Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ed Poor (2)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 20:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 03:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Description

User:Ed_Poor has edit warred to impose his own personal changes and preferences on

Good Article
prior to Ed's arrival. His participation has brought disruption, not quality, to a highly cited article.

Contrast this behavior to a statement found on User:Ed Poor:

From 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. --Uncle Ed

This is not the first instance of Ed disrupting creationism related articles. He has a long prior history of disruption creationism related articles that ultimately resulted in the loss of his admin status.

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

Edit Warring/Ignoring Consensus

May 25-26
  1. 12:52, 25 May 2006 Ed's 1st edit, changing the definition given in the intro, no discussion
    • Actually my edit summary said See talk for why I changed the D.I. quote --Uncle Ed 19:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Followed 9 minutes later with my lengthy explanation. [1] --Uncle Ed 19:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 14:04, 25 May 2006 1st rv, still no talk page discussion
  3. 08:18, 26 May 2006 2nd rv. Discussion shows there's no support for his changes, yet Ed insists
  4. 08:56, 26 May 2006 More changes, despite no support on Talk.
  5. 09:39, 26 May 2006 3rd rv.
  6. 09:54, 26 May 2006 Restoring more removed changes
May 30
  1. 07:30, 30 May 2006 Restoring changes previously discussed and rejected May 26
  2. 07:55, 30 May 2006 1st rv
  3. 08:16, 30 May 2006 2nd rv
  4. 08:54, 30 May 2006 3rd rv
  5. 09:20, 30 May 2006 4th rv
  6. 09:25, 30 May 2006 5th rv
  7. 09:32, 30 May 2006 6th rv
  8. 09:49, 30 May 2006 Dismissing consensus, admitting disruption
May 31
  1. 09:10, 31 May 2006 More controversial changes with no discussion, no consensus, and ignoring previously discussions in the archive
  2. 10:07, 31 May 2006 partial rv
  3. 10:58, 31 May 2006 rv with additional changes for which there was no discussion and even less consensus
  4. 11:06, 31 May 2006 2nd rv
  5. 11:22, 31 May 2006 Additional changes, little discussion with no support or consensus
  6. 11:27, 31 May 2006 3rd revert
  7. 11:40, 31 May 2006 rv of earlier rejected change
  8. 12:57, 31 May 2006 More futzing with the intro without discussion, consensus
  9. 11:17, 30 May 2006 Deleting comments of others
  10. 11:48, 31 May 2006 Dismissing consensus
June 2
  1. 08:25, 2 June 2006 More changes enacted unilaterally without consensus.
  2. 09:10, 2 June 2006 Enacting a complete overhaul of the introduction without seeking consensus or adequately explaining himself on the talkpage.
  3. 10:14, 2 June 2006 Reversion where he claims that "3 other editors" are working on his introduction which is a mischaracterization.

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. WP:POINT
  2. WP:CON
  3. WP:3RR

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. [2]
  2. [3]
  3. [4]
  4. [5]
  5. [6]
  6. [7]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. FeloniousMonk 20:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Ladlergo 21:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Ashenai 20:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. •Jim62sch• 21:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. talk 21:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  5. Treating the 3RR rule like a game of Go? That's ludicrous. Ed should know better than to play games with Wikipedia policy. Claiming he misunderstood the details of 3RR is no excuse for reverting 5 or 6 times in a day. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ScienceApologist 21:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC) -- Ed has a problem in arrogantly assuming that he is always the victim when he gets involved in disputes. His persecution complex led to a stripping of his admin privileges in the past and I'm afraid his attitude has not improved.[reply]
  7. --Davril2020 22:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Ramdrake 22:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC) I've seen Ed being challenged on his views, and his only answer was to challenge on another point rather than respond to the challenge. He kept it up several times, creating a degree of confusion on the issues discussed. He seems intent challenging for the sake of challenging, not for the sake of improving discussion or the article.[reply]
  9. --LexCorp 23:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC) -- Witness it all on background. Ed totally ignores the controversial topic warning on talk page. He seems not to have read the archived Talk Pages or ignores them. The work done by the editors involved in getting this page into a well referenced article with a high level of NPOV has been huge. It is highly unfair to them to disregard their work the way User Ed does.[reply]
  10. JoshuaZ 02:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Guettarda 15:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. --CSTAR 17:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. --Kenosis 17:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC) -- The evidence given above is accurate, though by no means exhaustive of the available evidence to date.[reply]
  14. -- KillerChihuahua?!? 15:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 20:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC) -- I recently reverted the changes by Ed to the FSM article. He repeatedly claims that I have a bias for moving the article back to Flying Spaghetti Monster without discussion, even though he himself moved it to the other name without even a mention in the talk page. He's now claiming that I'm refusing to talk to him "on principle", as though he's made any attempt to talk about the changes at all. He paints himself as the victim to try to gain support for his POV-pushing changes.[reply]
  16. Stifle (talk) 21:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response by Ed Poor

