Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ed Poor 2

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Ed Poor

Final (47/93/14); Withdrawn by WJBscribe at 00:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Ed Poor (talk · contribs) - It has been over 30 months since Ed Poor was desysopped after the Requests for arbitration/FuelWagon v. Ed Poor case. He has certainly served his time, and in the meantime been a valued contributor. Since the time of the desysopping Ed has been helpful to editors and to the project; he has been cordial and genuine in his collaborations and his advice to others. He knows policy inside and out, and he is able to teach it properly to others. He serves as an unofficial mentor to many. Access to admin tools would help him further his contributions to Wikipedia. Kingturtle (talk) 18:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Co-nom Since I joined WP I've researched its history in rather great detail. While at one time Ed seems to have been over-ambitious and too bold for his own good, I believe he has learned in recent months how to take pause before his actions and consult with others. I personally do not think he will repeat his past behavior and that he would be of great benefit to the admin corp. Additionally, his recent comments at RFAR about user behavior seem to indicate he has grown in his understanding of the community. MBisanz ^talk 18:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Although I was an admin before, this is actually the first time I've gone through the nomination process. I was one of the first 200 Wikipedians to sign up, and in the old days we simply appointed sysops via the mailing list. I guess I'll get an avalanche of special questions, but I'm ready for them. This is your wiki, and you need to know how (or whether) I merit your trust. So ask away! :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: Primarily I'd like to help with the AfD process (no, I won't be deleting the AfD page! <grin>) I'm especially interested in rescuing information which is prematurely nominated. "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." I won't be counting votes, because "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument,"

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: My work on the contentious 1973 Chilean coup d'état article set the precedent for spin-offs, which are now indicated with the {{main}} template.

B: I created a bunch of date math templates, which prompted (forced?) User:Tim Starling to create the ParserFunctions so they would run quickly enough. My {{age}} template is possibly the single most popular application of this at Wikipedia; nearly every bio article includes it.

C: I did a lot of work with transclusion, which became the standard way to assemble pages out of easily-edited subpages.

D: I used to administer the mailing list, and I was one of the first Mediators. I was the first elected Bureaucrat (I established the precedent that Bureaucrats apply the same way as Administrators.)

E: Possibly the best single thing I did was to get the developers to allow blocked users to edit their own user talk page, so communication is not completely cut off; this is especially useful when a block is accidental or capricious: I took advantage of this feature myself when I found myself suddenly subject to an unexplained block which the arbcom found to be unjustified. [1]

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: Ah, well, I was young then ; and far too hasty. I confused "bold" with "trigger-happy" and I took some matters into my own hands which really should have been left to the community. I am now a firm supporter of consensus action. I blocked a couple of users on my own initiative, when frankly I was for too intimately involved to be the one to take action. If I'm re-sysopped, I'll be sure to take no action regarding matters I'm involved in; I've learned my lesson.

B: I tried too hard on Global warming and Intelligent design in the past, but these past couple of years I've just left those areas alone for the most part. Better to "agree to disagree" and contribute elsewhere.

Optional question from xenocidic

4. As you know, administrators have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. They come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for their actions. And they are sometimes be tasked with considering unblock requests from the users they block. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond.

A: I spent 5 years in the army, and I would have to describe the language in your scenario as "tame" compared to what I've heard in the barracks. Anyway, in a case like that where the user persists in vandalizing I would ask other admins to take a look; I wouldn't try to handle it all by myself. If it's as obvious as RFAQ, any of dozens of on-duty admins would be sure to jump in and do a block. I don't worry about damage to my own user or user-talk page. I'm on a lot of contributors' watchlists; so I can simply let someone else perform the undo. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Followup: So would you be amenable to unblocking the user based on his 11:35 unblock request at the bottom which references his good faith edit at 11:18?

I don't know - it would depend on what other admins thought. If I had chosen to block him for vandalism, and another admin wanted to unblock him, I wouldn't object. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Question from Avruch

5. Can you describe the events where you lost your various levels of access, and how your behavior and perspective have changed since then (if they have)?

In each case I was being too bold, taking swift unilateral action when there was nothing really so urgent happening:

1. Two or three sysops were wheel-warring, so I de-sysopped them (using developer rights). I promptly "reported myself" and admitted I had overstepped my authority. No one would even have known it was me if I hadn't mentioned it.
2. As a bureaucrat, I thought Trollderella had an improper username so I changed it. However, I really should have consulted other bureaucrats first - and certainly not made the decision on my own. I resigned b'crat, as suggested by Fred Bauder.
3. I'm still not sure I was completely wrong in the FuelWagon affair. I thought I was defending SlimVirgin. And in fact FuelWagon was banned for 6 months. But the key point was that I was not the one who should have taken action against the user Not only was there was no need for me to act alone, but it was really a matter for the arbcom.

After 2 1/2 years of penance, I hope you will trust that I have taken to heart the lessons I've learned: Don't be the lone ranger. Work in concert with other sysops. Trust the consensus process. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Question from Pedro

6.Given that I may have been to hasty in opposing and may change my mind. I note no comments on you being open to recall. Given your past, shall we say "colourful" nature, I would expect stringent recall criteria that is free of process wonkery and ambiguity. Given your comments above, are you prepared to be recalled sans-drama? If so what are your criteria?

A. Well, in Heinlein's The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, the professor says, "If a bill is so poor that it cannot command two-thirds of your consents, is it not likely that it would make a poor law? And if a law is disliked by as many as one-third is it not likely that you would be better off without it?" If there's consensus to make me sysop (whatever consensus means in this context), then I'd be willing to resign if I ever lost consensus. I don't like drama; (that's why I wrote this essay). --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I always preffered Isaac Asimov as one of the three greats :) Thanks for your prompt reply, but as it's filled up with exactly the process wonkery and ambiguity I didn't want - I think I'll stay in oppose. If I can be straight forward in my recall criteria I fail to see why you can't be. Sorry, and best wishes. Pedro :  Chat  21:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a math teacher; I thought 1/3 oppose was simple; I guess it looks more wonkish from your perspective. I'll stand for re-RFA if any 3 users who support my successful RFA request it. Fair enough? --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions from Keepscases

7. What are the similarities and/or differences between your role as an administrator on Wikipedia and that role on Conservapedia?

A: Almost completely different. At CP I'm a leader, a maker of rules. Andy Schlafly wrote the "commandments", I wrote the "guidelines". CP is under siege from people who oppose the goals of the project, even its very existence. So along with a dozen other vigilant sysops I'm quick on the block trigger.

B: WP is a well-established, almost insanely popular project; it's well-funded, and aside from a tiny bit of newbie vandalism has no major problems. I wouldn't be an armed guard here, just a janitor with a mop. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

8. Why is your signature different than your user name? Do you feel this causes any confusion?

A: I tried to change it, and people objected. Actually, I'd like to make it User:Ed Poor because I'm not the 'uncle' of 16,000 regular contributors. (Anyway, I'm nearly old enough to be a grandpa to some here, eh, MessedRocker?) --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Another from Avruch

9.: Another quick question - all of the ArbCom cases about you are quite old, the newest was closed in October 2006 (filed in August of that year). However, the one and only logged enforcement of your probation (which is, please correct me if I'm wrong, still in effect) occurred in January of this year. Can you explain what led to that?

A. I guess it took Raul's ban to make me realize I was being tendentious. I still think the anti-ID crowd have a stranglehold on the article; some contributors have ganged up to ensure that only one viewpoint is expressed; see Tag-team editing. But I no longer feel any urge to "take arms against a see of troubles and by opposing end them", like Hamlet; his actions led to several untimely deaths. I have come to realize that it's not up to me (as a lone contributor) to keep harping on the point. The thing is to agree to disagree and simply move on. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions from FT2

10.: Looking at your answer to Q.5 (Avruch), and the arbitration case, it seems the recurrant theme is that you felt something was for the best, and therefore did it, but crucially, did not think whether it was the only option, or other considerations might also apply, and you acted unilaterally rather than check with others for "sanity". In other words, too hasty and too self-sure, and perhaps some cases needed thoughtful insight rather than whatever they got. (Then again in a way we have some of the opposite problem now, it's hard to get that one right.) That was 2.5 years ago, but the concern obviously lingers. Is there compelling evidence that you have since then changed, and have much more consistently better judgement, in areas such as "when to consult", and "when there might be merit in going with less haste", or the mindset to always think about checking and discussing first, or trying other approaches if that may be better, as well as being direct at times?

A:

11.: 30 months is a long time here. The culture of the wiki, and the expectations placed on administrators in terms of conduct, have changed hugely. Do you understand the current expectations of the role, and the standards sought? What do you see as the major changes between 2005 and 2008?

A:

12.: Some users have considered you as seeking enhanced access, or "status", and then abusing it, a factor mentioned in the arbitration case. 30 months is a long time, but for an ingrained habit it may be a short time. Thoughts?

A:

13.: More a comment than anything. I looked at the citation backing one claim in your RFAR: [2]. It seems a post that for the most part, any good editor could have written. Perhaps the difference is actions rather than words, or impatience and "I'm an admin, this is my job" leading to unilateral and poorly judged action. I don't know. It seems mostly, a well written post. Yet others clearly saw in it a symptom of repeated problem conduct elsewhere, and that is how it was cited by the 2005 Arbitrators. Thoughts?

A:

Thank you. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Utterly Optional question from Erik the Red 2

14: On your Conservapedia profile, you state you have been opposing atheism for 30 years. How would this influence your interactions with atheist users as an administrator?

A:

Question from Gazimoff

15: Being a Brit, I'm not sure I understand the purpose of Conservapedia or it's relevance to this Request for Adminship. In order to improve my understanding, please can you describe in your own words, the purpose of Conservapedia and how you would describe your role there. Further to this, as the crux of the question, do you feel that this creates a conflict with your work on WP, or if they complement eachother, and why you feel this is the case?

A:

Optional questions from jc37

(The following are general questions that I've asked other RfA candidates. And while my understanding is that, do to your length of time here, you've helped edit more than a few of the policies and guidelines, I think it's worth knowing your own personal perspective on these.)

In order to illustrate that you have at least a passing knowledge/understanding of the policies and processes in relation to the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship, please answer the following questions:

• 16. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for:

• 16a. ...an editor to be blocked?

• A:

• 16b. ...a page to be protected?

• A:

• 16c. ...a page to be speedily deleted?

• A:

• 16d. ...the policy to ignore all rules to be applied to a situation?

• A:

• 17. How does one determine consensus? And how may it be determined differently on a talk page discussion, an XfD discussion, and a DRV discussion.

• A:

• 18. User:JohnQ leaves a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?

• A:

• 19. Why do you wish to be an administrator?

• A:

• 20. (And though this somewhat doesn't have as much to do specifically with being an admin, but rather any editor in general, given the comments below I thought it worth asking.) What does Wikipedia is an encyclopedia mean to you? - jc37 04:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• A:

Questions from Outerlimits

• 21. What is your opinion on the article Conversion therapy that evolved from your Reparative therapy article? Do you agree that it's inappropriate to treat fringe political and religious theories (like the one that says praying can make gays straight) as if they had scientific validity? Would you use your administrator tools to be certain that fringe religious theories are not represented as conflicts within the scientific community?

