Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor/Complaint and response

Party 1 (Initiators)

 * Rob Church
 * Nicholas Turnbull
 * Phroziac
 * The Uninvited Co., Inc.

Party 2

 * Ed Poor

Third Parties

 * Kim Bruning (Involved admin)
 * Benjamin Gatti (Affected Third Party having a vested interest in the outcome)
 * Xiong (affected -- as are we all)
 * Xiong (affected -- as are we all)

Confirmation of Parties' Awareness

 * Rob Church 01:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * NicholasTurnbull 01:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Phroziac (talk) 02:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Benjamin Gatti 18:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Ed Poor has been made aware:
 * Tony Sidaway became aware sometime in the 1950s; he is sitting up in bed listening to Radio 4.

Previous Dispute Resolution
Although several attempts have been made to resolve this issue, none of them have been particularly successful. Ed Poor's deletion of the RfC page against him goes towards proving that he does not wish for any discussion in the matter.


 * I agree that I cut off discussion, and that I was wrong to do so. I have undeleted / unarchived Requests for comment/Deletion of VFD. Uncle Ed 15:47, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Nicholas Turnbull, Rob Church, Phroziac, and UninvitedCompany
Ed Poor is a very experienced Wikipedian, who has made an exceptional contribution to the project over the long period of time that he has been a Wikipedia contributor, and was consequently made an administrator (and indeed a "bureaucrat") by the community. He has been active in Requests for mediation, as well as in article editing.

Recently, he took the controversial action of speedy deleting Votes for deletion without consultation to the community or prior warning - that is, using the "delete" administrative function, not tagging it with for another administrator to delete the page. 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, as Ignore all rules is an important part of our community, and such actions may be overlooked if they occur in isolation.

This page was restored by another administrator; however, the original action understandably caused consternation amongst some members of the community, and an RfC was drawn up by a number of Wikipedians to resolve the dispute. Sadly, pursuant to this event, Ed Poor has ignored the standard consensus on Wikipedia operations, and has not paid attention to feedback from the Wikipedia community as a whole about his conduct. He deleted the RfC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deletion of VFD (archived version here), on the purported grounds that it violated RfC policy; the double standard that he created by ignoring rules on one hand and enforcing the letter of them on the other is not acceptable. Another administrator restored this page; Ed deleted it for a second time. He unblocked himself after he was blocked by a fellow administrator to provide breathing space for the dispute to settle. Ed Poor appears to have counted on his seniority and popularity to avoid discipline, and thus seems to consider himself above the Wikipedia community in matters of action and procedure.

It is our opinion that Ed Poor has ignored the standard consensus on Wikipedia operations, and has not paid attention to feedback from the Wikipedia community as a whole about his conduct; he has consequently abused his administrator rights. This sets a poor precedent for the rest of the community, and threatens the entire spirit of collaboration and co-operation that Wikipedia is built on, and re-enforces the divide between administrators and users - creating an unpleasant double standard that must be avoided.

This statement is endorsed by the following:


 * Rob Church 01:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * NicholasTurnbull 01:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Phroziac (talk) 02:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Uncle Ed 15:49, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Arbitrators please note: We have made a request to Ed Poor on his talk page for an online chat meeting to discuss our collective differences with a view to withdrawing this RfArb, depending upon agreement between the parties. --NicholasTurnbull 00:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

This request has been accepted and an IRC-based mediation conference has been arranged for 5:30PM EST (11:30PM BST (GMT+1)) on 5th August 2005. Parties in attendance will be:


 * Rob Church
 * Nicholas Turnbull
 * Phroziac
 * The Uninvited Co.

Rob Church 07:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

It was decided at the conference that negotiations would continue. We will advise the ArbCom when an attempt at mediation has been completed, and whether or not further action is needed. We also agree to post the logs of these meetings. Rob Church 13:59, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

While the RFC page whose deletion was a primary reason for this request has now been restored and discussions there are continuing, no agreement has been made during the two IRC conferences that have been held. No further conferences are scheduled at this time. In the absence of any interest in scheduling further meetings, I believe that this mediation effort has run its course. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out that this is the opinion of User:UninvitedCompany, and not representative of the opinion held by the meeting as a whole or by other party members. --NicholasTurnbull 19:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

