Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FuelWagon v. Ed Poor/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Request that Fred Bauder change his evidence to show context
1)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment by FuelWagon

- 00:00, 6 October 2005 El_C writes to me: "In the most ideal terms, how do you envision a resolution to this dispute?"

03:54, 6 October 2005 I answer El_C's question. Note edit summary is "==ideal==" and the question/answer is placed in a new subsection titled "ideal".

12:49, 1 December 2005 Fred Bauder votes to accept the case, saying "Picking a fight with an arbitrator doesn't result in recusal"

18:55, 3 December 2005 Fred Bauder advocates for a full ban against me until the case concludes.

19:14, 3 December 2005 I point out that the proposed decisions to ban me until arbcom is over, has been made without a single diff as evidence to show that such a ban is needed.

19:24, 3 December 2005 Fred Bauder stats that I've produced evidence against myself.

19:39, 3 December 2005 I ask for specific diffs.

14:01, 3 December 2005 Fred Bauder presents as evidence my post from 03:54, 6 October 2005. Fred Bauder, who is supposed to remain a neutral arbiter here, gives the edit the description of "demands", completely ignoring that El_C specifically asked me what woudl be my "ideal" solution, and completely ignoring that my edit summary was "ideal" and I put the text in a new subsection titled "ideal". (this shows that Fred Bauder is not simply collecting and presenting evidence as neutral facts, but is attempting to advocate for a certain outcome, before the evidence has even been presented, and is willing to go out and find evidence and advocate for a certain interpretation of that evidence.)

Perhaps an editor picking a fight with an arbiter doesn't result in recusal, but an arbiter picking a fight with an editor should. Proposing a ban with absolutely no evidence to support it is a red flag. Going out and finding evidence is another red flag. Ignoring the evidence that shows the original question in full context is another red flag. Presenting that evidence in a skewed interpretation is another red flag. At what point would Fred Bauder's advocacy for a certain outcome become prominent enough that it is clear that he cannot look at the evidence neutrally, and that he should recuse himself? FuelWagon 02:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC) -


 * 1) Further comment by FuelWagon 03:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC). Perhaps I need to put this in the form of a direct request: I request that Fred Bauder change his evidence section so that it lists El_C's question 00:00, 6 October 2005 and then it list my answer 03:54, 6 October 2005. If Fred insists on describing the diff to my answer, I request that he change "demands" to FuelWagon's "most ideal" solution to keep my answer in context with El_C's question.


 * 1) Yet Further comment by FuelWagon 07:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC). El_C said "I found FuelWagon's response to my question to be sorely lacking in a willingness to reconciliate and highly vindictive." Really? I easily whittled what you like to call my "12 hard demands" down to 3 items while I was discussing the issue with Marskell here. How does that reflect "sorely lacking in a willingness to reconciliate"? You reply with "All I see is more of the same from FW: Longwinded diatribes with the usual bitter, sarcastic and juvenile provocations, sophomoric innuendo, repetitive tautologies and eliptical circularities, ... silly name calling, et cetera, etc., and otherwise personal attacks, and acts of incivility, breaches of wikiquette, and the endless, ceaseless. battleground."  here. And you call me "highly vindictive"?


 * 1) another comment by FuelWagon: El_C, you have posted links to Despite Jayjg's Ministry Of Truth attempt, revert attempts by the "ministry of information" to rewrite history. that accounts for about 2% of your entire combative post to me. The rest of it, as far as I know, is all your own original statements, including: "(1) Longwinded diatribes with the usual (2) bitter, (3) sarcastic and (4) juvenile (5)provocations, (6)sophomoric (7)innuendo, (8)repetitive tautologies and (9) eliptical circularities, ... (10) silly name calling, et cetera, etc.," You weren't quoting my words back to me when when you called me "juvenile" (which is a personal attack) or "sophomoric" (which is another personal attack). And I never used the phrase "longwinded diatribe" to describe anyone's edit. As for "repetitive tautologigies" and "elipical circularities", those phrases certainly didn't come from me. All of it is straight from your fingertips. Clearly not demonstrating any sort of good faith effort to resolve a dispute. You were sent by SlimVirgin to meet arbcom requirements to show prior attempts to resolve the dispute, and that was the only reason you were there. And it shows in your comabative attitude you had from the first post on my talk page demanding I justify having a deleted RfC in my subspace or face the consequences. FuelWagon 23:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I'm looking at your evidence, which I thank you for posting. Fred Bauder 02:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * 1) Note that I found FuelWagon's response to my question to be sorely lacking in a willingness to reconciliate and highly vindictive. El_C 06:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, obviously I am calling you that and not your response. Is there a point to the rhetorical question? El_C 15:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Rhetorical devices geared at personalizing a discussion (and blurring the line between what one says and what one is presumed to think beyond that, whether correctly or not) aside, here's a bit of context into FuelWagons cited passage, which coincided with the following: Despite Jayjg's Ministry Of Truth attempt, revert attempts by the "ministry of information" to rewrite history, etc. El_C 15:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I stand by my words, but again, I note that FW's responses are not himself. I urge him to avoid personal remarks here and elsewhere. El_C 02:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I see a general pattern of accusations such as "personal remarks" when one side feels itself insulted. Yet to a disinterested party BOTH sides make statements they feel are true that the other feels are insulting. So far I see established authority as siding with whoever has contributed the most. WAS 4.250 03:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but there is a world of difference between the abstract and the concrete. Here we attempt to focus on the latter. El_C 04:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't have a clue to what you are talking about. I am refering to specific quotable online activity that is as real as cyberspace gets. WAS 4.250 05:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * What I am talking about is this specific case, concretely. El_C 05:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, right. Now I understand you. Specific versus general! Yes, this a forum for a very specific thing. The evidence used should be about that specific thing and not FuelWagon or Ed Poor in general. But back to our conversation. In response to your use of the phrase "personal remarks" on this page immediately prior to my remark (look up a few lines) I made a general statement that could be backed up by very specific examples, some in this case itself. I will not though because it serves no good purpose, so far as I can tell. Perhaps even my making that general comment will in the end produce no worthwhile results. Be that as it may, I hope you'll agree with me that this comment or your response to it should end this thread. Cheers. WAS 4.250 15:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting leap. Still, your "specific quotable online activity" followup was unclear and vague, whereas your prior comment could be seen to refer to Wikipedia in general (again, the failure to ground it in this case, or even the parties in general, beyond it, with specific examples). I have no opinion on whether "this comment or [my] response to it should end this thread," so I neither agree nor disagree. El_C 23:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Four prior years of experience separate from current actions in question
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * 14:13, 15 September 2005 Fred Bauder states "Ed Poor is IN. We are not in the habit of running off people who have contributed substantially to Wikipedia over a period of years." This suggests that Fred Bauder cannot neutrally judge the specific actions of Ed Poor that are being questioned in this RfA case. Rather, Fred states that he essentially takes a "holistic" approach and if Ed misused admin priveledges against me, that may be overruled by Ed's previous four years of contributions to wikipedia. I request that this case be judged on the actions that Ed Poor took against me, independent of Ed's four prior years on wikipedia. And if Fred Bauder cannot abide by that, I request that he recuse himself. FuelWagon 03:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * (El_C, Good to see you. I just posted some diffs about your "combat negotiation" techniques that you applied on SlimVirgin's request. Because, as you say, "context is always key". Enjoy. FuelWagon 07:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC))
 * Regardless of whether Fred recuses himself or not, the request of judging someone based on their specific actions now, rather than prejudicing it based on that editors 4 years of previous unrelated edits, still stands. If Ed blocked me with no NPA violation by me, then that should be the objective and neutral judgement. If Ed blocked me with no NPA violation by me, and that judgement is not made because of Ed's unrelated edits, because of Ed's prior years with wikipedia, then that is not only not fair, it is exactly what makes wikipedia a cabal, favoring the old-timers and overlooking bad behaviour because they've been around for a long time. If arbcom wants to take Ed's four year prior history into account for sentencing him, that's fine. But the finding of facts now should not be affected in any way by what Ed did 4 years ago. FuelWagon 17:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I don't at all see that as suggestive that Fred cannot arbitrate this case neutrally, with or without FW's if [he] cannot abide by that condition. I, for one, am in favour of as an holistic approach as the arbitrators' time can spare (context is always key), coupled with a clear, carefuly-documented examination of the immediate events surrounding this complaint. El_C 06:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Good to see you too, FuelWagon, and thank you for taking my enjoyment into account. Still, I think our exchange can best be described as discourse under combat, with you being needlessly combative. At any rate, I'm pleased you brought it up, and urge a close reading of the pertinent material. Thanks again for the friendly greeting! El_C 15:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

