Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2

message: I've seen Ed Poor's work for awhile now and I've often seen him as pushing a pro-fundamentalist, anti-science POV, whether it's on evolution, intelligent design, global warming, et al.  Ed will vehemently deny this, of course, and he will try to Wikilawyer his way out of it.  He's pretty good at wikilawyering, especially because he's been around for so long, but the edits will speak for themselves.  Ed has a long history of POV problems, whether it was forking off a POV version of an evolution-related article so he could make it more anti-evolution, or creating non-encyclopedic articles on "evolution polls" to try to use the populist argument to "refute" evolution, or constantly over the period of months trying to bend the wording on Intelligent design.  Ed is editing on his faith rather than the facts; for a neutral encyclopedia, this is untenable.  I urge the ArbCom to accept this case so that we can write out a full evidence section detailing all of Ed's history of POV-pushing.  --Cyde Weys 14:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please tell me how I can make it clear that I do not think they are "rejecting the fossil record" but are rejecting "its authenticity"? --Uncle Ed 20:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, "reject the scientific consensus about the fossil record" or "reject the consensus interpretation of the fossil record" or "reject the mainstream interpretation of the fossil record" might do it although they all have slightly different meanings. The first one seems to be the most accurate. JoshuaZ 20:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for helping me to explain what I meant. :-) --Uncle Ed 21:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by Cyde Weys

message: Fundamentalism rejects all scientific findings which contradicts its faith; thus, Young Earth Creationists reject the authenticity of scientific consensus about 
the Fossil record (i.e., "God put the fossils there to fool us!"). I support the labeling of this "scientific theory" as Pseudoscience.
Science has two meanings: (1) the process of finding out reliable knowledge, and (2) the body of knowledge currently held to be reliable. I have added points of view from published sources who dispute both the process and the body. 
A tiny minority of advocates wants science to expand its scope of inquiry to include non-material causes. I have added information about this minority's leaders, motives and ideas. I have NEVER changed an article so as to give the impression that this minority is "correct" or "prominent". Rather I have stressed that they number less than 2 in 1,000, far below my personal definition of a tiny minority: under 5 percent.
The only faith I edit on, is that people working together for a common goal can produce excellent results, even if they are not experts. My only goal for the controversial articles on science is a fair treatment of both sides of the controversy. The mainstream view should continue to be described as "mainstream", and the views of the minority should be included -- strictly labeled as "minority", and preferably with an estimate of how many or few adherents those views have. 
For example, in evolution, 99.8% of biologists accept the Theory of Evolution. So the views of minority biologists hardly merit any mention at all, except in sidebar articles like Intelligent Design (ID). The ID series of articles are dominated by anti-ID POV, which is fine with me. All I ask is that pro-ID arguments be permitted in articles about ID, rather than deleted out of hand because they "advance a POV". --Uncle Ed 14:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rebuttal by Ed Poor

message: It isn't clear to me why all of this discussion is occuring on this page. As I understand it the normal thing to do is to present evidence on the evidence page at this stage. However, one part of Ed's comments bears noting. While I think Cyde's claim that Ed support "fundamentalism" is inaccurate (Ed seems to support a more general anti-evolutionary viewpoint) the above does once again illustrate one of Ed's problems: editing and pontificating on matters which he knows little or nothing about. The vast majority of young earth creationists do not reject the Fossil record but claim that they are interpreting the record differently. This is an important distinction. JoshuaZ 14:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please tell me how I can make it clear that I do not think they are "rejecting the fossil record" but are rejecting "its authenticity"? --Uncle Ed 20:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, "reject the scientific consensus about the fossil record" or "reject the consensus interpretation of the fossil record" or "reject the mainstream interpretation of the fossil record" might do it although they all have slightly different meanings. The first one seems to be the most accurate. JoshuaZ 20:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for helping me to explain what I meant. :-) --Uncle Ed 21:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]]

