Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:04, 4 October 2005

Click here to leave a message on my talk page

vandalism

click here to report vandalism in progress ] Click once, and then you'll have to wait a few seconds. It takes a while.

wikipedia links

The wikipedia Help page is here

The wikipedia FAQ is here

How to archive a talk page is explained here

Misplaced Pages:Words to avoid Includes explanation of using "theory" and other words confused by editors.

Misplaced Pages:Flat earth problem

NPOV Policy

The NPOV policy appears to be the most misunderstood policy. Here are some good excerpts:

"fairly represent all sides of a dispute by not making articles state, imply, or insinuate that only one side is correct."

"unbiased writing presents conflicting views without asserting them." " Writing unbiasedly can be conceived very well as representing disputes, characterizing them, rather than engaging in them."

"If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject,"

"Facts are not points of view in and of themselves. So an easy way to avoid making a statement that promotes a point of view is to find a reputable source for a fact and cite the source."

"the policy does not say that there even is such a thing as objectivity, a "view from nowhere" such that articles written from that point of view are consequently objectively true"

Pseudoscience: "represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view" "(some editors) believe Misplaced Pages should adopt a "scientific point of view" rather than a "neutral point of view." However, it has not been established that there is really a need for such a policy" "explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories."

Terri Schiavo

You have the patience of a saint, my friend. You're an inspiration. I have a far lower frustration threshhold than you apparently do. Keep up the good work. --AStanhope 21:41, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, FuelWagon, for reformatting my Let's go sentence by sentence post. Given the size the talk page now is, that'll sure make any contributions easier for the users. Duckecho 16:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

"Removed my name|it's too silly" was the edit summary by one of the Mediation editors. I'm dumbstruck. That takes real work. The self-centered, naked arrogance.... I'm going to bed.--ghost 03:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

(ghost's comment in reponse to SlimVirgin withdrawing from mediation: Revision as of 03:15, 20 July 2005 SlimVirgin "removed my name; it's too silly".)

I will now commence chuckling and knee-slapping Just wanted to let you know that I am officially appropriating the phrase "Whack-a-Mole logic game" for my own use, that is excellent. Been trying to think of a succint way to describe NCdave's style of debate for a while now.
Fox1 08:11, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(And the "whack-a-mole logic game" is brilliant.)Mia-Cle 01:04, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stuff from my talk page moved by Uncle Ed to /block

More archives .

Fuel, I awarded you something I feel you deserve. In re the current block, I hope it's not permanent, and I also hope you don't take things too much to heart. This is only an online encyclopaedia and community, after all. All the best.~ Neuroscientist | T | C ? 06:21, July 13, 2005 (UTC) Oh, and dude. You gotta tone down the cussin. Lol.~ Neuroscientist | T | C ? 06:23, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar, you big sexy pimp. Proto t c 09:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Mahalo for the barnstar. Your dedication on Terri Schiavo and weathering of the various conflicts is commendable. Aloha nui loa. --Viriditas | Talk 03:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Gordon has agreed to two edits per day (only one revert) and five talk posts of no more than fifty words--so long as it applies to everyone. I have agreed and thought you would as well knowing you won't have to clip Gordon's edits more than twice a day. Marskell 11:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Intelligent Design

I admit to my own POV on Intelligent Design (I'm neo-Pagan), so having another Wikipedian that I know telling me when I'm being stupid would be very helpful. I respect your work on all things Terri Schiavo, and hope I can enlist your help.--ghost 21:21, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

In the future, refrain from deleting my comments. --goethean ॐ 04:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I vaugley recall stepping on your toes rather hard a while back involving Dbergan and Goethean. I apologize.--Tznkai 14:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

figured as much. Still, always better to apologize than not IMO--Tznkai 16:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Intelligent Design Notes

I have started to compile a series of notes around the intelligent design article here. FuelWagon 20:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I started an ID Wikiproject a few months ago. Not sure if you're interested in merging material or just use it to add other links to your page. David Bergan 06:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I like the new ID entry much better than the old one.

