Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/FuelWagon 2

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

What am I doing on FW's list of editors he's in a dispute with?
After I posted my "Outside view", FW inserted my name on a list labelled "What you have here is a number of editors supporting this RfC against me who have all been involved in a content dispute with me recently, and many have a history with me that goes all the way back to opposing my RfC against SlimVirgin." Emphasis by italics and bolding in original: all. This is... imprecise, and makes me wonder if other commenters are being dismissed in FW's responses on equally slight qualifications. I have no content dispute with FW, and I don't "go all the way back" to the RfC on SlimVirgin. I did oppose FW's RfC on SV. That's it, that's my "history" with him. (All the way back in July.) Is that supposed to disqualify me from posting on this one? Or tend to prove that I'm biased? Seriously, Fuel, how do you figure? I haven't had anything to do with you since July. Not taken any interest in the pages you edit, not encountered you, not spoken to you, not spoken of you. You'd do yourself a favor by removing me from the list with an apology. You'd look better. Oh, wait! I did speak to you one time after the SV RfC, I'm remembering. Also in July, a couple of weeks later. I wrote on your Talk page: "Hi, FuelWagon. Since you and I haven't had any interchange except your RfC on SlimVirgin, and I had nothing but criticism for you there, I want to also tell you I'm very impressed by your input on Requests for comment/Cberlet & Willmcw. I think you're doing really good work on getting Rangerdude's attention." No good? Too fawning? Anyway, that's the whole of it. Bishonen | talk 10:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm on the list because I opposed FW's RfC on SV and beacuse I reverted edits by another user on an article, only to find out today that FuelWagon was the original contributor of the edits that I reverted, even though I wasn't reverting FuelWagon in particular. I think its a bit of a stretch for FuelWagon to claim that I have a content dispute with him directly. --Viriditas  | Talk 10:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