All findings of fact provide at least one specific diff/edit made by accused editor
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * FuelWagon 17:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC). I request that all findings of fact on this case include at least one diff showing an edit by the accused party as an example of that finding of fact. So, if someone proposes that I'm guilty of "taking control of an RfC" as SlimVirgin accuses, then that proposal might include a diff to 02:56, 3 November 2005, showing me deleting SlimVirgin's threaded comment. It would not point to a diff by Jayjg accusing me of "taking control of an RfC". If anyone is found guilty of anything, it should be for what they did, not for what someone accused them of doing. And I request that any diffs cited in a proposed finding of fact be previously submitted on the "evidence" page, so that either party has a chance to respond to them. That way, if anyone is found guilty of anything, it is based on something specific that they did, and they at least get some chance to respond to the evidence before the proposal is made. FuelWagon 17:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Request Fred Bauder recuse himself for comments made on mailing list
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * The way I see it is that I haven't begun looking at the evidence. Fred Bauder 00:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If the only basis for a recusal is that you have attacked one of us, it will not be done. I have strong opinions and regularly recuse myself, but the only basis you offer is that you have harassed me over arbitration decisions. That is not an acceptable reason. You can't set out to create bad feeling and then say "Oh bad feeling". For your information you did not succeed anyway. I've been there, done that. I may not have liked or even respected a judge, but I learned to be polite and focus on the issues, a path I recommend to you. You presume I will rule against you. I don't know that. Fred Bauder 01:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Sat Dec 3 14:48:37UTC 2005 Fred Bauder writes: "This matter is different from our usual case, as we have all encountered FuelWagon doing his thing."   I believe this clearly indicates a pre-existing bias, a prejudice, on Fred's part here. He is not interested in looking at evidence objectively, he has already made up his mind. I again request that Fred Bauder recuse himself from this case. Fred previously stated that "picking a fight" with a member of arbcom was not grounds for recusal, but this clearly shows him "picking a fight" with me, given that he made this statement, not in response to something said by me on the email list, but on his own free will. He has already made up his mind. And this would also explain his pro-active hunt for evidence against me, to the point of misrepresenting my "ideal" wishlist and presenting as 12 hard "demands". If someone is unwilling to listen to both sides of a case fairly and neutrally, that is exactly the situation where recusal is the only appropriate response. FuelWagon 23:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * But you've already stated that the evidence doesn't matter. You've already stated that this is just more of FuelWagon "doing his thing". Guilty until proven innocent. When Wilkes filed an RfA, naming you directly as the defendent, you didn't recuse there either. You have a history of not recusing in even the most obvious conflict-of-interest cases. FuelWagon 00:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Fred is not "seeking evidence" when he states that this case is different because everyone has already encountered me "doing my thing". Whatever Fred thinks is "my thing" reflects a prior-made decision on his part, not a request for new evidence. FuelWagon 16:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Fred posted that message to the email list on Sat Dec 3 14:48:37 UTC 2005. At that time, the evidence page only listed Fred's evidence of my "demands" of SlimVirgin. . I didn't post evidence until 02:07, 4 December 2005. Are wikipedia edit times listed in universal? SlimVirgin made a series of edits with the "in use" tag set, and I just showed all of them. If I leave something out, I get accused of hiding something or misrepresenting facts. If I put everything in, I get accused of "verbosity".


 * Comment by others:
 * Fred Bauder says: "This matter is different from our usual case, as we have all encountered FuelWagon doing his thing. It is only that general familiarity which could support proactive or summary action. Often the first we hear about someone is when it shows up on Requests for arbitration and we are truly clueless about what is going on. We don't want the endless pile of evidence we are usually presented with (No one could actually read it all). What we need is a few examples which nicely illustrate the problem. This is not too much to ask for. You are writers. You are editors." at     and   "Please place some, but not a whole lot, of evidence on the evidence page: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FuelWagon v. Ed Poor/Evidence. I don't think all the allegations will have to be responded to. " at  It has the appearance that he already made up his mind and doesn't intend to actually read the evidence. But I'm no mind reader. WAS 4.250 23:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * This seems to closely resemble Silverback's attempt to have Kelly Martin recurse herself on account of her refering to him as a "known troublemaker." Note Jimbo's response to this line of reasoning on the mailing list. El_C 00:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see it as Fred saying "that the evidence doesn't matter," but rather seeking evidence that is clear, concise & to the point. El_C 00:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The point is that excess verbosity can extend to evidence, too. Note for example FW's sixth diff on the July 11 section, which shows SV correcting a typo. That is not evidence which is clear, concise & to the point. And is it any surprise that this diff lacks an even remote description (unless we can call SV edit a description)? No, because with a correct 'SV fixes a typo' description it couldn't then be included as evidence of alleged abuse. I believe that is what Fred is getting at here. El_C 23:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I doubt anyone would go on to accuse FW in hiding the correction of a typo, but it's likely he'd be accused of verbosity (at best) when including it as evidence alongside a generic title which reads "SlimVrigin edit" (i.e. okay, what about that edit?). This is in contrast to FW opting to depict the edit as a positive minor imporvement, but he dosen't do this. El_C 02:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Request Jayjg recuse from entire case

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Jayjg and I have a long history of disputes. There should be enough on the evidence page to make this fairly obvious. I request that Jayjg recuse himself from this case in its entirety. And I request some sort of active acknowledgement that he has actually recused. I made the request in my initial RfA statement, and there has been no response as to whether Jayjg has recused or not. FuelWagon 17:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Further explanation for recusal shown here and here.


 * Comment by others:
 * I have a long history of disputes with Ed Poor but I bear his no ill will nor do I think does he to me. I disagree with Jayjg about as often as I agree and both discussions are with about the same passion.  Fred Bauder and I have not seen eye to eye on occassions and I would not list him as someone who would side with my opinion but I would never say he is against me.  What's my point?  No one must be recused because they argue or disagree with you.  (That is the reason half of Wikipedia is Talk pages, after all...)  If you keep listing arbitrators who you think will disagree with you because they have done so in the past it seems like you are picking your jury pool. -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  22:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

=Proposed final decision=

Commenting on an editor's behaviour as an editor is not a personal attack
1) Criticizing an editor's behaviour is a neccessary part of resolving disputes when that behaviour is violating policy and/or contributing to a dispute. If an editor is violating NPOV, then it is not a personal attack to tell the editor that they are violating NPOV. If commenting on an editor's behaviour is against policy, then admins cannot enforce policy without saying the editor violated 3RR, because stating that the editor violated 3RR would be a personal attack. If an editor lies about their behaviour on a talk page, then telling them they lied is not a personal attack, because it is commenting on their behaviour. If an editor is POV-pushing, then telling that editor that they are POV-pushing is not a personal attack, because it is commenting on their behaviour. This is limited to commenting on an editor's behaivour on wikipedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * My talk page in July contained nothing but comments on the content of SlimVirgin's edit and comments on her behaivour in the Terri Schiavo article. Ed Poor's use of admin priveledges was unjustified. Ed's block against me on 29 November was the same thing. My post was limited to commenting on SlimVirgin's content, edits, and behaviour on wikipedia. She made all sorts of comments about my behaviour on Terri Schiavo without one word from Ed Poor, but when I comment on her behaviour, Ed Poor calls it "personal remarks" or "hurtful remarks" and blocks me. Arbcom needs to clarify that commenting on behaviour is not a personal attack. Calling a POV pusher a POV pusher should not get an editor blocked. FuelWagon 15:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

