text:
Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Willmcw and SlimVirgin

The original request in full, please do not edit it.

User:Willmcw and User:SlimVirgin
Summary

Willmcw is stalking and harassing other editors who disagree with his political POV for disruptive purposes. SlimVirgin has engaged in extreme personal belligerency toward other editors, has made repeated personal attacks, and has engaged in coordinated disruptive actions with Willmcw.

Involved parties
An administrator incident complaint was filed by User:Rangerdude against Willmcw for wiki-stalking and general harassment on June 15th. Willmcw filed a retaliatory RfC against Rangerdude later the same evening, alleging that Rangerdude's wiki-stalking allegation against him was a personal attack. Mediation was suggested in response to Rangerdude's complaint, both parties agreed to mediation with User:Andrevan, notice was posted to the incident board and the RfC, which was then withdrawn. Attempts to proceed with mediation from then until the present have been unproductive due to mediation backlogs and disagreement over the format for conducting mediation. In the meantime the conflict has intensified. Allegations of Willmcw's harassing behavior and wiki-stalking of Rangerdude continue to the present. User:SlimVirgin has also become involved in the controversy, supporting Willmcw. Additional incident complaints were filed yesterday by Rangerdude against Willmcw for disruption of Rangerdude's edits and against SlimVirgin for harassment, promotion of Willmcw's disruptive activities, and abuse of her administrator powers in page protecting Rangerdude's user page at a time she was a party to the disputes. Page protection was removed by SlimVirgin after Rangerdude complained, but additional disputes remain. Rangerdude subsequently posted an additional request for mediation disputing Willmcw's recent activities as harassment and requesting mediation with SlimVirgin for the same. SlimVirgin refused this mediation and Willmcw denied that Rangerdude's original complaint, located here had ever been filed against him.

 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

 * Post by Rangerdude informing SlimVirgin of RfAr after SlimVirgin refused mediation.
 * SlimVirgin acknowledges Rangerdude's intent to file RfAr
 * Notice posted to Willmcw of Rangerdude's intent to file RfAr
 * Willmcw acknowledges RfAr has been filed

 * Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

If not, then explain why that would be fruitless

 * - Incident complaint by Rangerdude against Willmcw for wikistalking and harassment, June 15th.
 * - Incident complaint against Willmcw for continued harassment, August 18th
 * - Incident complaint against SlimVirgin for harassment and abuse of page protection policy, August 18th
 * - Request for Mediation by Rangerdude with SlimVirgin & Willmcw.
 * - SlimVirgin refuses mediation request.
 * - Willmcw denies original complaint was ever made against him.

Rangerdude complaint against Willmcw

 * Willmcw has engaged in a pattern of harassment, disruption, and wiki-stalking towards Rangerdude from February 2005 to the present and involving over 40 different articles (evidence). This stalking has been disruptive including dismantling of Rangerdude's additions without justification, removal of source material for political and POV reasons, and general harassment aimed at pestering Rangerdude's day-to-day edits on unrelated articles. This violates Wikipedia's policies on civility, disruption, assuming good faith, and existing Arbcom precedent and Jimbo Wales' Recycling Troll case ruling about pestering other users with stalking.
 * Willmcw's stalking of me has included disruption of the Houston Chronicle mediation including the unilateral addition of himself to a closed mediation between Rangerdude and another editor and revert warring to retain his self-addition after it was removed.
 * Willmcw has repeatedly attempted to disrupt Rangerdude's efforts in the current guideline proposal of Stalking. This includes multiple bad faith edits aimed at dismantling, weakening, and deleting the proposal's text, revert warring to add an unfriendly and undesired change to the proposal , ,  and removing material authored by Rangerdude from the proposal while it was being drafted on account of its authorship.
 * Willmcw has made WP:POINT disruptions aimed at harming the Stalking proposal. Willmcw announced his intent to file a counter-complaint of wiki-stalking against Rangerdude for the purpose of disruption after objections were made to his dismantling edits to the proposal that are described above. He was warned of WP:POINT in response, but subsequently followed through with the complaint posted to Rangerdude's talk page.
 * Willmcw has repeatedly attempted to alter and remove a question posed to him by Rangerdude regarding his purposes and disruptive edits on the Stalking article from that article's talk page. Edits were for the purposes of removing the fact that the question was addressed at his edits specifically.
 * Willmcw has engaged in and promoted revert warring against Rangerdude's edits and in disregard of talk page discussions that are pending.  Note: this particular case of revert warring was on an article that Willmcw has repeatedly stalked me to dating back to February 2005 and has edited in a disruptive manner previously.
 * Willmcw has a history of filing retaliatory motions against Rangerdude in response to reports of his policy violations and bad behavior by Rangerdude. Examples include filed 4 hours after Rangerdude reported Willmcw for wikistalking on the administrator incident board ; Threats to post  and followthrough on posting a retaliatory wikistalking counter-complaint against Rangerdude after Rangerdude voiced concerns about Willmcw's intent in editing the wiki-stalking proposal despite having a long history of having been accused of that same practice in the past; and filing a retaliatory RfAr against Rangerdude 4 days after this RfAr was posted regarding him. These examples are violations of WP:POINT and are attempts at gaming the system in response to complaints that call his editing behavior into question.
 * Willmcw recently responded by disrupting several Wikipedia articles when Rangerdude removed a POV qualifier added by another Wikipedia newcomer from the name of Thomas DiLorenzo, a libertarian economist who Willmcw dislikes, in an article that quoted DiLorenzo. The qualifier attempted to bias the introduction of DiLorenzo's quote with a politically charged statement about his membership in a controversial group & Rangerdude removed it to bring the article into NPOV compliance noting in the edit description "rem. non-encyclopedic non-neutral fact ref. (see WP:NPOV) - already mentioned on DiLorenzo article in fuller context." Willmcw responded by disrupting at least four different articles in which he removed a directly quoted and sourced self-description of Ed Sebesta - a liberal political activist he likes - while mockingly copying Rangerdude's note to apply to Sebesta "rem. non-encyclopedic non-neutral fact ref. (see WP:NPOV) - already mentioned on Sebesta article in fuller context"   It appears that Willmcw's sole intent in making these changes was to prompt a reaction and foster further ill will with Rangerdude, all the while disrupting existing Wikipedia content.
 * Willmcw has engaged in heavy POV pushing to promote a liberal/leftist political agenda and to disparage conservative/libertarian viewpoints that disagree with his own. Example: Willmcw added the scare term "controversial" to the opening sentence of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, a libertarian philsopher, yet removed it from the opening sentence of Southern Poverty Law Center, a liberal organization that he agrees with. In pursuing this political agenda Willmcw has become unusually skilled at content manipulation on wikipedia articles about conservative and libertarian writers, politicians, organizations, and think tanks. One of his most common tactics is to insert insinuations of racist, anti-semitic, neo-nazi, KKK, and other hate group affiliations into articles about mainstream conservative and libertarian topics, thereby trying to discredit them through guilt-by-association links with notorious political extremists. Example: Willmcw attempted to insert David Duke quotations into an article about a libertarian think tank.