 * I had a discussion with Robert some time ago about using a Jury system for RfC's and Arbcom. The table is a reflection of that discussion. Pretty much everyone who has certified or endorsed this RfC would not qualify to serve if this were a Jury trial, because most have past grudges against me. You, Ann Heneghan, could act as a witness and give testimony here, but you would be too biased to serve on a jury and be expected to give a neutral finding of fact against me. Say SlimVirgin had filed the RfC against Bensaccount. Say that I told her I was out of good faith towards her, and then later that same day, I showed up on the Bensaccount RfC to say she was misusing the dispute resolution system. And say that I hadn't been involved with the Bensaccount dispute in any way for the weeks prior. I'm quite certain that SlimVirgin would have listed this on her RfC as an example of me harrassing her or stalking her or whatever. And I'm sure that you, Ann Heneghan, would have fully supported her accusation of wikistalking in that case. However, that the roles are reversed, that I filed the RfC against Bensaccount, and the day SlimVirgin said she could assume no good faith of me, that is the day she showed up on the Bensaccount RfC (and not a peep the weeks before), well, it would seem to be a reflection of bias that all the certifiers and endorsers of this RfC against me find the exact same behaviour perfectly acceptable when committed by SlimVirgin. Like the table says, make your own judgements. FuelWagon 01:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I feel that FuelWagon has avoided addressing the issues that Bishonen, Ann Heneghan and myself have raised, instead preferring to accuse us of "stonewalling" (an absurd accusation) and holding "grudges". I also feel that FuelWagon's response to the comments above detract from this RfC and place undue attention (aka blame) on another editor who is not the subject of this RfC.  For what its worth, I know nothing about the Bensaccount incident, nor of the intricate dynamics between FuelWagon and his peers; what I do know, I have commented upon.  In any case, I do not buy into FuelWagon's argument that everyone who has certified this RfC is biased against him, holds grudges against him, or dislikes him in some way.  It seems to me that FuelWagon is blaming others for his own behavior and I find this troubling. --Viriditas  | Talk 09:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Moved to Talk: my response to TShilo12's endorsement of my outside view
Sorry, I think I should have posted this to Talk in the first place. TShilo12 endorsed my outside view and commented among other things that "the fact that FW has endorsed this summary is, at least in my view, somewhat encouraging...". This was my response:
 * TShilo, for a moment I too felt encouraged by FW's endorsement, but on closer inspection I think it's simply a way of complying with the letter of the instruction at the top of the page, Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse, while undermining its spirit. FW's own Response section takes up considerably more than half of this RfC page, but I guess he still hates being confined to it. Does his "endorsement" mention anything in my summary he agrees with? No. Does it take issue with something in my summary? Yep. Discouraging. Bishonen | talk 16:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Bishonen, actually, I had a question, which you never answered. In short, does this "all out of good faith" post from SlimVirgin, followed by her sudden involvement in the Bensaccount RfC constitute turning wikipedia into a battlefield? The question is does "battlefield" apply to everyone or just the people you don't like? Because if you reversed the roles, if I had posted this to SlimVirgin and then suddenly found interest in her RfC that I hadn't been involved in for weeks, then I'm sure that you would quickly label that clear evidence of me using wikipedia as a battlefield. But that SlimVirgin does it to me, and you are silent on her behaviour there, leaves me wondering. I agree that turning wikipedia into a battlefield is not a good thing. Im' just wondering if you are neutral enough to see her behaviour as battlefield, or if you come as a biased witness. FuelWagon 00:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, your wonderment is not of my creating, it's your own work and only you can clear it up. I don't mind my conduct being questioned, even if this is not an RfC on me; but my fictional, hypothetical conduct as authored by you is your affair, not mine. You do get carried away, don't you...? You're one of the only two wikipedia users I know who make such accusations by hypothesis ("if I had posted this to SlimVirgin and then suddenly found interest in her RfC that I hadn't been involved in for weeks, then I'm sure that you would...") and seem to think you've established something by them, or that the accused person is obliged to walk into your rhetorical maze. No, I will not answer any questions of the form "Just because I can't prove you beat your wife doesn't mean you wouldn't like to, so will you at least admit you're biased?" I ask you instead about something that actually happened: you endorsing my outside view. You've made it clear you take issue with the battleground accusation, could you please also clarify which parts you did mean to endorse? Bishonen | talk 10:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't know what to tell you, Bishonen. There are no hypotheticals here. I filed the Requests for comment/Bensaccount 22 August. Every diff of evidence involved relates to the Creation science article. SlimVirgin hadn't edited the article during that dispute. A week later, I submitted evidence to arbcom that was critical of SlimVirgin. She posted on my talk page that she is "all out of good faith". That very day, SlimVirgin suddenly takes a keen interest in proving the Bensaccount RfC "This looks like another example of an inappropriate RfC filed by you". In response to me posting evidence to arbcom against her, she takes her dispute with me to the Bensaccount RfC and crusades to label it "another inappropriate" RfC. I told her that if there was any problem with the Bensaccount RfC that a neutral, uninvolved admin should look at it, not her. But she wouldn't hand it off to anyone. She made it her personal crusade. An RfC she hadn't been involved in for a week, on an article that she had never edited in her life, and the day I submit evidence against her to arbcom, she turns the Bensaccount RfC into a battlefield to prove how evil I am. The only hypothetical was that if I had done the exact same thing to her, I'm sure everyone supporting SlimVirgin now would agree that I was harrassing and stalking her. But that she did it to me means that all her supporters find it perfectly acceptable to show up on an RfC out of the blue the day after I submit evidece that she didn't like. FuelWagon 14:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * "Could you please also clarify which parts you did mean to endorse?" Or of course repeat and repeat what you've said and said and said, the choice is yours. Bishonen | talk 14:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Could you answer my question so I know exactly what you mean by "battleground"? FuelWagon 14:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * No. I will not respond further at all. Bishonen | talk 21:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Moved to talk: threaded discussion of outside view
''Threaded comment to Ta bu shi da yu's endorsement of outside view by Bishonen moved here. (Compare instructions at the bottom of the RfC page. The page is messy enough as it is.)''
 * How can "sarcasm" ever be "inappropriate" to the point of a "personal attack", please provide examples specific to this issue. zen master T 20:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

moved to talk: threaded response to middle-view

 * I object to this attempt to equate my behavior with that of FuelWagon. He does not have a good understanding of NPOV at all, in my view, based on what I've seen of his edits. He thinks he does, but others beg to differ, and it's not for Robert &mdash; who's made 207 edits to articles and has never edited with FuelWagon so far as I know &mdash; to decide who is right. Secondly, FW has posted thousands and thousands of words (I hate to think how many!) about the copy edit, his blocking by Ed Poor, who-said-what-when, on and on and on and on for three solid months, until you'd think he'd be screaming from the boredom of it, and has done so in a highly selective and distorted fashion, as Ann Heneghan has several times pointed out. Robert, I don't blame you for not wanting to go through the diffs meticuously, but until you do, you have no business deciding what happened. For those of us familiar with the diffs, FW has shown himself not to be an honest broker in this situation. I'd therefore appreciate it if you'd stick to the subject in hand, which is only in part FW's behavior toward me and Ed Poor, but also his behavior toward other editors, which shows the same kind of contempt and aggression. Remember that he first came to my attention because of complaints about him doing this kind of thing, and this was weeks before the Terri Schiavo thing.