I think Irreducible Complexity should come earlier--as it seems to lie at the center of the ID argument. I also like this quote from Dembski, "Intelligent Design is an intellectual movement, and the Wedge strategy stops working when we are seen as just another way of packaging the Christian evangelical message. ... The evangelists do what they do very well, and I hope our work opens up for them some doors that have been closed." == Phillip Johnson. "Keeping the Darwinists Honest", an interview with Phillip Johnson. In Citizen Magazine. April 1999.

Shouldn't that be up higher? I think it states what he's trying to do very clearly.

I don't see any reason to have the evolution section. 14 September 2005 eperotao

Nuclear option

I'm sorry to say the usefulness of that article has decreased since the recent edits of User:Hbomb and User:Ed Poor (beginning around May 12). It is confusing, and it seems to intentionally obscure the basic facts of the maneuver. --CSTAR 20:08, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I'll take a look at it. I found some good stuff on the reaction to "THE DEAL" made on Monday, and I'll add it at some point. Dave (talk) 04:46, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Fuel, double-checking before I jump in. Did you get my response? Is the invite still open, or should we discuss it further?--ghost 15:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

scientific method url

A good url, short, sweet, and to the point FuelWagon 19:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Bensaccount RfC

This has me a bit flummoxed. He has not been "pushing the scientific point of view", but he has not edited since his comments in the RfC. Taken his bat and ball and gone home? Removal of the RfC might be seen as backing down from the NPOV position. But then, perhaps DotSix has made me too cynical. I'll think on it.

Banno 08:42, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

New Intro

I'm surprised and fairly pleased by the new intro; apparently Gordon's desire to be in the limelight is actually the strongest force to be brought to bear on that article in recent memory... interesting. Anyway, I'm going to keep the page on my watchlist for emergencies, but I think I'm pretty much out of steam on it; new job, new race car, new video games... I no longer have the surfeit of editing time that I once did and that has proven... necessary to be effectual on that page. Don't hesitate to light up the Fox Signal if you ever need a hand though, there or elsewhere. Fox1 12:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Dispute

FuelWagon, I'm writing to put you on notice that if you continue (what I see as) your campaign of harassment against me, and the recent wikistalking, I will file an RfAr against you. You've insulted me on several talk pages, and seem to do so whenever there's the slightest passing opportunity. You're maintaining an attack page about me. You're following me to articles you've never edited before within minutes of my making an edit, and reverting me. As you know, in order for a case to be accepted by the arbcom, there must have been prior attempts at dispute resolution. I consider the RfC you filed against me, and the exchange of e-mails that I initiated, as fulfilling that requirement, though of course if you have further suggestions, or want to try again, I'll be happy to work with you. I don't want to file a case with the arbcom, because it will mean a lot of work for both of us, but I will do so unless this stops. SlimVirgin 22:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I will reply to any question on my own talk page. Marskell 12:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Ribbon Creek

Oof, that article looks like crap. The sections you changed read well now, though, so thank you for that. I hadn't taken a look at it before, but I'll probably go rewrite it on monday.

Fox1 04:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

RE: User_talk:FuelWagon/050825, User talk:FuelWagon/block and User_talk:FuelWagon/050714/1

Hi. Would you mind explaining to me why you are keeping these pages on-site instead of off-site for your own records? Since neither are part of an RFC, RFAr, etc., I'm inclined on viewing these as attacks pages and calling for their deletion. Thanks. El_C 19:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

