User talk:FuelWagon/050825

This is a summary page of the events that happened on the Terri Schiavo article around the middle of July, 2005. For more information, see also:

The end result of this whole entire fiasco was that two valuable editors left wikipedia in disgust.

On 11 July, 2005, the Terri Schiavo article looked like this. The talk page marked the article as "controversial topic" and "in mediation". Ed Poor was mediator. An administrator named SlimVirgin came into the article, performed 9 edits [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] over the course of 3 hours. During that time SlimVirgin inserted the "in use" tag [10], which displays "This article is actively undergoing a major edit."

Several long term editors on the article protested that SlimVirgin's edit was inappropriate for an article listed as "controversial" and in "mediation" and that it contained numerous factual errors that had already been hashed to death on the talk page. The Terri Schiavo case spans 15 years. The court cases regarding Terri Schiavo included a week-long trial; a seven-day evidentiary hearing; fourteen appeals and innumerable motions, petitions, and hearings in the Florida courts; five suits in Federal District Court; Florida legislation (Terri’s Law) that was struck down by the Florida Supreme Court; an effort by a congressional committee to overturn the state court judgment through the use of a committee subpoena; federal legislation (Palm Sunday Compromise) purporting to authorize petitioners to file suit in federal district court to raise issues of federal law under the U.S. Constitution; a decision by the court of appeals; and four denials from the United States Supreme Court, among others. Terri Shiavo was examined by 8 different neurologists during those 15 years.

What SlimVirgin did was edit the article based on loose information she had from some news reports. The article quotes the American Association of Neurologists regarding the chances of recovery from a persistent vegatative state, and SlimVirgin inserts an embedded note saying "is this true? I seem to recall a case in England..." based on anecdotal evidence. User:Neuroscientist (who is a neuroscientist who had been helping on the article for some time) wrote a 5,000 word post about the factual errors in her edits. [11]

SlimVirgin's reply to Neuroscientist here [12]. She tells him "I don't appreciate the personal comments you've lobbed at me" and she acknowledges not a single factual error on her part. Instead she announces she is withdrawing from editing to decide if she should deal with the page as an admin instead of an editor.

During the entire discussion on teh talk page, SlimVirgin never once acknowledges a single error in her edit. When someone offers evidence, she ignores it and asks for someone to point out any error in here edit.

Please say what your specific objections are, rather than reverting. [13]

please discuss your objections on talk. [14]

I'm assuming the above can't be your only objection, so please lay them out [15]

If you feel I've introduced errors, please list them on talk [16]

You haven't yet explained why you want to exclude that information.[17]

neither of you has said what your objection is. [18]

If these are your only objections, I don't know why you reverted all my edits. [19]

Show me one error I made in the article, either factual or grammatical. [20]

If this is the only issue you can find with my copy edit, why did you revert it? [21]

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. [22]

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. [23]

If I made a factual error, point to it. [24]

SlimVirgin also made numerous allegations against several editors on the page.

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." FuelWagon never made the claim that no dissenting voice be heard in the intro. When confronted with this, SlimVirgin never responded or corrected her statement.

SlimVirgin wrote It appears that a small group of editors, currently consisting of User:FuelWagon and User:Duckecho have taken ownership of this page and won't allow others to edit without their consent. This isn't allowed. No one was "owning" the page or wouldn't let others edit it without our "consent". Despite numerous posts describing all the factual errors in her massive edit, SlimVirgin refused to acknowledge a single error and instead blamed other editors.

Here, SlimVirgin accuses FuelWagon of violating NPOV and "No Original Research". FuelWagon asked for diffs to show where he violated NPOV or where he violated No original research. SlimVirgin never responded and never retracted her accusation.

SlimVirgin accused FuelWagon of "arguing for the sake of arguing" about the prognosis for PVS. SlimVirgin's edit questioned the American Association of Neurology's prognosis of persistent vegatative state based on a single anecdotal case she "heard" about in England.