First of all, as I have repeatedly said, I do not believe in Creationism. Creationists reject the

fossil record
(and that rejection is clearly anti-science), and I am a supporter of science. Also, creationists approach every scientific with the premise in mind that God exists. I personally feel that any investigator or commentator should reveal his preconceptions before writing about anything.

At Wikipedia, I have never pushed any particular POV. I have only inserted information which is contrary to the general trend of belief at Wikipedia. If someone challenges a source, I'm always willing to discuss that, but what FeloniousMonk and his crew have done is to suppress mention of opposing POV - which makes them the POV pushers, not me.

This is not FM's only misrepresentation.

Taking FeloniousMonk's first example, we find that it is completely incorrect. He said I made a change to the intro of Intelligent design without discussing it ("Ed's 1st edit, changing the definition given in the intro, no discussion"), but:

  1. I wrote in the edit summary See talk for why I changed the D.I. quote [8]
  2. I then gave quite a lengthy explanation there [9]
  3. Moreover, it did not change the definition but merely attributed it to its chief proponents.

Moreover, instead of responding in any way to the reasons I gave for my minor rewrite of the intro, FM responded with a personal attack:

  • This is typical behavior for Ed, who is not up to speed on things ID and has a long history of promoting the creationist POV. He'll try to tie us up with tendentious debate over minor points while ignoring supporting cites and uncomfortable facts. Ed can and should expect to be further reverted if he continues to try to force his POV and the issue here. [10]

I asked him to give an example of "promoting the creationist POV", but he ignored this request. I assume that this is because he knows this charge is untrue.

FM main point is that I must get his permission first, before making any changes however slight to the article. I know of no policy which requires this. He and his clique have reverted even tiny grammar corrections. [11]

To which Guettarda replied wtf? good writing now goes against consensus? and then reverted the reversion. [12]

I see no reason why FM and his clique should "own the page". I have just as much right to edit the Intelligent design article as they do. --Uncle Ed 21:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, in reaction to the page protection (which I did not want, on a version I don't particularly like) I have decided this:

  • I will limit myself to one reversion per week at the
    Intelligent Design article, as long as this matter goes no further in the dispute resolution process (such as RFM or RFArb). --Uncle Ed 13:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

FeloniousMonk's Response to Ed

Ed conveniently fails to address the only relevant question that justifies significant changes to an article (and hence his edits): Is the article factually or grammatically incorrect or otherwise contrary to policy and guideline? Where the answer is yes, then we would next need to ask if the proposed changes are an improvement. Neither issue implicit in these questions has ever been addressed by Ed, despite calls from many to do so.

Editing that does not address a specific need, made without justification is nothing more than editing just for the sake of editing and is particularly harmful and disruptive when the editor has no real idea about the subject. Apart from being nuisance, it also destabilizes perfectly fine articles. Number five of Raul654's laws of Wikipedia (

Scientific opinion on climate change [15]
.

Ed also fails to address his choosing to edit war and the disruption it created, ultimately resulting with the article being protected. Equally troubling is the sudden appearance of an obvious meatpuppet to reinsert Ed's pet content minutes before the article was protected: [16]Instead, Ed would rather allege he's being unfairly excluded from the article, as if edit warring were an appropriate response to page ownership.

Contrary to his allegation about ownership of the page, the article's history shows a broad range of activity with a large number of distinct editors making changes, additions and reverts. As with any article on Wikipedia, edits that are factually accurate and improve an article will make it and those that introduce error and ambiguity, decreasing clarity won't. Ed shouldn't expect to be an exception here.

Wikipedia's model only works among reasonable editors making good faith efforts to work together; insisting on insertion of insignificant factoids into an article and making precise language ambiguous in opposition to many other editors has been judged a violation of consensus; see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Charles Darwin-Lincoln dispute. Ed needs to seriously reconsider his method if he wants to participate in a constructive, not disruptive way.

Checkuser showed the two are unrelated. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. FeloniousMonk 22:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Davril2020 22:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. •Jim62sch• 23:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --LexCorp 23:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC) Changed to per JoshuaZ. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Ramdrake 23:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. talk 00:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  8. While I'm not convinced that LenW is a sock, I endorse everything else in this response. JoshuaZ 02:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Ashenai 03:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. As per Joshua - I find LenW's edits interesting, but I am not ready to call him/her a sock/meatpuppet. Guettarda 15:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. per JoshuaZ & Guettarda. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 20:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. -- WAS 4.250 21:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. -- Kenosis 18:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. -- Rorrenig 02:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by User:Pjacobi

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

This is difficult to judge, and browsing through the diffs, I'm inclined to think that Ed Poor sometimes err on the side of

WP:BB
).

But on the other hand, and with all due respect to the valueable input of editors like WMC and SA, I have the impression that the extensive pre-history of this case results in some alarm trigger levels set too low. I don't think that [17] is anything other than a honest attempt to improve the article by ascribing a viewpoint, as argued by Ed in talk [18]. And I don't buy it, that this was intended to remove another user's post, it's simply an edit conflict mishandled either by the software or (without bad faith) by Ed.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Pjacobi 09:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Ach ja. Es heisst, Wikipedia:Sei mutig! Aber this is in English. And in
    WP:NPOV. So what do we do? Do "witches"--or whatever User:Ed Poor really is--have the right to argue against the majority gang consensus when citing to what 90% of the respectable scholars throughout history have actually written? Rednblu 17:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Outside (?) view by William M. Connolley

I don't have much to say about the ID stuff, but I'll comment on Eds recent edits to the global warming type pages. Because I think its likely relevant. Ed doesn't know this stuff, relies on very dubious sources, and gets hot under the collar for a bit, then (at least in the past, and hopefully in this case) goes away again; having done little other that annoy people and waste time (which, in a sense, is to agree with PJ above; if you're not familiar with the prehistory, you want Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute/Evidence for the global warming side of things).

So we have: [19] - Ed doesn't like the survey section, because it priviledges something published in Science, over a failed attempt to replicate it that was rejected by Science. Note also the black-helicopters stuff around "IPCC" - Ed, if given his way, would preface every use of "IPCC" by "the UN sponsored..." for example.

Eds recent spree appears to be fuelled by SEPP; specifically [20] (which is junk). So basically Ed is inserting septic propaganda from SEPP into wiki.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. William M. Connolley 14:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Guettarda 15:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FeloniousMonk 16:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Aldux 21:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kenosis 18:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Rorrenig 02:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum... [21] is hopeless; you only have to read the global cooling page to see that. Ed is just thrashing around. And can anyone make sense of [22]? William M. Connolley 21:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems clear to me that this user is disrupting Wikipedia to make a
point. --ScienceApologist 21:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Addendum 16:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC): a couple of recent edits by Ed seems to me to show that he doesn't undersand that some things really are facts: to him, everything is someones POV. [23] is one: that McK got degrees and radians wrong is accepted, even by McK. Ditto [24] (its the same matter) William M. Connolley 16:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

View by Guettarda

I have had a long history of interaction with Ed. Most of it has been on the opposite sides of issues, but we have managed to maintain a collegial relationship for a long time (not at first, but that was my fault). That said, I am still angry about what happened between Ed and ScienceApologist several months ago. It took a conscious effort on my part to put that aside and go past that.

Ed's style of editing involves making major changes and then negotiating. It's a style of editing which is true to the principle of "be bold", but the culture of a number of contentious pages has evolved in a different direction. When a page is a carefully crafted compromise (like many of the ID pages are), it has become the norm to discuss changes, often at great length, on the talk page, before making the changes. There's nothing wrong with being bold, but once your changes are reverted, you need to start talking. True, Ed isn't the only one who failed to talk constructively. The discussion seemed to be basically Ed saying "why was I reverted?" and other people replying "what changes do you want to make?" Since the article was fairly stable, I'd say that the impetus is on Ed to make a case for changes - after all, the answer to his questions are probably somewhere in the archives. (Granted, the size of the archive makes this daunting). Ed is entitled to ask "why was I reverted?", but since the article is stable and well-developed, he should really be willing to discuss why he thinks the changes he wants to make are useful.

