Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

Following development of evidence here, it may be analyzed at Workshop and proposals made at Proposed decision.

Contents


[edit] Evidence presented by FuelWagon

[edit] 17 June 2005

23:34 [2] Ed Poor begins mediating Terri Schiavo article.

[edit] 11 July 2005

14:56 [3] Talk page has been marked "controversial" and "in mediation" for some time.

15:11 [4] SlimVirgin makes her first appearance on Terri Schiavo article and begins massive edit

16:14 [5] SlimVirgin massive edit

16:42 [6] SlimVirgin massive edit. "in use" tag

17:16 [7] SlimVirgin massive edit

17:55 [8] SlimVirgin massive edit

17:58 [9] SlimVirgin massive edit

18:13 [10] SlimVirgin massive edit. "in use" tag removed

18:28 [11] SlimVirgin massive edit

18:38 [12] SlimVirgin massive edit

[edit] 12 July 2005

21:41[13] SlimVirgin and Ed Poor coordinating.

[edit] 13 July 2005

15:46 [14] In response to 5,000 word criticism of SlimVirgin's edit from Neuroscientist [[15]], Ed warns Neuroscientist "Please be careful not to hurt other editors' feelings".

17:05 [16] SlimVirgin and Ed Poor coordinating

17:50 [17] SlimVirgin and Ed Poor coordinating

18:07 [18] SlimVirgin and Ed Poor coordinating. Ed asks SlimVirgin "Any particular talk pages I should look at?"

20:34 [19] Ed Poor blocks FuelWagon for "not saying how you intend to help project" then adds that FuelWagon was making "personal remarks" on talk page. Ed moves content of talk page to /block directory. Contents visible here [20]

[edit] 14 July 2005

22:04 [21] FuelWagon files an RFC on SlimVirgin for performing a reckless edit on a page marked "controversial" and in mediation, for making numerous accusations of policy violations against other editors without providing a single diff, for asking for errors with her edit, ignoring any that were pointed out, and generally reacting to criticism of her edit as a personal attack on her or accusing editors of "owning" the page or violating policies.

[edit] 15 July 2005

00:47 [22] Ed Poor gives partial and hesitant endorsement of RFC, saying "Slim moved too far, too fast".

07:10 [23] On the RFC, Ed mentions that he saw FuelWagon was in the process of cleaning up comments when Ed blocked FuelWagon. Ed apologizes. FuelWagon posts apology on Ed's talkpage.

07:56 [24] FuelWagon ask Ed what "hurtful remarks" caused the second blocked.

12:10 [25] Ed ignores FuelWagon's question about identifying "hurtful remarks" that caused block and says he is "getting away with it" in part because he's "been around a long time".

21:07 [26] Ed Poor withdraws support of RFC and attacks it on talk page calling it "sneaky way of "building a case"", gaming the system, hypocritical bullying, and suggests those filing it withdraw the RFC.

[edit] 16 July 2005

19:29 [27] FuelWagon withdraws certification of RFC allowing it to be deleted. (which is why RFC diffs don't point to original RFC)

[edit] 17 July 2005

10:45[28] Ed Poor posts to FuelWagon: "I happen to think you're an asshole and a shit head, and that you're fucking everything up, you stupd, time-wasting bully!!! (This is inserted as an example of a forbidden comment, go ahead and complain about me if you want, but I was illustrating a point."

[edit] Evidence found by Fred Bauder (talk · contribs)

[edit] 9 July 2005

Ed Poor (talk · contribs) creates the article Wikipedia:Illustrating a point [29]

[edit] 10 July 2005

Whig (talk · contribs) lists on Votes for deletion [30].

[edit] 17 July 2005

Ed Poor (talk · contribs) adds section "Being uncivil to illustrate incivility" to Wikipedia:Illustrating a point [31], declaring "Article is so much longer now, that I'm going to remove the big rfd notice.". Ed Poor modifies VfD notice [32]. Justification, with the comment, ".....for experts only........".

[edit] 28 July 2005

VfD closed with a verdict of "userfy", whatever that is [33]. Redirected by Scimitar (talk · contribs) [34] after VfD vote.