 * Above all, it's his level of obsession that greatly concerns me, and I do mean really concerns me. Even as this RfC goes on, he continues to post to people's talk pages about what happened at Terri Schiavo! This isn't normal behavior by any standard, and in fact in the time I've been at Wikipedia, I can't think of any other editor who has behaved like this. Please bear those qualitative distinctions in mind.


 * For what I hope is the last time, I started (started, didn't finish!) a copy edit because the article when I found it had an odd-looking introduction, was badly referenced, in some places badly written, and was too long, and had FW waited until I'd finished, he might have liked the result. (During its subsequent failed FAC nomination, the objections echoed these concerns, so I wasn't alone in taking that view of it.) One of the article's major flaws was that some contentious points had no source, while others had sources that had been commented out for some reason, and others again had sources (visible and invisible) that didn't say what was being claimed of them. There was also a confusing references section. My plan was to make all the sources visible, delete the ones that didn't back up the text and find ones that did, and create a proper references section. I never got there because of the abuse that started up on the talk page by a group of inexperienced editors &mdash; one had 93 edits to articles, another had 218, and a third 276 &mdash; led by FuelWagon, who had a tantrum because he had taken ownership of the page and I hadn't asked his permission to edit. There was no excuse for the abuse or for any of the subsequent behavior, which continues to this day. It's poison.


 * Had FW really disliked my copy edit, he could have edited it himself, and that would have been the end of it between rational editors. That it's still being discussed, and that I'm still being harassed because of it, I find embarrassing, childish, and very disturbing, and I hope no one does or says anything that risks encouraging it to continue, or makes FW think he's gained anything by it, because all that means is he'll do it in the future to someone else. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

moved to talk: threaded response to comment by Vizcarra

 * Just a note to point out that SlimVirgin is a "she" not a "he". Her page is not clear about this and the same confusion occurred when she started editing the Terri Schiavo article. Duckecho referred to her as "madam" at one point, and she became indignant, which further confused things because most of us took her indignation to mean that SlimVirgin was a "he". It eventually came out that SlimVirgin was a "she", but not after much consternation. Anyway, we had the same confusion before. I endorse your statement otherwise. FuelWagon 02:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * My page isn't clear about it? I've named myself after a Javanese princess and my talk page shows a picture of my poodle in a coat and boots. It doesn't exactly reek of testosterone. The reason I queried being called "madam" was only because of the pompous silliness of it. Anyway, Vizcarra knows I'm a woman, because he was in e-mail contact with me over his 3RR violation, just as you were, FW, over your 3RR violation, several weeks before I edited Schiavo. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * On the one hand, the user page is clear enough, and does refer to the legend of a princess, and does state that she (Slimvirgin) values truth. On the other hand, I did not see any poodle.  I did see a female drummer.  Robert McClenon 20:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * All I remember about our email "contact" regarding my 3RR violation was that I was inserting a verbatim quotation from Al Gore with a URL to verify it's accuracy and a vandal kept deleting it. For quoting Al Gore, you called me "partisan editor" or some absurdity to that effect. As for gender confusion, there was some confusion on the Terri Schiavo article regarding your gender. But once again, rather than admit any contribution to that, you come back with more accusations against others and blame them. FuelWagon 04:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Threaded Comments
I am in general opposed to threaded comments in Requests for Comments. They can easily get out of hand and become very confusing as to who is saying what. Since a user conduct RfC is itself evidence that other discussion has failed, it is important for outsiders to be able to tell who has said what. I am normally in favor of the idea of moving threaded comments from RfC article pages to RfC talk pages. However, having said that, why is FuelWagon leaving his own threaded comments on the article page while moving other comments to the talk page?

It is quite true that SlimVirgin's gender is both obvious and irrelevant. Can we please avoid having a war about it? Robert McClenon 20:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I thought I had refrained from adding threaded comments to the page. If I disputed something said by someone and felt it needed a response, I posted a copy in my response area and then added my reply. If there are threaded comments by me, I'll move them. FuelWagon 03:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment regarding compilation of "cabal" table and related remarks