message: When I first started looking at this group of articles, I didn't know of Ed's history with the community of editors and attempted to mediate.  Right now, my feeling is that he's attempting to game the system.  In my opinion, Ed's main problem is that he attempts to give WP:NPOV#Undue_weight to ideas that are properly discussed on other pages.  In addition, when he makes edits, he fails to concretely address why his edits are better than the previous version. Ladlergo 15:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by [[user:Ladlergo]]

message: Please give an example of an edit which "fails to address" why it improves the article. (I try to remember to fill out the Help:Edit summary, but in a long series of edits I might forget to do this. After being reverted, I usually attempt to begin a discussion on the article talk page. 
I do concede, however,  that occasionally when reverted for no given reason, I have "reverted back". I regret this and promise to limit myself to 1RR/day. --Uncle Ed 14:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response by Ed Poor

message: You said: Far too many articles are unbalanced, emphasizing a mainstream point of view and neglecting minority viewpoints.
WP:NPOV#Undue_weight says:: NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. 
and
We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.
and
Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties.
Ed, can you please explain why you believe your edits to create "balanced" articles are not directly in opposition to WP policy? Ladlergo 20:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to [[user:Ed Poor]]

message: I don't know about Ed Poor, but I've battled JoshuaZ on the Kansas evolution hearings page. He repeatedly insists on name-calling witnesses as creationists and other epithets, even tho many of the witnesses deny being creationists. I say that a NPOV requires that a Wikipedia article on the hearings first describe what actually happened at the hearings in a fair and neutral way. Criticism can come afterward.
JoshuaZ's complaint is surprising weak. He fails to give an example of one of Ed's edits that shows a biased POV. Given JoshuaZ's history of an anti-creationist POV, I think that it is odd for him to complain. Roger 21:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ed_Poor_2/Evidence, take your pick. David D. (Talk) 21:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by [[User:Schlafly]]

message: I am very skeptical of the case against Ed Poor. Why is it that no one seems to be able to give any examples of bad edits? I have seen a few reasonable edits, but no bad ones. If JoshuaZ really has a case against him, then there should be some examples. This case is lame. Roger 02:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ed_Poor_2/Evidence, take your pick. David D. (Talk) 21:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Show me the evidence

message: I would just point out that while this RfAr is ostensibly about POV pushing there has been exactly one diff link purporting to show such... but which really doesn't seem to. The only possible 'POV bias' I can detect there is that Ed changed it from saying that the 'global warming controversy is about whether humans have an impact on the climate' to 'about how much human action is responsible for the existence of global warming'. The original suggested the possibility of climate change and that there might be some human contribution to it... the latter states flat out that global warming exists and humans have been part of it, with only the degree of such in question. Clearly Ed's version might be less palatable to opponents of 'global warming' who don't believe it exists at all or that humans have any impact on it, but it does match my understanding of the current scope of the debate... even scientists who oppose the theory now acknowledge that warming has occured and that people inevitably contribute to it, but hold that what we are seeing is primarily a natural cycle with minimal human impact. Very few now argue that there has been no increase in average temperature. All of which is covered in the article and unaffected by Ed's changes. If this is the best available example of his 'POV pushing'... it seems to me extremely weak. Likewise, the link on 'edit warring' and the 'game of Go' clearly appears to be an apology for misunderstanding the policy on partial reverts (which I see admins interpret differently all the time) and a promise not to do so again. This is evidence against him? For the record, my only significant interaction with Ed was when we more or less simultaneously came up with a series of date computing templates using completely different naming structures and methodologies. I found him very reaonable and flexible in working out those differences for consistency. --CBD 22:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by [[User:CBDunkerson|CBD]]

message: I really think I agree with the above. Ed notoriously has some unpopular beliefs - no-doubt they influence his editing. Mine do me. No doubt they'll get his into heated debates. People with minority perspectives often throw up questions about what NPOV really means in an article. But NPOV =! 'what most liberal wikipedians believe, so to hell with the pseudo-scientists'. Ed has an 'anti-Science' POV (what the hell is that?)? Perhaps. But should wikipedia have a 'pro-science POV' (whatever that might be). As long as Ed is being civil, explains his perspective, and isn't edit waring - there should be no major problem. Some of the diffs above arn't great - but they are hardly a matter for arbcom. Where is the evidence of disruption? --Doc 23:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by [[User:Doc glasgow|Doc]]

