Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 6 |
Archive 7
| Archive 8 →


Contents

Germen

Moving my comments from the RfA page to this discussion page, as they may be appropriate here, but certainly not there.

Germen, the use of "left-wing" is a characterization of the politics of the users involved (which may or may not be true, but is used in a slanderous way) and "apologist" implies unjustified defense of Muslims. I included the wiki-link to slander so that you could check the meaning quickly, in hopes that it would not inflame tensions. --Habap 15:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

--Habap 15:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Ah, someone else having a problem with Germen. See Talk:Supremacism. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom should be friendlier

It seems to me that the ArbCom is unapproachable and hostile. One recent example (I have others) is Everyking's request that voting not take place in Everyking 3 until September else he would not be able to prepare a defence. The responses from ArbCom members were far from friendly. Indeed, Rual543's response seemed ill-tempered to me. Theresa's seemed to take the attitude that acceding to any request would demonstrate weakness. The ArbCom would look better if they just said, "Yes, OK." I suggest that in this example the ArbCom's attitude to the request make it look as if they are already not fairly disposed in the case: They look as though they are already hostile towards Everyking. Paul Beardsell 01:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

In my view, when a proposal / petition / request is made the ArbCom should always take care to show they have given it fair consideration. A reasoned response should be crafted, especially if the request is being denied. And the ArbCom should by default grant the request except when some miscarriage of justice would be likely to result from granting the request. Paul Beardsell 01:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Ah, Paul Beardsell telling us to be more friendly. Pot, Kettle, Black. →Raul654 01:58, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
I am not on the ArbCom. What I do is not taken as being what Wikipedia is all about. What Raul654 does is likely to be so taken. Typically you do not address the points made. Besides: This is a common logical fallacy: You are effectively saying there is something about me you do not like therefore what I say is not true. Foul! Play the ball, Raul, not the man. Paul Beardsell 02:06, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Meatball made me do it

I ranted a bit this morning on the project page, but then I followed UC's link to meatball, which in turn linked here. In the midst of all the spaghetti, this one looks rather meaty, so I gotta chew it over before shooting my mouth off again. I'm beginning to see the big picture a bit better - I hope! Uncle Ed 12:26, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Trivia concerning the Ed Poor application

Copying this here because most of it isn't written by me Oh for heaven's sake, who brought this poxy, pointless, idiotic case? Grow up! --Tony SidawayTalk 08:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Gee, Tony, you ought to remove that -- or is WP:NPA only for the little people? --Calton | Talk 08:27, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Err, first of all our names are listed someplace up there ^^^, and second, man, be nice :( I certainly do not see it as pointless or idiotic, and I don't feel like looking up poxy on wiktionary at the moment. --Phroziac (talk) 16:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
"Poxy" means "as per The Pox", i.e. "pox-ridden" (smallpox; an unsightly, dangerous, highly contageous, disease) ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 21:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Quite. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
I believe personal attacks are prohibited on this Wiki. Furthermore, I have noted that TonySidaway has been accused of double standards in the past himself. Rob Church 21:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
One could note much the same about every single person who uses this Wiki. Everybody "has been accused of" all kinds of nasty things. Whether evidence is available to support various idle accusations, well that's another matter. I don't engage in personal attacks, but I still say this is a poxy, disease-ridden little bit of nastiness and those engaged in it should be jolly well ashamed of themselves. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Anybody who would take Uncle Ed to arbcom over his recent activities (a) has a worldview somewhat detached from reality and (b) needs to get a hobby. --(Tony, non-logged in edit) 62.255.64.7 21:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Just a thought, Tony: a little politeness will always take you a long way. [[smoddy]] 22:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Not in this case. Fuck this arbitration application and the silly little hat it rode in on. --Tony SidawayTalk 00:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Here here --67.182.157.6 23:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

That's enough. JRM · Talk 01:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I must say, I share Tony's sentiment, even if I wouldn't have expressed it that way. Dan100 (Talk) 12:58, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
I agree; I'll go further and say I did express identical sentiments, in identical language (allowing for translation across the Atlantic). The only difference is that I was not so bold to do so in the wiki. Here, I like to think, I was a bit more tactful. — Xiong熊talk* 04:11, 2005 August 10 (UTC)

Third Party View

I am posting this opinion to the RfAr talk page rather than in the RfAr so as not to become a party to the arbitration. The originators of this request do appear to have a case. They did not follow the proper procedures because they did not file an RfC first.

Administrators have certain privileges that require not only good judgment and objectivity but a sense of timing as to what is and what is not urgent. The need for a sense of timing, for instance, is essential with regard to blocking. An address or account should not be blocked, either for 24 hours or for a longer period, unless there is, in the words of Justice Holmes, a "clear and present danger", such as of vandalism or a revert war. An account should not be blocked, for instance, for one silly newbie experiment that may not have been malicious.

Ed Poor is much respected as a member of the Wikipedia community, in particular for his role as a member of the Mediation Committee. Mediation, like administration, requires judgment and objectivity. It does not require the same sense of timing as does blocking, unblocking, and page protection. Administrator actions must often be done quickly, with little time for reflection, so that they should be done by administrators with a sense of timing. Mediation should be done deliberately, with reflection. I think that there is little doubt that Ed Poor provides deliberation and reflection as a mediator.

At the same time, there have been questions about his sense of timing as an administrator. The case that is immediately in point concerns the VfD page. In that situation, he clearly made an error as to timing. He apparently had his workstation set to the wrong time zone. If I am expecting at work to be interfacing with a system (e.g., a US military communication system) that uses GMT rather than EST, I set the timezone to GMT so as to avoid confusion or errors.

My own suggestion is that Ed Poor can better serve Wikipedia by mediation, and perhaps as a bureaucrat, that is, a meta-administrator, where there is no question as to his judgment, rather than performing day-to-day administrative functions, where he has occasionally made mistakes, including due to errors in timing.

At the same time, the originators of this RfAr, while having a valid case, could have themselves better served Wikipedia by filing an RfC and allowing this case to be resolved in a less drastic way.

No one asked for my opinion. No one asked for the opinion of the Wikipedia community via an RfC before filing this RfAr. The Wikipedia community should been asked, and here is the view of one of its members. Robert McClenon 20:31, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Another third party view: a suggestion to Ed Poor

Robert McClenon's statement above that there is "no question" as to Ed Poor's judgment as a bureaucrat has been overtaken by the events of Lucky 6:9's RfA, where Ed performed bureacrat actions that many people commented on as notably ill-judged, , mixed in with other highly questionable actions (overview by User:func here). My suggestion for "a less drastic way" is to Ed himself: how about requesting voluntary de-adminship? In this RFAr, you have yourself endorsed the statement by the initiators of the RFAr, which makes the following charges:

Sadly, pursuant to this event, Ed Poor has ignored the standard consensus on Wikipedia operations, and has not paid attention to feedback from the Wikipedia community as a whole about his conduct. He deleted the RfC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deletion of VFD (archived version here) [1], on the purported grounds that it violated RfC policy; the double standard that he created by ignoring rules on one hand and enforcing the letter of them on the other is not acceptable. Another administrator restored this page; Ed deleted it for a second time. He unblocked himself ([2]) after he was blocked by a fellow administrator to provide breathing space for the dispute to settle. Ed Poor appears to have counted on his seniority and popularity to avoid discipline ([3], [4]), and thus seems to consider himself above the Wikipedia community in matters of action and procedure.

It is our opinion that Ed Poor has ignored the standard consensus on Wikipedia operations, and has not paid attention to feedback from the Wikipedia community as a whole about his conduct; he has consequently abused his administrator rights. This sets a poor precedent for the rest of the community, and threatens the entire spirit of collaboration and co-operation that Wikipedia is built on, and re-enforces the divide between administrators and users - creating an unpleasant double standard that must be avoided.

These seem to me to be very serious charges, and you endorsed them ("upon reflection", acc. to your edit summary). So, if you're in agreement that you've ignored the standard consensus on Wikipedia operations, failed to pay attention to feedback from the community, abused your administrator rights, threatened the entire spirit of collaboration and co-operation that Wikipedia is built on, and created an unpleasant double standard that must be avoided... well, if you are, do you think you should be an admin? It would IMO save both you and many other people a lot of trouble, pain, and regret if you requested de-adminship yourself. As you said yourself recently, adminship and de-adminships are no big deals. Bishonen | talk 10:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

It is my impression (based on some of the things that Ed has said) that he suspects or believes that he is a ReveredLeader. I'm not clear to me at this point, however, whether he's basking in that status, actively attempting to undermine it, or simply gone loopy. Kelly Martin 11:23, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
I've said it before and I'll say it again: all Wikipedia administrators should spend a lot of time reading Meatball. JRM · Talk 12:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
I've said it before and I'll say it again: There should be a practical way to de-admin administrators who abuse their power, or show poor judgement.--Scimitar parley 19:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
As long as we're still Catoing: Wikipedia:User access levels, its talk page, and m:Help:User levels. Adminship could be a much smaller deal if it wasn't a package deal. We could grant and remove privileges individually, which would go a long way towards mortalizing adminship. JRM · Talk 21:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
There is - report tem to the arbcom and we'll look at the matter. If there's a substantive complaint (e.g., they actually did misuse/abuse their powers), we'll consider the complaint very seriously. →Raul654 21:59, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Two Frivolous Prematurely Filed RfArs

I am not adding these comments to any active RfArs because I do not want to become an interested party to either of them. I see two RfArs that I consider frivolous and bordering on abuse of process. The first is the complaint against Ed Poor. Even before he admitted to having made a mistake, and before he apologized for the mistake, it was never clear to me what the reason for an RfAr was. Everyone makes an occasional mistake. If an administrator makes the same mistake several times, or too many mistakes, it may be a reason for withdrawal of admin status. At this point, what does anyone expect from an RfAr? Do they want the ArbCom to state that Ed Poor made a mistake, when he already agreed to that? Do they want the ArbCom to tell them to accept Ed's apology?

The Vietnam War RfC is also frivolous if no RfC has been written about the conduct in question.