Rangerdude complaint against SlimVirgin

 * SlimVirgin assisted Willmcw in the WP:POINT disruption described above by posting a coordinated note publicizing it to the Village Pump announcement where community input was solicited for the Stalking guideline proposal. This was done for the apparent purpose of disrupting or discrediting the Village Pump request for community input on forming the guideline, as indicated by her edit summary description and accompanying comments.
 * Moments later SlimVirgin abused her administrative powers to page protect my user page, apparently aimed at preserving and promoting Willmcw's WP:POINT complaint that she had just linked to. Page protection prohibits administrators from protecting pages in disputes where they are involved. The protection was removed after Rangerdude complained on both the Admin noticeboard and the Page Protection board. SlimVirgin also made an accompanying second post at this time to the Village Pump aimed at promoting Willmcw's note after another editor removed it apparently for WP:POINT reasons. This post demonstrates that her purpose in protecting the userpage and pursuing the other editor was motivated primarily by her coordinated promotion of Willmcw's note for purposes of disrupting the guideline proposal Rangerdude was working on, rather than a simple case of vandalism as she has claimed.
 * SlimVirgin has made repeated personal attacks and bad faith allegations against Rangerdude. SlimVirgin rudely accused Rangerdude of deleting another unrelated user's comments from a noticeboard when the culprit was an apparent scripting bug that has been causing problems to that particular board. SlimVirgin made a similar bad-faith accusation of deletion agaisnt Rangerdude for merging a simultaneous and duplicate request for input on the Stalking proposal into one notice post. SlimVirgin responded with extreme belligerency and personal attacks when Rangerdude responded to this allegation by stating it was a simple attempt to merge two redundant posts. SlimVirgin also removed Rangerdude's comments explaining this merge.
 * SlimVirgin has engaged in multiple personal attacks including demeaning personal comments in response to the incidents mentioned above. Examples: "What is wrong with you" and "You're a disruptive editor".
 * SlimVirgin has made similar personal attacks towards Rangerdude previously, has exhibited extreme personal belligerency toward Rangerdude as an editor ("What's wrong with it Rangerdude, is in part that it's you who's suggesting it. My position is that you should not be editing this page") and has made attacks against Rangerdude that could be construed as a legal threat. Note: SlimVirgin has been cautioned by the Arbcom previously for making personal attacks.
 * SlimVirgin has engaged in edits aimed at benefitting, insulating, and/or protecting other editor friends of her own, including Willmcw, from adverse scrutiny in the dispute resolution process. In a recent case Rangerdude filed an RfC regarding an edit where Willmcw deleted approx. 72% of the article text on Thomas Woods and revert warred 3 times to retain this deletion. Willmcw attempted to sway the RfC by changing its description to claim the deletion was significantly less than what was noted. Rangerdude restored the original RfC and documented the accurate deletion size on the article talk page but SlimVirgin, seeking to insulate Willmcw, has attempted to revert the RfC to a text more favorable to Willmcw with the intentionally smaller size estimation.

Statement by 216.112.42.61; complaint against Willmcw
May I say something here? I just noticed this complaint by chance when looking at this page. Rangerdude is not the only one that has been stalked by Willmcw. I too have been stalked by said user, though it was a while ago so I don't remember it well. I just gave up rather than reporting it, but since others are now reporting on Willmcw, I am also. If I remember correctly, Willmcw was trying to push his own biased POV in the article 'terrorism', and I reverted his edits for a while, then gave up. Willmcw then stalked my IP to the article 'ballotechnics', which I had done substantial work on, in which Willmcw falsely portrayed it by classifying it as a pseudoscience, to discredit my contributions in anger over my attempt to prevent his pushing his biased POV. Being as others have also been stalked by Willmcw, it is clear that he has got to go.

Statement by Herschelkrustofsky; complaint against Willmcw
I wish to second the remarks of 216.112.42.61; I too have been stalked by said user. Willmcw has anticipated my contribution to this discussion in his response below, but I would like to make it official. --HK 14:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * ...And, Willmcw has resumed stalking me. I have begun compiling a log of frivolous edits, which I will submit as evidence if the Arbcom decides to accept this case. --HK 00:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Jonah Ayers; complaint against Willmcw

 * I too have been stalked by WillmcwJonah Ayers

Recusals
As this RfAr involves two fairly well known administrators on Wikipedia, I am also requesting in compliance with Arbitration policy on conflict of interest for any arbitration participant who has a strong historical editing relationship with or other personal allegiance to SlimVirgin, Willmcw, or both to disclose this information and, if applicable, recuse him or herself in accordance with this policy. Thank you. Rangerdude 00:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Willmcw
Rangerdude raises five points in his complaint against me. I consider two of them (#1 & #4) serious enough for the ArBCom to arbitrate. I believe that the other three complaints are minor and/or are based on mistaken interpretations of events. Here are my specific responses:

1. I previously responded to Rangerdude's "wiki-stalking" allegation here: Requests for comment/Rangerdude. Rangerdude also made this accusation during my Requests for adminship/Willmcw. At that time three editors, each barely or not known to me, wrote to say that they'd checked the "wiki-stalking" evidence and found no wrongdoing.. However Rangerdude has continued to attack me with this charge for months. I request that the ArbCom decide whether my own behavior towards Rangerdude has been wikistalking harassment, or whether his repetition of the charges has been harassment. I am eager to reply in detail to any of Rangerdude's specific charges that the ArbCom wishes.