message: The purpose of this stage of the request is merely to, as it says, request arbitration.  This is not the evidentiary phase -- that occurs once the case is accepted and the clerk begins the project page for the RfAr proper.  (see comments by CydeWeys)  At that point I would assume that Doc's and CBD's concerns regarding civility, POV-pushing, edit-warring, etc., will be satisfactorilly addressed by the evidence. Jim62sch 10:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to Schlafly, CBD, and Doc

message: Roger, you have to go to the evidence page.•Jim62sch• 09:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Evidence

message: My experience of Ed's habits on the Evolution and Intelligent Design pages have been quite disturbing. The tendency to pov-push is worrying, particularly since he has a tendency to repeatedly come back to the exact same issue, re-presenting the same evidence again and again against the consensus version, despite repeated requests for documented evidence to support his proposed changes. He has a tendency to react to collective criticism as though there were a cabal and typically responds to the failure of his changes to be implemented not with agreement to the community consensus, or even a decision to agree to disagree, but often with a good deal of frustration. In particular, he seems to believe his changes fail to succeed because his edits are blocked by pov-pushers, and does not accept that the community consensus is deserving as respect. Indeed, where this consensus exists and is in opposition to him he typically dismisses it altogether, showing a disappointing level of disrespect to his fellow editors. --Davril2020 04:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by [[User:Davril2020|Davril2020]] 

message: I think ed has gotten the short end of the stick here.  He probably was in violation of 3RR on a few occasions, but I have seen instances where his changes were reverted simply because he made them.  And edits that change multiple things being reverted for one of the parts changed containing POV.  Reverting simply because a change contains POV is not a policy favored by most users, and I beleive meaningful content has been removed in this fashion occasionally, and while Mr. Poor does have a strong Point of View that he may overdefend, I beleive there have been violations of WP:AGF against him.  None of this excuses edit warring, but I think Ed has been slightly abused here. i kan reed 14:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by [[User:Ikanreed|i kan reed]] 

message: I only really know Ed's actions as they relate to the global warming areas of Wikipedia.  My impression is that Ed legitimately believes he is working for the greater good of Wikipedia.  In practice, he often introduces POV issues and pushes against the consensus of editors at these pages.
Some examples:
*Creating side pages that stress his POV:
**Climate cycle - focusing almost entirely on the one cycle that some claim disproves global warming
**Benny Peiser - creating a "biography" that devotes most of it's space to attacking global warming.
**Anthropogenic global warming - Changing a redirect into a mini content fork.
*Editing Wikipedia pages to justify his approach: 
**Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Marginalizing minority points of view
**Wikipedia:Content forking - Trying to make some forms of forking more acceptable.
**Wikipedia:Scientific mainstream - Personal essay in Wikipedia space
*POV edits to existing articles
**At global warming:  
**At scientific consensus: 
Ed knows the system very well, and doesn't generally break the hard and fast rules (e.g. 3RR or NPA), but at times he does seem to try and work the system in attempts to incorporate the POV he favors in spite of the wishes of the consensus of editors involved.  His actions around global warming issues can be disruptive, but considerably less so than many more aggressive POV advocates.  Ed also tends to transitory.  When he tries to make controversial changes that are rejected he often argues for a little while and then moves on to other things.  However over the long run he has been very persistent.  Talk page archives, show controversy at global warming regarding Ed's edits at least as early as Jan. 2003, to say nothing of the "Ed Poor wars" of 2004.
I don't know how Ed's behavior has been in other areas, but with respect to global warming he has been something of a persistent moderate nuisance.  He is usually not intractable or strongly disruptive, but at the same time, his actions can be annoying and in my opinion a substantial fraction tend to be deleterious.  
Whether this is enough to justify arbitration (and whether it can help), I don't know.  I'll leave that to people with a more complete picture of Ed's behavior to decide.  Dragons flight 20:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] 