My views with regard to this are here. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Arbitrators please note: Following the successes of the IRC mediation conferences, and a number of discusions with Ed Poor, Rob Church, Phroziac and Nicholas Turnbull have agreed to withdraw their statements from this request for arbitration. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NicholasTurnbull/Mediation_IRC#Motion_to_withdraw_Request_for_Arbitration_against_Ed_Poor for full details. Rob Church Talk 16:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Further statement by UninvitedCompany
Ed Poor is a long-time colleague of mine here at Wikipedia and I am saddened both by the overall course of events and by the fact that I feel compelled to participate in this unfortunate case. I believe that this case has importance to the community far beyond Ed's own actions. It is a core principle of Wikipedia that the community is the ultimate authority. I find that Kim and Ed's actions in trying to suppress discussion by deleting the RFC are an effort to whitewash this whole event and the community's reaction to it. It is an attempt to undermine the community, and a clear effort to pull rank and give the community a PowerAnswer rather than to seek reconciliation through discussion, compromise, and consensus. It is, in a very real way, the antithesis of wiki.

While I am hardly one of the first Wikipedians, I have been told that I have somehow become part of the fabric of the place; I am sometimes called an old-timer. I am participating in this case to make a clear statement that even though I may be an old-timer, and part of the same "cabal" as Ed and the other senior admins and bureaucrats, that in actual fact There Is No Cabal -- nor should there be. I'm not going to stand by and let this case be characterized as an old hands vs. new hands matter. It's not. This case is about the fact that everyone around here still must answer to the community, no matter how much they've contributed, no matter how long they've been here, no matter what level of access they have earned, and no matter who their friends are.

Finally, I point out that troublesome behavior from Ed is not new. The matter of William Connolley's near-promotion to adminship and Ed's temporary de-sysopping of several admins earlier this year are similar examples. There are others. The Wikipedia community has forgiven (and indeed forgotten) a great deal already, and I believe that a response of "aw, shucks, I'm sorry and I promise not to do it again" falls well short of the mark.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Kim Bruning
The RfC in question was indeed not brought compliant to policy, Ed Poor's premature deletion of the page was actually due to an incorrect time conversion between EST and UTC. (That, and he should have let a neutral party do it, of course :-) ) This was corrected. After being quite thoroughly notified, the bringers of the RfC continued to fail to certify it, and the RfC was deleted at the due time.

I'd love to see IAR tested sometime, but I don't think this will be the case to do it :-) Kim Bruning 02:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Notes:
 * 1) Though the RFC has been terminated, several users have moved it out of RFC space to circumvent RFC policy: . Up to arbcom to decide if that is a valid application of WP:IAR
 * 2) Ed Poor created Requests_for_deletion very early on to allow people to comment on his actions.
 * 3) I was the blocking administrator, and actually talked with Ed on the phone! I won't be pleased if anyone holds it against him that he unblocked himself after that!

Statement by Ed Poor
Please limit your statement to 500 words.

Okay, I don't care whether this request is "proper" or not. People want a reckoning, and that they shall have.

I was wrong to delete vfd. As a professional database programmer, I should have realized that it would place a great strain on the database, due to its lengthy history being moved into the "deleted page" table. In other words, I should have anticipated the 5-minute read-only block I effectively put on this wiki. So I plead guilty to negligence.

Secondly, I was wrong to assume that my intuitive sense of consensus - (which was actually lacking rather than present) combined with a light-hearted attitude of Ignore All Rules and Be Bold - would be sufficient justification for blasting away at a problematic page (and system). I should have brought up the matter for discussion by creating a poll (as Angela correctly pointed out) or gone through similar channels. Wikipedia has become too big for anyone, however "beloved" (as I immodestly regard myself) or dedicated, to make such a major change as I tried to do.

I promise not to do this again - or anything like it. Specifically, I will not delete an important page or one with a lengthy edit history again unless there is clear community consensus for this. If I cannot determine consensus on my own, I will ask another admin for help. Someone like Uninvited Company would be my first choice.