FYI, since Rangerdude began calling me a wikistalker I also have been accused of it by these editors:
 * 00:01, June 18, 2005, 08:39, July 14, 2005, 23:06, July 14, 2005, 00:31, July 15, 2005 21:19, July 16, 2005, 21:44, July 16, 2005
 * 00:06, June 18, 2005
 * / 19:32, August 5, 2005
 * 22:35, August 8, 2005 06:53, August 23, 2005
 * 00:43, August 10, 2005
 * 08:44, August 18, 2005
 * 21:08, August 21, 2005
 * 02:56, August 23, 2005

2. The mediator invited me to join the Houston Chronicle mediation on June 10th and I promptly accepted.. After hearing no reply I posted a note asking if anything was happening then, having seen a notice of mediation, I just dove in on June 14th. Rangerdude made repeated efforts to remove me from the mediation. Rangerdude had previously demanded that I not be included and the mediator had agreed, but no one had informed me of this agreement. When the mediator asked me to leave the mediation I did so promptly. Prior to my participation, Rangerdude promised to limit his edits "to existing texts to a minimum during mediation excepting extraordinary unforseen circumstances". That restriction did not cover the large new, POV section  and other POV material that he added to the article over the next two days. After June 15, Rangerdude never made another contribution to the mediation or to the article.

3. Rangerdude has reverted as much or more than I have. In fact, he recently amended this charge against me after having just violated the 3RR himself.

4. My charge of "wikistalking" against Rangerdude is based on his following me with the apparent intent of harassment. I will address his harassment of myself and other editors in a separate request for arbitration.

5. Rangerdude's question on Wikipedia talk:Stalking asked about the personal motivation of my edits and had my username in the heading, both of which I consider to be violations of talk page wikiquette. I first responded by simply removing my name from the header, but Rangerdude wouldn't settle for that. Then I tried to move it to my talk page, but that not would do either. Rangerdude reverted three times, demanding that it be on the proposal's talk page with my name in the header. I finally gave in.

Submitted by -Willmcw 08:24, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Statement by SlimVirgin
It's hard to know how to respond to this, because I don't feel I have a dispute with Rangerdude. My interest in him is only as an admin. I see him as a disruptive editor and a vexatious litigant, who seems to spend most of his time on Wikipedia complaining about people.

Rangerdude takes a tiny factoid about an editor, twists it out of all recognition, then inserts it into multiple complaints in long-winded, quasi-legalistic posts to anyone he thinks might listen. Within the last month, he's filed two RfCs — Requests for comment/Cberlet & Willmcw and Requests for comment/FuelWagon, the latter deleted as uncertified and apparently filed because FuelWagon supported Will and Chip during the first RfC, making it WP:POINT — at least one RfM, and now this RfAr. It's practically impossible to defend yourself against his complaints, because he twists any response you make and uses it against you.

I first became aware of him, and began to think he was a disruptive editor, on June 15 when someone set up and used it to post encouragement to Rangerdude on WP:AN/I  regarding one of his complaints about Willmcw allegedly "stalking" him. This was the first I'd heard of the allegation against Will. My next encounter with him also saw him on the same side as sockpuppets. On June 18, he defended a malicious vandalism listing made against Will by, a new account believed to be a sockpuppet of , another disruptive editor who thinks everyone's stalking him.

Because of his support of abusive sockpuppets and their support of him, and because he was making (as I saw it, absurd) complaints against a good editor, I formed a view of Rangerdude as disruptive. I therefore left a note on his talk page asking him to reconsider his complaints against Will, and to consider taking a break from interacting with him. He replied complaining about Will's editing of Eric Foner but when I checked the page, it was clear that Rangerdude was reverting to unsourced material, and all Will was doing was politely asking for a source. I therefore told Rangerdude that Will was following policy, as he always does in my experience.

It seems this was enough to turn me into one of Rangerdude's targets. Since then, he was posted a lot of criticism of me (which I see as personal attacks), for example this. I won't give detailed responses to his specific charges unless the case is accepted, except to say that they're nonsense, and in particular I haven't abused any admin powers in relation to him. I once protected his talk page for 10 minutes when a new account (another abusive sockpuppet who strongly supported Rangerdude) kept deleting a message that Will had posted,  so I briefly protected the page from being reverted until I could work out what to do about Bigelow (who responded to the page protection with a personal attack  and was therefore blocked). Rangerdude writes above that I unprotected the page only after he complained about the protection, but that isn't correct. The protection log shows:
 * 08:48, August 18, 2005 SlimVirgin protected User talk:Rangerdude (vandalism);
 * 08:57, August 18, 2005 SlimVirgin protected User talk:Bigelow (abusive account; blocked indefinitely)
 * 08:58, August 18, 2005 SlimVirgin unprotected User talk:Rangerdude (vandal has been blocked).
 * It was at 09:05 August 18 that Rangerdude made his first complaint. SlimVirgin (talk)  12:20, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Statement by third party (Rangerdude RFA v Willmcw and SlimVirgin): FuelWagon
My involvment in this situation stems from an RFC that Rangerdude filed against Willmcw. I was not involved in the original dispute and saw the RFC and made a comment as an outside, uninvolved, and neutral party. Rangerdude was complaining about Cberlet and Willmcw's edits on the Ludwig Von Mises Institute (LVMI) article. I looked at the evidence given and the responses made, then looked at the article and talk page histories, and made my comment that the three people who certified the RFC (DickClarkMises, an LVMI employee, Nskinsell, an "adjunct scholar" for LVMI, and Rangerdude) were far more the root of any POV problem around the LVMI article than Cberlet and Willmcw.