message: Of all the descriptions of my editing patterns from those who think I'm "pushing a POV", this one comes closest to the truth.  Although I disagree with the slant of some points, I appreciate the tone of this comment from an actual climate scientist. 
I invite suggestions on how on can be "less of a nuisance". --Uncle Ed 14:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Friendly response by Ed Poor

message: I've encountered Ed Poor and his critics a few times in connection with editing articles on Ann Coulter and her book Godless. I've had one or two conversations with Ed via talk pages. In all cases, Ed Poor has been a calm voice of wisdom and reason. (I don't know how to cite the edits required in the more "official" parts of the arbitration procedure, but if I did cite them, I believe there would be widespread agreement with this assertion.) 
In the case of the book Godless, I've seen Ed try to include one or two of the reasoned points that the author makes about weaknesses in the work of evolution theorists. This has been met with reverts and inclusion of long harangues about her lack of qualifications to make those points, the assumed religious basis for her doing so, etc., none of it very much related to the reasoned points themselves. (And of course, since the reasoned points are quickly removed from the article, readers aren't able to evaluate the harangues.) 
My observation of Ed Poor is that he is working for the benefit of the encyclopedia and its readers. Also, in my opinion (based on limited observation), those who disparage him seem to be working to suppress the inclusion of material with which they disagree. Lou Sander 02:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by [[User:Lou Sander|Lou Sander]] 

message: I don't have a dog in this fight, and I haven't had any dealings with Ed Poor since my first comment above. All I do is occasionally look at the updates to this thread. I'm also neutral/agnostic on all aspects of the origins of life. 
It seems that a lot of Ed's troubles are with outspoken proponents of the theory of evolution. In my observation, using Wikipedia to express doubts about that theory, or even to discuss such doubts, is like publishing cartoons of important religious figures -- it can bring an immediate hot response that doesn't die down for a long time; the respondents are numerous, highly agitated, and not very open to discussion. If I were judging Ed Poor, I'd consider the matters in this paragraph. Lou Sander 14:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition 

message: Just looking at the hopelessly unbalanced article on Michael Mann (scientist):  Ed Poor put a POV flag in  and raised the issue in the talk page   only to see the flag removed and his comment dismissed. 
A month later he did something similar  , which seems to suggest he is playing by the rules. --Facethefacts 01:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by [[User:Facethefacts|Facethefacts]]

message: I do agree that many of his edits seem to be for the best for the Wikipedia. However, he does let his personal feelings affect his editing a little too much, and does engage in silly edit wars and overdrawn debates. Some of his "NPOV corrections" step just a little too far over the line as well. I don't think he has any ill wishes towards the Wikipedia, but as Dragons flight pointed out, he can be somewhat distruptive when he decides to increase the weight given to his chosen points of view. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 09:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by [[User:Consumed Crustacean|Consumed Crustacean]]

message: Ed Poor quite unfortunately has been conducting a disruptive POV campaign across a number of science-related articles, particularly those related to global warming, and other articles where science has implications related to creationism. "Uncle Ed", as he has traditionally signed his posts until a few days ago, has openly admitted at least part of his agenda, stating he is motivated to counteract what he claims is a "Liberal bias [that] has too much of a grip on Wikipedia."  .  My observation has been that it is not a liberal bias he opposes, but a rational examination of the evidence and reasonable, balanced, honest summaries thereof in keeping with WP:VER and WP:NPOV#Undue weight, attempting instead to impose a distinctly creationist point of view wherever scientific research arrives at conclusions unsupportive of that point of view.  
In my observation the main problem is not what his particular POV is, but rather the method he uses to attempt to impose it against clear consensus in many, many articles.  His method has been to rewrite content that has broad support by consensus from long-term contributors as being well-sourced and accurate, twisting it to mean almost the opposite, followed by posts to the talk page asking others for clarify what the original passage meant. When his changes fail to achieve consensus UncleEd then edit wars and follows up with baseless, ill-informed and often tendentious objections. When that fails he commonly resorts to misuse of the NPOV tag or a WP:POINT violation to stir the pot. And when that fails he appears at WP:NPOV to try to rewrite the rules.  This has repeatedly resulted, and continues to result, in a very substantial amount of time and energy wasted in fruitless and wholly unncessary debate by a significant number of editors in various articles.  A large amount of additional time and energy is wasted by many editors tracking down the actual substantive content of Mr. Poor's edits, which are very often found to be re-hashings of issues already well known by Mr. Poor to be thoroughly consensused by participating editors.
Evidence of this pattern is given at Evidence presented by User:Kenosis ... Kenosis 16:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by [[User:Kenosis|Kenosis]]