If my promise is not enough, well you can always put me on "no delete" parole or even de-sysop me. I don't care: if becoming an Admin is not supposed to be a big deal, than un-becoming a one should be no big deal either. Uncle Ed 12:42, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

About the RFC
I mistook the "end date" of the RFC by 4 hours. I thought it was 1:08 P.M. my time, but it was actually 5:08 P.M. my time. I am 4 hours behind Greenwich UTC. I figured that, with only one person certifying, that the RFC could be deleted exactly at the 48-hour mark but I made two errors: (1) I miscomputed the expiration time - which, by the way, I had calculated myself, since the RFC opener had neglected to put it in. (2) I missed the unwritten rule that one does not delete an RFC concerning oneself.

I guess this is why Kim Bruning kept blocking my account and telling me not to shoot myself in the foot (or the leg) - apparently she was planning to delete the RFC herself at the appointed (and correctly calculated) hour. I had no idea of this.

As for unblocking myself, what can I say? Kim blocked me to further some plan of hers which she declined to share with me. I'm not going to arbitration with her on this, as she has already apologized to me. I figured that if an Admin (a) blocked me with no justification and (b) apologized for this, there was no need to embarass her by demanding she unblock me when (as an admin in good standing) I could simply remove the block myself. (She asked me on the phone, "Do you want me to unblock you?" I said that it didn't matter and kind of thought it comical, getting an expensive international phone call from an admin wanting to know if she should unblock me! :-) Uncle Ed 02:08, August 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * The point that you continue to miss, Ed, is that the RFC shouldn't have been deleted in the first place. Not at the end of howevermany hours, not by you, and not by anyone else.  There was ongoing discussion, and whether or not the RFC rules against unsupported listings were complied with or not (and I believe they were, for reasons I am happy to elaborate upon if requested), there was no reason to delete an RFC that was serving as the focus of community discussion.  The Vfu Discussion shows that the community was overwhelmingly opposed to deletion, with no actual votes supporting the deletion of the RFC (though Kim voted neutral and there was one vote that, though an "undelete," appeared to be made in sarcastic jest).  It is your ongoing, unrepentant insistence that deleting a community discussion about a mistake you made is OK (or, equivalently, would have been OK after four more hours), that led me to support this case in the first place.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It took me a while to see your point, but I now agree. The request for comment was intended to generate comments and was successfully doing so.


 * "...the double standard that he created by ignoring rules on one hand and enforcing the letter of them on the other is not acceptable." Wow, I had no idea. I'm glad I re-read this RFA carefully, because I completely missed that point the first few times. Maybe I should step down (or be removed) from adminship until I learn to stop doing this AntiPattern. Uncle Ed 15:19, August 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Kim Bruning's a guy. It's amusing that you did not notice that, after talking to him on the phone though. :D --Phroziac (talk) 17:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that I should not have deleted the RFC. I am sorry that I deleted it, and sorry that I let Kim "close" it. I see now that the RFC page was serving a higher purpose that I should not have interfered with; or ignored; or allowed to be curtailed. Therefore I have put it back, even if this is 'too little, too late' (see Requests for comment/Deletion of VFD). Uncle Ed 15:53, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Third Party Benjamin Gatti
Sanctioning Ed Poor in this case could have a chilling effect on contributers being bold in addressing problems. The Arbitration commitee should investigate the alledged harm present in the current deletion process and upon a finding of real harm, ought to propose a remedy therefore and thank Uncle Ed for raising the alarm. The technical issues related to deleting a page are matters beyond the jurisdiction of the arbcomm and ought to be rectified rather than blamed on the user. Wikiblower protection has been proposed and should be adopted as the accepted conclusions of the committee. The Policy is fair to all users and turns on the facts rather than on the personalities involved. Ed Poor should not be sanctioned whether he agrees to it or not because of the effect on the community at large - Killing the messenger is never the solution. Benjamin Gatti 19:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Here here. --67.182.157.6 23:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Curious 3rd Party (   ( ! | ? | * ))
I think Ed Poor was deliberately demonstrating that the current system allows total abuse a.k.a. a cabal, in deleting VFD and then deleting any attempts to question this. Warnings from history are very important. ( ! | ? | * ) 21:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Statement by 3rd party: Nickptar
I don't see the need to prosecute Ed for this single act. While it was very poorly thought out, Ed has admitted it, has promised not to do it again, and has shown no pattern of disruption. I do think he should voluntarily give up adminship until this cools down, then renominate himself. If he did choose to do so, I would fully support his readminning. N (t/c) 21:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Tony Sidaway
Oh for heaven's sake, who brought this poxy, pointless, idiotic case? Grow up! --Tony Sidaway Talk 08:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Some comments on this statement have been moved to the appropriate place

