Michael C Price (talk | contribs) |
→Statement by Johnuniq: create |
||
Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
==== Statement by Michael C Price ==== |
==== Statement by Michael C Price ==== |
||
I agree with Ravpapa about Nishidani's "often caustic and highly irritating comments on talk pages" and "he has an undisputed talent for aggravating his opponents". Do we really want to let such a battlefield mentality editor loose again, without a clear acknowledgement of change of heart? I note that he regards himself as innocent, in a recent statement[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FAmendment&action=historysubmit&diff=434780875&oldid=434777078], and is presumably unrepentant. |
I agree with Ravpapa about Nishidani's "often caustic and highly irritating comments on talk pages" and "he has an undisputed talent for aggravating his opponents". Do we really want to let such a battlefield mentality editor loose again, without a clear acknowledgement of change of heart? I note that he regards himself as innocent, in a recent statement[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FAmendment&action=historysubmit&diff=434780875&oldid=434777078], and is presumably unrepentant. |
||
==== Statement by Johnuniq ==== |
|||
I support this amendment due to Nishidani's extremely helpful contributions at [[Shakespeare authorship question]] (SAQ). I started following the turmoil and article development at SAQ in October 2010 after seeing the matter raised at a noticeboard. I had no knowledge of Nishidani before then, and have never looked at P-I issues. At SAQ, I saw a tremendous amount of disruption from people wanting to promote the UNDUE notion that Shakespeare did not write his plays. Eventually, an [[WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question|ArbCom case]] resolved the disruption allowing the two main editors of the article ([[User:Tom Reedy|Tom Reedy]] and Nishidani), with several other expert editors, to continue article development with the result that it was [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Shakespeare authorship question/archive1|promoted to FA]] in April 2011. Every step of the process was strenuously opposed by disruptive editors, and I observed that Nishidani remained calm and helpful despite a lot of provocation. Some recent discussions, now [[WT:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles|here]], show some diffs of Nishidani falling short of CIVIL, but that was in May 2010 and involved an editor who was repeatedly misreading sources, and who is now topic banned for a year, while Nishidani has never been sanctioned regarding the SAQ area. Certainly Nishidani is now fully aware of the requirements for editing and civil collaboration, and there is no reason to maintain a topic ban. |
|||
Nishidani's knowledge is extraordinary, and he has excellent access to resources. Removing a topic ban is likely to assist the encyclopedia and cannot do harm since [[WP:ARBPIA]] allows sanctions to be readily applied should the need arise. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 08:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
==== Statement by other editor ==== |
==== Statement by other editor ==== |
||
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.} |
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.} |
Revision as of 08:45, 20 June 2011
Requests for amendment
Request to amend prior case: Nishidani
Initiated by User:Ravpapa (talk) at 18:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- Amendments
- List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
- Nishidani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Amendment 1
- Requests for arbitration/West_Bank - Judea and Samaria#Nishidani
- I propose to grant an amnesty to Nishidani, removing this topic ban.
Statement by Ravpapa
This and the following request for amendment regarding Gilabrand replace the request that I submitted proposing a more general amnesty for blocked and banned editors in the IP topic area. A number of administrators commented in that discussion that they opposed a general amnesty, and would prefer a case by case discussion of amendments. Therefore I am submitting this and the following requests.
In a discussion of the state of the IP project here, it was the feeling of participants in the discussion that the blocking and banning of editors had done little to reduce the level of conflict on the project, while other measures (centralized discussion and 1RR restriction) had been effective. On the other hand, several of the participants felt that blocks had removed knowledgeable editors from the project on both sides, and had thus actually hurt, rather than helped, the project.
Nishidani is such an editor. Regardless of his often caustic and highly irritating comments on talk pages, he is unquestionably one of the most knowledgeable editors to tread in this sensitive topic area. His encyclopedic knowledge of sources was often astounding. His insights into article organization and language were always enlightening. True, he has an undisputed talent for aggravating his opponents; however, unlike other aggravating editors, he not only argued but also made important substantive additions to articles he worked on.