[edit] Evidence presented by Paul August

I have tried to provide a reasonably complete (though necessarily incomplete) chronology of some of the events surrounding this RfAr. Unfortunately I have no access to all the various back-channel discussions that occurred. I apologize for the length. All times are UTC. Paul August ☎ 03:30, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 1 August

  • 19:43 Deletion log: Ed Poor deletes "Wikipedia:Votes for deletion". This action caused a disruption of service, and was taken with little discussion and no consensus, in apparent violation of Deletion policy, generated disruption, confusion, rancor and loss of respect, within the community, helping to persuade some editors to leave the project.
  • 19:43 Requests for deletion: Ed starts "new policy" page.
  • 19:45 Category:Delete: Ed creates "Category:Delete" to be used as part of the new deletion policy.
  • 19:57 talk: Votes for deletion: A/B 'Shipper asks: Votes for deletion deleted? sorry for the "newbiness" but the project page appears deleted in my pc (links to it appear in red, i.e.). Is there something i am missing?
  • 20:03 User talk:Ed Poor: Denelson83: I think this may very well land you in a heap of trouble, Ed.
  • 20:05 Deletion log: ABCD undeletes VfD.
  • 20:06 talk: Votes for deletion: David Gerard: Holy crap, Ed Poor read the above rant on wikien-l and deleted VFD! Excuse me while I duck and cover ...
  • 20:07 Wikipedia:Deletion policy: Ed adds a new lead paragraph: … Do not rely on opinion polls such as those associated with the ill-fated vfd experiment. …
  • 20:07 User talk:Ed Poor JRM: You do not get a free license to screw with the rest of Wikipedia because you've been here a long time … Undeleting VfD, which you know would inevitably be necessary, turns out to be not a trivial task under the server load we're having. In the meantime, a considerable part of Wikipedia is broken, with no explanation to people how or why this is so. But hey, everybody will realize this bold action masks an important point of discussion the rest of us is just too stupid to catch on to, right? How many people read the mailinglist, anyway? Or maybe it's really just a private joke between you and David Gerard. …
  • 20:09 User talk:Ed Poor: Tznkai, referring to Ed's deletion of VfD: That was an act of disrespect Ed, and you lose a lot of respect for things like that …. Quoting Ed: "Editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right." … Its a privilege you haven't earned evidently.
  • 20:13 User talk:Ed Poor: Ed responding to Tznkai: Well, you certainly are explaining this to me politely .… Was there something or someone I was supposed to "respect"? Such as the principle that policy should be voted on, rather than reasoned out? …
  • 20:18 Deletion guidelines for administrators Ed adds under the section: "Rough consensus": The following is self-contradictory. It says we don't have voting, but then it explains how we count votes!
  • 20:19 Wikipedia:Deletion policy: Oven Fresh reverts Eds edits.
  • 20:21 Deletion log: Oven Fresh deletes "Category:Delete".
  • 20:25 User talk:Ed Poor Ed creates new section at top of page: "Wikipedia:Votes for deletion", directing comments to Wikipedia talk:votes for deletion, with edit summary enjoy.
  • 20:34 Requests for deletion: Ed starts a poll, with the following vote headings: "Agree with deleting vfd", "Disagree", "Neutral/other", and begins adding "votes" of other users based on opinions expressed elsewhere.
  • 20:34 User talk:Ed Poor: UninvitedCompany: Questions for Ed: What was that supposed to have accomplished? How many more pointless abuses of power do you expect the community to endure before there is a backlash? Do you realize that you have given not only yourself, but other old-timers a black eye? What would you like to say to the newbies who were confused when they couldn't find the page and thought they had done something wrong? If someone else had done that, would you block them for disruption?
  • 20:36 User talk:Ed Poor: Tznkai responding to Ed: You were supposed to respect the barnraising, cooperative, plural, and otherwise non unilateral spirit of the community.
  • 20:43 User talk:Ed Poor: Ed answering TUC's questions: People say it was long overdue. I fixed what was broken. My bold deletion was intended to put an end to the abuse of vfd power. "I am the backlash."' …
  • 20:50 Requests for deletion: Angela votes: There are two many policies preventing me saying what I want to say, so I'll just say "disagree". Angela is the first person other than Ed to edit the page, which now lists 6 votes "Agree" and 1 vote "Disagree".
  • 20:54 Wikipedia:Deletion reform Ed encourages people to add … the new Category:Delete tag to undesirable pages …
  • 20:55 Deletion log: Ed undeletes "Category:Delete".
  • 21:07 Requests for deletion: Gkhan creates RfC concerning Ed's deletion of VfD: User:Ed Poor, one of wikipedias oldest and most respected admins decided to completely ignore wikipedia standards and practices and deleted Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion without any sort of discussion. This is a gross misuse of admin-powers and should not be tolerated.