user page subdirectories

Howdy El C, tell SlimVirgin I said hi when you report back to her. I assume she sent the request to you to harrass me about the contents of my talk page. As to labeling it an "attack" page, that's an interesting way of putting it. If you find one NPA violation, I'd appreciate you pointing it out so that I can correct the problem. The /block page was actually the first draft of an RfC against SlimVirgin a couple months ago. SlimVirgin asked Ed to block me for starting an RfC in my talk page, and Ed willingly complied. The pattern would now be that SlimVirgin has approached you to harrass me about it and attempt to get it deleted as well. Can you feel the intimate love that goes on between fellow admins? It just gives me a warm fuzzy feeling how they help each other in the face of criticism by blocking editors for imaginary NPA violations or harrassing them for the contents of a subdirectory in their talk page. You guys just make me proud. As it happens, SlimVirgin already complained to another one of her good buddies about a deleted RfC getting put into a user's talk page subdirectory, and that editor told SlimVirgin that it was acceptable. You can double-check it here . I actually withdrew my own certifaction of my RfC against SlimVirgin and she has been badering me ever since. A month later, she was making up lies about the RfC, so I uploaded a copy of it to my user space for the record. And since then, her harrassment and stalking of me has started happening enough that I need to write it all down or I'll forget it. So, in answer to your quite innocent and I'm sure unprodded question, the /block directory was the initial draft of my RfC against SlimVirgin. Ed Poor moved it from my talk page into the /block directory and then blocked me for NPA violations. If you can find a single NPA in that subdirectory, again, I'd appreciate it. Ed has thus far declined to point out what specifically was contained in the page to get me blocked. Nice to see policy can be implemented in such broadly sweeping that I can't even be told what diff got me blocked. Apparently Ed knows it when he sees it and can't explain it to anyone else. After my falsely accused NPA block expired, I took the contents of the /block directory and used them in my RfC against SlimVirgin. Ed Poor, who was mediator at the time initially endorsed part of the RfC but then SlimVirgin emailed him a sob story and Ed then withdrew support and vehemently attacked the RfC. Several editors supported the RfC, enough to keep it around, but I decided to withdraw my own certification to allow it to be deleted. I was actually trying to give SlimVirgin a break. See where that got me? A month later, SlimVirgin is telling lies about my RfC against her. I uploaded a copy of it to my talk page to keep an online record of it. Since then she has been harrassing me on various articles and talk pages, and I've been trying to keep track of her stalking as an attempt to defend myself from various false accusations from her and her friends. Now, you're calling this an "attack" page, but a large part of this was an initial draft to an RfC (the /block) directory, another chunk of it is the deleted RfC itself (which was already established to be not against policy), and the last part is an explanation as to why the deleted RfC is under my talk page, and what SlimVirgin has done since I filed the original RfC. I have not advertised this talk page to anyone, which is one of the reasons I assume SlimVirgin asked one of her friends to lean on my to delete it. Nor does the page contain anything but a history of diffs and who did what. There are no NPA violations. There is no name calling. there is nothing in these subdirectories that is anything other than a simple record of what has happened since I filed an RfC against SlimVirgin and invoked said woman's fury. She has accused me repeatedly of NPA violations, ad hominem attacks, and similar violations, but she never points out a single, specific diff that is the basis of her accusations. She has followed me to a completely unrelated RfC I filed against user Bensaccoutn and jumped on it as an example of "another bad faith RfC" by me. She asked an Admin friend of hers to investigate it (all in the family), but unfortunately for SlimVirgin, her friend said the RfC looked acceptable. SlimVirgin never apologized for the "bad faith RfC" accusation though. So, that's the history behind the subdirectories under my talk page. Some of it is RfC stuff, some of it is SlimVirgin's interactions with me since I filed the RfC against her. She has shown a history of making totally unfounded accusations against me while being unwilling to point ot any specific edit that would qualify as a policy violation. And she is completely unwilling to apologize even when another admin tells her that her accusation is wrong. Until her behaviour changes (she admits she made false accusations, she admits she made significant errors in her Terri Schiavo edit, and she apologizes for both, at the very least), I need to keep a record of what she's been doing so her stories of false accusations don't get too far out of control. No, I will not keep it offline. I have not advertised the page. And I need to be able to access the information from different computers depending on where I am. There are no NPA violations, and the entire page is nothing but a record of diffs to document the interactions between SlimVirgin and I. Given her ability for making accusations without a single diff to support them, I think an objective record is the only way to defend myself. FuelWagon 21:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't particularly appreciate the insinuation, and I find that your note suffers from excessive verbosity. Withdrawing your RFC does not provide you with a license to keep its deleted content elsewhere on Misplaced Pages. Please try to remain on-topic and answer my specific querry in a more direct way, and with much, much less innuendo (preferably none). As mentioned, unless you are prepared to take formal steps, I fail to see a reason as to why you should be allowed to keep these pages on-site as some sort of advocacy in potential. El_C 21:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