In the discussion leading to this request, editors from both sides of the IP dispute supported a lifting of sanctions against Nishidani and Gilabrand. I fear that by separating the requests, we will turn this into a partisan dispute, something I had hoped to avoid. In any case, I call upon editors from both sides to support the lifting of this ban, as an act of faith in the viability of our project and the belief that knowledgeable editors are a benefit to the project.
Statement by Nableezy
I think this is a no-brainer. In the WB/JS case ArbCom said that work in developing featured class articles in other topic areas would be looked upon favorably in a request for lifting the topic ban. Nishidani has done such work, helping bring the once very poor article Shakespeare authorship question to FA and improving a host of articles related to that, see for example his contributions at History of the Shakespeare authorship question, Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, List of Shakespeare authorship candidates, and Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship. Additionally, Nishidani has helped bring the article Al-Azhar Mosque up to GA quality and, if I ever spend the time needed to finish a certain section, nearly up to FA quality, working with an editor who was also banned in the WB/JS case (Jayjg) in doing so. See also his work at Barasana, which looked like this prior to him starting to work on that page, and like this after a few weeks of his working on it. He has also written, largely by himself, the articles Franz Baermann Steiner and Taboo (book).
Ill repeat what I wrote in the now archived "general amnesty" appeal, the restrictions put in place in WB/JS have not made the topic area better in any way. The main instigator of the edit-warring that brought that case about (NoCal100 and his socks, including another party to that case Canadian Monkey) continues to edit with impunity. Nishidani has not chosen to go that way; he has instead edited in a wide range of topics, helping to bring very poor quality articles to a much higher standard.
Statement by Michael C Price
I agree with Ravpapa about Nishidani's "often caustic and highly irritating comments on talk pages" and "he has an undisputed talent for aggravating his opponents". Do we really want to let such a battlefield mentality editor loose again, without a clear acknowledgement of change of heart? I note that he regards himself as innocent, in a recent statement[1], and is presumably unrepentant.
Statement by Johnuniq
I support this amendment due to Nishidani's extremely helpful contributions at Shakespeare authorship question (SAQ). I started following the turmoil and article development at SAQ in October 2010 after seeing the matter raised at a noticeboard. I had no knowledge of Nishidani before then, and have never looked at P-I issues. At SAQ, I saw a tremendous amount of disruption from people wanting to promote the UNDUE notion that Shakespeare did not write his plays. Eventually, an ArbCom case resolved the disruption allowing the two main editors of the article (Tom Reedy and Nishidani), with several other expert editors, to continue article development with the result that it was promoted to FA in April 2011. Every step of the process was strenuously opposed by disruptive editors, and I observed that Nishidani remained calm and helpful despite a lot of provocation. Some recent discussions, now here, show some diffs of Nishidani falling short of CIVIL, but that was in May 2010 and involved an editor who was repeatedly misreading sources, and who is now topic banned for a year, while Nishidani has never been sanctioned regarding the SAQ area. Certainly Nishidani is now fully aware of the requirements for editing and civil collaboration, and there is no reason to maintain a topic ban.
Nishidani's knowledge is extraordinary, and he has excellent access to resources. Removing a topic ban is likely to assist the encyclopedia and cannot do harm since WP:ARBPIA allows sanctions to be readily applied should the need arise. Johnuniq (talk) 08:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Statement by other editor
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}
Further discussion
- Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.
Statement by yet another editor
Clerk notes
- This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Arbitrator views and discussion
Request to amend prior case: Gilabrand
Initiated by Ravpapa (talk) 18:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC) at 18:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
- Gilabrand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Amendment 1
- Arbitration enforcement topic ban of Gilabrand
- I propose to grant an amnesty to Gilabrand, removing the indefinite block against her.
Statement by Ravpapa
This and the previous request for amendment regarding Nishidani replace the request that I submitted proposing a more general amnesty for blocked and banned editors in the IP topic area. A number of administrators commented in that discussion that they opposed a general amnesty, and would prefer a case by case discussion of amendments. Therefore I am submitting this and the preceding requests.
In a discussion of the state of the IP project here, it was the feeling of participants in the discussion that the blocking and banning of editors had done little to reduce the level of conflict on the project, while other measures (centralized discussion and 1RR restriction) had been effective. On the other hand, several of the participants felt that blocks had removed knowledgeable editors from the project on both sides, and had thus actually hurt, rather than helped, the project.