  • 21:07 Requests for deletion: Oven Fresh changes the vote heading "Agree with deleting vfd" to "Agree with replacing vfd".
  • 21:07 User talk:Ed Poor JRM (not logged-in see: [35]), replying to Ed's having said he had redirected VfD to Wikipedia:Requests for deletion, saying there was no redirect when he was looking for it. … and did …you not know placing a redirect does not require the page to be deleted? Were you trying to prevent any non-admin from undoing your action, or something?
  • 21:15 Requests for deletion: Angela strikes out her "Disagree" vote, and "moves" it to "This vote is invalid": As well as changing the voting options, there was no discussion related to this specific proposal before the vote began. The original option was "Agree with deleting vfd", which Ed was signing people up in support of, and then changed the wording, and signed more people up.
  • 21:15 Requests for deletion: Ed adds "This policy is intended to replace Wikipedia:Votes for deletion." to the new policy page.
  • 21:16 Requests for deletion: Angela changes the vote heading "Disagree" to "Disagree with deletion of VfD".
  • 21:24 Requests for deletion: Ed changes Agree with replacing vfd" vote heading back to "Agree with deleting vfd".
  • 21:27 Requests for deletion: Tznkai votes Disagree: since I think we should create the new system, should the community agree one is needed, and THEN remove the old one.
  • 21:29 RfC: Deletion of VFD: Tznkai certifies the RfC: I think this is beyond simple rules and structures and all of that. I think this was flagrantly disrespectful and a breach of trust.
  • 21:29 talk:Requests for deletion: Angela: …It would be useful if people would propose an alternative solution that might actually work instead of vandalizing the site and inciting others to do so ….
  • 21:35 User talk:Ed Poor: Tznkai responding to Ed: I think VfD has issues too. Lots of em, but if you're going to be a community player if you will, you're going to have to do it consistently, especially when its hard. You shouldn't protect how all life is precious by shooting a murderer. …
  • 21:39 Deletion guidelines for administrators: Angela reverts Ed's edits.
  • 21:43 RfC: Deletion of VFD: Ed responds: I'm not sure what this "dispute" is about. I deleted an unpopular page, and somebody else rather quickly undeleted it. Meanwhile, I've started Wikipedia:Requests for deletion which is running 3-to-1 in favor of the deletion. At this point, 69 minutes after this (as far as I can tell nowhere announced) poll was created, discounting the other "votes", added by Ed, the tally was Agree: 2 (40%), Disagree: 1 (20%), Neutral: 1 (10%), Invalid: 1 (10%). With the added "votes", Agree: 8 (62%).
  • 21:53 RfC: Deletion of VFD: UninvitedCompany endorses RfC.
  • 21:58 Requests for deletion: Ed updates the vote tally to (8/1/5) with the edit summary of "almost 90% in favor of deleting vfd!!)" At this point there is only one "Agree" vote which was added by someone other than Ed. The current tally is Agree: 2 (29%), Disagree: 1 (14%), Neutral: 2 (28%), Invalid: 2 (28%)
  • 21:59 User:Tznkai: Tznkai post a message saying he has decided to leave the project because of Ed's deletion of Vfd and the communities response.
  • 21:59 talk:Votes for deletion: Jtkiefer referring to Ed]: I'm still trying to fathom this, on one hand he followed the spirit of WP:Bold on the other hand his actions were mostly to prove a point and are in contradiction to WP:POINT.
  • 22:01 Requests for deletion: Ed moves Angela's stricken out "Disagree" vote to "Neutral/other".
  • 22:04 Requests for deletion: Tznkai strikes out his "disagree" writing "For my reasons, see my user page".
  • 22:08 Requests for deletion: Angela writes that Ed's deletion of VfD was done unilaterally and with no agreed alternative.
  • 22:11 RfC: Deletion of VFD: Trilobite endorses RfC: VfD might well be broken, but unilaterally deleting it demonstrates a total disregard for the community and the principle of consensus. Ed Poor is not fit to be an admin, because admins are empowered to use their extra technical abilities to carry out the wishes of the community, not to do whatever the hell they like.
  • 22:12 User talk:Ed Poor: Kelly Martin re deletion of VfD: A bit too WP:BOLD for my taste, but …
  • 22:13 Requests for deletion: Ed moves Tznkail's stricken out vote to "Neutral/other".
  • 22:26 User talk:Ed Poor: Ed responding to JRM: … I deleted the page because I really think it should go. And David Gerard's post triggered my impulse. I believed, and continue to believe, that the deletion has community consensus. At this point the not-yet-two-hour-old-poll's tally is Agree: 3 (38%), Disagree: 2 (25%), Neutral: 1 (12%) Invalid: 2 (25%).
  • 23:10 User talk:Ed Poor: Stormie: Ed, please read Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Your behavior is unbecoming a senior Wikipedian, and certainly an abuse of your administrator position.
  • 23:35 RfC: Deletion of VFD: Stormie endorses the RfC, calling Ed's response so far "glib".

