![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I removed the following from the article because, while true, I think it implies that it's necessary to be an administrator to be a mediator, and that mediation has some connection to sysop duties or powers:
-- BCorr| Брайен 12:12, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)
Continuing the discussion at the message board [1], Brian and I are willing to be the next joint chairs of the committee. Are all other committee members OK with this? We have also talked about when we should rotate again. It seems sensible to have some cross over, so perhaps we should have a term of four months with one chair rotating out every two months? If this seems like a quick turn over for such a small group then perhaps six and three would be better. What do you think? -- sannse (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
Dear Mediation committee,
I have requested mediation regarding a dispute that involves myself, RK, and Zero. Those two have agreed to engage in mediation. The dispute is listed at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Where do we go from here? Thank you. DanKeshet 19:50, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay - there is a reply at "Requests for mediation" -- sannse (talk) 21:27, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, how long do these MC votes go on for? A week? Ambivalenthysteria 06:56, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure how often everyone is looking at the bulletin board - it's been very quiet there. So this is just to let all mediators know that there is a new post there. If you could all call in that would be great -- sannse (talk) 18:54, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Does it make sense to have User:Ed Poor as a mediator when he holds opinions like "all terrorists are Islamic"? - Xed 21:33, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I am sitting on my hands awaiting the appointment of a mediator regarding this particular article. I believe FT2 will likely wish to be included in this mediation at this point. In the meantime, is it possible to revert this article and protect it? Again? - Amgine 22:24, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Has apparently vanished. I shouldn't be surprised; I haven't looked in there for many months. However, I am currently encountering a problem which I would like to discuss in a confidential location. Any sugestions? -- llywrch 05:15, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It seems that Habbit's nomination is doomed, and that there's no major objections to blankfaze and Improv's nominations. Would anyone mind if I archived the nominations and added the other two to the committee list? It's probably a bit soon for several of the others, as they've only had a couple of votes. Ambi 00:04, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
A good point was raised on the mailing lists that the current nominations have stalled, and it is harming the mediation process. So far all messages have been in favour of getting things started again, and I am strongly in support of that. As a kick-start measure I plan to promote all those with strong suppport in 24 hours or so, and we can deal with any reprecussions (I don't expect many) later. Pcb21| Pete 11:15, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Note that neither ShaneKing nor Whosyourjudas have edited Wikipedia for about three weeks now, so it's uncertain what good promoting them would do at this point. -- Michael Snow 22:32, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Moved to Wikipedia talk:Mediation meeting.
Due to recent arbitration elections and Brian's ( Bcorr's) outside activities and many new candidates for mediation committee, I suggest that we hold new elections for the chair.
Jwrosenzweig has suggested he would be interested. I personally support very much him as a chair. Are there other candidates? Is there opposition to his nomination?
Please comment (let's avoid falling into full bureaucratic heaviness here). Thanks. SweetLittleFluffyThing 12:08, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Due to several supports on ml and here, and no opposition anywhere, I made Jwro the chair. SweetLittleFluffyThing
Are there any of these? I ask because I would be interested in something like mediation. I've always liked solving disputes between people, and this seems like something I could actually help with on wikipedia. However, I am admittedly new, unknown to put it clearer. Are there any specific requirements to be a Mediatior? All responses, positive and negative thanked, Pess 01:20, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
There's a new proposal related to mediation at Wikipedia:Mediation (2005). Angela . 02:34, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
There have been some recent comments in Arbitration regarding the lack of any meaningful mediation going on and that cases that do go to mediation seem to be abandoned or loiter there without any attention. After discussion with a lot of people it appeared to me that this was the time for a new proposal on overhauling mediation.
Inter did a good part of the initial work on this but I added the informal mediation portion which I think is a key part of the proposal. I have the proposal up and active but it is very much under construction. Comments are encouraged!!
