Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/FuelWagon v. Ed Poor/Proposed decision

message: The proposed decision says "Vandal|FuelWagon is banned, until the conclusion of this Arbitration" and I find it interesting that no one has produced a single diff as evidence that shows vandalism being committed by me, nor does the proposal say any other reason as to why I should be banned until arbitration is finished. Would it have anything to do with the fact that I am actively campaigning against the re-election of two arbcom members, Jayjg and Fred Bauder? If charges can be invented out of thin air without a single diff of evidence to even attempt to show "vandalism" on my part, let me know now, because if that's the case, then you're basically telling me that you've already made up your mind about this case, and It will a waste of my time formatting my evidence into your desired format, because you've already decided I'm the guilty party here. FuelWagon 19:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You produced it against yourself, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/FuelWagon_v._Ed_Poor#Statement_by_FuelWagon Fred Bauder 19:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My statement is vandalism? FuelWagon 19:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Could you be a little more specific as to which links point to me "making trouble"? FuelWagon 19:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: banned without any evidence

message: Can someone explain to me how the proposed remedies in this case relate to the findings of fact, because I'm having a great deal of trouble seeing it. PurplePlatypus 11:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the hell? 

message: I "instigated" edit wars on teh Terrorism and Creation Science articles? Say what? On the terrorism article, I inserted two sentences into the article, reporting a verbatim quote from a notable source with a URL to verify. And for this, I was mobbed. How is that instagation by me?  I'm not even sure how the Creation science article got into the charges against me, but I'll refer to the RfC against Bensaccount that I filed, and was endorsed by a number of editors, was opposed by no one but Bensaccount, and that pretty much ended the edit war on Creation science. Perhaps someone should contact the other editors who endorsed/certified teh RfC if they wish to investigate the truth. FuelWagon 17:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually had to go check my evidence, because I was starting to think that maybe I left out some diffs. In my reply to SlimVirgin's accusation regarding the Terrorism article here, I show that I insert two senteces consisting of a verbatim quot from a notable soruce 03:53, 12 October 2005 and that the next edit is a full revert by Texture 16:15, 12 October 2005. Exactly how is the blame for "instagating a revert war" fall on me? I made a valid edit. I was reverted immediately. FuelWagon 19:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: edit wars???

message: Neuroscientist's critique contained "patronizing remarks" against SlimVirgin??? And the diff to "prove" this is a diff by SlimVirgin telling Neuroscientist that his post was patronizing??? What??? How does that prove they were patronizing? What comments by Neuroscientist exactly is arbcom saying were patronizing??? There are none. FuelWagon 17:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Patronizing remarks???

message: What exactly is the poitn of this finding of fact?
:Ed Poor has a history of misusing any permissions given him, which resulted in Ed losing both his developer and bureaucrat access.
The only purpose I can see is to justify that since Ed Poor lost his Developer and Bureaucratic status in September, then that will somehow mean that Ed's misuse of admin priveledges in the Terri won't require any corrective action. Interesting since, arbcom refused to comment on any evidence I submitted in september and didn't find any facts about his behaviour in my evidence.
Furthermore, this finding of fact should have no bearing on Ed Poor's actions since losing his priveledges in september. Ed's behaviour in November is new behaviour. including his suggestion to use mediation then completely lack of participation, his sudden interest in addressing me after I reported that mediation had failed including accusing me of stalking, signing an RfC, and saying he had teh "pull" to get me banned. Then two weeks later blocking me for non-existent NPA's at slimVirgin's request, and saying I should get banned for life. FuelWagon 00:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't read so much into this, FuelWagon. I don't think it is helpful to get so worked up over a single sentence, and behavior like this likely contributed to the problems you are facing in this dispute. This finding of fact certainly is a fact, and the arbitrators are free to note which facts they wish. You may dispute a proposed decision based off of it but getting worked up over a statement like this is counterproductive at best. This finding of fact just as easily could be used to show a pattern of misuse of powers: that a user initially possessed developer, bureaucrat, and administrator status; due to misuse he lost developer and bureaucrat status, and perhaps now should lose administrator status as well. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: retrofiting history???