[edit] 2 August

  • 00:00 RfC: Deletion of VFD: Android79 endorses RfC: This was a ridiculous act …
  • 01:57 RfC: Deletion of VFD: Nickptar endorses RfC: This was unacceptably unilateral …
  • 04:27 RfC: Deletion of VFD: DESiegel endorses RfC: This was way out of line.
  • 05:39 RfC: Deletion of VFD: The Literate Engineer endorses RfC: … it was a most egregious disruption of Wikipedia.
  • 13:24 User talk:Ed Poor: Ed responding to Snowspinner: message that "For your disruption of Wikipedia to illustrate a point, I have blocked you for one minute, and decreed that you do not get a cookie tonight before bed.": Okay, I had a small dish of yogurt instead: strawberry flavored, yummy! :-)
  • 15:45 Deletion reform: Ed: … There are are only two ways to make a decision in a group: we count the votes, or someone just takes action. The myth of "consensus" conceals this dichotomy poorly. There IS NO THIRD WAY. …
  • 17:01 RfC: Deletion of VFD: Tim Starling endorses RfC: I'd be in favour of desysopping, pending re-affirmation of his sysop status by the community on WP:RFA. There's no point in having rules pertaining to admin behaviour if you have no intention of enforcing them.
  • 17:57 RfC: Deletion of VFD: Eugene van der Pijll endorses the RfC: I believe Ed Poor showed a lack of judgement first when he deleted VfD without almost no earlier discussion. He should have known (and I can't help wondering if he did know) that his actions would be reverted. And again in his response below, suggesting that wikipedians would be largely in favour of his actions by pointing at a survey with at that moment only 10 "votes" (actually, quotes from the mailing list selected by him). I would have expected him to know that changing the deletion process so drastically would be highly controversial, and a proposal to that end would draw as many responses as the 3RR proposal (how many was it? over 100 at least). I find his laconic reaction very inappropriate.
  • 18:47 RfC: Deletion of VFD: Ed, referring to Gkhan, the person who created the RfC: … it looks like he's gaming the system by using a request for "comment" as an invitation to "rebuke".
  • 18:50 RfC: Deletion of VFD: Ed replying to Trilobite: More than half of those expressing an opinion, supported getting rid of VFD. How is that "doing whatever the hell I like"? Ed deleted VfD at 19:13. The vote at: Requests for deletion was started at 20:34. Discounting "votes" of other editors, added by Ed, after the first five votes, the "Agree" votes never total more than 40%. As of 18:50, 2 August, the votes were: Agree: 7 (23%) Disagree 15 (48%) Neutral/other 3 (10%) Vote invalid 6 (19%). The tally as of August 19 was Agree: 13 (16%) Disagree 49 (59%) Neutral/other 5 (6%) Vote invalid 16 (19%).)
  • 18:54 RfC: Deletion of VFD: Ed to The Literate Engineer: … in what way is deleting vfd BOTH (a) disruptive AND (b) making a point? … what "point" am I supposedly making? People said they wanted to get rid of VFD, so I just boldly got rid of it. …
  • 19:24 Votes for deletion Ed adds "category:delete" to VfD page.
  • 21:08 User talk:Ed Poor: Gkhan responding to a request from Ed on Gkhans talk page to try to resolve the dispute: Yeah, I'm really sorry aI have taken so long, I was just going to write a response when I saw your message. Please, accept my sincerest apologies, I realise that it is unfair of me.
  • 21:28 RfC: Deletion of VFD: Gkhan: …one of the more common rants that the mailing list recieves is that wikipedia is run by an "Administrator Cabal" for which rules do not apply. They can act unilaterally and the other admins (and the ArbCom) will defend them. We need to show that when someone does something wrong that they have to be held accountable, no matter what. Ed… You claim that what you did does not violate policy … and you show no remorse what so ever. … As a gesture of good faith, at least admit that what you did was wrong. As for a solution to this dispute, I suggest (you) "reapply" for adminship at WP:RfA. … And lets face it, you'd pass. I realise that this is unconventional and not entirely kosher, but this is no ordinary case either. By doing what you did you offended the Wikipedia Community by completely bypassing it. Show that you still are part of the community and that you adhere to the same principles.
  • 21:30 User talk:Ed Poor Gkhan informs Ed of his suggested resolution (above).
  • 22:46 RfC: Deletion of VFD: The Literate Engineer responding to Ed: … There are two "points" I accuse you of making. The less likely, based in both in your initial action and your unapologetic responses since, is that the deletion policy and the consensus-gathering procedure for changing policy are both irrelevant and that administrators by fiat should be allowed to implement cataclysmic changes to the Wikipedia structure and methodology based on a non-consensus opinion gathered in a single forum indirectly connected to the Wikipedia space, the mailing list, without regard to discussion at the Village Pump or on any pages in the Wikipedia namespace. Regardless, it seems clear to me … that you were attempting to prove the point that the VFD process should be eliminated and Wikipedia will be better off without it.

[edit] 3 August

  • 00:24 RfC: Deletion of VFD: Calton endorses RfC: This was an astonishingly bad decision, made worse by Ed Poor's Wikilawyering and disingenuousness.
  • 06:28 RfC: Deletion of VFD: Superm401 endorses RfC: This may or may not be an appropriate WP:RFC. I don't really care. Ed Poor deleted a page that was not a speedy candidate without community approval. There is never ever ever any justification for this. That approval would have to come on WP:VFD page, whether he likes it or not. Furthermore, to eliminate the policy of having a VFD page, a lot more discussion and consensus would be required. Mailing list communication counts for none of this. Ed Poor's actions were completely unacceptable, and this must end with a stern clear warning of such.
  • 07:49 RfC: Deletion of VFD: Tim Starling responding to Ed: Don't play dumb, the two policies you violated are listed above, and we should hardly have to explain them to someone who has been here since 2001. You knew exactly what you were doing, you knowingly violated the rules to make a point. You did it in aid of what you believe to be a higher cause, but you should still be prepared to accept the consequences.
  • 10:47 Talk:Requests for comment/Deletion of VFD: Ed responding to Gkhan: …If anyone is due an apology, it is I.
  • 11:05 talk:Requests for comment/Deletion of VFD: Ed: …What is the big deal? A five-minute server delay? … I sensed both the need and a consensus for removal of a major impediment toward fulfillment of this project's goals. Following two long-standing Wikipedia guidelines (Ignore All Rules and Be Bold) I took action suggested by an arbcom member - and enthusiastically approved by a vacationing arbcom member who came back long enough to shout an attaboy. … as long as I keep garnering praise for taking swift (even sudden) action when I see the need for corrective action, I can hardly be persuaded that I am a negative force here. Sometimes the rules need to be set aside, and the community has by and large trusted me to know when.
  • 11:07 User talk:Ed Poor Ed, deletes most of his user page: I've had enough! I'm feeling rather unappreciated, of late. Maybe I'll just take another vacation. :-( See Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Deletion of VFD for my parting shot. Goodbye!
  • 17:09 Deletion log: Ed deletes Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deletion of VFD: violates RFC policy.
  • 17:15 Deletion log: UninvitedCompany undeletes Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deletion of VFD.
  • 17:16 talk:Votes for deletion: Ed, with the edit summary of Nyaah, nyaah!: I deleted vfd, which triggered an RFC, which I deleted on the QT. :-)
  • 17:18 Deletion log: Ed deletes Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deletion of VFD: I thought I deleted this - no comment on talk page, so here goes for a second delete
  • 17:18 User talk:Ed Poor: UninvitedCompany: 'Ed, don't delete an RFC about something you did. Fine upstanding contributors to this site, such as yourself, do not endeavour to suppress discussion about things they have done.
  • 17:22 User talk:UninvitedCompany: Ed to UnivitedCompany: You like rules, eh? The rules (which everyone is so fond of) approve of my deletion of the vfd rfc. Surely you read them again, just before admonishing me?
  • 17:23 Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion: DESiegel lists "Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deletion of VFD" for undeleltion:
  • 17:24 User talk:Ed Poor: DESiegel to Ed: have listed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deletion of VFD on VfU. Please don't delete RfC pages where you are involved.
  • 17:24 Deletion log: Michael Snow undeletes Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deletion of VFD.
  • 17:25 User talk:Ed Poor: UninvitedCompany: Ed, nobody deletes their own RFCs. Make your case and leave it for someone else to delete.
  • 17:28 User talk:Ed Poor: Ed to UnivitedCompany: … I removed the RFC because it was in itself a violation of the rules. Don't you care about rules? Or did I compute the 48 hours wrong?