insinuation

And I don't particularly like you telling me I need to prove myself or the content of my talk page to you, to get your permission to keep it. As for insinuation, please, tell me you weren't contacted by SlimVirgin to lean on my about my talk page, I need the laugh, it'll make me feel all giggly inside. woot woot! As for "formal steps", you seem to have an interesting version of reality. It was formal steps of a formal user RfC that invoked SlimVirgin's wrath in the first place. I voluntarily deleted the certification to let it get deleted to cut her some slack. The problem occurred in formal mediation, and the mediator was Ed Poor, who attacked the RfC and attacked me. I then took the problem to formal arbitration, where Fred Bauder said "yeah? well, maybe Ed Poor did attack you, but we dont have time to look into it". Then they gave Ed a medal. So please, spare me your precious "formal process". I've seen it from start to finish. User RfC, mediation, and arbitration. And it is a farce. All it showed me was just how much the administrators back each other up. And now you come along, at SlimVirgin's beck and call, to demand I take my complaint to your formal process or delete my page. Nice. Since it's already proven to me that admins don't police other admins, I really don't feel inclined to ask for more. But like I said, it's good to see the admins all working as one big happy family. The problem that SlimVirgin has is that there isn't a single NPA violation on my talk page. There isn't a single objective policy violation she can point to to get me banned or force me to take down my records and my diffs. So, instead she's got to call out her friends to harrass me to remove any criticism of her, and then have them act all indignant at the insinuation that perhaps they aren't acting in a neutral manner, that perhaps they aren't looking to resolve a dispute but to bury it, that perhaps they aren't looking to enforce policy but suppress any criticism of a fellow admin. Your formal process is a joke. The inmates are running the asylum. And when SlimVirgin brings me to arbcom (and don't worry, she's already threatened me with it again this week) I'll have a record of the whole history. So spare me your indignation. FuelWagon 03:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I... see. Anyway, you may submitt any and all pertinent material collected from of an off-site text editor and onto Misplaced Pages at that time. El_C 03:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

at that time

Uhm, no. There are no NPA violations on the pages in question. They are a legitimate record. One is a page that Ed Poor blocked me for NPA violations and moved to the /block subdirectory. That was the rough draft of the RfC. I've already asked Ed to point out any NPA violaitons on that page and he has refused. three or four other pages are copies of the deleted RfC, and I've already shown you that there is precedence that keeping a copy of a deleted RfC in a local user talk page is acceptable. As SlimVirgin continues to harrass me, I record some notes with diffs pointing to her behaviour. I have not publicized these pages. They are my personal record of her harrassment against me since I filed the RfC against her. She has already spread lies about the RfC on another talk page, so I uploaded the original copies to my talk page as a result. Do you understand? She keeps pushing this, and the only way to straighten out her false accusations against me is to keep the originals. Now she's harrassing me on other pages and threatening arbcom against me. at that time, I'll use these pages to at least show she is no innocent here. And until that time, I'll be keeping them in my subdirectories. There is no harassment if I'm not publicizing the page or threatening her with it. There is no harassment if it is simply a record of diffs. There is no NPA violations on any of these pages. There is no policy violations on any of these talk pages. You have no grounds to delete these pages. FeloniousMonk kept a running page about Sam Spade's hijinks for a long time (a year or so, I believe), and to my knowledge, no admin came in and leaned on him to delete it. No admin came in and demanded that he justify his page or delete it. No admin came in and demanded that he delete his page and use a formal process of dispute resolution. And FeloniousMonk is an admin now.

