Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.
When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.
As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].
This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.
Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.
If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.
Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.
The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.
I first strongly urge the Arb Com to look over the most recent RfC on Ed's behavior which contains much more of the same sort of problems noted below.
Ed has in general repeatedly POV pushed and seems to especially not understand/choose to ignore the section of NPOV dealing with undue weight. This will be demonstrated with forthcoming diffs but also note Ed's own claim in the RfAr response "Much of what interests me at Wikipedia is the opportunity to add information which explains the opposing point of view to articles on controversial topics which are dominated by a single POV. Far too many articles are unbalanced, emphasizing a mainstream point of view and neglecting minority viewpoints." As Ladlergo observed in his comments in the RfAr WP:NPOV#Undue_weight says says that "the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each" and "We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." Ed's statement is in direct contradiction to these policies it shows in Ed's edit patterns. Ed frequently POV pushes global warming skepticism, intelligent design and various other causes.
In response to attempts to deal with his POV pushing, accuses other editors of POV pushing, threatens them with an RfAr [2] [3]. He then admits that on the article he has been repeatedly POV pushing and arguing he hasn't any familiarity with the any of the relevant material or documents [4].
POV removal of material claiming it is "redundant" [5]. An excellent example of Ed violating undue weight: [6]
POV pushing on Scientific Consensus attempting to among other things emphasize his global warming skepticism POV [7] [8], and claims without any reference that the notion of of consensus is important to the philosophy of science. Note that Ed makes no justification on the talk page other than to demand that his tags not be reverted [9]. Note also this response by Fastfission: [10]. More global warming related edit warring with multiple other editors [11] and in the processes accuses the other editors of trying to enforce their POV [12][13] [14][15] Here are similar edits at a related article: [16] [17] [18] note also the use of the marked as minor edit in this last edit and surrounding edits.
On August 10th, makes a POV page move about global warming: [19] More examples of Ed edit warring over global warming: [20][21]
Edit wars over including a minor POV in Animal, a classic example of undue weight: [22] [23] Note further edit warring that day, as well as refusal to cite claiming that his POV is "common knowledge." [24]
Ed also created additional POV forks and POV redirects. For example, Ed created on August 1st Good scientific practice(see also the AfD) an article which is both copyvio and a POV fork. Ed had been an editor for long enough that he should know not to do either of these things. Ed also created the now deleted redirect Criticism of intelligent design with the edit summary "#redirect intelligent design which is 90% criticicsm" This edit seems to be attempting to make a point and one of the odder of POV forks I've seen, a POV redirect. Ed also tried WP:POINT by making Wikipedia:Mass revert which he then attempted lable a policy and then a guideline. See the deleted history of that page as well as here. For additional examples of deleted POV forks see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anthropogenic_global_warming,Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Guided_evolution#Guided_evolution,Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aspects_of_evolution, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gallup_poll_on_creationism_and_evolution, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Religious_views_of_evolution, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Intelligent_Design_and_Creationism, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biological evolution (disambiguation), Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Unguided_evolution, Wikipedia:Miscellaneous_deletion/Wikipedia:Competence, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Evolution_controversy.
Ed also frequently makes an edit, then what it is reverted reverts the editor and claims that their reversion should be justified. A recent example occurs [25]here. Another example occurs here where Ed makes a comment on talk for his edit and then uses that as a reason to immediately revert back to his version. Ed also insists that his versions stay up until other people have justified it on talk, even if his version is the new version. Examples, are here, here and here.
More difs forthcoming,
Makes a spurious report to WP:PAIN here [26] Ed made a similar spurious report here [27]. Note that both reports are directed at User:FeloniousMonk who Ed also gratuitously attacked in his initial RfAr statement, and on other occasions such as [28]. Also threatens that he will make Felonious leave Wikipedia [29]
Ed has also been disruptive, reinforcing problematic editors behavior. For example, after User:Schlafly was blocked for 3RRV by El C Schlafly responded by making personal attacks on El C, claiming that "I can only assume that he is making some sort of Communist statement by blocking me" [30]. Ed then responded by reinforcing Schlafly's perceptions claiming that their were "pro-Evolution or anti-Creationism prejudice among a certain group of contributor" and proceeded to lump El C in with "those" editors. [31]. Ed was then unable to see/admit that had done anything wrong with this behavior even after El C attempted to talk to him [32][33] In a surprisingly similar fashion, Ed then proceeds to warn a new user that the evil evolutionist cabal is attempting to get the user to violate 3RR [34].