• A: The article is unbalanced and incomplete. There is no mention of same-sex attachment disorder or the theories of its genesis; the methods of reparative therapy are not discussed at all. I'd put an NPOV tag on it, since opponents of reparative therapy have plainly hijacked the article.
• B: There is no scientific evidence that prayer alone can "make gays straight". Some religious groups believe this, but prayer is not a key part of reparative therapy. In general, of course, untested theories of any sort should not be treated as if they had scientific validity. Theories whose proponents refuse to subject to testing (or which are not "falsifiable") are by definition pseudoscience.

  Note: Some people think that reparative therapy consists simply of prayer. It would be good to mention in the conversion therapy article that advocates are of two schools of thought: (1) The religion-based school of thought believes that faith and prayer ought to be sufficient to make a change. (2) The psychology-based school of thought believes that counseling "those who want to change" can be effective. (Taking a quick glance at the article, I failed to see any of this presented there. This may be an example of Wikipedia:Censorship of unpleasant facts.

• C: I would not use my administrator tools on any article where I was in conflict with other editors. My area of special focus at Wikipedia has been controversies in which strongly opposing political or ideological factions are engaged in dispute over scientific and political matters, such as (1) whether it is wise to use DDT to prevent malaria infection; (2) whether the global warming treaty is the best approach to handling climate change; (3) whether natural causes alone are sufficient to account for evolution. In these areas I would recuse myself. There are 2,000 other administrators who can handle content disputes to which I may be a party.

  The extent to which religious disagreements (as between Creationism and Materialism) are relevant to science is a highly contentious matter. I would not use admin tools to resolve these.

• 22. Do you still feel that your (deleted) Aspects of evolution article was a good idea? What is your current thinking on the use of POV forks?

• A:Yes. Evolution has three aspects (or meanings), according to Americas's leading science education group, NCSE. [3]
  1. Change over time, as indicated by the fossil record, is accepted by everyone but Young Earth creationists.
  2. Common descent, "accepted as a fact by all evolutionists and most progressive creationists".
  3. The process that causes evolutionary change to occur "is accepted by Darwinian evolutionists and some theistic evolutionists. It also is accepted by most non-Darwinians evolutionists and progressive creationists for microevolution."

This is roughly what I wrote in the deleted article, but that was before I had any idea that NCSE agreed that evolution has three meanings. I would have quoted them then if I knew. The 3 distinct meanings are relevant to the creation-evolution controversy, because (as it seems to me) often advocates and critics of an idea end up talking past each other because they don't agree on the basic meanings of words. I want Wikipedia's coverage of this topic to be clear, comprehensive and neutral.

• 23. For many years you vigilantly strove to keep the Unification Church off any list of cults appearing in Wikipedia. The Unification Church appears on List of groups referred to as cults in government documents. Do you feel this is appropriate?

• A:I think "vigilantly strove" is incorrect. The definition of a cult then in use was taken from www.m-w.com (the same Merriam-Webster dictionary I used in high school, I believe): "a religion regarded as spurious". Note that it doesn't not say a religion which *is* spurious; the key word is regarded. Clearly, since the mid-1970s anti-cult and counter-cult groups have "regarded" the church as spurious. I made no effort to hide the fact that this viewpoint had currency; indeed, it seemed to be the mainstream view until at least the late 1980s (and may still be). What I did try to do was to point out the existence of views which ran counter to the mainstream, identifying legal decisions, scientific positions and sociological accounts which disgreed with the POV that "it is a spurious religion". I don't think I ran into any edit conflicts there.

• I have no objection to the "list" article mentioning that certain governments have expressed the opinion that my church is a cult. It would also be interesting to report any changes in government opinion, such as a government saying it no longer holds that opinion.

• 24. In Politicization of science, an article you created as a somewhat pointy way of objecting to the way your claims about global warming were being recieved, you claimed that Intelligent Design didn't originate with the Discovery Institute, and made this edit. How, as an administrator, would you deal with someone who reinstated that edit?

• A: I did not create that to make a point. If I had, the article would have been deleted. I intended the article to list all major incidents in history when politics (or ideology or religion, which I think amounts to the same thing) entered the scientific arena and placed its seal of approval on one theory and suppressed another. I had hoped that this might shed some light on current controversies. The Galileo episode was removed, although it's the clearest case; religious tradition suppressed science in those parts of Europe where the Catholic Church held sway. This month, I made a hasty edit concerning the origin of ID, not realizing that the passage in question concerned the movement to promote the idea; so when my edit was reverted I agreed with the reversion. If someone had reinstated the edit - after Hrafn explained the context, they would be in the wrong. I forget the exact policy or guideline, but it's a case of "I am not hearing you". I also think that on highly contentious topics, contributors to well to follow a 0RR policy. But even if it had been someone other than me who reinstated the edit, I would recuse myself because I contributed heavily to the article (indeed so much that you called me the creator of it).
• B: More importantly, "my" views on global warming are irrelevant. I am not a theorist or scientist. I merely happened to have found out that some scientists (a tiny minority, it seems) disagree with the mainstream about what causes the atmosphere to heat up and cool down. The mainstream pegs it to carbon dioxide levels, especially in the modern era. The minority view is turns the causality around, claiming that temperature drives CO2 levels (in the ancient historical temperature record as shown by ice core proxies); and that cosmic rays which affect cloud cover are also a major factor (along with solar variation). While some scientists and some advocacy groups want their view accepted and the mainstream view rejected, my approach is different. I want Wikipedia to remain neutral about which view is correct.

• 25. You created Gallup poll on creationism and evolution as a somewhat pointy way of complaining about the way your edits on evolution were being received. The article has since been deleted. In the deletion discussion you claim that this article was a "good" fork, not a POV fork. Do you still feel that way? Do you think that deletion was a good decision? Do you still feel that it represents "a censorship campaign"? How should an administrator deal with someone who habitually creates such articles?

• A:That's not why I created it. The purpose of that article was only to show what percent of Americans adhere to the three main views on evolution. The information in those polls was in Wikipedia long before pro-evolution POV-pushers banded together to suppress it. About 15% believe life evolves without God's intervention; 45% believe life evolves, but that this is due to God's intervention; 40% deny evolution takes place at all. The statistics are related to the dispute over the proportion of Americans who "believe in evolution", and it relates to your Q23 above. Evolution advocates claim that most Americans believe in evolution, while evolution opponents say the opposite, that most Americans reject evolution. I had hoped our Wikipedia articles could shed light on this dispute by clarifying the meanings of evolution in the conflicting claims.
• B: The meaning of "POV fork" has varied somewhat, but the important aspect is an attempt to evade our neutrality policy. I'm a firm supporter of Wikipedia neutrality, so I wanted to highlight an aspect of the dispute. Some people agree with evolution, while others disagree with it, but it's more nuanced than a do or don't. People agree or disagree with different aspects of evolution; see the "three meanings" outlined above, based on the NCSE resource. When we say that someone believes in evolution, do they accept it in all three NCSE meanings? The 15% in the Gallup poll accept all three; the 40% (YEC) reject all three. How about the middle? How should those who accept one aspect (such as common descent) but reject another (such as natural causes alone) be classified? I still feel the article was neutral, if that's what you're asking.
• C: The deletion was a very bad decision. It was apparently done to help obscure the issue, specifically to hide the nuances of meaning of the phrase "believe in evolution". This could only help one side, the pro-evolution side. The deletion thus hurt neutrality at Wikipedia. It came about when one contributor asked me for information on how many Americans believed what, in regards to evolution. I gave him a link to the article, and he promptly nominated it for deletion.
• D: It sure looks like part of a censorship campaign. There are several ideas related to evolution which have been suppressed, but an RFC is the place to address this matter.
• E: If I become an administrator, and I see someone recreating a deleted article with the purpose of upholding NPOV, I would counsel him to use the dispute resolution mechanisms instead. What I did was not wrongly motivated, but it was wrong. I was too lazy then to ask for a Third Opinion or to launch a Request for Comment.

• 26. Do you think you can resist your impulses to use administrator powers in content disputes on articles in fields to which you have a strong emotional concern (gay rights, homosexuality, global warming, evolution, Intelligent Design, the Unification Church, cults, etc.)?

• A:Of course. As I said above, I would recuse myself from any conflict regarding my pet concerns. I'm not being noble; it's a requirement of being an admin, isn't it?

• 27. In the past, when you have made edits to articles with which you have a strong emotional connection (gay rights, homosexuality, global warming, evolution, Intelligent Design, the Unification Church, cults, etc.), you have defended them on the basis of your understanding of NPOV, yet those who reverted them did not feel your edits were in furtherance of NPOV. Has your understanding of NPOV changed since that time?

• A:Not in the slightest. I still think that neutrality means not taking sides in a dispute. Articles should present all major points of view. It's wrong to game the system by appealing to guidelines such as WP:Undue weight as a justification for eliminating mention of an idea, or the arguments that support or criticize an idea. We need to avoid misleading our readers about how much support an idea has, but suppressing the idea entirely or concealing the reasons its adherents advocate it is not necessary.

• 28. When you created the article Gay disease, which has become the article Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, the article consisted of these two paragraphs: "MRSA bacterium, or methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, long a problem in hospitals, has become a mini-epidemic among promiscuous male homosexuals, much as AIDS did when it first arrived in America late last century. Most of those infected are gay men, but the superbug is certainly not restricted to this group. Athletes, schoolchildren and newborns have all fallen victim.... Health officials suspect that the large number of cases among gay men are due to skin-to-skin contact during intercourse, rather than sexual transmission per se, and the fact that many gay men have multiple sexual partners". Do you still think that Wikipedia needs an article in which those are the only "facts"? How, as an administrator, would you react to the creation of such an article?

• A:I never felt that the article was finished at that point. I'm a collaborator; I start articles hoping that others will join in and add what they know. The term "gay disease" was first used by a gay man, a physician. The term no longer has currency, of course, since the cause of AIDS has been established as HIV, and other "gay diseases" have been likewise diagnosed. It might be interesting to some readers to have an article about the usage of the term, but maybe it would be better to make that a section of another article; perhaps politics of homosexuality. If someone created an incomplete article, I might apply the stub template, but I'd be more likely to add to it myself if I had any relevant knowledge or to bring it to the attention of other contributers; perhaps a WikiProject.

Optional questions from User:Filll

29. What should be done to encourage calmer environments around RfAs and similar polls? For example, would you support the Peaceful Polling Pledge?

A.

30. Answer two of the exercises at the AGF Challenge 2 and post the answers here or a link to your answers.

A.

Questions from User:Geo Swan

• 31. When I participate in an {{Rfa}} I ask the candidate a question about whether they recognize that all the wikipedia's contributors are fallible, as all humans are fallible. I admire people who can openly consider the possibility they made a mistake, and openly acknowledge when they realize they made a mistake. Unfortunately, many people, both in real life, and here on the wikipedia, regard all questions about their statements and actions as some kind of personal attack -- no matter how politely they are phrased. Can you go on record as committing yourself, if you are entrusted with administrator authority, to consider every civil question posed to you, on its merits, remember you are fallible, when considering it, and commit yourself to openly acknowledge any errors you realize you made? Geo Swan (talk) 13:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

A.