FuelWagon's NPA's 2 April 2005 through 12 July 2005
1) FuelWagon acknowledges he committed a number of personal attacks during his first three months while on wikipedia, ending on 14:15, 12 July 2005. An attempt to clean up his NPA 19:52, 12 July 2005, accepting the block on 21:02 12 July 2005 by Ed Poor for "unrepentant personal attacks", an apology to SlimVirgin 18:50, 18 July 2005, to Dbergan 20:05, 18 July 2005, and an open invitation to anyone to request an apology 20:51, 18 July 2005 show a genuine effort to reform. A post by Dbergan 06:59, 19 July 2005 shows that FuelWagon had already made amends to Dbergan prior to administrator involvement. An abstaintion by Ghost acknowledges that FuelWagon's language got out of line, but that his behaviour has greatl improved. FuelWagon offers to accept a two-week block commencing from the close of this arbitration case for any and all NPA violations committed from 2 April 2005 through 12 July 2005. That, in combination with the ban in effect unti this case closes, will resolve any unresolved NPA violations during that period.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I propose this resolve any NPA violation prior to 12 July 2005. I do not defend my actions prior to that date, but I believe I have shown a legitimate effort to follow NPA policy since then. I also showed efforts prior, such as resolving my NPA with Dbergan, to the point where we were discussing a number of topics on our talk pages, in a healthy "agree to disagree" way. FuelWagon 17:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Ed Poor's page lock 13 July
2) On 20:33, 13 July 2005, Ed Poor's movement of a block of text from FuelWagon's talk page to a /block subdirectory and locking of FuelWagon's pages to prevent further editing was a misuse of admin priviledges. Ed justified the move saying FuelWagon had "not said anything about how (FuelWagon) intends to help this project" and that the page contained "personal remarks about others". The content moved into the block directory does not contain personal remarks or personal attacks deserving of administrator intervention. This is reinforced by Ed Poor's lack of direct response (12:10, 15 July 2005)to FuelWagon's request to point out what exactly caused Ed to move the text and lock the page 07:56, 15 July 2005.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * This was a misuse of admin priveledges by Ed Poor. His refusal to give a straight answer as to why he did it only compounded the problem. FuelWagon 17:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Ed Poor's undeserved warning to Neuroscientist
3) Ed Poor's warning on 15:46, 13 July 2005 to Neuroscientist for Neuroscientist's post 05:59, 13 July 2005 was unjustified. Neuroscientist's 5,000 word critique of SlimVirgin's 9 edits to the Terri Schiavo page, reflects valid criticism of SlimVirgin's edits, reflects multiple factual and NPOV errors of SlimVirgin's edits, reflects an expertise on the subject of neurology, and does not contain personal remarks. Given how explosive the talk page had gotten, Neuroscientist should have been commended for not getting involved in the revert war and for only commenting on SlimVirgin's content. Although Ed Poor specifically pointed out Neuroscientists's comment about "poor judgement" and "dont be reckless" as examples of personal remarks, on 11:04, 15 July 2005 Mel Etitis states that Ed Poor showed "poor judgement" without getting a warning from Ed, and "don't be reckless" was a statement by Neuroscientist in reference to a wikipedia guideline ...but don't be reckless!.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * An undeserved warning. We were lucky to have an expert neurologist working on this article, and it was a loss to wikipedia when he left. FuelWagon 17:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Ed's attack on RfC against SlimVirgin
4) Ed Poor's initial response to the RfC against SlimVirgin was to give it "partial and hesitant" endorsement, saying "SlimVirgin moved too far, too fast" 00:47, 15 July 2005 and to apologize saying he had "mixed feelings" about giving FuelWagon his initial block 00:50, 15 July 2005. However, once an editor said that Ed Poor showed "poor jugdgment" endorsing the RfC 11:04, 15 July 2005, Ed Poor removed his endorsement 17:54, 15 July 2005, and attacks the RfC and those who filed it as a "sneaky way of building a case against an administrator", "gaming the system in a hypocrical way" 21:07, 15 July 2005. When Ed Poor deletes teh RfC, he states "if it was anything other than harassment I failed to see it." 04:10, 17 July 2005

These edits show bad faith by Ed Poor, first acknowledging that his first block may have been undeserved and acknowledging that SlimVirgin moved too far, too fast, but then changing his tune when criticized. It also reveals a bias by Ed Poor to go along with the crowd even though his original expressed opinion was counter to that.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * SlimVirgin moved too far, too fast. Ed Poor's first block agaisnt me was undeserved. Ed Poor's second block against me was completely undeserved. Ed Poor acknowledged this in the initial response to teh RfC, but when the mob arrived, all that was deleted, and was replaced with an attitude that there was nothing wrong here, and that the RfC was nothing but "gaming the system", "bullying", and "harrassment". FuelWagon 17:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Ed Poor's forbidden comment to illustrate a point
5) Ed Poor posted a forbidden comment, violating NPA, to illustrate a point on 10:45, 17 July 2005. Ed Poor states that he knew it was a forbidden comment, and that he knew it was in conflict with Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Acknowledging that you are breaking the rules does not then give you permission to go ahead and break them. Ed Poor violated NPA in this post and he knew he was doing it.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * The simple fact is if I had posted that to SlimVirgin around this same time, I would have gotten a week-long block. FuelWagon 17:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Ed Poor suggesting then ignoring mediation
6) Ed Poor showed a lack of good faith by suggesting he and FuelWagon use mediation to resolve their dispute 18:48, 19 October 2005, responding to the first round of questions that he needed more time to reply, ignoring a "prod" from the mediator a week later, and remaining unresponsive for a total of 16 days, at which point the mediator withdrew for lack of participation. . During the 16 days that Ed stated he needed more time to respond to half a dozen questions from the mediatior, he made 650 edits to wikipedia..


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * This was a waste of time, tying up the mediator for over two weeks (who only mediates one case at a time), and causing me to expend time answering the first round of questions (posted here). And if he "needed more time", then how did he find the time to make 650 edits to wikipedia itself during this same period. He was also completely unresponsive to a "prod" from the mediator after a week of waiting. If Ed didn't want to address this dispute, fine, but to suggest mediation and tie up a mediator for two weeks without responding to the first round of questions is bad faith. FuelWagon 17:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Ed Poor's harrassment of FuelWagon after reporting mediation failed.
7) After mediation failed, FuelWagon made two posts to Requests for mediation/Ed Poor and FuelWagon to report what happened 17:39, 5 November 2005 and 01:13, 6 November 2005. Although Ed Poor had been unresponsive for 16 days of mediation, he responded to these posts the next day, accusing FuelWagon of "wikistalking" SlimVirgin 7 November 2005, endorsing an RfC against FuelWagon that he had no prior involvement with 14:56, 7 November 2005, and telling FuelWagon "I've got enough pull around here to get you banned". These posts were made in bad faith. Ed Poor was not concerned about FuelWagon wikistalking SlimVirgin, Ed Poor was upset about FuelWagon's post on the mediation page, and Ed went looking for something to pin on FuelWagon.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * 16 days of no response in mediation, and the day after I post the results, Ed suddenly gives me lots of attention. FuelWagon 17:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Ed's block against FuelWagon on 29 November
8) Ed's block against FuelWagon on 02:02, 29 November 2005 was a misuse of admin priveledges and a continuation of his response to FuelWagon's posting about mediation failing. The post made by FuelWagon that Ed claims contains personal remarks 14:43, 26 November 2005, contains nothing but comments about SlimVirgin's editing behaviour. While Ed Poor was mediating the Terri Schiavo article, he did not block or even warn SlimVirgin when she made numerous comments about FuelWagon's and others' editing behaviour, including accusations of "POV pushing" 09:30, 12 July 2005, "taking ownership of a page" 21:11, 11 July 2005, violating NPOV, No Original Research, Cite Sources, page ownership 01:30, 12 July 2005, bullying and system gaming 07:04, 13 July 2005. This block was a misuse of admin priveledges.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * SlimVirgin made all sorts of comments about me and others while Ed Poor was mediating the Terri Schiavo page, and Ed Poor didn't say one word to her about it. Ed did weigh in to warn Neuroscientist about personal comments (when none existed) and to block me for NPA violations on my talk page (when none existed). I criticize SlimVirgin's editing behaviour and Ed blocks me. This block also occurs two weeks after he suddenly responded to my post about mediation failing, showing a sudden interest in me when he had been unresponsive to 16 days. The block was unjustified and little more than axe-grinding. FuelWagon 17:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

SlimVirgin's 9 edits to Terri Schiavo qualify as reckless
9) Given the Terri Schiavo article was marked "controversial topic", given that it was in mediation for three weeks, given no prior history with the article, given no discussion on the talk page prior to her edits, SlimVirgin's sequence of 9 edits to the Terri Schiavo page (15:11, 11 July 2005 15:11, 11 July 2005 16:42, 11 July 2005 17:16, 11 July 2005 17:55, 11 July 2005 17:58, 11 July 2005 18:13, 11 July 2005 18:28, 11 July 2005 18:38, 11 July 2005) qualify as a "reckless edit" as described in wikipedia guidelines Don't be reckless. This is reinforced by critiques after SlimVirgin performed her edit including one by Neuroscientist 05:59, 13 July 2005, which establishes that SlimVirgin's edits contained numerous factual and NPOV errors.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * It was reckless enough to make such a large edit to a controversial article in mediation, but to have an actual neuroscientist write a 5,000 word criticism of those edits reflects serious lack of understanding of the topic. FuelWagon 22:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

SlimVirgin's response to criticism on Terri Schiavo was combative
10) SlimVirgin's response to criticism on Terri Schiavo shows a common response of denying any errors in her content, either factual or violations of policy (such as NPOV), and a common response of responding to criticism of her content or behaviour by accusing her critic of violating NPOV, NPA, Page Ownership, or other policy violations. Her refusal to acknowledge any errors in teh face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary makes resolving content disputes impossible. Her common response to criticism by accusing the critic of violating NPA, NPOV, NOR, or some other policy generally escalates disputes rather than resolves them.

Her response to Neuroscientist's critique of her content 05:59, 13 July 2005 includes: 07:04, 13 July 2005 "I don't appreciate the personal comments you've lobbed at me." 08:31, 13 July 2005 "If I made a factual error, point to it. If you can't or won't, please stop the derogatory remarks." 17:56, 14 July 2005 "I must ask you again to change your tone. Concentrate on content, and stop the ad hominem remarks. If these are the only objections, the copy edit should be reinstated"

FuelWagon was compiling a list of a number of factual errors with SlimVirgin's 9 edits as well as a list of untrue accusations she had made against editors on the talk page. SlimVirgin responded by complaining to Ed Poor about "obsessive diatribes" 17:05, 13 July 2005 and Ed Poor moves the criticism to a /block directory, and locks him out of editing it.

When an RfC against SlimVirgin is filed 22:04, 14 July 2005, listing a number of specific factual and NPOV errors, as well as pointing to the 5,000 word critique by Neuroscientist, Ed Poor first gives the RfC partial and hesitant endorsement, saying SlimVirgin moved "too far, too fast" 00:47, 15 July 2005. SlimVirgin responds to the RfC by denying her edit had any problems in it. "I read the article, it clearly needed a copy edit, so I started to do one. I didn't rewrite anything or do any restructuring, ... I stuck to minor edits, tweaks of sentences, ... It was a long edit, ... but it wasn't a substantive one." 07:22, 15 July 2005

On the Terri Schiavo mediation page (after the RfC is deleted), SlimVirgin attacks an edit I made on the Intelligent Design article, saying I'm violating NPOV and No Original Research 18:46, 19 July 2005, then tells me "Your edits weren't only not perfect. They were arguably false and a clear violation of the NOR policy" 20:11, 19 July 2005. Ghost posts to SLimVirign "This borderline Inquisition into the motives of an editor needs to stop, and stop now." 21:17, 19 July 2005 The next day, SlimVirgin withdraws from the mediation page, calling it "silly" 03:15, 20 July 2005

A month later 19:17, 24 August 2005, SlimVirgin states "no credible editor, other than you, saw the merit in that RfC" against her. SlimVirgin states 22:09, 25 August 2005 "as for one of the editors saying he was a neuroscientist, I'd say, first, you only had his word for it, secondly, he said on a talk page that he was 25, and third, even if he was an expert, they carry no extra weight at Wikipedia". (violation assume good faith)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Not only did SlimVirgin make a reckless edit, with numerous errors, but she refused to admit even a single error on her part, and she responded to much criticism by accusing the critic of violating some policy. This makes it impossible to resolve a content dispute. FuelWagon 22:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

SlimVirgin stalking and combativness on the Bensaccount RfC
11) SlimVirgin's involvement in the Bensaccount RfC reflects turning wikipedia into a battlefield. The Bensaccount RfC was created by FuelWagon 03:34, 22 August 2005 for NPOV violations by user Bensaccount on the Creation science article. The RfC was certified by 3 and endorsed by 5 . SlimVirgin had no prior editing history on the Creation science article, and was not part of the dispute between Bensaccount and the people who certified/endorsed the RfC. A week after the RfC had been created, SlimVirgin accused FuelWagon "This looks like another example of an inappropriate RfC filed by you" 22:47, 31 August 2005. Given that earlier that same day, SlimVirgin had told FuelWagon she was "all out of good faith" towards him 03:26, 31 August 2005, she clearly did not qualify as a neutral judger of the validity of the Bensaccount RfC. SlimVirgin's involvement on the Bensaccount RfC from that point shows her turning the talk page into a battlefield (history).This is reinforced when SlimVirgin reports that another administrator informed her that the RfC looked OK 01:00, 3 September 2005.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * clearly wikistalking, battleground, axe-grinding, whatever you want to call it. SlimVirgin had no involvement in the article, no involvment in the RfC, and the day she declares she is "all out of good faith" is the day she attacks teh RfC. FuelWagon 22:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

SlimVirgin misuse of admin priviledges doing a page lock of Candidate statements/Jayjg
12) While editing the Arbitration Committee Elections December 2005/Candidate statements/Jayjg page 19:05, 30 November 2005 19:57, 30 November 2005 21:16, 30 November 2005, SlimVirgin state that she locked the page 23:16, 30 November 2005 in direct violation of Protection policy stating "Admins must not protect pages they are engaged in editing, except in the case of simple vandalism."


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Note the evidence about SlimVirgin's RfC against me, SlimVirgin and Jayjg violate procedures by inserting threaded comments back into the RfC. I keep taking them out and get tagged for 3RR violation. I argue that my reverts should be excluded from 3RR because SlimVirgin/Jayjg are clearly violating procedures. Policy is quoted to me that the only revert exempt from 3RR is reverting "simply vandalism" and SlimVirgin/Jayjg's violation of RfC procedures were not vandalism. It will be interesting to see if such a strict interpretation of "simple vandalism" is applied to SlimVirgin's use of admin priviledges on a page she was editing or not. FuelWagon 22:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

SlimVirgin/Jayjg misuse of admin priveledges doing page protection of Animal rights page
13) Towards the end of November, SlimVirgin and FuelWagon were editing the Animal rights page. SlimVirgin requested page protection for Animal rights, saying FuelWagon is "causing trouble" 01:17, 29 November 2005, SlimVirgin posts directly to Jayjg's talk page asking him to lock it 01:19, 29 November 2005, Jayjg protects the page 01:21, 29 November 2005.

The total elapsed time is four minutes from the time SlimVirgin requests page protection to the time Jayjg gets the request, views the history, determines that there is an edit war or vandalism, and protects the page. Actually, since SlimVirgin posted to Jayjg's talk page after she posted the request, one can assume that Jayjg didn't read the request on the Request for Page Protection, but rather got the request once SlimVirgin posted to his talk page. This means that Jayjg analyzed the page history of Animal rights in two minutes, determined that there was vandalism or an edit war in progress, and protected the page.

(01:32, 29 November 2005 When confronted with the quick turn-around time, Jayjg states "Actually, I didn't just happen by, SlimVirgin made an explicit request on my Talk: page", this confirms the turn-around time definitely two minutes, not four minutes.)

This is rather good customer service. For comparison, a number of randomly selected requests for page protection that were immediately granted with no intervening discussion on the request for page protection page are shown below.

requested 20:30, 7 December 2005, accepted 20:50, 7 December 2005, delta=20 minutes

requested 18:40, 6 December 2005, accepted 20:28, 6 December 2005, delta=1 hour, 48 minutes

requested 04:24, 6 December 2005, accepted 04:40, 6 December 2005, delta=16 minutes

requested 21:33, 5 December 2005, accepted 22:54, 5 December 2005, delta=1 hour, 20 minutes

requested 06:17, 5 December 2005, accepted 07:47, 5 December 2005, delta=1 hour, 90 minutes

requested 23:25, 4 December 2005, accepted 07:00, 5 December 2005, delta=7 hours, 23 minutes

requested 16:53, 21 November 2005, accepted 17:46, 21 November 2005, delta=53 minutes

requested 03:43, 21 November 2005, accepted 03:52, 21 November 2005, delta=9 minutes

requested 14:30, 20 November 2005, accepted 03:49, 21 November 2005, delta=13 hours

requested 09:13, 19 November 2005, accepted 11:41, 19 November 2005, delta=2 hours, 20 minutes

requested 15:59, 18 November 2005, accepted 07:56, 19 November 2005, delta=16 hours

The common shortest turn-around time from request to grant is about 20 minutes. Jayjg's turn-around time of two minutes indicates that he did not check the edit history of the page to independently determine that vandalism or an edit war was in progress. Instead, he took SlimVirgin's word for it.

Policy requires that an editor involved in an article must not protect the page. This prevents an administrator from using their priveledges to control content. Jayjg's automatical lock based on nothing more than SlimVirgin's word shows these two gaming the system to skirt around a strict interpretation of policy, allowing SlimVirgin to use her friend Jayjg and his administrative priveledges to control content.

A statement by Dmcdevit where he denied a request to protect, stated "With three edits in the last three days, I don't think this warrants protection. Try our dispute resolution"08:00, 20 November 2005. Jayjg's lock violates this rule of thumb. The history leading up to page lock by Jayjg, shows 1 edit by FuelWagon on 28 November , 2 edits on 27 November , 1 edit on 26 November , and 1 edit on 24 November. This hardly qualifies for SlimVirgin's accusation of "causing trouble" in her request for page protection.

This history reflects neither vandalism in progress or an unstoppable edit war requiring page protection. Dispute resolution should have been used to resolve this content dispute. SlimVirgin and Jayjg gamed the system to protect a page to a version that SlimVirgin wanted. and Jayjg misused administrative priviledges in locking the page with no edit war and no vandalism in progress.

Furthermore, Jayjg's response time of two minutes to SlimVirgin's request for page lock reflects two possibilities:


 * (1) Jayjg has a personal allegiance to SlimVirgin and simply took her on her word.
 * (2) Jayjg has an existing opinion of FuelWagon that he is a troublemaker.

If (1), then Jayjg has an allegiance to SlimVirgin that requires he recuse himself from this entire case because this case reflects directly on SlimVirgin or it reflects on SlimVirgin via Ed Poor.

If (2), then Jayjg is prejudiced against FuelWagon and must recuse himself from the entire case.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * SlimVirgin used Jayjg to game the system, locking a page to control content. Jayjg misused admin priveledges, locking a page without looking at its history, to see I had only made about 1 edit a day to the page. A two minute turn around time shows that these two, as meat puppets, violated the basic policy that an administrator not lock a page they are working on. This lock was completely unjustified. FuelWagon 23:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

SlimVirgin pushing a pro-animal-rights POV
14) SlimVirgin's version of the Animal rights article 16:30, 4 November 2005 has an introduction containing absolutely no dissenting points of view. FuelWagon's addition of an additional paragraph 05:27, 5 November 2005 attempted to include a dissenting point of view about animal rights, quoting the National Cattleman's Beef Association (NCBA) which has a webpage that defines animal rights and animal welfare and states they support animal welfare and also states they will monitor animal rights issues in the courts and congress. SlimVirgin rewrote FuelWagon's paragraph 01:00, 21 November 2005 inserting criticism of the NCBA/animal welfare from Gary Francione and inserting mention of PETA in the paragraph as well. The Animal rights point of view is already covered in the first two paragraphs of introduction. This rewrite of the only dissenting paragraph to criticize the dissent and also bring in more pro-animal rights POV's, reflects a pro-animal-rights bias on SlimVirgin's part. This is reinforced by further edits by SlimVirgin.

01:45, 23 November 2005 SlimVirgin reverts a version of the introduction containing two paragraphs of dissenting views reporting numerous quotations with URL's to verify each. (she had said the NCBA wasn't a good enough source, so this version included sources such as Carl Cohen, professor of philosophy. But she reverted it.)

08:41, 25 November 2005 SlimVirgin reverts a shorter version of the dissenting section of the introduction.

06:54, 26 November 2005 SlimVirgin deletes the only paragraph in the introduction that reported a dissenting point of view.

07:32, 28 November 2005 SlimVirgin reverts yet another version of the introduction, and deletes all dissenting views from the intro.

01:17, 29 November 2005 SlimVirgin requests page protection on teh Animal rights article, saying FuelWagon is "causing trouble". FuelWagon made about 1 edit a day to the Animal rights article during this time. This shows SlimVirgin using page protection to control content.

01:19, 29 November 2005 SlimVirgin posts to Jayjg that she has requested page protection on Animal rights. This shows SlimVirgin gaming the system to avoid having the Animal rights article get locked to The Wrong Version.

01:21, 29 November 2005 Jayjg locks the page two minutes after getting the request.

On the Terri Schiavo article, SlimVirgin herself stated "FuelWagon and Duckecho are POV pushing too by insisting, for example, that no dissenting voice be heard in the intro." So, she is aware of the concept of POV pushing. Yet SlimVirgin demonstrates behaviour on the Animal rights article showing a strong pro-animal-rights point of view that causes her to delete legitimate dissenting points of view from the introduction.

This same pro-animal-rights POV pushing is further supported by edits SlimVirgin made on the Veganism article. The introduction reports that pro-vegans support "Animal rights", but SlimVirgin refused to allow the introduction to report that non-vegans support "animal welfare". The topic of "animal rights" is greatly disputed by a large number of notable sources (and by a large swath of the general population) and if animal rights is mentioned in an introduction, the counter-view should be reported as well.

03:48, 3 November 2005 SlimVirgin deletes all dissenting POV's from the introduction.

03:20, 3 November 2005 SlimVirgin deletes all dissenting POV's from the introduction.

01:09, 3 November 2005 SlimVirgin deletes all dissenting POV's from the introduction.

07:47, 1 November 2005 SlimVirgin deletes all dissenting POV's from the introduction.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * SlimVirgin is clearly pushing a pro-animal-rights point of view, as shown by her edits and especially demonstrated when she requested a friendly admin invoke page protection to control content when the edit history of the article clearly shows no edit war or vandalism. FuelWagon 16:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Jayjg and SlimVirgin pushing a pro-Israel POV
15) Jayjg and SlimVirgin have demonstrated pro-Israel POV pushing in their editing behaviour by consistently removing the phrase "occupied territories" and replacing it with "west bank and gaza strip" in the Refusal to serve in the Israeli military article.

First, an explanation why deleting "occupied territories" is a pro-Israel POV behaviour.

The phrase "Occupied Territories" is critical of the modern state of Israel. This is reflected in the current version of Israeli-occupied territories. The introduction of the article closes with a paragraph that states :


 * The status of these territories, including the legality of Israeli's policy of encouraging settlement in those areas, whether it is legitimate for Israel to annex portions of them, and whether Israel is legally an occupying power according to the Fourth Geneva Convention, are all highly contested by the Government of Israel and many of its supporters.

A section later in the article titled "Applicability of the term "occupied"" further explains that the Geneva Convention and the Internation Red Cross have declared that the territories are "occupied" and therefore the Fourth Geneva Convention applies (which puts certain requirements on the state of Israel to those territories it occupies). The International Court of Justice and the Supreme Court of Israel have both ruled that the west bank is "occupied". The section then gives the opposing POV:


 * The executive branch of the Government of Israel and many of Israel's citizens and supporters dispute the view that the territories are occupied. They argue that use of the term "occupied" in relation to Israel's control of the areas has no basis in international law or history, and that it prejudges the outcome of any future or ongoing negotiations. They argue it is more accurate to refer to the territories as "disputed" rather than "occupied."

Clearly, the article reflects that "Occupied Territories" is a term that is critical of the state of Israel, and that the government of Israel and many of it's supporters directly dispute the term "occupied territories". Deleting an appropriate use of the term "Occupied Territories" is clearly pro-Israel.