  • 17:28 Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion: Michael Snow deletes listing for "Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deletion of VFD" since: page restored, no need for undeletion discussion.
  • 17:28 RfC: Deletion of VFD: Jasonglchu endorses RfC:: This is just ludicrous. I'm shocked by Ed's behaviour - ill-fitting for an administrator of such stature and responsibility - and his subsequent weaseling out of blame by accusing his accusers and pretending that the mandate of "being bold" can cover up blatantly disruptive actions. Ridiculous.
  • 17:32 User talk:Ed Poor: UninvitedCompany: Ed, … the broader point is that you are not exempt from the standards of behavior that everyone else follows. This is a recurring theme, and many (dozens?) of people have taken up this matter with you … You up and deleted VFD, well, fine, you better be prepared to take your lumps from the community. Deleting your own RFC is childish and … is a terrible example to set for the rest of the project. If you're going to be the elder statesman around here, then start acting like it.
  • 17:44 RfC: Deletion of VFD: Splash endorses RfC: I deeply dislike RfCs. But, if you are going to do something you know is wrong (or at least, should know is wrong), and then try to weasel your way out of it, expect the consequences. … If a more 'junior' sysop (and that itself is crazy notion) had done what Ed Poor did, they'd have been blocked on the spot, at the very least. It strikes me that some 'senior' editors wish the Wiki operated the way it did two, three, four years ago. It doesn't, and they really must learn to get on with the current way it works, and be prepared for ever more change.
  • 17:56 User talk:Ed Poor: UnivitedCompany gives a lengthy explanation of "concerns": … We just spent weeks discussing and voting on some fairly minor tweaks to the criteria for speedy deletion. Would it not have made sense to at least discuss what to do with VFD for a day or two? … you have exacerbated the perception in the community that there are two sets of rules: One for the senior admins, and one for everybody else. Of course you can get away with it, but demonstrating that you can do so alienates people who are getting their hands slapped for comparatively minor faux pax. Look at how much reaction User:Master Thief Garrett got when he deleted the Ass hook article … out-of-process. …
  • 18:16 RfC: Deletion of VFD: Starblind endorses RfC: … An incredibly disruptive action which appears to be backed neither by consensus, policy, or reasonable application of the "be bold" principle.
  • 18:17 User talk:Ed Poor: Xiong: … you simply deleted VfD … I would like to know why you can do this and survive the action at all. I simply nominated TfD for deletion and spent weeks in socialist struggle session hell.
  • 21:25 Deletion log: Kim Bruning deletes Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deletion of VFD: Delete as per policy, 2 certifying signatures required by 21:08 UTC, but were not provided. (Note: There had been two certifying signatures Gkhan's and Tznkai's, until Tznkai struck his out because he had been convinced to leave the project because of Ed's deletion of VfD and the aftermath. At this point 17 people had endorsed Gkhan's statement, no one had endorsed Ed's response.)
  • 21:36: User talk:Ed Poor Gkhan: I just came online to answer your post in the discussion on the RfC (I haven't been able to go online since lunch), however, only minutes later Kim deleted it while I was working on it. I guess this means that further discussion would simply be academic and thus fruitless. It is obvious that you wont get any repercussions more than you already have gotten … I will not press the point further (even though I still think that what you did was totally out of line, don't get me wrong :P). Let's shake hands and make peace shall we?
  • 21:44 Deletion log: UnivitedCompany undeletes Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deletion of VFD.
  • 21:49 Votes for undeletion UninvitedCompany relists Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deletion of VFD for undeletion: Regardless of whether it technically meets this requirement or not (and I believe it does), it is clearly the focal point of an ongoing discussion important to the community. Since the purpose of the "RFC certification process," such as it is, is to remove frivolous claims that have no merit, I believe that deletion on those grounds is inappropriate.
