Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:48, 22 September 2005

• ]

Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/sandbox

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 7

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 . 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 - ) (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 . 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 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 Misplaced Pages Bureaucrat. He remains a Misplaced Pages Administrator in good standing and a valued member of the Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages editor "in good standing and a valued member of the Misplaced Pages community. The case closed without further comment." Why shouldn't it be the same for Ed. Let go and move on. Please. Ann Heneghan 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy. Most of Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages–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 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 . 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,, an arrogant cuss, an arrogant arse plus lots lots more. SlimVirgin withdrew from editing the article Three of FuelWagon's friends left messages on his talk page about his language, suggesting that he should tone it down, , that he risked getting blocked , and that he should go back and remove the offensive language . After being reminded that he risked being blocked, FuelWagon began to remove his obscenities. . 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 . 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". (In the interest of fairness, I will add that he subsequently changed it to "SlimVirgin quote.") He continued with his complaints , , , , hints that he would try to get Ed or SlimVirgin desysopped , accusations that SlimVirgin was "tracking" his contributions (though to know that, he must have been tracking hers) .

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. 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 It was after that that Ed moved all the complaints to a subpage , and protected FW's talk page, essentially rendering FW incapable of editing anything on the English Misplaced Pages for the remainder of his forty-hour block. Ed explained why he was doing this . 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

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 ). 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 "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 Misplaced Pages 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 22:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

DreamGuy case just sitting there

It has 4 accept votes; why hasn't something been done with it? I realize the filer has been blocked (which might cause some trouble), and the issues it relates to have passed (to my knowledge), but it just bugs me to have it moldering at the bottom of the page. ~~ N (t/c) 19:05, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

It isn’t just DreamGuy. There are four unopened cases, including Ultramarine, whose case has been sitting there for nearly a month. Susvolans ⇔ 07:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. Fred Bauder 16:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Transclusion

Is there a reason that cases waiting to be accepted aren't transcluded as separate pages? Not only would it allow people to watchlist only the cases they're interested in, it would serve as an easy way to see how long a case has sat unedited. -- Norvy (talk) 07:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with that suggestion. Since many of the RfArs become lengthy, this page is not really scrollable, and has to be navigated by branching to sections anyway. Why not branch to subpages? Robert McClenon 16:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

24.147.97.230 Update

The revert warring of the Ted Kennedy article, and gaming of the 3RR system by sockpuppets, has resumed. Should I add the details to the RfAr, or is the mention here sufficient? Robert McClenon 16:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)