I just noticed this piece of evidence presented by Fred Bauder, with Fred's label saying "FuelWagon lists his demands of SlimVirgin". Perhaps a diff to the original question 00:00, 6 October 2005 would help, because it shows that El_C specifically asks me: "In the most ideal terms, how do you envision a resolution to this dispute?" Followed by my initial respons on 03:54, 6 October 2005 where I answer El_C's question literally. Note edit summary is "==ideal==" and the question/answer is placed in a new subsection titled "ideal". To turn "in the most ideal terms" into a list of hard "demands I made of SlimVirgin" is not just a little misleading. FuelWagon 02:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to make exactly the same point. It seems to me that many editors have been taking that list out of context. It seems obvious to me that it was never the "list of demands" that SV and others have repeatedly made it out to be. I will assume good faith (though it's somewhat difficult) and suppose that isn't obvious to everyone, but it seems pretty clear if you read what it was a response to. PurplePlatypus 07:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. El C's question is simple- What would solve the problem?- and FuleWagon's response is a list of demands of everyone else- stubbornly refusing to admit that he was part of the problem.--Sean|Black 22:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you ask someone to list in their "most ideal terms", how they would like something to turn out, you're telling me that you'd hold their reply as "demands"? Good luck in your relationships. And I have not "stubbornly refused to admit" wrongdoing on my part, I violated NPA and gave SlimVirgin a complete and unconditional apology. SlimVirgin however has actually managed to avoid admitting even a single contribution on her part to the problem. The three things I whittled my "ideal" terms down to were acknowledgements that SlimVirgin's edit was reckless, that the second block against me was undeserved, and that SlimVirgin should not have gotten involved in the Bensaccount RfC. The first and third apply to SlimVirgin. SlimVirgin made about a dozen posts on the Terri Schiavo talk page denying that her edit contained even one error, even in response to an actual neuroscientist telling her otherwise. She has also avoided any admission that her sudden involvement in my RfC agianst Bensaccount (how it was another "bad faith" RFC on my part) might have had something to do with the fact that that same morning she declared that she was all out of good faith towards me. And no apology was forthcoming after another admin told her that my RfC agianst Bensaccount was acceptable. So, while you claim I refuse to admit my contribution to the dispute, you ignore a complete and unconditional apology I made to SlimVirign. Meanwhile, you will not find a single acknowledgement from SlimVirgin that she has been part of the problem. FuelWagon 15:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]