[35] Accuses me of biting new users, because he claims I "begged the question and changed the subject." Note that even if I had "begged the question and changed the subject" this would not be a WP:BITE issue. Ed did not respond to my request for an explanation for what was a WP:BITE issue [36].
Ed harrases a user about responding to him and complains that the user has not responded in three hours: [37].
More difs forthcoming.
Ed has tendentiously edited. Since this evidence section is limited in length, I will only present two recent example:
First, an example of attempting to limit and control the discussion, while mislabeling the edit summary "Views of both sides": [38] Here he begins to use the strategy of labeling the overwhelming majority view of scientists as "an approach characterized by an intolerance of varying viewpoints, where any alternative viewpoints are censored, and where conformity to a blind acceptance of Darwinian evolution is demanded." This is one of many instances of convenient forgetfulness of WP:NPOV#Undue weight. [39]
Feloniousmonk responds: [40]
Example of disrespect for the integrity of others' comments and further tendentiousness, he fragments a statement just made by FM, thereby changing the conversation. [41]
FM responds and notes that the changes are nearly identical to Ed's earlier attempted changes: [42]
Ed's next diff follows in the chain, where he "agrees" to essentially the earlier version. [43]
Jim62sch next comment sums up the discussion here: [44]
Similar tendentious editing occured at Kansas evolution hearings. The relevant difs are [45] [46] [47] [48]. Note that again Ed has admitted to editing in an area he knows little about.
Since the matter seems to be getting more emphasis on the workshop discussion than anticipated, I am adding a short list of examples where Ed has admitted that he doesn't know much about what he is POV pushing, not including a few above difs where this was also noted.
13:52, 25 May Talk:Intelligent design "I suppose whoever made that link believes that the ID movement is using the evolution issue (and ID itself?) to argue for the existence of God." That ID is argument for the existence of God should not news, and Ed knows this. It's what the scientific community and now the courts have said, as well as ID proponents themselves, and was documented by sources from all three for months prior to Ed's recent arrival at the article and is extensively referecned in the article. This leads to a dillema: If he were genuinely that unaware of the point, he should have taken the time read the article and its sources and if he were aware and choose to act like he wasn't then he was once again editing in a tendentious fashion.
07:01, 29 May Talk:Intelligent design "Guetterda, this is an excellent question. And I have not seen the answer in any Wikipedia article, so I hope you can help me find the answer. Are you saying that ID proponents don't publish anything but reviews of "real" journal articles? Or that the contents of their books, article and web sites don't amount to "research"? I seem to recall reading something about one-celled creatures (flagocytes or flagellents?) with an argument that they wavy parts could not have developed through random variations." Were Ed up to speed on basic intelligent design arguments, he'd know that what he's vague on here is Michael Behe's argument that bacterial flagellum are an example of what he calls "irreducible complexity," the idea that a structure is too complex to be adequately explained as a result of evolution alone. Irreducible complexity is the central argument made for ID, and most other ID arguments flow from it, something Ed would clearly know if he were genuinely knowledgeable on the topic. In this case, there doesn't seem to be any dillema of tendentious editing v. lack of knowledge, simply a genuine lack of knowledge about the basics of the topic.
