User talk:FuelWagon/051020
This is from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/FuelWagon 2 SlimVirgin posted the following "description of dispute". Because it is so misleading, I decided to break it down into individual misrepresentations. Her text is to the far left hand margin. My replies are indented.
Description of the dispute by SlimVirgin
[edit]FuelWagon has been engaged since July in a campaign of harassment against me,
- An RfC, which I withdrew, evidence submitted to arbcom, and some articles that we had content disputes over.
which recently extended to wikistalking.
- Ask SlimVirgin about stalking/harrassing me on the Bensaccount RfC, six weeks ago.
He has posted probably several hundred edits about me on various talk pages, around 100 on July 12-13 alone, some of which he keeps here.
- Actually, Ed Poor put it there, and I've left it there since. I had been working on a list of issues with her edit on the Terri Schiavo article, and was preparing evidence for an RfC when Ed Poor blocked me again for personal remarks, and moved my work to the directory you point to. I've asked Ed to point out what specific remarks got me blocked, but he has not yet replied. I figured I should keep it around in case he wants to answer my question.
The background in brief: I first encountered him in June when an editor complained about FW's behavior at Nuclear option (filibuster), where he was reverting a lot and being aggressive on the talk page; as a result of the complaint, I blocked him for 3RR. [1]
- I was trying to insert a quote from Al Gore. A vandal kept trying to delete it. For quoting Al Gore, SlimVirgin called me a partisan editor.
I received another complaint about him in July,
- From GordonWatts, who was pushing quite a bit of POV on the article at the time.
where he and three new editors
- "new"? I'd been working on the article since April. Two others had been working on it for a month or so apiece. One was a neuroscientist, whose expertise on Terri Schiavo's neurological condition was extremely helpful.
had allegedly taken ownership of Terri Schiavo.
- As accused by GordonWatts, who at the time, was pushing POV.
I did a copy edit of the article,
which FW reverted, accompanied by personal attacks, in which he called me a "f**%!ng *$$s0le," a "f**%!ng jerk," "you arrogant cuss," a "jerkoff," and an "arrogant arse." [11] [12] Ed Poor subsequently blocked him for the attacks. Ann Heneghan has written an accurate account of the dispute here [13] if anyone wants more detail. This has led FW to start attacking Ann too.
- I was cleaning up my posts when Ed blocked me. I accepted teh block without protest. I served my time.
Since then, FW has done almost nothing but attack Ed Poor and me.
- attempt to use the dispute resolution process, and disagree on the content of some articles that we both worked on.
He filed an RfC on me in July,
- certified by myself and Duckecho, endorsed by 3 others.
which was deleted because he couldn't show prior attempts at dispute resolution, but before deletion, it was clear it had gone firmly against him, with around 20 editors signing opposing views within 48 hours. (He claims now it was deleted because he kindly withdrew his certification, but that simply isn't true: he withdrew certification when he was told it was going to be deleted.)
- I withdrew certification on teh Bensaccount RfC a month later because Bensaccount had stopped editing wikipedia for a week after the RfC had been filed, and I wanted to give him a clean slate. Same with SlimVirgin.
Despite this, he continues to bring up the Terri Schiavo copy edit, Ed's block, and the RfC at every available opportunity. He has restored the deleted RfC and its talk page to subpages here and here and he maintains an "attack" page about me here.
- I withdrew certification, the RfC was deleted. a month later, SlimVirgin and I are in dispute on the RfC instruction page and she tells me I'm only making the edit "because of the RfC I filed" and that no one "credible" supported it. I upload a copy of the deleted RfC. I tell her that Neuroscientist was pretty credible. She questioned whether he was a neurologist. She asks her friend Maurreen if its acceptable to keep a deleted RfC. Maurreen tells her that its acceptable.
El C, Ann Heneghan, Willmcw, Marskell, FeloniousMonk, and Viriditas have tried to help resolve the dispute. FW's long, aggressive responses to some of them begin here and continue to almost the end of the page.
- SlimVirgin threatened me with arbcom on Sept 30 [14], and El_C shows up on my talk page four days later with a post that basically says "justify why you have these subdirectories or I'll have them deleted" [15]. El_C also had thte same combative atttiude on the RfC against SlimVirgin. It was in this mix that several others attempted to gang up with El_C and "resolve" this. It is only a long response because so many people decided to jump in, and it was no more aggressive than El_C's initial aggressiveness.
The upshot was that he posted a list of 12 things that I must do before he will leave me alone, [16] which involve me posting confessions of my wrong-doing on various talk pages. Willmcw said the list reminded him of "what North Korean captors required their U.S. P.O.W.s to do." [17]
- The combat negotiator, El_C asked me what would be my "ideal" resolution. I made the mistake of answering him honestly. Note ideal and reality are quite a ways apart. However, relating to them as "reality" sure makes it easier to dismiss as a North Korean captor. Note to self: when someone asks what would be your "ideal" result, remember that it's a trap.