message: I have been "good" for this past year - not blocked once. May I please have this probation thing removed? --Uncle Ed 23:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request to lift the probation

message: I think that there are two views on Ed Poor's edits which determine what diffs are relevant and who is involved in this matter. 
:1. Ed is a generally competent editor, but he does not see the limits of his competence and is biased in some subjects which has caused problems
:2. Ed is a generally biased and incompetent editor who cannot see the difference between good and bad sources. As a result of that he has caused problems in some articles. In other subjects he has not (yet) caused problems.
If you believe in nr. 1, like myself, then his bad edits on climate change etc. do not matter and people not involved in Unification Church edits are not involved in this amendment. Andries (talk) 10:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 01 by Andries: two views of Ed Poor's edits

message: I think the amendment is necessary because
:#It is important not to discourage contributors in Wikipedia by giving them unnecessary editing restrictions
:#Ed Poor can help to prevent mistakes in the article. Reputable source contain sometimes blunders. For example in the case of my former religious group, the New York Times (Keith Bradsher A Friend in India to all the world) made a blunder (leader supposedly silent in public) and both proponents and opponents agreed with each other not to include this statement in the article. I had a mistake corrected in the lead of the article Sathya Sai Baba by extensive arguing on the talk page. The article was linked to on the main page of Wikipedia, just after he passed away. 
:# Ed Poor has access to reputable writings about the Church (among others by David Bromley), so he can help with sources. (I personally disagree with Bromley's hurtful negative generalizations about apostates, but I understand that they have to be seen in the context of the great American cult scare of the 1970s and 1980s)
:Andries (talk) 08:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by Andries to request by user:Bishonen 

message: :Your reply is off topic. My request for amendment is only about the talk pages of Unification Church related subjects. Andries (talk) 08:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Who are you to declare what is on topic or not?  It would seem that Mr. Poor's ongoing pattern of edits is highly relevant here. It seems proper to leave such decisions to the arbitrators. --69.165.135.150 (talk) 03:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you 69.165. 135.150.  Saves me from leaving an uncivil and very pointy reply.  Now get registered around here.  We need good editors who stand up to the POV.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by Andries to user:Orangemarlin  

message: :ad 1. There are no diffs of bad behavior on Unifcation Church related talk pages. So the offense level was and will be zero if the topic talk page ban is lifted.
:ad 2. For many obscure or foreign subject, one could find mainstream English language sources that make mistakes of blunders. But if better sources that contradict these statements then Ed Poor can help to get the blunders out if all contributors (both opponents and adherents of the Unification Church) agree. This is not breaking Wikipedia's core policies but using common sense and discernment when editing. The job of the contributors/editors is not to copy every statement in seemingly reputable sources. 
Andries (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply by Andries to comment by user:KillerChihuahua 

message: JoshuaZ and Ed Poor, I thought and still think that the only persons involved are the ones that dealt with the topic ban of the Unification Church. I also posted on the NRM notice wikiproject talk page. Nevertheless, I will inform the listed contributors who edit or edited the Unification Church related articles. Andries (talk) 15:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply by Andries to comment by user:JoshuaZ and Ed Poor 

message: {Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}
In the whole time I've been topic-banned from Unification Church articles and talk pages, I have been asked many times to comment. Having thought that enough time might have passed, I responded as follows here, pointing out that I would be willing to join the discussion if no one objected. Unfortunately, this was not taken as a request to have the ban lifted but as an evasion of the ban.
Aside from that, I've simply been staying away. I'd like to return to editing, or at least to commenting when invited. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement  user:Ed Poor