 * Two quick comments... First, compiling the above table does nothing to strengthen any argument you might be trying to make...it simply indicates that certain members of the [growing number of] editors who take issue with your edits and edit summaries share common interests, or equally monitor recent edits, not that there is some overriding conspiracy to befoul your name. Second, your remark regarding goethean is (a) a personal attack against goethean specifically, and (b) an expression of bad faith in the community at large [cf. the "snowball effect" bit].  Neither of these do anything whatsoever to cast either you or your activities and interactions with other editors in a good light. Tom e r TALK  10:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon moving comments
Please stop deleting people's comments from the project page. You've done this with every single RfC I've ever seen you involved in. It's the same control freakery that caused a problem at Schiavo. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * oh, there was a control freak on Terri Schiavo, but it wasn't me. I believe it was the editor who came in, inserted a number of factual errors, and whose complete inability to admit even a single mistake and instead accused everyone else of causing problems was more the root of the problem. That you continue to accuse everyone else of causing problems here, rather than admiting you might be contributing to the problem is no surprise. FuelWagon 03:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Hm, actually, you deleted TWO of my comments on the Bensaccount RfC talk page. But again, if you do it, apparently its OK. FuelWagon 04:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

moving another block of threaded comments for consistency

 * 1) I'll post an answer to that on the talk page later tonight. However, one thing I'd like to point out is that, as far as I know, the only person ever to use the word "attack" with regard to Neuroscientist's post is FuelWagon, who continuously informs the Wikipedia community that Ed Poor gave Neuroscientist a warning about WP:NPA. Ed did not use the word "attack". He asked Neuroscientist to "please" be careful not to hurt people's feelings by making personal remarks. That sounds pretty polite to me. FuelWagon keeps saying that Ed "attacked" people who "criticized" SlimVirgin, but so far, he has not provided any evidence of someone who "criticized" (not attacked) Slim and was then "attacked" (not criticized) by Ed. More comments to follow on the talk page later. Ann Heneghan (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Finally, I don't appreciate the personal comments you've lobbed at me. A feature of this page, and this pertains to all the archives too, is that editors have repeatedly attacked one another, instead of concentrating on content. I'm sorry you felt it necessary to continue that tradition. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:04, July 13, 2005 (UTC) from Talk:Terri Schiavo/archive30 WAS 4.250 01:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) An honest reading of the entire [rather lengthy] comment section by Slim from which the above is excerpted, reveals that Slim refers to Neuroscientist's remarks as "personal comments" about her, not "personal attacks" against her. A rather disingenuous reading of her remarks indicates that she regards herself as being the subject of attack by Neuroscientist, but a more straightforward reading is that she regards his comments as "attacks" without mention of any particular target.  Whether or not she was saying that Neuroscientist was engaging in personal attacks against her [thinly veiled, open, or otherwise] is a matter of some conjecture perhaps, but unless she comes out and says "yes, that's what I meant", it appears that a group of editors with bones to pick, for whatever reason or excuse, with Slim, is jumping on a bandwagon marked "malign SlimVirgin for our perception that she's maligning others unjustly"...which it seems at least to me, is an extension of the rather pathetic history of personal attacks to which her post [again, excerpted above], is referring...  Tom e r TALK  09:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Ed's comment to Neuroscientist opens "There is a fine line between making personal remarks, and criticizing someone's contributions to Wikipedia. I hope you will read Avoid personal remarks." Ed's second block against me was for "personal remarks" . Note: not NPA violations, but "personal remarks". I think it's clear that Ed was threatening Neuroscientist with a block for criticizing SlimVirgin's content. FuelWagon 21:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Revert war
Can someone please explain why there's a revert war on the main project page? --Viriditas | Talk 04:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * FuelWagon is deleting people's comments and moving them here. He's violated 3RR, and when I offered him the opportunity to revert himself, thinking that perhaps he hadn't noticed, he called my edits vandalism and said that 3RR therefore didn't count. In other words, he has started up again. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Bishonen started moving threaded comments to talk as per RfC instructions. I've since moved a number of other threaded comments to talk as per RfC instructions. SlimVirgin has attempted to force her threaded comments back into the RfC against RfC instructions. Perhaps I am misunderstanding 3RR policy, but reverting something that is directly opposed to policy doesn't count on the 3RR policy. SlimVirgin has also informed me that "I have no business" moving these threaded comments, even though they directly violate the RfC instructions, yet she did not give Bishonen the same admonishment when Bishonen moved the first threaded comment to Talk. FuelWagon 04:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * 3RR counts with everything except simple vandalism. Read Three revert rule. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Moving comments to the appropriate section of the talk page is not vandalism when they are left intact. Read Vandalism. Changes to comments are vandalism when somebody edits them "to substantially change their meaning," the given example being to change a vote. Rangerdude 07:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I think she was trying to say that her edits were not vandalism (and thus could not be reverted with impunity), not that FuelWagon's were. However, it seems clear to me that the instructions right on the main page clearly state that FW is right to move the comments here. SlimVirgin is correct by the letter of 3RR but FuelWagon is correct by both the letter and spirit of the rules for RFC pages; it seems to me that in this case the latter is the more important of the two, by far. PurplePlatypus 08:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Moreover, I just noticed | this highly misleading edit summary which I shall permit to speak for itself. PurplePlatypus 09:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * That appears to be a cloaked revert, which would give her 4 in a period of less than 24 hours -, , , . Rangerdude 17:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