These RfArs are both distractions of the ArbCom from serious business, such as dealing with the disruptive anonymous editor .6. That is just my opinion. Robert McClenon 20:44, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing invalid about the Ed Poor case. I haven't looked at the vietnam one, and don't really feel like it. It's not like Ed made one mistake and we RFAr'd him. --Phroziac (talk) 21:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
The case against Ed Poor identifies one mistake. It does not identify a pattern of mistakes. If there was a pattern of mistakes, it should have been stated. Robert McClenon 02:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
There is a pattern, that's been alluded to a few times. Ed Poor has RickK's habit of shooting first, asking questions later, but without RickK's uncanny ability to be right. Deletion of VfD was just the most recent incident. --Carnildo 05:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
I have changed the heading of this section. I acknowledge that the Ed Poor RfAr was not frivolous. It was prematurely filed, and, in my opinion, contained too little information for the ArbCom to know what the issue was, until it was expanded. It now appears that the issue is whether Ed Poor has exceeded his authority as an admin on various occasions, most recently the VfD policy. If I have read the RfC page correctly, and dispute resolution in general, an RfC on Admin conduct should have first been posted. That might at least have allowed time for the issues to be better stated, and to make it clear that the issue was a pattern and not one incident. If an RfC had been filed, outside opinions could be added to the RfC. I have an outside opinion, but it is awkward for me to try to state it now. I can state it on this talk page, which is peripheral to any attempt to resolve the dispute. I cannot state it in the RfAr without becoming a party to the arbitration, which I do not want to do. Robert McClenon 15:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Whether the Vietnam War RfAr is frivolous depends on whether it is directed against the targets of the RfAr, or against its originator. There does appear to be a valid RfC against its originator for using his admin power to engage in what was essentially a wheel war. Robert McClenon 15:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I'm chipping in here too. Some points to ponder:
  1. What the Arbcom does accept and what not is their own business. If they think a request is frivolous, they won't accept it. If they do, the request wasn't frivolous. Taking the time to decline a case brought in good faith is something that the ArbCom simply must have, or it is fundamentally broken.
  2. The ArbCom has accepted cases that didn't go through mediation before (it seems that the sentence "Mediation is pointless in this case and broken right now anyway" could be a template). They have also, rarely, accepted cases that didn't go through RfC if I remember correctly (correct me if I'm wrong).
  3. These two cases deal with admin misconduct. Whenever some method regarding organized deadminship was proposed, it was shot down on the grounds of "if there is clear admin misconduct, take it to the ArbCom". I can live with that comfortably. What I can't live with is that if people do bother the ArbCom with such things, they get flamed.
For the record, I'm not saying that the two admins this pertains to should be punished. They clearly stepped over the line, but if that is grounds for deadminning ot other measures is not something I have a clear opinion on. But some people think there is a problem requiring ArbCom intervention, and do so in obvious good faith. Please let them make this request without subjecting them to nastiness, and let the ArbCom decide if it is worth their time. That is all. -- grm_wnr Esc 11:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

DreamGuy

After reading many edit histories, i have concluded that user dreaemGuy is incurably incivil, attempts ahve been made to orrect this, but have met, atbest with removed comments with flase claims of harassment in the edit summaries or at worst, as in the case of user Slimvirgin's talk page, his own harassing comments being placed at great leangth, I do not pretend to be an Arbitrator, but I would think that an RFC would not do any good. Would this be a case for arbitration, or just banning a problem user?Ketrovin 03:59, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

  • First step would be to try an RfC. After that, perhaps arbitration, but I don't think Arbitration ever really happens until after an RfC. Wikibofh 04:39, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
Apparently, an RFC has already been attempted, and it has been made clear that he agreed to cease incivillity, but that hasnt happened. I reccomend an RFA, or to simply ban DreamGuyKetrovin 05:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

FYI, User:Ketrovin has been banned as a sockpuppet of User:Gabrielsimon. Gabriel was the major instigator in the RfC against me, which was closed amicably by editors on all sides (pro, con and outside) -- Gabriel being the one editor involved whose absence in the closing agreement was conspicuously lacking. His summary of the conclusion of that RfC is understandably biased. Gabriel is undergoing a RfAr himself for sockpuppeting, chronic POV warring and 3RR violations (some while he had agreed as part of his RfC to stay within 1RR). "Ketrovin"'s claims are obviously spurious. DreamGuy 07:16, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

ArmchairVexillologistDon

ArmchairVexillologistDon’s arbitration case was closed because he had stopped editing. For your information, he has started again. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 10:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I second this. AVD's actions in January were completely beyond the pale, and he has already become embroiled in controversies at Talk:Canada and Talk:Flag of Canada. - SimonP 12:43, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
I also second this. He created a POV fork article after I removed his original research at Flag of Canada. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Marmot

When I first read the Marmot RfAr, I wondered whether use of an offensive handle was one of the issues. On reading it further, I see that Marmot, or a Marmot sockpuppet, is insulting an administrator who has been blocking him. Maybe he thinks that using an offensive term to label his opponent is a way to get unblocked. I would be skeptical of that theory. It appears that, on the contrary, Marmot is demonstrating why he has been blocked. Robert McClenon 12:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

"So, I made a few typos. The point is, I did my time, and now I should be unblocked."
No, you didn't make a few "typos". You used a deliberately offensive word to refer to another user. It appears that you also vandalized the user's user page. Robert McClenon 18:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Hall Monitor

The user/administrator Hall Monitor should have his privileges revoked. He deletes comments on OTHER user's talk pages without any form of consent. He then cites people for vandalism when they do the same thing. 64.12.116.135 19:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

It is difficult to respond to these criticisms when you have not provided any evidence. If you believe that I have acted in bad faith or somehow wronged you, please elaborate so that your concerns can be addressed. Since you are writing anonymously from an AOL IP address, it is difficult for me to see where our paths have crossed. I show nothing in common with contributions from 64.12.116.135. Best regards, Hall Monitor 20:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The Ril thing

These comments were in regard to the matter of Ril's signature.

This strikes me as a waste of arbitrator time. Admins could have dealt with it if made aware of the problem. Ril's signature (I just realised after staring at it for yonks) is confusing and his refusal to change it is perverse. If a consensus was arrived at one WP:ANI I would have blocked him for an hour or two to see if he agreed to change it, and then escalated, increasing by say four hours at a time, or increasing to a day or two at a time, until he just stops being a silly sausage. If there was no consensus that he was disruptive I would have just let it go. --Tony SidawayTalk 02:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

IMO this matter is way too chicken shit for RFAr, even though I agree that Ril's sig is confusing. Indeed, I have asked Ril to change it, and received the same obnoxious refusal that others have been given. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't see his signature as being confusing at all, unless there's someone else out there who's even better known for using four twiddles as their sig. --Carnildo 04:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Would it be possible to get a quickie injunction from ArbCom, rather than going through a whole arbitration? A flat declaration that the signature is unacceptable, and that he shouldn't try to replace it with something equally obnoxious. Tony Sidaway's proposal above sounds quite reasonable for enforcement. We really shouldn't need to bring every violation of WP:DICK to the ArbCom. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

(In reply to Raul654's accept vote on the Ril request) - I just want to point out here that the "demand" is apparently based on some RfA that actually took place (?) as an April Fool's joke. So really what he's doing, it seems, is asking for the the rules to be enforced—albeit I suppose he's taking the point to an extreme. Also I disagree that the comments about Jimbo are "flagrantly false". Everyking 04:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Asking for the rules to be enforced is fine. Demonstrating how we're failing to enforce the rules by complaining how an April Fool's joke is not being taken seriously is completely ineffective, and I doubt even Ril thought it would accomplish anything. That is, if I consistently apply WP:AGF and presuppose Ril was not pulling a controversy-for-the-sake-of-controversy troll, which I must admit I find hard to do. JRM · Talk 15:05, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

If Ril is not Lir, then he really got unlucky with his user name. Pcb21| Pete 14:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

After reading some old RFArs, I personally think he may be Lir. This is because they both seem to want to undermine wikipedia within the rules. For example, this 3rr BS! I had no experience with Lir, however. --Phroziac (talk) 18:15, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Process Issues

I may be confused, but it appears that the dispute resolution process is being bypassed too often this month. I realize that it is summer in most of the English-speaking parts of the world, but are people really so bored that they need to file RfArs without RfCs? Of the last eight RfArs that have been filed, four have bypassed the RfC stage: Ed Poor; Stevertigo vs. CJK (1); Ems57fcva; and -Ril-. (1. There is an RfC in the works against Stevertigo as admin, but the RfAr was filed by Stevertigo against someone else.) Maybe I am mistaken, but it appears that these RfArs, some of which are getting Accept votes from some of the arbitrators, are delaying the ability to deal with disputes that have been discussed and where less extreme measures have been tried and failed.

Can someone please explain to me how I am mistaken, or do we really have too many Requests for Arbitration that are not going through the proper process? Robert McClenon 12:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Are we defending instruction creep today? I believe the RfAr against Stevertigo was filed because it was apparent from the RfC that there is consensus to deadmin Stevertigo, but WMF procedure seems to require the ArbCom to order it before a steward will implement. (If Stevertigo offers to voluntarily deadmin, then the issue becomes moot, but as far as I know he hasn't.) An RFC on Ed Poor would be repetitive since that issue has already been discussed to death all over the Wiki anyway. While I agree that some discussion is called for before an RfAr is filed, requiring that this discussion take place as an RfC is, without any question, instruction creep. Kelly Martin 15:16, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deletion of VFD was in effect partly an RfC on Ed Poor, and in fact I believe Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ed Poor currently redirects there. --Michael Snow 16:05, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
-Ril- indicated that anything short of an ArbCom ruling would not result in a change in his behaviour. Though I imagine that the matter might have been resolved without ArbCom intervention through the mechanism described in the section above, I can't see how an RfC would have been helpful. I would also note that many of the issues that came here without passing through RfC did receive extensive discussion and community input elsewhere, particularly on WP:AN and WP:AN/I. The latter openly invites informal discussion of admin behaviour in lieu of filing an RfC. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


Attempt at Clarification

I understand some of Kelly Martin's misunderstanding of my post above. It appears that an RfAr against Stevertigo was posted after I posted the question about dispute resolution bypass. I had been referring to the RfAr filed by Stevertigo against CJK, which appeared to have been posted without discussion. I agree with Kelly Martin that the RfAr against Stevertigo follows adequate discussion. I was also referring to Ems57fcva and to -Ril-. In each case, there had been local discussion (on user talk pages or article talk pages), but not the sort of global community discussion that is normally done via an RfC.

In the case of Ed Poor, I agree with Kelly Martin that it had been discussed to death all over the Wiki. I can see that she does have a valid case that I was somewhat mixing apples and oranges in complaining about what I considered to be two types of poorly handled RfArs. The Ed Poor case was discussed ad nauseam all over the community. At the same time, I am not persuaded that there was any effort to reach a consensus short of arbitration. I am not even sure what the filers of the RfAr are requesting be done to Ed Poor. Are they asking him to apologize, which he did? Are they asking the ArbCom to caution him, which is probably unnecessary since he already apologized? Are they asking the ArbCom to de-admin him? Are they asking the ArbCom to block him for a period of time, which would be excessive?

In the other three cases that I mentioned, there did not appear to have been any global discussion, let alone any effort to reach consensus.

I did not mean to be implying that an RfC should be a mandatory step before an RfAr. I was implying that I thought it was a usual step before an RfAr. I was more generally implying that I thought that an RfAr should not be filed prematurely, and should not be the usual first or second step in dispute resolution.

I was also stating that if too many disputes are taken to RfAr without trying lesser methods of dispute resolution first, they will waste the time of the ArbCom in having to decide whether to take them, when they have cases on their agenda where all other methods of resolution have already failed.

I hope this clarifies what I had been trying to say. Maybe it does not. Maybe the instructions need clarifying rather than to have instruction creep added. Robert McClenon 17:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Need More Arbitrators

I have posted a statement of my opinions as to what needs to be done to resolve current problems in Wikipedia in User:Robert McClenon/Crisis. I think that there is a pressing need to streamline the way that arbitration is done. I would also like to thank all of the arbitrators for the thankless work that they do in acting as a Supreme Court with no lower courts. Robert McClenon 00:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Stevertigo and Fred

I am curious why Fred Bauder recused from the "User:CJK, User:Stevertigo" RfAr but didn't feel it necessary to do so in the more recent "Stevertigo" RfAr. The second request is, as I see it, a dispute that has resulted directly from the situation that led to the first. I am not complaining - I have no doubts as to Fred's neutrality and as an involved party in both I don't have a problem with Fred's participation. Thryduulf 19:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I am quite distressed by Stevertigo's edits to Vietnam War, but feel ok with questions regarding Stevertigo's activities as an administrator as I feel confident that I can objectively consider them without reference to Stevertigo's point of view editing. Fred Bauder 21:31, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Davy Blue and Aaron Brenneman

I'd like to formally request that User:Aaron Brenneman's profile be deleted. Will anyone support me on this? Dave 03:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Will anyone support me on this?. Nope. Well, I should really say, "No, I very seriously doubt it." --Calton | Talk 03:43, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Care to explain why? Dave 22:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • There's absolutely nothing wrong with Aaron's user page, and deleting it won't stop him from editing, which seems to be your desire. You might want to review WP:CIV and WP:NPA given the tone of your comments made to Aaron on your talk page and his. If you have problems with his conduct, there are proper channels for it, such as WP:RFC and WP:RFAr. android79 22:49, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Look at his contributions. Wouldn't you say at least some of this qualifies as both vandalism and harrassment? Isn't there some way we can ban him?Dave 02:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

1) Nope.
2) What do you mean we, paleface?