Gilabrand is such an editor. She has extensive knowledge of the topics on which she writes, and she is a clear and incisive writer. Moreover, she has contributed not only to IP topic articles, but also to articles on a variety of subjects. She has shown herself to be an editor genuinely interested in advancing the Wikipedia project.
This request for amnesty is in no way meant to condone the unconscionable use of an anonymous IP to continue editing when under topic ban. I am aware of the extensive damage that puppetry has wreaked on the Wikipedia as a whole, and in the IP area specifically. Almost universally, these puppets are single-issue editors, whose sole purpose is to introduce propaganda into the Wikipedia. But this certainly is not the case with Gilabrand. Her interest in contributing to Wikipedia as a whole is genuine, and if her passion led her astray in the past, I am confident that this ban has put enough of a scare in her that she won't do it again.
I urge editors from both sides of the IP divide to support this request. By supporting amnesty for Gilabrand and Nishidani, I believe we are showing a level of solidarity and of genuine interest in the well-being of the project that can move the project forward.
Statement by other editor
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}
Further discussion
- Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.
Statement by yet another editor
Clerk notes
- This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Arbitrator views and discussion
Initiated by Russavia Let's dialogue at 15:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Case affected
- Eastern European mailing list arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
- Case affected
- Russavia-Biophys arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
- Russavia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- Miacek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
Amendment 1
- Wikipedia:EEML#Editors_restricted and Wikipedia:ARBRB#Russavia_restricted
- Amend restrictions to allow interaction between Russavia and Miacek
Statement by Russavia
Both restrictions prevent two-way unnecessarily interacting between myself and Miacek, however, for the betterment of the project, it is necessary that the two of us be able to interact and collaborate onwiki.
Some interactions between Miacek and myself include the following: this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and it can go on. I also commented at his request to have his topic ban lifted, because as Miacek mentions in that very request, relations between the two of us are normal. We have also been in occasional email contact, the last time just the other day, when I emailed him for fixing an issue on the Donavia article after he saw my note on my talk page.
All interactions between the two of us have been cordial, collaborative and consentual, therefore, it makes no sense to have bureaucratic restrictions in place which prevents two editors from interacting for the betterment of the project.
I am asking the Committee to amend the two restrictions to specifically allow interaction between myself and Miacek. And I foresee no reason why the Committee would not agree to this amendment request, as it serves as an example of what editorial interactions in EE topics should be like.
Statement by Miacek
Russavia has informed me of the amendment request and I do support this request. As Russavia has summed up above, the relations between two of us are constructive and there's no need for the clauses. In fact, only yesterday did I realize that it's still forbidden for me to interact with Russavia - my topic ban was lifted in the summer of last year, but the other clauses remain in force. All things considered, I see no reason for restricting our interaction anymore and ask for the clause to be lifted. In fact, I actually look forward to a point in the future when the clause could also be lifted viz-a-viz other ex-EEML members. Miacek 16:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Statement by other editor
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}
Statement by BorisG
I see no valid reason to keep this restriction in place. - BorisG (talk) 07:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Statement by yet another editor
Clerk notes
- This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Arbitrator views and discussion
- Allowing a few days for any further statements, but tentatively support this request, based on the agreement of both parties that they feel able at this point to interact civilly and collegially. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ed_Poor_2
Initiated by Andries (talk) at 17:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines
- user:Ed Poor has not violated these guidelines for articles in category:Unification Church
- The talk page topic ban should be lifted
- List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
- Andries (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator), but uninvolved: I rarely edited Unification Church related subjects, except The Making of a Moonie
- Ed Poor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Kafziel (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Note:Kafziel claims that he is uninvolved, but user:Andries disagrees. Andries (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC) closed discussion started by KillerChihuahua's request for a topic ban by fulfilling this request.
- KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) requested topic ban
- Kitfoxxe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) regular contributor to Unification Church related articles
- Hrafn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) regular contributor to Unification Church related articles
- Cirt (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) regular contributor to Unification Church related articles
- Borock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) regular contributor to Unification Church related articles
- Steve Dufour (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) regular contributor to Unification Church related articles
- Exucmember (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) regular contributor to Unification Church related articles
- Marknw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) regular contributor to Unification Church related articles
- Wndl42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) regular contributor to Unification Church related articles
- Wolfview (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) regular contributor to Unification Church related articles
Andries (talk) 07:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
- Ed Poor (diff of notification of this thread on Ed Poor's talk page)
- Kafziel (diff of notification of this thread on Kafziel's talk page)
- KillerChihuahua (diff of notification of this thread on KillerChihuahua's talk page)
- Kitfoxxe
- Hrafn
- Cirt
- Borock
- Steve Dufour
- Exucmember
- Marknw
- Wndl42
- Wolfview
Amendment 1
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ed_Poor_2&diff=330919237&oldid=330918451
- Strike out talk page for articles in the[ category:Unification Church. User:Ed Poor is still not allowed to edit the article pages in the category:Unification Church
Statement by user:Andries
I formally request the arbcom to lift the talk page topic ban for Unification Church related articles of user:Ed Poor. Ed Poor is well known to be a committed long time follower of the Unification Church which he openly admits. I can understand that and why he has a article topic ban for the articles related to the Unification Church. However it seems that Ed Poor does not even dare to edit some rather unrelated talk pages, because of the possible consequences.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&diff=prev&oldid=431407881
I check the talk pages of several Unification Church related talk pages and I saw no walls of texts or insults by Ed Poor. As far as I can see he has behaved constructively there or at least does no harm. Please understand that committed long time followers can give excellent comments on article talk pages.
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Unification_Church
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Unification_Church_members
I know what I am talking about, because I am a critical former member of the Satya Sai Baba cult/new religious movement. I can give useful comments there. My topic ban was changed into an article only topic ban and I am now free to comment on the talk page. I can say that it was a relief to be able to comment there, because the article is about what was a big part of my life for nine years. I do not think I have done any harm with my comments and I have helped with sources.
I never had serious problems with Ed Poor regarding cults/new religious movements, though we worked together years ago. And we had some reason to get into a fight with each other because he was a current member and I am an apostate (critical former member).
See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andries&diff=431409793&oldid=430884030
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&diff=prev&oldid=430551195
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&diff=431671329&oldid=431650555 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=330961567#User:Ed_Poor_-_POV_and_COI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ed_Poor_2#Log_of_blocks_and_bans
Thanks in advance to the arbcom members, who volunteered to do a difficult job, but have little chance to make all people happy.
Sincerely yours,
user:Andries Andries (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Update 01 by Andries: two views of Ed Poor's edits
I think that there are two views on Ed Poor's edits which determine what diffs are relevant and who is involved in this matter.
- 1. Ed is a generally competent editor, but he does not see the limits of his competence and is biased in some subjects which has caused problems
- 2. Ed is a generally biased and incompetent editor who cannot see the difference between good and bad sources. As a result of that he has caused problems in some articles. In other subjects he has not (yet) caused problems.
If you believe in nr. 1, like myself, then his bad edits on climate change etc. do not matter and people not involved in Unification Church edits are not involved in this amendment. Andries (talk) 10:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment by Andries to request by user:Bishonen
I think the amendment is necessary because
- It is important not to discourage contributors in Wikipedia by giving them unnecessary editing restrictions
- Ed Poor can help to prevent mistakes in the article. Reputable source contain sometimes blunders. For example in the case of my former religious group, the New York Times (Keith Bradsher A Friend in India to all the world) made a blunder (leader supposedly silent in public) and both proponents and opponents agreed with each other not to include this statement in the article. I had a mistake corrected in the lead of the article Sathya Sai Baba by extensive arguing on the talk page. The article was linked to on the main page of Wikipedia, just after he passed away.