message: *Invitation to join AfD disscussion on Cult checklist.  Ironically, I was going to argue we keep it, even though it presents my church in a bad light. This, of course, is simply because I want Wikipedia to present each side of controversies fairly - regardless of what side I'm on. 
*I've just suggested merging True Family into List of Unification Church members since the information in the first is mostly aready in the second. Please discuss if you like: Talk:List of Unification Church members#Merge in True Family. Kitfoxxe (talk) 09:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply by Ed Poor to Bishonen's list request

message: NO fucking way.  I could list another 25 recent edits of Ed Poor that would show his bias, quote-mining, use of non-reliable sources, and lack of understanding of NPOV, but to excuse date rape, to quote mine a right-wing Xtian article on contraception, and to try to state that there isn't a vast, solid, 99% support in the scientific community for Evolution is solid proof that Ed Poor should stay at Conservapedia, where, I am sure, his style fits well with their anti-science bias.  Really, Ed Poor shouldn't be editing here at all, but I leave that to others.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Orangemarlin

message: I used to spar with Uncle Ed on these matters a long time ago, and am dubious about the usefulness of the proposed amendment. Specifically, Uncle Ed gives an example above (one) of an editor who invited him to comment on a talkpage, but describes the overall situation as "I have been asked many times to comment." Can we see a reasonably healthy list of some of those many times, please, Ed? That might amount to "Evidence detailing why the amendment is necessary". Nothing on this page has provided such evidence so far. Aunt Bishonen talk  20:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Request by Bishonen

message: I don't get it, sorry. I asked specifically for a list of examples (in other words, diffs) of some of the "many times" Ed Poor has been asked to comment, hoping that either you, Andries, or Ed would oblige, but that hasn't happened yet. Not sure what you're commenting on, but it's not on what I asked.  Bishonen | talk 12:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment on Andries' comment to me

message: I've no involvement in any of this; have not even read it all... but a comment above by Andries caught my eye, and it warrants highlighting:
: It is important not to discourage contributors in Wikipedia by giving them unnecessary editing restrictions.
110.139.190.67 (talk) 09:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by 110.139.190.67 aka 125.162.150.88 ak by few former usernames 

message: I'm in favour of lifting the sanction. It is time-expired. I'd also be in favour of the sanction being reimposable (with a lower bar than normal, preferrably without recourse to arbcomm) if Ed Poor abuses the lifting. The main reason is the time-expired nature. Another reason is (that despite the faults in his editing viewpoint) Ed is generally very good about not edit warring, so taking out his problematic edits isn't hard.
Another reason is diffs like the one KC puts forward  (or perhaps the ones that OM does, though I'm not judging those): Ed has the same problems at other articles, and the topic ban (obviously) doesn't help there. But no-one (as far as I can see) is arguing that his ban should be tightened.
William M. Connolley (talk) 13:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by William M. Connolley 

message: I'm familiar with Ed's work in other areas (mainly climate-related articles). Granted he tends to  make the same arguments over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, but he's reasonably civil and doesn't edit war. I'd favor a lifting of the sanction with the knowledge that it could be swiftly reimposed at the discretion of any uninvolved admin if problems arise. (This is more or less in agreement with Killer Chihuahua's point 3.) Third Cousin Twice Removed Boris (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris 

message: Support lifting the sanctions, basically per William and Boris. I saw his edits in several areas, and he is definitely a highly dedicated and well-intended contributor. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by  Hodja Nasreddin

message: I haven't given any real thought to the matter. I'm just noting my confusion about which editors Ed thought should be alerted. I filed the  RfAr leading to Ed's sanctions but had not been notified. KC on the other hand  has had almost no connection to that and is notified? This confuses me. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I didn't file the amendment. Andries did, and I was puzzled about the same point. Shouldn't the regular contributors to the UC-related article have been notified? Like Kitfoxxe, Hrafn, Cirt, Borock, Steve Dufour, Exucmember, Marknw, Windl42 . . .? --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 