--Calton | Talk 02:39, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • There's nothing I've seen in his contributions that would even come close to justification for a permanent ban. Seriously, take it to RFC. Chatting about it here does you no good. android79 03:03, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Please do take it to RfC, if only to see how fast you'll be slapped down for it. As far as I can see, Aaron has been nothing but polite; on top of that, there's nothing offensive about his user page, so I suspect you're not quite understanding the difference between deleting a userpage and deleting a user. --khaosworks (talk• contribs) 03:07, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

I just wanted to thank the ArbCom for dealing with Alfrem. He was extremely difficult to work with, and I think he may be gone for good. I really appreciate your effort. Dave (talk) 22:16, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Lost Bits

The RFAr "template" at the top of the section for requesting new arbitrations seems to have lost some of its bits, like the line for Arbitrator opinions. I'm not sure what all should be there, so I am not going to try and fix it myself, but I figured this was worth pointing out. Dragons flight 18:07, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

3rd party cases?

Consider that (Users A and B) attempt and fail at untangling a long running and increasinly virulent edit war between (Users X and Y). A and B have no interest in the article(s) as editors, only in patching things up. X and Y ignore any attempt to persuade them to use the various dispute resolutions. Suppose A&B as 3rd parties take the case to RfC and not a lot happens. They consider RfAr since things are out of hand. Will the Arbitrators even hear a 3rd party case, or can it only be brought by the parties themselves? Not asking for a committment, but wondering if there is precedent either way. -Splash 20:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Precedent exists, though I cannot recall the specific case off-hand. I'll try and track it down when I can. I am almost certain that Michael Snow brought a case as a 3rd party once (and had it accepted), and I'm positive that Snowspinner has successfully brought more than one case as a 3rd party. I think a 3rd party should likely be very clear about their attempt to do something about the dispute--while I can't of course speak of the AC, I think they'd look more favorably on such a request, rather than a request made by a bystander who had no prior involvement. Jwrosenzweig 21:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
OK, thank you. There's no particular need to track down the cases if it's time consuming. This is just about to go to RfC so is at least a little while away from an RfAr; we were wondering whether arbitration was even on the list of options. -Splash 22:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


opening cases

There are currently two cases that have been accepted but not yet put in the evidence phase. Is there anything specific the ArbCom is waiting for or is it just a lack of round tuit? --fvw* 12:10, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

RFAr on Ed Poor

The arbitrators may wish to read Ed Poor's reactions in Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names/Trollderella. In particular, Ed renamed User:Trollderella to User:EnduranceFan claiming that it was an inappropriate username; some people contest this and feel Ed has acted against consensus. Radiant_>|< 12:35, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Actually I judged that there was (A) a policy against offensive / provoking usernames and (B) a rough consensus that Trollderella violates this policy. I did not count votes on whether A+B=C. That is where judgment comes in.
I recorded my actions, plainly exposed my misgivings, and requested a review - as I did for the previous 3 involuntary name changes I made (see Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard. I find it interesting that immediately users began using this incident as a forum to call for my de-b'ship. Very few seem concerned with the immediate issue of whether the old username violates policy and/or how to take care of the matter.
I am encouraged by EveryKing's approach though. Nearly all his remarks were to the point, and I actually agree with 2 of them. If we can stick to the issue - and not turn this into a referendum on my b-ship, I'm sure we can all reach a consensus on whether to reverse the name change or let it stand.
I will abide by the consunsus and am frankly puzzled by suggestions that I might not. Uncle Ed 14:37, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not particularly interested in Ed's bureacratiship (however that's spelled!), but I think it's an extraordinary leap to judge that there was in any way a consensus that "Trollderella" was against policy. Even a cursory inspection of the RfC reveals that the majority of respondents thought that the name was OK. — Matt Crypto 14:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
I do think it's important to note that Ed's original statements on this made no mention of consensus; he referred to the policy in vague terms at first, but didn't start talking about how he saw a consensus for an objectionable username until people started reminding him that he needed one. He later said This is the 4th inappropriate username I've changed in a week, since I discovered the button that performs name change. I think the likely explaination is that he just found out how to do name changes, and didn't know all of the relevent policies as well as he should have. That isn't such a bad thing in and of itself as long as he admits he was wrong; the relevent part of policy is, after all, just one line on a huge page, and even a longstanding bureaucrat like him can't be expected to know every detail of every policy. Claiming after the fact that there was any kind of consensus that Trollderella's username violated policy, though, stretches credibility a bit far. There seems to have been a rather decisive consensus in the other direction. Aquillion 16:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I do not think this should be discussed here. Personally I do not care about what Trollderella's name may be, and I am not holding it against Ed. It simply felt relevant to his RFAr, which is still undecided. Ed's action can be construed as good (upholding policy) or bad (ignoring consensus) or neither. Like I said I do not have an opinion on this issue, and I'll leave it to the Arbs to consider theirs. Radiant_>|< 17:41, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I'm just wondering, Ed's case has had four arbitrators accepting it since August 21. Why is it still on the requests page and not in the evidence phase? Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:24, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Yup, I was wondering about that in the section above too. 1 2 3 test. Is this thing on? --fvw* 23:34, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
I always thought it was a minimum of four net votes (with a reject subtracting from the accept total). There are three rejects. PS, anyone want to archive this talk page? Dmcdevit·t 04:01, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Nope, it's definitely four VOTES. Wikipedia:Arbitration policy#Requests says "The Arbitrators will accept a case if four or more Arbitrators have voted to hear it;" A Reject does not negate an accept vote.Borisblue 17:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
As far as I know, the 'net vote' method is only used for a motion to close an ArbCom case. In all other votes, a simple majority carries. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Ah, well I'm not totally crazy. Someone may want to ask an arbitrator then, but the fact that no one's opened the case may be telling. Dmcdevit·t 19:17, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm...since the ArbCom is up to eight active members now, I think it now takes five supporting votes to accept a case. Of course, you can still ask the four arbitrators who haven't commented why they're not voting. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:26, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
TenOfAllTrades correctly counts eight active arbitrators. I do not count four who haven't commented. I count three who have voted to accept, three who have voted to reject, one arbitrator on vacation who previously voted to accept, and two who have not decided. That looks like nine out of the nine including the one who is on vacation. Maybe the suggestion should be to ask the two who have said that they have not yet decided. Robert McClenon 19:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration policy#Requests states "The Arbitrators will accept a case if four or more Arbitrators have voted to hear it". There is no mention of a majority. —Cryptic (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

← back to the left margin... My bad; I really am usually better at counting. Cryptic makes a good point—I forgot that the threshold for accepting a case may under some circumstances be lower than the threshold for making decisions during the case. I too count 4 accept votes (Fred Bauder, Sannse, Jayjg, and Neutrality); 3 rejects (Jdforrester, Raul654, and The_Epopt); and 2 undecideds (David Gerard and Theresa Knott). Of course, since Sannse and Raul654 are away on wikibreaks at the moment, the ArbCom might be waiting to proceed.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Maybe they just forgot. Should one of us remind them? This page is getting kinda cluttered. Borisblue 22:37, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes we have accepted it, but there is little point in proceeding until a consensus is reached among us as to how to proceed or whether. Fred Bauder 22:40, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Whether? Saying that you've accepted it, but there is no consensus to proceed, seems contradictory. What am I missing? Paul August ☎ 23:16, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Fred, what if I just plead guilty to all charges, agree in advance to accept whatever remedy you guys decide, including giving up bureaucrat rights and sysop rights plus go on probation? Uncle Ed 00:56, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Don't do that, Ed. Try to forget this is going on, and let them reach a decision. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:59, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
I have said in a few other contexts that no one should ever offer to withdraw the signature from an RfC. This is seen as a sign of weakness, and encourages a culture of bullying. Similarly, no one should ever simply withdraw their defense from an RfC.
It is a Wikipedia policy to assume good faith. It is not a good idea in the RfC process to do that. The fact that an RfC or RfAr has been filed tends to indicate that somewhere (we do not know where) there is a lack of good faith. Do you, Uncle Ed think that you acted in good faith? I think that you did. I think that you made mistakes. Humans make mistakes. They fall into two classes, those who admit that they sometimes make mistakes, and those who are so self-righteous that they know (wrongly) that they never make mistakes.
You made mistakes. Your accusers made mistakes. You have admitted that you made mistakes. Please do not set a standard that says that only the most self-righteous can prevail. Robert McClenon 01:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I strongly disagree with abandoning good faith at RfC. That's a large part of the reason that they go so badly. If there is a culture here that says it's a bad idea to show "weakness", there are serious problems.
    brenneman(t)(c) 01:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
I did not say that there is a culture that says it is a bad idea to show "weakness". However, one of the reasons why dispute resolution is needed is problematical editors, who include POV warriors, petty tyrants, and trolls. In dealing with reasonable people, willingness to cooperate is not weakness but reasonableness, which is a strength. However, in dealing with POV warriors or trolls, who are only interested in getting their own way, special considerations apply. I have learned that one should not file a user conduct RfC and then agree to withdraw it. It is better not to file it at all. If one does file it, and then offers to withdraw it, the POV warrior is too likely to counter-attack. Robert McClenon 11:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
My reason for telling Ed Poor that he absolutely should not "plead guilty to all charges", when the charges have not been stated clearly, is slightly different but related. As a mediator, some of the cases that he mediates are ones where one of the parties is a POV warrior or troll. These are cases where mediation may have one of two effects. It may persuade the POV warrior to change their style. If so, it succeeds. It may fail. If so, it was useful anyway. However, if a mediator has shown behavior that trolls see as weakness, they will see the mediator as vulnerable to bullying. If POV warriors or trolls think that a mediator has shown weakness, then the mediator becomes ineffective in dealing with bad-faith editors. Robert McClenon 11:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
If Ed were to agree to "plead guilty to all charges" with poorly stated charges, then it would be necessary for him also to resign as a mediator, because he would no longer be credible. We need him as a mediator. He made mistakes of timing as an admin. We have too few mediators, and we need more, not fewer. One should not seek out conflict. But there are right and wrong ways to minimize it, and appeasement is a wrong way. Robert McClenon 11:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Robert: I'm wondering if there is perhaps some confusion going on here. The RfC that is being talked about here, is this one, initiated by Rob Church, Nicholas Turnbull, Phroziac and The Uninvited Co.. Are these the people you are talking about above, who should not be "appeased"? Paul August ☎ 13:06, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
No. I am not confused, but I was not clear in what I was trying to say. There may have been unintended confusion that I will try to correct. The initiating parties to the RfAr are not POV warriors or trolls. I was saying that POV warriors and trolls must not be appeased. I was critical of the RfAr because I was not sure what relief was being requested. The usual relief being requested in an RfAr is that an abusive user be banned, or a difficult user be placed on parole. However, I was saying that if Ed were to "plead guilty to all charges" and "accept whatever remedy" was imposed, it would send a signal that POV warriors and trolls would take to mean that Ed could be intimidated in mediation. Also, any agreement on his part to any sort of "parole" (when no one had accused him of personal attacks) would impair his ability to mediate. Robert McClenon 14:59, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
What I meant was, in particular, that Ed should not "plead guilty" in advance until the charges and the remedy were specified. Robert McClenon 14:59, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Ok I think I understand now, thanks for the clarification. In my view the sole determinant of whether Ed (or anyone) should "plead guilty to all charges" is whether or not he believes he is "guilty" of "all the charges". Paul August ☎ 18:31, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Ed Poor accepted

