Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Archive 7

message: Moving my comments from the RfA page to this discussion page, as they may be appropriate here, but certainly not there.
:Germen, the use of "left-wing" is a characterization of the politics of the users involved (which may or may not be true, but is used in a slanderous way) and "apologist" implies unjustified defense of Muslims. I included the wiki-link to slander so that you could check the meaning quickly, in hopes that it would not inflame tensions. --Habap 15:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, someone else having a problem with Germen.  See Talk:Supremacism. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 18:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Germen 

message: I am posting this opinion to the RfAr talk page rather than in the RfAr so as not to become a party to the arbitration.  The originators of this request do appear to have a case.  They did not follow the proper procedures because they did not file an RfC first. 
Administrators have certain privileges that require not only good judgment and objectivity but a sense of timing as to what is and what is not urgent.  The need for a sense of timing, for instance, is essential with regard to blocking.  An address or account should not be blocked, either for 24 hours or for a longer period, unless there is, in the words of Justice Holmes, a "clear and present danger", such as of vandalism or a revert war.  An account should not be blocked, for instance, for one silly newbie experiment that may not have been malicious.  
Ed Poor is much respected as a member of the Wikipedia community, in particular for his role as a member of the Mediation Committee.  Mediation, like administration, requires judgment and objectivity.  It does not require the same sense of timing as does blocking, unblocking, and page protection.  Administrator actions must often be done quickly, with little time for reflection, so that they should be done by administrators with a sense of timing.  Mediation should be done deliberately, with reflection.  I think that there is little doubt that Ed Poor provides deliberation and reflection as a mediator.  
At the same time, there have been questions about his sense of timing as an administrator.  The case that is immediately in point concerns the VfD page.  In that situation, he clearly made an error as to timing.  He apparently had his workstation set to the wrong time zone.  If I am expecting at work to be interfacing with a system (e.g., a US military communication system) that uses GMT rather than EST, I set the timezone to GMT so as to avoid confusion or errors.  
My own suggestion is that Ed Poor can better serve Wikipedia by mediation, and perhaps as a bureaucrat, that is, a meta-administrator, where there is no question as to his judgment, rather than performing day-to-day administrative functions, where he has occasionally made mistakes, including due to errors in timing.  
At the same time, the originators of this RfAr, while having a valid case, could have themselves better served Wikipedia by filing an RfC and allowing this case to be resolved in a less drastic way.  
No one asked for my opinion.  No one asked for the opinion of the Wikipedia community via an RfC before filing this RfAr.  The Wikipedia community should been asked, and here is the view of one of its members.    Robert McClenon 20:31, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Third Party View

message: After reading many  edit histories, i have concluded that user dreaemGuy is incurably incivil, attempts ahve been made to orrect this, but have  met, atbest with removed comments with flase claims of harassment in the edit summaries or at worst, as in the case of user Slimvirgin's talk page, his own harassing comments being placed at great leangth, I do not pretend to be an Arbitrator, but I would think that an RFC would not do any good.  Would this be a case for arbitration, or just banning a problem user?Ketrovin 03:59, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently, an RFC has already been attempted, and it has been made clear that he agreed to cease incivillity, but that hasnt happened.  I reccomend an RFA, or to simply ban DreamGuyKetrovin 05:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: DreamGuy

message: The user/administrator Hall Monitor should have his privileges revoked.  He deletes comments on OTHER user's talk pages without any form of consent.  He then cites people for vandalism when they do the same thing. 64.12.116.135 19:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is difficult to respond to these criticisms when you have not provided any evidence.  If you believe that I have acted in bad faith or somehow wronged you, please elaborate so that your concerns can be addressed.  Since you are writing anonymously from an AOL IP address, it is difficult for me to see where our paths have crossed.  I show nothing in common with contributions from 64.12.116.135.  Best regards, Hall Monitor 20:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Hall Monitor

