Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, Arbitrators will vote at /Proposed decision.. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Revert parole for Ed Poor
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I think probation will work better. You seem to have a political agenda and have repeatedly disrupted articles which concern that agenda. Fred Bauder 18:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The only "agenda" I have is to point out the FACT that many topics contain matters of dispute between political forces; and to IDENTIFY what those disputes are; and to DESCRIBE what each side in that dispute says. This is the DEFINITION of neutrality, not a violation of it.
 * If it's "disrupting an article" to do this, then of course I am wrong. In that case, probation will not be enough. Because I believe it is CORRECT for me to identify disputes and to describe each side fairly. What am I "disrupting" when I point out that a significant group (minority or even 50-50) DISAGREES with the POV of another group?


 * How is it "disruptive" to point out that many people consider Mao a mass murderer for starving to death tens of millions of Chinese? I'm not using Wikipedia to assert that he **IS** a murderer; I'm only inserting the FACT that he has been accused of this. This is not the same as asserting that he's guilty. It's only saying that (1) there exists a "side" which regards him as guilty; and that (2) the size or importance of this group is sufficient to warrant inclusion of their POV in an article which fairly describes all points of view. --Uncle Ed 14:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I think I should be placed on a 40-day, 1RR parole:
 * I have indeed engaged in edit-warring, which is beneath the standards I have set for myself and publicly announced. It also has hurt Wikipedia.
 * From now on, I will follow the standard dispute resolution proces, instead of simply "reverting unexplained reversions"
 * If I can do this on my own (as a measure of self-imposed discipline), all the better; otherwise, the ArbCom should take stronger action. --Uncle Ed 13:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The ArbCom may find it interesting that even as Ed proposes the above, he continues to edit war   and make disrupting the article to make points. JoshuaZ 16:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC) Also note   similar behavior on macroevolution. JoshuaZ 16:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If this is "evidence" please put it in the proper place. By the way, none of these edits was part of an edit war (on my part). Each was a separate idea, and each was immediately reverted. I would say that the reverters were edit warring - not me.
 * Yes, and the Japanese blamed the Americans for the need to bomb Pearl Harbor, and the Germans blamed the Poles for the need to invade Poland, and ...  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  23:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In general, given the long term nature of this problem a 40 day 1RR seems at best less than sufficient. JoshuaZ 23:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

NPOV should be clarifed
2) The matter should be returned to Mediation, for clarification of several points:
 * What is the difference between (a) fair expression of all significant points of view regarding a subject, and (b) Tendentious editing?
 * When is it a NPOV violation or "disruption of an article" to add information about a point of view which is unpopular (inside or outside Wikipedia)?
 * How many people (outside of Wikipedia) must endorse, assert or advocate a POV on a controversial subject before that POV becomes important enough to merit description in an article, as opposed to a "violation of undue weight"?


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Apart from the "edit warring", which I've already agreed was wrong, this whole thing is based on misunderstandings and lack of clarity about NPOV policy. Rather than making me a scapegoat, Wikipedia should clear up the expression of its policies. --Uncle Ed 14:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Questions to the parties
=Proposed final decision=

Edit warring
1) Edit wars or revert wars are usually considered harmful, because they cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles. Editors are encourage to explore alternate methods of dispute resolution, such as negotiation, surveys, requests for comment, mediation, or arbitration.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Uncle Ed: I agree with this and I profoundly regret my edit warring on the Evolution and Global Warming series of articles. Henceforth, I will limit myself to 1RR/day on these articles, and will use the standard dispute resolution process. (I am embarassed to note that I am credited with establishing the Harmonious editing club but that I myself have not edited harmoniously enough in these two areas. Shame on me, and I hereby promise to turn over a new leaf. --Uncle Ed 13:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Added by Stifle (talk) 12:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ed Poor 6 weeks ago "Okay, I lost my temper. I admit it. But I have cooled off now. Let's see if I can turn over a new leaf, eh?" &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  22:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * On a similar note in May, "I used to think I carried some sort of "authority" to settle edit wars. My new perspective is different. Being right a lot of the time is no excuse for being overzealous. I no longer feel compelled to straighten everything out. From now on, I merely plant seeds" &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  22:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
2) 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. Wikipedia articles are not a platform for advocacy regarding one or another point of view regarding the topic.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * You are conflating two policies Fred Bauder 09:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * NPOV contemplates inclusion of point of view. It is not inappropriate to insist that a point of view be included. That is not advocacy, but fulfillment of NPOV. Fred Bauder 18:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I am completely innocent of the charge of using Wikipedia articles as a platform of advocacy for any point of view. I have merely described some points of view which oppose the mainstream. I never have worded these descriptions in such a way as to make the article endorse these POVs.


 * If in my 30,000 edits I have accidentally inserted wording that describes a POV as "true" (rather than as "advocated by X"), I have always either fixed this myself or prominently thanked my fellow editors for fixing it!