Second, some source/content background on the Refusal to serve in the Israeli military article. Specifically in question is a section reporting on the "Courage to refuse" group.

A URL is given to the "Courage to refuse" organizations website. This group was created after the publication of a letter written by some soldiers in the Israeli military stating their refusal to serve in the occupied territories. A URL is also given to a letter.

Looking at the organizations website

The first paragraph says that the initiators of the letter served "both in Lebanon and in the occupied territories". Paragraph three states "The Occupation poses a threat to the security of Israel." Paragraph five states "In the letter, the soldiers pledge their ongoing commitment to the security of Israel, but declare that they will take no part in missions intended to prolong the occupation." Paragraph six states the members of the movement "refuse to serve in the occupied territories". Paragraph 9 reports that the acting chairman of the Israeli Association for Human Rights says that "refusing the occupation is" an act of morality and the purest form of patriotism practiced in Israel today. The last paragraph refers to a poll which says that 25% of all Israeli's acknowledge the member's civil right and moral duty to "refuse to serve the occupation".

The phrase "west bank" occurs once.

The phrase "gaze strip" does not occur at all.

Looking at the combatant's actual letter which started their organization :

THe second bullet says "We, combat officers and soldiers who have served the State of Israel for long weeks every year, in spite of the dear cost to our personal lives, have been on reserve duty in the Occupied Territories". The third bullet refers to the "bloody toll this Occupation exacts from both sides". Bullet four mentions "commands issued to us in the Occupied Territories". BUllet five mentions "the price of Occupation". The final statement of the letter, in bold, states "The missions of occupation and oppression do not serve this purpose – and we shall take no part in them."

Neither the phrase "west bank" nor the phrase "gaza strip" occurs even a single time on their letter.

On these two pages, the word "occupied" or "occupation" or "occupied territories" occurs a total of eleven times. The phrase "west bank" occurs once. And the phrase "gaze strip" never occurs. These are the words of the "Refusal to serve" organization. This is their point of view.

In the Refusal to serve in the Israeli military article, in the section reporting on the "Courage to refuse" organization, SlimVirgin and Jayjg consistently deleted the point of view of the organization (that the organization refuses to serve in the Occupied Territories, that they view it as an Occupation) and replaced it with text in line with their personal pro-Israel point of view (deleting any reference to "Occupied Territories" and occupation and replacing it with "West bank" and "gaza strip").

This behaviour shows SlimVirgin and Jayjg are not concerned with reporting the point of view of the "Courage to refuse" organization in the words that the "Courage to refuse" organization uses. Instead, Jayjg and SlimVirgin show a consistent pattern of watering down the point of view of the organization, using terms, vocabulary, and phrases that the organization did not actually use on their website, but is far more friendly to a pro-Israel point of view.

18:10, 26 September 2005 SlimVirgin changes "Occupied Territories" to "West Bank and Gaza Strip"

16:56, 27 September 2005 Jayjg changes "Occupied Territories" to "West Bank and Gaza Strip"

22:57, 27 September 2005 SlimVirgin changes "Occupied Territories" to "West Bank and Gaza Strip"

00:19, 28 September 2005 Jayjg changes "Occupied Territories" to "West Bank and Gaza Strip"

00:33, 28 September 2005 SlimVirgin changes "Occupied Territories" to "West Bank and Gaza Strip"

00:43, 28 September 2005 Jayjg changes "Occupied Territories" to "West Bank and Gaza Strip"

02:28, 29 September 2005 SlimVirgin changes "Occupied Territories" to "West Bank and Gaza Strip"

22:28, 28 November 2005 Jayjg deleting "Occupied territories" completely

22:35, 28 November 2005 SlimVirgin deleting "Occupied territories" completely

This pro-Israel POV pushing is further reinforced by their behaviour on the Historical persecution by Jews article. There, these two editors can be seen deleting a large portion of text containing a number of URL's for verification. And SlimVirgin and Jayjg deleted this block of text only because it was critical of the modern state of Israel, reporting about persecution committed by the modern state of Israel against non-Jews.

21:19, 30 September 2005 SlimVirgin deletes all text critical of the modern state of Israel.

21:42, 30 September 2005 SlimVirgin deletes all text critical of the modern state of Israel.

03:05, 3 October 2005 Jayjg deletes all text critical of the modern state of Israel.

00:03, 6 October 2005 SlimVirgin deletes all text critical of the modern state of Israel.

20:15, 7 October 2005 Jayjg deletes all text critical of the modern state of Israel.

14:49, 10 October 2005 SlimVirgin deletes all text critical of the modern state of Israel.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I have noticed this also and strongly disapprove of it, but this arbitration is about FuelWagon and Ed Poor, not about POV editing of articles which relate to Israeli occupation of Palestine. Fred Bauder 15:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Jayjg and SlimVirgin clearly exhibit pro-Israel POV-pushing. The diffs provided are only limited to edits which I had direct experience of, but more could be given to support the case if needed. FuelWagon 17:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I opened this case against Ed Poor because his blocked me in November for non-existent NPA violations, said he had the pull around here to get me banned, and said I should be banned for life. I specifically excluded SlimVirgin from this case. Only problem is that arbcom invited SlimVirgin to submit evidence against me. So since they widened the case to include her, since they used her evidence to propose banning me for six to twelve months, it seems that her behaviour should be reviewed as well. FuelWagon 02:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * This case was about Ed Poor's misuse of admin priveledges against me on multiple occaisions. Arbcom expanded the case to include SlimVirgin's allegations that I "stalked" her. Arbcom has found as "fact" that I stalked her, citing SlimVirgin's evidence and accusations as proof . The only problem is that I've already shown here that there are legitimate causes that brought me to various articles that had nothing to do with SlimVirgin. And I've already shown here that SlimVirgin's evidence of stalking not only misrepresents some of the dates and causes that brought me to various articles, but that my actual edits to the articles were legitimate. While you claim this case is not about POV editing of articles, that misses the point that not only are some SlimVirgin's dates wrong, not only have I shown legitimate reasons for arriving at every article, but in the Historical persecution by Jews, Historical persecution by Christians, and Refusal to serve in the Israeli military articles, not only were my edits valid, they were fixing NPOV violations by SlimVirgin and Jayjg. And the Stalking guideline says stalking does not include fixing "errors or violations of Wikipedia policy". So if you've already noticed that these edits showed POV pushing by SlimVirgin/Jayjg , then fixing them is not stalking. If you look at the content of my edits, they are all valid, and in a number of cases they are fixing direct NPOV violations. FuelWagon 15:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I'm not sure what the relevance of this is to the case against Ed Poor, but it is pretty clear that Jayjg and SlimVirgin regularly push a pro-Israel POV, and that they probably cooperate with each other and possibly with other editors in this. The bias they exhibit is not always overt, and they will on occasion revert obviously wrong pro-Israel edits, but they aggressively revert edits that are not favorable to Israel on often flimsy bases, and they tolerate and often defend misleading passages that are favorable to Israel. I can document this extensively if needed. Marsden 19:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Texture instigated a revert war on Terrorism
16) Given FuelWagon's first edit to Terrorism 03:53, 12 October 2005 consisted of a verbatim quote from a notable source with a URL to verify, and given the next edit to teh article was a complete revert 16:15, 12 October 2005 by Texture, Texture is found to have instigated a revert war on the Terrorism article.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Since the proposed findings of fact say I instigated a revert war on the Terrorism article, I don't know how to make the facts more clear that my first edit to this article was a sourced quote with a URL and that someone else started an edit war by reverting me. Perhaps the facts as shown by the diffs and history and dates don't quite matter. FuelWagon 22:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

El_C has demonstrated a history of combativeness towards FuelWagon and Neuroscientist
17) El_C's endorsement of SlimVirgin's statement was combative towards Neuroscientist. Only problem is that El_C doesn't know what he's talking about. He accuses Neuroscientist of reverting edits en masse, but Neuroscientist didn't revert SlimVirgin a single time.


 * 09:34, 15 July 2005 accusing Neuroscientist of reverting SlimVirgin en masse. Edit summary is "If the refutation is not methodic, it is not authoritative" But Neuroscienist never reverted a single time, and anyone who read Neuroscientist's 5,000 word explanation of the things wrong with SlimVirgin's edit should quickly be able to tell that his critique was methodic and authoritive. The guy is an expert in neurology and we were lucky enough to have him editing wikipedia.


