21:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andrevan is busy. I think I'll assign this case to Improv as he once mediated a case with Ed Poor before, but if FuelWagon rejects Improv on those grounds, I'll assign Catherine. R e dwolf24 (talk) 22:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, User:Improv. Since I know almost nothing about these people, I'm basically picking names out of hats. FuelWagon 22:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have emailed both users, and mediation will proceed when we all get in touch over email. --Improv 23:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have withdrawn as mediator on this case. I am uncertain if/when the case is to proceed, although if it is, I am willing to mediate again. --Improv 20:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

my response to the initial round of mediation questions[edit]

On Thursday, October 20, 2005 12:47 PM, I emailed my answers to the first round of mediation. They are pasted below. FuelWagon 19:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1) Could you briefly describe the difficulties you have been having?

I'm not sure how "brief" you want it.

Very briefly, Ed Poor was mediating Terri Schiavo. A friend of his, SlimVirgin, entered the article out of the blue and made a massively bad edit, a number of editors opposed her edit, and Ed engaged in teh debate, defending SlimVirgin and attacking people who criticized her. Three editors left wikipedia in disgust after this fiasco.

The longer version:

Ed was mediating Terri Schiavo back in July. A month into mediation, a friend of his (SlimVirgin) came into the article and made a nine back to back edits with the "in use" tag,

A number of editors (myself, Duckecho, Neuroscientist, A ghost) objected, saying her edits contained numerous factual and NPOV problems, and that an administrator (SlimVirgin is an admin) should have known not to walk into an article marked "controversial" and "in mediation" and performed such a massive edit with little knowledge of the subject.

It was at this point that mediation suddenly failed and Ed seemed to engage in the argument. I violated NPA and was blocked (explained below). I accepted the block without protest. But then I started working on an RfC against SlimVirgin and Ed blocked me for making "personal remarks".

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FuelWagon&diff=next&oldid=18767057 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FuelWagon&diff=next&oldid=18767273

I ask Ed to point out specifically what got me blocked, and he declines to answer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&diff=18874463&oldid=18872886 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&diff=18883831&oldid=18883677

User Neuroscientist posts a 5,000 word explanation of the different technical problems with SlimVirgin's edit. Ed Poor responds by warning him about violating NPA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATerri_Schiavo&diff=18726255&oldid=18719115 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Neuroscientist&diff=prev&oldid=18749442

I RfC SlimVirgin. Ed initially gives it partial hesitant endorsement, saying SlimVirgin "moved too far, too fast", but then after another editor told him he should not have endorsed it, Ed withdrew his comment and attacked the RfC as "a sneaky way of "building a case" "it is no more than Wikipedia:Gaming the system in a hypocritical bullying way." and "spurious".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FuelWagon/050714 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FuelWagon/050714_1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FuelWagon/050714_2

I eventually withdraw my certification of the RfC to allow it to be deleted. Ed Poor then posts this to me:

You're entitled to form whatever opinion you want, but not always to

express it. There is no freedom of speech at Wikipedia in the same

sense as America's First Amendment. I happen to think you're an asshole

and a shit head, and that you're fucking everything up, you stupd,

time-wasting bully!!! (This is inserted as an example of a forbidden

comment, go ahead and complain about me if you want, but I was

illustrating a point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&diff=next&oldid=19004434

Duckecho and Neuroscientist stop editing wikipedia soon after the RfC is deleted. A Ghost stops editing soon after that.

2) Have any other people been involved in the dispute?

Duckecho, Neuroscientists, A ghost,

The people who opposed the RfC included 1 SlimVirgin 2 Viriditas 3 El_C 4 Mel Etitis 5 172 6 Jayjg 7 Noitall 8 Ruy Lopez 9 Proteus 10 FeloniousMonk 11 Ann Heneghan 12 Kaisershatner 13 Mackensen 14 Slrubenstein 15 Bishonen 16 Willmcw 17 Eliezer 18 David Bergan

3) Have the difficulties ever felt personal to you?

I'm not sure if I thought it was "personal". I thought that Ed Poor was playing favorites to SlimVirgin, which meant that I, Duckecho, and Neuroscientist were dismissed by him, even though we were right about the content. SlimVirgin's edit was full of errors.

4) Do you feel that you have ever stepped over the bounds of what you would consider in calmer times to be good and appropriate behaviour?

On July 12, I violated NPA, attacking SlimVirgin. After I posted those comments, Viriditas calmed me down and I went through and tried to clean up the personal attacks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terri_Schiavo&diff=18693597&oldid=18693343 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terri_Schiavo&diff=prev&oldid=18693330 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terri_Schiavo&diff=prev&oldid=18692973 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terri_Schiavo&diff=prev&oldid=18692739

5) Do you feel that your counterpart has ever violated policy on Wikipedia in these conflicts?

I think he failed to mediate in any sort of neutral way once SlimVirgin entered the Terri Schiavo article, I think he engaged in the debate, taking SlimVirgin's side. I think Ed's second block against me was a misuse of admin priveledges. I think he violated NPA when he was "illustrating a point".

6) Do you feel that you may have ever violated policy on Wikipedia in these conflicts?

I violated NPA against SlimVirgin. I cleaned up my edits. I was blocked by Ed anyway, and I accepted the block.

7) What kind of specific changes would you like to see come about as a result of mediation? (try to keep this concrete)

Concrete? I don't know, I want some honesty around this. Ed has never acknowledged any bias during mediation in SlimVirgin's favor, he never acknowledged that his second block was undeserved, his warning to Neuroscientist was undeserved, his attack against the RfC was out of line for a neutral mediator, or that he attacked me.

And when I've taken this through any other stage in the dispute resolution system, I get friends of Ed defending him independent of whether his actions were right or wrong. Arbcom closed the case against Ed without declaring that he had done a single thing wrong.

SlimVirgin is still grudging me because I RfC'ed her, and she has just recently RfC'ed me, bringing up all the mess around Terri Schiavo, claiming it is entirely my fault.

If Terri Schiavo had been handled by a neutral mediator, this dispute would never have exploded in the first place. Because SlimVirgin never had to acknowledge a single criticism of her edit (she still denies there was a single error of fact in her edit), because the mediator placed blame on the editors who criticized her, SlimVirgin gets to cast herself as the complete innocent here.

And I'm getting shafted by the collusion of silence. No one can admit anyone else did anythign wrong. Neither Ed, nor anyone else, can admit that Ed Poor's mediation was biased and engaged in the dispute.