A request for common sense
This revert war is ridiculous. FuelWagon is correct as to the letter and spirit of the RfC instructions that threaded comments are out of line. SlimVirgin is correct that 3RR has been violated. Any allegations of vandalism are out of line. It is not that important where the threaded comments are to have a revert war.

I thought that progress had been made with FuelWagon agreeing to stop demanding an accounting for "truth" about the past on talk pages, and to proceed to ensuring truth (e.g., accuracy, NPOV) on article pages. Can we move on? Robert McClenon 15:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

After-Action Comments
FuelWagon was correct as to the letter and the spirit of the RfC instructions that threaded comments, including a remark by SlimVirgin about her talk page making her gender clear, were out of line. SlimVirgin ws correct that FuelWagon violated 3RR. It appears that he deleted that comment at least 6 times. It appears that he was then blocked for 24 hours, which turned into a block of approximately 29 hours because three different admins noticed the violation at different times.

The only exceptions to 3RR are restoration of vandalism, and a few other situations that are agreed to have the character of vandalism. Edits by a user who has been banned from specific pages are not vandalism, but, like vandalism, they can be reverted without regard to 3RR (as well as blocking the user). FuelWagon was not reverting simple vandalism by moving the threaded comments. He was being bold in editing, but being bold does not justify 3RR.

I have not yet researched whether Purple Platypus is correct that SlimVirgin made a cloaked revert, which would have violated 3RR. FuelWagon clearly violated 3RR.

It was not that important where the comment about SlimVirgin's gender was to have an edit war. Ca we move on to truth on article pages? Robert McClenon 16:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * ". . . he was then blocked for 24 hours, which turned into a block of approximately 29 hours because three different admins noticed the violation at different times". No, it was only 24 hours. I sent a message to WP:AN/3RR to request that an admin would manually unblock him at 00:42, if later blocks alter timings of earlier blocks, and I was told that the system is programmed in such a way that if several admins block while unaware of the other blocks, then the block due to expire first overrides the others.


 * I think that the problem partly arose because FuelWagon did not follow the format for endorsing a statement. He used a colon (two colons actually) instead of a # sign, so his post appeared as an indented, threaded comment instead of an endorsement . It's true that he used the words "I endorse your statement otherwise." However, such words are often used in ordinary comments on talk pages, and do not, by themselves, suffice for an official endorsement in an RfC. (FuelWagon is an experienced editor, and has used the # sign before to add proper numbered numbered endorsement or certification, e.g. here). Then SlimVirgin placed another indented, threaded comment under what was at the time an indented, threaded comment from FuelWagon (with the words "I endorse your statement otherwise"). Then FuelWagon moved SlimVirgin's indented comment, but left his own indented comment, which had the word "endorse" at the end . FuelWagon seems to have been reverting on the grounds that his indented, unnumbered post was an endorsement and belonged on the page, while SlimVirgin's indented, unnumbered post was a comment, and didn't belong there. Those who reverted him were apparently taking the position that both indented, unnumbered posts should be treated the same way. Finally, FuelWagon moved his post back, and used the normal # sign, and put in his edit summary that he was "re-endorsing". It was now clear to everyone that this was an endorsement. Some people might have thought it was before, but they couldn't have been sure.


 * I can't help wondering why FuelWagon didn't correct the formatting as soon as the misunderstanding started, rather than making complaints about vandalism. It's also strange that he didn't take the opportunity that he was generously offered of reverting himself to avoid a 3RR block, even when it was explained to him that 3RR applies to everything except simple vandalism. Ann Heneghan (talk) 18:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Action Resumes
I thought that FuelWagon was right on the issues on the Terri Schiavo article. I still do. I still think that SlimVirgin edited it recklessly. This is not important. I have defended FuelWagon mostly, although not to the extent that he wants, since then.