Does this not strike you as a little odd? A little strange? A little unique? It seems to be fine in one case and fine enough that an editor can do something like this and make administrator, while another case is demanding the pages be removed. You don't see a bit of favoritism? Special treatment? An interesting interpretation of policy? Could it be that the difference is due to the fact that the topic of my page is an Administrator? Just a thought. Any answer to that?

Oh, and are you telling me that you werent' contacted by SlimVirgin? Rather interesting given that I don't make these pages public and I don't advertise them to people. Really, I'm asking. Are you saying SlimVirgin didn't email you and ask you to look at these pages? An honest question. FuelWagon 03:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

First, please explain more clearly to me what purpose it serves to keep a copy of a deleted RFC on-site El_C 04:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

precedence overrides purpose

I don't have to show you what "purpose" my edits have. They do not violate policy. And I've already shown you a diff that shows there is already precedence to allow a deleted user RfC to remain in a user's private space. As soon as I uploaded the RfC to my space, SlimVirgin complained to Maureen, and Maureen shows precedence is that it is acceptable.

And you didn't answer my question. Did SlimVirgin contact you about the subdirectories?

Your answer true or false (or complete lack thereof) will reveal your intentions going forward. I know the truth, its really just a matter of whether you can admit it. Your answer will reveal whether you wish to bury a dispute or resolve it. What say you? FuelWagon 04:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

But in this case, the person who was RFC'd feels uneasy with it being on-site, so again, please state the purpose. In answer to your question/s, I don't report to anyone, I forward my own querries, and at the event, I am an avid reader of Robert_McClenon's talk page. El_C 04:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

report versus initiate

Uhm,

The question was "Did SlimVirgin ask you to look into the subdirectories?" The question was not "Who do you intend to report to?" Care to answer my question? As for Robert McClenon's talk page, there is no mention of these subdirectories, so that could not have pointed to these subdirectories. So, who initiated your "querry"? FuelWagon 15:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

You are being quite melodramatic and continue to be evasive as per stating the purpuse, I find. Anyway, as I said, I made some querries, and that is all I care for you to know at this time. I do note that while you have 4443 edits, you've only edited 265 distinct pages for an average of 16.77 pp (whereas my average, for ex., is 2.79 pp), so it isn't that difficult to spot unusually-titled pages on your contributions. El_C 16:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The purpose is irrlevant. I've already shown you precedence that deleted RfC's are acceptable to have in a private page. You continue to be evasive as per stating who initiated your querries. I do not that while you have a lot of edits yourself, your history around SlimVirgin extends at least as far back as the RfC in question and your comments there showed an indifference to facts and a sense of your alliances. You don't care about my purpose. SlimVirgin asked you to push me to delete these pages, and you're kindly obliging to your friend. It isn't difficult to spot unusually tilted appearances from you around this discussion. Just say "SlimVirgin asked me" and be straight about it. Or, keep dancing and keep looking for an excuse to delete that which has no other reason to justify deletion. FuelWagon 17:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The purpose is not irrelevant to me. I have no intention of dancing by your tune, I'm ready to guage on the opinions of other editors. El_C 18:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

And I will not dance by your tune either. You're here as a "heavy hitter" at SlimVirgin's request. You've already shown your bias in this dispute when the original RfC was filed against her, and this is simply more of the same. Let's just remember that you started this little dispute about the subdirectories, and it was purely because your pal SlimVirgin asked you to find a way to delete it. Your combativeness now only shows your intent was to get your way. Why don't you threaten me with arbcom next? Tell me you're going to get me banned? Nice dispute resolution, there, El_C. FuelWagon 18:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I am incresingly under the impression that your overall conduct is lacking. El_C 19:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