Statement by Xiong
I don't doubt that there is an involved legal term, in bad Latin, that covers this case exactly. The facts of the matter are unimportant; the ostensible subject of this RfArb is petty, a constellation of secondary actions. The real subject is Ed's primary action: deleting VfD. That was a noble and bold act and has garnered much praise -- perhaps the largest number of barnstars awarded for any single click of the mouse. Ed has annoyed many, but these strong expressions of support -- as well as the following explosion of public debate on this contentious issue -- make it impossible to attack him directly.

Regardless of the technical merits of this case, any decision made here will be taken as condemnation or endorsement of Ed's primary action. I suggest that it is both wrong and unwise for ArbCom to commit to either. &mdash; Xiong&#29066; talk* 20:10, 2005 August 7 (UTC)

Statement by a 4th party (Lubaf)
I'm not at all interested in this case (thus my 4th party status), but I'd suggest holding this case until Stevertigo's behavior on Vietnam war (see above) is resolved, as it's a much clearer case, and therefore, should give better contrast as to whether Ed's actions were innappropriate or not. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 12:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I dont think its in the interest of fairness to pick and choose the order of cases to suit one particular view. Ed's action of deletion was done in the spirit of inclusionism (ironically) - to counter what was a greater percieved danger to wikipedia through deletionism. Certainly the act itself was somewhat unilateral, but then, much of Wikipedia's early success to date had been on rather unilteralist action, by editors well known for their dedication to Wikipedias core principle of NPOV.
 * Response by Stevertigo

As any beaurocracy grows, so to do contradictions develop between concepts of propriety and concepts of principle. War criminals can be found "innocent," while someone who steals pennies from a federally protected bank has "violated the law," and gets a life sentence. In this case, the act of unilaterally deleting a process page can be said to be inexcusable, yet, judging by the overwhelmingly positive responses of people on the mailing list, can also be said to have been in the spirit of consensus. Does foundational principle yield to mere matters of process? IAC, I am not alone in the perception that some beaurocratic shakeup and reform may be necessary, and that beaurocracy itself has made such BOLD changes unwieldy. In a sense this is a good thing, as it established continuity. But VFD in particular, in spite of the fact that its a necessary function, has had a long history of being misused and abused --providing only black and white solutions for greyscale issues and problems. Is the Arbcom interested only in enforcing existing rules, or making recommendations regarding changes of process? -St|eve 20:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Statement by 3rd Party Observer
To quote from Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Deletion_of_VFD :

 If anyone is due an apology, it is I. Uncle Ed 10:47, August 3, 2005 (UTC) 

If no action is taken, it will pave the way for further abuses of admin privileges. I would recommend de-sysopping, in line with User:Tim Starling and a majority of the community. Erwin Walsh 11:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Statement by 3rd Party Mr. Jones
As an admin, one has responsibility. If you make a mistake of this nature, you should face the consequences. Ed should emphatically not be an exception; justice must be seen to be done. I suggest a three-month ban on adminship with re-application by the normal route.

The odd way in which Ed treated the RfC is disturbing, and suggests a contempt for process, though it could be explained in other ways. His other actions with respect to pushing through admins are also worrying. I think Ed should be considered on his "last strike", and should be stripped of sysop and bureacrat powers, with other measures to be considered, in case of further inappropriate actions. He would be able to continue to contribute to wikipedia, but would have to request administrative actions by the normal routes, having shown he could not be trusted with the responsibility. Mr. Jones 13:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Statement by 3rd party Curps
The trouble with Ed is that sometimes he mistakes himself for Jimbo Wales. -- Curps 19:16, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Statement by 3rd party Paul August
I think this case should be accepted. Not because I think Ed should be punished, but so that the perception will not be that someone like Ed can get away with things that others couldn't. Such a perception will foster the notion that Wikipedia is run by the "Cabal", or an "old boy's network" or an insider's "elite", or whatever you choose to call it. Such an idea is pernicious, and detrimental to Wikipedia. Such a perception has already helped to convince one of the best editors I know Filiocht, to leave the project, quoting from his user talk page:
 * Ed's vandalism of the project (or "mistake", if you prefer) should be dealt with in the same way that it would be if anyone else had done the things he did. The fact that it won't be confirms what I have long suspected, which is that there is, in fact, a kind of loose-knit, de facto cabal at work here.

