Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Ed Poor (2)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Ed's continuing disruption

  • 14:52, 2 June 2006 AmiDaniel blocked "Ed Poor (contribs)" with an expiry time of 12 hours (3RR violation on Creation-evolution controversy)

After a giving Ed several days, I'm saddened to see that Ed has not taken this RFC seriously enough to cease his disruption of the project, which in fact has only grown and spread to a number of other articles in the interval. Along with edit warring, Ed's method as detailed in the RFC has been to tie up and wear down his opponents with tendentious discussions while feigning ignorance of the topic or issue to disguise his method. It's troubling to see this technique being used by Ed in responding to this RFC as well [1]. Ed's faux naif pose of "it's not me, it's them" shows either he's failed to read the evidence and comments presented or hopes that passersby will, as there's no shortage of discussion of his editing on the article talk pages; either way it indicates a failure on Ed's part to take this situation and the attempts here to resolve it seriously or in good faith. If Ed continues to insist on disrupting articles by inserting his viewpoint by brute force and repeatedly raising and re-raising tendentious objections on their talk pages, WP:DR provides for next steps. FeloniousMonk 18:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June incidents

  1. WP:POINT
    .
  2. Intelligent design - 09:57, 19 June 2006: Adding a false statement to NPOV template
  3. Talk:Intelligent design - 19 June 2006 - Tendentious arguments, ignoring evidence and facts, disruption by making specious claims: 09:56, 19 June 2006 10:19, 19 June 2006 10:22, 19 June 2006 10:35, 19 June 2006 10:39, 19 June 2006 11:09, 19 June 2006 11:17, 19 June 2006 11:20, 19 June 2006
  4. WP:NPOV
    , was a unilateral change to long-standing, well-supported content, and spreads the conflict from the ID article to a related one.
  5. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - 11:39, 19 June 2006: Reverting back to above edit
  6. Talk:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - 19 June 2006 - Personal attacks, tendentious arguments, ignoring evidence and facts, disruption by making specious claims: 11:42, 19 June 2006 11:49, 19 June 2006
  7. WP:POINT
  8. Godless: The Church of Liberalism - 12:20, 19 June 2006 Reverting back to above edit, ignoring talk page comments
  9. Godless: The Church of Liberalism - 12:24, 19 June 2006: Edit warring, again restoring factually incorrect edits
  10. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view 17:37, 19 June 2006 and 18:37, 19 June 2006, disruptive edits to policy without any discussion on the talk page, with personal comment in summary. Subsequently (19:31, 19 June 2006) added section to talk page, complaining that "two Wikipedians have teamed up... to censore this policy"
  11. Flying Spaghetti Monster parody
    unilaterally without discussion.
  12. Summary for policymakers - 08:48, 19 June 2006: Unilateral substantive changes
    Did not seek prior consensus through discussion
  13. Summary for policymakers - 12:00, 19 June 2006:Reverting back to above edit, again, no discussion

Apparently this outburst at Intelligent design was in response to my role in having his new policy Wikipedia:Text move scuttled. Considering Ed's ignoring of this RFC, his pettiness and continuing inclination to lash out against those who he opposes, and his ongoing repeated disruptions of articles they are on, it's likely time to consider next steps. Thoughts? FeloniousMonk 18:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After making vague allegations on the Intelligent Design talk page, apparently demanding that this pseudoscience should be presented as being on a par with science, Ed edited NPOV in what seems to be an attempt to make it harder to deal with his mischief, directed personally at FM. I've taken the liberty of adding this incident to the list above. ...dave souza, talk 19:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The move-stuff may be related to my complaints at t:
Summary for policymakers, where again I think he is being disruptive William M. Connolley 19:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Ed Out?

Sadly (well, from a personal point of view, though not from a GW editing view) Ed is off William M. Connolley 21:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He does this everytime. In previous instances he's come back claiming to have "turned over a new leaf," though invariably he's fallen into the same disruptive patterns upon each return. To avoid having to go through this all again next time, continuing on to the next step may be prudent here. FeloniousMonk 21:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll disrupt your attempts to game the system, yes, but not in the same way. I've finally figured out how to beat you at your own game. Tremble before my power now! ;-) --Uncle Ed 20:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
beat whom at their own game? Who are you talking about, Ed? (oh... btw, I'm not precisely trembling... will a mild blink or two do?) KillerChihuahua?!? 21:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We've been following WP:DR to get you to cease disrupting articles and your comment sounds like you're 1) making this a personal matter, 2) intending further disruption. Should you restart your disruption, we will continue to pursue all means provided by policy to ensure that you stop. This is an encyclopedia, not a game. You won't get too far with that attitude. FeloniousMonk 21:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July incidents

Ed has returned to the project after having left in June in a huff. Sadly, he's missed the point of this RFC and blames others for his difficulties, accusing them of "attempts to game the system," and vows to to "beat you at your own game."

At the beginning of this RFC it was hoped that Ed would take the sentiments of the editors endorsing it to heart and participate in the project in a cooperative, not adversarial, way. Sadly, that doesn't seem to be on Ed's agenda based on his comments cited here. If that's the case, additional steps may be called for. To that end any incidents caused by Ed that warrant discussion, in particular those that are disruptive, should be listed and discussed here.

  1. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ed Poor (2) 12:59, 11 July 2006 A bit of minor name-calling
  2. Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Ed Poor (2) 13:01, 11 July 2006 Personalizing the issue, vowing to continue disruption.
  3. Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view Expanding the conflict, personal attacks. 07:10, 14 July 2006
  4. Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view After being reminded by several editors that his personal attacks were violations of wiki policy, he misuses wiki policy by essentially noting that the violations should not have been pointed out. 12:18, 14 July 2006
  5. User talk:Ed Poor Dismissing the RFC, threats. 12:11, 14 July 2006
  6. User talk:Ed Poor Continuing to dismiss the RFC, continued threats, misrepresentation. 13:32, 14 July 2006
  7. User talk:Ed Poor More threats, personal attacks, continuing to dismiss the RFC, fanning the flames. 14:00, 14 July 2006
  8. Teach the Controversy This diff covers five separate, consecutive edits. Expanding the conflict, tendentious editing,
    WP:POINT
    . 13:48, 14 July 2006
  9. Talk:Teach the Controversy Raising tendentious objections,
    WP:POINT
    . 13:54, 14 July 2006
  10. Radical environmentalism Citing "censorship of opposing view[s]", Ed restore a quote by an author not known for his enviromental credentials and conflates environmentalism with radical environmentalism, making a substantially POV edit that has since been reverted. 13:49, 17 July 2006
  11. Talk:Radical environmentalism Ed then tries to explain why source is relevant, still violating
    WP:RS
    09:04, 18 July 2006
  12. [3] (10:31, 21 July 2006) and Global warming controversy (10:32, 21 July 2006) Ed first misuses the NPOV tag by claiming article says Global warming is true (intro clearly shates that GW is in dispute), then removes a list of links to other global warming articles, claiming to "move biased paragraph out of intro" (the paragraph is the list of links). Vios of
    WP:POINT
  13. In a series of four edits on
    WP:POINT. [4] 13:02, 21 July 2006, [5] 10:38, 3 August 2006[6]11:10, 3 August 2006, [7]
    11:19, 3 August 2006.