message: Given the dedication that Fred Bauder has shown in expressly laying blame and wrongdoing at my feet for various events, such as edit wars on the Terrorism article that I started by inserting a two-sentence, verbatim quote, I'm a little surprised that this statement is rather non-directive.
:As a result of this dispute, multiple users (Ghost, Neuroscientist, Duckecho) have left Wikipedia.
May I suggest something that is a little more clear as to the cause of the event.
:As a result of SlimVirgin's refusal to admit a single error in her 9 edits, her accusations in response to various criticisms of her 9 edits, and as a result of Ed Poors undeserved warning to Neuroscientist for NPA, and Ed Poor's undeserved block for FuelWagon's talk page, and Ed Poor's broad-based attack on all supporters of the RfC against SLimVirgin, multiple users (Ghost, Neuroscientist, Duckecho) have left Wikipedia.
Seems a little more direct. FuelWagon 02:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: multiple users left

message: Since arbcom widened this case to request SlimVirgin submit evidence against me, and since arbcom has used that evidence to propose various findngs against me, will arbcom also be looking at my proposed findings that are part of my dispute with SlimVirgin?
Slimvirgin's behaviour on Terri Schiavo articl
SlimVirgin's stalking/combativeness on the Bensaccount RfC
SlimVIrgin's misuse of admin priviledges on Jayjg's candidate page
SlimVirgin/Jayjg's misuse of admin priviledges to page protect Animal Rights
SlimVirgin's POV pushing on animal rights article
SlimVirgin/Jayjg pushing a pro-Israel POV
I originally stated that I was restricting this case to Ed Poor's misuse of admin priveledges to block me, but since you've widened the case to involve SlimVirgin, I would expect that you would look at her behaviour, and not just her evidence. FuelWagon 15:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is arbcom going to use SlimVirgin's evidence against me, without addressing any of my evidence against SlimVirgin? FuelWagon 16:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A wider case

message: Given the proposed revert limit against me, will a similar revert limit be placed on SlimVirgin and Jayjg for likewise reversions on a similar scale? Both of these proposals     show SlimVirgin and Jayjg performing numerous POV reverts. And while I know I've been blamed for instigating a revert war on the terrorism article, my crime was to insert two sentences to quote a notable source, and Texture (who was later supported by SlimVirgin and Jayjg) reverted me. I'm not sure what level of reverting on my part warrants this revert limit, but whatever reverting I've committed, the content was always NPOV, while SlimVirgin and Jayjg did a similar amount of reverting, but their content was generally POV. FuelWagon 20:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: revert limit

message: THe proposed finding is that "FuelWagon has instigated a number of edit wars across numerous articles, including Terrorism, creation science, etc". For reference, I submit the RfC filed against Bensaccount listed here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bensaccount. I think this RfC clearly shows that Bensaccount was failing to follow basic NPOV policy and was trying to report a disputed topic to be factually proven as "pseudoscience", rather than reporting that some hold creation science to be pseudoscience. Perhaps you can contact the endorsers/certifiers of the RfC to get their view of the RfC. I don't believe there is anything here that shows I instigated an edit war on the Creation Science article. FuelWagon 20:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: instigating an edit war on Creation Science

message: From this:
Pigsonthewing stirs up trouble
Finding out about notes Karmafist was making on a user page, Pigsonthewing contacted those mentioned on Karmafist's user page, describing it as a "hate page" Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing/Evidence#Attacks.
Would something similar apply to SlimVirgin's response to my uploading a copy of the deleted RfC? A day after I uploaded it, SlimVirgin was informed by another admin that it was within policy to upload a deleted RfC into a user's space, but SlimVirgin has consistently referred to it, and the page that explained why it was there, as an "attack page". FuelWagon 21:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: deleted RfC