Please place any relevant evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor/Evidence and participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor/Workshop. Fred Bauder 16:37, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Ed Poor case

I noticed that the ArbCom just closed the case against Ed Poor. I had barely created my "evidence" section, and I was just in the process of adding to it when I discovered the case had been closed. It now seems like something of a wasted effort. In the motion to close section, it says that "24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close", but while the first motion to close occurred at 18:30 today (september 13th as I write this), the fourth support occurred at 22:59, and the case was closed one minute later. This all seems a bit rushed to me. Did anyone even had time to read and consider my evidence? What kind of time frame is usually allowed, for the gathering and the presentation of evidence? And for the consideration of that evidence? Did other users specifically UninvitedCompany who brought the case or Fvw who had expressed an interest in taking over the case, had ample time to add evidence of their own? Have all the arbitrators had a chance to weight in? Was there a need to proceed so quickly? In my view this can only add to certain negative perceptions already exacerbated by these events. Paul August ☎ 00:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

About not waiting the 24 hours - mea culpa, that was my mistake (it had the 4 votes to close but I forgot about the 24 hour wait). However, in terms of the issues involved, they were discussed at length several weeks ago (before I went on vacation), at which point 3 of the 4 original requestors had dropped out of the case and UC said he was unsure about continuing. Discussion continued on the mailing list since [where most/all active arbitrators had expressed approval at the idea of Ed resigning and the case being dropped]. The rest was considered moot since all of the misconduct allegations (to which Ed had already pled guilty) centered on his misues of developer/bureacrat powers. →Raul654 00:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Well I haven't been privy to the mailing list discussions. But I didn't see anywhere that UC had dropped the case, and I also saw that Fvw was willing to take the case over if UC did decide to drop it. I might have been willing to take on the case as well. I don't remember seeing any allegations of abuse of developer/bureacrat powers, in for example the lengthy evidence I provided (did you get a chance to read it by the way?). All the allegations of abuse that I saw had to do with his misuse of admin power i.e. deleting VfD. Are we talking about the same case? Paul August ☎ 00:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
UC did not drop the case, however when asked (in an IRC discussion between him, Ed Poor, and several arbitrators) he was unsure about whether or not it should proceed.
As to the allegations against Ed - the primary complaints against Ed were (1) that he had misused his Op powers in deleting the RFC for VFD (2) and in deleting the RFC on himself (note - his deletion of VFD was specifically excluded from the complaint in underlined text- It is our opinion that, in his attempt to delete VfD, he nonetheless had a genuine belief that his actions were for the benefit of the community - however, it is not this particular action that we take issue with - [5]) (3) his threatening to "veto" lucky's request for adminship, and (4) the use of his (now removed) developer access some months back to desysop 4 or so admins with whom he was in a disagreement. Since then, he also (5) forcibly renamed another user against policy.
I personally consider 1 & 2 as "small fries" compared to 3, 4, and 5 (3 and 5 are, incidentally, related to his bureacrat powers). As such, (and while I don't want to presume to speak for the others on the committee, I'm fairly sure they'll agree with me) we felt our solution addressed the most compelling problems in the complaint. And while some people are sure to claim that we are being too light on him, I'd like to point out that this is quite a bit heavier punishment that we give others during their first arbcom cases. →Raul654 01:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Did you read my evidence section? Paul August ☎ 01:20, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I have read your evidence (and as I side note, I think it is remarkably well written, which is very rare for arbcom evidence). With that said, while I think what Ed was a very bad idea that led to a lot of unnecessary bickering and recrimination, I also happen to agree with UninvitedCompany/NicholasT/et al in that Ed's VFD-deletion was a situation where Be-Bold and ignore-all-rules applied [his subsequent actions not withstanding]. Therefore, I don't think it was an abuse of power. And, as I said above, it was spefifically excluded from the arbcom complaint, which frankly means we shouldn't be commenting on it. →Raul654 01:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
I hoped the case would close, but am a little disappointed that it has closed so suddenly, as I wanted to write a statement in support of Ed with regard to his mediation in the Terri Schiavo case. One of the editors from that article, who had been blocked by Ed for personal attacks, maintained that Ed had failed to show neutrality. There was absolutely no occasion on which Ed tried to protect the page in his preferred version, or on which he blocked people whose POV was different from his – actually, I don't know what his POV was – while overlooking similar behaviour from editors who shared his POV. I could add a lot more, but since the case has closed, I suppose I shouldn't. Ann Heneghan (talk) 08:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Raul wrote: UC did not drop the case, however when asked (in an IRC discussion between him, Ed Poor, and several arbitrators) he was unsure about whether or not it should proceed. While this may be true, it is not a complete summary of the carefully nuanced view I hold. If I recall correctly, I was asked in IRC whether I was going forward with the case. My answer was that (a) it wasn't solely my decision whether the case should go forward or not, but rather a decision belonging to the AC and the community, (b) that I recognized that my judgement was badly clouded in trying to figure out the best way to handle this matter overall, and (c) in light of a&b, I neither wished to withdraw the case nor make an affirmative effort to move it forward. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Ed Poor has offered to resign as a Wikipedia Bureaucrat. He remains a Wikipedia Administrator in good standing and a valued member of the Wikipedia community. The case is closed without further comment. To actually rule on whether Ed broke policy would be too controversial, I suppose. That he could have broken policy and still be considered a "valued member" is apparently not possible. The impression given seems to be that admins and others given power at wikipedia must maintain a facade of perfection, rather than be human, admit mistakes were made, deal with it, and move on. The mentality would seem to boil down to "you're in, or you're out" and there is no inbetween, which would reflect similar attitudes in a "club" that evolved from thirteen year olds more than a cabal that has been designed. "Lord of the Flies" rather than "1984". Well, at least now we know. FuelWagon 17:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

What we have communicated to Ed Poor is that he is not an exception who will be permitted, based on bureaucrat status, to break rules with impunity. Fred Bauder 19:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Telling Ed "you're not above policy" is good, but the "without further comment" basically means no one's going to make a determination as to whether or not Ed actually broke policy. I'm not entirely familiar with the case history of arbcom, but the few arbitration rulings I've skimmed through were pretty thorough on arbcom declaring what did and did not happen as far as they were concerned. FuelWagon 20:03, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
It is implied that Ed broke policy in a number of instances, despite absence of specific findings. We simply don't want to paint him as a disreputable scoundrel just to bring him down a notch. In other words we don't want to overdo it. The evidence you folks added contributed significantly to our decisions despite the absence of findings of fact. Ed knew he had gotten carried away and responded appropriately. Fred Bauder 20:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't want to label Ed as a "disreputable scoundrel". I wanted a fair and neutral resolution over actions I believe Ed took that broke policy. Either a "no, Ed didn't break policy" or a "yes, Ed broke policy here and here but not here and this is what we're going to do as a result". The "paint him as a disreputable scoundrel" idea sounds like the very "you're either in, or you're out, and there's no in between" attitude I was talking about above. All or nothing. It should be possible to acknowledge someone broke policy, have them make appropriate ammends, bring them back into wikipedia, and consider them a "valued member". Otherwise, the alternative is to require perfect, rather than human, editors, which is only a setup for failure. FuelWagon 05:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Fualwagon - Please tell us why we need an FOF when there aren't any facts that are under dispute, seeing as how Ed pled "guilty as charged". →Raul654 22:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Then maybe this plea should be noted in the final decision area. It wasn't clear to me that that is what happened. FuelWagon 06:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

You are correct on one point: Ed Poor (talk · contribs) is IN. We are not in the habit of running off people who have contributed substantially to Wikipedia over a period of years. Fred Bauder 14:13, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Again, saying someone broke policy is not the same as "running off" the person. And whether or not an editor has "contributed substantially" or "been around for a long time" should have nothing to do with whether or not he broke policy. As far as I know, Ed offered to plead guilty on a talk page a while ago and arbcom never commented on it either way. If arbcom accepted that, then it should be noted in the "final decision" section. Did arbcom accept Ed's guilty plea? Or was the point to close the case as quickly as possible "without further comment". FuelWagon 15:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
FuelWagon, please! Can you not just drop it now. This is just getting embarrassing. Ed broke policy. He's now no longer a bureaucrat. Surely we don't have to keep going after him now. After you were unblocked, you started posting things on your user and talk pages about how if someone bumps you, you keep moving, and you expect others to do the same. Everyone reading this page can see that Ed did not get away with what he did. Why is it so necessary for you that there should be an formal statement of how naughty he was. You were welcomed back, as a member in good standing, after you had filled the talk page with the most revolting and aggressive language. It was the end of the matter. Nobody demanded a formal statement about your behaviour. You remained a Wikipedia editor "in good standing and a valued member of the Wikipedia community. The case [was] closed without further comment." Why shouldn't it be the same for Ed. Let go and move on. Please. Ann Heneghan (talk) 16:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
"Everyone reading this page can see that Ed did not get away with what he did." What did he do? What policies did he violate? Why must that remain unspoken? This is starting to feel like the "Emporer's New Clothes", where no one can state what "everyone can see". I broke NPA policy, and there's an entry in the block log that says so. Why must there be no record of what policies Ed violated or pleaded guilty to violating? FuelWagon 16:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

This dead horse is being beaten so severely that it is in danger of turning into a horse smoothie. android79 17:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Anyone who is not foolish and unworthy [6] will clearly see that the horse is dead and should not be beaten. FuelWagon 17:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
The reason we list FOfs on the desicion pages is as a justification for the measures we impose. In this case we didn't impose any measures. Ed offered to resign and we accepted the offer. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 17:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
So if Ed offered to plea "guilty as charged" and arbcom accepted that plea, then why can't that be explained in the "final ruling"? FuelWagon 19:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
As the person who started this "Request for clarification", I plead guilty to the charge of "not dropping this" and take full responsibility for the consequences. And while I want to distance myself from FuelWagon's inflammatory rhetoric, I think, respectfully, he has a point. Paul August ☎ 18:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Paul August. This was handled inappropriately. Maurreen (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Outside opinion by McClenon

I agree with both Paul August and Maurreen. The whole Ed Poor case has been handled very sloppily from beginning to end. While FuelWagon should tone down his rhetoric, he is right that this case does not maintain the appearance of justice. I think that justice has been done, but the appearance of justice has not been served.