message: I must admit to being in three minds on this proposed amendment. Which is why, although I had been aware of this proposed amendment for some time, I had been holding off on offering a comment.
One the one hand, I have always found Ed Poor to be a problematical editor -- with an annoying mix of obdurate content (an inability to grasp WP:V and WP:RS, combined with a pervasive tendency to attempt to give equal validity to his personal views) and stylistic (a love of WP:QUOTEFARMs and a preference for bullet-points over prose) blindspots. On the other hand, I am not particularly comfortable with a permanent topic ban on anybody that extends to talk pages (it is after all not a restriction we normally impose, even on the most WP:COI editors). That smacks a bit too much of censorship. However, on the third hand, I can easily see how the inability to learn from his mistakes that Ed has demonstrated on article space could easily result in disruption even on talk (and can remember actually encountering such disruption on what was then Wikipedia talk:WikiProject intelligent design (now Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Creationism) at a time when Ed was topic-banned from Intelligent design  -- though that is some time ago now -- though nothing I have seen of Ed Poor since indicates to me that he has reformed).
Therefore although I would like to support this amendment, I cannot bring myself to to do so, even only extending to UC-related talk pages, without some fairly heavy behavioural probation attached. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement user:Hrafn

message: Essentially I agree with comments about this issue by , , and . -- Cirt (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Cirt

message: I am also a Unification Church member, I have known Ed well in various online forums but have not met him in person. We often have had differences of opinion about the WP UC articles, since in my opinion his writing is too much addressed to "insiders" and sometimes intended to provoke controversy -- as others have mentioned.  I'm not sure what he feels about mine.  I do think letting him comment on talk pages is reasonable. He often makes valuable contributions there. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement Steve Dufour 

message: :Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.
==== Clerk notes ====
:This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
::(clerk note), amendment was passed ().  Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further discussion 

message: :This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
::(clerk note), amendment was passed ().  Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clerk notes 

message: *Waiting for more statements/Discussion. SirFozzie (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrator views and discussion 

message: WP:RESTRICT had a lot of outdated restrictions, and this looks like low-hanging fruit. Ed has been on probation for nearly ten years. His last block for violating the terms of the probation was in late 2010. This simply doesn't seem like it is protecting the project from disruption anymore.
:Regarding the replies below: While we normally don't do third-party unblock requests, I am not aware of any rule that says that any user may not ask for a modification or removal of an arbcom remedy that is no longer serving a purpose, regardless of whether it effects one user or many. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:46, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Ed has now responded on his talk page  that he would in fact like it removed. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Beeblebrox 

message: While I have no reason to believe that the editing restrictions on Ed need to remain, it is very unusual for Arbcom to accept appeals from someone other than the affected user. Looking through Ed's recent contributions, he appears to only edit here sporadically these days (most recently on the 18th) so I suggest being patient in waiting for them to comment. Thryduulf (talk) 11:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: anyone may ask, but when a restriction affects only one or a small number of individually named editors it is courteous at the very least to wait until they have indicated they desire a modification or removal before proceeding. I can't explain why someone would want a restriction on them to continue longer than necessary, but I recall one or possibly two instances of exactly this when I was on the committee. Thryduulf (talk) 02:19, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Thryduulf (re Ed Poor) 

message: I'm inclined to support. As you said it has been 6 years (7 assuming perfect dates which never happen) of the 10 years, since he has violated it. I will also note that he was at one point a bureaucrat, which in my mind is the highest position of trust given by a single wikipedia; However, he did resign, and the standards were lower at such a time. Much of the case is muddled, but I believe that his positive contribs have shown he deserves to be rid of the probation. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Iazyges 

message: *Typically I'd think an arbitration sanction would be open to reconsideration after 10 years, especially if there haven't been problems for awhile. However, awaiting comment by Ed Poor, as this request seems to have been filed without his involvement (see here). Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Enacted: Kevin (aka L235 ·  t ·  c) 21:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ed Poor 2: Arbitrator views and discussion 

message: In remedy 1.1 of the 2006 Ed Poor 2 case,  was placed on probation. Under the terms of the probation, he was banned from two topics in 2008 and 2009. The probation and topic bans under its terms are now rescinded.
:Enacted: Kevin (aka L235 ·  t ·  c) 21:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Motion: Ed Poor