From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case Opened on 00:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 13:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Contents 1 Involved parties 2 Requests for comment 3 Prior cases 4 Statement by JoshuaZ 5 Statement by Uncle Ed 5.1 Agreement that 3RR is not an entitlement 5.2 Attempts to describe both sides of global warming controversy fairly 5.3 Restoring balance to controversial articles 6 Preliminary decisions 6.1 Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/1/0/0) 6.2 Temporary injunction (none) 7 Final decision 7.1 Principles 7.1.1 Ban for disruption 7.2 Findings of fact 7.2.1 Disruptive behavior 7.2.2 Creation of POV forks 7.2.3 Ed Poor's editing technique is problematic 7.3 Remedies 7.3.1 Ed Poor placed on Probation 7.3.1.1 Modified 7.4 Enforcement 7.4.1 Enforcement by block 7.5 Log of blocks and bans

[edit] Involved parties

• JoshuaZ (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Ed_Poor (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)

[edit] Requests for comment

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ed Poor (2) (current)
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ed Poor (Aug. 1, 2005)

[edit] Prior cases

1. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor, closed Sept. 14, 2005
2. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FuelWagon v. Ed_Poor, closed Dec. 23, 2005

[edit] Statement by JoshuaZ

I bring this RfArb with a heavy heart. Ed has been an editor with Wikipedia far longer than I have, and has a history of many productive edits. However, on certain topics Ed has a long standing history of POV pushing and related problems. These problems were yet again addressed, this time in a recent RfC. In that RfC, multiple editors from a variety of topics, especially topics related to global warming and creationism. The RfC, painted a picture of edit warring, gross violation of 3RR. When he didn't ignore it, he attempted to game the system in a disturbingly literal fashion, comparing how he was allowed to revert to a game of Go [1]. Since then, his conduct has unfortunately not improved. Continuing his edit warring and POV pushing on climate and creationism articles[2](recently spreading to animal rights related articles), he also continued other problems, such as POV forking and POV redirecting, constructing articles which were complete OR/POV and/or copy-vio such as the now deleted Good scientific practice. In one dif he declared that he won't "abandon" NPOV, showing that even after a heavily endorsed RfC, he is undable to understand that his POV is not NPOV [3]. He has also taken to disrupting attempts to get new editors to conform to 3RR and other policies [4] and made spurious claims on WP:PAIN and WP:3RR [5]. I could continue, but the above should be sufficient to demonstrate the basic point: past attempts at mediation have failed. RfCs have failed. Intervention of the Arb Com is now necessary.

[edit] Statement by Uncle Ed

(Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries. Remember to sign and date your statement.)

Excuse me if I change my statement radically. This is a wiki, of course, so it's easy to make changes.

I myself wrote the definition of Wikipedia:POV pushing, and I pride myself on abiding by it scrupulously. On those rare occasions when I fail, I am quick (and eager!) to acknowledge these failures.

You need only point them out, as this contributor did. [6] I can accept correction, when a mistake is explained to me. [7]

If I've failed so many times as to constitute a "history of POV pushing", it should be easy to demonstrate this. I'd love to see some examples, especially if these show me creating and editing articles so that they show only one point of view and then laboring to preserve them in this unbalanced, biased state.

As I understand NPOV policy, the the following points are crucial:

• Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view (NPOV) policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding any subject on which there is division of opinion.
• It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view.

[edit] Agreement that 3RR is not an entitlement

As for the "game of go" remark, JoshuaZ has perhaps overlooked my use of this metaphor as something I realize I should not do, the opposite of how he construed my remark.

• I got confused about "partial reverts"
• You simply can't bring the article back to its previous state - like repeating a board position.

Since then, I have drastically reduced the frequency of reverting unexplained reverts on the article Joshua mentions and increased my attempts to get discussions going.

I also advised user:Schlafly as follows:

• Carefully avoid making more than 3 reverts per 24-hour period to any article (2 is better, and 1 is ideal).
• invite other contributors to look at edits that have been unfairly reverted.

I fail to see how this is "disrupting" an attempts to counsel him on 3RR adherence. I specifically requested that he cut down on reverts and engage others in discussion, and He hasn't been blocked since.

[edit] Attempts to describe both sides of global warming controversy fairly

• The global warming controversy is an ongoing dispute about how much of the modern global warming is caused by human beings. [8]

I don't see how it is "pov pushing" to write an article intro like this. If I've failed with this edit, then Joshua is right and I need to be restrained somehow - because to me this looks like a model of neutrality.

[edit] Restoring balance to controversial articles

Much of what interests me at Wikipedia is the opportunity to add information which explains the opposing point of view to articles on controversial topics which are dominated by a single POV. Far too many articles are unbalanced, emphasizing a mainstream point of view and neglecting minority viewpoints.

If edits which "advance" a POV are in violation of web site policy, then I guess I'll have to stop doing this. I didn't know this was wrong. --Uncle Ed 18:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Preliminary decisions

[edit] Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/1/0/0)

• Accept. Ed Poor has a long history here; if need be, we should look at this, once more. Charles Matthews 14:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Accept Fred Bauder 13:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Reject. Although there may well be a case, I don't see it yet. Convince me. James F. (talk) 22:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Accept ➥the Epopt 23:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary injunction (none)

[edit] Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

[edit] Principles

[edit] Ban for disruption

1) Users who disrupt editing by aggressive biased (tendentious) editing or other disruptive behavior may be banned from affected articles.

Pass 7-0 at 13:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Findings of fact

[edit] Disruptive behavior

2) The creation of the now-deleted Wikipedia:Mass revert, was intentional disruption to make a point ("If this is deleted, will SA, FM, et al., admit that they have no right to act as if this were a real policy? If this is kept, then I'll stop objecting to their actions, because it will be policy.").

Pass 6-1 at 13:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creation of POV forks

3) Ed Poor has created several new articles which were deleted for being POV forks intended to evade consensus already reached on established articles. These include Evolution is a fact, Good scientific practice, Criticism of intelligent design. He has also created several new scientist articles with selective emphasis, such that they serve only as POV forks as well. See evidence.

Pass 7-0 at 13:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ed Poor's editing technique is problematic

4) Ed Poor's editing technique is frequently ineffective and problematic. He has made many controversial edits without regard for prior agreement on the matter (failing the "don't be reckless" clause of Be Bold), and repeated the disputed edits despite consensus against them. (evidence) He has also, according both to an expert in the field (here) and to his own admissions (here) edited extensively to topics with which he is not familiar. Despite these problems being raised in the Request for Comment about him, Ed Poor's approach remains unmodified.

Pass 7-0 at 13:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

[edit] Ed Poor placed on Probation

[edit] Modified

1.1) Ed Poor is placed on Probation. He may be banned from any article or set of articles by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive editing, such as edit warring, original research, and POV forking. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2#Log of blocks and bans.

Pass 7-0 at 13:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enforcement

[edit] Enforcement by block

1) Should Ed Poor violate any ban imposed under the terms of this decision he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2#Log of blocks and bans.

Pass 6-0 at 13:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Log of blocks and bans

Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.