Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FuelWagon (talk | contribs) at 00:34, 20 September 2005 (→Respect, wasting time, etc.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• ]

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)