Rangerdude related to this RFC as if he "owned" it. He reacted to my comment by going in and reformatting my comment  and then he replied to my comment, calling it "extremely one-sided", "troubling", and "revolting". He claimed my "insinuation ... plainly violates Wikipedia:assume good faith" He claimed I "misrepresented" his edits. And he concluded "Given these clear cases of misrepresentation, bad faith personal insinuations, and inconsistenly-applied 'conflict of interest' allegations, I am disinclined to give further credence to the neutrality or accurracty of FuelWagon's take on this matter."

I got the feeling that Rangerdude was using the RFC as an attempt to punish editors who disagreed with him. I told Rangerdude that "an RFC is a mechanism intended to resolve a dispute. It is not a place to "build a case" against an editor to bring punitive measures againt them"

Rangerdude's reply indicated that he believes an RFC is needed prior to arbitration. "Were I to seek arbitration at this point before conducting an RfC into user conduct as this one is plainly categorized and designated, the request would likely be denied"

This only reinforced my opinion that Rangerdude was not using the RFC as a way to resolve his dispute with Cberlet/Willmcw, but as a way to build a case so he could eventually take it to arbitration and punish them. "You're attempting to convict someone of being rude when you broke nearly every traffic law in the book before coming before the judge. ... Take a break. give yourself a day to breathe."

Rangerdude's reply indicated his refusal to change course. "this RfC can and will proceed in a proper and responsible fashion be it with or without your assistance"

Rangerdude continued relating to the RFC as if he "owns" it, and opened an RFC-in-a-RFC, commenting on my comments and asked other editors to endorse his comments.

Throughout that RFC, Rangerdude related to the entire RFC page as if he owned it. He responded to many editors who commented against his position, he resisted attempts to move his replies to that talk page, and he even took it upon himself to put his own comments in the "response" section normally reserved for the individuals being accused of violating policy. He even declared the "requirement" to close the RFC was that "the new revisions (to the LVMI page) are allowed to remain"

Soon thereafter, and in a further demonstration of using RFC's for punitive means, Rangerdude filed an RFC against me for some comment I made on another RFC, accusing me of personal attacks. No one else certified it, so it was removed.

I went back to editing articles and didn't bump into Rangerdude again until I happened upon the proposed policy against "stalking". Rangerdude seemed intent on making it against policy to "stalk" another editor. The overall consensus was largely against the proposed policy, and it was eventually merged in with "harassment". I believe Rangerdude became heavily involved in the policy proposal for wikipedia:stalking with the specific intention of accusing Willmcw of "stalking" him. "stalking" is an accusation that is easy to make and is extremely difficult even for an innocent editor to disprove.

While I haven't been involved in the current dispute that Rangerdude is requestion arbitration for around Willmcw and SlimVirgin, it is my opinion that Rangerdude's edits qualify as POV-pushing and he wikilawyers against anyone who opposes his POV edits. In my opinion, this request for arbitration was his intention from the start when he filed the RFC against Willmcw and Cberlet. Rangerdude's edits were consistently POV. And he consistently reacted to anyone who opposed his POV edits by RFC'ing them, building a case against them, and accusing them of countless policy violations. His reaction to my comment read more like a prosecuting attorney than someone attempting to resolve anything: "Given these clear cases of misrepresentation, bad faith personal insinuations, and inconsistenly-applied 'conflict of interest' allegations, I am disinclined to give further credence to the neutrality or accurracty of FuelWagon's take on this matter." )

It's my opinion that Rangerdude's approach to dealing with editors who have a different point of view than him is to wikilawyer them, find a way to punish them, file RFC's and negotiate a change to the article in exchange for closing the RFC, attempt to change policy to make it easier to accuse them of policy violations, and accumulate enough empty charges to bring it to arbitration. FuelWagon 16:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I endorse the summary and conclusions above by FuelWagon. --Cberlet 15:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't have direct experience of SlimVirgin's behaviour around this specific incident. However, my experience of SlimVirgin saw three good editors leave wikipedia in disgust after a run-in with her. While not directly related, it may reflect a pattern of behaviour on SlimVirgin's part that may have contributed to the above situation.

On 11 July, 2005, the Terri Schiavo article looked like this. The talk page marked the article as "controversial topic" and "in mediation". Ed Poor was mediator. SlimVirgin came into the article, performed 9 edits over the course of 3 hours. During that time SlimVirgin inserted the "in use" tag, which displays "This article is actively undergoing a major edit."

Several long term editors on the article protested that SlimVirgin's edit qualified as reckless for an article listed as "controversial" and in "mediation" and that her edit contained numerous factual errors.

SlimVirgin never once acknowledge a single factual error in her edit, although she continued to ask us to point out any error. "If I made a factual error, point to it", "You also mention errors of fact, but again, don't cite any. Please do." , "Show me one factual or grammatical error that I edited into the article", "Show me one error I made in the article" , "neither of you has said what your objection is" , "If you feel I've introduced errors, please list them on talk" , "please discuss your objections on talk" , "Please say what your specific objections are".

Several editors pointed out factual errors in her edit, including user:Neuroscientist who posted a 5,000 word explanation here. Rather than acknowledge a single error, SlimVirgin replies " I don't appreciate the personal comments you've lobbed at me." SlimVirgin accused several editors of various policy violations including "POV pushing", "taking ownership of the page" , "violating NPOV and No original research" , and "arguing for the sake of arguing". When asked to support her accusations, she neither provided evidence nor withdrew her accusations. Demands for evidence to support these accusations were met with silence. I filed an RFC against SlimVirgin and it was supported by 5 editors. I eventually withdraw my certification to allow the RFC to be deleted.

When the RFC fails to resolve anything, a long time contributer to the Terri Schiavo article, User:Duckecho quit wikipedia, citing SlimVirgin's "arrogance" as one reason for leaving. User:Neuroscientist quits wikipedia soon after.

SlimVirgin withdraws from Terri Schiavo mediation, saying it was "silly". . One editor who had been working on the article "A ghost" called it "self-centered, naked arrogance". Ten days later, "A ghost" stops contributing to wikipedia.