message: I understand some of Kelly Martin's misunderstanding of my post above.  It appears that an RfAr against Stevertigo was posted after I posted the question about dispute resolution bypass.  I had been referring to the RfAr filed by Stevertigo against CJK, which appeared to have been posted without discussion.  I agree with Kelly Martin that the RfAr against Stevertigo follows adequate discussion.  I was also referring to Ems57fcva and to -Ril-.  In each case, there had been local discussion (on user talk pages or article talk pages), but not the sort of global community discussion that is normally done via an RfC.
In the case of Ed Poor, I agree with Kelly Martin that it had been discussed to death all over the Wiki.  I can see that she does have a valid case that I was somewhat mixing apples and oranges in complaining about what I considered to be two types of poorly handled RfArs.  The Ed Poor case was discussed ad nauseam all over the community.  At the same time, I am not persuaded that there was any effort to reach a consensus short of arbitration.  I am not even sure what the filers of the RfAr are requesting be done to Ed Poor.  Are they asking him to apologize, which he did?  Are they asking the ArbCom to caution him, which is probably unnecessary since he already apologized?  Are they asking the ArbCom to de-admin him?  Are they asking the ArbCom to block him for a period of time, which would be excessive?  
In the other three cases that I mentioned, there did not appear to have been any global discussion, let alone any effort to reach consensus.  
I did not mean to be implying that an RfC should be a mandatory step before an RfAr.  I was implying that I thought it was a usual step before an RfAr.  I was more generally implying that I thought that an RfAr should not be filed prematurely, and should not be the usual first or second step in dispute resolution.  
I was also stating that if too many disputes are taken to RfAr without trying lesser methods of dispute resolution first, they will waste the time of the ArbCom in having to decide whether to take them, when they have cases on their agenda where all other methods of resolution have already failed.  
I hope this clarifies what I had been trying to say.  Maybe it does not.  Maybe the instructions need clarifying rather than to have instruction creep added.  Robert McClenon 17:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Attempt at Clarification

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

message: Consider that (Users A and B) attempt and fail at untangling a long running and increasinly virulent edit war between (Users X and Y). A and B have no interest in the article(s) as editors, only in patching things up. X and Y ignore any attempt to persuade them to use the various dispute resolutions. Suppose A&B as 3rd parties take the case to RfC and not a lot happens. They consider RfAr since things are out of hand. Will the Arbitrators even hear a 3rd party case, or can it only be brought by the parties themselves? Not asking for a committment, but wondering if there is precedent either way. -Splash 20:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Precedent exists, though I cannot recall the specific case off-hand.  I'll try and track it down when I can.  I am almost certain that Michael Snow brought a case as a 3rd party once (and had it accepted), and I'm positive that Snowspinner has successfully brought more than one case as a 3rd party.  I think a 3rd party should likely be very clear about their attempt to do something about the dispute--while I can't of course speak of the AC, I think they'd look more favorably on such a request, rather than a request made by a bystander who had no prior involvement. Jwrosenzweig 21:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thank you. There's no particular need to track down the cases if it's time consuming. This is just about to go to RfC so is at least a little while away from an RfAr; we were wondering whether arbitration was even on the list of options. -Splash 22:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  3rd party cases? 