  • 21:55 Deletion log: Kim Bruning deletes Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deletion of VFD: Delete and keep deleted this time, Uninvitedcompany does not give policy or IAR reasons for undeleting.
  • 21:56 Votes for undeletion: Kim Brunning: … This deletion was due to a VERY strict policy intended to prevent people from getting spuriously mobbed. Do not undelete again!
  • 21:58 User talk:Ed Poor] Gkhan: Well it turns out that the Uninvited had undeleted the page so the discussion is still on. I will go write a response .…
  • 22:02 User talk:Ed Poor: Gkhan: Or not.......hmm, this is interesting, a deletion/undeletion war. I'll let them duke it out
  • 22:03 User talk:Ed Poor: Kim Bruning: It's deleted and stays deleted! :-)
  • 22:04 Votes for undeletion DESiegel: I think this page should be undeleted … While it may be that two people failed to properly certify the dispute, IIRC over 15 people signed as endorsing the summery of the person who filed the RfC, so this is hardly a case of an act that only a lone person objected too …
  • 22:08 User talk:Ed Poor UninvitedCompany: Please don't act like you are some sort of authority that has the last word in this matter, Kim. You're not.
  • 22:10 Deletion log: Michael Snow undeletes Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deletion of VFD.
  • 22:11 RfC: Deletion of VFD: Michael Snow: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deletion of VFD moved to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Deletion of VFD.
  • 22:14 Votes for undeletion: Splash: You know, it's admins deleting pages they don't much like that sullys the reputation of all admins. And a suddenly strict interpretation of the 'policy' from a group (there is no...) who were so pleased to see the fractionally out-of-process deletion of VfD is more than a little rich. Undelete it, and live with it, or don't do that sort of thing in the first place.
  • 22:18 Votes for undeletion: Lifeisunfair Undelete. Uncle Ed has cited WP:IAR as justification for his patently outrageous behavior, so it's only fair that it be applied legitimately with respect to the 48-hour rule (which clearly is outweighed by the importance of this discussion).
  • 22:18 Protection log: Kim Bruning protects "Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Deletion of VFD": it's been moved, so I'll protect it here
  • 22:19 Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Deletion of VFD: Kim Bruning adds "protected" template: No bypassing of RFC rules this way ;-)
  • 22:26 Votes for undeletion Kim Bruning deletes listing for "Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deletion of VFD": was undeleted and archived to : Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Deletion of VFD
  • 22:27: Votes for undeletion: UninvitedCompany reverts Kim Bruning's deletion.
  • 22:27 Protection log: Trilobite unprotects "Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Deletion of VFD": no grounds for protection
  • 22:32 Votes for undeletion: Michael Snow: Undelete. I have moved it to a new location
  • 22:36 Votes for undeletion Starblind: Undelete … If it isn't considered an official genuine sealed and bonded RfC anymore, so be it, but trying to sweep it under the rug makes everyone involved look bad.
  • 22:39 Votes for undeletion: Carbonite: Undelete. Deletion is what caused this whole mess
  • 22:40 Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Deletion of VFD Lifeisunfair Modifies Notice at top of page from "… It is preserved primarily for archival news purposes." to "It is preserved primarily for archival purposes, but you may continue to use it for discussion and comment if you wish." with edit summary: It's laughable to refer to this as "bypassing of RFC rules." Ed deliberately bypassed Wikipedia rules, and cited WP:IAR as justification. There is not, however, a rule against informal discussion.
  • 22:50 Votes for undeletion: Trilobite: *Undelete'