You can view the proposal at Wikipedia:Mediation (2005). -- Wgfinley 02:35, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
For people who can stomach things like WP:SR and WP:TRI, there's also a simplified version actually complete and fully operational right now at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal, in case you need rapid assistence, big or small, but especially in small matters before they actually blow up.
This ad-hoc system was already functional for quite a while already. Adding a page to the wiki to provide people access to it was a fairly trivial act. :-)
Currently the cabal page will do fine as a stopgap measure, but it seems robust enough that it might be called on to serve in the General Mediation role as per Wgfinley's proposal above. After a good shakedown of course.
People are called on to Be Bold and help out! :-)
Kim Bruning 11:33, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Any reason not to appoint JCarriker ( talk · contribs) to the committee? The vote stands 4-0 in favor. Uncle Ed 00:14, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Coolcat has been listed here since the start of April with no support, so I've removed him. WGFinley hasn't edited, other than a note on his user page to say he's on WikiBreak, for almost two months, so it doesn't make much sense to appoint him at this time. I've removed the nomination, but he is free to replace it when or if he ever returns. The previous votes can be found in the page history. Angela . 04:56, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
As you've probably been aware, there have lately been many dispute resolution systems on Wikipedia. Three of those (TINMC, Wikimediation and Mediation2005) have the same aims and goals as WP:RFM. I believe these overlapping processes to be confusing, and would prefer if the several committees joined forces and created one centralized process. Since this one is the most active of the four, I've redirected TINMC and Wikimed here, so that users seeking mediation will end up here. The text at Wikipedia:Mediation (2005) strikes me as an inactive proposal and potentially instruction creep; I've flagged it as historical for now, but please change that if it is actually in use by the people here. R adiant _>|< 10:05, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
The Mediation 2005 proposal was an attempt to revive the MedCom, but it instead led to the TINMC. Which is fine by me as I have no respect for the revived MedCom. The TINMC have done quite alot of good things, but I do see the point in merging instances. So if the MedCom wishes to incoporate the different instances into one, the MedCom, I will not oppose, despite personal opposition. Inter\ Echo 01:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi! I'd like to say that, if someone didn't notice, there's a whole pile of mediation requests without being replied in WP:RFM. You surely would understand that we AMA are very interested in having a really working MedCom. I don't expect you to accept all cases, but, at least, to respond the posts! -- Neigel von Teighen 17:41, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Does the mediation committee self regulate its mediators?
Ed Poor was mediating the Terri Schiavo starting June 17. About a month later, an admin and fellow friend of his, SlimVirgin, performed a massive edit of the article. Several editors on the article said such an edit contained numerous factual errors and NPOV problems, was inappropriate for an article marked "controversial" and "in mediation", and that an admin should have known better.
Ed Poor's actions around this dispute showed him failing to act as mediator and taking SlimVirgin's side in the dispute to the point of warning editors who criticized SlimVirgin, blocking editors for preparing an RfC against SlimVirgin, and attacking editors working on the article he was supposed to be mediating.
I don't know how the mediation committee regulates its mediators or how it handles when a mediator fails to do their job in a blatant way. The specifics are listed below:
Ed Poor warned User:Neuroscientist about possibly violating NPA [2] when Neuroscientist had done nothing but criticize the neurological and medical accuracy of SlimVirgin's edit [3].
I began preparing an RfC against SlimVirgin on my talk page [4]. SlimVirgin complained to Ed about it, and they discussed it. Ed's last comment was
He then blocks me for "NPA violations" and moves my RfC stuff to a /block subdirectory. [6] There are no NPA violations on my talk page. The entire contents are visible here [7]. I asked Ed what specific remarks got me blocked [8]. Ed ignores the question [9].