message: I agree with both Paul August and Maurreen.  The whole Ed Poor case has been handled very sloppily from beginning to end.  While FuelWagon should tone down his rhetoric, he is right that this case does not maintain the appearance of justice.  I think that justice has been done, but the appearance of justice has not been served.  
The original RfAr was, in my opinion, badly written in that it left no indication as to what remedy was requested.  I first criticized the original RfAr as prematurely filed, because previous steps such as an RfC had been skipped, and because it appeared that what had happened was that Ed had made a mistake and had apologized.  I was told that there had been ample discussion throughout the Wikipedia community that took the place of an RfC, and was willing to agree with that.  However, there was no statement as to what relief was requested.  Normally it is clear enough from the charges in an RfAr that the relief requested is that the user be banned.  In the Stevertigo case, it was clear enough that the relief requested was removing his admin privileges that he is accused of misusing.  It was never clear what privilege the filers were requesting be taken away from Ed.  I for instance suggested that he give up his admin privilege but retain his bureaucrat privilege, which is the opposite of what has happened.  
The ArbCom then accepted the case.  Ed Poor offered to plead guilty to all charges and accept whatever punishment was requested, but the charges had never been defined, and the punishment was not specified.  Then two editors offered evidence.  Then the case seemed to disappear.  This did not seem right.  It did not seem to have been closed by agreement.  It seemed to have disappeared.  
It is commonly said that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.  Most of Wikipedia is informal.  The ArbCom should act with a certain regard for due process.  Substantive due process was probably done, although that is not clear.  Procedural due process was not done.  The ArbCom should be more attentive in the future to maintaining not only justice but also the appearance of justice via procedural due process.  
Can the case at least now be closed with a statement as to what action was taken by agreement?  Can the ArbCom realize that the appearance of justice is also important?  Robert McClenon 19:07, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Outside opinion by McClenon

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Outside view by Nandesuka 

message: I would like to disagree in detail with a few of the statements of SlimVirgin, and to add a few comments.  First, she writes that FuelWagon is trying to rewrite the instructions on the RfC page to make his behavior look like the result of a confusion about what an RfC is for.  That is misleading.  That implies bad faith on the part of FuelWagon.  She should know better than to assume bad faith.  In this case, there really was confusion about what a user conduct RfC is for.  This was brought out in passing in discussion of RfC reform.  He assumed that an RfC really was a Request for Comments, in the Internet sense, and could be used for any of a number of purposes.  The policy as written did not rule that out.  FuelWagon is now trying to make the wording of the policy more consistent with itself, and less consistent with the perception of the process by the community.  
FuelWagon is honest.  That is both his strength and his weakness.  Any suggestion that he is being less than honest is a breach of civility.  It is true that FuelWagon has committed gross breaches of civility.  He has a civility problem.  He has NEVER been dishonest.  Any suggestion that he has been in any way less than honest is bizarre.  There really was confusion about the purpose of an RfC.  
FuelWagon:  The other side to the confusion is that SlimVirgin is really trying to make things clearer.  She is not trying to change the wording to say that you were wrong, which you were not.  She is trying to change the wording so that other editors will not fall into the trap that you did.  As long as you argue that the process is correct, you are arguing to maintain a process that will again result in similar enmities over use of RfCs.  
SlimVirgin:  You write:  "It has turning into trolling, pure and simple."  No.  It has not.  FuelWagon is not a troll.  He is a flamer.  There is a difference.  He is honest.  Trolling always involves some degree of dishonesty.  FuelWagon simply has a different concept of the rules than we do.  He is not a troll.  He is angry and bitter, but he is not a troll, and does not know how to be one.  
There is one remaining question that is raised by FuelWagon.  That is the role of Neuroscientist.  I can see that Neuroscientist wrote a very long criticism of the edits by SlimVirgin.  To translate his summary, he said that SlimVirgin had made reckless edits.  I agree.  SlimVirgin says that FuelWagon made reckless edits.  That is probably true.  Reckless edits happen.  Get over it.  Ed Poor did apparently reprimand Neuroscientist for what Ed Poor saw as personal attacks on SlimVirgin's reckless edits.  I can see that Ed Poor was out of line in rebuking Neuroscientist.  As a result, Neuroscientist departed.  This is very unfortunate.  In this case, Ed Poor was mistaken.  The criticisms by Neuroscientist were not personal attacks on SlimVirgin.  They were identification of reckless edits, and were content issues.  
It appears that there were violations of civility.  It appears that mistakes were made.  FuelWagon, SlimVirgin, and Ed Poor all made mistakes.  Humans make mistakes, especially in stressful situations.  
Ed Poor has admitted that he made mistakes.  What more is demanded?
SlimVirgin made mistakes.  She was once reprimanded by the ArbCom for personal attacks.  
FuelWagon made mistakes.  Most of his mistakes were the use of foul language.  
It does appear that one editor who was a very valuable editor, Neuroscientist, was lost in this controversy.  
It appears that FuelWagon wants SlimVirgin and Ed Poor to apologize, or be found wrong.
Where should we go from here?  Robert McClenon 02:34, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want an apology, I want Ed's record as mediator to reflect unacceptable behaviour on his part as mediator. Ed did everything he could to suppress criticism of SlimVirgin. Ed warned Neuroscientist to beware of violating NPA when all Neuroscientist did was criticize the content of SlimVirgin's edit. Ed BLOCKED me the second time because I had started an RfC against SlimVirgin on my talk page. Ed moved my talk page content to a block/ directory, and blocked me apparently for violating NPA. There are no NPA violations on the content that Ed moved. None. He blocked me in an attempt to stop me from filing an RfC against SlimVirgin. After that block expired, I filed an RfC against SlimVirgin, and Ed attacked my RfC against SlimVirgin as bullying, gaming the system, building a case. Then after I dropped the RfC, Ed attacked me directly. HE WAS THE MEDIATOR. And he was completely biased as soon as SlimVirgin got on the article. How much more clear must I be? Ed was mediator of record and he showed at least four actions that showed completely biased and unacceptable behaviour (1) warning Neuroscientist (2) blocking me (3) attacking the RfC (4) attacking me. This isn't just a single misunderstanding on Ed's part. This isn't just a one time oops. This is a pattern that shows gross bias to the point of handing out undeserved blocks. This is unacceptable behaviour as a mediator. And I want something on Ed's record as mediator to reflect this. FuelWagon 13:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] (and [[User:FuelWagon|FuelWagon]])