message: It has been an interesting sequence of proceedings. I request arbitration against Ed Poor because he blocked me without cause in November and threatened to ban me for life. Fred Bauder, who I've shown has cause to be recused from this case, becomes a prosecuter rather than neutral arbiter, submitting mislabeled evidence out of context, and inviting SlimVirgin to submit evidence against me. Arbcom then goes out of its way to take SlimVirgin's word on all her accusations against me. When I then submit evidence that directly counter's many of SlimVirgin's accusations and also shows she has been combative on the Bensaccoutn RfC, misusing admin priveledges, and pushing POV, arbcom demonstrates an amazing force of will to ignore all of that evidence, continue to vote for findings that my evidence shows is wrong, and has still managed to avoid a single finding of fact against SlimVirgin. Her behaviour on the Bensaccount RfC should have been enough to suspend admin priveledges for a week, combined with her misuse of admin priveledges on Jayjg's candidate statement page, and her tag-team use of admin priveledges on the animal rights page, should see her suspended for a month. Her and Jayjg's pro-Israel pushing is blatantly obvious to anyone who looks at the diffs I provided, yet arbcom cannot bring itself to rule on those obvious and repeated policy violations. Arbcom has not been a neutral judger of facts presented to it, but an advocate for a certain ruling, searching for evidence that supports it, inviting uninvolved parties to submit unrelated evidence, and then cherry picking the bits and pieces presented to convict me and ignore all wrong-doing on SlimVirgin's part. I am impressed by the sincerity that long-time wikipedian's will show when denying that a cabal exists at wikipedia in lieu of all the evidence to the contrary. FuelWagon 14:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cherry picking

message: I see the finding of "fact" that I'm "stalking" SlimVirgin is still getting supported.
Never mind examples that show SlimVirgin's evidence misrepresents dates. I quoted "however" from the "words to avoid" article to SlimVirgin first , and then after that she followed me to that page and deleted the entire entry for "however" , and her claimed evidence of "stalking" is that I restored valid content that she had deleted .
And never mind that I've shown legitimate reasons here that show how I came to other articles, such as Vizcarra telling me about the Zephram Stark case which brought me to the Terrorism article. And in the Terrorism article, I add two sentences that quote a source . 
But then I just noticed this guideline says wikistalking "does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy". And that would apply to every other edit I made to every article SlimVirgin claims is "wikistalking".
IN the Refusal to serve in the Israeli military, article, SlimVirgin is POV pushing by using misquoting the "Courage to Refuse" group. I quote the group . 
In the Historical persecution by Jews article, SlimVirgin is POV pushing by deleting valid content because it criticizes the modern state of Israel. I reinsert the text .
In the Historical persecution by Christians article SlimVirgin is covering her POV-pushing tracks, deleting valid content of "contemporary" history so that she can justify deleting "contemporary" history from the Historical persecution by Jews article. I reinsert the text 
My first edit to Animal rights was to insert a dissenting point of view in the introduction .  SlimVirgin responded by POV pushing, rewriting the dissenting view to water it down, to criticize the dissenting view . And later deletes all dissenting views from teh introduction . 
My first edit to Veganism was to insert the only dissenting point of view in the introduction . SlimVirgin shows more POV pushing by deleting all dissenting views from the introduction . 
Never mind that I've shown SlimVirgin misrepresented evidence in cases such as "words to avoid". Never mind that I've shown legitimate reasons that brought me to the articles in question. If this guideline is true, then the idea of "stalking" should still not apply here either because all of my edits ended up fixing NPOV policy violations. FuelWagon 20:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Policy does not support stalking

message: Ann H. describes SlimVirgin's behaviour as "dignified", "restrained", "gracious", "pleasant", and "collaborative". And I'm just wondering how someone is considered to be "pleasant", "collaborative", and "pleasant", when they can't admit a single error in their edits, even after repeated attempts by multiple editors to point out her errors, including an actual honest-to-god neuroscientist? Not only did SlimVirgin not admit any errors, but she actively denied them a dozen times.
::Please say what your specific objections are, rather than reverting. 
::please discuss your objections on talk. 
::I'm assuming the above can't be your only objection, so please lay them out 
::If you feel I've introduced errors, please list them on talk 
::You haven't yet explained why you want to exclude that information.
::neither of you has said what your objection is. 
::If these are your only objections, I don't know why you reverted all my edits. 
::Show me one error I made in the article, either factual or grammatical. 
::If this is the only issue you can find with my copy edit, why did you revert it? 
::I'm waiting for an answer from FuelWagon or Duckecho that might explain the blind reverts. Show me one factual or grammatical error that I edited into the article. 
::I've asked several times for someone to point to one error of fact I edited into the article and so far no one has come up with one. You also mention errors of fact, but again, don't cite any. 
::If I made a factual error, point to it. 
SlimVirgin continues the denial in the RfC against her: "I read the article, it clearly needed a copy edit, so I started to do one. I didn't rewrite anything or do any restructuring, ... I stuck to minor edits, tweaks of sentences, ... It was a long edit, ... but it wasn't a substantive one." 
I'd also like to understand how SlimVirgin's behaviour qualifies as "dignified", "restrained", "gracious", "pleasant", and "collaborative", when she makes numerous accusations against editors of violating policy, when one of those accusations includes a fabrication of a quote attributed to me that I never said:
::SlimVirgin wrote "I feel that FuelWagon and Duckecho are POV pushing too by insisting, for example, that no dissenting voice be heard in the intro." 
I never insisted any such nonsense. This misquote was pointed out numerous times. SlimVirgin never acknowledged it or corrected it or retracted it. 
While it may not be a violation of policy to actively deny your edits contain even a single error (even in the face of actual expert advice), and while making false accusations and fabricated quotes may not be a violation of policy, it certainly doesn't see to qualify as "dignified", "restrained", "gracious", "pleasant", and "collaborative".
Other, more direct violations of policy, would include SlimVirgin's stalking me to the bensaccount RfC . That should actually qualify as a violation of assume good faith, harrassment, civility, stalking, etc. And she certainly wasn't "dignified", "restrained", "gracious", "pleasant", and "collaborative" there. 
There is also evidence of SlimVirgin misusing admin priveledges and POV pushing in the September, October, November time frame, which doesn't look "collaborative" or "pleasant", but that's just me. FuelWagon 16:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Collaborative?