Paul August &#9742; 21:26, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Statement by FuelWagon (RFA Ed Poor)
"I am frankly not sure I have any "right" to block other users at all, in situations such as you described above. Basically, I'm getting away with it because I've been around a long time, and my "bold" moves more often than not have had good results for the project. In another words, people trust my judgment (or at least my motives)." --Ed Poor 

"You're entitled to form whatever opinion you want, but not always to express it. There is "no freedom of speech" at Wikipedia in the same sense as America's First Amendment. I happen to think you're an asshole and a shit head, and that you're fucking everything up, you stupd, time-wasting bully!!! (This is inserted as an example of a forbidden comment, go ahead and complain about me if you want, but I was illustrating a point." --Ed Poor

posted 23:45, 29 August 2005 by FuelWagon

While acting as mediator for the Terri Schiavo article, Ed Poor blocked one of the edtiors of the article (me) for violating NPA against another editor of the article (SlimVirgin). I didn't protest that particular block, even though a mediator is not a security guard. (I accepted the block as a way of restoring integrity for breaking policy, and I posted a full apology on SlimVirgin's talk page. .) After my first block, Ed Poor and SlimVirgin were coordinating with each other (21:41, 12 July 2005)  (17:05, 13 July 2005)  (17:05, 13 July 2005)  (18:07, 13 July 2005) This last diff shows Ed asking SlimVirgin if there were "any particular talk pages" he should look at. Two hours later (20:34, 13 July 2005), Ed Poor guts any comments on my talk page about the Terri Shiavo article, moves them to a /block subdirectory , locks me out of editing my talk page, and explains that it was because I hadn't told him how I "intend to help this project" (which is an odd reason for getting blocked), and then he added that I was making "personal remarks" on my talk page. There are no personal remarks on the content that Ed Poor moved. None. The entire content can be seen here..

Back on the Terri Schiavo article, User:Neuroscientist posted 5,000 word explanation to SlimVirgin regarding numerous technical inaccuracies in her edits. Ed Poor made a rare appearance on the talk page to warn Neuroscientist not to "hurt other editor's feelings". However, Ed Poor was silent on numerous accusations leveled by SlimVirgin against several editors on the article, which included "POV pushing", "taking ownership of the page" , "violating NPOV and No original research" , and "arguing for the sake of arguing".

After the block expired, I filed an RFC against SlimVirgin. It was supported by 4 editors on the page. At one point, Ed Poor initially supported the RFC, however quickly after his endorsement, he withdrew his support and attacked the RFC on the talk page as a "sneaky way of building a case against an administrator", "gaming the system in a hypocrical way", and suggested I drop the RFC. 

I eventually withdrew my certification of the RFC to allow it to be deleted. Some time after that, Ed Poor posts this to me :


 * I happen to think you're an asshole and a shit head, and that you're fucking everything up, you stupd, time-wasting bully!!! (This is inserted as an example of a forbidden comment, go ahead and complain about me if you want, but I was illustrating a point.

Not surprisingly, the Terri Schiavo mediation page ended with most editors voting "unresolved".

I believe Ed Poor failed to maintain any neutrality as mediator on the Terri Shiavo article, to the point of coordinating with SlimVirgin, blocking me at SlimVirgin's request, warning editors who commented on SlimVirgin's editing behaviour while ignoring SlimVirgin's false accusations made against other editors, defending SlimVirgin on the RFC, attacking the RFC as bullying, suggesting the editors drop the RFC, and attacking an editor behind the thin veil of "I was illustrating a point". FuelWagon 15:50, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Clarifying some things for SlimVirgin based on her comments below:

In her comments below, SlimVirgin says "Ed didn't block FW at my request;" SlimVirgin knew I was blocked but still editing 12 minutes after I modified my talk page. Whether SlimVirgin asked for the first block, I'm not sure, but SlimVirgin knew about it and saw me make an edit on my talk page and posted to Ed 12 minutes later. A request or coordination, I'm not sure. However, after the first block, SlimVirgin tells Ed she's not keen on the idea of an editor being able to edit their talk page while blocked because talk pages will turn into "diatribes" against the blocking admin, Ed posts a message about diatribes saying "you make a good point." , then Ed asks SlimVirgin "Any particular talk pages I should look at?" . He asks that question at 18:07, 13 July 2005. Two hours later (20:34, 13 July 2005), Ed locks my page.

