Case Opened on 15:27, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Case Closed on 01:23, September 14, 2005 (UTC)

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

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision. The full complaint, response and discussion is at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor/Complaint and response

The case was initiated by:

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

Following discussion all but UninvitedCompany (talk · contribs) withdrew their complaint

The complaint alleged abuse of power by:

• Ed Poor (talk · contribs)

Recently, he took the controversial action of speedy deleting

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) [1], 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 ([2]) 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 ([3], [4]), 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.

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.

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)

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)[reply]

Notes:

1. Though the RFC has been terminated, several users have moved it out of RFC space to circumvent RFC policy: [5]. Up to arbcom to decide if that is a valid application of
   WP:IAR
2. Ed Poor created Wikipedia: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!

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/3/0/2)

• Accept Fred Bauder 19:02, August 4, 2005 (UTC) Vote to accept affirmed Fred Bauder 21:22, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Reject Not sure yet - Ed not only says above "I was wrong," but explains how he was wrong. I'm not sure what penalty would make the encyclopedia better David Gerard 21:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Changed to 'not sure yet' after discussion with some of those bringing the RFAr. I think Kim's explanation helps explain the issues at hand (the RFC and the self-unblock), but I'd like to hear Ed's own words on the subjects. I'll consider further before a firm 'accept' or 'reject' - David Gerard 22:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Ed doesn't seem to have commented on the real issue here (as set out above). That is, the deletion of an RfC about himself and the unblocking of himself - I'd like to hear more on these before voting -- sannse (talk) 22:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Accept. Given Ed's response on my talk page [6], there seems a lack of agreement over these actions that I think needs looking at -- sannse (talk) 20:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Waiting for further input from the parties as to how discussions are progressing, but, I must say, I fail to see how this really helps build the encyclopædia. James F. (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Reject. I feel that the discussions have been and are being fruitful. James F. (talk) 07:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept, to consider the larger issues surrounding Ed's misuse of his admin/bureacrat/developer privileges. I didn't want to accept this, but it was his veto comment that decided it for me. →Raul654 17:46, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm going to stay my above comment (e.g, for the time being it counts as an abstain). Ed tells us that he's nearing a breakthrough in his discussions with the people who brought this case, and in the light of that, I think we should wait before we consider this
    • After private discussion with both Ed and UC, I've decided to reject this without prejudice (the rest of the complainants having dropped the request). There is merit to this complaint and I was prepared to hear it out. However, Ed has promised to cease the offending behavior, and I trust him to abide by his word. If he does continue the misbehavior, I'll be willing to entertain this request again. →Raul654 21:14, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Accept. Ed's recent uses of his admin/bureaucrat privileges are of concern. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:51, 11 August 2005 (UTC) Confirm acceptance. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmm. I'm really not sure. I'm going to abstain for now. Abuse of admin powers is a serious thing, but I'm going to take Ed's promise as the end of the matter. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject: punishing Ed will not make Wikipedia a better place ➥the Epopt 22:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. Neutrality^talk 20:39, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Final decision

Ed Poor (talk · contribs) has offered to resign as a Wikipedia Bureaucrat. He remains a Wikipedia Administrator in good standing and a valued member of the Wikipedia community. The case is closed without further comment.