message: You seem to be applying the philosophy of relativism here, and I believe it it would be a mistake to do so. Relativists often go to the extreme of saying that there should be no absolute standard of right and wrong and that the only wrong (or "unacceptable thing") is for some moralist to judge a particular person or act as wrong. I hope you see the contradiction there.
Wikipedia, despite its NPOV editorial policy for controversial articles, does take some moral and ethical stands. The arbcom has consistently upheld these standards, even if the policy pages have not kept pace with these statements of principle. The Gabriel Simon case showed that contributors must have a minimum level of "maturity". We also have gradually settled on a standard of Wikipedia:Civility.
Nonetheless, some contributors maintain that it is "unacceptable" to label another person's words as being uncivil. They insist that this labeling is itself a violation - of a sort ever more galling and detrimental than the alleged incivility it criticizes. This is a very popular viewpoint outside of Wikipedia. (For example, advocates of homosexuality like to quote Jesus ("Do not judge") as if judgment were (1) a sin in itself and (b) a worse sin than homosexuality. Ironically, they are using the Christian system of ethics to destroy the Christian ethic, but I digress)
Now let's get back to the point. To work together on articles as controversial as Terri Schiavo, we need to adhere closely to the Wikipedia guidelines on civility and neutrality. I will do whatever it takes - as a Mediator, an Administrator, or an ordinary editor to enforce these standards. If you don't agree with these standards, you will eventually choose to leave or be forced to leave. If you will accept these standards, then it really shouldn't matter to you HOW someone brings violations to your attention. You should simply undertake to confrom your behavior to the standard. Expressions of regret or gratitude are optional! :-) 
And another thing, which I'd like to settle once and for all. We are not all equal here. Some of us have more pull than others, and with good reason. At the risk of seeming immodest, I must say that I helped to make it this way. I appointed Maveric as senior to me, as an expression of respect for his dedication to the project and his good sense. I told him he "had my proxy". He, like user:Anthere and a number of others, began to constitute a group of people I was always willing to listen to - and more importantly, to follow their leadership. In other words, I consciously and deliberately subordinated myself to them. Not because I had to, and in fact in spite of the anarchistic ethic then prevailing at Wikipedia. 
I helped establish the hierachical system we enjoy now. It works. It's much better than anarchy or democracy. I respect Fred Bauder, and I do what he tells me to do - not because I have to, but because he is a wise and dedicated leader. I voted for him. (In fact, in the last election, everyone I voted for won, and nobody I didn't vote for won. Coincidence? You decide.)
In an on-line society, you gain influence by getting people to like you. They will like you if they see you making beneficial contributions, and if as Zephram says below, "from [their] dealings with [you], [they] find [your] heart to be in the right place."  I am rather well liked; you can become more well-liked if you will become more civil - and if you start spending less time defending yourself and more time cooperating on articles. You could even be appointed an Administrator. The bar is actually rather low: just demonstrate your commitment to the project over a period of time.
Anyone who inspires confidence in others here, will be trusted. Anyone who abuses that trust, will lose that confidence. This applies equally to everyone. I abused that trust this year and was arrogant and could not be trusted any more with bureaucrat rights. Because I am equal (in the sense of the trust principle applying equally), I had to resign. I did so willingly (though not without regret, I am human being after all, not a saint) because I love Wikipedia. I always want to do what is best for it. If I make a mistake, I try to make it right.
If you do the same, you can rise in the social hierarchy the same as I have - or even more. There is nothing magical in the username of Uncle Ed. It's all about what you do for the sake of others. Please put others ahead of yourself. Uncle Ed 13:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ed, all this says is that wikipedia is "fair" for the definition of "fair" where anyone can become part of the inner circle and be treated differently than those who are not. My definition of "fair" is that everyone be held to the same policies regardless of standing. You treated SlimVirgin differently while you were mediating the Terri Schiavo article. You defended her and you attacked and warned others who criticized her. You never once acted as a neutral mediator once she came on the article. You never once viewed her edits or her behaviour on the talk page "fairly", meaning equal to everyone else. You avoided mediating with her in any way. Rather you attemped to mediate us in an attempt to hold SlimVirgin above and separate from the mediation process. You warned off Neuroscientist about possible NPA violations when all he did was post a rather detailed neurological criticism of SlimVirgin's edit, you blocked me and moved all my talk page stuff to block/ when all I did was start preparation of an RfC against SlimVirgin, you ignored my requests to point out any specific NPA violation on my talk page that caused my second block, you attacked the RfC against SlimVirgin when it was certified and endorsed by a total of 5 people, and then you attacked me personally. This isn't about wikipedia's hierarchy promoting those with experience to positions of admin, bureaucrat, arbcom, whatever. This is about your specific job as mediator. You didn't mediate. You engaged. You failed to maintain neutrality once SlimVirgin entered the article. Her status as an admin or your personal friend or something caused you to stop mediating when SlimVirgin entered the article, and caused you to engage the dispute. You took sides. A mediator is supposed to remain neutral. You attacked several differerent criticisms of SlimVirgin's editing and talk page behaviour, rather than mediate the dispute. You failed to mediate the dispute. Had you actually treated SlimVirgin and all the editors fairly and equally, then the dispute regarding her massive edit would probably been resolved peacefully, quietly, before an RfC, before anything else happened, before Neuroscientist, Duckecho, and A Ghost left wikipedia in disgust. But you didn't do that. You took sides. You favored SlimVirgin over all the other editors. This has nothing to do with meritocracy. You warned Neurocientist of NPA violations when all he did was criticize SlimVirgin's content. You blocked me because I was preparing an RfC against SlimVirgin, you attacked the RfC against SlimVirgin, and then you attacked me personally. That is totally unacceptable behaviour from someone who was supposed to be mediating the article. FuelWagon 15:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He may have done that, but the burden of trying to determine questions of fact like that was part of our decision to accept his resignation as a bureaucrat and start over from a clean slate. We have limited time and resources. Fred Bauder 19:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncle Ed's rebuttal