These three editors (Duckecho, Neuroscientist, A ghost) had been working on the Terri Schiavo and other articles on wikipedia for several months and had 2,000 edits combined. And all of them leave wikipedia immediately after this incident with SlimVirgin. Despite SlimVirgin's accusations of rampant policy violations by these editors on the Terri Shiavo article, none of these three editors had any RFC's or admin blocks against them.

The end result of SlimVirgin's behaviour was that three valuable editors left wikipedia in disgust, two specifically blaming her of arrogance. FuelWagon 19:02, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

update: Having filed the above comment, SlimVirgin informed me she can no longer assume any good faith of me. Later that same day, she questioned the validity of an RFC that I filed against another editor (Bensaccount) about a week and a half prior. SlimVirgin said it looks like "another example of an inappropriate RfC filed by" me. She questioned several aspects of the legitimacy of the RFC on the RFC talk page. I told her that given her declared bias against me, and given that she hadn't said one word about this RFC up until this point, that she shouldn't be involved with this RFC at all. We went back and forth on the talk page. SlimVirgin eventually deleted two posts of mine that comment about her behaviour, she attempted to justify the first delete as a personal attack and saying "reverting" for the second one. . I tell her she's trying to suppress criticism of her behaviour as an admin and as an editor. Some time later, SlimVirgin says that she asked another admin to look at the RFC, and based on what they said, she wasn't going to delete it. , which means the RFC was fine in the first place.

Statement by third party: Cberlet
I find myself in the odd position of agreeing with Fuelwagon regarding Willmcw and disagreeing over SlimVirgin. I have been involved with editing pages with both Willmcw and SlimVirgin over many months. My experience with SlimVirgin has been that she is devoted to crafting NPOV and accurate text. She does rap Wikieditors cyberknuckles when they get unruly, but that is a proper role for an Admin. She is willing to engage in extensive discussions on Talk pages--often to great lengths. I see that this Arb is being merged, and I will try to fogure out how to respond on the proper pages, but I did want to leave this statement here to keep the record clear.--Cberlet 16:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Statement made by third party User:Zeq
Summary: I am new to wikipedia but i would like to stay and contribute. My minimal interaction with slim has the influence that caused me to consider if, as an new user, I would continue to contribute to Wikipedia. So far I have decided to stay  despite her actions and personal attacks .

 * 1) My first interaction with her was on the contentious issue of the Israeli west bank barrier. Slim have "floated" or "landed out of the blue" once in a while in the middle of heated discussion edits and did one simple thing: Reverted well sourced edits.
 * 2) It was not long when I understood that such a discouraging acts are targeted at edits which do not fit her political POV. To be clear: I understand very much that an editor or an admin protecting pages from vandalism have got used to revert pages that have been vandalized, but to act in this manner in the middle of discussions on issues that require real, deep understanding and participation is counter productive.
 * 3) next, I was subject to several name calling by slim when I commented on an RfA by herRequests_for_adminship/Ramallite. She wanted to appoint to an admin a user who was engaged in edit war and POV pushing and when I objected she called me "difficult editor".
 * 4) Later I noticed that this RfA is not the first in which she tries to push to amidships an editor who's anti-Israel bias is clear. Requests_for_adminship/Anonymous_editor

As I am new to Wikipedia, I don't know what of wikipedia rules has she violated but I clearly feel she is pushing a certain POV in more than one legitimate way.

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

 * Just noting that I'm waiting for a response before coming to a decision. James F. (talk) 11:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC) Accept. James F. (talk) 22:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept Fred Bauder 14:45, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept ➥the Epopt 03:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration merge problems
As I understand it, both my original case against user:Willmcw and user:SlimVirgin and a second case filed later by user:Willmcw against me were accepted by the Arbcom. Yet in reviewing the Arbcom votes on both cases it appears clear to me that the votes on arbitration for Willmcw's complaint against me (Requests_for_arbitration/Rangerdude) were to accept and merge that case into the first case, which I filed (Requests for arbitration/Willmcw and SlimVirgin), not the other way around as has been done. This is explicitly stated in James F.'s vote "Accept. Merge into below case, if both are accepted" and indicated in the three subsequent votes, which all state "Accept and merge." None of the Arbcom votes on Requests_for_arbitration/Willmcw_and_SlimVirgin had a merge stipulation, indicating it was understood that the other case would be merged into it - not the other way around. Given this, I am posting this note to ask an Arbcom member correct the listings on these two cases to reflect these votes. I apologize if this appears to be nitpicking and I believe it was simply an honest mistake, but I want to make sure that this case proceeds by the books out of fairness to myself and to all parties involved. Thanks - Rangerdude 16:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


text:
The Code of the Woosters

The Code of the Woosters is a novel by P. G. Wodehouse, first published on 7 October 1938, in the United Kingdom by Herbert Jenkins, London, and in the United States by Doubleday, Doran, New York. It was previously serialised in The Saturday Evening Post (US) from 16 July to 3 September 1938, illustrated by Wallace Morgan, and in the London Daily Mail from 14 September to 6 October 1938.

The Code of the Woosters is the third full-length novel to feature Bertie Wooster and his valet Jeeves. It introduces Sir Watkyn Bassett, the owner of a country house called Totleigh Towers where the story takes place, and his intimidating friend Roderick Spode. It is also a sequel to Right Ho, Jeeves, continuing the story of Bertie's newt-fancying friend Gussie Fink-Nottle and Gussie's sentimental fiancée, Madeline Bassett.

Bertie and Jeeves return to Totleigh Towers in a later novel, Stiff Upper Lip, Jeeves.

Plot
Jeeves is trying to persuade Bertie to go on a world cruise. Instead Bertie's Aunt Dahlia sends him to visit a particular antique shop and sneer at a silver eighteenth-century cow creamer, so as to drive down its price for his aunt's collector husband, Tom. In the shop, Bertie encounters the magistrate Sir Watkyn Bassett, who is also a collector. Sir Watkyn is accompanied by his future nephew-in-law Roderick Spode, the leader of a Fascist organization.