- Ed Poor has access to reputable writings about the Church (among others by David Bromley), so he can help with sources. (I personally disagree with Bromley's hurtful negative generalizations about apostates, but I understand that they have to be seen in the context of the great American cult scare of the 1970s and 1980s)
- Andries (talk) 08:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment by Andries to user:Orangemarlin
- Your reply is off topic. My request for amendment is only about the talk pages of Unification Church related subjects. Andries (talk) 08:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Who are you to declare what is on topic or not? It would seem that Mr. Poor's ongoing pattern of edits is highly relevant here. It seems proper to leave such decisions to the arbitrators. --69.165.135.150 (talk) 03:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you 69.165. 135.150. Saves me from leaving an uncivil and very pointy reply. Now get registered around here. We need good editors who stand up to the POV.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Who are you to declare what is on topic or not? It would seem that Mr. Poor's ongoing pattern of edits is highly relevant here. It seems proper to leave such decisions to the arbitrators. --69.165.135.150 (talk) 03:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Reply by Andries to comment by user:KillerChihuahua
- ad 1. There are no diffs of bad behavior on Unifcation Church related talk pages. So the offense level was and will be zero if the topic talk page ban is lifted.
- ad 2. For many obscure or foreign subject, one could find mainstream English language sources that make mistakes of blunders. But if better sources that contradict these statements then Ed Poor can help to get the blunders out if all contributors (both opponents and adherents of the Unification Church) agree. This is not breaking Wikipedia's core policies but using common sense and discernment when editing. The job of the contributors/editors is not to copy every statement in seemingly reputable sources.
Andries (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Reply by Andries to comment by user:JoshuaZ and Ed Poor
JoshuaZ and Ed Poor, I thought and still think that the only persons involved are the ones that dealt with the topic ban of the Unification Church. I also posted on the NRM notice wikiproject talk page. Nevertheless, I will inform the listed contributors who edit or edited the Unification Church related articles. Andries (talk) 15:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC) JoshuaZ, you did not complain about Ed Poor's edits regarding the Unification Church, so I thought and still think that you are not involved. Who else do you think is involved apart from the users listed by Ed Poor?Andries (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Statement user:Ed Poor
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}
In the whole time I've been topic-banned from Unification Church articles and talk pages, I have been asked many times to comment. Having thought that enough time might have passed, I responded as follows here, pointing out that I would be willing to join the discussion if no one objected. Unfortunately, this was not taken as a request to have the ban lifted but as an evasion of the ban.
Aside from that, I've simply been staying away. I'd like to return to editing, or at least to commenting when invited. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Reply by Ed Poor to Bishonen's list request
- Invitation to join AfD disscussion on Cult checklist. [3] Ironically, I was going to argue we keep it, even though it presents my church in a bad light. This, of course, is simply because I want Wikipedia to present each side of controversies fairly - regardless of what side I'm on.
- I've just suggested merging True Family into List of Unification Church members since the information in the first is mostly aready in the second. Please discuss if you like: Talk:List of Unification Church members#Merge in True Family. Kitfoxxe (talk) 09:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC) [4]
- Hi Ed. Cirt and I has just started a discussion on the talk page about removing some of the extra examples and trivia from the page. Please join in if you care to. Thanks. Kitfoxxe (talk) 23:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC) [5]
This is only three (not many), but if people are going to invite my input, why not let me respond? --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Statement by Orangemarlin
NO fucking way. I could list another 25 recent edits of Ed Poor that would show his bias, quote-mining, use of non-reliable sources, and lack of understanding of NPOV, but to excuse date rape, to quote mine a right-wing Xtian article on contraception, and to try to state that there isn't a vast, solid, 99% support in the scientific community for Evolution is solid proof that Ed Poor should stay at Conservapedia, where, I am sure, his style fits well with their anti-science bias. Really, Ed Poor shouldn't be editing here at all, but I leave that to others.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Request by Bishonen
I used to spar with Uncle Ed on these matters a long time ago, and am dubious about the usefulness of the proposed amendment. Specifically, Uncle Ed gives an example above (one) of an editor who invited him to comment on a talkpage, but describes the overall situation as "I have been asked many times to comment." Can we see a reasonably healthy list of some of those many times, please, Ed? That might amount to "Evidence detailing why the amendment is necessary". Nothing on this page has provided such evidence so far. Aunt Bishonen talk 20:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC).