message: FuelWagon:  On the one hand, you say, and I mostly agree:  My definition of "fair" is that everyone be held to the same policies regardless of standing. You treated SlimVirgin differently while you were mediating the Terri Schiavo article.  At the same time, you appear to be trying to hold Ed Poor to a higher standard of conduct, namely, a standard that he must be perfect, while you need not be perfect.  I will offer a restated concept of fairness.  Everyone in a particular role should be held to the same standard of conduct.  Different people may have different roles.  In the role of editor, everyone must be civil and must refrain from personal attacks, and should try to achieve NPOV.  Civility and NPA are minimum conditions, because NPOV and quality cannot be achieved without civility.  In the role of admin, anyone who is an admin must use their authority impartially.  In the role of mediator, anyone who is a mediator must mediate, as in working toward the resolution of conflict.  You are saying that Ed was guilty of errors in his role as mediator, beause he engaged rather than mediating.  It does appear on my reading of his admonition to Neuroscientist that he did make errors as a mediator.  If Neuroscientist's summary was correct, and I will assume that it was if he really was a neuroscientist, then SlimVirgin engaged in reckless edits.  FuelWagon clearly engaged in a pattern of personal attacks and breaches of civility.  
Is FuelWagon arguing that users in more responsible roles must be perfect, or only that they are expected to held in those roles to appropriate levels of conduct?  Ed made mistakes.  FuelWagon made mistakes.  Why do we insist on rehashing the past?  What we should do is to learn from it rather than to focus on blame and anger. 
I am not a member of the ArbCom, and no case involving FuelWagon is currently before the ArbCom. If I were arbitrating a case involving FuelWagon, I would vote to ban him from editing Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration and Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment, where his arguments are becoming tiresome.  FuelWagon, please do not set yourself up to be blocked.  
FuelWagon:  If you really simply want to have the record straightened, for whatever purpose that serves, I have a suggestion.  Ask Ed to admit that, in the heat of the Terri Schiavo edit war, he made mistakes in his role as mediator, in particular with regard to Neuroscientist.  In turn, he can also admit that he has learned from those mistakes.  Robert McClenon 16:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I do not demand anyone be perfect. But I do demand that if a mediator doesn't mediate, if they take sides to the point of blocking someone for preparing an RfC, for warning someone about violating NPA when all they did was comment on content, then I think that behaviour should be acknowledged rather than buried. Your arguments are becoming quite tiresome too, by the way, but I wouldn't have you banned for it. FuelWagon 17:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sur-rejoinder by third party McClenon