I file an RfC against SlimVirgin. Ed attacks it as a "sneaky way of "building a case"", gaming the system, hypocritical bullying, and suggests those filing it withdraw the RFC. [10]
Ed then attacks me personally, "I happen to think you're an asshole and a shit head, and that you're fucking everything up, you stupd, time-wasting bully!!! (This is inserted as an example of a forbidden comment, go ahead and complain about me if you want, but I was illustrating a point." [11]
Ed's actions while mediator reflect someone who had engaged in the dispute, taking SlimVirgin's side to the point of handing out undeserved warnings, undeserved blocks, and attacking editors on the article.
Is there some way the mediation committee would address this behaviour? FuelWagon 18:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Does the mediation committee have any way to deal with a mediator who fails to do his job? Does the mediation committee care if a mediator abuses his position? FuelWagon 15:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
I think this dispute may need to be resolved confidentially. Ann has unresolved disputes with me about other issues and is bringing it to my dispute with Ed Poor. She has brought up the same unrelated issues on my RfC against SlimVirgin, on my evidence against Ed Poor submitted to arbcom, and more recently on my talk page, before bringing her dispute here. She appears to have no intention of resolving her dispute with me, but rather simply wishes to bring up her dispute as an attempt to sidetrack my dispute with Ed Poor. At the very least, my dispute with Ed needs some sort of mediation or formal process so that other disputes aren't brought into the mix. I don't know if there is some formal process for dealing with a mediator's behaviour, or how this would get handled. Some direction would be appreciated. FuelWagon 16:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I was a party to the mediation, and a witness to the events that led to FuelWagon's block. I have posted a few clarifications to other pages, and I hope that this can be my last post on this subject until my exams are over (or better still, for ever). For the last few months, FuelWagon has been repeatedly trying to get some action taken against Ed Poor. The events of last July were extremely unpleasant, and it would be wonderful if FuelWagon would allow everyone to forget about them and to move on. But if he is determined to keep posting harmful messages about Ed Poor and SlimVirgin to administrators, to committees, and even to Jimbo, I think it is necessary to respond, though I do so with regret. Ann Heneghan (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
FuelWagon had been extremely abusive and obscene on the Terri Schiavo talk page and related pages for several months. ( [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]) For some reason, no action was ever taken against him. Because of the hostility, etc., Ed Poor was asked to come and mediate. He did so properly, and courteously. He did not take sides on the issue of Terri Schiavo. He did say a few times that he was not happy with the behaviour of the contributors. At one stage, he rolled the page back to some (randomly-chosen, I believe) point before an edit war had started, and locked it, telling us to sort out our differences on the talk page. He unlocked it a few days later. Ann Heneghan (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
SlimVirgin came to the Terri Schiavo article as a newcomer and made some edits which FuelWagon didn't like. He reverted them, and in the course of their disagreement, he called her a f**%!ng *$$s0le, a f**%!ng jerk, [28], an arrogant cuss, an arrogant arse [29] etc. SlimVirgin withdrew from editing the article [30] Ed blocked FuelWagon. FuelWagon then began to fill his talk page with remarks about how being an administrator meant never having to admit you were wrong. He was uploading these remarks every few minutes. Ed asked him to use the time productively to show how he intended to help Wikipedia. FuelWagon carried on uploading criticisms of SlimVirgin and Ed. When he had uploaded about a hundred times, Ed locked the talk page, and moved everything to a subdirectory. Ann Heneghan (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Ed did, indeed, make the "asshole and shithead" attack, but the context shows clearly that he was using this language to give FuelWagon an example of the kind of remarks we shouldn't make, and which FuelWagon had been making for months without being blocked. Ann Heneghan (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
FuelWagon claims that Ed "attacked" people who "criticized" SlimVirgin. I think it would be fairer to say that he once attacked one person who had repeatedly attacked (not just criticized) SlimVirgin (and many other editors). One could also argue that Ed criticized one person who had criticized SlimVirgin. That does not seem to be a crime. I believe it is misleading to say that all Neuroscientist had done was to give a neurological analysis of SlimVirgin's edit. Here are some extracts from his post:
I would like to make it clear, in case anyone is misled by FuelWagon's posts, that Ed did not "attack" Neuroscientist. Nor did he caution him against "Personal Attacks". He asked him, quite politely, to avoid "Personal Remarks", and to try not to hurt other editors' feelings. [32]
The mediation did stop after these events, but the atmosphere at the Terri Schiavo talk page became much better, so I don't see that Ed "failed". Ann Heneghan (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I am not trying to have any action taken against FuelWagon, but since he keeps making accusations against Ed Poor (and also against SlimVirgin), I feel that it is necessary that his audience should be given the other side. I wish he didn't keep forcing me to do this. I would so much rather just edit the encyclopaedia. Ann Heneghan (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
This is no longer even about mediation. Go file an RfC, but you'll need some certification. R e dwolf24 ( talk— How's my driving?) 22:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
There are at least four things that relate directly to Ed Poor's behaviour while he was mediating Terri Schiaov. (1) Ed Poor's second block against me while I was creating an RfC against SlimVirgin. He says there were NPA violations, but has refused to point out anything specific. He moved everythign to a /block directory. (2) Ed Poor's warning to Neuroscientist for possibly violating NPA when Neuroscientist had criticized the content of SlimVirgin's edit. (3) Ed Poor's attack of the RfC against SlimVirgin (4) Ed Poor's personal attack against me. All this occurred while Ed Poor was mediation Terri Schiavo. All of this occurred on the Terri Schiaov page or related pages. Ann is basically arguing that if I bring these issues up against Ed, she'll try to bring up my past offences that she wasn't even involved with and no admin found cause to block me for. Can you comment on the request to look at Ed Poor's behaviour as mediator on the Terri Schiavo article? This is separate from Ann's attempt to threaten me into silence using unrelated issues. Ed's block against me had nothing to do with any past NPA violations and had everything to do with the fact that I was working on an RfC against his friend. So, if a mediator doesn't mediate, can teh mediation committee address it somehow? FuelWagon 22:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I removed the following from the article because, while true, I think it implies that it's necessary to be an administrator to be a mediator, and that mediation has some connection to sysop duties or powers:
-- BCorr| Брайен 12:12, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)
Continuing the discussion at the message board [1], Brian and I are willing to be the next joint chairs of the committee. Are all other committee members OK with this? We have also talked about when we should rotate again. It seems sensible to have some cross over, so perhaps we should have a term of four months with one chair rotating out every two months? If this seems like a quick turn over for such a small group then perhaps six and three would be better. What do you think? -- sannse (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
Dear Mediation committee,
I have requested mediation regarding a dispute that involves myself, RK, and Zero. Those two have agreed to engage in mediation. The dispute is listed at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Where do we go from here? Thank you. DanKeshet 19:50, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay - there is a reply at "Requests for mediation" -- sannse (talk) 21:27, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, how long do these MC votes go on for? A week? Ambivalenthysteria 06:56, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure how often everyone is looking at the bulletin board - it's been very quiet there. So this is just to let all mediators know that there is a new post there. If you could all call in that would be great -- sannse (talk) 18:54, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Does it make sense to have User:Ed Poor as a mediator when he holds opinions like "all terrorists are Islamic"? - Xed 21:33, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I am sitting on my hands awaiting the appointment of a mediator regarding this particular article. I believe FT2 will likely wish to be included in this mediation at this point. In the meantime, is it possible to revert this article and protect it? Again? - Amgine 22:24, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Has apparently vanished. I shouldn't be surprised; I haven't looked in there for many months. However, I am currently encountering a problem which I would like to discuss in a confidential location. Any sugestions? -- llywrch 05:15, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It seems that Habbit's nomination is doomed, and that there's no major objections to blankfaze and Improv's nominations. Would anyone mind if I archived the nominations and added the other two to the committee list? It's probably a bit soon for several of the others, as they've only had a couple of votes. Ambi 00:04, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
A good point was raised on the mailing lists that the current nominations have stalled, and it is harming the mediation process. So far all messages have been in favour of getting things started again, and I am strongly in support of that. As a kick-start measure I plan to promote all those with strong suppport in 24 hours or so, and we can deal with any reprecussions (I don't expect many) later. Pcb21| Pete 11:15, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Note that neither ShaneKing nor Whosyourjudas have edited Wikipedia for about three weeks now, so it's uncertain what good promoting them would do at this point. -- Michael Snow 22:32, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Moved to Wikipedia talk:Mediation meeting.
Due to recent arbitration elections and Brian's ( Bcorr's) outside activities and many new candidates for mediation committee, I suggest that we hold new elections for the chair.
Jwrosenzweig has suggested he would be interested. I personally support very much him as a chair. Are there other candidates? Is there opposition to his nomination?
Please comment (let's avoid falling into full bureaucratic heaviness here). Thanks. SweetLittleFluffyThing 12:08, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Due to several supports on ml and here, and no opposition anywhere, I made Jwro the chair. SweetLittleFluffyThing
Are there any of these? I ask because I would be interested in something like mediation. I've always liked solving disputes between people, and this seems like something I could actually help with on wikipedia. However, I am admittedly new, unknown to put it clearer. Are there any specific requirements to be a Mediatior? All responses, positive and negative thanked, Pess 01:20, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
There's a new proposal related to mediation at Wikipedia:Mediation (2005). Angela . 02:34, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
There have been some recent comments in Arbitration regarding the lack of any meaningful mediation going on and that cases that do go to mediation seem to be abandoned or loiter there without any attention. After discussion with a lot of people it appeared to me that this was the time for a new proposal on overhauling mediation.
Inter did a good part of the initial work on this but I added the informal mediation portion which I think is a key part of the proposal. I have the proposal up and active but it is very much under construction. Comments are encouraged!!
You can view the proposal at Wikipedia:Mediation (2005). -- Wgfinley 02:35, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
For people who can stomach things like WP:SR and WP:TRI, there's also a simplified version actually complete and fully operational right now at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal, in case you need rapid assistence, big or small, but especially in small matters before they actually blow up.
This ad-hoc system was already functional for quite a while already. Adding a page to the wiki to provide people access to it was a fairly trivial act. :-)
Currently the cabal page will do fine as a stopgap measure, but it seems robust enough that it might be called on to serve in the General Mediation role as per Wgfinley's proposal above. After a good shakedown of course.
People are called on to Be Bold and help out! :-)
Kim Bruning 11:33, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Any reason not to appoint JCarriker ( talk · contribs) to the committee? The vote stands 4-0 in favor. Uncle Ed 00:14, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Coolcat has been listed here since the start of April with no support, so I've removed him. WGFinley hasn't edited, other than a note on his user page to say he's on WikiBreak, for almost two months, so it doesn't make much sense to appoint him at this time. I've removed the nomination, but he is free to replace it when or if he ever returns. The previous votes can be found in the page history. Angela . 04:56, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
As you've probably been aware, there have lately been many dispute resolution systems on Wikipedia. Three of those (TINMC, Wikimediation and Mediation2005) have the same aims and goals as WP:RFM. I believe these overlapping processes to be confusing, and would prefer if the several committees joined forces and created one centralized process. Since this one is the most active of the four, I've redirected TINMC and Wikimed here, so that users seeking mediation will end up here. The text at Wikipedia:Mediation (2005) strikes me as an inactive proposal and potentially instruction creep; I've flagged it as historical for now, but please change that if it is actually in use by the people here. R adiant _>|< 10:05, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
The Mediation 2005 proposal was an attempt to revive the MedCom, but it instead led to the TINMC. Which is fine by me as I have no respect for the revived MedCom. The TINMC have done quite alot of good things, but I do see the point in merging instances. So if the MedCom wishes to incoporate the different instances into one, the MedCom, I will not oppose, despite personal opposition. Inter\ Echo 01:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi! I'd like to say that, if someone didn't notice, there's a whole pile of mediation requests without being replied in WP:RFM. You surely would understand that we AMA are very interested in having a really working MedCom. I don't expect you to accept all cases, but, at least, to respond the posts! -- Neigel von Teighen 17:41, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Does the mediation committee self regulate its mediators?
Ed Poor was mediating the Terri Schiavo starting June 17. About a month later, an admin and fellow friend of his, SlimVirgin, performed a massive edit of the article. Several editors on the article said such an edit contained numerous factual errors and NPOV problems, was inappropriate for an article marked "controversial" and "in mediation", and that an admin should have known better.
Ed Poor's actions around this dispute showed him failing to act as mediator and taking SlimVirgin's side in the dispute to the point of warning editors who criticized SlimVirgin, blocking editors for preparing an RfC against SlimVirgin, and attacking editors working on the article he was supposed to be mediating.
I don't know how the mediation committee regulates its mediators or how it handles when a mediator fails to do their job in a blatant way. The specifics are listed below:
Ed Poor warned User:Neuroscientist about possibly violating NPA [2] when Neuroscientist had done nothing but criticize the neurological and medical accuracy of SlimVirgin's edit [3].
I began preparing an RfC against SlimVirgin on my talk page [4]. SlimVirgin complained to Ed about it, and they discussed it. Ed's last comment was
He then blocks me for "NPA violations" and moves my RfC stuff to a /block subdirectory. [6] There are no NPA violations on my talk page. The entire contents are visible here [7]. I asked Ed what specific remarks got me blocked [8]. Ed ignores the question [9].
I file an RfC against SlimVirgin. Ed attacks it as a "sneaky way of "building a case"", gaming the system, hypocritical bullying, and suggests those filing it withdraw the RFC. [10]
Ed then attacks me personally, "I happen to think you're an asshole and a shit head, and that you're fucking everything up, you stupd, time-wasting bully!!! (This is inserted as an example of a forbidden comment, go ahead and complain about me if you want, but I was illustrating a point." [11]
Ed's actions while mediator reflect someone who had engaged in the dispute, taking SlimVirgin's side to the point of handing out undeserved warnings, undeserved blocks, and attacking editors on the article.
Is there some way the mediation committee would address this behaviour? FuelWagon 18:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Does the mediation committee have any way to deal with a mediator who fails to do his job? Does the mediation committee care if a mediator abuses his position? FuelWagon 15:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
I think this dispute may need to be resolved confidentially. Ann has unresolved disputes with me about other issues and is bringing it to my dispute with Ed Poor. She has brought up the same unrelated issues on my RfC against SlimVirgin, on my evidence against Ed Poor submitted to arbcom, and more recently on my talk page, before bringing her dispute here. She appears to have no intention of resolving her dispute with me, but rather simply wishes to bring up her dispute as an attempt to sidetrack my dispute with Ed Poor. At the very least, my dispute with Ed needs some sort of mediation or formal process so that other disputes aren't brought into the mix. I don't know if there is some formal process for dealing with a mediator's behaviour, or how this would get handled. Some direction would be appreciated. FuelWagon 16:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I was a party to the mediation, and a witness to the events that led to FuelWagon's block. I have posted a few clarifications to other pages, and I hope that this can be my last post on this subject until my exams are over (or better still, for ever). For the last few months, FuelWagon has been repeatedly trying to get some action taken against Ed Poor. The events of last July were extremely unpleasant, and it would be wonderful if FuelWagon would allow everyone to forget about them and to move on. But if he is determined to keep posting harmful messages about Ed Poor and SlimVirgin to administrators, to committees, and even to Jimbo, I think it is necessary to respond, though I do so with regret. Ann Heneghan (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
FuelWagon had been extremely abusive and obscene on the Terri Schiavo talk page and related pages for several months. ( [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]) For some reason, no action was ever taken against him. Because of the hostility, etc., Ed Poor was asked to come and mediate. He did so properly, and courteously. He did not take sides on the issue of Terri Schiavo. He did say a few times that he was not happy with the behaviour of the contributors. At one stage, he rolled the page back to some (randomly-chosen, I believe) point before an edit war had started, and locked it, telling us to sort out our differences on the talk page. He unlocked it a few days later. Ann Heneghan (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
SlimVirgin came to the Terri Schiavo article as a newcomer and made some edits which FuelWagon didn't like. He reverted them, and in the course of their disagreement, he called her a f**%!ng *$$s0le, a f**%!ng jerk, [28], an arrogant cuss, an arrogant arse [29] etc. SlimVirgin withdrew from editing the article [30] Ed blocked FuelWagon. FuelWagon then began to fill his talk page with remarks about how being an administrator meant never having to admit you were wrong. He was uploading these remarks every few minutes. Ed asked him to use the time productively to show how he intended to help Wikipedia. FuelWagon carried on uploading criticisms of SlimVirgin and Ed. When he had uploaded about a hundred times, Ed locked the talk page, and moved everything to a subdirectory. Ann Heneghan (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Ed did, indeed, make the "asshole and shithead" attack, but the context shows clearly that he was using this language to give FuelWagon an example of the kind of remarks we shouldn't make, and which FuelWagon had been making for months without being blocked. Ann Heneghan (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
FuelWagon claims that Ed "attacked" people who "criticized" SlimVirgin. I think it would be fairer to say that he once attacked one person who had repeatedly attacked (not just criticized) SlimVirgin (and many other editors). One could also argue that Ed criticized one person who had criticized SlimVirgin. That does not seem to be a crime. I believe it is misleading to say that all Neuroscientist had done was to give a neurological analysis of SlimVirgin's edit. Here are some extracts from his post:
I would like to make it clear, in case anyone is misled by FuelWagon's posts, that Ed did not "attack" Neuroscientist. Nor did he caution him against "Personal Attacks". He asked him, quite politely, to avoid "Personal Remarks", and to try not to hurt other editors' feelings. [32]
The mediation did stop after these events, but the atmosphere at the Terri Schiavo talk page became much better, so I don't see that Ed "failed". Ann Heneghan (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I am not trying to have any action taken against FuelWagon, but since he keeps making accusations against Ed Poor (and also against SlimVirgin), I feel that it is necessary that his audience should be given the other side. I wish he didn't keep forcing me to do this. I would so much rather just edit the encyclopaedia. Ann Heneghan (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
This is no longer even about mediation. Go file an RfC, but you'll need some certification. R e dwolf24 ( talk— How's my driving?) 22:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
There are at least four things that relate directly to Ed Poor's behaviour while he was mediating Terri Schiaov. (1) Ed Poor's second block against me while I was creating an RfC against SlimVirgin. He says there were NPA violations, but has refused to point out anything specific. He moved everythign to a /block directory. (2) Ed Poor's warning to Neuroscientist for possibly violating NPA when Neuroscientist had criticized the content of SlimVirgin's edit. (3) Ed Poor's attack of the RfC against SlimVirgin (4) Ed Poor's personal attack against me. All this occurred while Ed Poor was mediation Terri Schiavo. All of this occurred on the Terri Schiaov page or related pages. Ann is basically arguing that if I bring these issues up against Ed, she'll try to bring up my past offences that she wasn't even involved with and no admin found cause to block me for. Can you comment on the request to look at Ed Poor's behaviour as mediator on the Terri Schiavo article? This is separate from Ann's attempt to threaten me into silence using unrelated issues. Ed's block against me had nothing to do with any past NPA violations and had everything to do with the fact that I was working on an RfC against his friend. So, if a mediator doesn't mediate, can teh mediation committee address it somehow? FuelWagon 22:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)