The original RfAr was, in my opinion, badly written in that it left no indication as to what remedy was requested. I first criticized the original RfAr as prematurely filed, because previous steps such as an RfC had been skipped, and because it appeared that what had happened was that Ed had made a mistake and had apologized. I was told that there had been ample discussion throughout the Wikipedia community that took the place of an RfC, and was willing to agree with that. However, there was no statement as to what relief was requested. Normally it is clear enough from the charges in an RfAr that the relief requested is that the user be banned. In the Stevertigo case, it was clear enough that the relief requested was removing his admin privileges that he is accused of misusing. It was never clear what privilege the filers were requesting be taken away from Ed. I for instance suggested that he give up his admin privilege but retain his bureaucrat privilege, which is the opposite of what has happened.

The ArbCom then accepted the case. Ed Poor offered to plead guilty to all charges and accept whatever punishment was requested, but the charges had never been defined, and the punishment was not specified. Then two editors offered evidence. Then the case seemed to disappear. This did not seem right. It did not seem to have been closed by agreement. It seemed to have disappeared.

It is commonly said that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Most of Wikipedia is informal. The ArbCom should act with a certain regard for due process. Substantive due process was probably done, although that is not clear. Procedural due process was not done. The ArbCom should be more attentive in the future to maintaining not only justice but also the appearance of justice via procedural due process.

Can the case at least now be closed with a statement as to what action was taken by agreement? Can the ArbCom realize that the appearance of justice is also important? Robert McClenon 19:07, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by Oleg Alexandrov

I will agree with the posters before me. Nobody doubts that the ArbCom meant well. However, I think it was inappropriate to have a lot of the disussion on the mailing list rather than on Wikipedia. The process was not transparent. Oleg Alexandrov 19:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

In addition to a private mailing list, we also have a private irc channel which we use for confidential discussions of our decisions. Public discussions are often found on /Workshop pages and on the talk pages of /Proposed decision. Fred Bauder 15:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by Nandesuka

I concur with the above, particularly Oleg. I know that Arbcom was acting in the community's best interests, but if there was more transparency this wouldn't even be an issue. Caesar's wife and all that. Nandesuka 20:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, no matter what conclusion we came to, no matter how many detailed findings of fact regarding what Ed Poor did and no matter how detailed the community's knowledge of the details this is a controversial matter and would result in significant controversy. If someone accepts a fair offer to settle a difficult detailed matter we will honor that agreement. Fred Bauder 15:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Respect, wasting time, etc.

I'm sorry if I seem combative, but if the arbitration committee or its members did not want to handle the case in the normal manner, it would have been at least courteous to tell people not to bother working on evidence, and then they would have known and at least not wasted their time or have been as surprised. In my view, the handling of this case is larger than anything about Ed Poor.

Their time was not wasted at all. The overwhelming volume of evidence and its nature figured in my view of the matter. Remember 3 others had withdrawn complaints also and could have presented similar evidence. Fred Bauder 18:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

In my view, the way this was handled was dismissive and disrespectful. My understanding is that the essence (not the mechanics)of the complaint against Ed was that he put himself above the community.

The arbitration's handling of the case (the procedure, or lack) is so far from handling other cases that it appears to confirm the original complaint.

Although we have WP:IAR, that is supposed to be tempered. My understanding of our general principles for community and consensus is that if significant opposition is raised, people should reconsider their actions. Given the opposition to how this case was handled, will anyone on the committee reconsider their actions? Maurreen (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I cannot speak for others, but I am satisfied we did the right thing. The prospect of reopening the case and going in detail through the various misdeeds of Ed Poor is comparable to someone asking me if I'd like to walk up to the top of Kit Carson Mountain with them. "I didn't lose anything up there." Fred Bauder 18:47, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
I am satisfied now that the case has been disposed of reasonably. There was significant opposition to the way that the case was initially disposed of without documentation. That has been corrected. I think that the ArbCom did make a mistake, not in how they disposed of the case, but in how they failed to document the case, and that mistake has been corrected. I can see three hypothetical arguments for why to reopen the case, none of which I think has been made. First, the case could be reopened if it was thought that the final resolution was wrong, e.g., because Ed should be punished further. I have not heard that argument. Second, the case could be reopened in order for the ArbCom to find that Ed violated consensus and policy. I see no reason for that, since he admitted as much. Third, the case could be reopened in order to permit more evidence to be documented to support the final outcome. Anyone who wants to archive more evidence can do so on any of various subpages.
I think that the ArbCom did act hastily in how they closed the case, but that they have remedied that. If anyone has some argument as to why the case should be reopened, they can present it. "What are you claiming was lost on top of Kit Carson Mountain?" Robert McClenon 20:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Robert, perhaps you could explain what, exactly, changed since the case was closed?The only comments from arbcom since closing the case have been ... they're satisified with their decision. Nothing has changed. No one has remedied anything. The accusations against Ed was that he acted above policy because he was an old timer, and after the charges were brought, Ed was pardoned of any wrongdoing. How has that resolved anything rather than simply prove that the accusations were true? FuelWagon 00:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Er, Ed wasn't 'pardoned'. It could be argued that there was a 'plea bargain'. He gave up his bureaucratship–as far as I know, that's never happened before on Wikipedia–and said a mea culpa acknowledging that he screwed up. You're welcome to second-guess whether the penalty was sufficient, but Ed was definitely not let off scot-free. Besides, I'm sure he is still under some sort of informal parole—there appear to be a number of editors who still...have concerns...who I am sure will be glad to file a request to reopen his ArbCom case should he step out of line.
The fact that Ed suggested his own punishment–and that the ArbCom accepted it–doesn't reflect poorly on the ArbCom; rather it reflects well on Ed. My understanding is that the most serious allegations of misconduct stemmed from Ed's use of his bureaucrat powers, so the remedy seems to fit the problem.
If the ArbCom were lenient, I would suggest that is because they were actually dealing with a polite and helpful defendant. (If another individual brought before ArbCom said "You know, you're right. I have been edit warring at foo, and I would accept a revert limit on that article. Some of my comments to User:JohnDoe were out of line; I was having a rough month at work, but I know that's a poor excuse. How about a personal attack parole, too?" I dare say that the ArbCom might be inclined to moderate their decision.
This isn't a court of law, and it's not really necessary to list all of the 'charges'–is that what you're looking for?–to which Ed pled. I imagine that he got the gist of the message, partly from this ArbCom case, but mostly from the blowback on IRC, and the mailing list, and WP:AN(/I), and the river of flame in his inbox. Succinctly, "Ed, you stepped over the line. You've lost your bureaucratship because of the worst of it; as for the rest, don't do anything that will piss of so many people ever again."
The ArbCom isn't here to hand out parking tickets or prison terms for policy infractions. They're not dirty cops who will 'look the other way' for their buddies. They're here to remove troublemakers so that the rest of us can get on with writing an encyclopedia. I expect that Ed will think twice before stirring the pot again, which means that the proceedings have served their purpose—and ours. What would you like from ArbCom, FuelWagon? (To everyone else, pardon the lengthy statement.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

what?

"What would you like from ArbCom"

I believe Ed Poor was a combative mediator on the Terri Shiavo article to the point of abusing admin priveledges by fulfilling SlimVirgin's request to block me (even though she was acting as an involved editor on the article and the block wasn't deserved), giving editors undeserved warnings of NPA violations for criticizing SlimVirgin's editing behaviour, ignoring SlimVirgin's behaviour on the article, attacking an RFC filed against SlimVirgin as bullying and gaming the system, and violating NPA.

evidence

(1) Ed's second block against me (20:34 July 13) was an abuse of administrative priveledges. There were no personal attacks on my talk page. Posts between Ed and SlimVirgin show that SlimVirgin asked Ed (18:07 July 13) to block me because of my talk page, and he obliged. When I asked Ed to point to any personal remarks that caused me to get blocked (07:56 July 15), he refused and says he's "getting away with it" because "he's been around a long time" (12:10 July 15)

(2) Ed warns Neuroscientist (15:46 July 13) of imagined NPA violations in response to a 5,000 word highly technical and completely neutral criticism that Neuroscientist made of SlimVirgin's edit.

(3) I filed an RfC against SlimVirgin. Ed partialy/hesitantly endorsed my RfC against her (00:47 July 15), then withdraws his comments and attacks the RFC as a "sneaky way of "building a case"", gaming the system, hypocritical bullying, and suggests those filing it withdraw the RFC. (21:07 15 July). Which shows a complete lack of neutrality as mediator again and complete favoritism to SlimVirgin.

(4) Ed's post to me 10:45 July 17 violated NPA.

And what I would like is for arbcom to answer some questions of policy violations, admin priveledges, and mediator abuses. That's their job.

Did Ed violate NPA?
Did Ed abuse admin priveledges on his second block against me?
Did Ed unfairly suppress criticism directed towards SlimVirgin?
Did Ed act inappropriately as a mediator on the Terri Schiavo article?

And for any question that answers "No", I would like an explanation as to how policy applies to those behaviours and is not a violation. Because the way I see it, all of them are answered "yes". That would be a good start, anyway. FuelWagon 03:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree in the specific as to whether the Arbcom is supposed to address these policy violations in the past. I agree that policy violations and abuses of admin privileges are matters to be adjudicated by the ArbCom when all else fails. In this case, I think that there has been a resolution that, although not perfect, is more or less satisfactory except to FuelWagon. Robert McClenon 12:41, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
It still is not clear to me what User:FuelWagon is expecting the ArbCom to do at this point. There is agreement that policies were violated, and that wrongs were committed. What more do you want? If you are saying that you want Ed Poor's remaining positions of admin and mediator revoked, then I think that we can simply respectfully disagree as to whether the punishment was sufficient, and leave it at that. Robert McClenon 12:40, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
There are several Requests for Arbitration having four, five, or six Accept votes concerning conflicts that really appear to be intractable except by arbitration. I would like to see the ArbCom handle those cases, rather than spend weeks of sifting through a mountain of evidence about past issues about the Terri Schiavo article to reaffirm that Ed made mistakes, while wasting their time when they could be banning a few flamers instead. Robert McClenon 12:40, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, that's a rather easy attitude to take for someone who didn't get screwed over by some admins. You're didn't get blocked for no good reason. You didnt get attacked for your RfC. You didn't get attacked under the lame excuse of illustrating a point. You weren't part of teh Terri Schiavo mediation where the mediator was grossly biased towards one editor and against anyone who criticized her. And since you've not felt the effects of any of this abuse, it's easy for you to dismiss any sort of resolution around it. "Oh, it's just FuelWagon who has a problem here." Yeah? Well, a couple other editors had a problem with mediation around Terri Schiavo, and they were so disgusted with the whole thing that they left wikipedia. I'm the last man standing of Ed's victims. You're not involved with this dispute, Robert, so don't answer for arbcom. If arbcom is going to bury this, then let them say so. Or let their silence be their answer.
As for what I want arbcom to do, I want an answer to the questions above. yes or no. I'm sick of saying Ed violated NPA and then getting the entire peanut gallery of editors who have nothing to do with this dispute coming out of the woodwork and taking pot shots at me. Whether Ed violated policy has nothing to do with "Ed's a good guy", has nothign to do with "Ed's made a lot of contributions", has nothing to do with any other opinion of Ed's personal character. I'm talking about his behaviour. And at the very least, if arbcom says yes/no to those questions, then maybe that'll get the peanut gallery off my case.
As for punishment, perhaps you didn't notice that I never asked for any. I haven't asked for Ed to resign his adminship or step down as mediator. I think his behaviour should be noted though. His NPA violation should get a 24 hour block and recorded like any other NPA. His undeserved block against me should be noted and recorded. One bad block is not enough to revoke his adminship, but if he continues handing out undeserved blocks, then someone should look at that. As it is, though, there is nothing on his record saying he misused admin priveledges. His record as mediator should note that he failed to maintain neutrality, attacking editors he was supposed to be mediating and defending others. If he continues to show favoritism and/or a lack of neutrality in other mediations, then someone can look into whether he should step down. But thus far, there is nothing on Ed's record about any of these things, the case was closed "without further comment" and arbcom gave Ed a "Good job" award.
Four yes/no questions shouldn't be that hard to answer. If Ed actually plead guilty, then that should make it even easier. The amount of time it would take, therefore, shouldn't be a problem. But rather, I think arbcom specifically wanted to close this "without further comment". They don't want to put anything on his record. They don't want to announce any findings fo fact. They don't want to say they accepted Ed's guilty plea. And so, it is really not a guilty plea, it's a pardon, with a "good job" award to boot. FuelWagon 14:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Fuelwagon, you're turning yourself into an absurd figure by going on and on about a non-incident. You and two or three other new editors were sitting in control of Terri Schiavo, a page I almost no previous involvement in. Several editors complained about you to at least two admins that I know of. I did a copy edit. You reverted me, and launched some serious personal attacks on the talk page, as you'd done before to others (including "arrogant cuss" and "f-ing ***hole"). I stopped editing the page, and Ed blocked you for disruption because of the attacks. The other editors you say left because of the dispute: two stopped editing for no known reason some time later, and the one who did leave because of Schiavo had already left — supposedly forever — under a different user name, after Tony Sidaway talked to him about similar behavior. Then you filed an RfC on me for ... well, it's still not clear what for. It turned into an RfC against you, because most of those who responded did not support you. This was back in July or thereabouts, and this is September. Nothing has happened since then, except that you spam talk pages about it whenever you can and compile attack pages. Ed did nothing wrong here, so let it go. And to save you the trouble of adding this latest outrageous insult to your attack page, don't worry, I'll do it for you. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, since you've publicly announced you can assume no good faith of me, what conclusion could you reach other than to say I am solely in the wrong here? The fact is that I violated NPA, cleaned up my comments, was blocked anyway, accepted it without protest, and apologized. And that fact is separate from whether or not Ed's second block was an abuse of admin priveledge, whether his post to me violated NPA, and whether his behaviour on Terri Schiavo was appropriate as mediator. FuelWagon 12:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The Ed Poor arbitration may be appealed, if you wish, to User:Jimmy Wales. I would say your request to reopen the case has been rejected. Fred Bauder 16:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion to reopen it FULLY or to drop it (preferably drop it)

