User talk:FuelWagon/block

SlimVirgin edit

SlimVirgin made a massive edit here.

SlimVirgin began editing at 15:11, inserted the "in use" tag at 16:42, removed the tag about 2 hours later, and then did her last edit at 18:38. Each individual diff is given here:

15:11 [1]

16:14 [2]

16:42 [3] "in use" tag

17:16 [4]

17:55 [5]

17:58 [6]

18:13 [7] "in use" tag removed

18:28 [8]

18:38 [9]

Duckecho and I both protest this massive edit on the talk page.

in this one diff, SlimVirgin simultaneously says There has been no massive edit while chastizing me you just reverted a couple of hours of copy editing.

I revert her edits.

After SlimVirgin's edit was reverted, SlimVirgin posted this If you feel I've introduced errors, please list them on talk, and I will go through them with you. But do list them. Don't make unsubstantiated claims.

The entire conversation on the Talk page is contained in this diff, starting from SlimVirgin's first post to my last post. Duckecho and myself both posted many, many problems we had with SlimVirgin's edit. She did not conceed on a single point.

The list of issues with SlimVirgin's edits include the following:

regarding this diff: The embedded note that USED to be there said:

<-- This paragraph is a direct quote from Dr. Bernat's testimony before the U.S. Senate in April 2005. Dr. Bernat's testimony was approved by the AAN Executive Committee. The two links provided document the testimony and the AAN approval.-->

SlimVirgin deleted this embedded note, and then inserts into the same paragraph, an embedded note questioning the accuracy of the quote.

<--Is this true? I seem to recall a case in England where a man woke up after a long time in PVS.--><--What levels of "prognostic certainty"?:

"During this time, the Schindlers allegedly encouraged Mr. Schiavo to get on with his life, and he introduced them to women he was dating."

inserting the word "allegedly" might be technically not untrue, it casts a whole lot of doubt without any context. This statement about dating was reported by a guardian ad litem to the court. It is the guy's job to get the facts right, not present one pov. I can't recall, but I'm prety sure the guardian ad litem did not use the word "allegedly" in his report. and as far as I know, the Schindlers never challenged that statement at the time, either. Though I believe they may have challenged it much (years?) later, when they were willing to challenge anything possible. There's a URL right by that line with an embedded note saying <-- quoting from page 11 of 38 of Wolfson report -->, in case anyone was wondering where the "alleged" statement came from.

The noise awoke Michael Schiavo, and he called 911 emergency services. <--I'm deleting "immediately" wherever I find it, because it's journalese and usually unverifiable, not because I think it wasn't immediate.-->"

Govorner Bush launched an investigation specifically into whether or not Michael called 911 "immediately" or whether there was foul play on his part. The DA recently dropped the investigation saying Michael's story was consistent and that the cause of Terri's collapse was probably cardiac arrest.

"(PVS), according to seven neurologists who examined her, or a minimally conscious state (MCS), according to one other."

The dissenting neurologist suggested "therapies" that the court dismissed as quackery. If this neurologist is included in the intro, then his diasnosis as MCS needs to include the fact that his therapies are questionable.

Before: In March 1994, guardian ad litem John H. Pecarek was appointed by the court to determine if there had been any abuse by Michael Schiavo. Pecarek's report found no evidence for any inappropriate actions, and indicated that Michael had been very attentive to his wife. <--Do not remove Pecarek's statement. It is quoted in several court orders and GAL reports, however Pecarek's report is unavailable on the internet. -->

SlimVirgin's Edit: In March 1994, guardian ad litem John H. Pecarek was appointed by the court to determine whether there had been any abuse by Mr. Schiavo. Pecarek's report found no evidence of any inappropriate acts, and indicated that Mr. Schiavo had been attentive to his wife. <--attentive? did he actually use this word?-->Mr. Schiavo remained his wife's guardian.<--Might it be worth explaining the sense in which he remained her guardian when there were court-appointed guardians?-->

an informative embedded note is deleted (the one saying the statement from Pecarek is QUOTED in several court orders but NOT available directly on the internet). And it is replaced by a question of accuracy "Did he really use that word?"

Before: Other neurologists — Drs. Jeffery M. Karp, James H. Barnhill, and Thomas H. Harrison — also examined Mrs. Schiavo over the years and made the same diagnosis; they also shared a very poor opinion about her chances for recovery.