I don't think that the primary issue one of content. Ed is entitled to an opinion as to the form of the pages, as is anyone else. One of the primary problems is that he seems to be seeing the other editors as acting in concert, and thus, counting as a single opinion in opposition to his. Some of these editors I barely know. Others, like FM, I have worked with extensively. But my opinions are my own, and they are borne of extensive reading on the topic. The fact that they coincide with other editors doesn't nullify them.

To get towards solutions, which is what an RFC should be about - the ideal solution would be for Ed to understand what it is that gets other editors upset with his style of editing on these articles, and that the rest of us understand what upsets Ed. To that end, despite the fact that this is an RFC and not an RFM, I would like to request that we set aside a section for discussion. Ed's proposal, to limit his actions, doesn't appear to be a satisfactory solution. Imposing limitations would end the immediate problem of edit-warring, but it doesn't do anything to solve the problem, it only pushes it aside. I think we are all reasonable people here with the same goal (improving the quality of the encyclopaedia). I think we are all acting in good faith. I don't expect us to come to a common position on content, but I think we could try to understand the root causes of our frustration with one-another, which leads to revert warring.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Guettarda 16:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. JoshuaZ 18:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FeloniousMonk 19:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. talk 22:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  5. Ladlergo 02:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Ramdrake 17:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Nice analysis. I thought it was useful when I first read it months ago. Nevertheless, I think that Ed's proposal to limit his actions is the only useful solution--in the absence of "laws" or understandings to limit the gang mechanisms by which editors' concerted activity rips out
    WP:NPOV from the pages of which User:Ed Poor complains. --Rednblu 18:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Response

I wouldn't mind discussing this someplace. I've said all along that my chief objection to the other editors (acting in concert, as Guettarda put it) is their refusal to discuss anything. They simply revert on grounds such as "see archives" or "POV pushing", etc. As if to say, "We need not discuss this with you, HERE because (1) it was already discussed to Our Satisfaction in the archives; or because (2) you are just pushing your own POV (which is so obvious to Us that we don't even have to say what it is).

If someone would only say something like That edit makes the article endorse the POV that God exists -or- that evolution is false -or- that there is a Huge Controversy In Biology over natural selection (or mitochondria or flagellites) then a discussion would actually start! The discussion would, of course, be over why the EDIT gives that impression, and how to correct it so that the article would NOT SEEM to endorse that POV.

Simply reverting the edit with a cryptic dismissal (like rv POV) prevents discussion from occurring.

I would welcome some discussion. --Uncle Ed 16:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-response by Ramdrake

Ed, in your latest set of edits to the Creation-Evolution Controversy article, I took the time to save your work before reverting it (there was just too much of it at one time to edit), and you will find that I am discussing your edits as point-by-point as I could, so as to prove to you that I am willing to discuss (and so are the rest of us editors on the article, I would assume -- WP:AGF). If you want to pick it up there, it will be my pleasure to continue this discussion as productively as possible. --Ramdrake 16:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ed doesn't ever want to start the discussions himself as was pointed out on the
Talk:Creation-evolution controversy page. And then when someone explains their edits, he persists in his tendentious practices. --ScienceApologist 16:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

View by Ramdrake

Myself and a few others have been dealing with Ed Poor on the

Creation-evolution controversy
page, Ed has taken upon himself to suddenly write in an appreciable number of edits, especially to the introduction. When I raised the point in talk that I was dubious about the merits of his edits, said edits were promptly reverted by another user. Then, whin a couple of hours, the edits were reverted back and forth several times. When it was made clear to Ed that the consensus of the editors was that he should first bring his edit to the talk page so they could be debated, (as is rather frequent with extensive edits, especially on controversial topics) he reverted to his edited version and insisted that his edits should go in first, and then the users would debate about their merits (getting the usual process precisely backwards). Also, when user Ed Poor talks about his edits, he tends to use qualifiers such as simple, few, etc. whereas when he talks about the reverts done to his edits, his discourse seems to change to all those edits, or massive reverts. There seems to be a dichotomy in how he appreciates the scope of his edits depending on whether he is looking at them in the edit or in the revert direction.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Ramdrake 17:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ScienceApologist 21:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FeloniousMonk 17:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Guettarda 13:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Graft

At the request of Guettarda, I'm posting this rant here that I wrote on the Talk:Intelligent design page.