You come to my talk page at SlimVirgin's request demanding I explain a subdirectory in my talk page and you want to talk about my conduct? You can't even admit straight out that SlimVirgin sent you. FuelWagon 19:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

That's because she hasn't "sent" me. Yes, I want to talk about your conduct.El_C 19:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

You just stumbled onto this subdirectories on your own? She didn't contact you in any way and tell you about them? I don't advertise these directories. And why did you notice them now? FuelWagon 20:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I thought that name was familiar

So, I thought the name El_C rang a bell. Turns out you were one of the first admins to support SlimVirgin in my RfC against her.

If our resident neorologist cannot find the time "to methodically go through each of edits in the way did with introduction," then I am of the opinion that s/he should refrain from reverting hours of work en mass commenting on the series of edits in their totality. I am also hopeful s/he can refrain from a condescending, patronizing overtone. El_C 09:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Care to tell me again that this "querry" of yours is completely neutral? That you just happened upon the subdirectories which you now demand I explain my purpose lest they be deleted? You know, Neuroscientist wrote a rather detailed and indepth neurological criticism of SlimVirgin's edit. It was something like 5,000 words long. Apparently that wasn't enough for you, and you decided to lean on Neuroscientist and tell him he shouldn't revert poor helpless SlimVirgin unless he explains each and every revert. As it happens, I explained nearly every factual and POV problem in the User RfC against SlimVirgin, but apparently that wasn't enough for you either. You didn't find a single error of fact or introduction of bias in SlimVirgin's edit? Not after reading Neuroscientist's post or the various issues listed in the RfC? Not a one? Rather you thought you needed to lean on Neuroscientist like you're leaning on me now?

Tell me that you're a neutral party here, El_C. Tell me that you hold the facts of the matter to be more important than your history with SlimVirgin. Tell me this is about the truth and not just that SlimVirgin "feels uneasy with it being on-site". Tell me that you're interested in resolving a dispute rather than simply burying legitimate criticism of SlimVirgin. Tell me she didn't ask you to look at my subdirectories. Tell me she didn't tell you what a horrible person I am. Tell me she didn't come to you with a bias. Tell me you didn't take on that bias because of your history with her. Tell me you haven't given her the complete benefit of the doubt. Tell me that your criticism of Neuroscientist was an attempt to get to the facts and not an attempt to suppress the RfC in totality.

And if you can't tell me that, then at least tell me one honest thing about your reason for Neuroscientist being here and your intentions going forward. FuelWagon 15:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I have no need to claim "neutrality." I'm here to tell you that I find your methods to be out of process, that if you have grievences, you need to follow through, applying the dispute resolution channels. As you keep repeating, stop burying it indefinitely within subpages on-site. El_C 16:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

And I have no need to meet the arbitrary demands of a non-neutral admin who is coming into my talk page in an attempt to enforce a deletion of content that does not violate policy, simply because your friend SlimVirgin asked you to find a way to delete it. And since you already weighed in quite biasedly on the original RfC in the process that is the center of the question, please don't expect me to believe you are anything other than here by proxy for SlimVirgin. You engaged me a couple of times on the original RfC. Your alliances are clear. As for "burying it" on a talk page versus "follow through", I told you I already took it through process and your precious process was found lacking. I do not need to justify a record of a deleted RfC when I've already shown that there is precedence that a private copy is acceptable. I do not need to justify a record of diffs to an admin who was part of the original dispute with SlimVirgin and who is now acting on her behalf and at her request. Your complete lack of neutrality here disqualifies you. And your continued efforts to dance around simple facts like saying as something as straightforward as "SlimVirgin asked me to delete these pages" and instead skirt direct questions with obtuse answers about whether you report to anyone or whether you handle your own queries only reinforces your loyalties. I don't care if SlimVirgin is "uncomfortable" with these pages. It is not her decision to delete them. I don't care if she is not at-ease about these pages, she's on several occaisions attempted to rewrite history and a record of what really happened is a legitimate defense. How about me being not at ease that after I allowed the original RfC to be deleted, SlimVirgin attempted to rewrite history by saying that no one legitimate endorsed my RfC. Or that she's came after me on the RfC I filed against Bensaccount though she had no business on that page. Or that she's announced on my talk page publicly that she will no longer assume any good faith of me. Or that she's recently threatened me with arbitration. Her actions make me uncomfortable. And the only way to defend myself is with a record of what has really happened.