Comment on Andries' comment to me
I don't get it, sorry. I asked specifically for a list of examples (in other words, diffs) of some of the "many times" Ed Poor has been asked to comment, hoping that either you, Andries, or Ed would oblige, but that hasn't happened yet. Not sure what you're commenting on, but it's not on what I asked. Bishonen | talk 12:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC).
Comment by 110.139.190.67 aka 125.162.150.88 ak by few former usernames
I've no involvement in any of this; have not even read it all... but a comment above by Andries caught my eye, and it warrants highlighting:
- It is important not to discourage contributors in Wikipedia by giving them unnecessary editing restrictions.
110.139.190.67 (talk) 09:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Statement by User:KillerChihuahua
I think the amendment is unwise because
- It is important not to encourage known POV pushers and edit warriors by removing controls which have clearly worked, keeping problems with a chronic violator down to what is virtually a no-offense level. Kudos to Ed for trying to follow the restrictions; I'm glad they are working.
- According to the requester, "Ed Poor can help to prevent mistakes in the article. Reputable source contain sometimes blunders." - meaning, Ed will change articles to align with non-reputable sources? Not a good idea. I remind Andries that Verifiability, not Truth, is the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia.
- Ed is welcome to contribute to non-restricted areas of the encyclopedia, until and unless such time as he indulges in his POV pushing to such an extent as he gets topic banned from them as well. I am sorry to sound so cynical, but past history, along with OM's linked edits above lead me to believe that is the path Ed might well be on regarding such subjects as evolution, global warming and contraception - all of which he continues to try to skew towards his own narrow view - see his edits of 13 May 2011, for example, trying to insert a creationist POV into Climatology. OTOH, I will be pleasantly surprised if he sees the light, mends his ways, and figures out what NPOV actually means. If that unlikely event occurs, I would happily support an easing of restrictions. It has not happened yet. If ArbCom in their wisdom decide to give this repeat offender a nth chance, I recommend leaving intact Remedy 1.1 that "He may be banned from any article or set of articles by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive editing, such as edit warring, original research, and POV forking." so that if this gallant (or foolhardy, depending upon one's persuasion) attempt does not lead to improving the encyclopedia, but rather to the same tired tactics we've seen from Ed since the beginning, the mistake can be easily rectified.
Statement by William M. Connolley
I'm in favour of lifting the sanction. It is time-expired. I'd also be in favour of the sanction being reimposable (with a lower bar than normal, preferrably without recourse to arbcomm) if Ed Poor abuses the lifting. The main reason is the time-expired nature. Another reason is (that despite the faults in his editing viewpoint) Ed is generally very good about not edit warring, so taking out his problematic edits isn't hard.
Another reason is diffs like the one KC puts forward [6] (or perhaps the ones that OM does, though I'm not judging those): Ed has the same problems at other articles, and the topic ban (obviously) doesn't help there. But no-one (as far as I can see) is arguing that his ban should be tightened.
William M. Connolley (talk) 13:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris
I'm familiar with Ed's work in other areas (mainly climate-related articles). Granted he tends to make the same arguments over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, but he's reasonably civil and doesn't edit war. I'd favor a lifting of the sanction with the knowledge that it could be swiftly reimposed at the discretion of any uninvolved admin if problems arise. (This is more or less in agreement with Killer Chihuahua's point 3.) Third Cousin Twice Removed Boris (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Statement by Hodja Nasreddin
Support lifting the sanctions, basically per William and Boris. I saw his edits in several areas, and he is definitely a highly dedicated and well-intended contributor. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Statement by JoshuaZ
I haven't given any real thought to the matter. I'm just noting my confusion about which editors Ed thought should be alerted. I filed the RfAr leading to Ed's sanctions but had not been notified. KC on the other hand has had almost no connection to that and is notified? This confuses me. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, I didn't file the amendment. Andries did, and I was puzzled about the same point. Shouldn't the regular contributors to the UC-related article have been notified? Like Kitfoxxe, Hrafn, Cirt, Borock, Steve Dufour, Exucmember, Marknw, Windl42 . . .? --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Statement user:Hrafn
I must admit to being in three minds on this proposed amendment. Which is why, although I had been aware of this proposed amendment for some time, I had been holding off on offering a comment.