August incidents

  1. Intelligent design Significant changes without consensus, despite claims in this RFC to no longer do this. 08:38, 3 August
    • How is this a "significant change"? I added a hard carriage return or two to the intro paragraph. This is just formatting. (an unsigned comment from Ed Poor 11:30, 4 August 2006)
    • This is typical of the lies you tell about me, FM. I think *YOU* are the one who is making this personal. (an unsigned comment from Ed Poor 11:30, 4 August 2006)
  2. Intelligent design 1st revert reinstating above, no discussion in Talk. 09:10, 3 August
  3. Talk:Intelligent design Knowingly and tendentiously using a specious argument to justify his actions in the article, above. 09:18, 3 August
  4. Intelligent design 2nd revert of above non-consensus changes. 09:19, 3 August
  5. Talk:Intelligent design Dismissing
    WP:POINT
    . 09:23, 3 August
  6. Intelligent design Trying to get same content changes in another way, again against consensus. 09:36, 3 August
  7. User talk:FeloniousMonk Disruption by issuing knowingly bogus NPA warnings where he intentionally spins an accurate description of the disruption he caused as a personal attack in the hope of gaining advantage over those he is engaged in a content disputes with. As explained to Ed previously, [8] [9]
    WP:NPA
    says Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks. Ed has an extensive history of issuing such warnings. 10:43, 3 August
  8. Intelligent design Disruption,
    WP:POINT
    : Intentionally misused NPOV template over an uncontroversial defintion. 11:15, 3 August
  9. Wikipedia talk:NPOV dispute Attempting to expand the conflict. 11:45, 3 August
  10. Intelligent designer Undiscussed controversial changes, readily apparent POV deletions. 09:50, 4 August
  11. Talk:Intelligent designer Raising bogus objections to well-supported content, knowing that it is supported and unchallenged at related articles. 09:52, 4 August
  12. Intelligent designer Misuse of POV template. 09:59, 4 August
  13. Intelligent designer Same article, POV deletion again, edit warring. 11:39, 4 August
    • Some anti-ID (or pro-Evolution) advocates believe that ID really means God but is concealing this as a ruse. {{cite needed}}
    • Are you saying I deleted somebody else's unsourced POV? Or that I'm pushing a specific POV? (You have pointed refused ever to say what point you suppose I'm 'pushing'.) Anyway, this was discussed in talk, and you promised a source, which is why {cite needed} is good here. --Uncle Ed 18:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Teach the Controversy Undiscussed substantial changes to the intro inserting pro-ID pov: "The campaign is intended to counter a dogmatic approach to classroom instruction about evolution." 12:35, 4 August
    • If this is a mistake, you ought to discuss it instead of using it as a ammunition against me:
    • "Sometimes, users will insert content into an article that is not necessarily accurate, in the belief that it is. By doing so in good faith, they are trying to contribute to the encyclopedia and improve it. If you believe that there is inaccurate information in an article, ensure that it is, and/or discuss its factuality with the user who has submitted it."
      • Ed, the POV of that statement is so strong that it makes it almost impossible to
        WP:NPOV and related issues that it is hard for me see how it could not have occured to you that the statement was POV. And if your excuse is extreme ignorance of the matter at hand, which you seem to be almost but not quite implying, then may I ask why you are still editing these articles?JoshuaZ 20:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
        ]
    • Oh, well if it's just unsourced POV that's bothering you, why not attribute that point of view to its advocates? I thought context made it clear that the sentence refered to IDM. Ever here of {{sofixit}}? I wish you guys would stop making a federal case out of everything and just talk about what needs to be done so we can work together. I'm not trying to make the articles biased, no matter what FM thinks. --Uncle Ed 21:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • FM does not appear to me to be the only editor who thinks you are seriously violating NPOV here, especially
        undue weight. In addition, you have made edits that clearly show that you know little of the topic (yes, anyone can edit, but it's really best to at least have a passing knowledge of at least most aspects of the subject), but that inevitably either remove or reducr scientific criticism of ID, or that openly support ID. The links to those edits are peppered throughout this RFC. •Jim62sch• 15:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
        ]
  15. Talk:Teach the Controversy Intentionally misleading discussion to cover up unilateral action. In attempt at appearing reasonable, Ed claims here at 12:39 to be willing to discuss his editsbefore he makes them, despite the fact that he already had made the change in the article four minutes earlier at 12:35 (listed directly above as number 14). 12:39, 4 August
    • Oh, you mean where I actually discuss a proposed change instead of making it?
    • Don't forget to note that you "took this back": You said "Yes, you're right" and "I see my mistake..." [10]
  16. Teach the Controversy Restoring his pro-ID pov, edit warring. 12:54, 4 August
    • How is describing the IDM's intent "my" pro-ID POV? I'm just summarizing what they say. I suggested in talk soon after this edit, that we source BOTH sides of the controversy. --Uncle Ed 21:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Intelligent designer POV deletion again. 12:56, 4 August
  18. Criticism of intelligent design
    WP:POINT
    and argumentative redirect (see the edit summary especially). 19:01, 4 August
  19. Note the deletion of 2 articles: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Marginalizing_minority_points_of_view and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Good_scientific_practice William M. Connolley 19:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Intelligent designer Major changes without discussion and some pov as well. 08:49, 7 August
  21. Intelligent design Re-adding changes previously discussed and rejected as pov. 08:41, 7 August
  22. August 5th at Politicization of science Edit warring. August 5, 2006
  23. Politicization of science Re-inserting rejected factoid about irrelevant non-expert. 08:38, 7 August
  24. Intelligent design Reinserting previously discussed and rejected pov. Edit warring. 09:17, 7 August
  25. Intelligent designer Insisting on reinserting undiscussed and obviously pov changes, edit warring. 09:08, 7 August

ArbCom

I think things have progressed to the point where it is clear that Ed is not going to change his editing behavior. I suggest we move to an RfA. What do other people think? JoshuaZ 18:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly you may right. If there's some form of consensus from contributors here I'll support doing so. We've given Ed more than enough chances to settle down and contribute constructively, instead he's squandered them on expanding his pov pushing to Global Warming related articles and restarted disrupting ID related articles. Perhaps it is indeed time to seek some official relief from this. FeloniousMonk 18:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately this has been a frequent repetitious pattern that interrupts reasonable argument and productivity on the wiki, replacing it instead with extremely time-consuming tendentiousness. At this stage, it should be directly addressed and settled in a way that will prevent future recurrences. ... Kenosis 21:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with all. With each passing day the level of disruption appears to be getting worse...to the point that now edits labled as 'adding a hard carriage return' are actually significant changes in text. Behaviour of that sort is simply beyond the pale. •Jim62sch• 01:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After thinking about this more, I'm no longer convinced that an ArbCom will be productive at this point in time. We should wait a while, try to work/reason with Ed and if after a few weeks or months we still haven't made any progress maybe then take the next step? JoshuaZ 20:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ball is strictly in Ed's court... The manner in which he choses to contribute moving forward will dictate how we should respond in my opinion. FeloniousMonk 03:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD history

List of articles created by Ed now deleted or userfied, catagorized by primary reasons for deleting or removal.

WP:POVFORK:

WP:POINT:

WP:NOR:

WP:NPOV:

Disrupting AFD, moving article, removing AFD notice:

Attempt to resolve

I've had a look through the 'attempts to resolve'. To my eyes, they all consist of people telling Ed to back off and accept what other people think, without any attempt to explore why Ed believes what he does. I could be wrong, but I do not see any evidence of an 'attempt to understand' in the diffs provided. Perhaps it has happened somewhere else? I'd hate to think that "We all agree that Ed is is wrong" counts an attempt to resolve anything. I'm not saying Ed's right, I'm just saying that rules require an attempt to resolve the different POVs, and I do not see that as having happened. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meatpuppets

I agree with Ed Poor on practically nothing. But there is a clique operating here and around the ID pages that does considerable POV pushing and does it in a manner that is indistinguishable from meatpuppetry, which according to

Wikipedia:sockpuppets
means it is exactly that.

I have had personal experience with these folks. When I attempted to inject a little NPOV into arch-creationist

Talk:Raymond Vahan Damadian
" This certainly will require placing very close scrutiny on all of Proctor's edits."

This was followed by my edits on other pages being reverted, RfD's being placed on articles I originated, the whole nine yards. All on pages never edited by these folks before (figure the odds, with 1.4 million pages). Now I see the same group of usernames show here and reasonably wonder how much of a real concensus it represents or whether it is just more meatpuppetry. I remind everyone that such collusive activity is against all the rules and guidelines. Pproctor 06:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfAr

Users involved in this RfC may be interested to know that it has since been upgraded to an RfAr Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ed_Poor_2. JoshuaZ 21:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Ed_Poor_(2)&oldid=1142153549"