FuelWagon made the following post to my user talk page today:

mediation failed
Well, Robert, I know you have quite a bit of faith in the dispute resolution process at wikipedia (a somewhat naive faith, in my opinion, but your results may vary). I have told you from the beginning that process ain't worth Jack if the people running the process are themselves part of the problem. And I know you've got an overwhelming amount of faith in the mediation process, so I thought I'd report to you that the Requests for mediation/Ed Poor and FuelWagon has failed. The mediator (Improv) has withdrawn due to a complete lack of participation from Ed Poor. 16 days ago, Improv emailed us (because Ed Poor wanted to do mediation by email) a number of questions to start mediation. I responded in full. Ed responded basically saying he "needed more time". 15 days later, no response from Ed, and Improv emails him a "prod", asking for his answers. no response. A day later, Improv withdraws from mediation because he only mediates one dispute at a time, and Ed has gone 2+ weeks without a response to mediation. Ed did, however, find the time to make about 650 edits to wikipedia in those two weeks. So, now what, Robert? The people who are part of the problem are also part of the dispute resolution process, and if they don't want to deal with something, they either get their mob friends to close ranks around them, or they simply don't respond at all. Anyway, your calls to use the dispute resolution process appear to be pointless. Arbcom ruled Ed did no wrong and "didn't have time" to deal with finding out what particular wrongs he may have done. A pardon. I asked the mediation chairman if they had any process for dealing with a mediator who failed to mediate. He asked me if I wanted to stamp Ed's forhead with something or fire him as mediator. I try mediation, and Ed simply doesn't show up. So, in the future, please spare me your talk about resolving things through channels. I've tried every step, and as long as the people causing the problems have friends who are running the process, then the process is a joke. And I think your efforts to change or rearrange the process are pointless as long as friends are allowed to pass judgement on friends and enemies are allowed to gang up on their enemies. You seem to think a jury system is overkill. Everything I've seen says its the only thing that will fix the problem. But by all means, focus on the process and ignore the problem and the problem users. All the best. FuelWagon 01:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

There was nothing to mediate
It was never clear to me what FuelWagon wanted to mediate with Ed Poor. Having read the entire record of the Terri Schiavo edit war, it appeared to me that Ed Poor had said that he thought the mediation had been a success. FuelWagon said that progress had been made, but that more progress needed to be made, and wished him a good Wikibreak and vacation. Then, afterward, FuelWagon claimed that the mediation had failed. I see no real dispute between FuelWagon and Ed Poor, only a retroactive decision that FuelWagon did not get what he wanted, which was to have a recognition that FuelWagon was right and SlimVirgin was wrong.

I do not know what the issues are that FuelWagon wants to mediate between him and Ed Poor. It appears to me that Ed Poor did his job as mediator honorably. He did not do perfectly, but that is asking too much. Anyway, FuelWagon's use of profanity in the Terri Schiavo edit war really had made civility difficult.


 * Ed Poor requested that we do mediation by email. So I have left out the content of those emails and just reported the sequence to show that Ed never responded to the mediator's first round of questions. Are you now implying that there was no unresolved disputes between Ed Poor and I? Or are you just declaring it to be that way?

Conclusion, unfortunately
I think that FuelWagon could be an extremely productive and valuable editor if he could control his anger and stop dwelling on past wrongs. I have no reason to think that he can. If he cannot stop engaging in claims of wrongs (when there really were lapses of perfection that he will not forgive), then he is setting himself up to be hard-banned.


 * "stop dwelling on past wrongs". Nice. I post something on your talk page about mediation that failed as of yesterday, and you tell me to "stop dwelling on past wrongs"? I find it absolutely amazing that using the dispute resolution process is a sign of an out of control "anger". Isn't the dispute resolution process for dealing with claims of wrongs? Or is it strictly for uses such as this RfC to rally the mob against an editor for doing, horror of horrors, posting factual comments on an RfC and in arbitration? You want to talk about "dwelling on past wrongs"? Try looking at this RfC and how it started. I put a verbatim quote from a notable source and a url to verify it in the Terrorism article. A mob of POV pushers fought to keep it out. It turns out those same POV pushers had filed an RfC against Zephram, and if you read the "summary of dispute", they blame the entire problem with the Terrorism article completely as Zephrams fault and no one else. All I did was post a limited comment about my experience inserting a verbatim quote from a notable source with a URL to verify. No one disputes the quote belonged in the article. No one claims that my comments on the Zephram RfC were factually wrong. No. This RfC was filed as retribution by the editors I was critical of in my comment. Past wrongs? You don't have to look at the past, you can look at this RfC right here. This RfC filed as retribution. This RfC that SlimVIrgin and Jayjg were just recently engaged in RfC procedure violations out of spite. After this RfC was filed about the Terrorism article, it was SlimVirgin who started "dwelling on past wrongs" by bringing up a load of shit from months ago on this RfC that was supposed to be about the Terrorism article. SlimVirgin could not "stop engaging in claims of wrongs" that I apologized for (NPA violation), or that have clearly been shown to not be a violation of policy (keeping a deleted RfC around, or using the dispute resolution system at various levels). I've also shown some of her "claims of wrongs" are patently false, such as her claim about the "words to avoid" stalking. But do you chastize her for that? Do you ask her to change her accusation to something accurate? To you suggest that she needs to stop "dwelling on past wrongs"? It works both ways, Robert, or it doesn't work at all. FuelWagon 20:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon, like Silverback, seems to think that Wikipedia has a corrupt culture. If that is what he really thinks, then he should find an honest culture. It is Usenet. It is a destructive culture, but it is honest, with no respect shown.


 * Nice. Play along with the mob rule or go somewhere else? what sort of respect did I get on the Terrorism for inserting a verbatim quote by a notable source with a URL to verify? What sort of respect did I get for making an outside comment on an RfC that was a perfectly reasonable report of my experience on the Terrorism article. This whole RfC started because my comment on the Zephram RfC only reported on my experience of the Terrorism article, rather than just being a mob rule against Zephram. I got RfC'ed because I didn't go along with the mob, because I made an honest comment on an RfC, because I submitted that same honest evidence to arbcom. Now where is the respect in getting a retribution RfC for doing that? By "respect" do you mean I should respect some people and not others? Or should I respect everyone equally and fairly? Find one thing on my comment on the Zephram RfC or arbcom case against Zephram that was "disrespectful" or dishonest. Tell me how putting a verbatim quote by a notable source with a URL to verify is an action that "respectfully" deserves that I be RfC'ed for it.

FuelWagon: What are you saying? Do you want Wikipedia to have a perfect culture? If so, find perfect people. Do you want to change the culture? If so, be constructive.


 * find perfect people? When have I ever, ever used the word "perfect"? This is your shtick. Not mine. What I call integrity, you call respect. If someone makes a false accusation, I think respect or integrity would require that the accuser retract and apologize. I think respect would require that both sides of a dispute get reported, get commented on, get looked at honestly. Yet, people have specifically stated that they won't look at SlimVirgin's behaviour on the Bensaccoutn RfC. Is that respect or is it rule by mob?

You write: "But by all means, focus on the process and ignore the problem and the problem users." What are you saying is the problem? Who are the problem users? Are you a problem user? Please define the problem. I do want the process to be improved. I would be even more interested in solving a problem, if we can identify it, other than that FuelWagon is angry. Robert McClenon 02:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Unbelievable. "I would be even more interested in solving a problem, if we can identify it," You know Robert, I actually tried to "solve a problem" I had with Ed by using the process. It failed at every stage. EVERY STAGE. RfC's are nothing but mob rule. Arbcom pardoned Ed. and Mediation resulted in a "No Show" by Ed. "other than that FuelWagon is angry" Nice. So, you're saying that there have been no unfair actions against me? That I have nothing to resolve but my "anger"?


 * Ed blocked me a second time without cause. He has so far refused to explain specifically why he blocked me other than to say "personal remarks". When I asked him, he refused to point out what specific remarks were "personal". When I went to arbcom, they refused to actually find any facts or make any determiniation of his behaviour. When I tried mediation, Ed simply ignored the entire process. He signed up for it, but he refused to participate in any way.


 * In her summary of dispute on this RfC, SlimVirgin makes so many false accusations against me that I have to break it down into a sentence by sentence rebuttal, and even some statements within a sentence. She accuses me of stalking her to the "words to avoid" page. I point out in my rebuttal, that she followed me. Yet she never removed her proven false accusation. She accuses me of turning wikipedia into a battleground, yet absolutely no one has the honesty to look at her behaviour turning the Bensaccoutn RfC into a battleground. Everyone dodges the question. The whole RfC thing started specifically because I put a comment on SlimVIrgin's RfC against Zephram Stark that supported Zephram, and I immediately get harrassed for it, and am told the rfc is closed and has moved to arbitration. When I submit evidence to the Zephram/Terrorism arbcom case, the people fighting against Zephram create a retribution RfC against me. My entire actions on the Terrorism article was to insert a verbatim quote from a notable source with a URL to verify. My editing actions were completely within policy, and were actually fixing a POV problem with the article. This RfC wasn't started because of any of my behaviour on the Terrorism article, it was created as retribution by the editors who RfC'ed Zephram because I didn't go along with their RfC. But no one has the guts to say that. No one has the honesty to look at this and see how it all started because someone didn't like my comment on the Zephram rfc. Not that my comment wasn't honest, no one ever disputed that what I reported was inaccurate or misleading, no one disputed my facts, no one disputes that my verbatim quote from a notable source with a URL to verify is a violation of policy. They just didn't like the fact that I wasn't part of their mob violence against Zephram. This RfC was started as retribution, and then SlimVirgin hijacked it to turn it into her own personal battle against me. The same battle she was waging on the Bensaccoutn RfC but that no one has the guts or honesty to admit. You want to call her crusade against me on the Bensaccoutn RfC a "lapse of perfection"? Give me a break. FuelWagon 15:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No, seriously. Please.  You give the rest of us a break.  It's about time.  And please don't start stalking me as well.  Seriously.  We both know you have better ways of spending your ample time and considerable intellect.  Tom e r TALK  11:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