Argh. Sorry, this demands a longer rant. I've worked on Wikipedia for several years now, and the whole time I have, Ed Poor has been there. I have never gotten along with Ed Poor; we're simply too different politically, and too attached to our own opinions, I think, to coincide on many issues. So we've had nothing but disagreements. And Ed is often a contentious editor, frequently making edits that I find absurd or out of place. Despite that, I continue to review his edits and engage him in discussion. Why? Because this is fucking Wikipedia, and that's what people do here. This is not an academic community, it's the Internet; but this is an academic project, and it should at least pretend to have a collegiate atmosphere. Which means you show decorum and respect for your fellow editors, whether you like them or not. This doesn't mean you have to agree with them, or support their changes, or even refrain from completely trashing their work; it just means you acknowledge the fact that they ARE editors, just like you, and they're here to do the same thing you are, build an excellent encyclopedia. This is not what I see from editors on this page. Graft

I'd just like to add that, as with most conflicts on Wikipedia, I think this one occurred simply because people don't attempt to de-escalate away from one. We all enjoy getting our dander up, especially about subjects we're passionate about, but this really makes us bad editors.

I've put most of the blame here on other parties, rather than mostly on Ed, simply because there are more of them; he's admittedly responsible for a great deal of the conflict, but I'll point out that there were five or six other editors involved in the edit war against him, and not a single one took steps to take the conflict away from the article and onto the talk page. This I find appalling, even though I think that they were correct in their view about the article and that Ed's changes were ridiculous. This is a collaborative project.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Yes. I've been in roughly Ed's position rather too often for my taste. This is a wiki, so reverts of major edits need more discussion than the original edits, not less. Ben Standeven 01:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ugen64 02:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I agree with Graft: I am responsible for the conflict to the degree which my repeated undoing of unexplained reverts fueled an edit war. But it's not true that my undo's were without explanation or discussion. Making such a blatant false claim is nothing short of, well, "felonious" - the kind of mischief you'd expect from a monkey. I on the other hand shall try to conduct myself henceforth in an outstandingly manly fashion. :-) --Uncle Ed 19:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Very clever, witty and so forth, and yet, the response is also very wrong and deviating just a wee bit from fact. I'm also a tad unclear how Graft jumped to this contusion, "not a single one took steps to take the conflict away from the article and onto the talk page". •Jim62sch• 22:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm concerned that Ed's comment here show's if anything an unwillingness to change. The comment skirts
    WP:NPA using the old creationist saw "maybe you believe you're a monkey, but I'm not" rhetoric/insult. This is not helpful and does not look like the sort of behavior one would want to see in a penitent individual. JoshuaZ 02:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    More than likely, Ed is refering to FM's "monk" moniker. Perhaps he's never heard the stylings of the jazz pianist. I don't know. --ScienceApologist 20:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Good golly, I can't even make a pun once in a while? His name sounds like a "
    poor
    " sense of humor. ;-)
    But if 'change' means abandoning NPOV and letting a clique dominate an article so that it's biased towards one POV and they editors gang up to intimidate anyone who dares edit without prior permission, then the ArbCom can order me to do so I guess. But inserting information which "advances a POV" is specifically not grounds for reversion. I'll stick to that idea, until the arbcom announces a policy change. --Uncle Ed 21:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Roger

Ed Poor is being criticized here largely because his beliefs that the WP pages related to evolution are unfairly biased. Ed is completely correct when he says that "a small group of contributors revert nearly all attempts to present ID [intelligent design] in anything but a negative light."

Pages on ID should, at the very least, express the views of the ID proponents as they express themselves. Later paragraphs can explain why many scientists think that the ID folks are wrong, or having a bad influence, or having disguised religious motives, or belong to some conspiracy, or whatever. The pages are currently very unbalanced, and do not describe ID view accurately.

Ed has been trying to add some balance. Some of his critics here just revert any attempt to add balance, usually without any discussion on the Talk page. They should be on probation, not Ed. Roger 19:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ed_Poor_(2)&oldid=1140227362"