08:59, 30 May Talk:Intelligent design "Does ID address the origin of life? I thought it only dealt with evolution." From the article intro that day [49] prior to his attempts at unilateral editing: "Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." Clearly a idea that says certain features of the universe and living things is the result of "an intelligent cause" addresses the origin of life. Also, were Ed knowledgable on ID and the literature meant to support it, he would know that every leading ID proponent, Demsbki [50] [51] [52][53], Meyers [54][55], Wells [56][57], Witt [58] and Gonzalez[59] [60] [61] all have written extensively that the origin of life is the result of an intelligent cause. That is a central ID concept recognized in the press as well [62] Intelligent Design Offers a Competing Explanation for the Origin of Life. By: Brian Fahling
Allentown Morning Call October 9, 2005. If minor papers like the Allentown Morning Call know ID is an argument for the origin of life, is hard to understand how editors wishing to rewrite the article would not as well.
[63] claims that he is supporting NPOV. Once again, Ed fails to understand that his POV is not NPOV. In fact, Ed's only real response was to attempt to modify guidelines and policy to fit his behavior. Note [64], [65] (note the personal attacks in these two difs as well) [66] and also [67]. Even as this RfAr goes on has made WP:POINT edits such [68]. JoshuaZ 19:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
JoshuaZ 17:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Ed has continued to edit tendentiously, in one case either grossly misunderstanding another user's point on Talk:Global warming or deliberately misinterpteting it [69]. Ed has also continued to disrupt attempts to deal with other users, especially when FeloniousMonk is involved. Most recently, he has given an outside opinion about FeloniousMonk on an RfC which is to a large extent a set of attacks on FM [70]. Ed is now attempting to get the RfC deleted even though it has been up for some time and has had many people involved [71]. JoshuaZ 18:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Once again, as he and the others have throughout this RFC-RFArb attack, Joshua makes unfounded accusations. I wonder if he thinks no one will bother to read the diffs, or if he hopes people will simply assume he's right based on the sheer volume of accusation. Well, accusation is not evidence. Please show some evidence, or stop trying to ruin my reputation. Otherwise, I'll have to start an RFC of my own, reluctant though I am to do so. --Uncle Ed 18:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Ed occasionally makes large edits that back up his apparent personal point of view. Reverting editors may be accused of not following the proper procedures for consensus, despite that his change itself was made unilaterally. He seems to be trying to "planet seeds" in order forcibly encourage others to pay him / his ideas attention.
-- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 21:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
It seems that Ed is continuing the POV Fork production. Just today (19:07, 23 August 2006) he created the following stub: Evolution is a fact [78] with the edit comment (starting an article about the slogan, intended as a sub-article or section of any suitable larger article.). It seems rather absurd to start writing about a slogan as an independent article and seems a crudely obvious attempt to push an anti-evolution bias and/or to confuse the issue. Vsmith 01:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, Ed creates article stubs about scientists, but rather than writing a reasonable biographical article, he focuses on the one aspect of the scientists work that supports his POV. The most recent example is G.A. Kerkut latest edit which he uses solely to quote a creationist page regarding Kerkut's supposed introduction of micro- and macro-evolution in a 1960s book. Ed ignores totally the major works written and edited by Kerkut on neurobiology, invertibrate and insect physiology etc. He writes nothing about the person other than what he percieves as supporting his (Ed's) POV. Furthermore Ed fails even to categorize or stub the article correctly. This is inexcusable for such an experienced editor and is a simple attempt to support his POV.
An earlier instance of this was the creation of Benny Peiser [79] which seems to have been added to further Ed's skeptical POV regarding Global warming. Ed started with token biographical material then used the new article to argue about a controversy with Naomi Oreskes. Vsmith 01:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
The brief biographical article for Gabriele Hegerl was started by Ed on 21 April [80]. Note a single inadequate line of biographical information followed by a quote from the Washington Post regarding her research reported in Nature. This quote, with no context, is followed by a see also link to: Hockey Stick graph - M. Mann's graph. (the link is and was a simple redirect to Temperature record of the past 1000 years), the linked article is relevant, but the use of redirect is a POV statement.