I feel compelled to get involved because FuelWagon seems to be doing everything he can to get the Ed Poor case reopened. I think it is necessary to make a statement. But if there is no intention to reopen it, then this lengthy post can be ignored. I see that FuelWagon has now appealed to Jimbo [7]. I'm sure Jimbo is far busier than most editors, and I don't want to clutter up his talk page with something so petty as an account of what led to the "undeserved" block and the violation of WP:NPA. All that I would ask is that if Jimbo does decide to become involved, one of the arbitrators would bring all the background details to his attention. But maybe FuelWagon would prefer to drop the case?

Ed joined the Terri Schiavo case as mediator, after the talk page had become absolutely polluted with personal attacks, scatological language, and obscenities, most of which came from FuelWagon.

Ed was courteous as mediator. He made few edits to the article. He protested against the extraordinary lack of civility on the talk page and mediation page. Finally, after an edit war, he rolled the article back to some point before the edit war had started, and locked the page. Sorry I can't provide diffs. I'll hunt them out if necessary. I am positive that Ed did not lock the page in his preferred version, even if he had one. (He did not take part in the edit war.)

There had been various complaints to administrators about the atmosphere at the Terri Schiavo talk page. SlimVirgin arrived on the scene, and did a copyedit, which included some changes that were more than copyediting, but nothing massive. (Those who look at the diffs will think the changes were bigger than they really were, because some bits were slightly moved so there was red showing even when two sentences were identical. FuelWagon and Duckecho immediately began reverting. FuelWagon called SlimVirgin a f**%!ng *$$s0le, a f**%!ng jerk,[8], an arrogant cuss, an arrogant arse [9] plus lots lots more. SlimVirgin withdrew from editing the article [10] Three of FuelWagon's friends left messages on his talk page about his language, suggesting that he should tone it down, [11], that he risked getting blocked [12], and that he should go back and remove the offensive language [13]. After being reminded that he risked being blocked, FuelWagon began to remove his obscenities. [14] . After he had finished, he said that he wasn't particularly sorry about having placed them there in the first place, and that he wouldn't apologize [15]. It was at that stage that Ed blocked him. I think it's important to stress that, because FuelWagon keeps bringing up the fact that Ed blocked him for "unrepentant personal attacks" after he had started cleaning up, which is true; but he doesn't mention that it was also after he had said he wasn't particularly sorry and wouldn't apologize.

Another thing that FuelWagon keeps mentioning is how unjust the second block was. Actually, it wasn't a second block. Ed blocked him once. What Ed later did was to protect FW's talk page. The first edit FW made to his talk page after the block was to create a heading called "SlimVirgin lies". [16] (In the interest of fairness, I will add that he subsequently changed it to "SlimVirgin quote.") He continued with his complaints [17], [18], [19], [20], hints that he would try to get Ed or SlimVirgin desysopped [21], accusations that SlimVirgin was "tracking" his contributions (though to know that, he must have been tracking hers) [22].

When FuelWagon had made over forty edits to his own talk page, complaining about SlimVirgin and Ed, Ed sent him a message pointing out that it was he (Ed) who had personally asked that blocked users would be allowed to edit their talk page during their block, so that the block wouldn't be too hard on them. [23] He asked FW to use the time productively to show on his talk page what contributions he planned to make to the encyclopedia. FuelWagon proceeded to make over fifty further edits to his talk page, none of which was helpful to the encyclopedia (such as pointing out errors in an article and asking an unblocked user to fix it). They were all complaints or remarks about SlimVirgin, Ed, and the block. They included one which posted the contents of a private email from SlimVirgin [24] It was after that that Ed moved all the complaints to a subpage [25], and protected FW's talk page, essentially rendering FW incapable of editing anything on the English Wikipedia for the remainder of his forty-hour block. Ed explained why he was doing this [26]. It can all be seen in the history of FW's talk page between 11 and 14 July.

As soon as FuelWagon was unblocked, he opened an RfC against SlimVirgin. (Most visitors to that page endorsed SlimVirgin's statement, rather than his.) He was unable to provide diffs to show how he had tried and failed to resolve the dispute. (He simply provided diffs for the attacks he had launched.) He provided evidence of the "personal attacks" that SlimVirgin had supposedly launched – things like saying "don't be so rude" to someone who had called her a f**%!ng *$$s0le. Visitors to the RfC page actually laughed at these examples. People began to comment on FuelWagon instead of on SlimVirgin; he showed signs of frustration, and eventually withdrew his certification.

Unfortunately, he seemd unable to move on, and has recently been posting numerous remarks in several of the pages connected with the Ed Poor arbitration.

He has written that he wants four answers from the Arbitration Committee [27]

  1. Did Ed violate NPA?
  2. Did Ed abuse admin privileges on his second block against me?
  3. Did Ed unfairly suppress criticism directed towards SlimVirgin?
  4. Did Ed act inappropriately as a mediator on the Terri Schiavo article?

My comments

  1. Ed used offensive language. However, after the number of times he had seen the same language from FuelWagon, he might have thought it was just like saying Bonjour to a Frenchman. He has not, to the best of my knowledge, used that language to anyone else. Also, he made it clear that he was using that language in order to provide an example of the kind of things that editors (including Ed) are not allowed to say.
  2. As I have explained, there was no second block. Ed blocked him once, and subsequently protected his talk page. In my view, it was quite appropriate, as FuelWagon had made about a hundred edits simply complaining about SlimVirgin, Ed, and the fact of being blocked.
  3. Definitely not. He did not suppress any criticism towards SlimVirgin, whether fairly or unfairly. He did request that people should refrain from making personal remarks.
  4. Again, definitely not. There was no occasion in which someone with a different POV from FuelWagon's launched a series of personal attacks and was left unpunished by Ed. Ed did not try to lock the page in his version. He actually made very few edits to the article. He was courteous. He did not block someone with whom he was engaged with conflict; he blocked someone who had been engaging in a series of utterly disgusting and offensive attacks against other editors for months. I am unaware of any evidence that Ed "works closely with" SlimVirgin, or that he "favoured" her (as FuelWagon claimed on Jimbo's talk page [28]). I don't think they generally edit the same pages. Blocking someone who abused her so appallingly is not an indication of "favouring" her.

He has said about Ed [29] "His NPA violation should get a 24 hour block and recorded like any other NPA."

As regards giving Ed a 24-hour block in for having used a naughty word several months previously, I'm not aware that Wikipedia has such a policy. But if it has, then FuelWagon should get a 24-hour block for each of the following: this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this. (These don't include the attacks against SlimVirgin.)

Ed was the best thing that ever happened to the Terri Schiavo talk page. After he blocked FuelWagon, the abuse stopped.

I have no comments to offer on the issue of deleting the Votes for Deletion page – other than to say that I think an RfC should not be filed within two hours of an offence, and an RfAr should not be filed within a day of deletion of the RfC. There has to be an honest attempt at resolving disputes first. If the arbitration committee is satisfied to drop the case after a guilty plea and an offer of resignation, then I am satisfied too.

Am I requesting that FuelWagon be blocked for very nasty attacks made in the past? Definitely not. I hope that his numerous personal attacks and Ed's one personal attack can both be dropped into oblivion. But if FuelWagon passionately believes that people should be blocked for personal attacks several months after the event, then it's obvious that he has to get a longer block than Ed. (I just provided a few diffs. There are many more.)

I would formally request that no further action be taken against either of these editors. My second choice is that action would be taken against both. I am sure that if FuelWagon really believes in justice, he will agree that he should get a longer block than Ed.

However, blocking people for past offences is not the best solution, in my view. I would so much prefer if we could all move on, and concentrate on building a great encyclopedia. How about it, FuelWagon? Ann Heneghan (talk) 22:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Ann, were it simply a matter of a single NPA from a regular editor I would have dropped it. I have been on the recieving end of such posts and generally ignore them. This is not just a regular editor, but someone who was an admin and bureaucrat at the time, and also the mediator on record for the Terri Schiavo article. This isn't just about an NPA violation, this is about Ed's behaviour throughought this incident while he was mediator of the article with administrator priveledges. This is about Ed abusing admin priveledges by handing out an underserved block. There were no personal attacks in my /block page. I was blocked because I was preparing to file an RfC against SlimVirgin, SlimVirgin complained to Ed, and Ed blocked me and moved everything to a subpage in an attempt to stop the RfC. This is about Ed's undeserved warning about NPA to Neuroscientist in response to Neuroscientist's criticism of SlimVirgin's edit. This is about Ed attacking an RfC between two editors on a page he was mediating. This is about Ed attacking me while I'm working on a page he was mediating. This isn't about a single NPA, this is about a mediator who engaged in the debate and took sides rather than mediate to the point of administering a block to suppress criticism, giving editors underserved warnings about violating NPA, attacking RfC's between involved editors, and attacking one of the editors directly. I think this deserves attention since Ed is still mediator and still an admin. FuelWagon 16:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
FuelWagon|FuelWagon asked me to stop defending the ArbCom and let them speak for themselves, which I did. However, now that a third party has provided a view as to why the case should either be reopened fully or dropped, I will provide my third party view also.
There clearly is a major difference of opinion between FuelWagon|FuelWagon and Ann Heneghan as to whether Ed Poor's role as mediator was constructive or destructive. FuelWagon claims that Ed abused his role as an admin and abused his role as a mediator. Ann strongly disagrees. Ann is pointing out that, for the ArbCom to consider whether Ed abused his roles, it would be necessary for the ArbCom to consider all of the facts about the Terri Schiavo edit war. That, as Ann says, could result in Ed being blocked for three days and FuelWagon being blocked for thirty days, or in Ed being rebuked and FuelWagon blocked for ten days.
I have not reviewed the case history in its full detail. I have seen enough evidence to conclude that mistakes were made by at least three editors who have all also made valuable contributions to Wikipedia, FuelWagon, SlimVirgin, and Ed Poor. Editors make mistakes when tempers get hot in edit wars. The issue should be not whether mistakes were made, but whether the mistakes that were made warrant a formal inquiry such as an ArbCom proceeding.
It is not clear to me what remedy FuelWagon is requesting against Ed. I think that he has said that he does not want to see any punishment imposed on Ed, but only some sort of finding of fact. I don't think that that is the way the ArbCom works. However, they can speak for themselves there.
FuelWagon: Are you really requesting that the ArbCom conduct an inquiry on the Terri Schiavo mess? If not, what? Robert McClenon 19:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Robert, I don't know why it isn't clear to you. I've said several times what I want. The mediator for the article (Ed Poor) inappropriately warned Neuroscientist to be careful not to violate NPA (Neuroscientist's crime was to criticize SlimVirgin), then Ed misused his admin priveledges and blocked me because I was working on an RFC against SlimVirgin on my talk page (Ed said there were "personal" remarks on my talk page, but he refuses to point out a single specific one), then Ed ATTACKED the RfC I filed against SlimVirgin and said I should drop it, then Ed attacked me. Ed's actions as a mediator were completely and totally biased to defend SlimVirgin and attack anyone who criticized her edit. Ed's actions were totally inappropriate for someone who was supposed to be mediating the article. He should have remained neutral, but instead he defended SlimVirgin and attacked anyone who criticized her. At the very least, Ed's record as a mediator should reflect this failure, at the worst, he should not be a mediator anymore. Either way his failure as mediator should be noted. I want arbcom to look at how Ed handled mediating the Terri Schiavo article. Mediation started around June 17th, but Ed's behaviour didn't go off kilter until SlimVirgin showed up on the article on July 11th. If you want, you can start the investigation from the time mediation started around June 17. But it is pretty uneventful until July 11. FuelWagon 20:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Ann's summary of what happened is very accurate. FuelWagon has been engaged for months in trying to rewrite history, to what end I have no idea. FuelWagon and a small group of inexperienced editors had taken control of that page. FW, even editors who supported your POV have told me you had taken ownership of the page, and it was generating complaints, which is why I went to look. You then did the same thing over my copy edit, followed by horrible personal attacks, something you had engaged in on this and other pages before. It was your modus operandi. You were known for it.
For the last time, you were not blocked for anything you wrote on your talk page, but for the personal attacks and refusal to apologize. You then used your talk page to continue the harassment, and Ed protected the page to stop you from doing that. You followed it up by filing a bad-faith RfC against me, which you acknowledged on your talk page was part of an attempt to have me de-sysopped, and which wasn't properly certified because you'd made no attempt at prior dispute resolution. (There was no effort to resolve the dispute because all you wanted to do, then as now, is cause trouble.) When the RfC went against you, you tried to change the instructions on the RfC page in an effort to make your behavior look like the result of a confusion about what an RfC is for! That effort continues today, even though your contributions to the page have been consistently opposed by a number of editors. Now you've started posting about the nonsense on Jimbo's talk page, even though it happened months ago. It has turning into trolling, pure and simple.
Ed acted to stop your personal attacks (successfully, it should be noted!), and to make your involvement in Terri Schiavo less controlling and less toxic. That's what admins and mediators do. You didn't like it because you were on the receiving end of it. While he succeeded in wrestling Terri Schiavo out of your grip, and managed to make you see that calling people f***ing ***holes is not a good idea, he sadly failed to get you to change your overall behavior, as evidenced by your continued harassment of him. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
"For the last time, you were not blocked for anything you wrote on your talk page," Oh, really? I had started an RfC against you on my talk page. You complained to Ed about "obsessive diatribes". Ed asked you if there were any specific page he should look at [30]. Two hours later, Ed blocked me for "personal remarks" [31]. He then moved the RfC to a /block subdirectory here. There is no NPA violation on that page. Ed's second block was completely undeserved. So, these diffs seem to show that it is you who is attempting to rewrite history. Ed specifically says my talk page was the reason for my second block, that it contained "personal remarks". There aren't any. I even asked Ed what violations existed on my talk page [32], and he ignored the question and says "Basically, I'm getting away with it because I've been around a long time" [33]. So, tell me again that Ed's second block didn't have anythign to do with my talk page? tell me again that it didn't have anythign to do with the RfC I was preparing on my talk page? That seems to completely contradict Ed's second block, his own words, and even his own actions of taking the RfC I was working on and putting it in the /block directory. Who is rewriting history, SlimVirgin? FuelWagon 14:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Reply to SlimVirgin (and FuelWagon)

I would like to disagree in detail with a few of the statements of SlimVirgin, and to add a few comments. First, she writes that FuelWagon is trying to rewrite the instructions on the RfC page to make his behavior look like the result of a confusion about what an RfC is for. That is misleading. That implies bad faith on the part of FuelWagon. She should know better than to assume bad faith. In this case, there really was confusion about what a user conduct RfC is for. This was brought out in passing in discussion of RfC reform. He assumed that an RfC really was a Request for Comments, in the Internet sense, and could be used for any of a number of purposes. The policy as written did not rule that out. FuelWagon is now trying to make the wording of the policy more consistent with itself, and less consistent with the perception of the process by the community.

FuelWagon is honest. That is both his strength and his weakness. Any suggestion that he is being less than honest is a breach of civility. It is true that FuelWagon has committed gross breaches of civility. He has a civility problem. He has NEVER been dishonest. Any suggestion that he has been in any way less than honest is bizarre. There really was confusion about the purpose of an RfC.

FuelWagon: The other side to the confusion is that SlimVirgin is really trying to make things clearer. She is not trying to change the wording to say that you were wrong, which you were not. She is trying to change the wording so that other editors will not fall into the trap that you did. As long as you argue that the process is correct, you are arguing to maintain a process that will again result in similar enmities over use of RfCs.

SlimVirgin: You write: "It has turning into trolling, pure and simple." No. It has not. FuelWagon is not a troll. He is a flamer. There is a difference. He is honest. Trolling always involves some degree of dishonesty. FuelWagon simply has a different concept of the rules than we do. He is not a troll. He is angry and bitter, but he is not a troll, and does not know how to be one.

There is one remaining question that is raised by FuelWagon. That is the role of Neuroscientist. I can see that Neuroscientist wrote a very long criticism of the edits by SlimVirgin. To translate his summary, he said that SlimVirgin had made reckless edits. I agree. SlimVirgin says that FuelWagon made reckless edits. That is probably true. Reckless edits happen. Get over it. Ed Poor did apparently reprimand Neuroscientist for what Ed Poor saw as personal attacks on SlimVirgin's reckless edits. I can see that Ed Poor was out of line in rebuking Neuroscientist. As a result, Neuroscientist departed. This is very unfortunate. In this case, Ed Poor was mistaken. The criticisms by Neuroscientist were not personal attacks on SlimVirgin. They were identification of reckless edits, and were content issues.

It appears that there were violations of civility. It appears that mistakes were made. FuelWagon, SlimVirgin, and Ed Poor all made mistakes. Humans make mistakes, especially in stressful situations.

Ed Poor has admitted that he made mistakes. What more is demanded?

SlimVirgin made mistakes. She was once reprimanded by the ArbCom for personal attacks.

FuelWagon made mistakes. Most of his mistakes were the use of foul language.

It does appear that one editor who was a very valuable editor, Neuroscientist, was lost in this controversy.

It appears that FuelWagon wants SlimVirgin and Ed Poor to apologize, or be found wrong.

Where should we go from here? Robert McClenon 02:34, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't want an apology, I want Ed's record as mediator to reflect unacceptable behaviour on his part as mediator. Ed did everything he could to suppress criticism of SlimVirgin. Ed warned Neuroscientist to beware of violating NPA when all Neuroscientist did was criticize the content of SlimVirgin's edit. Ed BLOCKED me the second time because I had started an RfC against SlimVirgin on my talk page. Ed moved my talk page content to a block/ directory, and blocked me apparently for violating NPA. There are no NPA violations on the content that Ed moved. None. He blocked me in an attempt to stop me from filing an RfC against SlimVirgin. After that block expired, I filed an RfC against SlimVirgin, and Ed attacked my RfC against SlimVirgin as bullying, gaming the system, building a case. Then after I dropped the RfC, Ed attacked me directly. HE WAS THE MEDIATOR. And he was completely biased as soon as SlimVirgin got on the article. How much more clear must I be? Ed was mediator of record and he showed at least four actions that showed completely biased and unacceptable behaviour (1) warning Neuroscientist (2) blocking me (3) attacking the RfC (4) attacking me. This isn't just a single misunderstanding on Ed's part. This isn't just a one time oops. This is a pattern that shows gross bias to the point of handing out undeserved blocks. This is unacceptable behaviour as a mediator. And I want something on Ed's record as mediator to reflect this. FuelWagon 13:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Uncle Ed's rebuttal

You seem to be applying the philosophy of relativism here, and I believe it it would be a mistake to do so. Relativists often go to the extreme of saying that there should be no absolute standard of right and wrong and that the only wrong (or "unacceptable thing") is for some moralist to judge a particular person or act as wrong. I hope you see the contradiction there.

Wikipedia, despite its NPOV editorial policy for controversial articles, does take some moral and ethical stands. The arbcom has consistently upheld these standards, even if the policy pages have not kept pace with these statements of principle. The Gabriel Simon case showed that contributors must have a minimum level of "maturity". We also have gradually settled on a standard of Wikipedia:Civility.

Nonetheless, some contributors maintain that it is "unacceptable" to label another person's words as being uncivil. They insist that this labeling is itself a violation - of a sort ever more galling and detrimental than the alleged incivility it criticizes. This is a very popular viewpoint outside of Wikipedia. (For example, advocates of homosexuality like to quote Jesus ("Do not judge") as if judgment were (1) a sin in itself and (b) a worse sin than homosexuality. Ironically, they are using the Christian system of ethics to destroy the Christian ethic, but I digress)

Now let's get back to the point. To work together on articles as controversial as Terri Schiavo, we need to adhere closely to the Wikipedia guidelines on civility and neutrality. I will do whatever it takes - as a Mediator, an Administrator, or an ordinary editor to enforce these standards. If you don't agree with these standards, you will eventually choose to leave or be forced to leave. If you will accept these standards, then it really shouldn't matter to you HOW someone brings violations to your attention. You should simply undertake to confrom your behavior to the standard. Expressions of regret or gratitude are optional! :-)

And another thing, which I'd like to settle once and for all. We are not all equal here. Some of us have more pull than others, and with good reason. At the risk of seeming immodest, I must say that I helped to make it this way. I appointed Maveric as senior to me, as an expression of respect for his dedication to the project and his good sense. I told him he "had my proxy". He, like user:Anthere and a number of others, began to constitute a group of people I was always willing to listen to - and more importantly, to follow their leadership. In other words, I consciously and deliberately subordinated myself to them. Not because I had to, and in fact in spite of the anarchistic ethic then prevailing at Wikipedia.