 * If I'm advocating something, what is it? And where have I done it? My accusers refuse to say, simply assuming as a given that "I have a habit of it" and "they've already explained this to me"; well if they have, why don't they quote (or at least 'diff') these explanations in the RFArb? --Uncle Ed 15:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * One should not forget the problem of undue weight which Ed seems to ignore (or as in his initial RfAr statement seems to express contempt for). JoshuaZ 19:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Submitted for consideration by Stifle (talk) 12:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have seen the charge of "undue weight" stretched quite far in the past... but never before to the point of saying that inclusion of the beliefs of 'Intelligent Design advocates' (or 'Global warming detractors') is giving 'undue weight' to a minor POV. If that's a 'minor' POV then so is 'gravity'. Unless the claim is that Ed was trying to change the article to spend significantly more time on 'pro ID' views than 'anti ID' views (which does not seem supportable by the evidence) there is no 'undue weight' issue here. ID proponents constitute a significant portion of the population (though moreso in the US, where the movement originated) and their views absolutely should be given roughly equal time in an article which by its very title is about those views. I've looked at the 'Ed violations of NPOV' links on the evidence page and have yet to see one which has Wikipedia stating a disputed POV... and indeed several that appear to be NPOV violations by his detractors. For instance, this link was, bizarrely, presented as evidence of Ed violating NPOV. Read the text he removed. It puts Wikipedia itself (not some other cited source) in the position of directly contradicting the 'scientific origin' claims of ID proponents. Anyone thinking that Ed's change was "POV pushing" completely misunderstands the concept. We should never have text where Wikipedia itself states something that is disputed by a large population of people - that is the very essence of NPOV and the text Ed removed was a clear violation of it. The essential argument here seems to be, 'we all got together and developed a consensus of what is right, so this is the 'neutral' version'. That's 'consensus POV'... not neutral POV, and it absolutely isn't what we should be doing. I do agree that article leads on disputed topics should not contain even referenced POV, because the goal there is to state the concept and any dispute about it as succinctly as possible. However, I note that Ed was not alone in incorporating 'advocacy' into the leads. --CBD 11:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * CBD, note that Ed wasn't claiming that the sentence removed in the above dif was false or POV or not sufficiently cited. He was claiming that it was redundant. And in any event, even Demsbki and Behe say that their ideas were inspired by their religious convictions. So your above point doesn't make much sense. There are two further problems with your comment above. First, that "ID proponents constitute a significant portion of the population" is unsupported, and you have offered absolutely no sources, and this in fact runs counter to existing sources in that article and others. Second, the issue is not whether ID proponents constitute a significant portion of the population" but what proportion of the practicing scientific community accept ID since ID proponents claim ID  is valid science and evolution (the modern synthesis) is not. How many lay people delieve in ID is irrelevant to that point. Focusing on the opinions of lay people and not that of the scientific community is an excellent example of undue weight. JoshuaZ 18:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "...the issue is not whether ID proponents constitute a significant portion of the population"... Says who? That is exactly the issue - the very root of NPOV. "How many lay people delieve in ID is irrelevant...". No, it really really isn't. It's the only thing which IS relevant. "Focusing on the opinions of lay people and not that of the scientific community is an excellent example of undue weight." That sentence is an excellent example of POV bias and a complete misunderstanding of Wikipedia's 'undue weight' principle. If the entire scientific community believed in ID and everyone else did not then including the scientific view as anything more than a brief rejoinder (held by a tiny percentage of people) would be 'undue weight'. Since in fact there are large groups on either side both should be fully represented. Ask yourself for a moment... why do we have a NPOV policy? Why not just establish a consensus of what editors here believe and write that up? The answer, which I hope everyone can see, is that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia for everyone. So when 'Joe Irrelevant', the ID proponent, clicks on a Wikipedia article he doesn't get something which says his beliefs are a sham. It can say that 'Suzie Scientist' has said his beliefs are a sham because of X, Y, and Z... but it had better give the standard rejoinders by 'Ike IDer' as well. How can you possibly believe that, "Focusing on the opinions... of the scientific community", is anything like 'neutral point of view'? Especially for an article on a topic whose very core is the claim that the scientific community is biased and ignoring evidence agaisnt their theories? The "opinions of the scientific community" are NOT special in this regard. They do not inherently take precedence over other views. We aren't here to write from the 'scientific POV'. We aren't supposed to be creating 'Truth'. We're supposed to be writing an encyclopedia... a collection of human knowledge and belief. Which anyone (barring tiny minorities which could not possibly all be represented) can read and not say to themselves, 'Well THAT was biased'. An article on Intelligent Design written to conform to the views of the majority of the scientific community does not pass that test and is not neutral point of view. It is easy and understandable to think 'science = correct' and proceed from there, but in cases where there are significant populations who disagree with that formulation we cannot do it... or we are writing an encyclopedia for people who believe as the majority of Wikipedians do, rather than an encyclopedia for everyone. --CBD 11:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Intelligent design and global warming skepticism are both verifiably well within the bounds of being small minority viewpoints within the realm where they stake their claims, science. Claiming they are not or implying otherwise is to give 'undue weight' to a minor POV. Mentioning the common perception is one thing, but overemphasizing it to distract from the scientific consensus is POV pushing. Furthermore, the link which Dunkerson claims shows Ed only removing unsourced material, not promoting a POV, actually shows Ed removing a fact, not a viewpoint; one that is supported there and elsewhere by ruling in the Dover trial cited in the article, something Dunkerson and Ed would know were they familiar with the subject material. JoshuaZ 14:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't say he 'only removed unsourced material'. I said he removed material violating Wikipedia's 'neutral point of view' policy. That you above now call it "fact, not a viewpoint" is the very heart of my point. The 'Dover trial' agrees with you. Guess what? That still doesn't make it "fact". Again, we are not here to define 'Truth'. Your viewpoint may be held by an overwhelming majority of scientists. It may be consistent with the findings of the Dover trial. It may be supported by a majority of people. But it is still a viewpoint, and one which is clearly disputed by a very large population of people. Therefor you cannot put Wikipedia in the position of stating it as a "fact". The neutral point of view policy exists precisely to keep that from happening. The article can quote Judge Jones saying that, 'ID is a mere repackaging of creationism, not a scientific theory'... but it CANNOT have Wikipedia itself saying that, as it did and you are insisting it should. ID proponents claim that it is a scientific theory. That it is supported by and arises out of scientific research. Yes, a majority of people reject those