• 32. When I participate in an {{Rfa}} I ask the candidate if they believe administrators continue to be obliged to comply with the wikipedia's civility policies. While most of the current corps of administrators clearly are doing their best to be civil and patient it includes an unfortunate minority of individuals who act like being entrusted with administrator authority frees them from an obligation to be civil. Would you please go on record as committing yourself to doing your best to remain civil if you are entrusted with administrator authority? Geo Swan (talk) 13:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

A.

• 33. When I participate in an {{Rfa}} I ask the candidate if they plan to add themselves to the category for administrators who are open to review, if the community entrusts them with administrator authority. Geo Swan (talk) 13:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

A.

General comments

• See Ed Poor's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Ed Poor
• Requests for adminship/Ed Poor 2

• Links for Ed Poor: Ed Poor (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Ed Poor before commenting.

Discussion

Could somebody who's been paying attention comment on Ed's edits during the last year or so? Has he displayed any further inclination towards POV-pushing and the like? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Closing crat should view that this would seem to indicate a devil of a job for consensus to be found. Note, that although I oppose strongly, I do feel that Ed is unlikely to be given a fair review by his peers on wikipedia due to this. Pedro :  Chat  22:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

  Please note that the entry in question has now been removed. Dark Matter Narcosis (talk) 23:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

  Also note that the readership of Rationalwiki is very small, so this is hardly likely to produce a torrent of opposition that wouldn't be here already (and obviously newbie accounts needn't be counted). For some really fine extracirricular reading, however, we have some lovely comments from Ed "Gays should be thrown in prison" Poor. Enjoy! -R. fiend (talk) 15:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added links to Ed's admin and bureaucrat actions. Given that he's a former admin, his actions as an admin are, I think, pertinent to the discussion at hand. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 01:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose absurd number of questions made to candidate. This is not an application form for a job in the CIA. Húsönd 10:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

A CIA job interview? The word that springs to my mind is "interrogation." —Animum (talk) 20:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

33 questions hardly strikes me as an "interrogation" given how complicated a candidate we are dealing with. If there is anything wrong with the set of questions it is that there is some redundancy; people seem to be not completely reading the earlier questions when adding their own. In any event, questions are the only way that candidates can in fact respond to concerns in a systematic fashion. When candidates respond to too many comments in the oppose section people start opposing for that reason alone. We need questions to avoid that little absurdity. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You do have a very fair point about redundancy, though I view continually revisiting an issue that he's addressed different times in different ways and that isn't even related to the issue we're here to discuss as being highly superfluous and a complete waste of his time. When I say that, I mean: Questions 7, 8, and the unrelenting inquiries about merely having something to do with Conservapedia (not ones about the comments he made there, but purely those about his involvement). He's answered it; doing exactly the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome is nonsense. —Animum (talk) 22:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You know, 33 questions? Really? For a candidate with 7 years of experience with the wiki, and an extensive, extensive body of work on which to be judged? Maybe we're going overboard just a tad, perhaps? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

While I agree 33 questions is "too many," I note in passing the candidate's number of contributions here over the past 6 months is relatively small. The questions could reasonably be interpreted as a good faith effort to understand the candidate's intentions and motivators, absent a longer recent record on this site to go on. (Full disclosure: I don't intend to cast an opinion on this RfA either way.) Townlake (talk) 14:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Perfectly reasonable, esp. in re: recent contributions. That's part of why I'm firmly in Neutral, to be honest. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel I should need to explain why I asked the 31st, 32nd and 33rd questions. The 45,000 edits spread over 7 years, is precisely why many questions are necessary. If we are going to endorse or oppose a candidate we need to know where that candidate stands today. Candidates should be held accountable for both their recent edits, and their earliest edits. If their opinion as to the proper way a responsbile wikipedia contributor behaves has evolved, and they would not take actions today that they took in the past, then they need to spell that out. Geo Swan (talk) 15:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean to question your questions at all, the aggregate total merely caught my eye and caused me to comment - no offense intended. To the credit of the questioners, we'd usually have a few "Aren't too many questions annoying" questions by this point; the questions we have here are remarkably on point. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Drama alert Are there really 47 Wikipedians who can't imagine how it makes me feel, as a gay man (monogamous with my spouse/partner of 26 years, which Ed will tell you must be a lie, but it's true), for you to be welcoming and supporting a candidate who likes to create Wikipedia articles designed to spread a rumor that you can catch some terrible disease if you come in contact with me (see question 28 above), and doing everything he can to try to get me imprisoned or committed to an asylum? Sometimes this question is brushed aside on the grounds that he's entitled to his opinion, and it will never happen, so what am I worried about? Those of you with insight into history and human nature will understand that, just because Ed can only get 35% of adults to agree with him (at most, varying from region to region in the U.S.), doesn't mean he'll never get it up to 51% if he keeps trying as hard in the future as he has up to now. The U.S. might be in for some very rough times economically, and the tendency to look for scapegoats and take brutal measures grows in times of economic uncertainty. Please consider how your support for this guy makes me feel. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure your characterization of either example (the article or the comment on Conservapedia) is accurate. I don't understand why you feel it necessary to inflame this situation with a personal appeal, as if those supporting Ed Poor's request (of which I am not one) are insulting or damaging you personally. They aren't. I can see how you would be upset by his views - re the Conservapedia edit, I certainly agree with you that he is completely wrong and misguided. On the other hand, his political opinions are not at question in this request - or they shouldn't be, because clearly that is what many are basing their votes on. Avruch ^T 17:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I considered it, and found it wanting of a reason to dismiss him. So we should keep the bit from users who hold certain opinions? what is the precedent for that? What is the outcome? Should we not give the bit to homosexual editors? Come on. Conservipedia is a joke. People who support ID and deny global warming embody a specific kind of foolishness. People who spread lies and rumors about homosexuals should have their views rebuked by the community. But that has nothing to do with oping someone. I can rail against misguided views all day long, just as I can deride wikis built specifically to form a comforting semi-permeable membrane where only some facts can get through. But that doesn't change the fundamental question before us. If we think this user will abuse the tools and push POV using those tools, we should ALL (not just 47 of us) refuse him the bit. If we don't think that he will misuse those tools to push his views than his views don't matter. If we can justify rebuking someone on the basis of their avowed prejudices, where does the line get drawn? I didn't "vote" for him because I wanted to endorse his reprehenisble views about hmosexuals. I didn't vote for him out of a show of intellectual solidarity with his positions on ID, GW and a host of other issues. I voted for him because the evidence provided on this wiki shows an editor that has been with the project for a long time and who strayed out of frustration. My estimation of that may be wrong. It is certainly not the consensus view. But I am one of those 47 and I don't think it is appropriate to treat my vote as part of a straw poll on homophobia. Protonk (talk) 18:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This is the outcome of people who have an "ick" feeling about a topic. I would not want this closed immediately without due discussion and consensus by an admin whose "ick" went so far as to preclude an open mind to practices of different cultures and time periods. --Moni3 (talk) 18:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. If you feel that this admin can't or won't recuse himself from debates like that (or can't comport himself properly), then oppose. but having feelings about it shouldn't be a reason to oppose. We should treat adminship a little like tenure (and functionally, it does have a lot of similarities). If we don't feel that the individual will exercise the responsibility necessary to treat things under his purview in a rational manner, we oppose. But we shouldn't get into the habit of opposing based on those views. As I explained above, some people have clearly opposed for that reason. People have provided evidence to suggest that this user has in the past (and may not in the future) use the bit properly. That is the operative question. We shouldn't demand a particular mindset on subject not relating to core wikipedia policies. Don't you see the similarity between asking for an open minded administrator and asking the community to not require specific political mores from administrators? Protonk (talk) 19:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else here, but for me the politics is a very small part of my opposition. I basically have one criterion when supporting someone for adminship, and that is good judgment. Admins have to make frequent judgment calls, and I like to have some faith that they will do so competently. Ed's judgment here in the past have been bad, more recently have been questionable, and at Conservapedia have been appalling. There are admins at Conservapedia who I would support as admins here, because they display judgment and rationality, but Ed is most certainly not one of them. So it is not about politics exactly. Looking at Ed's Conservapedia history, he displays utterly irrational behavior, inability to understand common terms such as "incivility", bullying, and a host of other issues which I don't believe he will be able to turn off as soon as he dons his Wikipedia hat. I realize sysopship at CP and WP are very different positions, but that's largely because a few people like Ed have made the position of sysop into that of jack-booted thug. Like just about every admin there, he breaks the written rules at CP frequently (but not the unwritten ones, because "sysops are always right" is the one real and unwritten rule there). Will Ed abuse his power here the way he does at Conservapedia? No. He can't. We wouldn't stand for it here; we have accountability, which is one of the things that separates this site from Andrew Schlafly's blog. Will he rountinely push the envelope on abuse? will being back in a position of power here go to his head as it did at CP? I'm tending to think so. At least he's demonstrated downright awful behavior enough that I need more then empty promises to make me believe that he's worthy of additional rights.

Now, about politics. I wouldn't oppose anyone merely for being a conservative, or for holding beliefs like "I think homosexuality is a sin and immoral", particularly if they demonstrated they could let this not effect their editing of the topics, or they could stay away from them entirely. But, at the same time, I would vote against an editor who had a webpage proudly proclaiming neo-nazi sympathies. Yes, I know, Godwin's Law, but for a guy who thinks homosexuals need to be locked up, well, I'm thinking the analogy is slightly more appropriate. If he said the same thing about Jews or blacks (actually, he has indeed said negative things about both groups, just not quite as bad) would he have as much support? Well, I guess he doesn't want to gas them, at least. Yay. Way to go. -R. fiend (talk) 20:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

To be sure, I have opposed. And also to be sure, I think political diversity is a good thing. I like to be challenged and it's good for the encyclopedia to have folks come up and say "Prove it!" because that makes our articles stronger. However, there's a line between political diversity and going right over the edge of...common sense, I guess...I don't quite know how to phrase this. Someone who denies the Holocaust occurred does not have a valid political view that should be considered in discussions about the Holocaust. It's fringe theory that passes itself off as devil's advocacy. I've seen some pretty nutty things about homosexuality, but allowing an editor who has claimed homosexuals should be institutionalized or imprisoned illustrates he is jaw-droppingly out of touch with what the psychological profession considers illness and treatment. If I cannot trust his logic in this arena, how can I trust that he will be even, sober, and fair to some very controversial issues, even to liberal thinking, per the example given above? --Moni3 (talk) 20:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