message: Since SlimVirgin introduces a number of these articles, and since her evidence has been used to say I've stalked her to these pages, SlimVirgin's behaviour on these pages should also be subject to review. Not only have I shown her dates are wrong in some cases, not only have I shown legitimate causes that brought me to each page, not only have I shown all of my edits were valid in content, but wikipedia guidelines on "stalking" says it excludes following an editor to fix policy violations, and SlimVirgin was clearly violating NPOV policy. The evidence also shows that SlimVirgin very early on, way back in August actually stalked me to the Bensaccount RfC when she had no involvement in the Creation Science article, when she had no involvement in the RfC for the week it had been around, and she turned it into a battleground to prove it was "another example of an inappropriate RfC" hours after she declared she was "all out of good faith". 
Slimvirgin's behaviour on Terri Schiavo article
SlimVirgin's stalking/combativeness on the Bensaccount RfC
SlimVIrgin's misuse of admin priviledges on Jayjg's candidate page
SlimVirgin/Jayjg's misuse of admin priviledges to page protect Animal Rights
SlimVirgin's POV pushing on animal rights article
SlimVirgin/Jayjg pushing a pro-Israel POV
Since fixing policy violations is specifically excluded from "stalking", and since the above links show SlimVirgin clearly violating NPOV policy, her behaviour should be reviewed here as well. FuelWagon 00:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: SlimVirgin's violations of policy

message: For geez sake you guys, if you spent 1/10th the time working on articles as you do sniping at each other, a lot more constructive  work would get done around here!  I tried to wade through all the crap above, but it's just a waste of time - everyone is so entrenched they can't see their own roles in all of this.  I popped in here because I supported Fuelwagon's RFC against Bensaccount.  I'm kind of surprised to see all the venom that has arisen from that.  Bensaccount had it coming.  Fuelwagon rfc'ed him out of frustration with his editing behavior.  Within the ariticle we've co-edited, I've always found him to be reasonable and willing to discuss points of disagreement.  It is only when he seems to run up against someone with an unmovable agenda that trouble seems to happen.  So why don't we just stop all this nonsense and go back to making Wikipedia better? Synaptidude 00:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only has arbcom already voted that I "instigated an edit war" on the Creation science article, which was the subject of teh Bensaccount RfC . Not only has arbcom ignored the fact that whatever edit war there was on Creation Science, it went away when Bensaccount stopped editing. But also SlimVirgin stalked and harrassed me on the Bensaccount RfC  and arbcom won't comment on her behaviour. FuelWagon 16:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What's with the Witch Hunt?