claims... but we are not building a 'majority POV' encyclopedia. We are building a neutral POV encyclopedia... and stating as "fact" that those claims are false is not neutral. It puts Wikipedia in the position of taking a side - and insults/alienates the people on the other side. --CBD 11:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I did not articulate what I was saying clearly. First, in the dif in the edit summary Ed asserts that the sentence is "redundant" not that it is not NPOV so claiming that the sentence is POV is a red-herring anyways. Second of all, we don't in the article on Earth note that there are still flat-earthers. Some opinions are minor enough to be subject to being undue weight. Third, no one (not even the ID proponents) disputes the truth of this sentence. The ID proponents all freely agree that there the major motivations were religious and evangelical christian and relevant sources are given in that article and in the ID article where they do so. So to claim there is even a factual dispute here indicates a gross misunderstanding of the underlying material. Dunkerson, to be blunt, it might be helpful if you actually read the relevant articles and their sources before you continue commenting on matters you don't know much or understand. At minimum, please pay attention to edit summaries in the difs you are discussing. JoshuaZ 14:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * First, you have now repeatedly accused me of not knowing the subject matter - in a notably condescending manner. You can have no idea of what I do and do not know and thus simply seem to be using insult as a matter of course. Ed is to be congratulated for dealing with such incivility as well as he did. Second, your claim that "ID proponents all freely agree that the major motivations were religious and evangelical christian" is obviously false on its face. Had that been the case why would there even have BEEN a 'Dover trial'? Did ID proponents at the Dover trial not argue, quite insistently, that it wasn't religious in nature, but rather scientific? Is the text in Wikipedia's article on the subject, citing that the defense's opening statement, "argued that the policy did not have a 'religious agenda.'", false? If they "freely agree" that it is Christian in nature why do our articles say that they try to leave the nature of the "designer or designers" unstated? The fact is that the only way around the establishment clause is to cast ID as NOT religious in nature, and thus they have striven to do so publically and argued that way in legal proceedings.
 * You are apparently trying to say that there was no NPOV violation because no one disputes that ID is 'christian religious neo-creationism' as stated in the text Ed removed. However, it is patently obvious that ID proponents have spent alot of time and effort denying that their movement is religious rather than scientific, just a repackaging of creationism, and specifically Christian in nature... rather than 'freely admitting' any of these things as you claim. Presumably you are 'building' on the fact that various individuals have made statements to supporters or in unguarded moments which seem to suggest that their public denials of religious/christian basis are false to construct this claim that they "freely agree", but... they clearly do not. More they CANNOT. The entire ID effort is founded on the premise that it is scientific in nature and thus cannot be prohibitted by the establishment clause as a religious view would be.
 * There are similar problems with your comparison of the ID movement to the flat earth society, presumably to invoke 'undue weight'. Again, any claim that they are at all comparable in size is just obviously not true. According to a 2001 Zogby poll 78% of respondents said they felt that if evolution were taught in schools then Intelligent Design should be too. I'm pretty sure that 78% don't feel flat earth views should be taught... and there's just NO way inclusion of the views of something with that kind of support can be called "undue weight". Those numbers have dropped since 2001, but it is still absolutely nothing like the 'small fringe belief' you are trying to paint it as.
 * As shown by all of the above, the text Ed removed violated NPOV. I can indeed read edit summaries (thanks for the additional gratuitous put-down)... but if you go back to the start of this thread you will see that I brought it up because >Ed< was accused of violating NPOV for removing that text. That's just not true. The text itself was a blatant NPOV violation and thus Ed removing it, for whatever reason, was not. 'To be blunt', I can't believe that you have even attempted to argue that IDers are a tiny minority and 'freely agree' to things inherently anti-thetical to their movement. It's absurd... and shows at a minimum that Ed was not alone in any 'tendentious editing' and 'POV pushing' which went on. --CBD 12:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * First, let me apologize if you found any of my comments condescending or insulting. I am beginning to see how it might make sense to strike this dif as an example of an NPOV problem, especially since there are so many other, much more clear cut examples. However, I will attempt to deal with your above points since there are some genuine issues here. First, Demsbki, Behe et al. agree that there motivations "were" religious (note the tense in both phrasing and the sentence that Ed removed). Most of them would argue that it has evolved(if you would pardon the pun) far beyond that initial seed of motivation/inspiration. In fact, the point of the Dover trial was not to establish that ID had any religious roots but that it still was religious in nature. The decision made in Dover was that ID was so intertwined with its religious roots that it was problematic on 1st Amendment grounds. As to your other points, if you would prefer an example other than flat earthism I can easily provide it. Most Americans think that antibiotics can kill viruses. I don't think you would suggest that you list this as an alternative viewpoint on that article. Similiarly, a large number (I think by some studies up to 30%) think that the earth takes 24 hours to complete its orbit. Again, the beliefs of the lay people are simply not relevant. In Cardinal number we don't need to deal with the substantial fraction of the population who thinks that "infinity is not a number" or "all infinities are equal" or anything like that. Furthermore, the Zogby poll doesn't even say what you claimed it says. 78% agreed with the statement "When Darwin's theory of evolution is taught in school, students should also be able to learn about scientific evidence that points to an intelligent design of life." Heck, I'd be inclined to agree with that statement. It makes no claim that such evidence exists but if there were any such evidence of course I'd be in favor of kids examining it. Finally, even if I agreed with you that the removal of the sentence was in fact removing POV that still leaves a massive problem: Ed's edit summary doesn't make any comment about removing POV. He made no claim he was removing POV just that he was removing redundant material. So even if Ed's actions were correct (which they weren't) he was removing it for the wrong reasons. That would mean he was attempting to POV push and only wasn't POV pushing on this particular dif because he got lucky. JoshuaZ 14:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe Fred thinks that the two sentences should be separated into two proposals. The second statement seems more like What Wikipedia is not. Maybe I do not know what I'm talking about. ;-) FloNight   talk  18:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Possibly, I'm still confused about what Fred has stated, especially in regard to NPOV including the undue weight section which among other things says " views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all." JoshuaZ 18:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The two points are related but not identical. If due weight is the issue then say that. If advocacy is the issue then make a proposal based on What Wikipedia is not. Mixing them together is a mistake because one involves editorial discretion and the other does not allow for it. Hope you can see the difference. -- FloNight  talk  19:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

---

I would suggest that the two sentences in the statement


 * 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. Wikipedia articles are not a platform for advocacy regarding one or another point of view regarding the topic.

have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. The two concerns are as independent in dangers, opportunities, standards, and purposes as are the prohibitions against 1) murder and 2) burglary. Both may happen in the same unfortunate series of events--or either may happen in the absence of the other. --Rednblu 19:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Civility
3) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably in their dealings with other users and to observe the principles of assuming good faith, civility, and the writers' rules of engagement. If disputes arise, users are expected to use dispute resolution procedures instead of making personal attacks.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Uncle Ed: I need some clarification. Is it a violation to tell one user that some other users "reverted without comment"? (Jim accused me of WP:NPA for this.) --Uncle Ed 13:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Submitted for consideration by Stifle (talk) 12:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Consensus
4) As put forward in Dispute resolution, Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion, in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of Policies and guidelines such as Neutral point of view.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

NPOV and Undue Weight
1) 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. However, NPOV also mandates that minority viewpoints not be given undue weight and that "views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all."


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed by me as a split of Stifle's above proposal. JoshuaZ 19:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * I hereby propose the standard English dictionary as a safe harbor standard for "Due weight" that is "Weighting of points-of-view that is not Undue weight." The first dictionary definition should get the most weight and the others should get the weight corresponding to their order in the dictionary definition.  --Rednblu 19:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Um, what? JoshuaZ 19:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

---

The evidence presented of User:Ed Poor's crimes of Undue weight consist of User:Ed Poor insisting that Wikipedia present POVs with the relative weights of the standard English dictionary. I give just one example in which the current accusations and this proceeding itself violate any reasonable interpretation of "Undue weight," and I leave the other malformed accusations against User:Ed Poor for the reader's convenient exercise and edification.

User:Ed Poor is accused of a "classic example of undue weight: ." 

Well, let's consult the standard English dictionary and we find the following as the second definition of the adjective human: "Having or showing those positive aspects of nature and character regarded as distinguishing humans from other animals." Hence, in actuality User:Ed Poor was insisting that the Wikipedia page should represent the relative weights in points-of-view held by reputable experts in the subject, as evidenced by the relative rankings in definitions by the board of editors of the standard English dictionary.

Accordingly, it would appear that the entirety of this accusation and proceeding against User:Ed Poor is a well-meaning but misinformed attempt to silence User:Ed Poor and thereby to impose Undue weight against the collection of Wikipedia articles in which User:Ed Poor has been editing. --Rednblu 20:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm puzzled by your comment. The above defintion in fact goes exactly against what you are saying. human: "Having or showing those positive aspects of nature and character regarded as distinguishing humans from other animals." (emphasis added). So that defintion is in complete agreement with the non-Ed version of the text. JoshuaZ 22:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Understood. We have no arguments one with the other.  We are merely presenting the facts to the jury of public opinion.  And our facts do not agree.  That is, if you cannot see the difference between the non-Ed version and User:Ed Poor's rendition of human is "Having or showing those positive aspects of nature and character regarded as distinguishing humans from other animals" (emphasis added), then you should retract this proceeding against User:Ed Poor because you haven't a logical complaint.  You merely point to two cited parts of NPOV not in agreement. --Rednblu 22:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for Advocacy
1) Wikipedia articles are not a platform for advocacy regarding one or another point of view regarding the topic.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Splitting per comments above. JoshuaZ 19:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Good behaviour does not entirely excuse bad behaviour
7) While users with a long history of good and constructive contributions to Wikipedia may receive more forbearance for shortcomings and misdemeanours, nobody (save Jimbo Wales) is totally exempt from action being taken against them for inappropriate conduct.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * May need to be redacted to aid readability. Stifle (talk) 12:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you mean redacted or retracted? &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  21:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Is it really necessary to exempt James Wales? --ScienceApologist 01:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral point of view
1) Neutral point of view contemplates fair expression of all significant points of view regarding a subject.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 14:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I will need an explanation of the difference between (1) adding information which expresses a significant point of view and (2) tendentious editing. If an article on China, for example, says 2 million people died in a famine; but a published source says the number is 60 million, is it "tendentious editing" to add the latter? Or would I be improving the article so that it conforms with NPOV? --Uncle Ed 10:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It does not come down to individual facts, but to sustained, aggressive biased editing. Fred Bauder 12:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Does "biased editing" refer to contributions which result in the article being less neutral than before? Does this refer to (1) any single edit, (2) an entire series of edits by one user, or (3) the cumulative effect of the interaction between an editor and others?


 * If User X adds information on why Barney the Dinosaur is "evil, gross, and stupid" is this a biased editing? Is it still biased editing if he comes back in 10 minutes and changes the wording so it says "Barney opponents say that Barney is evil, gross and stupid"? Better yet, if X knows that several contributors are Barney supporters and will be sure to balance the article with pro-Barney info; and if within a short period of time the supporters actually do this; and if the result is a balanced article - THEN have any of these editors engaged in "biased editing"? --Uncle Ed 20:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

NPOV trumps "consensus"
2) Neutral point of view is the fundamental policy of Wikipedia. Consensus, the recommended method of making decision on Wikipedia, contemplates solutions which take into account all reasonable considerations regarding a matter. With respect to article content NPOV is always an overriding consideration.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 14:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * This is a tad confusing because I was under the impression that NPOV was only determinable by consensus. Is NPOV subject to verifiability? Can we really research and "verify" whether an article is neutral? Or is this an editorial opinion left to consensus? --ScienceApologist 19:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Wiki process
3) The wiki process contemplates continued editing of most articles, thus continual re-negotiation of most issues regarding the subject.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 16:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * While I don't think anyone would disagree with this principle, it is not an excuse to repeatedly bring up the same issue on the same article. JoshuaZ 22:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If the article doesn't meet NPOV standards there is no limit. Fred Bauder 01:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And if it does? JoshuaZ 01:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

--- (providing context for the question, copied from above)


 * If the article doesn't meet NPOV standards there is no limit. Fred Bauder 01:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And if it does? JoshuaZ 01:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Show me a page please that 1) met NPOV standards and then 2) User:Ed Poor followed by inserting POV with Undue Weight that is not held by a cited and significant portion of educated Wikipedia readers. Evidently, you and User:Ed Poor have very different ideas of what is the NPOV standard for the proper weighting among POVs on a page.  I have not found in your diffs yet a scenario in which the page 1) met NPOV standards and then 2) User:Ed Poor followed by inserting POV with Undue Weight that is not held by a cited and significant portion of educated Wikipedia readers.  Could you suggest an example of a page that "met NPOV" standards before User:Ed Poor tilted it?  --Rednblu 14:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting. You show the inherent subjective nature of NPOV when you state that you "have not found in your diffs yet a scenario in which the page 1) met NPOV standards and then...".  This says as much or more about your own view of NPOV as it does about Ed's or Josh's.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  21:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I suggest you cut the above ad hominem to my TalkPage where I would be glad to respond to it in the proper place if you give me time, my friend. You may cut this response at the same time if you please.  Meanwhile, it surely would be important for someone to provide one example of a page that 1) met NPOV standards and then 2) User:Ed Poor followed by inserting POV with Undue Weight that is not held by a cited and significant portion of educated Wikipedia readers.  This would be important because then we could examine the various tendentious edits surrounding that wrongful edit, whether the tendentious edits have been done by a lone editor or by a group of editors tilting the page toward one partisan vector. --Rednblu 02:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Ban for disruption
1) Users who disrupt editing by tendentious editing or other disruptive behavior may be banned from affected articles.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 18:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Good research practice
1) Improving Wikipedia articles is ideally done through use of verifiable and reliable sources. Good research techniques are essential for the improvement of Wikipedia articles.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed by ScienceApologist

Polling data
1) Use of polling data can give a measure of how controversial a subject is, but cannot be used as a means to determine the verifiability of a subject. For example, a poll that states that 45% of the American public believes in some form of Young Earth creationism may indicate how controversial certain scientific topics are but does not indicate whether any of those scientific subjects is unverified.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed by ScienceApologist
 * Surely the publication of the poll results by a reputable source, such as the Gallup Organization, would verify what were the subjects' responses in the poll, would it not? --Rednblu 02:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you missed SA's point - he said "but cannot be used as a means to determine the verifiability of a subject". Your comment refers to the verifiability of a poll's result (which is a separate issue).  Guettarda 03:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess I did misunderstand SA's point in the phrase "but cannot be used as a means to determine the verifiability of a subject" because I cannot parse it logically to mean anything more than what WP:Verifiability already says--which is that it is not possible to determine the verifiability of a subject; you can verify only published statements about a subject. That is, you could verify by citing to poll data that 85% of a poll sample of Americans said that "emergence of new species did not happen without God's intervention"--if that is what the reputable poll source published.  --Rednblu 05:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This isn't just a restatement of WP:V this is stating that just because a poll indicates that "X percent of Y population have Z opinion" does not make Z encyclopedic, nor can it serve as a reference for including wording that is about Z's content. The only thing a poll does is give information about the poll, not the subject of the poll. --ScienceApologist 19:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Contributors' points of view
1) Every contributor to Wikipedia has a perspective and a point-of-view. No one is immune. Therefore, contributors should take seriously suggestions that their contributions fail to conform to netural point-of-view standards.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Suggested by ScienceApologist

Read the archives
1) In many popular articles, a considerable amount of archived talkpage discussions has developed dealing with issues surrounding editting the article. In such cases, new contributors should be prepared to read the archives if other editors can point to previous relevant discussions.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * While this may be a good thing in practice for specific archives, some pages (such as intelligent design which seems to be one of the ones relevant to this proposal) can have extensive archives. This therefore makes sense subject to the caveat that editors who ask others to look at the archives should be able/willing to point to specific sections of the archives and not force the new contributors to slog through all of the archives. JoshuaZ 18:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This is why included in this is the important qualifier "if other editors can point to previous relevant discussions." For example, at the top of the Talk: Intelligent design page is a list of links to discussions about common topics that come up in discussions. --ScienceApologist 14:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Suggested by ScienceApologist

Research requirements in determination of (N)POV
1) Whenever attempting to edit an article to make it conform to a neutral perspective, verifiability and reliable sourcing of the new or reworded content is important to consider. Contributors who rewrite articles without engaging in appropriate research procedures run the risk of introducing unreferenced opinions and errors of fact.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed by ScienceApologist

No duty to remove POV or Undue weight from Wikipedia pages
1) The good editor does not have a duty to remove POV and does not have a duty to remove Undue weight from Wikipedia pages. In some cases in the face of determined opposition, it may be good for the Wikipedia community and avoid tendentious editing to leave POV and Undue weight in Wikipedia pages for years.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed Rednblu 07:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This reads like a suggestion to people that when faced with "determined opposition" a "good editor" will sacrifice the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia and allow horrible edits to stand. --ScienceApologist 19:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep. Thanks for your comment.  Keeping in mind that "horrible" is in the eye of the beholder, it appears that this proceeding is asking User:Ed Poor to leave the pages of Wikipedia that he cares most about in "horrible" condition with crucial parts of NPOV missing or misrepresented.  --Rednblu 22:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It is better to lose the edit war than to win it
2) The good editor is the one who loses the edit war by resisting the temptation to make the reversion that will restore NPOV or remove Undue weight.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed Rednblu 07:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Ed Poor has been incivil
1) In his interactions with other users, including reporting them for infringements of rules that clearly did not exist, Ed Poor has been incivil.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * It's not uncivil to report incivility. Nor is it uncivil to be a bit unclear about how nasty someone can be without quite crossing the line of "making a personal attack". --Uncle Ed 19:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Submitted for consideration by Stifle (talk) 12:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I would argue that it is incivil to report a 3RR violation with only three reverts. Stifle (talk) 12:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The bailiff doesn't get to argue.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  23:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think Stifle is functioning as a clerk here. JoshuaZ 00:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Stifle, no offense, it was a bad joke (at the end of a bad day, a day that had one redeeming factor: it was Friday) &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  11:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * None taken. Stifle (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Ed Poor has pushed a POV
2) While attempting to bring articles in line with WP:NPOV, Ed Poor has, inadvertently or otherwise, ended up pushing a POV of his own.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I'd like to know what POV this is supposed to be, and to see several examples of "pushing" it in articles. --Uncle Ed 19:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the POV I noticed you push takes the form of: 1)that there is a liberal bias in science, 2)that where this supposed "liberal bias" appears conservative disputants make reliable and verifiable criticism of it that ultimately constitutes legitimate scientific controversy, 3)the playing field is level with respect to these disputes: the sources that (a) support the existence of a liberal biases, (b) serve as criticisms of mainstream science, and (c) illustrate the existence of "scientific controversies" apropros to such are of the same quality and level of rigor as the body of literature and research which they dispute. --ScienceApologist 14:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No, but that's close. I believe their is a political dispute between liberals and conservatives over the above-mentioned points. And what I want is for Wikipedia to describe this political dispute neutrally. --Uncle Ed 19:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * So if these are "political disputes", does this mean that you accept that there is no legitimate scientific controversy about the issues this RfArb is about? For example, when you went on your campaign to "define evolution", are you saying that you were actually asking for a political definition? Have you researched these topics well enough to determine whether the political dispute you think exists makes claims contrary to scientific fact (for example, the facts of biological evolution)? --ScienceApologist 01:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Submitted for consideration by Stifle (talk) 12:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Limited familiarity with material
3) Ed Poor has admitted that his knowledge of relevant source material and documents is limited.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * That was not an admission of "limited knowledge" but thanking someone for source that documents knowledge I already have. --Uncle Ed 19:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, see and . JoshuaZ 01:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Don't know if it needs an FOF, but submitting for consideration anyway. Stifle (talk) 12:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This 'finding of fact' seems on the one hand false and on the other... irrelevant. In the attached link Ed clearly did not say anything remotely like he is ascribed to have. Nothing whatsoever about limited knowledge... just thanking someone for providing a reference. Further, unless things have changed significantly we don't require users to be experts on all aspects of a subject to contribute to it. Can I see documentation of the number of church meetings on ID attended by Ed's detractors? Have they attended seminars given by the scientists who question the degree of impact humans have had on global warming? Or... do they have 'limited knowledge'? :] I don't think we've adopted elite standards for participation. At which point this 'proposed finding', and the repeated raising of the issue in discussions leading up to this RFAr, seem to me to betray rather alot about the source and nature of this conflict. --CBD 11:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * While I do agree with you that such a finding by itself would be worrisome and to insist that editors are experts on what they edit would be ridiculous. The concern is that POV pushing in an area where one knows almost nothing is arguably more problematic than POV pushing where at least one has some basic familiarity with the matter. At minimum, such person is more exhausting and difficult for other users to explain why their edits are not good when they dont even have a basic understanding of the matter at hand. Second of all, the references mentioned here are some of the most basic relevant documents and Ed has said as such that he hasn't read them. This is not insistence on expertise but insistence on not being ignorant. To make an analogy, it would be like POV pushing on the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution without having read the Articles of Confederation. If the ArbCom desires I can provide more examples of Ed repeatedly POV pushing and then admitting or making statements indicating a lack of knowledge of the basic matter. JoshuaZ 15:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC) I'm in the process of constructing a larger section in my evidence section on Ed's lack of knowledge about the topics he is editing. Among other difs, I have pointed out this one which shows a lack of knowledge of irreducible complexity the most basic and most frequently mentioned argument supporting intelligent design. I would like to emphasize that I agree strongly with Dunkerson that Wikipedia is not an expert domain and that the above suggested finding of fact by itself would be problematic. However, Ed's POV pushing taken together with his almost complete lack of knowledge of the areas he is editing under, to the point where he seems not to have read the articles he is editing, is at minimum frustrating and takes up the time of many editors. JoshuaZ 18:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Ed poor has a history of disruption and problems before the Arb Com
4) Ed poor has a history of disruption and problems before the Arb Com as a result of whihch he has lost his developer and bureaucrat and sysop access. See Requests_for_arbitration and


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Yes, and a long history of vital contributions to Wikipedia Fred Bauder 09:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed by me. JoshuaZ 19:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * One minor point: I did not "lose" my developer access; I resigned it. What I lost was the inappropriate retention of the developer "bit" which I exploited once to stop a wheel war between admins. The other two things were because of trying too hard to maintain order; I did exceed my authority, and I'm sorry I did. I need to follow the established procedures same as anyone else. --Uncle Ed 18:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Ed Poor's history
4.1) Ed Poor has a history of disruption and problems, leading him to separately lose his developer access, resign his bureaucratship, and lose his adminship in various ArbCom hearings.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * And a long history of vital contributions to Wikipedia Fred Bauder 09:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Slightly modified. Stifle (talk) 20:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And Aldrich Ames had a long and spotless history of service to church and community. The fact that he was a turned CIA agent who for 10 years spied on his own country is thus irrelevant. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  20:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * While Jim has a harsh way of phrasing this I think his general point is valid: even if Ed has a history of some very good edits that doesn't mean we should avoid dealing with his less-than-good ones. JoshuaZ 20:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Creation of POV forks
1) Ed Poor has repeatedly created POV forks.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * See my subsection on POV forking as well as Vsmith's extensive evidence showing Ed creating POV forks for many different articles on a variety of topics. JoshuaZ 14:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * More egregious examples include where as Vsmith observed Ed "uses solely to quote a creationist page regarding Kerkut's supposed introduction of micro- and macro-evolution in a 1960s book. Ed ignores totally the major works written and edited by Kerkut on neurobiology, invertibrate and insect physiology etc. He writes nothing about the person other than what he percieves as supporting his (Ed's) POV. Furthermore Ed fails even to categorize or stub the article correctly. This is inexcusable for such an experienced editor and is a simple attempt to support his POV." A similar example where Ed pushed his POV on global warming is Gabriele Hegerl. As Vsmith points out in his evidence, in this example Ed included in the article a cherry picked, out of context quote. For other examples, including many that were AfDed and deleted as POV forks, see my evidence section. JoshuaZ 21:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Uncle Ed: If this is a "fork" what page did I split off from? And what POV do you imagine I was trying to support? No one placed an NPOV dispute template on this article, and it was swiftly expanded by Vsmith (which is the usual process by which we all collaborate around here. If your stongest objection is my failure to add the stub template, then I plead guilty to sloppy editing. But with 20 hostile people tracking my every move, I guessed (correctly) that anything I left out would be added.


 * Having a dozen people vote on AfD doesn't mean something is really a POV fork. You have consistently refused to define what you mean by this: I can only assume you mean it in a generic sense as "making an article out of material we'd rather see in a section of another article or kept out of Wikipedia altogether"; and always because the material accurately and neutrally describes a point of view which contradicts a proposition that you'd like Wikipedia to endorse as "a fact". Well Wikipedia is not your soapbox, and like it or not, multitudes of people disagree with what you hold dear. Get used to it.


 * This whole thing started a year ago, when you all tried to say that "Evolution is accepted by most Americans" and I tried to make the distinction that evolution defined as emergence of new species without God's intervention is specifically denied by a majority of around 85%. You guys got Evolution poll deleted the moment I cited this statistic. You deleted Unguided evolution, which makes the distinction.


 * If anyone is POV pushing, it is those who want Wikipedia to endorse the POV that most people accept evolution (hinting that this mean "unguided evolution); whereas polls show that the 37% who pro-evolutionists claim "support evolution" only support the idea if it's specifically presented in the form of "new species came into being over time, 'guided by God".


 * You all keep trying to suppress anything that sheds doubt on your cherished POV, while (falsely) accusing me of this. All I want is neutral, accurate reporting of what the published sources actually say. --Uncle Ed 18:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * The argument above is an example of arguing for a decision before having a standard for making the decision. Can someone suggest a standard for deciding whether someone has "created a POV fork"?  On the other hand, what is the standard for deciding whether a pack of editors band together to delete pages that present in a NPOV manner the significant and cited views of those scholars the pack of editors don't want summarized in Wikipedia?  --Rednblu 15:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "You guys", "You all", "pack of editors"? &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  22:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Locus of dispute
1) The locus of the dispute is the edits and behavior of to controversial articles. It is alleged he is regularly engaging in POV editing and disruptive behavior. He claims to be editing in support of NPOV. Articles affected include, , , , , , , and.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 17:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Opposing parties
2), , , , , , , , , and   have edited in opposition to the edits of Ed Poor.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 17:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * And, , , , , ...JoshuaZ 20:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Should I provide difs for these users opposing Ed? I think this should make clear that this is not a small number of editors who are having problems with Ed. JoshuaZ 20:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, please provide diffs of them edit warring with him. Fred Bauder 01:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Edit warring? Undoing edits which violate NPOV or are factually inaccurate don't constitute edit-warring.  How do you see the edit of mine you linked to as being "edit-warring"?  I removed a quote from a non-notable letter to the editor which was being used as a definition of the subject of the article.  I undid one edit, and explained it carefully on the talk page.  That is a far cry from "edit-warring".  Guettarda 02:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Guess you won't have any examples then Fred Bauder 03:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred, it might help if you clarified what you meant by the above. If you think certain users edit warred, then maybe you should say so as a finding of fact? "edited in opposition" is a weaker and vaguer a claim. JoshuaZ 03:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm just investigating Fred Bauder 03:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Understood, but it is a bit hard to assist you with your investigation when it isn't clear what you are asserting or inquiring about or asking about. JoshuaZ 03:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * (reduce indent) Fred, I'm more than a bit concerned with the tone many of your "questions" and statements are taking here. For example "Guess you won't have any examples then", is a trifle unclear but nonetheless pregnant with innuendo.  I'm sensing a lack of neutrality, which is quite problematic given your position on Arbcomm.  On more than a few occasions you seem to be assuming an advocacy posture for Ed Poor, which would, to me, seem antithetical to your arbcomm role.  I realise that some will point out my need to be deferential to arbcomm members, but I see ethics as a higher calling, so I feel that I would be remiss were I not to point out my concerns.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  11:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to look at both sides of the issue. If I can find evidence that Ed Poor is the victim of a bunch of biased editors I'll put that into the proposed decision. However, my preliminary work is showing that Ed Poor is indeed disrupting articles with tendentious editing. Others are just doing damage control. Fred Bauder 13:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for answering, I appreciate it. I think we have both shown the limitations of the written word -- I may have inferred something that you did not imply, something that were you and I talking face to face I might never have inferred.  As a side note, I just completed my annual ethics training at work, so I'm probably subconsciously more sensitive to an appearance (perceived or otherwise) of conflict of interest than I might normally be.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  22:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * It is not clear what your complaint is about. I read in your accusation that "on certain topics Ed has a long standing history of POV pushing and related problems."  And in your evidence I see Ed bringing things back even with citations to a median position between 1) where it was before and toward 2) a statement of how normal average people see it.  Is that bad?  In this section of the workshop, we are supposed to be looking for aggregations within the evidence that point to general patterns.  And one of the general patterns is that Ed has many opposing parties.  I cannot see yet that you have any rational complaint about the pattern in Ed's opposition to the opposing parties of opinionated people who have it all figured out.  It looks pretty even in opposing points-of-view and buffeting about.  Why focus on Ed?  There are lots of opposing parties.  What is the standard by which you focus on Ed among all the opposing parties with your complaint?  --Rednblu 06:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, This says as much or more about your own view of NPOV as/than it does about Ed's or Josh's or anyone else's. In fact, a statement such as "Ed's opposition to the opposing parties of opinionated people who have it all figured out", show your own bias, and the inherent ad hom is certainly not going to help Ed (it won't hurt him either, but it won't help). &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  22:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, Why focus on Ed? There are lots of opposing parties.  What is the standard by which you focus on Ed among all the opposing parties with your complaint?  --Rednblu 06:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding the nature of the complaint(s): I see a picture emerging here of disputed behavior by Ed where his edits to certain articles are reverted by certain editors. According to these editors, his response on such occasions is to be characterized as a blatant disregard for the consensus process, as well as bad form. Apparently Ed believes the process is broken in these instances. He is being accused of applying untoward tactics, such as edit warring and name calling, where he should have attempted the available dispute resolution methods. Such behavior may be geared to expose to as many editors as possible the existence of what Ed views as a cabal. As such, it may be one of several approaches Ed has been trying in order to "beat them at their own game".


 * Regarding a "standard": If you are arguing that Ed is being singled out although a similar complaint could be made against any one of the opposing parties, that indeed would indicate an insufficient understanding of the nature of the complaints. The opposing parties are not opposing one another; all they have in common is that they have opposed Ed's edits at some point. They are not being characterized as prone to oppose other editors and/or disregard the consensus process; Ed is. In addition, Ed is free to file arbitration requests against editors who, in his opinion, unduly oppose his edits (provided the other dispute resolution steps have failed). See also Wikipedia's RfAr page and the Arbitration policy. Please also note that acceptance of an arbitration request does not automatically point the finger at any guilty party. Once accepted, the case will be examined in depth. The outcome is by no means fixed at this point. AvB &divide; talk  08:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Supporters
3) Ed Poor has been supported by.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 17:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Roland supporting Ed on one or two minor issues (by this standard, I've supported Ed- multiple users including me agreed that including those concepts in the intro might make sense). Roland has almost exclusively disagreed with Ed:
 * 1. At Intelligent design, Roland has reverted Ed Poor's edits:, and has never revert to Ed's version:
 * 2. Roland has only responded once(as far as I can tell) to one of Ed's proposed changes at Talk:Intelligent design, and he was not supportive of what Ed had to say: 14:19, 31 July
 * 3. At Creation-evolution controversy, Ed deleted sourced content that described both sides of the issue and replaced it with the partisan viewpoint of Ann Coulter: . Roland reverted Ed's changes . JoshuaZ 20:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you Fred Bauder 01:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This diff shows two distinct edits in one. (1) I changed "the creationist ideas" to "creationist ideas about scientific topics". How is this deleting sourced content? What does this have to do with both sides of the issue? It's just grammar. It looks like Joshua is taking potshots at me and hoping no one will read the diff!! (2) I didn't replace anything with Coulter's viewpoint. I added a sentence which says that she thinks the same way. What did I "replace" here? --Uncle Ed 15:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry. Looking at the difs in more detail, Roland removed the Coulter sentence and seemed to mistakenly be under the impression that you had removed a part of the paragraph when in fact you had broken the paragaph in two and then added the Coulter sentence. The basic point remains that Roland has not supported Ed. JoshuaZ 16:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Comment by Roland Deschain:
 * I have opposed most of Ed's edits if my memory serves me right. The only time we agreed (that I can remember) on a major issue is on expanding the Intelligent design intro to make it more informative (which was opposed by most other editors).--Roland Deschain 04:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Ed Poor has engaged in tendentious editing
4) Ed Poor has in the name of NPOV engaged in tendentious editing: examples from Acid precipitation:     , see http://www.al.noaa.gov/AQRS/reports/napapreport05.pdf for what the source actually says, ; example from Three Years of Natural Disasters. See also Requests_for_arbitration/Ed_Poor_2/Evidence, Requests_for_arbitration/Ed_Poor_2/Evidence, Requests_for_arbitration/Ed_Poor_2/Evidence, and Requests_for_arbitration/Ed_Poor_2/Evidence.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 18:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Revised comment by Ed Poor:
 * Fred, I would say that this is a typical series of edits on my part; I do this incessantly. So if this is wrong, I have been going wrong in a big way. If this is "tendentious editing" in the sense of "marked by a tendency in favor of a particular point of view : BIASED" then I need to make a radical change in my style of contributing. What do you suggest? --Uncle Ed 19:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think you are needlessly provoking other editors and instead of doing research you are playing devil's advocate. In this case if you had started with the NOAA report instead of the partisan source you chose, things would have gone a lot better. Fred Bauder 13:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Ed Poor believes he is fighting a liberal cabal of science editors
1) Ed Poor believes that there is a group of editors acting to suppress his contributions to science-controversy related articles and has in the past made edits with the expressed intent to disrupt this.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed by ScienceApologist

Balancing the Liberal and Conservative perspective on controversial topics
1) Ed Poor has consistently sought during his FIVE years at Wikipedia to provide a balance between Liberal and Conservative points of view (POV) regarding many politically charged controversies. He has always tried to keep Wikipedia from endorsing any particular POV, by working to make articles attribute positions to their respective advocates.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Definitely what we want. However you have recently begun grinding some axes. Fred Bauder 23:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * That about sums it up for me. If this is not what Wikipedia wants, I shouldn't be here. --Uncle Ed 19:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ed, it is a bit late for this, but you may want to consider whether the phrasing of the above statement is possibly symptomatic of the general problems here. That is you think that on all issues there is a "Liberal"(capital L) and a "Conservative" (capital C) point of view. Part of the problem may stem from your editing like this dichotomy exists and is well-defined. JoshuaZ 03:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I think this is triangulating very near to where the dispute with Ed lies. Ed sees himself as a neutral arbiter in political controversies. I think Ed thinks that fair practice in politically charged articles (attribute opinions, back up with citations or quotes) will somehow work to describe controversies about scientific subjects. However, Wikipedia is reaching a level of sophistication in science articles where it may not be possible for the fly-by-night editor to, on first reading, determine which text is attribute-able opinions and which text is scientific consensus or observational fact. After all, there are major constituencies represented at Wikipedia arguing that science itself is an opinion (this may go back to the old SPOV/NPOV disputes). Of course, NPOV is easier to get towards when both sides agree there is a controversy, but science is closed-shop and often simply ignores the advocacy of certain groups who insist that controversy does or should exist. In this case, it is not NPOV to insist that "both sides" are described because one of the "sides" doesn't believe there are "sides". Not everything can be summarized as a political debate. What may help in other articles where controversies can be agreed to exist becomes problematic in articles where scientists refuse to admit a contorversy exists. When an editor views himself/herself as neutral because he/she has no research background in the subject they really end up violating the spirit of NPOV when they try to impose a "balance" that is not approximated by he said-she said style of article writing. That's why I believe strongly that it's when poor research combines with a desire to keep things neutral that NPOV-warriors run into the most trouble -- they unintentionally introduce their misconceptions and their own personal biases that they may not even know they have simply because they haven't researched the subjects well enough to know about them. See my proposal above regarding . --ScienceApologist 02:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed 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.

Ed Poor placed on probation
1) Ed Poor is placed on probation for six months. During that time, any administrator may ban him for up to one month at a time from any article he disrupts. All such bans must be accompanied by a notice on Ed Poor's talk page and at Log of blocks and bans below.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Submitted for consideration. Stifle (talk) 12:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Making no comment on the validity of this remedy, to bring it in line with most probations placed by the Committee, maybe indefinite instead of six months would be appropriate. Also, one month seems a bit harsh.  Perhaps one week, maybe with the 5 time -> 1 month option?  Ral315 (talk) 02:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

...unspecified end time
1.1) Ed Poor is placed on probation. During that time, any administrator may ban him for up to one month at a time from any article he disrupts. All such bans must be accompanied by a notice on Ed Poor's talk page and at Log of blocks and bans below. Should one year pass without any such ban being placed, the probation shall automatically end.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Submitted for consideration as an alternative. Stifle (talk) 12:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Ed Poor placed on general probation
2) Ed Poor is placed on general probation. For six months, any three administrators may place arbitrary restrictions on Ed Poor's editing privileges, up to and including a general ban from the site for the remainder of the six month period.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Submitted for consideration. Stifle (talk) 12:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think if he's getting general probation, it would be indefinite, rather than six months (making no comment on the validity of this one either way, but general probation isn't usually time-limited). Ral315 (talk) 02:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Ed Poor placed on probation
1) Ed Poor is placed on probation. He may be banned from any article which he disrupts by tendentious editing. All bans to be logged at Requests_for_arbitration/Ed_Poor_2.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 03:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Enforcement by block
1) If anyone violates any bans imposed, that editor may be briefly blocked, for up to a week in case of repeat infringements. After a fifth block, the maximum block period shall increase to a year.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Standard. Stifle (talk) 12:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others: