Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor

The full text of the complaint and following discussion is at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor/Complaint and response

How could anyone possibly believe there's a cabal when an admin who abuses his powers to this extent goes relatively unpunished? I realise I'll probably find myself banned by Ed for saying it, but jeez, you guys sure don't believe in justice. Grace Note 06:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware that Ed has ever banned a user for criticizing him. The original RfC against him, and this RfAr before it was accepted, were full of comments as critical of his behaviour as yours are, or even more so, and there's no evidence that he tried to block any of his critics. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 07:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ann - you can ignore Grace Note's comment. He's a troll that has already been sanctioned once by the arbcom under his previous name. His commentary is a load of bluster and hot air with no subatance. →Raul654 08:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an editor in good faith who was sanctioned for not agreeing with Raul (and I'm not the first that has happened to and I won't be the last). Raul has a bit of a history of describing those who disagree with him as trolls. He thinks it makes the criticism untrue. Grace Note 23:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Note remarks are sarcastic and uncalled for, and he/she may be a troll (although calling someone that always seems to me like an unnecessary and unhelpful personal attack). I think we should all keep in mind that the ArbCom members are all volunteers doing a thankless job. However Grace Note is not alone in questioning the way this case has been handled. Paul August ☎ 14:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the charges brought consisted of accusations that Ed operated above policy, that he could break policy because he had been around a long time, that old-timers rally in each other's defense, that there is effectively a cabal that can suppress criticism of its members, and hey, look what happened, the arbitration case around Ed's behaviour probably set a record for getting closed the fastest, editors didn't have a chance to submit evidence, Ed offered to withdraw from being a bureaucrat, arbcom accepts his offer, tells Ed he's doing a heck of a job, and makes no rulings on any of his actions. Accusations made, rulings avoided, case closed. That's one way to bury it, I suppose. Certainly, this proves that there is no cabal at wikipedia, no favoritism, no special priviledge. If anyone breaks policy, they are held to account for their actions, no matter how long they've been around. FuelWagon 17:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know! I'm a troll who's being sarcastic when I note that the people who are accused of operating a cabal that looks out for one another refuse yet again to sanction one of the people who look out for one another! And yet I have thousands of good-faith edits to Wikipedia, many more article edits than some of the cabal, as it happens. Grace Note 23:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zen, the very fact that you are still allowed to edit despite your toxic attitude, repeated personal attacks on numerous other users, and prolific edit warring on numerous articles is proof enough that there is no cabal (or at leaset that they aren't doing their job very well). →Raul654 04:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mark, that you are in a position of power here rather shows the opposite. Still, smear the messenger will always be the best approach, hey, rather than discuss the message. Grace Note 04:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]