message: Fred Bauder states on the mailing list Dec 3 14:48:37 UTC 2005 " we have all encountered FuelWagon doing his thing." This was cleaerly based on Fred Bauder's personal prejudice rather than any evidence presented because just half an hour prior, 14:01, 3 December 2005, there was no evidence on the /evidence page at all, until Fred Bauder submitted his own evidence against me. Fred's presentation of evidence is also telling of his bias because El_C had asked me in my "most ideal terms" to explain how I wanted to resolve this, and Fred points to my answer and describes them as my "demands of SlimVirgin". This could be explained as an honest mistake, but when I pointed out the misrepresentation of evidence , Fred chose to leave the evidence with his own editorial . And yet after Fred's behaviour and statements show he has prejudice in this case, even before any evidence is presented, he refuses to recuse.
I opened this case against Ed Poor because he blocked me for non-existent NPA attacks, again, in November, threatened that he had the "pull" to get me banned, and said I should be banned for life. I specifically excluded SlimVirgin because some of my evidence shows posts by SlimVirgin and I wanted to be clear that I wasn't trying to bring her to arbcom. Fred Bauder, showing yet more of his prejudice, widens the case in an interesting manner: He allows SlimVirgin to submit evidence against me, allowing SlimVirgin to make numerous accusations against me, but Fred Bauder excludes any review of her accusations or any review of SlimVirgin's behaviour. Rather than have one side make accusations and submit evidence, and then have the otehr side respond to the accusations and respond to the evidence, and then have a neutral arbiter judge what really happened, arbcom accepts SlimVirgin's evidence and accusations at her word, and then cites her evidence directly in the proposed finding of facts . 
Further examples that would make Kafka grin occurs when arbcom then proposes that I "instigated edit wars" on Terrorism and Creation Science. On the Terrorism article, I made a total of seven edits over the course of four days . The first of which was to insert two sentences quoting a notable source . For this, I "instigated an edit war". The Creation science article isn't even mentioned in the evidence except in reference to the Bensaccount RfC. This shows amazing skill at cherry picking evidence, because to ignore what SlimVirgin did on the Bensaccount RfC , but to be able to then follow the evidence mentioning the Bensaccount RfC and go to the Creation science article, to be able to find me guilty of "instigating an edit war" on the Creation science article, ignoring that the Bensaccount RfC shows the source of the problem, and ignore that the Bensaccount RfC evidence shows that SLimVirgin was stalking me in August, simply reveals just how selective arbcom is willing to be in looking at the evidence and even making up evidence.
Finally, arbcom has accepted SlimVirgin's evidence about "stalking" at her word too, citing her evidence in arbcom's proposal . Arbcom refuses to give an objective review of her evidence, despite a sequence of diffs by me that show legitimate causes that brought me to various pages , which shows that SlimVirgin misrepresented evidence about the words to avoid article, when the facts show that I quoted the article to her first , and then she goes and deletes the part of the article that I quoted . Not only did she misrepresent evidence to accuse me of stalking when its clearly the other way around, but she also covers up the fact that she modified policy that was used to criticize her, which itself, is a violation of policy. 
Meanwhile, the stalking policy specifically excludes edits which "fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy" . And although I've presented a bunch of evidence that shows SlimVirgin and others violating policy:
Slimvirgin's behaviour on Terri Schiavo article
SlimVirgin's stalking/combativeness on the Bensaccount RfC
SlimVIrgin's misuse of admin priviledges on Jayjg's candidate page
SlimVirgin/Jayjg's misuse of admin priviledges to page protect Animal Rights
SlimVirgin's POV pushing on animal rights article
SlimVirgin/Jayjg pushing a pro-Israel POV
If this evidence showed policy violations by SlimVirgn and others, then my edits would be excluded from being labeled "stalking". However, arbcom has decided that reviewing SlimVirgin's behaviour is a separate matter and is not related to this case. Which is interesting, because I started this case saying it was separate, specifically excluding SlimVirgin, but then Arbcom took it upon themselves to invite SlimVirgin to submit evidence against me. Now that review of SlimVirgin's behaviour would have direct bearing on whether my edits qualify as "stalking" or not, arbcom suddenly moves in to protect SlimVirgin from criticism.
If this is the case, then the "stalking" policy page should be modified to say that stalking does not include fixing another editor's errors or policy violations unless that other editor is an admin, at which point, fixing an admin's policy violations still qualifies as stalking.
:You have to accept that that's the "de facto" policy, Fuel. It's one of the ones that are sorted out in the backchannel but never written down. -- Grace Note
::In their eagerness to nail me, you would think they would at least do a little research in their back channel communications. inserting two sentences quoting a source in the Terrorism article is "instigating an edit war"? Oh well, if this case is really entirely for show, then it doesn't matter how hollow the charges match reality, they could say I was violating "Civil" because I posted an "apology request form" on my talk page, when I should have gone out and apologized to every single editor on wikipedia, just in case they passed through the talk pages without editing, and I happened to offend them by my remarks. Nice, eh? Clearly, the back channel is where things get done. Nothing can be said about SlimVirgin's POV pushing because not only would that deflate the bogus "stalking" charge against me, but it would also get her into trouble as well. And the secret ballots have already been passed out. FuelWagon is guilty. SlimVirgin is beyond reproach. The rules cannot be applied to admins because that would allow the trolls and vandals to do naughty things. And if it weren't for (insert name of admin here), then wikipedia would collapse, so lets just overlook their behaviour. FuelWagon 00:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: and yet accusations of "cabal" continue to arise

message: What's best for wikipedia.. FuelWagon 23:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: what's best for wikipedia

message: I can't begin to descibe how sad this makes me feel.  Wikipedia is and has the potential to become something far greater than any of us.  Something not seen since the glory days of Alexandria.  And yet we spend our energies beating one another without taking the time to step back and realize something important:
:Just because we're partially right, the other side is not entirely wrong and therefore their views are to be dismissed (or surpressed).
I would strongly suggest that all involved with this matter ask for Jimmy Carter's Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis for the holidays.  Although I don't entirely agree with Fmr. Pres. Carter, he makes a good point that taking on a fundementalist mentality about anything is distructive.  May the Universe bless and keep us all.--ghost 15:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Ghost speaks 

message: Before any evidence had been submitted to arbcom, Fred Bauder stated on the mailing list "we have all encountered FuelWagon doing his thing". . Despite this showing Fred was prejudiced in this case, he refused to recuse himself. . Fred was also the first person to submit evidence to the arbcom case, presenting a post by me listing my "most ideal terms" as hard "demands". Despite this misrepresentation of evidence, Fred Bauder refused to correct his evidence . At the same time, Fred Bauder expands a case about Ed Poor's misuse of admin priveledges and invites SlimVirgin to submit evidence against me . So, it is no wonder that arbcom found the decisions that it wanted to find, it is no wonder that arbcom ignored misrepresentations in SlimVirgin's evidence, it is no wonder that arbcom ignored any evidence I presented that directly disproved SlimVirgin's evidence, it is no wonder that arbcom refused to look into policy violations by SlimVirgin that would directly disqualify the charge against me of "stalking" SlimVirgin on multiple articles. Meanwhile, Jayjg, who is clearly implicated in teh evidence, and who is shown by the evidence to have violated several policies alongside SlimVirgin, who some suggest may actually be SlimVirgin's boyfriend, never came out and announced he woudl recuse, and arbcom remains silent on his behaviour as shown by the evidence as well. 
Fred Bauder's statement before any evidence was submitted shows his prejudice, his active seeking of evidence, misrepresentation of evidence, willingness to expand the case to accept SlimVirgin's evidence against me, but refusal to expand the case to actually review SlimVirgin's behaviour in her alleged events, is nothing more than an extension of his previously declared prejudice. When this case was requested, Fred Bauder knew what ruling he wanted, and he simply went around looking for whatever would make that ruling look good. The simplest investigation into the Terrorism article  clearly shows that rather than "instigating an edit war" as arbcom has found as "fact", I had actually inserted two sentences quoting a notable source. A cursory look at the Creation Science article shows that I RfCed a POV pusher named Bensaccount , rather than "instigating an edit war on the Creation Science" article as arbcom has found as "fact". A quick look at SlimVirgin's stalking evidence shows not only did she misrepresent dates , but she also uses "stalking" as a way to claim ownership on a number of articles that she has a history of POV pushing on. SlimVirgin clearly shows a history of pushing a pro-Israel and pro-Animal-Rights POV in a number of articles.   . But arbcom made up its mind before the first evidence was presented, and arbcom has demonstrated that the evidence doesn't really matter. And all the old-timers will run to the defense of arbcom and other old-timers, saying how this is what's best for wikipedia. A fair and impartial determiniation of facts is whats best for wikipedia, in its articles and in its decisions by arbcom. FuelWagon 16:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A final analysis of this "case"