I helped establish the hierachical system we enjoy now. It works. It's much better than anarchy or democracy. I respect Fred Bauder, and I do what he tells me to do - not because I have to, but because he is a wise and dedicated leader. I voted for him. (In fact, in the last election, everyone I voted for won, and nobody I didn't vote for won. Coincidence? You decide.)

In an on-line society, you gain influence by getting people to like you. They will like you if they see you making beneficial contributions, and if as Zephram says below, "from [their] dealings with [you], [they] find [your] heart to be in the right place." I am rather well liked; you can become more well-liked if you will become more civil - and if you start spending less time defending yourself and more time cooperating on articles. You could even be appointed an Administrator. The bar is actually rather low: just demonstrate your commitment to the project over a period of time.

Anyone who inspires confidence in others here, will be trusted. Anyone who abuses that trust, will lose that confidence. This applies equally to everyone. I abused that trust this year and was arrogant and could not be trusted any more with bureaucrat rights. Because I am equal (in the sense of the trust principle applying equally), I had to resign. I did so willingly (though not without regret, I am human being after all, not a saint) because I love Wikipedia. I always want to do what is best for it. If I make a mistake, I try to make it right.

If you do the same, you can rise in the social hierarchy the same as I have - or even more. There is nothing magical in the username of Uncle Ed. It's all about what you do for the sake of others. Please put others ahead of yourself. Uncle Ed 13:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Ed, all this says is that wikipedia is "fair" for the definition of "fair" where anyone can become part of the inner circle and be treated differently than those who are not. My definition of "fair" is that everyone be held to the same policies regardless of standing. You treated SlimVirgin differently while you were mediating the Terri Schiavo article. You defended her and you attacked and warned others who criticized her. You never once acted as a neutral mediator once she came on the article. You never once viewed her edits or her behaviour on the talk page "fairly", meaning equal to everyone else. You avoided mediating with her in any way. Rather you attemped to mediate us in an attempt to hold SlimVirgin above and separate from the mediation process. You warned off Neuroscientist about possible NPA violations when all he did was post a rather detailed neurological criticism of SlimVirgin's edit, you blocked me and moved all my talk page stuff to block/ when all I did was start preparation of an RfC against SlimVirgin, you ignored my requests to point out any specific NPA violation on my talk page that caused my second block, you attacked the RfC against SlimVirgin when it was certified and endorsed by a total of 5 people, and then you attacked me personally. This isn't about wikipedia's hierarchy promoting those with experience to positions of admin, bureaucrat, arbcom, whatever. This is about your specific job as mediator. You didn't mediate. You engaged. You failed to maintain neutrality once SlimVirgin entered the article. Her status as an admin or your personal friend or something caused you to stop mediating when SlimVirgin entered the article, and caused you to engage the dispute. You took sides. A mediator is supposed to remain neutral. You attacked several differerent criticisms of SlimVirgin's editing and talk page behaviour, rather than mediate the dispute. You failed to mediate the dispute. Had you actually treated SlimVirgin and all the editors fairly and equally, then the dispute regarding her massive edit would probably been resolved peacefully, quietly, before an RfC, before anything else happened, before Neuroscientist, Duckecho, and A Ghost left wikipedia in disgust. But you didn't do that. You took sides. You favored SlimVirgin over all the other editors. This has nothing to do with meritocracy. You warned Neurocientist of NPA violations when all he did was criticize SlimVirgin's content. You blocked me because I was preparing an RfC against SlimVirgin, you attacked the RfC against SlimVirgin, and then you attacked me personally. That is totally unacceptable behaviour from someone who was supposed to be mediating the article. FuelWagon 15:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
He may have done that, but the burden of trying to determine questions of fact like that was part of our decision to accept his resignation as a bureaucrat and start over from a clean slate. We have limited time and resources. Fred Bauder 19:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Sur-rejoinder by third party McClenon

FuelWagon: On the one hand, you say, and I mostly agree: My definition of "fair" is that everyone be held to the same policies regardless of standing. You treated SlimVirgin differently while you were mediating the Terri Schiavo article. At the same time, you appear to be trying to hold Ed Poor to a higher standard of conduct, namely, a standard that he must be perfect, while you need not be perfect. I will offer a restated concept of fairness. Everyone in a particular role should be held to the same standard of conduct. Different people may have different roles. In the role of editor, everyone must be civil and must refrain from personal attacks, and should try to achieve NPOV. Civility and NPA are minimum conditions, because NPOV and quality cannot be achieved without civility. In the role of admin, anyone who is an admin must use their authority impartially. In the role of mediator, anyone who is a mediator must mediate, as in working toward the resolution of conflict. You are saying that Ed was guilty of errors in his role as mediator, beause he engaged rather than mediating. It does appear on my reading of his admonition to Neuroscientist that he did make errors as a mediator. If Neuroscientist's summary was correct, and I will assume that it was if he really was a neuroscientist, then SlimVirgin engaged in reckless edits. FuelWagon clearly engaged in a pattern of personal attacks and breaches of civility.

Is FuelWagon arguing that users in more responsible roles must be perfect, or only that they are expected to held in those roles to appropriate levels of conduct? Ed made mistakes. FuelWagon made mistakes. Why do we insist on rehashing the past? What we should do is to learn from it rather than to focus on blame and anger.

I am not a member of the ArbCom, and no case involving FuelWagon is currently before the ArbCom. If I were arbitrating a case involving FuelWagon, I would vote to ban him from editing Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration and Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment, where his arguments are becoming tiresome. FuelWagon, please do not set yourself up to be blocked.

FuelWagon: If you really simply want to have the record straightened, for whatever purpose that serves, I have a suggestion. Ask Ed to admit that, in the heat of the Terri Schiavo edit war, he made mistakes in his role as mediator, in particular with regard to Neuroscientist. In turn, he can also admit that he has learned from those mistakes. Robert McClenon 16:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

No, I do not demand anyone be perfect. But I do demand that if a mediator doesn't mediate, if they take sides to the point of blocking someone for preparing an RfC, for warning someone about violating NPA when all they did was comment on content, then I think that behaviour should be acknowledged rather than buried. Your arguments are becoming quite tiresome too, by the way, but I wouldn't have you banned for it. FuelWagon 17:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

mistakes were made

"Ed Poor has admitted that he made mistakes. What more is demanded?" Did you ever hear the phrase "mistakes were made"? It is a convenient use of passive tense. It acknowledges mistakes occurred without holding anyone specific to account. Ed Poor has admitted mistakes were made. On a talk page he offered to plead guilty of all charges. However, what, exactly those charges were have never been determined. Arbcom didn't accept any guilty plea from Ed, because a guilty plea implies he plead guilty of some specific violation. No one has listed any specific violation here. Arbcom tried to spin it that there was "implied" guilt, but implied guilt of what? which policies are implied to have been broken? When someone brings charges, the accused might decide to plead guilty of a lesser charge. That's a plea bargin. What happened with Ed wasn't a plea bargain, it was a pardon. Ed has been found guilty of nothing. He plead guilty to nothing. Arbcom has noted nothing on his record as to a specific policy violation. Instead, they accepted his resignation as bureaucrat in exchange for pardoning him. There is nothing in the arbcom case that says Ed violated anything. It was closed by arbcom before that could happen. Arbcom's final decision says nothing about Ed violating any specific policy. If Ed Poor admitted that he made mistakes, which mistakes specifically did he admit? If Ed Poor plead guilty to all charges, what specific charges did he plead guilty to? If arbcom says they accepted Ed's guilty plea or says there is implied guilt in their decision, what specific violations are implied to have occurred? How can anyone possibly look at this arbcom case and determine if the decision was fair? Arbcom accepted Ed's resignation but neither accepted his plea of guilt on any specific violation, nor found any specific violations that Ed had committed. Ed's resignation is punishment for what, exactly? Charges were made, evidence was submitted, but nothing was ever determined. How can anyone uninvolved tell if it was a fair punishment when no specific crime is officially listed? Arbcom accepted Ed's resignation in exchange for closing the case without any findings of fact. Pleading guilty would actually find Ed guilty of something. It was essentially a pardon, a way of avoiding prosecution, a way of avoiding any official findings of guilt. This is no different than the passive sentence "mistakes were made". It avoids holding anyone accountable for their actions and it avoids even saying what those actions were. FuelWagon 14:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the issue refuses to go away because its cause has nothing explicitly to do with Mr. Poor. Maybe the old axiom is true that "absolute power corrupts absolutely." From my dealings with Mr. Poor, I find his heart to be in the right place, but the stewardship thrust upon him puts him in the position of having to distribute universal benevolence. Since each person's definition of benevolence differs, there is no way that Mr. Poor can remain blameless in a rigid hierarchal system such as the current one managing Wikipedia. --Zephram Stark 15:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
It is hard work to make specific findings of fact. As we have limited resources we avoided time (and energy) consuming hard work by accepting Ed Poor's offer. Fred Bauder 19:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
That makes sense to me, and I certainly think it was fair as far as Mr. Poor is concerned, but a "larger issue" is continuously being referred to in these discussions, and that larger issue is the obvious and blatant corruption in the system. A bottom-up style of editing can only be effective if there is also a bottom-up system of checks and balances. As of right now, administration trickles down from Jimbo. Because Wikipedia has grown bigger than one man can micro-manage, some really stupid things happen here. We haven't declared war on Iraq yet, but we certainly have the top-down system of management necessary to do so. --Zephram Stark 20:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Unrelated matters

Fuel Wagon, as far as I can tell, your complaints about Ed Poor have nothing to do with the original request for arbitration. And the arbitration committee is not going to reopen the case. If you have a disagreement withh Ed Poor, it might be best not to try to piggyback on dead horse, but to try other means. Maurreen (talk) 16:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I have stopped attempting to get arbcom to reopen the case. I have only posted replies here to various comments directed at me. FuelWagon 17:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Very well. Are you saying that if we stop replying to your replies, you will let the Ed Poor matter drop? Are you also saying that in that case, you will either contribute to the discussion of reform or ignore it rather than bring up the past? Robert McClenon 18:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
What business is it of yours, Robert? How are you involved in this dispute in any way that you get to insert yourself here and decide whether I can proceed or not? Who has assigned you the authority of gate keeper here? This has gone beyond you expressing your opinion of some matter that you are not involved with and seems to have morphed into you assigning yourself the job of judge and jury here. Arbcom won't reopen the case, so I won't be wasting my time trying to get them to reopen the case. But that doesn't mean the dispute is resolved in anyway. Nothing has been addressed. Nothing has been fixed. It's just been passed around "without further comment". I'm sure you hope to make admin some day, maybe even be mediator or arbitrator. But you are none of those now. And it is not your position to negotiate how or if I continue to try to resolve this. And stop talking about the "discussion of reform". That is your thing, not mine. I'm not trying to change the system here, I'm just trying to use it as it is to get some resolution to a problem. If you're feeling tired, maybe it's because you're taking on a job that hasn't actually been assigned to you. How about I try to find resolution to my dispute and you worry about how you're going to "reform the system", ok? They're completely different issues. Stop collapsing them, it will only make you more tired. FuelWagon 18:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)