Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor

The full text of the complaint and following discussion is at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor/Complaint and response

How could anyone possibly believe there's a cabal when an admin who abuses his powers to this extent goes relatively unpunished? I realise I'll probably find myself banned by Ed for saying it, but jeez, you guys sure don't believe in justice. Grace Note 06:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not aware that Ed has ever banned a user for criticizing him. The original RfC against him, and this RfAr before it was accepted, were full of comments as critical of his behaviour as yours are, or even more so, and there's no evidence that he tried to block any of his critics. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 07:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Ann - you can ignore Grace Note's comment. He's a troll that has already been sanctioned once by the arbcom under his previous name. His commentary is a load of bluster and hot air with no subatance. →Raul654 08:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm an editor in good faith who was sanctioned for not agreeing with Raul (and I'm not the first that has happened to and I won't be the last). Raul has a bit of a history of describing those who disagree with him as trolls. He thinks it makes the criticism untrue. Grace Note 23:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Grace Note remarks are sarcastic and uncalled for, and he/she may be a troll (although calling someone that always seems to me like an unnecessary and unhelpful personal attack). I think we should all keep in mind that the ArbCom members are all volunteers doing a thankless job. However Grace Note is not alone in questioning the way this case has been handled. Paul August ☎ 14:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, the charges brought consisted of accusations that Ed operated above policy, that he could break policy because he had been around a long time, that old-timers rally in each other's defense, that there is effectively a cabal that can suppress criticism of its members, and hey, look what happened, the arbitration case around Ed's behaviour probably set a record for getting closed the fastest, editors didn't have a chance to submit evidence, Ed offered to withdraw from being a bureaucrat, arbcom accepts his offer, tells Ed he's doing a heck of a job, and makes no rulings on any of his actions. Accusations made, rulings avoided, case closed. That's one way to bury it, I suppose. Certainly, this proves that there is no cabal at wikipedia, no favoritism, no special priviledge. If anyone breaks policy, they are held to account for their actions, no matter how long they've been around. FuelWagon 17:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I know! I'm a troll who's being sarcastic when I note that the people who are accused of operating a cabal that looks out for one another refuse yet again to sanction one of the people who look out for one another! And yet I have thousands of good-faith edits to Wikipedia, many more article edits than some of the cabal, as it happens. Grace Note 23:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Zen, the very fact that you are still allowed to edit despite your toxic attitude, repeated personal attacks on numerous other users, and prolific edit warring on numerous articles is proof enough that there is no cabal (or at leaset that they aren't doing their job very well). →Raul654 04:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Mark, that you are in a position of power here rather shows the opposite. Still, smear the messenger will always be the best approach, hey, rather than discuss the message. Grace Note 04:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

guilty plea?

Raul654 states here [1] that Ed plead "guilty as charged", but that was something Ed offered to do on another talk page prior to the evidence stage of arbitration, and at the time, arbcom made no comment on Ed's plea. The "final decision" makes no mention of whether arbcom accepted that guilty plea or whether arbcom intended to close the case "without further comment" as to whether or not there is any official acknowledgement that Ed Poor violated policy or not. It remains an unanswered question. FuelWagon 16:01, 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 a 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) 16:29, 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 "Emperor'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 16:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Theresa knott states here [[2]] "The reason we list FOfs on the decision 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" So, it would seem to say that arbcom "accepted" Ed's 'guilty on all charges' plea, but I'm not entirely sure. The measure (Ed's resignation) is clearly stated. The justification (policy violations as per guilty plea?) remains unspoken. FuelWagon 15:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

old timers

After the arbitration case is closed, Fred Bauder states "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."

And it only seems to reinforce the idea that old timers get preferential treatment. Whether Ed broke policy is irrelevant to whether he has been contributing to wikipedia for five days or five years. FuelWagon 16:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

While good (e.g, useful) actions do not excuse bad ones, if you are saying that we shouldn't take them (good actions) into account as mitigating factors when passing judgement, that's just asinine (and very, very bad policy). →Raul654 01:30, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Raul, you are failing to distinguish the determination of "guilt" from the administration of "punishment". Adhering to the principle of the rule of law and of equality under the law, means that a determination of guilt should be completely independent of any considerations of who a person is. So in fact it is not appropriate to take such things as "good actions into account as mitigating factors when passing judgment". Rather, it is in the administration of punishment where such considerations are appropriate. That is where the "quality of mercy is not strained". So while it might have been wholly appropriate to have said, "Ed was guilty of X, but taking into account Y we have decided to do Z". What was done instead was simply: "We have decided to do Z." And when questioned, the resonse was: "Because of Y". The lack of any judgment pertaining to Ed's "guilt", has clouded this distinction (love the sinner hate the sin), and as FuelWagon correctly points out, reinforces the perception (presumably the misperception) that there are special rules for special people. Paul August ☎ 05:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

"Raul, you are failing to distinguish the determination of "guilt" from the administration of "punishment". - no, in fact I'm not. Just look at the very first words of my above post - "good (e.g, useful) actions do not excuse bad ones" . I don't know how much more clearly it can be stated than that →Raul654 06:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