[edit] 4 August

[edit] 5 August

[edit] 6 August

  • 20:05 RfC: Deletion of VFD: Mysidia endorses RfC: … I didn't like the nonchalantness and disregard for the seriousness that rogue deletions represents as presented in his reply. … what has happened is many times worse than what happens with vandalism …

[edit] 9 August

  • 14:13 Deletion of VFD: Pakaran endorses RfC (the twentieth to do so, so far): I have issues with the present state of VfD, and I agree that it's often (ab)used aggressively. However, that is not an excuse for an out of process deletion, especially of such a significant page. I am not sure that Ed should not remain a sysop, but I feel that this needs to be brought to the ArbComm's attention. One of my deepest beliefs about WP is that sysop powers are to be used only in the service of the community. If Ed felt that VfD was broken, he should have pursued the appropriate methods to fix or replace it. A unilateral deletion is not such.

[edit] 11 August

13:28 [37] Kbdank71 deletes "Category:Delete"; cfd see discussion.

[edit] 12 August

01:24 Votes for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikiblower protection: Tony Sidaway Closes VfD: The result of the debate was keep. … I make it 22 valid delete votes, … 12 … valid keep votes. 15:05 talk:Votes for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikiblower protection: Tony Sidaway: this was the most protracted close process I have ever performed. … it must have taken around an hour to step through the edits … There was quite a lot of jiggery-pokery, with VfD tags being added and removed from this VfD notice with gay abandon.

[edit] 14—17 August

[edit] 18 August

12:45 User talk:Filiocht: Filiocht: Why I won't be back any time soon: I just came back to have a look around today because I was sort of missing the old place. Nothing I have seen has made me want to start contributing again, and two things have confirmed me in my belief that my life is better without the Wikihassle. The first of these is the fact that so many admins seem to have rallied around User:Ed Poor. Ed's vandalism of the project (or "mistake", if you prefer) should be dealt with in the same way that it would be if anyone else had done the things he did. The fact that it won't be confirms what I have long suspected, which is that there is, in fact, a kind of loose-knit, de facto cabal at work here. …

[edit] Notes

  1. It bears mentioning that Angela's disagree vote (see 20:50, 1 August above) means that Ed is also in clear violation of another perhaps less well known semi-policy.
  2. JRM comments above (see: 20:07 and 21:07, 1 August above) may need to be discounted, since his sanity seems to be in doubt (see: [38]).

[edit] Evidence presented by {William M. Connolley}

I shall speak in favour of Ed Poor, since no-one else seems to be doing so (at least, not here). Ed and I get on quite well, although we hold wildly different opinions concerning the state of climate science. I don't have anything as specific as evidence to present, though.

I do think that (somewhat contrary to the thrust of the prosecution case) there *is* a case for cutting some slack for old well-respected contributors. People build up (or should be regarded as building up) over time a positive balance. And while Ed may spend that recklessly sometimes I don't think he is close to negative. Unlike many other people still editing wiki :-(

As to the issue at hand: deleting VFD: I don't watch it, so don't really know. Many people do think its broken, though including such well-repsected persons as David Gerard. Making a bold attempt at solving the problem was... bold. And maybe it should have succeeded. Obviously it didn't. But stomping hard on boldness in favour of quasi-legalism would be a mistake.

Nearly finally, my favourite analogy, which may do me no good with Ed, but anyway: it seems to me that he sometimes acts the role of the "holy fool", who does things no sane person ever would (the de-sysopping business, which UC mentions, is a case in point in Eds favour). But sometimes this is a good idea... its why the concept exists, after all.

Finally, UC makes two subsidiary complaints: deleting the RFC, and unblocking himself. It appears to me that Ed answers these points, and the latter especially seems baseless, according to KBs testimony. So it would help simplify the case, I think, if UC would strike out those portions of her case (if she believes them no longer justified) or explain why the explanations aren't satifactory.

William M. Connolley 20:57:13, 2005-09-12 (UTC)


[edit] Evidence presented by {your user name}

[edit] <day1> <month>

  • <timestamp1>
    • What happened.
  • <timestamp2>
    • What happened.
  • <timestamp3>
    • What happened.

[edit] <day2> <month>

  • <timestamp1>
    • What happened.
  • <timestamp2>
    • What happened.
  • <timestamp3>
    • What happened.