The most serious problem is that the quote chosen is misleading at best. It seems to be a cherry picked quote that fits most with Ed's skeptic POV. An easily found bit of additional information from the study states: However, the new study -- using "reconstructions" of Northern Hemisphere temperatures since the year 1270 -- indicates a 90 percent probability that a doubling of carbon dioxide levels will result in temperature increases of between 1.5 and 6.2 degrees, the team reported.[81]. Now the problem is that Ed creates a supposed biographical stub, includes almost no easily obtainable biographical information, includes a lengthy quote from a newspaper that supports his POV, and ignores other easily obtainable quotes that are perhaps more pertinent apparently because they oppose his POV. Ed placed the article in a general people stub category with no effort to further research the material. There is no excuse for an experienced editor like Ed to create such a sham of a biographical article. The article appears to have been created for only one purpose - as a POV fork which supposedly supports his skeptical views on global warming. Vsmith 03:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Ed Poor quite unfortunately has been conducting a disruptive POV campaign across a number of science-related articles, particularly those related to global warming, and other articles where science has implications related to creationism. "Uncle Ed", as he has traditionally signed his posts until a few days ago, has openly admitted at least part of his agenda, stating he is motivated to counteract what he claims is a "Liberal bias [that] has too much of a grip on Wikipedia." [82] [83]. My observation has been that it is not a liberal bias he opposes, but a rational examination of the evidence and reasonable, balanced, honest summaries thereof in keeping with WP:VER and WP:NPOV#Undue weight, attempting instead to impose a distinctly creationist point of view wherever scientific research arrives at conclusions unsupportive of that point of view.
In my observation the main problem is not what his particular POV is, but rather the method he uses to attempt to impose it against clear consensus in many, many articles. His method has been to rewrite content that has broad support by consensus from long-term contributors as being well-sourced and accurate, twisting it to mean almost the opposite, followed by posts to the talk page asking others for clarify what the original passage meant. When his changes fail to achieve consensus UncleEd then edit wars and follows up with baseless, ill-informed and often tendentious objections. When that fails he commonly resorts to misuse of the NPOV tag or a WP:POINT violation to stir the pot. And when that fails he appears at WP:NPOV to try to rewrite the rules. This has repeatedly resulted, and continues to result, in a very substantial amount of time and energy wasted in fruitless and wholly unncessary debate by a significant number of editors in various articles. A large amount of additional time and energy is wasted by many editors tracking down the actual substantive content of Mr. Poor's edits, which are very often found to be re-hashings of issues already well known by Mr. Poor to be thoroughly consensused by participating editors.
Here is a sampling of evidence of the typical pattern, for several articles, organized by article:
Intelligent design: Violating WP:NPOV, WP:POINT.
Talk:Intelligent design: Tendentious arguments, ignoring evidence and facts, disruption by violating WP:POINT.
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District: Violating WP:NPOV
Talk:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District: Personal attacks, being tendentious, ignoring evidence, facts, and consensus, violating WP:POINT. 19 June 2006
Godless: The Church of Liberalism: Violating WP:NPOV, WP:POINT
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: WP:POINT, unilateral edits to policy page, personal attack in edit summary.
Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view: WP:NPA WP:HAR
Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Ed Poor (2): WP:POINT, Ignoring WP:DR
User talk:Ed Poor: WP:POINT, threats, misrepresentations.
Teach the Controversy: WP:NPOV, WP:POINT
Talk:Teach the Controversy: WP:POINT, expanding conflict from related articles.
Issuing bogus NPA warnings; WP:HAR
Here, I'll make it easy for you. You want an example of me POV pushing? Look at what I did to the Great Chinese Famine of 1959-1961.
My first edit was over the top. Taken by itself (and with no knowledge of my intentions), it sure LOOKS like a Wikipedia:POV pushing. It uses the authority of Wikipedia to accuse the Chinese government of mass murder.
But wait: I did mention finding a source in my edit comment. And a mere 5 minutes later, I actually supply one.
So this is a not a case of POV pushing after all. Just another example of a Wikipedian with nearly 5 years experience, being BOLD. And then fixing his first draft.