message: "Ed Poor has admitted that he made mistakes.  What more is demanded?" Did you ever hear the phrase "mistakes were made"? It is a convenient use of passive tense. It acknowledges mistakes occurred without holding anyone specific to account. Ed Poor has admitted mistakes were made. On a talk page he offered to plead guilty of all charges. However, what, exactly those charges were have never been determined. Arbcom didn't accept any guilty plea from Ed, because a guilty plea implies he plead guilty of some specific violation. No one has listed any specific violation here. Arbcom tried to spin it that there was "implied" guilt, but implied guilt of what? which policies are implied to have been broken? When someone brings charges, the accused might decide to plead guilty of a lesser charge. That's a plea bargin. What happened with Ed wasn't a plea bargain, it was a pardon. Ed has been found guilty of nothing. He plead guilty to nothing. Arbcom has noted nothing on his record as to a specific policy violation. Instead, they accepted his resignation as bureaucrat in exchange for pardoning him. There is nothing in the arbcom case that says Ed violated anything. It was closed by arbcom before that could happen. Arbcom's final decision says nothing about Ed violating any specific policy. If Ed Poor admitted that he made mistakes, which mistakes specifically did he admit? If Ed Poor plead guilty to all charges, what specific charges did he plead guilty to? If arbcom says they accepted Ed's guilty plea or says there is implied guilt in their decision, what specific violations are implied to have occurred?  How can anyone possibly look at this arbcom case and determine if the decision was fair? Arbcom accepted Ed's resignation but neither accepted his plea of guilt on any specific violation, nor found any specific violations that Ed had committed. Ed's resignation is punishment for what, exactly? Charges were made, evidence was submitted, but nothing was ever determined. How can anyone uninvolved tell if it was a fair punishment when no specific crime is officially listed? Arbcom accepted Ed's resignation in exchange for closing the case without any findings of fact. Pleading guilty would actually find Ed guilty of something. It was essentially a pardon, a way of avoiding prosecution, a way of avoiding any official findings of guilt. This is no different than the passive sentence "mistakes were made". It avoids holding anyone accountable for their actions and it avoids even saying what those actions were. FuelWagon 14:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the issue refuses to go away because its cause has nothing explicitly to do with Mr. Poor.  Maybe the old axiom is true that "absolute power corrupts absolutely."  From my dealings with Mr. Poor, I find his heart to be in the right place, but the stewardship thrust upon him puts him in the position of having to distribute universal benevolence.  Since each person's definition of benevolence differs, there is no way that Mr. Poor can remain blameless in a rigid hierarchal system such as the current one managing Wikipedia.  --Zephram Stark 15:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is hard work to make specific findings of fact. As we have limited resources we avoided time (and energy) consuming hard work by accepting Ed Poor's offer. Fred Bauder 19:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense to me, and I certainly think it was fair as far as Mr. Poor is concerned, but a "larger issue" is continuously being referred to in these discussions, and that larger issue is the obvious and blatant corruption in the system.  A bottom-up style of editing can only be effective if there is also a bottom-up system of checks and balances.  As of right now, administration trickles down from Jimbo.  Because Wikipedia has grown bigger than one man can micro-manage, some really stupid things happen here.  We haven't declared war on Iraq yet, but we certainly have the top-down system of management necessary to do so.  --Zephram Stark 20:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: mistakes were made

