Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/FuelWagon 2

SlimVirgin, you'll have to put your accusations into RfC format because you've piled so many into your narative description that I can't address them one at a time. Also, just to be clear, are you opening this RfC up to include all history back to the point where you started editing the Terri Schiavo article? FuelWagon 22:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and I really like the snowball effect going on here. You guys couldn't find squat for policy violations on the Terrorism article. You never tried to resolve the dispute on that page in any meaningful way. So you're slowly expanding the evidence until it includes enough unrelated issues to make a case. By all means, if we're going to go all teh way back to Terri Schiavo, then lets get everything in the RfC. FuelWagon 22:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

BYGONES. The RFC is here - let's ignore the motives, past whatevers and blah, and focus on the improvements. You know you could do a better job of WP:COOL, Fuel (I could too). Endorse my outside view, promise to try to be cooler and take the highground here. First party to get out of the mud wins, you know. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm cool. If no new evidence is brought up on this RfC that I need to defend against, I'm finished here. FuelWagon 22:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I had a brief glimmer of hope when I read the above. But then I saw his latest post to Ed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Hm, so the choice was either admit that you moved too far, too fast on the Terri Schiavo article (and consider this whole dispute between you and I closed), or, find a way to expand the dispute and avoid admitting any wrongdoing. Interesting choice. FuelWagon 00:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm getting mixed messages. Marskell asked you if you'd end the dispute if I said that, and you said no. Then above you seemed to suggest it might soon close, but then you posted more claims about Ed on his talk page. Can you say more clearly what you're prepared to do, or rather, what you're prepared to stop doing? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Me admitting that I lost my cool did not require any promises from you to do or stop doing anything. For example, me admitting that I lost my cool did not require that you promise not to endorse Bishonen's outside comment. And now that you've endorsed his outside comment, I won't be withdrawing my statement that I lost my cool. I have absolutely no reason to believe you will ever bury this, but I'm willing to admit I lost my cool. Meanwhile, you seem to be looking for some sort of guarantee, while offering none yourself. You made a reckless edit on Terri Schiavo, you stonewalled legitimate criticism of your edits, you made numerous unfounded accusations, you tried to use my RfC against me after it was deleted, you harrassed me on teh Bensaccount RfC, and you're harrassing me here, and those are all truths that don't need promises or guarantees before they can be spoken. In fact, they are truths whether you ever speak them or not. And given that you've never admitted a single mistake on your part since this whole dispute began, I won't be holding my breath for you to have some unconditional honesty now. Unless there's new evidence submitted that I need to defend myself against, I'm finished with this, with or without any promises from you. FuelWagon 02:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

If you keep your cool going forward, then I would consider this RFC sucessful. If you feel you are losing your cool, walk away. The above comment strikes me as one that needs not be made. Just walk away. The person who gets the last word, in this whole thing, is the loser. Unless it's me, because I am cool. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

What am I doing on FW's list of editors he's in a dispute with?

After I posted my "Outside view", FW inserted my name on a list labelled "What you have here is a number of editors supporting this RfC against me who have all been involved in a content dispute with me recently, and many have a history with me that goes all the way back to opposing my RfC against SlimVirgin." Emphasis by italics and bolding in original: all. This is... imprecise, and makes me wonder if other commenters are being dismissed in FW's responses on equally slight qualifications. I have no content dispute with FW, and I don't "go all the way back" to the RfC on SlimVirgin. I did oppose FW's RfC on SV. That's it, that's my "history" with him. (All the way back in July.) Is that supposed to disqualify me from posting on this one? Or tend to prove that I'm biased? Seriously, Fuel, how do you figure? I haven't had anything to do with you since July. Not taken any interest in the pages you edit, not encountered you, not spoken to you, not spoken of you. You'd do yourself a favor by removing me from the list with an apology. You'd look better.
Oh, wait! I did speak to you one time after the SV RfC, I'm remembering. Also in July, a couple of weeks later. I wrote on your Talk page: "Hi, FuelWagon. Since you and I haven't had any interchange except your RfC on SlimVirgin, and I had nothing but criticism for you there, I want to also tell you I'm very impressed by your input on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cberlet & Willmcw. I think you're doing really good work on getting Rangerdude's attention." No good? Too fawning? Anyway, that's the whole of it. Bishonen | talk 10:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm on the list because I opposed FW's RfC on SV and beacuse I reverted edits by another user on an article, only to find out today that FuelWagon was the original contributor of the edits that I reverted, even though I wasn't reverting FuelWagon in particular. I think its a bit of a stretch for FuelWagon to claim that I have a content dispute with him directly. --Viriditas | Talk 10:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

The original text applied when it was first written, I added the table later, and then other editors later after that. I've removed the old text and left the table. Better?

Now, you folks want to look at SlimVirgin's meddling with my RfC against Bensaccount the same day she announced she could assume no good faith of me? That she had no involvement with the articles in question, that she had no involvement with the RfC for a week, but the day she announced she could assume no good faith of me, she found that RfC and made it her crusade to nail me for an inappropriate RfC? The same day? How about that for a stretch? Funny how not one mention of that from any of the people who certified the RfC. The word to describe that is "stonewalling". FuelWagon 14:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Bygones. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by the posting of that list. What is the relevance supposed to be? Obviously, if FuelWagon took the trouble to create that boxed table, it's supposed to be communicating a particular message. Is the message that people who supported SlimVirgin in the original RfC against her are somehow disqualified from certifying or endorsing this RfC? If so, why? It makes sense to me that people who thought that FuelWagon's behaviour was wrong last July would also disapprove of his continued hostility since then, even while acknowledging that he has commendably stopped using foul language. And as for the disputes on contents of articles, again, I don't see what he's getting at. Should he not have certified the RfC against NCdave since he and Dave had reverted each other's edits? On the same grounds, should he not have certified the RfC against SlimVirgin? Does disagreeing over what goes in an article mean that any of the disagreeing people who sign the RfC are doing so purely out of spite, and that the RfC is completely spurious? FuelWagon is well aware that I constantly oppose his efforts to have things favourable to Michael Schiavo reported into the Terri Schiavo article as if they are verifiable facts, when they are are purely based on Michael's word. (Michael did, wanted, said, and thought this, instead of Michael said he did, wanted, said, and thought this.) He is also well aware [1] [2] that I endorsed his response to the first RfC brought against him, believing that it was spurious, and not wishing to allow disagreements over the content of the Terri Schiavo article to affect my sense of fairness. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 01:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I had a discussion with Robert some time ago about using a Jury system for RfC's and Arbcom. The table is a reflection of that discussion. Pretty much everyone who has certified or endorsed this RfC would not qualify to serve if this were a Jury trial, because most have past grudges against me. You, Ann Heneghan, could act as a witness and give testimony here, but you would be too biased to serve on a jury and be expected to give a neutral finding of fact against me. Say SlimVirgin had filed the RfC against Bensaccount. Say that I told her I was out of good faith towards her, and then later that same day, I showed up on teh Bensaccount RfC to say she was misusing teh dispute resolution system. And say that I hadn't been involved with the Bensaccount dispute in any way for the weeks prior. I'm quite certain that SlimVirgin would have listed this on her RfC as an example of me harrassing her or stalking her or whatever. And I'm sure that you, Ann Heneghan, would have fully supported her accusation of wikistalking in that case. However, that the roles are reversed, that I filed the RfC against Bensaccount, and the day SlimVirgin said she could assume no good faith of me, that is the day she showed up on teh Bensaccount RfC (and not a peep the weeks before), well, it would seem to be a reflection of bias that all the certifiers and endorsers of this RfC against me find the exact same behaviour perfectly acceptable when committed by SlimVirgin. Like the table says, make your own judgements. FuelWagon 01:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I feel that FuelWagon has avoided addressing the issues that Bishonen, Ann Heneghan and myself have raised, instead preferring to accuse us of "stonewalling" (an absurd accusation) and holding "grudges". I also feel that FuelWagon's response to the comments above detract from this RfC and place undue attention (aka blame) on another editor who is not the subject of this RfC. For what its worth, I know nothing about the Bensaccount incident, nor of the intricate dynamics between FuelWagon and his peers; what I do know, I have commented upon. In any case, I do not buy into FuelWagon's argument that everyone who has certified this RfC is biased against him, holds grudges against him, or dislikes him in some way. It seems to me that FuelWagon is blaming others for his own behavior and I find this troubling. --Viriditas | Talk 09:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I think a number of SlimVirgin's supporters who claim to be neutral are avoiding addressing the issue around the Bensaccount RfC and are avoiding looking at some of the dates SLimVirgin provides as "proof" of stalking.

03:34, 22 August 2005: I file RfC against Bensacount, all 30 diffs of evidence point to Creation science article. [3]

SlimVirgin has no involvement in the Creation Science article at all. She makes no comment on the RfC when it is opened or for the week following.

03:26, 31 August 2005: SlimVirgin posts on my talk shes "All out of good faith" [4]

22:47, 31 August 2005: SV says Bensaccount RfC "looks like another inappropriate RfC filed by you,"[5]

No involvement in the Creation Science article at all. No involvement in the RfC for an entire week. The day she gets mad enough at me to say she's out of good faith for me, she starts a crusade to label the Bensaccount RfC "inappropriate".

23:26, 15 September 2005: I cite "However" in "Words to avoid" to SlimVirgin [6]

22:57, 17 September 2005: SlimVirgin deletes the "However" entry [7]

In her RfC "summary of dispute", SV says she arrived at the "words to avoid" article "first". The only problem is that the DIFF she provides points to a day AFTER I cited teh "Words to avoid" article about the "however" entry.

20:11, 16 September 2005: This is the diff that SlimVirgin provides saying she arrived there first. [8]

Anyone who would qualify as a Juror here would clearly see SlimVirgin stalked me to the Bensaccount RfC and that her "proof" that I stalked her to teh "words to avoid" article actually shows that she stalked me. FuelWagon 14:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

While we're discussing the minor details

I just saw the RfC accuses me of "After reverting warring on Terri Schiavo for several months,". Did someone mean to say "after reverting vandals for several months"? Nothing like laying it on extra thick, I suppose. FuelWagon 18:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Duck. Water. Back. Bygones! Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

archiving my talk page

Since it is referenced in the RfC I have archived the chunk of my talk page that has El_C's attempts at combat resolution to a directory under this RfC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/FuelWagon 2/FuelWagonTalkPageSnapshot. I generally delete old comments on my talk page, but was chastized for doing so last time. Since the stuff seems relevent to this RfC, I've archived it under this RfC. FuelWagon 23:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Attacking, Cautioning, or Making a Request?

Okay, I promised on the article page, that I'd put something on the talk page tonight, in response to those who want an explanation of how anyone could see an attack in Neuroscientist's long post. As I've pointed out, there's no reason to give an example of Neuroscientist violating WP:NPA, because nobody has claimed that he did. FuelWagon has claimed repeatedly that Neuroscientist was "attacked" and "cautioned", and now he has come out with the incredible statement that it's clear that Ed was threatening to block Neuroscientist.[9] I'm a bit stunned at that statement. I read Ed's post to Neuroscientist at the time, and I didn't see it as even remotely threatening a block. And I have to point out yet again that Ed did not block FuelWagon a second time. Here is the block log.

So, Ed did not accuse Neuroscientist of attacking SlimVirgin. He did not attack Neuroscientist; he did not threaten him. He asked him politely to try to avoid personal remarks.[10] On what grounds?

Here are some extracts from Neuroscientist's post. I've put it all in italics, to distinguish it from my own post, but the underlining is his.

SlimVirgin . . . has an exceptionally poor understanding of elementary neuroanatomy. . . . this person has absolutely, totally, completely, no idea of what she’s talking about. This is an example of the worst in Wikipedia, when complete, arrant nonsense serves as the basis for editorial decisions. . . .SlimVirgin is also wrong when she writes . . . . This is nonsense, of course. . . . Seriously guys, don't you think this is clunky? . . . Most of her assumptions were wrong. . . . [Some of her edits were] woefully ill-informed, or weak. . . . Leaving aside the hubris it must take [for SlimVirgin] to say that . . . . I have already shown that her assumptions of fact in her version of the introduction are riddled with error. . . . My final impressions here are that this User demonstrated very, very, very poor judgment by doing what she did.[11]

There is no reason to ask anyone to justify Ed's caution against personal attacks when Ed didn't caution against personal attacks. There was nothing threatening or attacking in Ed's request. However, Ed had been mediating the article for some time, and had presumably read some of Neuroscientist's remarks to Gordon ("you're talking horseshit") and others. Regardless of that, I cannot believe that any unbiased person would look at the extracts I've given from his lengthy post about SlimVirgin's edits, and conclude that it was just a scientific analysis of her edit with absolutely nothing personal. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 00:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll conclude that, happily. Saying someone is wrong is a personal attack? WTF? What exactly are you supposed to say when someone posts a factual error?