SlimVirgin posted FuelWagon and Duckecho were "insisting, for example, that no dissenting voice be heard in the intro." [25]

FuelWagon posted "Unless you can QUOTE a DIFF from me that shows me EVER saying "no dissenting voice in the intro", then you are officially a f**%!ng *$$s0le. SHOW ME ONE DIFF WHERE I EVER SAID THAT." [26]

I admit it violated NPA, but after 24 hours of trying to get SlimVirgin to acknowledge even one problem with her edit, the talk page had exploded, SlimVirgin continued to maintain her edit was perfectly fine and should be reinserted, SlimVirgin continued to accuse everyone attempting to point out errors with her edit as "taking ownership", "pushing pov", and other nonsense, and this time she straight out LIED about what I said. I never said no dissenting voice should be in the intro. Never. After all of SlimVirgin's allegations, her arguing neurology with an editor who was a neuroscientist, her stonewall refusal to acknowledge a single error of fact in her edits, this was the last straw. SlimVirgin said I said something that I never said.

Another editor (Viriditas) asked me to tone it down. so I went through and started cleaning up my comments [27] [28] [29] [30].

On 21:02 July 12, Ed Poor blocks me or "unrepentant personal attacks". At the time, Ed Poor was acting mediator for the Terri Schiavo article.

My block allowed me to continue editing my talk page, so I began trying to compile a list of factual errors with SlimVirgin's edit.

45 minutes after Ed blocked me and 12 minutes after I posted to my talk page, SlimVirgin posts to Ed's page: FuelWagon is "continuing to edit with the same user account despite the block." [31]

Ed Poor responds to Neuroscientist here:

There is a fine line between making personal remarks, and criticizing someone's contributions to Wikipedia. I hope you will read Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks. Please be careful not to hurt other editors' feelings with comments like:

*this User demonstrated very, very, very poor judgment by doing what she did.

*the 12,000-edit administrator who doesn’t seem to have learned ... do not be reckless.

out of 5,000 words of technical problems with SlimVirgin's edits regarding neurologically-related stuff, Ed comments on 28 words. No mention is made of any of the factual errors listed by SlimVirgin. Oh, the "dont be reckless" is an admonishing from wikipedia itself. I'm trying to figure out when you can say "don't be reckless" about an edit and when it becomes a violation of "no personal attacks".

17:05, 13 July 2005 :: SlimVirgin posted this in response to a new feature which allows blocked editors to edit their talk page. (cough).

I'm not keen on this feature, though I appreciate Ed had the right idea in asking for it, because it helps people to communicate and it keeps it off the mailing list. The downside is that we now have talk pages turning into obsessive diatribes against the blocking admin, or against the editors involved in the dispute that led to the block, not a good thing to be on the receiving end of.

Ed Poor posts this reply on SlimVirgin's talk page.

You made a very good point, Slim:

obsessive diatribes against the blocking admin, or against the editors involved in the dispute that led to the block, not a good thing to be on the receiving end of

Can we deal with this by then (1) giving them a clear Wikipedia:No personal attacks block and then (2) protecting their talk page? (If we had to continue talking about the block - everyone but them of course - we could do it on an unprotected subpage.)

Ed asks Slim "Any particular talk pages I should look at?" [32]

Soon thereafter, Ed Poor takes [33] any comments on my talk page that have anything to do with the Terri Shiavo article and moves them to a subpage, and then he locks me out from editing my talk page. [34]

His entry on the block log says something about continued "hurtful" remarks. There are no "hurtful" remarks in what I was working on in my talk page. It all had to do with SlimVirgin's edit and her behaviour on the Terri Schiavo talk page. There is nothing that qualifies as a violation of policy in any way. I was attempting to boil down all the problems with SlimVirgin's edits on my talk page in a just-the-facts-maam, sort of way.

