Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ed Poor 2: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎Oppose: moving
Allemandtando (talk | contribs)
Line 203: Line 203:
#'''Oppose''' Sorry, but I have no confidence in this candidate. [[User:Ecoleetage|Ecoleetage]] ([[User talk:Ecoleetage|talk]]) 22:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Sorry, but I have no confidence in this candidate. [[User:Ecoleetage|Ecoleetage]] ([[User talk:Ecoleetage|talk]]) 22:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
#'''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]] --[[User:Carbonrodney|Carbonrodney]] ([[User talk:Carbonrodney|talk]]) 23:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
#'''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]] --[[User:Carbonrodney|Carbonrodney]] ([[User talk:Carbonrodney|talk]]) 23:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
#'''Strong Oppose''': has failed to use tools correctly on ever occassion he has been granted them. No thanks. --[[User:Allemandtando|Allemandtando]] ([[User talk:Allemandtando|talk]]) 23:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


=====Neutral=====
=====Neutral=====

Revision as of 23:26, 17 July 2008

Voice your opinion (talk page) (24/18/4); Scheduled to end 20:49, 24 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

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


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]


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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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?

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)[reply]

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:

General comments


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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]


Support
  1. Support Kingturtle (talk) 21:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support MBisanz talk
  3. Support: Nom by 'crat = win. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really, no. Pedro :  Chat  21:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    That's a fair response (not that I'd expect anything less from your good self) Pedro :  Chat  21:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  5. Good guy, no question in my mind. SQLQuery me! 21:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong support after reading Q5, you honestly seemed to have learned from your past mistakes. SQLQuery me! 21:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Naerii 21:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  8. 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. 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)[reply]
    *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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    "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)[reply]
    Thank you for pointing out that typo. Ed has always been polite in my experience. Everyking (talk) 23:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support --Duk 21:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. 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)[reply]
  11. (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. —CycloneNimrodTalk? 21:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. 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)[reply]
  13. 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)[reply]
  14. 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)[reply]
  15. 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)[reply]
  16. 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)[reply]
  17. Strong support, of course! user:Everyme 22:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. (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)[reply]
  19. Support - Keepscases (talk) 22:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support An old and trusted friend of ours who deserves a second chance. Fred Talk 22:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. 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)[reply]
  22. Support. Massive experience and knowledge. Antandrus (talk) 22:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support While a sysop, remember to delete AfD! --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 22:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. 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)[reply]
  25. Support. If he says he intends to be careful, I intend to trust him. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  2. [3] Really? I'm inclined to disagree. Admins are not here to get people to "shut up" Pedro :  Chat  21:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    That revision difference doesn't indicate Ed Poor adding the shut-up clause. --harej 22:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right, and I hereby rescind that clause. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Diff of Ed adding clause [4]. 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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    Can you provide some history on those incidents, since the nom and candidate didn't? Avruch T 21:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  7. Oppose There's a palpable irony that the author of this has been disciplined for POV-pushing.[5] Thanks for your work, Ed, but I don't think you need the sysop bit. — Scientizzle 21:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  12. Oppose in recognition of Ed Poor's conduct on Conservapedia. Dark Matter Narcosis (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  13. Years opposed to Ed Poor becoming admin: <1. BJTalk 22:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. 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)[reply]
    May ask how you became aware of this request? WJBscribe (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you may. TheresaWilson (talk) 22:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How did you become aware of this request? WJBscribe (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    [6] why?
    Canvassing concerns. This appears to be the exact source: http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Conservapedia:What_is_going_on_at_CP%3Fxeno (talk) 22:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  15. 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)[reply]
  16. 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).[reply]
  17. 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)[reply]
    NOTE: my awareness of this RfA is solely from the Tangotango report. — Athaenara 23:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC) [reply]
  18. Oppose Sorry, but I have no confidence in this candidate. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. 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)[reply]
  20. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  5. Neutral - per Koji... I feels the same way. Qb | your 2 cents 23:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]