The intended result is a balanced article. China implied the deaths were "naturally" caused; another source accuses China of "socially-engineered famine". Wikipedia doesn't take sides. --Uncle Ed 15:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Ed is an experienced Wikipedian. He knows the first edit was unacceptable: why then make it? Why not wait a few seconds til you have your source rather than make POV accusations. It's not merely the issue of sourcing: the actual statement was changed from editorial accusation to a "some say".
The second edit is a just totally bizarre newbie error. (use of first person) Why is someone with 5 years of Wikipedia experience making edits like that that are totally inappropriate in style?
The following represents an exchange that happened at a singe article (Creation-evolution controversy) at the end of May, beginning of June this year which illustrates beautifully the issues with Ed Poor. I have included the links and an explanation of what happened.
10:52 26 May 2006 – Ed reappears at the Creation-evolution controversy page after a few months self-imposed hiatus and makes this deletion of material [129], insisting that the article is contradicting itself without such an edit.
10:55 26 May 2006 – User:FeloniousMonk, already dealing with Ed at other articles related to intelligent design reverts Ed’s deletion [130] pointing out that there is no contradiction.
10:58 26 May 2006 – Ed explains himself at Talk:Creation-evolution controversy requesting that the article “pay more attention” to critics of the theory of evolution but not really explaining why he thinks there is a contradiction. He also makes a vague criticism regarding suspected weasel words in the text he removed. [131]
11:01-11:07 26 May 2006 – Ed makes a round of edits [132] which totally change the lead-off to the article – a lead-off which has been in place and was discussed extensively in the archives of the article’s talkpage. Equivocation and innuendo are reintroduced that were carefully avoided before when the article first spun-off from creationism in 2004 and users such as User:Bensaccount and User:Ungtss were fighting over how to portray the dispute.
11:11 26 May 2006 – Ed offers justification for his previous edits on the talkpage [133]. However, he mischaracterizes his edits, claiming that he only cut a single paragraph from the intro when in reality a lot more was done (see above). Ed claims the major motivation for these edits is to remove wording that supposedly supports the POV-claim that there is no conflict between creationism and evolution. He makes some jabs at the press reporting of the issue and “massive campaign by PBS, et al.” that seem to be completely out-of-place and not relevant to the edits he himself made. Ed then sees an opportunity to make his point: “It seems to be on a par with the "gay marriage" controversy. Any surveys showing otherwise?” Creation-evolution, to Ed, is a culture war issue that should be treated as a political debate, not one about the substance of science. All in all, this rheotric does not adequately justify his actions in the article-space and rather seems to indicate that Ed is on some kind of mission to get the article to conform to a different standard of reporting.
11:39 26 May 2006 – User:Ramdrake explains to Ed on the talkpage why his explanation for his first edit is up to interpretation [134]
11:40 26 May 2006 – I explain to Ed [135] that his reading of the intro which he described at 11:11 is an imposition of his own spin on the article. The article as written did not claim that there was “in reality” no controversy, only that such a perspective did exist in the discourse and literature. Ed’s insistence that the article took such a perspective amounted to him imposing his own spin and therefore his massive edit to the front material was unjustified.
11:41 26 May 2006 – I revert Ed’s 11:01-11:07 edits asking in the edit summary for a more thoughtful explanation of his edits in talk [136].
11:43 26 May 2006 – I offer support of Ramdrake’s explanation and point out that the controversy is verifiably reported in the article not to exist in academia or the scientific community. [137]
11:59 26 May 2006 – Ramdrake concurs with my evaluation regarding the controversy in the scientific community [138]
7:52 29 May 2006 – Ed, not satisfied with our explanations, requests that we explain how it can be that most people don’t find a conflict between evolution and their religious beliefs. Saying that “45% of Americans” disagree with evolution. [139]
7:56 29 May 2006 – Ramdrake requests from Ed where he obtained the 45% figure. [140]
8:07 29 May 2006 – Ed laments the deletion (“suppression”) of Evolution poll which happened months ago. Instead of realizing that the poll he wants to cite is included in the very article whose talkpage he is writing on, he decides to do some research on Google. He decides to reconstruct the deleted article in his own namespace User:Ed Poor/Evolution poll. [141]
8:15 29 May 2006 – Ed gives the reference to the poll [142] managing to claim persecution at my hands due to the deletion of his Evolution poll article.
8:28 29 May 2006 – User:Ec5618 asks Ed to refrain from acting like an abused victim. [143]
8:37 29 May 2006 – Ramdrake responds to Ed’s poll numbers pointing out that the issue was one of whether there was a controversy in academic circles (of which there is none). He also (rightly) points out that polling the public does not demarcate verifiable facts: only public opinion. [144]
9:03 29 May 2006 – I explain that the wording included in the article is meant to indicate that most religious groups, even when they have ideas which conflict with scientific accounts, don’t bother to advertise their opinions as they often consider the issue peripheral to more important “save your soul” matters. I cite the Assembly of God churches as one example [145]
9:09 29 May 2006 – Ed offers advice: “A wise man is never insulted by facts.” And complains for a third time that Evolution poll was deleted complaining that it took him an hour to reconstruct it in his namespace. Ed does not deal substantively with my explanation above but instead insists that there are religious people who dispute the theory of evolution (a point that no one seems to contradict). [146]
9:24 29 May 2006 – Ec5618 asks Ed to stop complaining about his victimization. [147]
9:42 29 May 2006 – I point out that the very poll Ed is complaining about having been deleted is referenced in the article. [148]
9:55 29 May 2006 – User:Hillman rightly points out that poll interpretation is not a straightforward enterprise. [149]
10:48 30 May 2006 – Ed Poor switches gears now and latches on to one of the citations that Hillman made in his last post. [150]
17:10 30 May 2006 – Hillman responds that he doesn’t understand Ed’s interpretation of the controversy in light of the article he cited. [151]
8:25 2 June 2006 – Ed begins to remove more material from the introduction claiming the statement is controversial. [152]
8:26 2 June 2006 – I revert the removal stating plainly that the statement is not controversial. [153]
8:33 2 June 2006 – Ed (again) claims that there is a contradiction in the article offering this as an explanation of his actions [154]
8:34-9:10 2 June 2006 – Ed makes numerous edits in article space including reverting the revert and making the wording fit a perspective with which he is more comfortable. In doing so, he makes stylistic changes which make the article less polished by creating numerous single-line paragraphs, emphasizing his favorite fact that 45% of the American public according to one poll support creationism, and framing the subject so the article emphasizes that a real and pressing conflict is occurring. [155]
8:39 2 June 2006 – I explain to Ed that the "contradiction" he removed is the result of his own interpretation of the text and is not inherent to the text itself. I also take issue with some of his accusations that the article takes a POV of “scientists” [156]
8:45 2 June 2006 – Ed tosses “a red herring” back at me. [157]
10:05 2 June 2006 – Ramdrake expresses a discomfort with Ed’s edits of 8:34-9:10 due to the new spin that the conflict is real, present, and of considerable size [158]
10:07 2 June 2006 – Agreeing with Ramdrake, I revert Ed’s edits to the previous version with the edit comment: “rv POV-pusher Ed Poor.” [159]
10:14 2 June 2006 – Ed falsely claims that I was undoing the work of three editors in reverting back to the previous version and uses this as a justification to revert back to his version. [160]
10:18 2 June 2006 – Ed disagrees with Ramdrake’s reading of his edits with the telling edit summary: “What? No controversy anymore?” [161]
10:22 2 June 2006 – I revert Ed’s version with the edit summary: “rv -- this is the consensus version. Please explain YOURSELF on the talkpage (this is mostly your creationist POV-pushing, after all).” [162]
10:23 2 June 2006 – Ramdrake let’s Ed know his opinion about the status of the controversy. [163]
10:27 2 June 2006 – I point out that Ed has not supported his edits with adequate justification on the talkpage. I also point out that there is an ongoing RfC regarding Ed. [164]
10:33 2 June 2006 – Ed responds to Ramdrake asking what the implications are of his position with respect to article wording. [165]
10:36 2 June 2006 – I respond to Ed pointing out that he is “speaking in generalities” rather than the nuance which the previous consensus version of the article had. [166]
10:38 2 June 2006 – Ed scoffs at the suggestion that consensus existed before he arrived and asks where the vote occurred which determined such a consensus for this article existed. [167]
10:46 2 June 2006 – I respond that Ed should “break with tradition and read the archives” if he is interested in seeing where the consensus is from. [168]
10:49 2 June 2006 – Instead of taking the suggestion to read the archives, Ed offers to explain his edits to me [169].
11:44 2 June 2006 – Ed reverts again, claiming it is a second revert although in actuality it is a third revert. [170]
11:47 2 June 2006 – Ed explains that he reverted because I didn’t request an explanation for any of his edits. He also disputes that there is a consensus version of the article. He gives no indication that he has read the archives to determine whether this is the case or not. [171]
11:48 2 June 2006 – Ramdrake reverts the article explaining “Ed, you got the processus backwards. Please let's discuss your changes to the article BEFORE changing the article,as this is a controversial article and this is usually how it's done in such a case.”
11:59 2 June 2006 – Ed insists his changes were tiny and comes close to accusing Ramdrake and myself of forming a cabal. [172]
12:02 2 June 2006 – FeloniousMonk replies to Ed explaining that it was Ed who came to the article and began to rewrite it without trying to get some form of consensus, therefore the onus is on him to convince the editors. [173]
12:18 2 June 2006 – Ed replies that there is no such thing as a “consensus version” of an article and insists all of his changes were “minor”. [174]
12:28 2 June 2006 – Ramdrake asks Ed why he is insisting that his changes are “minor” but that the reversion of such changes constitutes a major affront “reverting all those changes”. Ramdrake suggests to Ed that this constitutes a double-standard. [175]
12:43 2 June 2006 – I point out to Ed that he really hasn’t offered a detailed explanation for his edits in any case. [176]
12:49 2 June 2006 – I explain to Ed that the issue isn’t with him coming in and making edits, it’s that controversial edits need to obtain consensus wording before they can be made. I explain that this can be accomplished simply by justifying edits on the talkpage. [177]
13:01 2 June 2006 – I offer Ed a sample “defense” for his edits in an attempt to Wikipedia:Write for the enemy and include with them a response by me as to why his edits are not editorially acceptable. I offer my hope that Ed uses this technique when trying to edit controversial articles in the future. [178]
13:12 2 June 2006 – Ed removes the word “ostensibly” from the article which, interestingly enough, had been discussed months before and the consensus had been reached to keep the word in the article as that. [179]
14:08 2 June 2006 – Felonious Monk reverts Ed’s removal of the word pointing out why it should be included in the edit summary. [180]
14:13 2 June 2006 – Ed reverts for the fourth time in 24 hours asking to be “met in talk”. [181]
14:16 2 June 2006 – Ed Poor claims that there is a dispute about whether or not ID advocates are creationists. [182]
14:17 2 June 2006 – I point out that whether ID advocates are creationists or not is tangential to the issue of whether ostensibly should be put in the article (it was only one example that FM provided in an edit summary). I also point out that Ed had violated 3RR. [183]
After this, Ed left for a break and wasn't seen around much at the article, though he returned just recently, revisiting his old complaints but not addressing the problems other editors posed for him.
I hope this illustrates the problems outlined in this RfArb. Ed has a tendency to behave as though he is entitled to make whatever edits he thinks need to be made and to act as if those who oppose him are the unreasonable ones. Notice that the main complaints against Ed are avoided and he doesn't respond to them. Instead Ed seems very fond of changing topics of the discussion and causing considerable disruption along many different lines of attack.
--ScienceApologist 16:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion, for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring". Here you would list specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion, for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks". Here you would list specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.