But does that lack of a "valid political view" disqualify someone from what should be an apolitical appointment? We aren't appointing him to moderate the ID article or the GW article. Plenty of people have disputed views in one section yet exercise judgment in others. Richard Russell, Jr. was a horrible racist. Even for his time, his views were unpleasant. his actions in the senate delayed civil rights for black people in the south by 20 years. Yet his actions in the Senate are not irredeemable. IF were were to hold a hypothetical re-election of past politicians, there are plenty I would rank below him. In this specific case we have to weigh our opinions of the editor's judgment against the judgment required to be an administrator. I don't see how political views fit into here. What if I think it is loony, pernicious and hurtful to believe in a particular denomination of Christianity? Or Islam? Is it 'legitimate' to oppose a candidate for being a muslim? I'm not equating your feelings about this candidate with hypothetical feelings toward religion or any other set of views. What I'm trying to do is suggest that generating some "reasonable standard" for judging acceptibility of personal beliefs is almost impossible. RfA really is a vote, so we don't need to create a "reasonable standard" in order to oppose/support. But we should attempt it to see if it is possible. My guess is that it would be exceedingly difficult to create such a standard that didn't conflict with core principles of the project. Protonk (talk) 21:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Responding more generally to the above comments. R. fiend, I think we see eye to eye on most parts. As I said above, I can certainly see why people could feel compelled to oppose based on worries about judgment. My "support" vote was not intended to castigate editors because my reading differed from theirs. As for the "politics" section, I don't think the comparison is helpful. I think that Sulu is right, in 40 years we will look back at our treatment of homosexuals with shame. But we aren't in the business of punishing shameful thought here. Protonk (talk) 21:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm a bisexual who has no problem overlooking Ed Poor's myopic view toward LGBT folks when it comes to Wikipedia. As of right now I have no reason to suspect he will use his position as an administrator to begin spreading any kind of anti-homosexual sentiment or the like on the project. I'm willing to accept the risk that it may happen, but I am confident in the fact that if it were to happen the response would be swift and appropriate. I, for one, do not believe in judging a candidate for the admin position based upon his or her beliefs, regardless of how distasteful I may find them. Shereth 22:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Kingturtle (talk) 21:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Support MBisanz ^talk
3. Support: Nom by 'crat = win. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

   Not really, no. Pedro :  Chat  21:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

   Pfft. Ok, in my opinion, if you are valued enough to be nominated by a bureaucrat you are definitely capable of wielding a stupid mop. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

   That's a fair response (not that I'd expect anything less from your good self) Pedro :  Chat  21:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

4. I've only seen good things from Ed Poor in my time here. He should be given a second chance. Acalamari 21:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
5. Good guy, no question in my mind. SQL^{Query me!} 21:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

   Strong support after reading Q5, you honestly seemed to have learned from your past mistakes. SQL^{Query me!} 21:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

6. Naerii 21:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
7. When I first started contributing to Wikipedia, I really admired Ed's history of contributions and experience. I believe he will definitely be an asset as an admin. Cla68 (talk) 21:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

   Ordinarily, I'd never vote for somebody who holds the kinds of views Ed does; he thinks "consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument", which is anathema to me, and has a history of making bold, out of process decisions without consulting the community (most notoriously, his deletion of the entire VfD page). However, his long tenure at WP and his general record of unfailing civility can't be ignored, and for those reasons I'm tentatively giving him my support (changing to neutral). If his nomination succeeds, I urge him to observe process appropriately and respect the will of the community in all matters. Everyking (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

   *chuckle* I was quoting directly from Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators on the counting heads thing; I guess you object to that guideline ... --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

   Yes, I think it distorts and confuses the very nature of consensus. But as I said, I can overlook it in your case; I just hope you show proper respect for the community's wishes if this succeeds. Everyking (talk) 21:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

   Absolutely. I'm not planning to rock the boat. Just want to chip in and do a few mopping chores. If a tough call comes up, I'll leave it other admins, the arbcom, etc. I don't plan on deciding anything. I seek only to serve. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

   "Unfailing incivility"? That would mean he never fails to be a dick. I think you mean "unfailing civility". --harej 22:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

   Thank you for pointing out that typo. Ed has always been polite in my experience. Everyking (talk) 23:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

8. Support --Duk 21:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
9. I've been slightly torn by how to respond to this. When I saw Ed Poor's renomination, I almost suffered a heart attack because I was not expecting, of all people, Ed Poor to come over into another RFA. No siree. As with MastCell, I've always felt Ed to be polite and sincere. In my early time here, I was influenced by his editing, among others. I feel that he's learned from his past mistakes, but I would support a careful watch to make sure we don't see AFD deleted next morning or something of the sort. :) bibliomaniac15 21:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
10. (edit conflict) Weak support, might change once I read a few more oppose votes — I don't know anything about your history and since it's in the past, i'm not going to judge you by it. If anything more recent comes up, however, I may switch. You seem like a capable guy and you've clearly got knowledge of the tools from prior experience, so WTHN for now. —CycloneNimrod^Talk? 21:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

    Don't keep the guy's mistakes from him forever. It was becoming ancient history during my RFA back in January 2006. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Switched to oppose.

11. Was there when the car was invented, got the keys, been around the block, crashed and bumped into a couple of lampposts, license revoked, patiently waited on curb, learned how to drive, asking for keys back. Trust him driving now. (Not the best analogy, but you get the picture). --Ali'i 21:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
12. Weak Support - The oppose reasons are clearly thought out and important. But this user knows what's what, he is immensly experienced, we shouldn't hold mistakes of the past against candidates unless they are recent, and I still think he can make a good admin. But, if he even thinks about misusing his privaledges this time, he knows what will happen...he's had more than enough warnings now. Lradrama 22:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
13. With the exceptions he volunteered above, Ed handled the mop very well in his earlier tenure as an admin, bcrat, and dev. He's also epitomized civility and the "be bold" approach, both as a regular user and with additional rights. As a somewhat controversial figure from the early days, Ed's admin actions will probably receive quite a bit of additional scrutiny, so I doubt he'll pull any more crazy stunts like deleting VfD. Finally, I believe that he has learned from his earlier mistakes. I'm happy to support this nomination. - Jredmond (talk) 22:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
14. Weak support - bygones and all that. He's had the tools before and, while there were incidents (like the VfD one), I don't expect a repeat performance. Time he had the tools back - Alison ^❤ 22:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
15. Strong support, of course! user:Everyme 22:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

    (edit-conflicted twice) Support – Although Ed has definitely screwed up before (we all have, so don't condemn him for it), he has definitely done more than enough recently, in the "distant" past, and in his answers to the questions presented to him to outweigh concerns that he'll do something really inadvisable again. —Animum (talk) 22:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Switched to neutral. —Animum (talk) 22:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

16. Support - Keepscases (talk) 22:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
17. Support An old and trusted friend of ours who deserves a second chance. Fred Talk 22:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
18. Support, plenty of time has passed since "past transgressions", and I am willing to take him at his word that he's cleaned up his act (and have no reason to suspect otherwise). Shereth 22:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
19. Support. Massive experience and knowledge. Antandrus (talk) 22:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
20. Support While a sysop, remember to delete AfD! --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 22:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
21. Support -- just be careful, yeah, Ed? You're one of the good guys. Try not to blow things up. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
22. Support. If he says he intends to be careful, I intend to trust him. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
23. Support. Deserves a second chance — That was then; this is now; the moment is never the same twice. – ABCD✉ 23:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
24. Support I hope, one day, to regret this! Pommer 23:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
25. Support. No litmus test, and he can make content. I hope that he would make this his home though. Cool Hand Luke 00:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

    Support - He's like Reagan and Jesus rolled up into one glorious wiki Übermensch. --Vote Ed 08! (talk) 00:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

    What kind of account name is that? Sounds single-purpose to me. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 00:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

    Comment by sole purpose account struck. WJBscribe (talk) 00:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

26. Support. Of course I trust Uncle Ed. Someone with his mileage on Wikipedia will inevitably have made a few cock-ups, but Ed is honest about it, and I am confident that he has learnt from his mistakes. Ed comes across as a solid contributor and I'm sure he'll make the best out of his experience. Is he back? (talk) 00:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
27. Support Ed's opinions with respect to a great many things are almost exactly opposite from mine; The events being discussed are from before I joined Wikipedia, but I have read them through, and the desysop seems to have been entirely proper. However, I think he knows enough now to do here what is expected. I think his experience would on the whole be positive. DGG (talk) 00:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
28. Support should have learned from his mistake. Cheers. Dlohcierekim 00:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
29. Support When Ed Poor was dragged before ArbCom in December 2005, I had exactly one logged-in edit. That tells me everything I need to know. It's been long enough and then some. The answers to questions and the familiarity with policy are more than sufficient. Yechiel (Shalom) 01:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
30. Support. Ed Poor is a controversial figure, but I trust making him an admin again would be a net positive for the project. krimpet✽ 02:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
31. Support I believe his sentence has been served. --LAAFan 03:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
32. Moral support in that I believe in second chances. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
33. Support I acknowledge that the editor has a particularly colorful history, and I acknowledge the possibility that he may backslide. I feel that the editor will not abuse the tools. His de-cratting was not a case that alarms me. He did the wrong thing for the right reason, and acknowledges that. He has spent a very considerable length of time in productive penance. Finally, though it pains me extremely deeply to say this, I ... hope... I am not seeing POV in some of the Opposes. The very hint of that possibility weakens their impact in my opinion. So.. after long thought... +S Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 03:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
34. Keegan^talk 05:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
35. Support I can't really hold his contributions on another wiki against him. Maybe he uses a public restroom and doesn't flush IRL. what does that have to do with admin access on wikipedia? As for past problems, bygones are bygones. As this wiki gets older and bigger, it will be harder and harder to find admins if we keep looking backward. Clearly a dedicated editor. Protonk (talk) 05:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
36. Moral Support:I am inclined to trust him and making use of his extensive knowledge of Admin tools ( for good :) ) if made an admin again-- Tinu Cherian - 07:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
37. Support, simply on the basis that if he does misbehave, I sincerely doubt it'll take long for the ArbCom to correct the matter. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

    Support Karajou (talk) 08:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)— Karajou (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    As Karajou is a fellow admin at Conservapedia this smacks of canvassing. KenDenier (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

38. Support I think he'll be decent. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 08:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

    Support: Yuck, drama. As long as Ed remembers to get his chill pill prescription refilled, I see no reason not to forgive, forget, and give another chance. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

    Comment: Strong concurrence with Lankiveil (below), by the way. (Still, we liberals need someone to keep us in check! Kidding.) But unlike, say, a parole board, which has to make sure it's not restoring freedom to someone who might kill again, we're dealing with someone whose actions can--thanks to the wonders of Wiki--by and large be reverted if they get out of hand. And I think Ed has learned enough from his mistakes that he won't let things go that far in the first place. I see no reason not to WP:AGF now. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

39. Support, for what it's worth. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 09:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
40. Conditional Support. I'm not wild about the idea of letting a radical conservative with a history of abuse loose with the tools, but I will support as long as the user sticks to the "I'll stand for re-RFA if any 3 users who support my successful RFA request it." and makes it binding upon himself. I think this demonstrates a laudable commitment to accountability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC).
41. Support I see no reason not to give him another chance. I don't think he will repeat his mistakes. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
42. Support I agree with everyking, it's time to put the past in the past. Is Ed a little crazy? Sure. I think Ed is sincerely needed to keep some of the rowdy science editors from tearing this project apart. His firm, but polite approach is just what the doctor ordered. I totally disagree with Ed's politics and views on science, but I recognized long ago that having differing voices is always better. --Dragon695 (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
43. Support - Oh, go on with you! Deb (talk) 16:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
44. Support — I agree that, ultimately, he shouldn't be a community servant--but the Arbitrary Committee, being illegitimate, has no legitimate authority to desysop someone. If he needs to be desysopped, only the community at large has the legitimate authority to do that. He should be resysopped, in accord with the original consensus to make him a servant of the community, unless and until the community at large expresses a wish to overturn that decision. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