No, Mark, he is saying that you fail to distinguish between justice and punishment. Paul's view is that you ought not to allow good actions to act as mitigants at all in the former, whatever weight you give them in the latter. You seem to be saying that they cannot completely mitigate bad actions in the former rather than that they aren't a factor at all. Grace Note 06:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Raul, I'm sorry if I misunderstood what you were saying. I took the second part of your remark "if you are saying that we shouldn't take them (good actions) into account as mitigating factors when passing judgment, that's just asinine" to mean that in your view we should take good actions into account when passing judgment. The question is what did you mean by "passing judgment"? If you meant determining what if any rules have been broken (guilt), then In my view, to be consistent with the rule of law, the answer is no we shouldn't. If you meant determining what actions ("punishment") to take, then the answer is yes we should. If you meant the entire process of doing both things, then you are conflating two things that it would be better, in my view, to keep separate. That is why I said you were failing to distinguish between those two things. However it is not particularly important what you said. If you believe that we should consider good actions when administering "punishment" but not when determining "guilt", then I have no disagreement with that. Paul August ☎ 14:45, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

This is tantamount to saying "we decide you're good and then judge you". Ho hum. Grace Note 04:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Fuel, you're assuming that there is a presumption of "equality before the law" or that you are judged solely on the facts. Neither is true. I can see why you'd believe the former: the presumption of equality as an editor would lead you to believe that the same presumption applies to us as people, but it doesn't. If you're "in", the laws don't apply to you. That's true of any hierarchical organisation, which this has been allowed to become. I've actually never seen Ed Poor do anything constructive. I wasn't around for his "good" days. I haven't checked out his contribs though, so that's just a very fragmentary impression, mostly formed by his approach to mediating Terri Schiavo, which I didn't think was any good, and some other bits and pieces, where his view of "neutrality" and mine don't entirely coincide. I haven't actually seen Mark do much that struck me as very good either, to be honest, but I'm sure if I looked at his contribs, I'd find lots of good work. The second you have been misled into thinking by the presentation of "evidence" at the "trials" here and perhaps by your understanding, as a citizen of a democracy, of the notion of the separation of powers. There's none of that here. The arbcom makes the law (by precedent largely, as it uses its interpretation of the will of the community), dispenses it and, at least in part, enforces it. Most dissenters get badly burned because they expect "justice" (and because they expect the actual stated policy to be upheld or the words they are disputing to have a natural reading). I sympathise to some extent with the likes of Mark. It's not easy to deal fairly with some of the people here and the temptation to not be fair at all must be enormous. My advice to you is to have as little to do with the process as possible; accept that you will not get justice and refuse to take part in the dispute process as either a plaintiff or a defendant. There are always other articles to work on if you are bullied off one you are currently involved in because you hold a minority view. Ultimately, we can't make Wikipedia in our own image. Grace Note 05:17, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

"if you are saying that we shouldn't take them (good actions) into account as mitigating factors when passing judgement" You've collapsed two things into "judgement". The first question is "Did Ed violate policy?" That question is separate and unrelated to the second question of "What is arbcom going to do about it?" One is a question of reporting the past, the actions that Ed took. And the other is a question of the future, and what arbcom is going to do about it. The process somehow managed to answer the second question (accepting Ed's resignation) without answering the first. Why must the past go unreported? If Ed plead guilty to all charges and arbcom accepted it, why must that go unmentioned in the final decision. Why must the guilt be "implied" as Fred said and be left unspoken? Did Ed violate policy? It's a simple yes/no question. Why must it go unanswered? Why this case? FuelWagon 14:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

This is all academic. Ed acted unilaterally against community concensus on more than one occasion, despite promising not to do so after warnings. That is an abuse of the powers that were vested with him. He has recognised this and done the honourable thing in resigning his Bureaucratship, pre-empting the ArbCom decision. I say well done Ed. --216.52.22.131 18:55, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Ed didn't abuse his bureaucrat powers this time, did he? Grace Note 00:13, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

beg pardon

216.52.22.131, what does "recognize" mean? Is that the same as pleading guilty? It would appear that what happened is that Ed resigned his bureaucratship in exchange for arbcom declaring this case closed and burying it without commenting on Ed's behaviour. Ed's record remains spotless, and arbcom even gives him a medal by saying "He remains an Administrator in good standing and a valued member of the Wikipedia community." Policy? Ed didn't violate policy. Where does it say Ed violated policy?

Raul says Ed plead gulity [3]. But that was only something that Ed offered on anothe talk page, and arbcom never officially accepted it. Raul hasn't answered my questions about "pleading guilty".

Theresa knott states here [4] that arbcom accepted Ed's offer to resign, but she avoids making any comments on policy violation.

Fred Bauder states here [5] that "it is implied that Ed broke policy in a number of instances. ... We simply don't want to paint him as a disreputable scoundrel". No answer to why the implied violation cannot be mentioned in the final decision section. Also attempted to point out difference between saying someone broke policy and "painting them as a disreputable scoundrel".