One the one hand, I have always found Ed Poor to be a problematical editor -- with an annoying mix of obdurate content (an inability to grasp WP:V and WP:RS, combined with a pervasive tendency to attempt to give equal validity to his personal views) and stylistic (a love of WP:QUOTEFARMs and a preference for bullet-points over prose) blindspots. On the other hand, I am not particularly comfortable with a permanent topic ban on anybody that extends to talk pages (it is after all not a restriction we normally impose, even on the most WP:COI editors). That smacks a bit too much of censorship. However, on the third hand, I can easily see how the inability to learn from his mistakes that Ed has demonstrated on article space could easily result in disruption even on talk (and can remember actually encountering such disruption on what was then Wikipedia talk:WikiProject intelligent design (now Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Creationism) at a time when Ed was topic-banned from Intelligent design [7][8] -- though that is some time ago now -- though nothing I have seen of Ed Poor since indicates to me that he has reformed).
Therefore although I would like to support this amendment, I cannot bring myself to to do so, even only extending to UC-related talk pages, without some fairly heavy behavioural probation attached. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Statement by Cirt
Essentially I agree with comments about this issue by Bishonen (talk · contribs), Orangemarlin (talk · contribs), and KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Statement Steve Dufour
I am also a Unification Church member, I have known Ed well in various online forums but have not met him in person. We often have had differences of opinion about the WP UC articles, since in my opinion his writing is too much addressed to "insiders" and sometimes intended to provoke controversy -- as others have mentioned. I'm not sure what he feels about mine. I do think letting him comment on talk pages is reasonable. He often makes valuable contributions there. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Further discussion
- Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.
Clerk notes
- This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Arbitrator views and discussion
- Waiting for more statements/Discussion. SirFozzie (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm torn here. I'll be honest, I think that the amendment is problematic as I think there's a high probability of unhelpful behavior reoccurring. I'd be willing to go with what David F and Coren stated below for a lifting of the talk page ban, with the caveat that lapses in behavior will see it reinstated quickly. SirFozzie (talk) 19:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Also waiting for any additional input. Based on the comments so far I am leaning against the proposed amendment at this time, as I am not persuaded that the problems that led to the topic-ban here have been addressed. I note with interest that the remedy that was being enforced here, from 2006, is of a type we have not used much, if at all, in more recent years; it may be useful to bear it in mind where relevant in future cases. I also would say in passing that while I understand that arbitration-related requests sometimes bring out strong feelings, and I do not favor enforcing an artificial or excessive veneer of faux civility, it will be appreciated if all commenters would maintain a reasonable degree of decorum on this page. Strident, nasty rhetoric does not help us. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm all for lifting the talk page ban, with the understanding that any relapse is grounds for it being reinstated speedily. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 01:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think that a lift of the talk page ban would not be unreasonable at this point. — Coren (talk) 13:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Why not then - trial lifting, and any complaints of disruption that are upheld (and a low threshold of disruption will be judged to be disruptive) will result in revocation of amendment. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Motion
The scope of the topic ban placed upon Ed Poor (talk · contribs) by Kafziel (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) on 2009-12-10[9] as a result of enforcement of remedy 1.1 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2 is amended to "any article related to Category:Unification Church, not including associated talk pages", effective immediately. Ed Poor is reminded that further disruption related to this topic may result in the topic ban or other remedies being re-imposed by the Committee.
- Support:
- — Coren (talk) 16:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- SirFozzie (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- I can accept this given that we are discussing only talkpages and given the last sentence, which hopefully won't become relevant, though it will be there if it is. (There is an argument that reimposition of remedies under the decision could come through an Arbitration Enforcement request rather than from the Committee, but I'll let that go unless the nuance interests other arbitrators.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Can give this a try. Shell babelfish 01:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Per Newyorkbrad. Risker (talk) 01:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Mailer Diablo 13:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- Roger Davies talk 12:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- Also per Newyorkbrad; the Unification Church talk page ban was placed as an AE-type action we should leave it open so it can be reimposed in the same way (should it prove necessary). –xenotalk 19:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain: