Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor/Evidence

evidence presented by FuelWagon
I have submitted evidence here. I'm not sure if it is in the correct format or not. Let me know if it needs correcting for format. It would seem to support the idea that Ed Poor failed to maintain any neutrality as mediator in the Terri Schiavo article and instead defended and/or favored SlimVirgin inappropriately. Ed Poor gutted my talk page and blocked me, claiming it contained "personal remarks". However, no personal remarks exist on that page, and it seems to be more a matter of Ed suppressing criticism of SlimVirgin, rather than a violation of policy on my part. He ignored my request to identify what "hurtful remarks" justified his second block against me. Ed's second block against me seems to be an inappropriate use of admin priviledges. Ed Poor also responded to Neuroscientist's criticism of SlimVirgin's edit by warning Neuroscientist to be careful of hurting other editor's feelings. Ed Poor gave my RFC against SlimVirgin, "partial" and "hesitant" support, but then quickly retracted that and attacked the editors who filed the RFC as "bullying" and "gaming the system". He then launches what would seem to be a clear violation of NPA against me, explaining that he is simply illustrating a point. FuelWagon 16:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Your evidence looks fine to me. But, why are eleven major edits from SlimVirgin on that article relevant? I could see one or a few, but eleven seems a little excessive. -- Phroziac (talk) 02:31, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * That block of edits is the topic of the RFC I filed against SlimVirgin. The format for evidence seems to suggest one diff per timestamp, so I list them individually. FuelWagon 13:37, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Out of context
I found it disturbing that the "time-wasting bully" was taken out of context but I'm not sure where to discuss it. The entire paragraph is shown below and the out of context quote starts after "First Amendment":


 * Yes and no. 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.

Without the introductory sentences it reads quite different than if you read the entire paragraph. (I only looked up the diff because it seemed like such an out-and-out attack on its own.) - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  20:21, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that this reads quite differently when taken in full context. It seems clear to me (and, I would hope, most wikipedians) that this was not actually a personal attack.  Friday (talk) 20:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree also. And, it's worth pointing out that the even fuller context was that Ed was trying to explain how unacceptable FuelWagon's behaviour had been in the days leading up to the "time-wasting bully" comment – examples included calling another editor a f**%!ng *$$s0le, a f**%!ng jerk, "you arrogant cuss," a jerkoff, and an arrogant arse . The atmosphere at the Terri Schiavo talk page got much better after FuelWagon's forty-hour block. Before Ed came on the scene as mediator it was unbelievable. No other talk page that I saw on Wikipedia was like that.  So, if we have Ed to thank for the improvement, then three cheers for Ed!  Ann Heneghan (talk) 21:01, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, Ed's comment was in direct response to the RFC I filed against SlimVirgin. He had called the RFC bullying and gaming the system and several other things, the same exact words which showed up in this "example of what not to do". So, if you want to talk about context, then that's the context that it occurred in. As for my block for NPA, I like how Ed gets credit for it me stopping my behaviour, but actually, I had REMOVED my comments just before Ed blocked me the first time, so Ed doesn't actually get the ribbon for that one. An editor who talked to me offline does. And whether Ed's last comment was a personal attack or not, all I can say is if I had said the exact same thing to any one on wikipedia, I would have gotten banned for a year. If this is ruled "acceptable", then you'll start seeing every editor on wikipedia give similar "lessons" to all the people they don't like. FuelWagon 21:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You come with dirty hands but I suppose we could say Ed Poor disrupted Wikipedia to prove a point. Fred Bauder 21:49, September 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * "You come with dirty hands" I haven't hidden this fact. I broke NPA against SlimVirgin. I cleaned up my edits. I was blocked for 40 hours anyway. I accepted the block without protest, and I apologized to SlimVirgin after the block expired. This is all documented in the RFC I filed against SlimVirgin here. look for the string "In case anyone thinks I'm trying to hide this fact". I don't think that affects whether or not Ed should have locked me out of my talk page the second time since there were no NPA violations on my talk page or whether or not his "illustrating a point" is a personal attack. FuelWagon 22:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

For those who think that Ed wasn't trying to make, as FuelWagon has described it, a "thinly-veiled" personal attack, how do you interpret Ed's remark: " … go ahead and complain about me if you want, but I was illustrating a point"? Paul August &#9742; 21:57, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

"userfy, whatever that is"
I laughed when I saw this comment in the evidence. But, was that a reference to Fred's not knowing what userfy means, or something else? -- Phroziac (talk) 02:35, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * I just don't know what this particular piece of Wikipedia jargon means. Fred Bauder 13:29, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah! That means to move it to a user subpage of the person that made it. -- Phroziac (talk) 13:55, September 10, 2005 (UTC)