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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
- 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.
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.
- 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)
- 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 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)
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)
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)