[WikiEN-l] complaints of admin actions on wikien-l

[Karl A. Krueger]

On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 01:42:56AM +1100, Mark Gallagher wrote:
> I'm kinda shocked how few "I've been blocked!" messages we receive that 
> *don't* follow the above instructions.

(Warning -- Long message.  Serious issue, too.)

Folks might want to look into this one a little more closely.  Ed Poor
made what seem to me like thinly-veiled threats on the AfD in question
-- threats to block people who disagree with him:

	"Only an someone pushing an anti-Creationist POV would want to
	censor this sort of information. Pushing any POV is grounds for
	a block. I think you already know this; but if you don't, I'm
	telling you now - officially - as an Admin."

To me, Poor's words come across as an accusation that Schroeder was
trying to "censor" the article by nominating it for deletion and arguing
for its deletion.  Poor seems to claim that any person who argues for
the article's deletion is trying to "censor" it, and should for that
reason be blocked.

I am one of the majority who have argued for the article's deletion on
the AfD page.  So I consider this a threat which includes me personally.
Poor's expressed view classes me as "someone pushing an anti-Creationist
POV" since I want the article deleted; and therefore, calls for me to be
blocked.  This threat doubled when I discovered that Poor had actually
blocked Schroeder; and redoubled when I found out that this blocking was
connected with Poor's out-of-process removal of an AfD nomination.

Moreover, Poor's phrasing sounds to me like bullying: "I'm an admin, so
I can block you if you cross me -- and that goes for the rest of you,
too."  (After all, Poor made his threat on the AfD page itself; if he
meant it to apply to only Schroeder, he could have used Schroeder's user
talk page.)


Wikipedia can't work right if admins are permitted to use their powers
to "resolve" POV controversies or personal squabbles to which they are
themselves parties.  Poor, the creator of the article in question, 
should have been disallowed from several of the actions that he took,
most notably including blocking a person with whom he was involved in a
substantive dispute.  If Schroeder's conduct was abusive, then Poor
could have asked on WP:AN/I (or several other forums) for an uninvolved
administrator to block him.

(I'm not saying administrators shouldn't use their powers at all in
articles where they edit.  For instance, rolling back simple vandalism
or blocking a repeat vandal should always be encouraged.  But what we
have here is a POV dispute:  Schroeder and Poor disagree on a matter of
substance, which led them into interpersonal conflict.  This leaves Poor
in no position to judge Schroeder's conduct fairly.)


The AfD nomination in question has significant precedent.  On (IIRC) at
least two previous occasions, Ed Poor has created articles which were
nominated for deletion as "POV forks" of evolution-related articles, and
which were subsequently deleted by consensus.

Poor's persistence in this issue has not taken the literal form of
re-creating deleted articles.  However, consensus has been against him
in the past on evolution-related articles, and the present AfD
discussions on [[Evolutionary materialism]] and [[Unguided evolution]]
show the same is still true.

Moreover, the creation of POV forks is considered unacceptable in both
policy and consensus.  The past AfD decisions against Poor's articles
mean that he should have expected these articles to be nominated for
deletion and adjudged to be POV forks.  So in the present situation,
Poor seems to be in the position of using administrative power to defend
a *known unacceptable* action ... by attacking an editor whose own
actions (the AfD nominations) are right now in the process of being
adjudged correct!


The current (unfiltered) standings on the AfD nominations for Ed Poor's
new articles are:

[[Evolutionary materialism]]:
	Delete:  14	Keep:  3	Redirect:  1	Total:  18
	Delete percentage:  77.8%
	Delete/Keep ratio:  4.67 times more Deletes than Keeps

[[Unguided evolution]]:
	Delete:  24	Keep:  8	Total:  32
	Delete percentage:  75.0%
	Delete/Keep ratio:  3 times more Deletes than Keeps

This seems to me to indicate that Poor's judgments in --
	* creating the articles,
	* unlisting an AfD nomination,
	* threatening to block the nominator and supporters, and
	* following up on that threat by blocking the nominator
-- were solidly and fundamentally against editorial consensus.


As such, I suggest that Ed Poor should no longer act as an administrator
with regards to any article that deals with evolution, or with regards
to editor conduct on articles or discussions dealing with evolution.
His own conduct is far outside what the community accepts.  This means
that he is unable to do the job of an administrator -- to protect and
enforce the community's decisions -- in this subject area.

-- 
Karl A. Krueger <kkrueger at whoi.edu>