As I said on the project page in a slightly different context, "Correct" and "incorrect" are not equally valid points of view. There is no "everyone's opinion is equal" here; if someone posts nonsense, others who know better must be able to call it nonsense. Our goal is to produce an encyclopedia people can rely on, not to conform slavishly to WP:Civility as interpreted by the most thin-skinned editor who chooses to participate on a given page. All I see here are at least two editors who appear to have difficulty distinguishing between critiquing content and critiquing the person, and Neuroscientist wasn't one of them. PurplePlatypus 06:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Ann writes "Ed did not block FuelWagon a second time. Here is the block log." Well, Ed used admin priveledges to do what he did, didn't he? here is Ed's message to me. There is no policy violation in my /block directory that justified his second block,lock,admin priveledge.

It appears that he did not block FuelWagon. He locked a page. That is different, and FuelWagon is miscounting or misstating if he does not recognize the difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 22:21, 22 October, 2005 (UTC)

Ann also quoted Neuroscientist as saying "Leaving aside the hubris it must take [for SlimVirgin] to say that". How about we quote the whole comment in context, eh? Neuroscientist said:

"After one of the first reverts, she said "you are reintroducing all the errors." Leaving aside the hubris it must take to say that, the claim of course was simply untrue." [12]

Horrors. SlimVirgin makes an edit with numerous errors. We revert. She claims that we are reintroducing all the errors. Neuroscientist is criticizing SlimVirgin's content and he is talking about her behaviour of stonewalling. Rather than admit any error on talk, she accused us of reintroducing the "errors" she "corrected". Her response to neuroscientist's post was to avoid any admission of making an error and tell Neuroscientist that she didn't like his "tone". SlimVirgin's response on the RfC, which was filed a day or two later, still refuses to admit any errors in her content, instead calling it a "copyedit". This was her consistent behaviour throughout the dispute on Terri Schiavo. Rather than admit she made a single error, (and she denied making a single error a dozen times), she accused us of reintroducing errors, of POV pushing, of owning the page, of original research. The fact was that her content was wrong. And if saying as much is a personal attack, then wikipedia is doomed. FuelWagon 16:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

personal attack

In response to Neuroscientist posted a long criticism of SlimVirgin's edits. His criticisms were in a style that is characteristic of scientific peer review of questionable research, which pulls no punches and can be harsh and abrasive. As a newcomer to Wikipedia, he apparently did not realize that this style of criticism is, in the Wikipedia community, construed as a personal attack. by McClenon I requested someone illuminate those of us that can't see the personal attacks you and others see in Neuroscientist's posted criticism of SlimVirgin's edits. WAS 4.250 02:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

In response to as far as I know, the only person ever to use the word "attack" with regard to Neuroscientist's post is FuelWagon by Ann Heneghan I posted Finally, I don't appreciate the personal comments you've lobbed at me. A feature of this page, and this pertains to all the archives too, is that editors have repeatedly attacked one another, instead of concentrating on content. I'm sorry you felt it necessary to continue that tradition. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:04, July 13, 2005 (UTC) from Talk:Terri Schiavo/archive30. WAS 4.250 02:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

whitewashing

Whitewashing [refers] to a particular form of censorship via omission, which seeks to "clean up" the portrayal of particular issues and facts which are already known from Censorship. Nobody here is doing that on purpose, but the human subconcious does that for each and every one of us. Good thing we have each other. WAS 4.250 02:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

number of edits

From Wikipedia:Editcountitis: The problem with using edit counts to measure relative level of experience is that it does not take into account that users might have an extensive edit history prior to registering an account (posting anonymously) and that major and minor edits are counted equally, regardless of whether the edit is a typo fix or the creation of a full article. Hence, it is not a reliable way of telling how experienced or worthy an user truly is, even though using the edit count tool is often useful for obtaining a general idea of how the editor interacts with the Wikipedia. WAS 4.250 10:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, Edit counting (at the Meta-Wiki) is informative and interesting. WAS 4.250 10:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Moved to Talk: my response to TShilo12's endorsement of my outside view

Sorry, I think I should have posted this to Talk in the first place. TShilo12 endorsed my outside view and commented among other things that "the fact that FW has endorsed this summary is, at least in my view, somewhat encouraging...". This was my response:

TShilo, for a moment I too felt encouraged by FW's endorsement, but on closer inspection I think it's simply a way of complying with the letter of the instruction at the top of the page, Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse, while undermining its spirit. FW's own Response section takes up considerably more than half of this RfC page, but I guess he still hates being confined to it. Does his "endorsement" mention anything in my summary he agrees with? No. Does it take issue with something in my summary? Yep. Discouraging. Bishonen | talk 16:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)