Later, Bertie learns that, by playing an underhanded trick on Tom, Sir Watkyn has obtained the creamer. Aunt Dahlia sends Bertie to Totleigh Towers to steal it back, but there he comes under suspicion as someone Sir Watkyn had once sentenced for a drunken offence. Bertie's other reason for visiting is to heal a rift between Gussie Fink-Nottle and Madeline, Sir Watkyn's daughter. Madeline incorrectly believes Bertie is in love with her, and she has promised to marry him if her engagement should ever fail. In order to avoid this at all costs, Bertie persuades Madeline to invite him down, but he learns upon arriving that Gussie and Madeline have reconciled.

To give himself confidence for an upcoming speaking engagement, Gussie has been keeping a notebook in which he writes insults about Sir Watkyn and Spode. When the notebook is lost, Bertie fears that if it should fall into Sir Watkyn's hands, Madeline would be forbidden to marry Gussie. The notebook is found instead by 'Stiffy' Byng, Sir Watkyn's niece, who wants approval from her uncle to marry the local curate, Harold Pinker. Sir Watkyn considers Harold unsuitable, however, so Stiffy uses the notebook to blackmail Bertie into going along with her plan. Bertie must pretend to steal the cow-creamer but allow Harold to catch him in the act. She hopes this will motivate Sir Watkyn to approve Harold's marriage to her.

When Gussie tries to search Stiffy for the missing notebook, Madeline misinterprets his actions and breaks off their engagement. Spode, who has strong protective feelings for Madeline, then threatens Gussie with violence. But Jeeves now learns from his London club that Spode has a shameful secret. Though the club's rules forbid Jeeves revealing it, he informs Bertie that mentioning the name "Eulalie" can control Spode. Bertie now rebukes Spode with sarcastic insults and orders him to leave Gussie alone, with the result that Spode backs down and apologises for his behaviour.

Harold is persuaded to steal the helmet of the local policeman, Constable Oates, to impress Stiffy. Jeeves suggests a new plan: Bertie will tell Sir Watkyn he is engaged to Stiffy. Sir Watkyn will then be so relieved to learn she wants to marry the curate instead that he will allow it. The plan works and Stiffy gratefully tells Bertie that she hid the notebook inside the cow-creamer.

Disgusted by Gussie's apparent infidelity, Madeline tells Bertie that she will marry him. Bertie retrieves the notebook and gives it to Gussie to show Madeline as the explanation of his conduct with Stiffy. But having got into an argument with Sir Watkyn, Gussie gives Sir Watkyn the notebook of insults to supplement his own. Bertie now realises that Sir Watkyn will never relent and the only way to compel him seems to be to steal the cow-creamer and hold it as ransom for Sir Watkyn's approval of Gussie as a husband for Madeline.

Instead Aunt Dahlia steals the cow-creamer and brings it to Bertie for safe keeping. Jeeves suggests that Gussie drives with it to London to escape the angered Sir Watkyn. But Bertie next discovers Oates's helmet, which Stiffy has hidden in his room. He agrees to take the blame, however, after Stiffy appeals to his personal Code of the Woosters, "Never let a pal down".

Unable to prove that Bertie stole the cow-creamer, Sir Watkyn vows to have him imprisoned for the theft of the helmet. Instead Jeeves blackmails Spode with the name Eulalie to announce to Sir Watkyn that he had stolen the helmet himself. Jeeves then points out that Bertie can sue Sir Watkyn for defamation. Trapped, Sir Watkyn concedes approval for Madeline's and Stiffy's marriages.

In gratitude, Bertie agrees to go on the world cruise after Jeeves reveals that Spode is a designer of ladies' underclothing and runs a shop called Eulalie Soeurs, knowledge of which would destroy Spode's authority with his Fascist followers.

Background
The novel was originally to be titled The Silver Cow. When Erd Brandt, an editor at the Saturday Evening Post, criticised the original draft for having too many stage waits, Wodehouse agreed and removed them.

Various themes from the contemporary world feature in The Code of the Woosters, intruding into the otherwise timeless idyll of its country-house setting. In a 1932 letter to his friend William Townend, Wodehouse discussed two of his acquaintances, H. G. Wells and Wells's partner Odette Keun. Wodehouse wrote that "when you go to his residence, the first thing you see is an enormous fireplace, and round it are carved in huge letters the words: TWO LOVERS BUILT THIS HOUSE. Her idea, I imagine. I can't believe Wells would have thought of that himself". This anecdote was later to be incorporated into the novel: Bertie recalls in chapter 3 that he "once stayed at the residence of a newly married pal of mine, and his bride had had carved in large letters over the fireplace in the drawing-room, where it was impossible to miss it, the legend 'Two Lovers Built This Nest', and I can still recall the look of dumb anguish in the other half of the sketch's eyes every time he came in and saw it".

Political satire also became a major plot element in the novel. The character Roderick Spode introduced into it is a parody of the contemporary British fascist politician Sir Oswald Mosley, leader of the British Union of Fascists (called the "Blackshirts"). Wodehouse's strategy is to ridicule Spode's own movement and its would-be dictator in various ways, beginning with their uniform. Rather than black shirts, they are forced to wear black shorts, "footer bags" as Bertie describes them, for which Gussie's explanation is that "there were no shirts left". By the time the novel was published, there had already been uniformed fascist organisations such as the Italian Blackshirts, Hitler's Brownshirts, the French Blueshirts, the Irish Greenshirts and the Silver Legion of America. As an additional satirical stroke, Spode, the leader of the Saviours of Britain movement, is portrayed as a social outsider with messy eating habits who has to resort to bullying as a social tactic in order to assert himself.

Style
In The Code of the Woosters, Wodehouse uses a variety of stylistic devices to create humour. For example, he uses vivid imagery to make exaggerated comparisons for comic effect: "Have you ever heard Sir Watkyn Bassett dealing with a bowl of soup? It's not unlike the Scottish express going through a tunnel" (chapter 4).

Wodehouse occasionally uses a "neglected positive" (a word most used in its negative form), as with gruntled in chapter 1: "I could see that, if not actually disgruntled, he was far from being gruntled". The expression "part brass rags" is comically rendered in passive voice in chapter 6: "Brass rags had been parted by the young couple".

Wodehouse sometimes uses transliteration of ethnic or class-based mispronunciations; The Code of the Woosters features a rural policeman saying "bersicle" for "bicycle" and "verlent" for "violent" (chapter 4).

Though malapropisms are rare in Bertie's speech, one occurs in chapter 5 when Bertie uses "incredulous" for "incredible"; Bertie also makes the same mistake in chapter five of Stiff Upper Lip, Jeeves. Bertie often employs humorous abbreviations, such as exclamash for "exclamation" in chapter 4, and posish for "position" and compash for "compassion" in chapter 5. Some words that have been repeated or are part of cliché phrases are abbreviated to a single letter. For instance, Bertie sometimes refers to Aunt Dahlia as "aged relative", and abbreviates this when speaking to her in chapter 5: "'Let me explain, aged r.'".

As in many of the Jeeves novels, Bertie takes time in the beginning of The Code of the Woosters to ponder how much he should summarize previous events. In chapter 1, after Gussie Fink-Nottle is first mentioned, Bertie states:

"A thing I never know, when I'm starting out to tell a story about a chap I've told a story about before, is how much explanation to bung in at the outset. It's a problem you've got to look at from every angle. I mean to say, in the present case, if I take it for granted that my public knows all about Gussie Fink-Nottle and just breeze ahead, those publicans who weren't hanging on my lips the first time are apt to be fogged. Whereas, if before kicking off I give about eight volumes of the man's life and history, other bimbos, who were so hanging, will stifle yawns and murmur 'Old stuff. Get on with it.'"

Bertie then says that he will "put the salient facts as briefly as possible", and further discusses his intention to recount the facts concisely. Part of the humour of this passage is that, despite his concerns about brevity, Bertie's lead-in is nearly as long as the following expositional passage itself.

Beginning with The Code of the Woosters, in which he is suspected of stealing the cow-creamer and a policeman's helmet, Bertie is accused of a theft in every novel in which he appears, which often constitutes a major plot line. The motif of having Bertie suspected of theft creates humour because of its incongruity with Bertie's naive honesty.

Reception
At the time of its publication, Frank Swinnerton welcomed the novel's “happy invention and still happier expression” in The Observer, while The Times commented that, though "the ardent devotee… is always fearful that Mr. Wodehouse will one day come short of himself, The Code of the Woosters may reassure him once more". In a similar vein, the Los Angeles Times welcomed "one more of those amazing novels that Wodehouse turns out with perennial freshness, ringing a change on language and plot but never getting away from the essential Wodehousian manner".

Charlotte Jones, in a 2013 article in The Guardian, testifies to the novel’s enduring appeal in the same terms: “What makes Wodehouse wonderful, though, isn't the preposterous lunacy of the plots, or even the easy nostalgia of the setting; it is his prose. At the core of all of his stories is the surprise of language at its most flexible, fresh and fun". Further evidence is provided by the fact that The Code of the Woosters has been featured in multiple lists, including The Guardians 2009 list "1000 novels everyone must read" (along with Thank You, Jeeves and Joy in the Morning), The Telegraphs "The 15 best comedy books of all time" (2014), BBC Culture's "The 100 greatest British novels" (2015), Esquire's "The 30 Funniest Books Ever Written" (2018), and Penguin Books's "100 must-read classic books" (2018).

Radio
The Code of the Woosters was adapted into a radio drama in 1973 as part of the series What Ho! Jeeves starring Michael Hordern as Jeeves and Richard Briers as Bertie Wooster.

L.A. Theatre Works dramatised The Code of the Woosters in 1997, with Martin Jarvis as Jeeves (and Roderick Spode) and Mark Richard as Bertie Wooster.

On 9 April 2006, BBC Radio 4 broadcast The Code of the Woosters as its Classic Serial. Andrew Sachs appeared as Jeeves and Marcus Brigstocke as Bertie Wooster.

Television
Much of the plot was adapted to form the first two episodes of the second series of the ITV series Jeeves and Wooster, "Jeeves Saves the Cow-Creamer" and "The Bassetts' Fancy Dress Ball", which first aired on 14 April and 21 April 1991.

Theatre
The play  Jeeves and Wooster in Perfect Nonsense, based on The Code of the Woosters, was first performed on 10 October 2013 at Richmond Theatre, moving to the West End later that month, where its run at the Duke of York's Theatre, London, was extended to 20 September 2014. It was produced at Hartford Stage in Hartford, Connecticut on March 21 - April 20, 2019.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: The Code of the Woosters


text:
User talk:Jpalanco

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Also, thanks for uploading Image:Hazent Systems logo.png. The right image copyright tag for logos is Logo, so I am changing the unknown license to Logo on the page for that image. --Tabor 14:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jpalanco


text:
Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970

The Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970,, is a United States federal law that, with subsequent modifications, requires the pharmaceutical industry to maintain physical security and strict record keeping for certain types of drugs. Controlled substances are divided into five schedules (or classes) on the basis of their potential for abuse, accepted medical use, and accepted safety under medical supervision. Substances in Schedule I have a high potential for abuse, no accredited medical use, and a lack of accepted safety. From Schedules II to V, substances decrease in potential for abuse. The schedule a substance is placed in determines how it must be controlled. Prescriptions for drugs in all schedules must bear the physician's federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) license number, but some drugs in Schedule V do not require a prescription. State schedules may vary from federal schedules.

The Controlled Substances Act (CSA), Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, is the legal foundation of the government's fight against the abuse of drugs and other substances. This law is a consolidation of numerous laws regulating the manufacture and distribution of narcotics, stimulants, depressants, hallucinogens, anabolic steroids, and chemicals used in the illicit production of controlled substances. The act also provides a mechanism for substances to be controlled, added to a schedule, decontrolled, removed from control, rescheduled, or transferred from one schedule to another.

Proceedings to add, delete, or change the schedule of a drug or other substance may be initiated by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), or by petition from any interested party, including the manufacturer of a drug, a medical society or association, a pharmacy association, a public interest group concerned with drug abuse, a state or local government agency, or an individual citizen. When a petition is received by the DEA, the agency begins its own investigation of the drug.

The DEA also may begin an investigation of a drug at any time based upon information received from law enforcement laboratories, state and local law enforcement and regulatory agencies, or other sources of information.

Once the DEA has collected the necessary data, the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Association, by authority of the Attorney General, requests from the HHS a scientific and medical evaluation and recommendation as to whether the drug or other substance should be controlled or removed from control. This request is sent to the Assistant Secretary of Health of the HHS. Then, the HHS solicits information from the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration and evaluations and recommendations from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and on occasion, from the scientific and medical community. The Assistant Secretary, by authority of the Secretary, compiles the information and transmits back to the DEA a medical and scientific evaluation regarding the drug or other substance, a recommendation as to whether the drug should be controlled, and in what schedule it should be placed.

The medical and scientific evaluations are binding to the DEA with respect to scientific and medical matters. The recommendation on scheduling is binding only to the extent that if HHS recommends that the substance not be controlled, the DEA may not control the substance.

Once the DEA has received the scientific and medical evaluation from HHS, the Administrator will evaluate all available data and make a final decision whether to propose that a drug or other substance be controlled and into which schedule it should be placed.

The CSA also creates a closed system of distribution for those authorized to handle controlled substances. The cornerstone of this system is the registration of all those authorized by the DEA to handle controlled substances. All individuals and firms that are registered are required to maintain complete and accurate inventories and records of all transactions involving controlled substances, as well as security for the storage of controlled substances.


text:
Yelena Yelesina

Yelena Borisovna Yelesina (Елена Борисовна Елесина; born April 4, 1970) is a Russian female high jumper. She won the gold medal at the 2000 Summer Olympics with 2,01m, one centimetre behind her personal best jump. She also won several other medals outside her Olympic gold.

International competitions
All results regarding high jump.

title: Yelena Yelesina


text:
Solar Project

The German rock band Solar Project was founded in 1988. Their musical style is categorized best as Art rock or Progressive rock.

History
Solar Project was started in 1988 by Robert Valet, Volker Janacek and Peter Terhoeven as a studio project. The debut album was published in 1990 and until 2007 further six albums followed, which are distributed by the French record label Musea. In addition Solar Project contributed to Pink Floyd tribute albums with cover versions. Since 2014 new albums and re-releases will be published by New Music - Green Tree.

Musicians

 * Holger vom Bruch: vocals
 * Sandra Baetzel: Saxophone, Keyboards & vocals
 * Florian Schlott: drums
 * Sebastian Jungermann: Bass guitar
 * Peter Terhoeven: Guitar
 * Robert Valet: Keyboards
 * Guest musicians

Albums

 * 1990: The final solution
 * 1992: World Games
 * 1995: The House of S. Phrenia
 * 1997: ...in Time
 * 2001: Five
 * 2004: Force Majeure
 * 2007: Chromagnitude
 * 2007: Best of Solar Project (Vinyl)
 * 2014: Aquarmada
 * 2015: Here I Am
 * 2015: EMP & The final solution (2CD)
 * 2016: Paranoia
 * 2018: Utopia
 * 2020: Ghost Lights
 * 2022: Restless
 * 2024: Pictures at an Exhibition

Samplers

 * 2000: Signs of Life - Pigs
 * 2002: More Relics - Echoes

title: Solar Project


text:
Talk:Defendant

Split proposed
This article should be split between separate articles on criminal and civil defendants. BD2412 talk 14:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

This article needs attention - I fixed it as best as I could. --Frank Lofaro Jr. 23:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Last paragraph off topic
The last paragraph is about a different meaning of respondent. It has nothing to do with defendant. So it belongs in the article Respondent. However that redirects to another legal term. What is needed is a disambiguation page for Respondent. I don't know how to fix this - maybe someone can help! 172.176.3.52 10:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I'll do it. See respondent. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

What legal system?
We should not forget that this is an international, cross-jurisdictional project and assume that the people reading your articles are educated in your own legal system. Does the information in this article refer to the terminology in the United States, the UK, or another jurisdiction? As far as I know, the terms claimant/defendant are currently used in English law ("plainiff" abandoned after a civil procedure reform), while puruer/defender is Scottish terminology. Is the same terminology used in the US, and if so, does it vary by state? As far as "respondent" is concerned, it is a common term in international arbitration, but how is it used in national legal systems? Would appreciate some clarity on this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piotrnikitin (talk • contribs) 12:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Miranda and Dui
I was pulled over last month the HWY patrol said he detected the smell of alcohol coming my vehicle. I then explained to him that in the back area i had 25 gallon bag full of soda and beer cans. as I lifted up a beeer can tilted it to show it was empty the last swallow was now on my lap. Then he asked if I would take the field soberity test. I explained that I cannot physicallly comply with hhis test. So off to jail we go. As he was putting me in cuffs he read me my miranda. Upon arriving at the police station I was led into the INTOXALIZER room. I then informed him the second time that I needed legal council. He responded,"are you refusing?" Again I said I was not refusing But needed legal counsil. He left me in the room for app. 10 to 15 min. This is a sunday morningat 4:00am. They then decided I had refused. This makes no sence to me. Do I really have thr right to remain silent??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.1.115.179 (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Prisons
If anyone's interested, I've proposed a new wikiproject for the creation of articles regarding specific prisons here. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Moved from article
I moved this from the article as slightly off topic. (It's here in case someone disagrees and wants to put it back.) Question: Once convicted are they still a defendant? RJFJR (talk) 22:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

If found guilty, or if the defendant reaches a plea bargain or other settlement with the prosecution, the defendant receives a sentence from the presiding judge. This sentence, however, does not necessarily include the full punishment: social stigma of prosecution and collateral consequences of criminal charges may still affect the defendant.

title: Talk:Defendant