Either that one was by request or it was an amazing coincidence.

SlimVirgin also says below that "it worked: the personal attacks stopped". Well, that isn't an exact report of what happened. Actually, before the first block from Ed, I had gone through the talk page and cleaned up all of my comments. Ed even acknowledged that he was aware of my cleanup attempts here, (which makes me believe the first block was more likely a request from SlimVirgin than Ed taking it upon himself) So, the personal attacks stopped before the first block. the second block was completely unjustified. There was nothing on my page that qualified as a violation of No Personal Attacks. SlimVirgin told Ed about "diatribes", he asked SlimVirgin if there was a particular page he should look at, and by coincidence or coordination, Ed guts my talk page and blocks me from editing it two hours later. FuelWagon 07:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Statement by SlimVirgin
This is a statement in Ed's defense in response to FuelWagon's, above. FW was blocked by Ed for disruption at Talk:Terri Schiavo for inter alia making several serious personal attacks. This was part of the process of Ed sorting out a longstanding dispute in which a small group of editors appeared to have taken ownership of a page. Ed didn't block FW at my request; I didn't know about the block until after the fact. Ed should be commended, not criticized, for involving himself and for trying to change the way certain editors were interacting with others. He meant well, and it worked: the personal attacks stopped. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:50, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Statement by 3rd party Fvw
I know this case already has too many statements so I'll be as brief as possible: I don't doubt Ed's good intentions however I no longer trust his ability to live up to his vow to stop taking unilateral actions, considering how he handled Requests_for_comment/User_names/Trollderella I don't think he is fit to be an admin or a bureaucrat. Should all the initiators of this case have withdrawn (I'm not entirely clear on who's withdrawn and who hasn't) I'd like to take over this case. --fvw* 03:40, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Comment on recent behavior
The arbitrators may wish to read Ed Poor's reactions in Requests_for_comment/User_names/Trollderella. In particular, Ed renamed User:Trollderella to User:EnduranceFan claiming that it was an inappropriate username; some people contest this and feel Ed has acted against consensus. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 12:36, August 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey, while you're at it, you can watch Ed abuse his admin role on someone who spoke up in disagreement with his heavy handed forced renaming of all users named troll.* here apparently unfunny remarks directed at nameless individuals which no one has complained about are now worthy of an "admin warning." Hipocrite 23:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't really think Ed was that far from right on that. I think he should have given Trollderella a week or so to request a new name to be changed to. It's not exactly an appropriate name, but it's likely he/she was thinking about another kind of troll (Probably the plastic ones with the wild hair, or the ones that live under bridges..), and was not aware of what it meant in this sense. I, and others, have talked to Ed about this on IRC, and he agrees it was a mistake. In fact, I had to talk him out of changing the name back. That would probably just make the person more mad or confused. -- Phroziac (talk) 17:11, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Trollderella (or someone claiming to be them) has repeatedly requested that their name be changed back . However, it would seem that they refuse to log in as EnduranceFan and have left until/unless someone restores their username; certainly they haven't logged in since Ed changed it. Aquillion 17:37, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * How can you request it be changed back without proving it's who you are by logging in? *sigh*. Also, lets not forget that a lot of admins would simply have perm blocked them. -- Phroziac (talk) 22:26, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * An admin did block them, way back when: . They were promptly unblocked by another admin, who cited a general consensus that usernames with 'troll' in them are acceptable; to my knowledge, that consensus has not been directly challenged. Judging from that, I suspect that the only reason this hasn't been undone is because renaming is currently done by a more select group. Likewise, we don't need a direct statement from Trollderella to infer that they didn't want their username changed to "EnduranceFan" unilaterally; "Trollderella" is the username they selected when they joined Wikipedia, and if they want a different one there are channels open to request it.  Absent such requests, we must assume that Trollderella remains their preference, and that they would therefore prefer that it be changed back. Aquillion 22:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)