SlimVirgin Version: Other neurologists — Dr. Jeffery M. Karp, Dr. James H. Barnhill, and Dr. Thomas H. Harrison — also examined Schiavo over the years and made the same diagnosis, which entailed a poor prognosis.

changed the emphasis on the second half of the sentence from "all shared the opinion of poor chance for recovery" to "Terri's chances for recovery were poor", but it's no longer clear that this is something that all the doctor's believed.

Neuroscientist posted a good, detailed response to some problems he had with SlimVirgin's edit here.

Despite this laundry list of problems, SlimVirgin has NOT ONCE conceeded that there is ANY PROBLEM with ANY PART of SlimVirgin's ENTIRE EDIT.

SlimVirgin accusations

SlimVirgin made a number of unsourced accusations on the talk page against me

SlimVirgin wrote "But I feel that FuelWagon and Duckecho are POV pushing too by insisting, for example, that no dissenting voice be heard in the intro."

Although I told SlimVirgin I never said any such nonsense, SlimVirgin has to date not apologized for such a gross distortion of facts. FuelWagon 21:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin wrote It appears that a small group of editors, currently consisting of User:FuelWagon and User:Duckecho have taken ownership of this page and won't allow others to edit without their consent. This isn't allowed.

This was in response to SlimVirgin's massive edit, discussed above with all its problems. I reverted SlimVirgin's edit because of all the problems listed above. And rather than admit it's a bad edit, SlimVirgin accuses me of "taking ownership" of the article. Fixing a bad edit === ownership???? FuelWagon 21:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No acknowledgement of this accusation being false, misplaced, or otherwise misdirected has been forthcoming. FuelWagon 21:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here, SlimVirgin accuses me of violating NPOV and "No Original Research".

Neither one of which were something I violated. I haven't acted neutral towards SlimVirgin, but I am not neutral towards any edit that makes the article worse. I have been completely NPOV towards the article. And I have no clue where the "No Original Research" violation came from. SlimVirgin seemed to be throwing hand grenades at this point.

No apology from SlimVirgin has been forthcoming. FuelWagon 22:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

another unsourced accusation from SlimVirgin is here: Thank you Fuelwagon, I know what PVS is. The prognosis is always poor, but at the beginning it's more hopeful than after months and years. You're arguing now for the sake of it.

However, the article contains a quote from the American Neurological Association which describes PVS: The prognosis for recovery of awareness in PVS has been quantified, and, in general, the prognosis depends on the cause and duration of PVS. It is worse after cardiac arrest and after a long duration of PVS. Patients remaining in PVS for greater than three months after cardiac arrest have only a slight chance of recovery of awareness. Recovery of awareness is unprecedented after two years. With head injury causing PVS, the times necessary to show these levels of prognostic certainty are one year and five years, respectively.

Therefore, depending on the patients condition, the chance of recovery could be slight or unprecedented, which means SlimVirgin's assertion that "the prognosis is always poor" is outright wrong.

I wasn't arguing for the sake of arguing, the edit made by SlimVirgin was wrong. The argument made by SlimVirgin to defend SlimVirgin's edit was a gross oversimplification.

No correction from SlimVirgin has been forthcoming.

After Neuroscientist posted his list of issues with SlimVirgin's edit, SlimVirgin replied to Neuroscientist with this.

SlimVirgin mentions that prior to coming to the article, SlimVirgin got the impression of bullying or system-gaming on Duckecho's part. So SlimVirgin came to the article with prejudice.

SlimVirgin accused Duckecho and myself of being "two editors taking control of edits".

SlimVirgin defended her edits explaining "I decided to try to improve the page, at least by getting the sources sorted out," however, she never explains why she deleted the embedded notes with source information, rather than rolling them into the article.

SlimVirgin once again accused that "FuelWagon and Duckecho began blind reverting". Apparently, the laundry list of problems listed above constitutes "blindness" on my part.

SlimVirgin then accuses Neuroscientist: "I don't appreciate the personal comments you've lobbed at me." No such comments were made by Neuroscientist.

I'm starting to get the distinct impression that we're dealing with a persecution complex. SlimVirgin accuses everyone of launching personal attacks against SlimVirgin if the editor does not wholeheartedly agree with SlimVirgin's edits.

Administrator tag team

20:18, 20 June 2005 :: Ed Poor announces on talk page that mediation page for Terri Schiavo article has been set up.

19:08, 11 July 2005 :: FuelWagon performs first revert of SlimVirgin's edit here.

Approximately 20 posts are made to Terri Schiavo talk page by SlimVirgin and FuelWagon here, culminating in Ed Poor making his first appearance on talk page since almost a month.