    I kind of agree with you but surely if this RfA fails then that is the community 'at large' expressing a wish to for him not to be resysopped? —CycloneNimrod^Talk? 17:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

    Interestingly enough, the jury is out on that. See Loss aversion. We would treat this differently if it were a "poll for desysoping". I don't strictly disagree with you, but not all community processes are transitive across purposes, if that makes any sense. Protonk (talk) 18:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

45. Doomed, hopeless but for-the-record support. I have a long history of disagreeing with Ed's POV, but (a) he has apparently been back for months, yet I've barely noticed him at GW. He has clearly learnt his lesson (b) I never had any complaints about his use of admin tools; as far as I can tell he always kept that scrupulously away from his editing (c) his original desysopping was clearly wrong (I was tempted to vote no on the grounds that he now appears to believe his original de-sysopping was wrong, so his judgement must be flawed :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
46. Support. I believe that Ed has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. I'm prepared to give him another chance. Axl (talk) 18:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
47. Support LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 22:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - User has manifested bias in the past as pointed out in 3B. Too much drama. We don't need anymore sysops like that. Wisdom89 _{(T / . ^C)} 21:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

   Please everybody note that Wisdom89 has been banned at CP for making this post at WP [4] [5]. Although it wasn't Ed who did it he is a very large part of the system that operates in this fashion. I will not give my name for obvious reasons.--AnonCPeditor (talk) 11:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

   Heh, what's most cute is that the block violates their "How Conservapedia is different from Wikipedia" fluff. "15. We do not ban users based on their comments elsewhere, such as on their own blog. Wikipedia will monitor users' blogs and ban them for their exercise of free speech on their own blogs." O rly? SashaNein (talk) 14:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

   As I said on my talk page, not particularly surprised all that much. Ed Poor made a terrible judgment call in blocking me for "incivility", then I was blocked indefinitely for my oppose. Ironically, since I don't use conservapedia all that often, I wasn't even aware of my block when I casted my initial !vote. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

   Wisdom... how dare you insert liberal ideas on Conservapedia... NPOV is not part of their stance.---Balloonman^PoppaBalloon 17:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

   At the risk of getting off topic, let's just say that that might be a perfect example of why Ed Poor would make..well..a poor sysop. This type of behavior as an administrator just wouldn't fly at Wikipedia, and I'm afraid that such idealogical fealties would come into play. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

2. [6] Really? I'm inclined to disagree. Admins are not here to get people to "shut up" Pedro :  Chat  21:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

   Strong Oppose (for what that's worth) for sneaky back room political non-answer to my question. Come on Ed - you give it all in you nomination acceptance about how you will respond to the community but you can't even have the decency to answer a straight question? We don't need more politicians. Pedro :  Chat  22:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

   I think that is a little uncharitable, uncharacteristically so coming from you. It looks like he has cleared up the ambiguity. Avruch ^T 22:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

   That revision difference doesn't indicate Ed Poor adding the shut-up clause. --harej 22:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

   You are right, and I hereby rescind that clause. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

   Diff of Ed adding clause [7]. And Ed now making things plain after I asked him to make it plain in the first place is exactly why I am strongly opposed. He made no simple definition at all at first, when asked a direct question. Sorry, and I apologise if this looks uncharitable, but a bare minimum of expectation for and admin (IMHO) is clarity and I didn't get it. And yes, I've re-read his answer several times. Pedro :  Chat  22:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

3. Oppose - Sorry, but Ed has a serious past history of abuse with any tools he had. If this was just one desysopping, I could overlook it given the time frame, but Ed has lost bureaucrat, developer access and adminship in previous incidents. I just don't believe things will be different this time. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

   Can you provide some history on those incidents, since the nom and candidate didn't? Avruch ^T 21:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

   Well, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor is where he lost his 'crat access (he also lost his dev access off-wiki per the concerns from that case. He was then desysopped in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FuelWagon v. Ed Poor. In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2, he was put on probation for disruptive editing. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

   In your own words, would you say you're calling him a liar or rather a fool when he says that he has learned his lesson? user:Everyme 22:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

   Let's just say, given there's been these serious issues in the past, I don't trust him to have them again. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

   Hey, I'm all for questioning a vote that I don't believe is appropriate in order to promote discussion, but asking such loaded questions is bad form and only serves to fuel the fire. —  scetoaux (T|C) 22:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

   The 'fire' being you? user:Everyme 10:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

4. Oppose - I have no reason to believe that he won't repeat the past, regrettably. (Hey! Now I'm the opposition that gets to be spited!) --harej 21:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
5. I think Ed is a very nice, very pleasant man, who genuinely means well and sincerely wants to help the project, and I thoroughly regret that I must oppose him. DS (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

   Okay, a reason... well, for one thing, I'm uncomfortable with his participation in Conservapedia... Ed's Wikihistory is... well... it's too maculate. DS (talk) 21:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

6. Per DS: no reflection on Ed Poor personally, as he's always struck me as polite, sincere, and well-meaning. The Conservapedia thing doesn't bother me - in fact, I'm glad he recognizes that a certain approach is more appropriate there rather than trying to force it here. I just don't think that the extra buttons are a good idea; we're not talking one isolated incident, but a well-developed pattern that suggests that things are likely to come to grief. He's doing well as a contributor, and the rationale for returning the tools seems weak. Rescuing worthy articles from premature deletion is a laudable goal, but not one that requires tools (though if you need deleted revisions to work on something along these lines, let me know). MastCell ^Talk 21:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
7. Oppose There's a palpable irony that the author of this has been disciplined for POV-pushing.[8] Thanks for your work, Ed, but I don't think you need the sysop bit. — Scientizzle 21:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
8. Strong Oppose - I find you to be rude at times, not just on wikipedia either. For the sake of wikipedias credibility, you should not be an admin. — Realist² (Speak) 21:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

   You're right, and I'm sorry about that. I had no excuse to be rude. Please forgive me. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

   Aside all that, I'm also scared that you might be more prone to blocking me or people I know for being liberal, gay, black, brown etc etc. I'm not saying you hold all the values of conservapedia but you certainly hold some. I would want to know more about how extreme your social views are before I considered moving to neutral. However from everything that I can see, you are systemically biased and are at the very least, associated to a website that I consider hateful. I therefore believe that you as an admin would have negative consequences for the reputation of wikipedia. In case you think I am being biased, I gave HappyMe22, a good friend, a strong support at his RfA the other day (which passed) and he is a proud supporter of President Bush. — Realist² (Speak) 22:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

   After looking deeper into what your views are I am slightly shocked & disturbed. Sorry this is an encyclopedia not a cult. Moved to strong oppose. — Realist² (Speak) 22:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

9. Oppose this user regards the tools more as a position of authority than a way to help improve the wiki, this is exemplified by statements such as this where in debate he highlights the fact that he was a "former sysop" to help advance his position in debate. Memetic Plague (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC) 22:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
10. Oppose Ed Poor has clearly abused any position of authority he has ever been given at Wikipedia. The issue in this nomination is if he has some how had a "come to Jesus" moment and will not do so again in the future. Because I think this is the major sticking point his behavior off site, specifically at Conservapedia bears examination. Not only has he demonstrated an extremely heavy hand there but his arbitrary creation and application of rules and the shear amount of glee he takes from abuse of power does not bode well his behavior on this site. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
11. Strong oppose. Looking at Ed Poor's contributions on Conservapedia, I see a lot of arbitrary enforcement actions that definitely wouldn't fly on Wikipedia. Check out his block log over there, for instance. The deletion log gives me reasons for concern, as well. I'm aware that Conservapedia is a separate project from Wikipedia and that it has different rules and goals, but I don't think I'd trust any Conservapedia sysops to perform sysop duties on Wikipedia, either. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

    I don't agree with the mission of Conservapedia, but I'm at a loss to understand how his activity there is relevant here. Clearly Conservapedia has different standards and a different goal, which understandably leads to different policies. If he is enforcing the policies of that community effectively and without objection by its members, why should it have any bearing here? Avruch ^T 22:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

    Because it speaks to his character and his ability to not abuse his powers, if Ed had never abused his powers here at wikipedia then it would not be relevant. But the fact that he repeatedly abused his powers here means that the onus is on him and his supporters to show why he has "changed." The evidence at CP suggests his character has not improved and he still has a strong propensity for abuse of power. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

    I'm not familiar with Conservapedia's policies, but are you? Its entirely possible, isn't it, that his actions there are fully in line with the policies of that community and its expectations for people in whatever role Ed has there? Would that then be abuse, or just normal activity as expected by Conservapedia? Avruch ^T 22:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

    I am intimately familiar with CP and it's policies. Ed has repeatedly demonstrated that he will make up arbitrary rules, be extremely biased in his application of existing rules, and use his power there to shut down anyone that even looks cross eyed at him. There is no doubt in my mind that Ed is incapable of not using administration powers as a rhetorical tool. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

    Ah. Thank you. 22:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

    Conservapedia sysops routinely block users for ideological reasons (though they often deny it, or cite other reasons when blocking). Discussion of issues is often discouraged because of something called the "90/10 rule", which states that useless activity, such as 90% talk edits and only 10% mainspace edits, is a blockable offense. (Or maybe it means that if less than 90% of your edits are mainspace edits, you can be blocked.) Conservapedia also has no policies saying that editors have to be warned before being blocked. While these may be Conservapedia's policies, they have the effect of dissuading anyone from contributing if they don't follow the Conservapedia party line. I don't want that sort of thing happening on Wikipedia. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

    The above can't be stressed enough. Ed Poor's behaviour on Conservapedia is not only undeserving of honors such as adminship, but also that of a two-faced hypocritical bully who simply cannot see what he's doing before he goes and throw his weight around, tear to shreds other's contributions or outright insult them. No, these thing's I'm talking about don't have anything to do with Conservapedia's constant abuse of (written or unwritten) guidelines, though Ed is guilty of that too. For now I'll simply point out that answer 1.A, 3.A and 3.B are outright lies. LightFlare (talk) 22:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

    Now I see what the above disclaimer was trying to say. Yes, I did get here through the RationalWiki link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LightFlare (talk • contribs) 00:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

12. Oppose in recognition of Ed Poor's conduct on Conservapedia. Dark Matter Narcosis (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

    Can you comment on how that is at all relevant, and what particular element of his conduct bothers you? Avruch ^T 22:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

    Certainly. Ed Poor’s conduct on the aforementioned site illustrates perfectly his willingness to ignore regulations or otherwise circumvent them. Considering that it was similar behaviour that lead to his demotion here, I must conclude that he is unsuitable for the position. Dark Matter Narcosis (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

    It should be plainly evident why off-wiki or inter-wiki behavior would be relevant in a case such as this. Ed poor holds a position on Conservapedia as a system operator, which he routinely uses to install bias, loosely using the block button as a punitive method. Anybody who does such things is completely unfit to be an administrator here on Wikipedia. In fact, I'd say he flat out should never apply for RfA again. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

13. Years opposed to Ed Poor becoming admin: <1. BJ^Talk 22:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

    Oppose - I have had made no contribution to Wikipedia but have plenty of experience of Ed Poor's way of dealing with people and information. The man is convinced that there is only one point of view: his.
    His main attribute seems to be an ability to pontificate from a position of ignorance. His whole past activity (as indicated variously above) demonstrates that he is unsuited for any position of authority. (I won't hold his being a ranking member of the Moonies against him although that demonstrates enough to me of his unfittedness [is that a word?]) I wouldn't trust the man to walk my dog let alone administrate here. TheresaWilson (talk) 22:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

    May ask how you became aware of this request? WJBscribe (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

    Yes, you may. TheresaWilson (talk) 22:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

    How did you become aware of this request? WJBscribe (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

    [9] why?

    Canvassing concerns. This appears to be the exact source: http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Conservapedia:What_is_going_on_at_CP%3F –xeno (talk) 22:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

    NOT canvassing - informing concerned parties who might not have been aware. Some of the things Ed Poor has written about WP render him unfit. TheresaWilson (talk) 22:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

    given that the comment in question strongly suggests he would go wild deleting stuff and the general context there of objecting to Conservapedia and Conservapedia related things it certianly has all the apearence of canvassing.Geni 23:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

    So far the response from RW has been pretty limited, a few of use how contribute to both sites are participating, but with only one exception we are all more than firmly established wikipedian editors in our own right. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

    I must apologise for my ignorance of Wiki Etiquette in particular the canvassing guidelines. I was just so incensed at the idea of this man being returned to any position of authority that I jumped in without thinking. Please consider my Opposition comment deleted. TheresaWilson (talk) 00:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

    Per your request, I've indented this oppose comment. SQL^{Query me!} 02:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

14. Oppose - No indication user will not use tools to decrease the drama. So best to prevent the ArbCom from a future desyop case by opposing now. Shot info (talk) 22:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
15. Oppose per lack of need for the tools, see candidate's answer to the question "What admin work do you intend to take part in?" You don't need any special tools to improve pages on AfD through regular editing; it isn't "admin work" at all. Ahem, Uncle Ed, the point of that question was to give you a chance to show that you do need the tools. Adminship isn't a medal, it's for use. Also, per Ryan, I'm worried about the way the candidate has so far abused any tools he ever had. And thirdly, the good yeoman service that is claimed for him over the past 30 months is just left so vague! (Kingturtle says that "he knows policy inside and out", but there I'm afraid I simply don't agree.) But if somebody were to give a convincing answer to User:Sarcasticidealist's question under "Discussion" above, I might change my mind about opposing; that one's the clincher. Auntie Bishonen 22:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC).
16. Oppose as per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FuelWagon v. Ed Poor#Ed Poor's misuse of access:
    ("Ed Poor has a history of misusing any permissions given him, which has resulted in Ed losing both his developer and bureaucrat access. / Passed 7-0"). — Athaenara ✉ 22:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
    NOTE: my awareness of this RfA is solely from the Tangotango report. — Athaenara ✉ 23:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
17. Oppose Sorry, but I have no confidence in this candidate. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
18. Strong Oppose: Due to Ed's repeated abuse of power provided by Ryan, in particular this one with I find very disturbing: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/FuelWagon_v._Ed_Poor --Carbonrodney (talk) 23:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
19. Strong Oppose: has failed to use tools correctly on ever occassion he has been granted them. No thanks. --Allemandtando (talk) 23:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
20. Oppose Per Ryan P above. and per your block log[10]. America69 (talk) 23:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

    Do you realize that the last legitimate block was back in June of 2006, over two years ago? The block in October was an unjustified block, and the recent one was to mention that the Occtober block was wrong. Acalamari 23:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

21. Surely you have better things to do with your time than invoke drama as an admin again. —Giggy 23:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC) (Found out about this via WP:BN.)
22. Oppose per Elkman and others. I was enthusiastic to support you, but we can't have something like that happen again, and, frankly, I can see it coming. Sorry. —Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 23:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
23. Oppose I'd agree with Ryan. User's had plenty of chances with tools in the past, and was forced to resign tools 3 separate times to abuse or concerns of it.--Toffile (talk) 23:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
24. RFAs are tricky because we're almost always trying to guess how the candidate will utilize the tools. In this case, we're spared the usual stabbing-in-the-dark exercise because we have three arbitration cases and a wealth of knowledge about Ed Poor's past actions in an administrative capacity to go on. (Found out about this via several of my sockpuppets, all of whom will be showing up here shortly.) east.718 at 00:00, July 18, 2008
25. Oppose. I don't question Ed's commitment to the project but this strikes me as a bad idea. After over two solid years of willfully ignoring policy Ed's reformed period is a lot shorter. Chick Bowen 00:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
26. Strong oppose This editor has a long history of abuses of the admin tools. Even now, he attempts to skirt the letter and spirit of arbitration decisions. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
27. oppose Ed does produce some very good content. However, the history of RfArs forces me to oppose. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FuelWagon v. Ed Poor for example is where Ed was desyssopped, after having already been decratted. I might be able to support after that, especially since that was over 2 years ago. However, after that, Ed continued to engage in serious POV-pushing, resulting in another arbitration case, brought by me- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2. The ArbCom in that decision found that Ed had 1) engaged in deliberately disruptive behavior to make a point, 2) created myriad POV forks on multiple topics and 3) repeatedly made edits against consensus as well as repeatedly editing technical subjects of which he by his own admission had no basic understanding. This ArbCom decision occurred after a heavily attended RfC which did not alter Ed's behavior at all. The ArbCom in that decision put Ed on a general probation to which any uninvolved admin could prohibit Ed from an article or group of articles. Despite this massive cluestick, Ed continued to engage in exactly the same behavior as prior to that RfAr to the point where Raul had to ban Ed from editing any articles related to intelligent design. This behavior makes me very worried about what would happen if Ed had access to the tools again. As Ed describes above, he started being involved in Wikipedia when the project was young. Since then the community has found need now three times to reduce how much trust it gives Ed to the point where his default level is much less than the level we give a new user. I therefore have a large amount of trouble thinking that giving Ed back the tools would be a net benefit to the project. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
28. Oppose pre-disclosure: I heard about this at RW. When you combine "Shut up and get back to work!" with Conservapedia's writing plan (note the author) you have a person who is trying to squelch consensus building and debate and using their perceived authority to do it. Furthermore, you have an individual who looks to find controversial topics and insert his own POV (as has been demonstrated here). There doesn't appear to be any change in behavior compared to what lead to the original arbitration decisions. --Shagie (talk) 01:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
29. I do not believe that giving Ed the tools would have a net positive effect on the project, for many reasons listed above. I did not, incidentally, hear about this on any other wiki. Ral315 (talk) 01:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
30. Oppose: Can Wikipedians trust Ed Poor? I don't think so. He has shown not only a vituperative behavior, but also serious COI with a number of articles, most notably those related to the Unification Church. Also, I've witnessed his work on Conservapedia, and he hasn't changed a bit since he was desysopped here at WP. --Sindell (talk) 01:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

    Have you edited here before? You seem to only have about 15 edits and this is your first edit to Wikipedia space. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

    Since April 22, 2008. But does this matter? Perhaps I am a newcomer for you, but I know Poor's work. I believe I'm fairly well informed about him. --Sindell (talk) 01:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

    Not attempting to bite, but there is some concern already about canvassing in this RfA and it would be nice to keep it as clean as possible. It is important that elections in any system (even one where we use pretentious phrases like "!vote" or "~vote") are not just clean but also appear to be. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

    I understand, and I agree. I'm not voting here just because, but for the sole reason that Ed Poor was not, and is not, positive to Wikipedia. --Sindell (talk) 02:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

31. For more reasons than I can count, but I'll give just one: when I was still fairly new, he threatened to block me because I gave a Delete position on one of his POV forks on Vfd (as it was then). I have seen nothing to make me think he'll do any better if he gets the tools again. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

    I left a note on User talk:KillerChihuahua asking for a diff for the block threat. But note that it may be very old... Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 05:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

    Indeed, it is ancient. My point is that he hasn't changed a bit since then - actually, he seems to be getting worse. See below, link from Scarian, described as "utterly ridiculous" - looks a little like this from 2005, where someone is very polite and Ed says they must stop voicing concern, or he'll have to "get somebody to stop them". Except the new dif provided by Scarian is someone being extraordinarily polite and even placating, not even voicing concern. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

32. Oppose The original Spiderman, I think we'd need really clear and compelling evidence that's given up scaling public buildings. I don't think we're there yet considering some of the other evidence presented here. RxS (talk) 02:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
33. Strongly oppose. Ed is one of the architects of Conservapedia. http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Conservapedia:Best_of_Conservapedia gives a long, long list of edits on Conservapedia by Ed, and by others in the power structure that Ed regularly defends, that demonstrate contempt for alternative viewpoints, disregard for facts, and sheer delight in being a bully. I don't have a diff to show you; there are hundreds at that page, pick any you like. I wasn't canvassed, I check RfA regularly. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
34. Oppose This is my first vote but I feel strongly enough about this to vote. Ed has been disruptive as can be seen from the ArbCom cases (I think he got of lightly in the Fuelwagon given Fuelwagon never returned after the incident). Also his behaviour and poor quality edits at Conservapedia should also be taken into account (especially his tenancy to delete maths articles rather than improve them on the grounds he doesn't understand them and blocks users for creating them). I know Wikipedia has checks against this but this does show power play behaviour. More than anything I oppose Ed's nomination because Ed represents something of an old guard around here. This project has grown and moved on from the days when any person that showed up got to be Administrators and articles were two lines long created on nothing to pad out the encyclopaedia, but Ed still behaves and creates articles in that way (Ed's edit history is full of these). We need to move forward instead of picking Admins because they were here first rather than their ability to deal with what is happening. Aiden Fisher (talk) 02:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

    Here are three examples [11][12][13] of edits were he has POV pushed through block quotes that are of poor encylopedic merit all about a month ago. This doesn't look like he has changed much. Aiden Fisher (talk) 09:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

35. I do not believe that restoring Ed Poor's sysop rights at this time would be helpful to the project. Angus McLellan (Talk) 03:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
36. Oppose and delighted to have the opportunity to do so. Will without question abuse his tools again to push his POVs. An exemplar of all that's rotten about Wikipedia, so not now, not ever. Grace Note (talk) 03:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
37. Oppose due to Ed's eons-long history of astoundingly bad decisions and truculent POV pushing — Ed cannot be trusted with any tool more powerful than a standard edit box ➥the Epopt (talk) 03:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
38. Oppose Ed has shown several times over he is unsuited to the role. That, and his response "but these past couple of years I've just left those areas alone for the most part" is untrue since it was just January that Ed disrupted one of those articles enough to be banned from the article: [14] FeloniousMonk (talk) 03:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
39. Very weak reason for wanting the tools is far outweighed by the history of abuse, no matter how long ago it was (on this site, at least.) Grandmasterka 03:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
40. Oppose Not a trustworthy administrator in the least. We already have a lot of bad eggs with the tools, but that doesn't mean another one just like them can get to play as well. SashaNein (talk) 03:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
41. STONGEST OPPOSE EVA I cant support someone with a more colourful history then me ;)   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 07:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

    Don't forget what we told you about how strong, passionate and utterly demoralising your opposes can be; just imagine how you'd feel if you had a STRONGEST OPPOSE EVA on your RfA... Lradrama 18:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

42. Oppose. Per the ArbCom cases and the almost Arbcom case here. Also per former arbitrator the Epopt, above, based on a combination of his comment here and his rejection of the RfAr previously linked. R. Baley (talk) 04:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
43. Absolutely not and strong oppose. Bstone (talk) 04:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
44. Oppose. I was quite willing to forgive the old pre-desysoping transgressions (and I think that his activities on Conservapedia are not relevant here) if the conduct in the last year had been good. However, as JoshuaZ pointed out in his comment in the Neutral section, Ed was banned from a particular article and its talk page as recently as January of this year for POV pushing, see [15]. Given that that is exactly what the old problems were about, I can't say that this user has sufficiently reformed his behaviour. Nsk92 (talk) 05:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
45. "Ed Poor has a history of misusing any permissions given him, which has resulted in Ed losing both his developer and bureaucrat access." Sorry but no. I don't have any problems with Ed on a personal level or as an editor and I know the arbitration cases were a long time ago, but I haven't seen enough "reformation" to make me feel he can be trusted with the tools. Sarah 06:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
46. Oppose Strong Oppose There's a fair chance I might be biased, but we are talking about a user that helped develop what is essentially a Wikipedia attack site (Conservapedia), right? I also worry about the apparently inability to grasp the point of NPOV, additions of conservative Christian propaganda, and, and this was the clincher for me, past history. A reformed vandal running for RFA is one thing, but this is a completely different story. Sorry, but I can't possibly support this. L'Aqùatique[review] 06:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

    Okay, changed to strong oppose after I found this little recent gem. I know that keeping the various wikis separate is important, but I honestly think this is a personality problem and I worry that he will be unable to keep the two separate. L'Aqùatique[review] 06:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

    Oh I considered it, but I also decided not to. I should have explained better above: yes Wikipedia and Conservapedia are different and have different norms. This is not about community norms, this is about personal norms, and more importantly it is about giving sysop tools to someone who thinks it is okay- anywhere- to tell someone to "put up or shut up". He seems like a fine Wikipedia editor, let him stay that way. L'Aqùatique[review] 07:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

47. Oppose Seems like a nice guy, but major concerns about creating and supporting articles with dubious non-neutral content as mentioned by FT2. rootology (T) 06:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
48. Oppose I would genuinely like to believe that Ed has changed, but the abusive nature of his behavior at Conservapedia makes me think otherwise. Jefffire (talk) 07:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
49. Oppose. I'm not sure with the history of having multiple privileges taken away that I can really trust him using them again. In addition, the conservapedia edits show that the problem still remains that caused those privileges to be removed; yes, it's a different encyclopedia, but the problem here seems to be based on the users personality, not where they're working. Ironholds 09:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
50. Opppose. No thanks, Ed has a history of doing some very, very daft things with the tools on multiple occasions. The things he is best at, he doesn't need the tools for. Neıl ☄ 10:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
51. Strong oppose. Assuming this is the same Ed Poor who throws his weight around and acts the bully at Conservapedia, he is quite unfit for adminship. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 10:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
52. Oppose. Sorry - the risk of further drama is unacceptably high for mine. A series of mishaps suggest this will be recurrent behaviour. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
53. Strong oppose; Will definitely go Sideways with mop. Machiavellian. Comes in close second to Kelly Martin for being one of the worst editors for permanent wrecking and blatant disregard of process when accorded with powers. - Mailer Diablo 10:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
54. Strongish Oppose - From the things I've seen on this RfA, diffs clicked and links followed, I must say that your actions terrify me. We dont need to speculate about what you'd do with the tools... we can see. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 11:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
55. Strong Oppose - I found out a couple of days ago that Ed Poor is the sysop Ed Poor on Conservapedia. There is no way I could support anyone who "contributes" to that "encyclopaedia". It goes against everything that we're trying to do here at Wikipedia; contribute to reality, not acid-induced fantasies. Also, I don't believe he deserves the tools again after his previous desysopping. We don't "reward" POV pushers here, they might do that on Conservapedia, but not here. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 11:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

    And this is utterly ridiculous. How was User:Wisdom89 being uncivil? If you don't know the definition of a simple word and one of our core principles here then you certainly do not deserve to be a sysop (Yes, I know the diff is from Conservapedia, but the principle remains). I definitely cannot trust anyone who censors legitimate comments like that. I cannot agree with anyone who supports such flagrant oppression of valid comments. Ed Poor you'd cause more trouble as a Wiki admin than it's worth... Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 11:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

56. Oppose, sorry. Endorsement of and adminship within Conservapedia is rather incompatible with the trust, balance and neutrality required for adminship within Wikipedia, the Free (and Actual) Encyclopedia. Húsönd 11:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
57. Oppose way too many problems for a prospective administrator. Demotion from multiple positions of authority here, a history of POV-pushing (which clearly hasn't gone away as he has been banned from a large number of articles this year) and appalling behaviour on other projects all contribute to this. Hut 8.5 11:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
58. Oppose. I was not around at the time of the previous drama surrounding Ed Poor. But http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Ed_Poor and the example in the (as yet unanswered) Q. 28 above are not indicative of a mindset compatible with holding a position of trust in a collaborative, neutral encyclopedia project.  Sandstein  11:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
59. HAHAHAHAHA! Good one. Good one. But aren't we taking this joke a bit far? R. fiend (talk) 11:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
60. Strong Oppose - I simply find it impossible for Ed Poor to divorce himself from what he has become on Conservapedia. Everything seems to fit a clear pattern. Ed was demoted at Wikipedia for POV-pushing, so he took his ball and went to Conservapedia where he would be free to do everything he could not do at Wikipedia. In my opinion, adminship at Conservapedia and Wikipedia are mutually exclusive. --Edgerunner⁷⁶ 11:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
61. Oppose. A lengthy history of abuse of power at Wikipedia, followed by a lengthy history of what I can see as even more egregious power abuses at Conservapedia, basically tells me that Ed is, unfortunately, inherently unsuited to having sysop powers here. His contributions as an editor are fine but I see no particular evidence to suggest it would be helpful to the project to give him admin tools again. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 11:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
62. Strong Oppose We don't need any more drama, counts of power hunger and abuse earlier at WP and currently at Conservapedia. His activity there contrary to so many WP policies is especially concerning, and it would be extremely hard to diverge himself from those sysop activities over here. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 12:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
63. Although I've never met the candidate on occasions prior to this RfA, I feel that with the luck of hindsight what could and possibly will happen if the administrators bit was to be implemented as a feature. Clearly we can see that although time has passed (quite a bit of it, I might add) we have some recent edits which are concerning; notably the one posted here by Pedro in the #2 oppose. Rudget (logs) 12:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
64. Oppose. The oppose comments above conviced me. Better safe than sorry when it comes to admins. --Apoc2400 (talk) 12:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
65. Oppose. Edits like this and this lead me to believe that you can't keep your biases in check.-Wafulz (talk) 12:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
66. Oppose - unfortunately Ed has a history of letting his personal beliefs get in the way of the NPOV policy, and has previously used his position as an administrator to enforce his own version of the rules. Although he should be allowed every opportunity to change, the many unanswered questions and his actions elsewhere demonstrate that he is nowhere near ready to become a janitor. Guycalledryan (talk) 13:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
67. Oppose for lacking common sense judgement required for admin rights. -- Jeandré, 2008-07-18t13:30z
68. Oppose So long as Ed Poor remains a sysop on Conservapedia then there is a serious COI with him being given admin rights at Wikipedia. Ed aquired his rights here by virtue of being an early arriver. I don't doubt that he actually made some useful contributions to Wikipedia but his abuse of those rights showed that he is ill-equipped to wield power. Following remarks made above I have checked his blocking history at Conservapedia. Normally I would say that edits on external sites should be disregarded but his Conservapedia history seems to indicate that his character has not changed. Ed is not a foolish youth who might be expected to acquire wisdom and maturity and become deserving of a second chance. It would appear that he is still the same person that he was. Ed has been a significant contributor to Wikipedia and long may that continue. However, he does not need adminstrator rights to continue his work. Barfbagger (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
69. Wikipedia does not need an admin with a neo-con/fundie viewpoint and a proven track record of abusing the tools in pushing said POV. --Cyde Weys 14:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
70. Oppose This user has demonstrated a very biased POV, abuse of power and 'power tripping' on this and other Wikis. He has also made his extremely negative opinion of this wiki known throughout the internet. It is hard to believe he has the best interests of this project at heart. RogMcDog (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

    Comment: Hmmm, I'm intrigued. Could you link me to some of the things that he has made "known throughout the internet"? Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

    Reply: I'm no expert on wiki use so you must forgive my poor link and my inability to call exmaples to my finger tips. That said they ar really not hard to find. I give you one reference here Read the comment. A user who believes this site is for gossip is hardly sysop material IMO RogMcDog (talk) 15:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

71. Strongest possible OPPOSE. In this case I think we must take account of the evidence from outside WP. Ed Poor acts like an ignorant bully on Conservapedia. That sort of behaviour fits in just fine there, but we do not need it here. He is welcome to contribute to the project, but he is not fit to act as an admin. GNUSMAS : TALK 15:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
72. Strong oppose - Answer 7b brought concern, then I began reading the oppose arguments. While I normally believe it is inappropriate to consider off-wiki information on-wiki, in this case, it seems extremely relevant. The diff posted by Scarian, regarding Wisdom's "uncivil" (not even in the remotest possible way was that even bordering on maybe, sort of, kinda uncivil) comments and his blanking of them. The apparent abuse of power there leads me to believe he would treat the tools similarly here. Considering his extreme views and pushing of them, I don't see the need to risk granting Ed the tools again, also considering the various abuses that caused him to lose all of his previous positions and no real indication that he's changed. LaraLove|Talk 15:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
73. Oppose. There are many other contributors who aren't nominated who could be a good admin. Olin (talk) 15:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

    Oppose This user caused my significant problems on another site. I do not think he is sysop material. UltimaHero (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC) —The preceding comment signed as by UltimaHero (talk • contribs) was actually added by Heroultima (talk • contribs) - Heroultima (talk · contribs · count) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

74. Oppose. I don't often opine here, but in this case we have someone who has been shown in the past to have serious problems with power - and who has been dinged for it at every level of access. Off-site activities may not relate directly to on-site actions, but they provide a good indication of how a user thinks, far as I'm concerned, and the admin actions on Conservapedia make me think that it won't be long before we'd have another issue, another ArbCom case and even more drama. We've already got more drama than a cable TV network, we don't need the addition. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
75. Oppose: Although I originally went against the grain (and, for what it's worth, against my own political leanings) and supported, I've begun to feel the weight of the opposition, largely because: A) the anti-Wikipedia nature of Conservapedia is starting to become apparent to me, and is starting to get to me. If you don't like Wikipedia, then why seek additional influence on it? To mold it to your liking? By the way, special thanks to User:RogMcDog for this. Look at the edit summary. Wow. B) Ed's history of poor judgment and bullying makes me skeptical of what his future contributions will be like. Has he had an epiphany in the past 16 days that should incline me to AGF to a greater extent with him than he did with the user in that link? (This line of thinking is largely courtesy of User:L'Aquatique above.) Perhaps, but the burden of proof is on Ed. And, yes, I know that Conservapedia is (nominally) a project distinct from Wikipedia. But I think there's a little more to RfA than simply trying to determine whether or not someone will abuse the tools. We're looking for an exceptional community member whose use of the tools, whose personality, etc. will combine to produce a very net-positive effect on both the content and the atmosphere of the project. I generally like to avoid opposition (see WP:NBD and WP:WTHN); I think that, in a community this big, there are thousands and thousands of potentially exceptional members. But, as User:Olin wisely implies above, perhaps we should be devoting our energy to helping some of the other folks among these thousands and thousands. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
76. Oppose per answer 21C: "I would not use admin tools to resolve these." I believe that no administrator should ever use admin tools to resolve anything. I accept that there are different interpretations of what an admin is around here, but my own feeling is that the mop is mostly for cleaning up and for preventing damage to the encyclopedia. Disputes are a grey area, and wielding a sysop bit - whether you're involved in the dispute or not - isn't the way to go.  Frank  |  talk  17:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
77. Oppose, switching from neutral, below. I concede that my esteemed colleague Dank55 has strong feelings on the matter, justifiably so - but his position has been made quite clear in his oppose (Currently #33, above). The fact that he takes offense from the range of support for this RFA is unfortunate, but not germaine to the discussion of whether Ed should be an admin or not. I recognize Ed's long and extensive work with this project, and applaud his dedication (and his not bailing despite extensive drama). However, this and the answer to Question 28, above, lead me to believe that, while he might well be an effective admin, it is unlikely that he would be able to perform administrator tasks in a neutral manner. I stress that this might not be because he would insert his biases into his work, but rather because others would assume that he had done so, given past history. The result, unfortunately, is the same - adminship under those circumstances would be untenable. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
78. Oppose. Mention of same-sex attachment disorder did it for me. If such a thing exists, I can get all kinds of disability, right? Nuts. I would not trust this admin to treat LGBT articles fairly, and they are some of the most contentious that need a good, even admin. --Moni3 (talk) 17:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
79. Strongly oppose Ed has demonstrated repeatedly that he does not have the temperament necessary to make an effective sysop. Numskll (talk) 18:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
80. Oppose Ed's work on Conservapedia and also his answers to questions here as well as the previous AbCom/RfC decisions make me highly skeptical of Ed's understanding (perhaps deliberate) of WP:NPOV. NuclearWarfare (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
81. Oppose - Echoing most of what East718 said, we have evidence that this user cannot be trusted with the tools because of a profound contempt for our policies and a habitual abuse of any rights he's given on Wikipedia. "Fool me once" and all that. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
82. Oppose per concerns regarding POV. tabor-^{drop me a line} 19:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
83. Oppose - per above - enough to make me switch sides. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
84. Oppose - Ed has obviously incurred a great deal of controversy. I don't think that it is for the good of the project that he be saddled with extra responsibility. Especially as there are many other editors with better track records who could be given a chance. KenDenier (talk) 19:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)— KenDenier (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

    There have been other controversial admins. Being controversial is not by itself a problem. And as to your second point about giving other people a chance, it isn't like we have a limited set of sysop bits to hand out. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

    You mean... Other admins exist? L'Aqùatique[review] 21:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

85. Oppose The available information seems to strongly indicate that Ed is well suited to being an admin and editor on Conservapedia. Given this impression, and his past abuses of power, I see no reason to believe that Ed has undergone the sort of fundamental change necessary to inspire trust in him now. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
86. Oppose Per a lot of folks, and my own experience. And SheffieldSteel makes a damn good point. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 20:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
87. Oppose, per some serious concerns raised in above comments by NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs), Tmtoulouse (talk · contribs), Scientizzle (talk · contribs), Ryan Postlethwaite (talk · contribs), and others as well. Cirt (talk) 21:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
88. 9 ( Ceoil ^sláinte 21:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
89. Strong Oppose You've shown in the past that you can't be trusted with any tools that could empower you to ignore wikipedia policy and the opinions of other editors. It seems clear to me that this part of you has not changed since you were desysoped. Sorry, but between WP:NPOV and WP:CIVIL, I don't think you're capable of upholding policy here. CCG _(T-C) 21:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
90. Oppose this really bothers me, and all of the above WP:CIVIL and WP:NPOV concerns. (Note: learned of from Tangobot report). --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 22:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
91. Oppose You can certainly talk the talk: your statements are very well written, and you manage to include links to a lot of the good work you have done for the project; certainly you've done more than I, and I thank you for that - it would be a different place here without you. I do, however hold strong reservations about your ability to use the tools well. I certainly understand that due to your presence here in wikipedia's infancy, you never had the same sets of guidelines and policies as us jonny-come-latelys, but your prior infractions show that you aren't the kind of admin I want to see. I don't much care about your work at Conservapedia - as much as I disagree with juust about everything that goes on over there, your views are as valid as mine, and they don't necessarily prevent someone from being an excellent admin here. The crux of it is, you've broken basically all the rules of adminship and more and I just wouldn't trust that you could apply the tools well, in a way that is positive for the community. I really do hate to be here, opposing someone who has contributed as much as you, but I feel I have to. So, please carry on contributing, as you are a valued editor, but no thanks, not for me. - Toon⁰⁵ 22:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
92. Strong oppose per User:Dank55. We don't need to give a POV pusher like this access to the tools. AniMate 00:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
93. Oppose Profoundly untrustworthy. Steven Walling (talk) ^{formerly VanTucky} 00:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral While Ed has done great work in mediation and as a developer; however, the ArbCom case does scare me. It may simply because I wasn't even a Wikipedian back then, but I simply do not have enough background information to make a good decision on this. Paragon12321 (talk) 21:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Neutral While I think a bureaucrat's nomination, co-nomed with an admin, weighs a lot, in this case I feel it's not enough to automatically support. Both supporters and opposers are mentioning some valid points (and some prejudice as well I'm afraid) and I could not make my mind up by looking through his contribs and thus I will stay neutral in this case. So#Why 21:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
3. Neutral for now, because I am not familiar with Ed's past. On the one hand, I see that he seems willing to defer to others on matters - neglecting to do so seems to be one of the reasons for his losing rights in the past. On the other hand he doesn't seem willing to offer the hypothetical user in Q4 a second chance without another admin taking the initiative - thus, on the face, it appears as if he himself wants a second chance but isn't willing to grant one of his own volition. –xeno (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
4. SUPER ULTRA OMEGA RED AWESOME DARING INQUISITIVE DECISIVE BUFFALO NEUTRAL per xeno, really. I've never !voted Neutral before, so I have to make a big deal out of it, but I really just can't get this. There was bad conduct, yes, but that was 2 years ago. There was other bad conduct, but that was reverted. There was more bad conduct, but that was on a different wiki. Taking away all of that, you've got a reasonable caniddate for Support. But, All of that past is still a thorn in the side. I'm going to watch this, and (hopefully if it doesn't get SNOW'd on) will come back later to be swayed by other's !votes.--KojiDude ^(C) 22:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

   Neutral - per Koji... I feels the same way. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 23:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Changing to oppose. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 11:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

5. Neutral - I believe in second chances, I believe in the ability of someone to change, but my concern is the drama that this could create. It wouldn't even be Ed's fault - but given the way some users work, everything Ed does would get watched like a hawk and result in 50K ANI sections. In short, though I would support Ed returning to adminship, I don't support the baggage that would come with it. --B (talk) 00:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

   Neutral, mainly because I want to think about this one. An editor who has enough edits to make interiot's tool crap itself by checking more than 45,000 (!) contribs is definitely worth a look. I am also amused by Ed's deletion of the old Votes for Deletion process, thus. WP:BOLD has value, certainly. But no one can deny that, for almost 7 years of good work, Ed has also had his share of drama. I'll add that I'm very specifically not considering work on other wikis, as I don't think it's particularly relevant in this context - but the canvassing is a bit disturbing, as well. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 01:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

   Changing to Oppose, above. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

6. Would like to see a couple more Q&A, such as to Q12. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

   Neutral (change to oppose), for the moment, leaning towards support. I admit that the old ArbCom cases regarding Ed are pretty frightening. However, 30 months of good behaviour is sufficient time for redemption. I have read carefully through all the opposes and so far (almost) all of them either deal with the pre-desysopping behaviour or with his role on Conservapedia. I think that off-wiki conduct ought to be irrelevant here, unless in his off-wiki activities he directly attacked Wikipedia or its editors. I have not seen such claims made in the oppose column. Unless I am mistaken, Ed's behaviour here, on Wikipedia, in the last 30 months has been good and his contributions valuable. If there are significant causes for concern regarding his activities on WP for the last 12 months or so, I'd like to hear about them. If not, I think this user probably deserves support. Nsk92 (talk) 03:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

   Please see my oppose comment. All the behavior discussed there, including Ed's 3rd RfAr in which he was put on general probation by the ArbCom occurred well after his desyssoping. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

   OK, I see. This was about 2 years ago (quite a while), but still, it does change my opinion somewhat. Can you point to anything more recent, say for the last year or so? Nsk92 (talk) 04:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

   Just this January the probation had to be activated by Raul due to Ed's behavior on Intelligent design and related articles. See [16]. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

   OK, I see, changing to oppose. Nsk92 (talk) 04:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

7. Neutral His work on other comparable sites does not strike me as consistent with the ethos here.--Poetlister 11:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
8. Neutral.First, IMO work on other projects, which have different rules, is of limited value in determining if a candidate will comply with the rules here. So, I discount that concern. Geo Swan (talk) 13:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

   Like some of the respondents here, my memory of your term as an administrator is not a positive one. Frankly, you made my mental list of administrators who were a problem because they were arrogant and high-handed. Frankly, I am relieved to learn you were de-sysopped. I didn't know you were de-sysopped. I have had little contact with your edits since you were de-sysopped. I would endorse your candidacy if you provide satisfactory answers to the questions posed to you, and, if you provided more evidence that you have, actually, reformed. I endorsed Mongo's candidacy to be re-sysopped, because I was convinced by his sincere explanation of what he had learned, since he had been de-sysopped. Geo Swan (talk) 13:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

   I added a copy of your signature, so that Tangobot doesn't throw an error. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

9. Neutral - I know you are a great editor, but the ArbCom case reveals that maybe you are not as easygoing as you first appear. By the way, I read this over and found the other editor not at fault, rather, you I found guilty. --Meldshal (§peak to me) 18:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
10. Neutral - for now... Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 18:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
11. Changed from support. The concerns that have been raised since I initially voted are too serious for me to ignore. Under normal circumstances I'd oppose, but due to Ed's tenure at WP I'll go with neutral instead. Everyking (talk) 20:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
12. Neutral (changed from support). Some of the concerns are simply too significant to ignore, but some of Ed's past deeds inhibit me from opposing. —Animum (talk) 22:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
13. 'Neutral per Paragon12321. I see some excellent developing and editing contributions, but the ArbCom case prevets me from supporting. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
14. Neutral. Well, I was thinking "Well yeah this guy was desysopped over two years ago! This is a good case of reform!" But when I learned you lost multiple other tools besides adminship, it made me nervous. I just can't support because of this. Sorry, Malinaccier (talk) 00:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.