message: Fuel Wagon, as far as I can tell, your complaints about Ed Poor have nothing to do with the original request for arbitration. And the arbitration committee is not going to reopen the case. If you have a disagreement withh Ed Poor, it might be best not to try to piggyback on dead horse, but to try other means. Maurreen (talk) 16:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have stopped attempting to get arbcom to reopen the case. I have only posted replies here to various comments directed at me. FuelWagon 17:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well.  Are you saying that if we stop replying to your replies, you will let the Ed Poor matter drop?  Are you also saying that in that case, you will either contribute to the discussion of reform or ignore it rather than bring up the past?  Robert McClenon 18:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What business is it of yours, Robert? How are you involved in this dispute in any way that you get to insert yourself here and decide whether I can proceed or not? Who has assigned you the authority of gate keeper here? This has gone beyond you expressing your opinion of some matter that you are not involved with and seems to have morphed into you assigning yourself the job of judge and jury here. Arbcom won't reopen the case, so I won't be wasting my time trying to get them to reopen the case. But that doesn't mean the dispute is resolved in anyway. Nothing has been addressed. Nothing has been fixed. It's just been passed around "without further comment". I'm sure you hope to make admin some day, maybe even be mediator or arbitrator. But you are none of those now. And it is not your position to negotiate how or if I continue to try to resolve this. And stop talking about the "discussion of reform". That is your thing, not mine. I'm not trying to change the system here, I'm just trying to use it as it is to get some resolution to a problem. If you're feeling tired, maybe it's because you're taking on a job that hasn't actually been assigned to you. How about I try to find resolution to my dispute and you worry about how you're going to "reform the system", ok? They're completely different issues. Stop collapsing them, it will only make you more tired. FuelWagon 18:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unrelated matters