20:58, 11 July 2005 :: ''A stern warning from Uncle Ed here.

May I suggest that parties to the mediation avoid making any "reversions"? Moreover, an Edit Summary like "revert to last version by Stanselmdoc" doesn't really sum anything up.

Our mediation seems to have stalled. Your choices at this point are (1) fire me, or (2) return to the Mediation. I've never failed yet, but if you feel I have failed you, say so. Don't just sneak away.

A month of silence from Ed Poor, and 20 posts after SlimVirgin gets her edit reverted, Ed Poor shows up with a "stern warning" defending SlimVirgin.

18:06, 12 July 2005 :: SlimVirgin declares I'm therefore withdrawing from editing this article, I hope only temporarily, until I decide whether it's appropriate to approach this as an admin, or whether to pursue dispute resolution as an editor.

21:02 :: Ed Poor blocks me three hours after SlimVirgin withdraws, after Ed Poor himself had made only one appearance on teh talk page in a month.

21:29, 12 July 2005 :: FuelWagon makes an edit to talk page here (half an hour after being blocked)

21:41, 12 July 2005 :: SlimVirgin: Ed, regarding your block at 21:12 of FuelWagon (talk · contribs), he's continuing to edit with the same user account despite the block. See his contribs and particularly his comment here. [10] posted on Ed Poor's talk page

So, not only is SlimVirgin AWARE that I have been blocked less than half an hour after it occurred, but SlimVirgin is monitoring my edits after the block and mistakes my post to my own talk page as a problem with the block, and then reports the "problem" to Ed Poor.

05:59, 13 July 2005 :: Neuroscientist posts a rather long, detailed list of problems with SlimVirgin's edit here. It is over 5,000 words long and goes into a lot of the neurological-related issues surrounding the Terri Schiavo case.

15:46, July 13, 2005 : Ed Poor responds to Neuroscientist here:

There is a fine line between making personal remarks, and criticizing someone's contributions to Wikipedia. I hope you will read Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks. Please be careful not to hurt other editors' feelings with comments like:

*this User demonstrated very, very, very poor judgment by doing what she did.

*the 12,000-edit administrator who doesn’t seem to have learned ... do not be reckless.

out of 5,000 words of technical problems with SlimVirgin's edits regarding neurologically-related stuff, Ed comments on 28 words. No mention is made of any of the factual errors listed by SlimVirgin. Oh, the "dont be reckless" is an admonishing from wikipedia itself. I'm trying to figure out when you can say "don't be reckless" about an edit and when it becomes a violation of "no personal attacks".

17:05, 13 July 2005 :: SlimVirgin just posted this in response to a new feature which allows blocked editors to edit their talk page. (cough).

I'm not keen on this feature, though I appreciate Ed had the right idea in asking for it, because it helps people to communicate and it keeps it off the mailing list. The downside is that we now have talk pages turning into obsessive diatribes against the blocking admin, or against the editors involved in the dispute that led to the block, not a good thing to be on the receiving end of.

Ed Poor posts this reply on SlimVirgin's talk page.

You made a very good point, Slim:

obsessive diatribes against the blocking admin, or against the editors involved in the dispute that led to the block, not a good thing to be on the receiving end of

Can we deal with this by then (1) giving them a clear Wikipedia:No personal attacks block and then (2) protecting their talk page? (If we had to continue talking about the block - everyone but them of course - we could do it on an unprotected subpage.)

I am currently blocked

SlimVirgin made a massively bad edit and a number of false accusations against me.

I swore at SlimVirgin on the talk page, mostly when SlimVirgin accused me of something I didn't do, or put words in my mouth that I never said. Oh, or when SlimVirgin deleted informative embedded notes and replaced them with embedded questions that would have been answere by the original embedded note. Yeah, I swore on the talk page, but I never accuse someone of something they didn't do without apologizing. Pick your poison.

Viriditas asked me to tone it down, so I went through and removed any cuss words [11] [12] [13] [14]. Viriditas then asked me to take out EVERYTHING that wasn't directly related to an edit on the main article. I was about to do that when I discovered I had been blocked from wikipedia for 'unrepentent personal attacks' by Uncle Ed. Uncle Ed has no email, so there is no way for me to contact him.

For SlimVirgin's efforts at bad editing and false accusations, SlimVirgin is currently active.

SlimVirgin also happens to be an administrator, which, apparently has its perks, not the least of which is never having to say your sorry for unrepentant bad edits or unrepentant false accusations.

I'll let everyone know when I'm back online.

The current blocked list is here.

FuelWagon 22:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

interesting edit

SlimVirgin at 18:06, 12 July 2005 declares I'm therefore withdrawing from editing this article, I hope only temporarily, until I decide whether it's appropriate to approach this as an admin, or whether to pursue dispute resolution as an editor. here

from Blocked List, Ed blocked me on 21:02, 12 July 2005

I make an edit to my talk page Revision as of 21:29, 12 July 2005 here

Revision as of 21:41, 12 July 2005 by SlimVirgin: Ed, regarding your block at 21:12 of FuelWagon (talk · contribs), he's continuing to edit with the same user account despite the block. See his contribs and particularly his comment here. [15] posted on Ed Poor's talk page

in short:

18:06 :: SlimVirgin declares "I'm withdrawing as an editor to decide if I want to approach this as an admin".

21:02 :: Ed Poor blocks me.

21:29 :: I post to my talk page

21:41 :: SlimVirgin is not only aware that I had been blocked a mere half hour prior, but has been tracking my contribs and sees me posting on my own talk page and complains to Ed Poor.

And I just gotta wonder how much back-channel communication goes on between admins. Hey, SlimVirgin, did you know I got blocked because you were the one who requested it? Hey, Ed, did my attempts to tone down my posts by taking out the swear words really qualify as "unrepentant"?

The official policy on Wikipedia says: users should not block those with whom they are currently engaged in conflict.

Ed Poor

Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Ed Poor.

You can email Ed Poor or one of the other administrators to discuss the block.

ok, click on email Ed Poor

This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users.

(swell)

administrators info

Administrator abuse

Administrators can be removed if they abuse their powers. Presently, administrators may be removed either at the decree of Jimbo Wales or by a ruling of the Arbitration Committee. At their discretion, lesser penalties may also be assessed against problematic administrators, including the restriction of their use of certain powers. The technical ability to remove administrator status rests with the stewards.

Dealing with grievances

If you think an administrator has acted improperly against you or another editor, you should express your concerns directly to the administrator responsible. Try and come to a resolution in an orderly and civil manner. However, if the matter is not resolved between the two parties, you can take further action according to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. There have been a number of alternative procedures suggested for the removal of sysop status but none of them have achieved consensus.

OKEY DOKEY. Let's see how that goes. I just sent the following email to SlimVirgin: FYI: I've been blocked by Uncle Ed. The list of problems in your edit and the list of false accusations you made against me on the Terri Schiavo talk page are listed on my personal talk page. FuelWagon 03:26, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, so far, not so good. I sent the email on 3:26, and this shows that SlimVirgin has made 11 different edits over the last couple hours since I sent the email, none of which have anything to do with the email. Although, it is possible that her email is separate from wikipedia, and she checks it rarely. Will check again tomorrow. FuelWagon 06:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As of 07:04, SlimVirgin is online and has posted to Terri Schiavo/Talk here, denying any wrong doing at all, and accusing Neuroscientist of making personal attacks for disagreeing with her edit. I have received no email response from SlimVirgin, and SlimVirgin has posted no reply on my talk page.

This just in, an email received from SlimVirgin. In reply to my email above, SlimVirgin replies, in entirety:

Did you have a question or a particular issue you want to raise?

A non-answer. It forwards nothing, acknowledges nothing, admits nothing, and conveniently ignores every single problem listed above. FuelWagon 18:57, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Perks

I'm starting to get the distinct impression that one major perk of being an administrator is never having to admit you're wrong, never having to admit you made a bad edit, and NEVER having to apologize for your behaviour.

Please list admin errors, bad edits, and misbehavior here. I will look into it for you. (By the way, I make errors every day, including bad edits, and have had to apologize quite frequently.) Uncle Ed 10:55, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Well, then here's one for you Ed. Viriditas asked me to tone it down, so I went through and removed any cuss words [16] [17] [18] [19]. Viriditas then asked me to take out EVERYTHING that wasn't directly related to an edit on the main article. I was about to do that when I discovered you had blocked me from wikipedia for 'unrepentent personal attacks'. If I'm in the process of cleaning up my posts, how exactly does that qualify as "unrepentant"? My intention was to whittle my stuff on the talk page to only issues directly related to problems with SlimVirgin's edits. Since I was blocked before I could do that, I have posted that list of problems here on my talk page. There are no personal attacks in the above text, just the specific factual problems with SlimVirgin's edit. Unless "this is what's wrong with SlimVirgin's edit" qualifies as a violation of "No Personal Attacks", then this page should qualify as "attack free". FuelWagon 13:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]