I get a 40 hour block and don't protest it. I posted something on my talk page to let people know I was blocked, but I don't tell Ed "no fair". I violated NPA, and if a 40 hour block is the only way to restore integrity, even if I was in the process of cleaning up my edits, then so be it.

When the block expired, I file a user RFC on SlimVirgin. A copy of it is here. Basically, the RFC states that SLimVirgin's edit was reckless, that she stonewalled any criticism of her edit without acknowleding a single error on her part, and wrongly accused editors of violating NPOV, NOR, ownership, and misquoted them. It was certified by FuelWagon and Duckecho. And it was endorsed by Neuroscientist, Proto, and Calton.

At one point, Ed Poor partially endorsed it [35]. However, Ed withdrew his endorsement soon after and attacked the RFC on the talk page as a "sneaky way of building a case against an administrator", "gaming the system in a hypocrical way", and Ed suggested FuelWagon drop the RFc. [36]

Ed mentions that he saw I was in the process of cleaning up my comments on teh talk page and that he had mixed feelings about giving me the 40-hour block. I post his comment on the RFC to his talk page [37] and reply to it [38].

I ask him to update the block log to correct the "unapologetic" remark and state that I had started deleting all personal attacks before getting blocked. Ed said he would do that [39]. I don't think it ever happened.

Ed states: "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," [40]

I tell Ed my definition of integrity. "SlimVirgin made a mistake. She made a reckless edit. And she has not done anything to get back in integrity, such as admit it, clean it up, whatever. "Yeah, that was a reckless edit. I'll be more careful next time." Instead she continues to insist that she her edit is valid and that she should be allowed to reinsert it." [41]

Ed replies "I think I understand the integrity thing" [42]

I withdraw my certification of the RFC to allow it to be deleted. Everyone was more concerned about me "gaming the system" or "setting up" SlimVirgin or "gaming the system" that no one actually comments on her edits. At this point, it seemed moot to attempt to push it further. The point was to get SlimVirgin to acknowledge that her edit contained errrors and that she accused some editors of things that were untrue. Instead, a wall of administrators closed ranks in her defense, attacked the RFC and those who supported it, and completely ignored her edits, the factual errors, and her unfounded accusations.

Ed comments "I don't know what you were trying to do there, but if it was anything other than harrassment, I failed to see it."

I replied that he "saw it" at one point, quoting his original endorsement of the RFC. [43] and closed with "as you said, we're all entitled to our opinion"

Ed replied [44]:

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.

Here's a conversational thread from the Terri Shiavo/mediation page [45]:

The problems at Terri Schiavo are the same - a strong atheist POV being pushed in the face of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, and also in the face of being encyclopedic i.e. writing in a dry, disinterested style. SlimVirgin 18:46, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

"a strong atheist POV" Whoa, Nelly. My religious beliefs are none of your concern. Seriously. And you have no idea what you're talking about if you call me an atheist. I just happen to hold my religious beliefs to be completely personal and completely private because I don't need someone throwing it in my face. It is none of your business. FuelWagon 19:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Here's the aggression again. You could try saying "No, you've got that wrong." That's my perception based on your edits. But the nature of the POV is not the issue. It's the violation of policy and the vociferous nature of the arguments that cause the problem. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:11, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

You question my religion, I tell you it's none of your business, and you call that 'aggression'? What if I had said "you edit like a Jew"? I find the remark completely insulting and prejudiced. And it's not aggression for me to say "my religion is none of you business". FuelWagon 22:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

It's a question of choosing the right words. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:25, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin accuses me of being an atheist, when I get upset and say my religious beliefs are none of her business, she doesn't apologize, she accuses me of being 'aggressive'. You want to choose the right words? Try "I'm sorry".

Two good, hardworking editors left wikipedia as a result of this whole fiasco.

User:Duckecho, a hard working editor on the Terri Schiavo article, ended up leaving wikipedia because of this mess. His final post on his user page is visible here. He mentions SlimVirgin's behaviour on the Terri Schiavo page as a primary cause for his leaving in disgust.