 * 12:16, 15 July 2005 Once it's pointed out to El_C that Neuroscientist never made a single revert, El_C ammends his statement, changing "(Neuroscientist) should refrain from reverting hours of work en mass" to "(Neuroscientist) should refrain from commenting on the series of edits in their totality."  El_C then jumps on the bandwagon that accused Neuroscientist of making "condescending, patronizing overtone".

El_C also started a long threaded debate on the Rfc against SlimVirgin with "I challenge."


 * 22:04, 15 July 2005 El_C posts " I challenge".


 * 23:12, 15 July 2005 El_C posts "To me, that appears to be an exercize in sophistry."


 * 23:49, 15 July 2005 I explain to El_C "the reason I filed an RFC was in part because an attempt to work it out on talk simply exploded. ... If you want to ignore all the issues on an RFC because one point sounds sophist to you, fine. But I don't need people like you challenging me here. I'm trying to avoid another explosion."


 * 00:03, 16 July 2005 El_C posts "I'll comment on and direct challenges toward whatever I see fit, I'm not bound by the conditions you set."


 * 00:09, 16 July 2005 I post to El_C "I set no conditions. I said I don't need people like you challenging me. If you want to challenge whatever you see fit, fine. It's good to have a some purpose in life. If you'd like to help keep this RFC non-combative though, I would appreciate the help. If not, whatever. I just made a request. You get to choose."


 * 00:16, 16 July 2005 El_C posts "I am not interested in responding to that at this time"


 * This shows to me that El_C had no interest in resolving anything, only putting an end to the RfC, and using a combative approach to try to accomplish it. I say "I'm trying to avoid another explosion", and his reply is "I'll comment on and direct challenges toward whatever I see fit".

El_C also demonstrated combativeness on FuelWagon's talk page:


 * 18:18, 4 October 2005 El_C later states " I'll AfD whatever I deem fit, this was merely a note as per my intention"


 * 10:31, 10 October 2005 El_C posts on my talk page: "All I see is more of the same from FW: Longwinded diatribes with the usual bitter, sarcastic and juvenile provocations, sophomoric innuendo, repetitive tautologies and eliptical circularities, ... silly name calling, et cetera, etc., and otherwise personal attacks, and acts of incivility, breaches of wikiquette, and the endless, ceaseless. battleground."

Where "juvenile" and "sophomoric" are not only combative, but bordering on personal attacks.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Somehow, this will be my fault as well. FuelWagon 22:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Ed Poor failed to maintain neutrality while mediating Terri Schiavo
18) While mediating Terri Shaivo, Ed Poor engaged in the dispute when SlimVirgin entered the article. He warns Neuroscientist for non-existent NPA's for criticizing SlimVirgin's edits. He blocked FuelWagon for non-existent NPA's on his talk page  for criticizing SlimVirgin. He gives partial and hesitent endorsement of teh RfC against SlimVirgin, but when Mel Etitis tells Ed Poor that he showed "poor judgement" endorsing the RfC , Ed Poor removes his endorsement  and attacks the RfC and those who filed it , then accuses the editors of "harrassment" for filing the RfC. Ed Poor then violates NPA against Fuelwagon.

While mediating teh Terri Schiavo article, Ed Poor never acknowledged a single error existed in SlimVirgin's edit. He did, however, warn Neuroscientist of violating NPA for criticizing SlimVirgin's edit, and he blocked FuelWagon and his talk page for critcizing SlimVirgin's edit.

Ed's actions while assigned as mediator of the Terri Schiavo article show his actions were driven by personal allegiances to SlimVirgin rather than action in a neutral manner to resolve a legitimate dispute on the article.

As a result of SlimVirgin's behaviour and Ed's failure to mediate and resolve the dispute involving SlimVirgin, three good editors left wikipedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * If any neutral mediator had been on teh article, SlimVirgin would have had to acknowledge there were significant problems with her "copyedit", the content would have been resolved, and 3 good editors would still be with wikipedia. FuelWagon 23:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

SlimVirgin and Jayjg be treated as a single user with multiple accounts
1) Given SlimVirgin's using her admin priveleges to protect Jayjg's candidate question page while she was editing it. Given Jayjg's 2-minute response to SlimVirgin's request to page-lock the Animal rights article, and given both SlimVirgin and Jayjg have tag-teamed on multiple articles to push a pro-Israel POV, these editors will be treated as if they were a single editor with multiple accounts.

If SlimVirgin requests page protection, Jayjg cannot enforce it. If Jayjg requests administrative assistance, SlimVirgin cannot implement it. If SlimVirgin and Jayjg together make 4 edits to an article in less than 24 hours, they are both blocked for 3RR. If SlimVirgin is the defendant in an arbcom case, Jayjg must automatically recuse. Any policy that applies to a single editor will apply to both editors as if they were a single editor with multiple accounts.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * The way these two work together to skirt around policy is completely bad faith. They act as if they were one editor with two accounts. They should be treated that way. I've tried to think of other remedies but all of them are too complicated and can be gamed by these two who know the system and have already demonstrated that they are willing to game it. Treating them as a single user with multiple accounts makes it straight-forward to keep them from doing more gaming of the system. FuelWagon 00:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If SlimVirgin and Jayjg operate independently then this is no restriction on their behaviour at all. It is only a restriction on their behaviour if they try to work as a team to do something like have Jayjg lock a page that SlimVirign is editing. If the page legitimately needs a lock, normal channels will handle it like all other requests. This proposed remedy rewards good behaviour and discourages bad behaviour. I thought it rather appropriate. FuelWagon 16:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * This remedy is beyond absurd. Carbonite | Talk 03:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed.--Sean|Bla ck 03:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Ed Poor blocked 40 hours for forbidden comment
2) For his comment on 10:45, 17 July 2005, Ed Poor will be blocked for 40 hours for NPA violations. Ed Poor will post an apology to FuelWagon. (See example for format and structure.)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * 21:02, 12 July 2005 Ed Poor blocked "User:FuelWagon" with an expiry time of 40 hours (unrepentant personal attacks) for this. It seems equivalent. FuelWagon 01:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Remedy for SlimVirgin's response to criticism
3) Given SlimVirgin showed a complete inability to acknowledge a single error in her 9 edits to the Terri Schiavo article, given that her edit contained a number of errors, given that she responded to some of that criticism by accusing her critics of violating various policies, and given how important it is on wikipedia to be able to admit mistakes, SlimVirgin will post a brief message on the talk pages of User:Duckecho User:NeuroscientistUser:A ghost and User:SlimVirgin acknowledging that her 9 edits to the Terri Schiavo article, while in mediation and marked controversial, was reckless and that her edits contained a number of errors.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * The alternative is parole or a block, and blocking her won't fix this. She needs practice. FuelWagon 01:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

SlimVirgin and Jayjg be placed on probation for Israel or Jewish related articles
4) SlimVirgin and Jayjg be placed on probation for articles relating to Israel and Jewish topics and may be blocked for making any pro-Israel or pro-Jewish POV edit.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Pro-Israel and pro-Jewish POV pushing by these two is clear. FuelWagon 01:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Ed Poor be suspended from admin priveleges for one month
5) For misusing admin priviledges, handing out an undeserved block against FuelWagon on July 13 and again on November 29, for issuing an undeserved warning to Neuroscientist on July 13, for issuing FuelWagon an undeserved warning on November 7 ("I've got enough pull to get you banned" ) and again on November 29, Ed Poor's administrative priviledges will be suspended for one month.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * My talk page contained no personal attacks, Neuroscientist's critique contained no personal remarks, saying "I've got enough pull to get you banned" shows Ed throwing his weight around. Threatening to block me permanently for misquoting him when SlimVirgin fabricated a quote and he did nothing shows total bias. His second block was was completely unjustified and was simply at SlimVirgin's request.