Raul states here [6] that "if you are saying that we shouldn't take them (good actions) into account as mitigating factors when passing judgement, that's just asinine". Attempts to clarify the difference between a "determination" of policy violation and a "measure" such as a block, still remain unanswered. This would suggest that an editor with a long history of edits gets to avoid "judgement".

Fred Bauder states here [7] "We are not in the habit of running off people who have contributed substantially to Wikipedia over a period of years." This would suggest that old-timers get special consideration when brought before arbcom.

In the end, it appears that Ed did not plead guilty at all. It would seem that Ed offered to resign as bureaucrat in exchange for closing this arbitration case without finding him guilty of anything and closing teh case with a "Good job, Ed" endorsement.

I don't know why, but I keep thinking of how Nixon resigned and as soon as Ford became president, he pardoned Nixon of any crimes, so that all the investigations against him had to be dropped. I don't know if Ford gave Nixon a medal though.

I guess that's what this is, really. Ed resigned and arbcom pardoned him of any wrongdoing, declaring the arbitration case officially closed, without ruling on any accusations, and giving Ed a "good job" endorsement in teh end.

Well, at least I have some perspective on what happened. FuelWagon 05:51, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Ed Poor did not suggest this solution, it arose out of talk on the arbcom mailing list. After some talk I decided to propose it and my proposal was supported. I continue to believe it was an appropriate decision. You make a bunch of good points, but the comparison with Nixon is inappropriate. Nixon engaged in criminal behavior, Ed Poor overreached, but broke no law. In fact, he followed our policy by cutting through our ever growing entangling web of rules. Fred Bauder 23:22, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Uhm, if Ed "followed our policy" by "cutting through" rules, isn't that saying he followed policy by breaking it? Does that apply to the evidence I submitted as well? His "illustrating a point" comment seems a violation of NPA and POINT. His second block against me when my edits contained no personal remarks seem to be misuse of admin privledges. Violating NPA and administering an underserved block, combined with his comments against Neurscientist and his attacking my RfC would seem to reflect a complete lack of neutrality as mediator for the Terri Schiavo article. FuelWagon 05:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

How is it a violation of POINT? A single statement (even one to make a point in a single conversation) is not going to disrupt anything. WP:POINT deals with actions disrupting other users and not mere words in a single discussion. Perhaps if he had repeated the same statement in every talk page that you participated it could be considered a disruption but NPA is not POINT. - Tεxτurε 15:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh please. Let's just ignore the forest for the trees, shall we? The reality here is that Ed posted something that was buried by arbcom. But if I had posted the exact same thing, I would have gotten blocked or banned. You can argue minutia all you want, but the simple fact is that policy is not enforced equally. FuelWagon 23:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

It's funny. When one of them witchhunted me for disagreeing with a "consensus", I pled no contest and they still had the trial. I guess they wanted their day in court. Grace Note 00:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

outside opinions

Some outside opinions on the matter.

cue crickets chirping

Ed Poor, an administrator and bureaucrat at the time of the incident, and also the mediator of record for the Terri Schiavo, engaged in the content dispute of the Terri Schiavo article, taking sides, defending one editor, and attacking editors who criticized her. I was in the process of creating an RfC on my talk page to file against SlimVirgin. Ed Poor blocked me because of the contents of my talk page, claiming it contained personal attacks. He has to this day ignored my requests to point out a single personal attack on my talk page. Ed also gave Neuroscientist an undeserved warning about violating NPA because Neuroscientist criticized SlimVirgin's edit. Ed then attacked my RfC against SlimVirgin, suggesting I drop it. And after I did drop it, Ed attacked me personally. This all while he was supposed to be mediator on the article this incident revolved around. He failed to maintain any neutrality to the point of misuing admin privledges by handing otu an undeserved block and violating NPA.

Arbcom has declared no policy violations on Ed Poor's part ever occurred. They have declared no misuse of admin priveledges on Ed Poor's part ever occurred. They have declared no inappropriate behaviour as mediator on Ed Poor's part ever occurred. Instead, they put the case on fast-track to close it in less than a week, accepting Ed Poor's resignation as bureaucrat in exchange for finding nothing, giving him a spotless record and a "good standing" award to boot.

Despite all the claims of arbcom above for pleading guilty or implied guilt, arbcom has essentially pardoned Ed Poor of any wrongdoing.

The issue has now been buried. [8]

cue the crickets chirping. FuelWagon 17:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

appealed

Given the general tendancy of arbcom to bury that which they don't wish to discuss, I don't exactly think this will go anywhere, but I've appealed the decision. FuelWagon 19:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

outside comments

A number of outside comments regarding the Ed Poor case were made on the general Arbitration talk page. That conversation appears to have ended now (no new comments for a week or two). For the record, those threads can be read here. The appeal on Jimbo Wales' page has not been replied to in any way. The case is apparently officially buried at all levels of the dispute resolution process now. FuelWagon 15:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)