past wrongs
While we're on the subject of "past wrongs", the reason this entire RfC was started in the first place was because I didn't go along with the mob attempting to roast Zephram. Immediately after I posted comments Requests_for_comment/Zephram_Stark, Carbonite suggests that he will Rfc me. Immediately after I post evidence Requests_for_arbitration/Zephram_Stark/Evidence, Carbonite creates this RfC. By all means, look at the outside comment and the evidence I submitted and tell me what terrible, dishonest, or (to use Robert's word) disrespectful thing I said there. There are none. This RfC started as simple retribution and expanded into SlimVirgin dumping everything I had ever done wrong on wikipedia (she mentions a 3RR violation from six months ago) and she makes up a bunch of stuff too. FuelWagon 20:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

What the community wants
FuelWagon, you are one of the smartest contributors ever to arrive at Wikipedia, but your incivility is maddening, and it's got to stop.

Nobody wants to ban you. Be logical about this. If we wanted to ban you, the ban would have taken effect weeks ago. I've got enough pull around here -- yes, even after stepping down from bureacrat after making a terrible mistake -- to get you banned, if that's what I wanted. But I did not try to do that, because that is not what this community is about.


 * Ed: I don't know whether you have the pull to get FuelWagon banned if you wanted him banned.  I hope that that is not true, because I hope that banning of users is done judicially by the ArbCom on review of the evidence.  Whether or not you do, by saying that, you are contributing to the idea that FuelWagon is pursuing that there is a cabal.  I think that you used poor judgment just now in making that comment.  Robert McClenon 23:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * If you mean that you could have written an RfAr weeks ago, and that the ArbCom would probably have accepted it, I agree. Robert McClenon 23:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I think "I've got enough pull around here" says it all, Robert. It's staring you in the face and you chose not to see it. FuelWagon 02:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

What the community wants is for you to work congenially with your fellow editors. Please contribute your keen insights in a felicitous fashion. Preserve harmony. Do not be abrasive.

And one more thing: when someone throws you an olive branch, recognize it. Uncle Ed 15:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Other than that, I agree with you, and I think that the consensus of the community (although not the entire community, which is never unanimous) agrees with you. Robert McClenon 23:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * An olive branch? When in the world did anyone throw me an olive branch? Never has that happened here on wikipedia. Perhaps you forget that it was I who withdrew my own certification of the RfC against SlimVirgin? No? Oh well, in any case, that should have counted as an olive branch. But a month later, SlimVirgin was announcing that no "credible" editor had ever endorsed that RfC against her. Did Slim recognize it? The more I tried to keep the truth about the RfC, the more she attacked me. Was El_C's combat negotiations an "olive branch"? I'm sorry if I didn't see it as such, I was too busy getting threatened. How about SlimVirgin's sudden interest in the Bensacount RfC? Yeah, that was purely a sign of peace going on. And because I put a verbatim quote from a notable source and a URL to verify it on the Terrorism article, I get attacked by SlimVirgin, Jayjg, Carbonite, et al for being a POV pusher. When I report their behaviour on a Terrorism rfc they had started against Zephram that blamed Zephram for everything wrong with the article, for that I got the retribution RfC you are reading now. Yeah, sure, there's a whole grove of olive trees going on right here in wikipedia. Ed, your dedicated interest in my attempts to mediate with you were certainly inspiring, too. FuelWagon 02:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Request for explanation by Ed Poor
I would appreciate an explanation by Ed Poor as to what he means by "having enough pull". FuelWagon: If you are correct in inferring that Wikipedia is run by a cabal, and that Ed meant what he said literally, then what do you gain by staying here and being loud? Ed: What did you mean? Robert McClenon 00:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * "what do you gain by staying here and being loud?" Are you suggesting I should just go quietly? FuelWagon 16:11, 12 November 2005 (UTC)