User:Neuroscientist was a newer editor on the Terri Schiavo article, but his expertise as a neuroscientist was extremely valuable. He ended up leaving wikipedia as well. his last post to his user page happened soon after the SlimVirgin RFC was taken down without resolution.

why this page is here[edit]

In case anyone is wondering why I'm keeping this page around. I removed my certification of my RFC against SlimVirgin so that it would be deleted and so that it would not be used against her in the future. About a month later, I'm trying to put a warning on the RFC page and SlimVirgin keeps reverting my edits. SlimVirgin accuses me of "ad hominem" attacks [46], that I'm adding the warning "because of the RfC you filed." [47], and that "no credible editor, other than you, saw the merit in that RfC" [48].

Since, SlimVirgin seemed to be begrudging me for my RFC against her, and since she was rewriting history, saying no one "credible" supported it, I pasted a copy of my RFC into my user space [49].

A few hours after I copy the RFC into my userspace, SlimVirgin asks an admin about the "appropriateness" of a deleted RFC in a user's namespace [50]. It is clear that SlimVirgin is monitoring my contributions because I copied the page into my namespace and didn't publicize it to anyone. The only way she would see this is if she were combing through my "user contributions" history. This is similar behaviour to her notifying Ed 12 minutes after I modify my talk page. The only way she would see that is if she went out of her way looking for something. I asked her why she's got me under teh microscope.

SlimVirgin states "it seemed clear you'd started up again" [51].

I hadn't started anything. SlimVirgin accused me of "ad hominem" attacks. when asked to point any out, she went silent but refused to withdraw teh accusation. She then accused me of putting the warning on the RFC page because "of the RFC I filed" and that no "credible" editor supported the RFC. I uploaded the RFC to my userspace to keep a record of what exactly happened. Four editors supported the RFC. Yet, SlimVirgin never withdrew her statement that no "credible" editor supported the RFC.

At this point, I feel it neccessary to keep a copy of the RFC online so that it remains part of the public record. If SlimVirgin accuses me of doing something "because of that RFC", or that no one "credible" supported it, I wanted to keep a record of what exactly happened.

SlimVirgin states "An RfC is like putting someone in the stocks. In my view, it's a horrible process, and I would only do it to POV warriors and trolls who couldn't be blocked for disruption. I've never seen good come from an RfC." [52]. This may explain some of her reaction to my RFC against her the month prior.

SlimVirgin informs me that she can no longer assume good faith on my part.[53] I would take that to mean she considers us to officially have a history of dispute between us, which would indicate she cannot act as a neutral admin towards me.

SlimVirgin and Ed Poor work together. [54].

The editor that SlimVirgin contacted said that a deleted user RfC in a user's namespace was put up for VfD and was kept. [55].

Bensaccount RFC[edit]

on August 22, I filed a user RFC against Bensaccount, for repeated NPOV violations. [56]. Bensaccount makes a short response on 22 August saying he "won't bother anymore".

On 30 August, SlimVirgin says she can no longer assume any good faith of me [57].

Bensaccount has not contributed at all to wikipedia since his last post on the RFC over a week ago. I decide to change my certification of the RFC to "endorse" as a gesture to allow Bensaccount to come back and follow NPOV with a clean slate. On August 31, I posted to the RFC page asking an admin to delete the RFC against Bensaccount. [58]

Although the RFC has been around for over a week with no comment or input from SlimVirgin (She had no involvement with the dispute around Bensaccount), she sees my request to delete the RFC and informs me that it "looks like another example of an inappropriate RfC filed by you," [59] (emphassis on "another" added by me). SlimVirgin has one day prior, declared her bias against me, that she can assume no good faith on my part, and now she weighs in on an RFC that she had no history with, either on the RFC or the dispute itself, and argues for its "inappropriateness".

