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

RE: Kim Bruning's statement: A rather more likely conclusion therefore is that there is something wrong with Fuelwagon himself.

The edict "Comment on content, not on the contributor." from WP:NPA, can be adjusted to a slight variant outside the article space: "Comment on the behavior, not the person." I don't think it's helpful to describe people as having something wrong with them; that's a bit too personal. --Tabor 23:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

finished
I've submitted all the evidence that relates, and I've suggested all my proposals in the /workshop area. Unless Kim Bruning, El_C, or someone else submits new evidence or accusations that need a response, I'm finished with this phase. I'll check back in once in a while to see how things are going. FuelWagon 05:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

stalking is the perfect accusation
Stalking is the perfect accusation to make. It's like accusing someone of being a witch. It only takes a single word to say "witch" and it is impossible to disprove. All you have to do is get your audience into a "guilty until proven innocent" frame of mind, make the acusation, and then bring marshmellows to the burning.

The "proposed findings" thus far say I've been harrassing SlimVirgin and point to her evidence that I've been stalking her, completely ignoring my evidence that shows a complete set of diffs and dates that LITERALLY PROVE that SlimVirgin is misrepresenting the truth in some cases. For example, the diffs prove that I quoted the "words to avoid" article to SlimVirgin first (quoting the entry for "however"), then she goes there and deletes the entry for "however", then I reinsert teh entry for however. SlimVirgin just shows the last two diffs, so it looks like she deletes the entry and I revert her. Nice.

The entire accusation of "stalking" needs to be reviewed in contrast to the evidence I presented that shows legitimate sequence from one article to the other that does not involve "stalking", and also a legimate set of edits to those articles (as opposed to harrasing edits). My edits to all teh articles that I'm accused of "stalking" have all been legitimate edits. The edit I made to Terrorism was two sentences, a sourced quote with a URL, hardly a bad faith edit.

And while we're at it, I presented evidence that clearly shows SLimVirgin declaring she's out of good faith towards me way back in august and then later that same day, she stalked me to the Bensaccount RfC, showed a combative attitude on that page, and then another admin chimes in and tells her that her complaint agianst teh RfC was unfounded. Please have a look at my proposed findings and my response to charges of stalking. FuelWagon 22:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

instigating an edit war on terrorism
Could someone explain to me how inserting two sentences containing a verbatim quote from a notable source with a URL to verify is "instigating an edit war"? It seems like a valid edit to me. It was Texture who did a complete revert of my edit. Why am I blamed for instigating an edit war for a valid edit? FuelWagon 23:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Requesting arbitration with SlimVirgin
given SlimVirgin's evidence has been used by arbcom to find me guilty of "harrassing" and "stalking" SlimVirgin, and given that arbcom has refused to make it a two-way street, I'm officially requesting arbitration against SlimVirgin as part of this case. The main page says submitting a statement opens you up to review by arbcom and SlimVirgin submitted a statement and submitted evidence, and arbcom used that evidence at its word to decide that I'm violating policy. If the evidence is going to be used to convict me of violating policy, it should be subject to review like any other evidence, meaning SlimVirgin's evidence needs to be reviewed rather than taken at fact value. I've already shown that she has misrepresented dates on some evidence. And I've shown legitimate causes that brought me to each page, and I've shown that not only were my edits valid, but they were fixing NPOV violations being committed by SlimVirgin among others.

So far, the findings include saying I "instigated an edit war" on teh creation science article, which no one even submitted evidence on, other than my mention of the Bensaccoutn RfC. That the issue stopped when Bensaccoutn stopped editing the article should indicate who the problem editor is, but if that isn't sufficient proof, then the recent comment by Synaptidude should cause arbcom to consider just how wrong it has gotten the Creation Science article.

The otehr findings are that I instigated an edit war on teh Terrorism article, which consisted of me inserting two sentences which quoted a source with a URL. How that is "instigating an edit war", is beyond me, but it was a valid edit.

The otehr big "finding of fact" is that I stalked/harrassed SlimVirgin and the "proof" is a link to SlimVirgin's evidence. Never mind that she has the dates wrong, never mind I show how I got to each article, never mind that she complete ignores her behaviour on the bensaccoutn RfC, never mind that she completely ignores that her edits consistently qualified as NPOV violations, arbcom simply took SlimVirgin at her word that her evidence was true and accurate and an honest representation of what happened. It wasn't. It isn't. And this is yet another example of a blatant error committed by arbcom of mangling the facts to fit the ruling they want.

I've protested the "instigating an edit war" on the creation science article, but a mountain of facts do not seem to affect arbcom in any way. I've protested the "instigating an edit war" on the terrorism article, but arbcom views two sentences quoting a source to be a horrendous violation of policy. And I've protested the inaccuracies and incompleteness of SlimVirgin's "evidence", but arbcom is unmoved by bad dates, incomplete information, or that several edits don't qualify as stalking because the stalking guideline specifically excludes fixing policy violations by an editor.

I'm requesting arbitration with SlimVirgin. Since arbcom took it upon themselves to widen this case to include SlimVirgin's evidence, then her behaviour needs be reviewed with respect to the claims in her evidence. Most of her claims are half truths (yes I edited "words to avoid" after she did, but I quoted the article to her and then she deleted that entry). And some of her claims of "stalking" are explicitely excluded because stalking excludes fixing another editor's policy violatins, and in a number of instances, SlimVirgin's edits were blatant POV pushing. FuelWagon 03:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)