Tell me, El_C, do you really care about the truth? Or do you simply want ot suppress criticism of your friend? Would you go so far as to admit that your criticism of Neuroscientist was unwarranted? Would you go so far as to admit that SlimVirgin's edit on the Terri Schiavo article was full of factual errors and POV biases? Would you admit that her edit was reckless? That Ed Poor's block of me was unwarranteed? That Ed Poor vilated NPA? That SLimVirgin's actions on the Bensaccount RfC qualifies as harrassment? WOuld you be willing to acknowledge some of these basic facts? Would you be willing to mount a fair and neutral investigation to see if they're true? Or are you simply interested in doing SlimVirgin's bidding while pretending that she never asked you to do this, while pretending that you're neutral here, while pretending that your own actions in the original RfC show that your precioius "dispute resolution" process doesn't necessarily resolve a dispute? FuelWagon 17:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not here as an admin, and what I want is for your "criticism" to be brought out to the open and taken to its logical conclusion, not indefinitely buried on-site so as to harbour more ill-will. I'll AfD whatever I deem fit, this was merely a note as per my intention. El_C 18:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course you're not here as an admin. There is no policy violations occurring. we're talking about a deleted RfC that I've already shown precedence for keeping around. That you have no policy to enforce means you cannot enforce deletion of the directories that you want ot delete as an admin. You have always been here as SlimVirgin's proxy. She asked you to lean on me, and you happily complied. You want to talk about harbouring ill-will? Then you'd be more concerned about resolving the dispute and investigating the issue than you would be about suppressing a record of past events. Your intention was clear from the beginning: you are SlimVirgin's proxy warrior. You were involved in teh original RfC against SlimVirgin and you were her heavy hitter then, assaulting Neuroscientist for criticising poor helpless SlimVirgin. And now you're swinging the bat again in SlimVirgin's defense. You are biased. You are engaged. and you are acting at her request now as before. Don't get all self righteous on me, it doesn't suit you. FuelWagon 18:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm still not following why you wish to keep those subpages on-site indefinitely; on account of an unstated purpose? El_C 19:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

So that when someone like you comes along, I can look at the RfC and find out that you lambasted Neuroscientist because he didn't criticize all of SlimVirgin's edits. So that when someone like you comes along and wishes to dance around a simple question such as "Did SlimVirgin send you?" that I can look up for myself where the person's loyalties may lie. So that when SlimVirgin claims I am stalking her (she just did it again today), I have a record that she's been harassing me since the RfC I filed against her. That is purpose enough. And you continue to ignore the precedence I already pointed out that a deleted RfC is acceptable on a users talk page, and users like FeloniousMonk kept running records of other editors and no one harrassed him. I keep answering your questions, and you keep avoiding answering mine. How about a straight answer to some simple questions: Did you demand FeloniousMonk delete his page on Sam Spade? Did you threaten to AFD it if he didn't explain his purpose to your satisfaction? Did your harass him when he didn't delete it and tell him his behaviour has been less than exemplary? Did SlimVirgin send you? FuelWagon 19:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I've already answered your question, more than once, whereas you continue to fail in answering my own. Anyway, as I said, I encourage you to follow through the dispute resolution procedures rather than burying your grievnces in a manner which facilitates their escalation rather than resolution. El_C 19:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Did you give FeloniousMonk the same encouragement? FuelWagon 20:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

No, not the same. El_C 20:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)