Another certifyer tells SlimVirgin that the RFC was legitimate and that she should "leave her baggage" with me behind. [60] Another certifyer defends teh RFC [61]

SlimVirgin then tries to claim the problem was a "content" issue, not about policy violation [62] I tell her this isn't about "content", its about NPOV policy vioaltions, and that she is biased against me, so her questioning the legitimacy of this RFC is biased. [63]

SlimVirgin deletes my post, calling it a "personal attack". [64] I say my post was entirely focused on her behaviour, not personal remarks. That she had publicly declared she can assume no good faith on my part, and that she should not be the admin to question the legitimacy of the RFC. [65]

SlimVirgin deletes my second post, summarizing it with "reverting" [66].

I then post that she is deleting comments on her BEHAVIOUR and that constitutes as suppressing criticism. Another editor tells her to stop, and the third comment finally remains.

SlimVirgin's anonymous admin says the diffs arguably qualify as meeting the RFC requirements. SlimVirgin declares she won't delete the RFC [67].

user RFC page[edit]

I've been trying to put some information on the user RFC page to explain what a user RFC is. SlimVirgin has inserted her own point of view into the instruction page warning editors not to take a user RFC lightly, and implying that a user RFC can "lead" to arbitration.

At one point, she takes the text I inserted and rewrites it using "however" to downplay the facts I inserted and emphasize her version of reality. I quoted wikipedia "words to avoid" which specifically says using "however" in her form is not neutral. [68]. Three days later, SlimVirgin deletes teh entire "however" entry from the "words to avoid" page. [69]

After posting the above to my own personal talk page, SlimVirgin says that she noticed my addition, indicating that she's watching my contributions, following me around, and contesting my edits based on me being the editor of them, rather than based on their merit. [70]

I add the "Words to avoid" to my watchlist and notice that an editor is trying to add "Conspiracy theory" to the list of words to avoid. I agree with his point and get involved with the ensuing debate. There is a lot of resistance to adding "conspiracy theory" to the list. I keep pointing to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion article as a good example of how to use "conspiracy theory" in an article: report it as someone's point of view. People continue to object. I keep asking if anyone has an article that uses "conspiracy theory" as a fact, rather than as a POV?" [71] [72] [73]

No one ever answers my question of an article that uses the term "conspiracy theory" as a fact rather than reporting it as someone's point of view, and I start poking around, looking for examples of articles that use "conspiracy theory" as fact rather than as POV.

SlimVirgin is heavily involved in the "conspiracy theory" debate. SlimVirgin mentions "the theory that Israelis and/or Jews were warned to stay away from the World Trade Center on 9/11" and whether it can be called a conspiracy theory as fact or whether it must be reported to be a conspiracytheory from someone's point of view. [74]

Given this, I start looking for articles about Isreal knowing about the 9/11 attacks beforehand. The next day, I find the "Refusal to serve in the Israeli army" article.

In the "Refusal to serve in israeli army" article, the "Courage to Refuse" organization refers specifically to the "occupied terrirtories". SlimVirgin deletes that phrase and inserts her own POV wording [75].

I insert a quote from the "Courage to refuse" URL, citing their statement verbatim, which uses the term "Occupied Territories". [76]. I also fix the intro to cite a specific example, namely the "Courage to refuse" organization, using their vocabulary, reporting their point of view. [77].

Jayjg reverts the entire thing back to SlimVirgin's version, calling my insertion of sourced quotations with URL's "POV pushing" [78].

I revert, saying that "Sourced quotes do not equal POV pushing" [79]. SlimVirgin joins in the act [80].

SlimVirgin deletes contemporary history from Jewish article [81]. I revert it [82].

SlimVirgin deletes contemporary history from christian article [83]. I revert it [84].

SlimVirgin and her RfC against me[edit]

SlimVirgin's RfC against me

individual response to SlimVirgin's RfC against me [85]