He has also started wikistalking me,
- Ask SlimVirgin what she calls her involvement on teh Bensaccount RfC back in August. She had no involvement in the RfC for a week, she had no involvement in the articles in question, she had no involvement in the dispute in any way. But an hour after she posts to my talk page that she is "all out of good faith" [18], she appears on teh Bensaccount RfC, trying to turn it into evidence of "another inappropriate RfC" [19]
appearing on pages he has never edited before, but which I have just edited, reverting me, and accusing me of bad-faith editing on the talk pages. These are just a few examples: on September 16, after I edited Wikipedia:Words to avoid, [20] he arrived there for the first time and reverted me. [21] On September 26 after I edited Refusal to serve in the Israeli military, [22] he arrived there for the first time and reverted me. [23] Also on September 26, I edited Israel, [24] and a few hours later he made an edit there for the first time. [25] On September 30, I edited Historical persecution by Jews, [26] and he arrived there for the first time, reverted me within six minutes of my edit, [27] and began attacking me on the talk page. I then edited Historical persecution by Christians [28] and he arrived there for the first time within eight minutes to revert me, [29] again attacking me on the talk page. In none of the articles he followed me to did he make a substantive edit, or a comment on the talk page about content. His comments were entirely about me.
- This started on the "words to avoid article", I cited the "words to avoid" article explaining why one of SlimVirgin's edit was biased [30], three days later, she deleted that entire entry from the "words to avoid" article [31]. So, she "arrived" there first, but I had cited the piece that she had just deleted. She was deleting policy that was critical of her editing, so I reverted the Words to avoid article. The words to avoid article then gets involved in a debate about adding "conspiracy theory", someone mentions "the protocols of the elders of zion" and Israel knowing about 9-11 and warning Jewish people who worked in teh WTC, and I started looking for conspiracy theory articles. That's how I got to "Refusal to serve in israeli army" and then "historical persecution by Jews". The Refusal to serve article, I insert a quote and a URL. The historical persecution by Jews article, SlimVirgin deletes the section critical of Israel saying that the "historical persecution by Islam" doesn't have a conemporary section. But it turns out that the "historical persecution by Christians" article did. I revert both contemporary sections.
In parallel to his behavior towards me, FW has engaged in a similar campaign against Ed Poor over the same issue. He went after Ed during Ed's RfAr, [32] also posting attacks on the talk page.
- I submitted evidence to arbitration. There are no attacks.
When the case closed, he continued to attack Ed starting here until the end of the page, asking that the RfAr be re-opened, because in FW's view, Ed hadn't been punished enough.
- "because ed hadn't been punished enough"? No, because Arbcom accepted Ed's resignation as punishment but never said as punishment for what. I asked for them to make a finding of fact like any other case. Several other editors agreed Ed Poor's case was handled rather oddly.
Because no one supported him, on September 22, he posted his complaints about Ed on Jimbo's talk page [33] and [34] and receiving no response, posted again to Jimbo on September 24, appealing the arbcom's ruling in Ed's case. [35]
- Because Fred Bauder said arbcom rejected the request to reopen the case and that it may be appealed to Jimmy Wales, with an edit summary "How to appeal" [36].
So far as I know, he received no response to that either. On September 25, he starting trying to have a black mark left on Ed's mediation record, and between then and October 16, he again posted several distorted accounts of the story to the Mediation Committee's talk page here. And in fact, as of October 18, he's still doing it [37] though it's not even clear what he wants. Redwolf has asked him: "Would you like me to stamp a warning on Ed's face?" [38]
- I asked the mediation committee if there is any process for handling a mediator who doesn't mediate. Apparently there is not. Ed Poor and I are now in one-on-one mediation.
It's difficult to convey the scale of FW's aggressive behavior, but it has reached the point of being worrying because of the obsessive nature of it, and because he seems to have no insight into how damaging it is, to himself and others. I've tried ignoring his comments and responding to them, ignoring his reverts, and reverting them, I sent him two friendly e-mails in August in an effort to appeal to him, and in September told him I was considering an RfAr, [39] but none of it has made any difference. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- My RfC against her had been deleted for a month in august when she started using it against me saying no one "credible" supported it. To keep a record of the truth, I uploaded a copy of the RfC to my user space. She tried to find a way to say it was against policy. when that failed, she sent the emails. SlimVirgin has not once admitted to a single contribution to this dispute. It is all my fault. Even after a Neuroscientist pointed out a 5,000 word explanation of problems with her edit, she refused to admit an error on her part and accused us of "owning" the article, POV pushing, etc. The RfC was filed against her while the dispute was still going and her response was to call her changes a "copyedit" a "minor edit" and that "All the objections were minor". When we had a dispute a month later, she blamed it all on me saying it was "because of the RfC you filed" and that no one "credible" supported it. When she showed up on the Bensaccount RfC the same day she told me she's "all out of good faith", she blames it all on me by saying "it looks like another inappropriate RfC" by me. She has not once acknowledged any contribution to this dispute since its beginning, and continues to not only blame me, but to rewrite history to cast me as evil incarnate.
SlimVirgin tells half the story. She reports my actions out of context with her actions. She also reports her interpretations of my actions as if they were fact. The Words to Avoid example clearly shows she is either making mistakes in her reporting or is misrepresenting the true sequence of events. She also fails to mention her own actions that might reflect poorly on her. She constantly refers to her edit as a "copyedit" despite a 5,000 word critique from an actual neuroscientist. She refers to my preparation for an RfC (100 hundred edits on July 12) as if it were against policy to RfC someone (I've since learned to use an offline editor and then cut and paste teh text). She fails to mention that teh RfC had been deleted for a month before she decided to use it against me, and that I uploaded it in response to her attempts to rewrite history. She fails to mention that she followed me onto teh Bennsaccount RfC for no other reason than to find something to use against me.