 * Comment by others:

SlimVirgin be suspended from admin privileges for one month
6) For involving herself in the Bensaccount RfC, for placing a page lock on the Jayjg/candidate page while she was editing it, and for using Jayjg to game the system and lock the Animal rights page while she was editing it, SlimVirgin's administrator privileges will be suspended for one month.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * SlimVirgin's involvement on the Bensaccount RfC the same day she declared she was out of good faith was nothing more than axe grinding. Her use of admin priviledges to lock pages she is editing shows a misuse of power, and an attempt to game the system. FuelWagon 02:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Jayjg be suspended from administrative privileges for one week
7) For misuing administrative priviledges blocking the animal rights page and gaming the system allowing SlimVirgin to control content on an article she was editing, Jayjg will be suspended from administrative privileges for one week. Administrators must not block pages they are editing, and a two minute turn around time from SlimVirgin's request to Jayjg's lock shows this requirement for objectivity was ignored.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * A misuse of admin priviledges and gaming the system to effectively allow an editor to lock a page they were editing. FuelWagon 02:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Ed Poor prohibited from using admin priveledges in mediation
Mediators must remain neutral and must mediate the dispute not engage in it. While mediating, Ed Poor engaged in the dispute, taking SlimVirgin's side by warning Neuroscientist for NPA when none existed, moving FuelWagon's talk page to a /block subdirectory for NPA when none existed, attacking an RfC against SlimVirgin, and then attacking FuelWagon. Ed Poor is prohibited from using admin priviledges against anyone he is mediating.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * The Terri Schiavo dispute could have been resolved a number of times if Ed had remained neutral and suggested both sides compromise rather than finding fault with one side only. FuelWagon 05:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

SlimVirgin and Jayjg blocked for 24 hours
Threaded comments are discouraged in RfC's because they generate a combative atmosphere. The Requests for comment/Cberlet & Willmcw is a model example of how threaded comments escalate a dispute rather than resolve anything. SlimVirgin and Jayjg not only inserted threaded comments on Requests for comment/FuelWagon 2, they repeatedly reverted these threaded comments    , knowing it was against recommended procedures, and knowing it would escalate the dispute. They also gamed the system, working together to avoid 3RR. They reverted attempts by FuelWagon to remove threaded comments but they did not oppose Bishonen's attempt to remove a threaded comment. SlimVirgin and Jayjg are both blocked for 24 hours for knowingly going against RfC procedures and gaming the system to avoid 3RR while doing it.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Not only did they know it was against procedures, not only did they know they were tag teaming to avoid 3RR, their reverts inserting these threaded comments were simply to exert control over the RfC. They reverted my attempts to remove threaded comments but they didn't oppose Bishonen. FuelWagon 05:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon treated as vexatious litigant
FuelWagon is determined by the ArbCom to be a vexatious litigant. Further Requests for Arbitration posted by FuelWagon will be deleted without comment. The arbitrators may, in their sole discretion, delete comments posted by FuelWagon on Requests for Arbitration not filed by FuelWagon that they consider inappropriate.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I filed evidence against to an arbcom case against Ed Poor Aug 29. The case was closed within a week without a single finding of fact. I requested the case be reopened. Several other editors found the case to be highly unusual. Fred Bauder said the request to reopen had been rejected and said I could appeal to Jimbo Wales. 21 Sept. I appeal to Jimbo Wales . I asked the mediation chairperson if they have any process for dealing with biased mediators. They don't. I then requested mediation, at Ed Poors suggestion, but he failed to participate. I had taken the case through all the channels and figured that I was just going to have to accept the dispute would remain unresolved. Fine, I can do that. But if using the stages of the dispute resolution process is being a vexatious litigant, then the process should be changed to reflect what you want people to do when they feel they have an unresolved dispute. (And if using the process is vexatious, then Ed Poor should get something similar for misusing the process: suggesting mediation, twice, then failing to participate in the first round of questions.) If arbcom had addressed my evidence when I first submitted it to Ed Poor, then that would have been one thing, but they completely avoided making any ruling on it at all. Someone told me my evidence was not directly related to the original charge/incident, so arbcom wouldn't consider it. So as far as I was concerned, the dispute was unresolved and unaddressed, so I appealed. Once I had exhausted all the channels, once mediation failed to do anything, I was finished with it. I was prepared to suck it up and move on. The only reason I requested arbitration against Ed Poor this time 30 Nov was because after two weeks of Ed's non-participation caused the mediator to withdraw and caused meidation to fail, Ed suddenly took interest in an RfC against me, said he had the "pull" to get me banned, blocked me for another nonexistent NPA, and said I should be banned for life. So it was no longer just old news about an old dispute, but a new underserved block, a new signature on an RfC against me, and a new threat to ban me for life. I requested arbitration to sort out the dispute with Ed Poor before he used his "pull" to ban me for life for something, anything. Then someone (I'm not sure who) apparently asked SlimVirgin to submit evidence. So you can't blame me for widening the case to include her. I specifically said in my request for arbitration that I was excluding her, and was only submitting diffs from her to put Ed Poor's actions into context. FuelWagon 15:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

FuelWagon banned for six weeks
FuelWagon is banned for six weeks for an egregious pattern of personal attacks against numerous administrators.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Could you please provide some diffs that would show when the attacks occurred, what exactly was said, and that they occurred enough times to deserve a 6-week ban? FuelWagon 15:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Please review my response in the following proposed remedy. Tom e rtalk  07:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon on one-year personal attack parole
FuelWagon shall be placed on personal attack parole for one year. Any personal attack during this period will reset the parole


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Could you provide some diffs showing NPA's? FuelWagon 15:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Uh... Tomer/Tshilo, those all occurred on or before July 12, 2005, and I believe I've shown here that I've demonstrated genuine attempts to follow policy since July. It is now December. The last six months should show that I've reformed. I believe the idea that editors can reform is actually an arbcom precedent. I'm not sure how much more you want to prove I've reformed. Another six months? I've already apologized to SlimVirgin and Dbergan, and Dbergan said we had already straightened it out. i.e. at least one person and I have already resolved my NPA's. Do you want more apologies? I put an apology request form on my talk page. Or could it be that with any other editor, this would have been forgiven and forgotten by now, but because I'm criticizing administrators, then pull out all the stops and find any dirt that you can throw. I've only submitted evidence of misbahaviour on Ed Poor and SlimVirgin's parts that I directly experienced. This mud-raking is digging up stuff that neither Ed Poor nor SlimVirgin even witnessed. But it does make good ammo. The important thing though, is that when you present the diffs, make sure you leave out the dates and make sure you leave out that I've reformed since then. FuelWagon 15:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * My edits on my talk page were not personal attacks, they were criticisms of SlimVirgin's edits to Terri Schiavo. She still refused to acknowledge a single error and she was still calling that her edit be reinstated. Criticizing an admin's content and criticizing their behaviour on a talk page is not a personal attack. SlimVIrgin refused to acknowledge a single error after Neuroscientist posted a 5,000 word essay of all teh stuff wrong with her edit. How do you explain that SlimVirgin's continued and relentless non-admission of errors is a fundamental source of the dispute if even saying it is a violation of NPA? SlimVirgin also made a bunch of accusations at the editors who criticized her edit, one was a blatant fabrication of a quote saying that I insisted no dissenting view be in the introduction. I never said any such thing. How do you address false accusations made by an editor if even saying is an NPA violation? FuelWagon 15:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * As an example, Ed Poor seemed quite upset that I apparently misquoted him. In fact, he said I should be banned for life for it . But when I complained that SlimVirgin had fabricated a quote and attributed it to me, apparently listing that on my talk page is a personal attack. Interesting how it only works one way, eh? FuelWagon 15:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Uh...FuelWagon, since you asked for diffs evidencing personal attacks, here are a few for starters:   I'm sure more could be dredged up without much work... more information can be found about this trend here ... In addition to making blatant personal attacks in violation of WP policy, FuelWagon, you go on to state that you're "not particularly sorry [about it]".  Between 12 and 13 July, 2003, you made approximately 100 posts to your talk page (while blocked, in other words, preventing you from making personal attacks elsewhere), the vast majority of which were personal attacks against User:SlimVirgin.  While your frustration is perhaps understandable, your conduct in response to your frustration is inexcusable in light of Wikipedia's No personal attacks policy .  You asked for evidence, apparently without taking into consideration that a whole page of evidence in this dispute has already been entered... are you sure you want to pursue this line of questioning? Tom e rtalk  06:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others: