Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:35, 6 January 2008

Note: This RfC is convened by direction of the Arbitration Committee at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman (see here). Accordingly, the certification requirement is waived. Editors are referred to the discussion on the case, /Evidence, /Workshop, and /Proposed decision pages of that arbitration case for background information.

• Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

This RfC is convened by direction of the Arbitration Committee at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman (see here). Accordingly, the certification requirement is waived. The motion in full is: "Voting on this case is suspended for 30 days. In the interim, the community is encouraged to provide feedback on Adam's administrative actions via a request for comment." Voting is scheduled to resume at 04:14, 20 January 2008.

Desired outcome

The committee requests community opinion on the actions of Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), as detailed in the request for arbitration.

Description

Editors are referred to the discussion on the case, /Evidence, /Workshop, and /Proposed decision pages of that arbitration case for background information.

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

1. Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence

Applicable policies and guidelines

(Copied from the 'Proposed decision' page of the arbitration case)

1. Misplaced Pages:Administrators
2. Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
3. Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy
4. Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry
5. Misplaced Pages:Consensus
6. Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view
7. Misplaced Pages:Civility
8. Misplaced Pages:Protection policy

Users who endorse this summary

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Carcharoth (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Jehochman 03:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Simply stating why we're here. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Not sure if this counts as a summary, and not sure whether this format is really best after everything has been hashed over so much, but, yes, that's a fair statement of the case. Adam Cuerden 17:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

Um, well, this isn't really a proper response, as, at the moment, there's nothing else actually listed in this RfC. Anyway, until recently, I thought I was doing pretty well, then found out how disasterously I had handled at least one block, it'd be useful if people would give advice.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Adam Cuerden 02:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Response to Carcharoth

Carcharoth writes (in part):

Well, that's very well in theory, except this whole thing has already cut my editing of Misplaced Pages down to a fraction of what it was. Being dragged through the muck as a test case is a great way to kill someone's enjoyment of wikipedia, and to be desysopped as a warning to others could only kill it further. In short, while I respect Carcharoth's view, I find it... somewhat lacking in understanding of psychology.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Adam Cuerden 16:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
2. The process has already reduced Adam Cuerden's dignity more than necessary. ArbCom should understand that resysopping is a very remote possibility. The buck stops with them. Jehochman 17:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
3. R. Baley (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
4. I think it's fair to say that this particular "test" was ill-conceived. Durova 18:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
5. This "test case" sent an extremely bad message, in my opinion. It stated that people who are longtime contributors are "dogs" and are not worthy of respect. Keep up this experiment and observe the inevitable results of pursuing the agenda associated with this sort of "test case". -Filll (talk) 23:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment on Finding of Fact #9 (Adam Cuerden)

9) Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has repeatedly used his administrative tools in order to further his position in content disputes, including protecting and unprotecting pages he was editing (Radionics: , ; Homeopathy: , , ; George Vithoulkas: , , ), and blocking other users editing those pages (Sm565, for edits on Homeopathy; Martinphi, for edits on Homeopathy).

Many of the diffs given herein do not seem to support the accusations made in any way, others are blown ridiculously out of proportion (e.g. protecting on the edit of an editor I was in dispute with listed as using page protection to further my position in a content dispute with that editor, or, even more ridiculously, UNPROTECTING A PAGE because a different admin started an AfD on on it listed as same), and I therefore find it slanderous, and yet 6 arbitrators are supporting it, and my repeated requests to have it reworked to remove the slanderous material (e.g. to cut it down to the justified ones, to rephrase it to remove the "to further his position in a content dispute", to explain how the diffs justify the claims, or even to respond to me in any way have been pretty much ignored. Can we have some comment and analysis of this?

Users supporting this summary, as far as it goes....

1. Adam Cuerden 17:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
2. This is an absolutely terrible finding of fact because it makes blatantly false statements. I asked directly about it at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Matthew_Hoffman/Proposed_decision#Finding_of_fact_9 and no arbiter has responded. --B (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy (Adam Cuerden)

This is probably going to be a bit controversial, particulalrly as several of the homeopathy editors that have caused the problems I'm about to detail are particularly active in this RfC, but I suppose it had better be said.

Allow me to first say that I have no real problem with Whig, as he is now... because I'm afraid he's at the hert of the controversy, and his behaviour in the past was far worse than his behaviour in the present. I have to talk about it, but please realise that my discussion is in the past tense. Those reading the talk page of this will see other evidence supporting this point.

That said, let's begin

Only a year ago, there were dozens of highly problematic articles, all with WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience issues, on every minor concept in homeopathy. Careful merging and a lot of work from experienced editors has gotten it down to a main article, and a number of maintainable sub-articles, however, unlike, say, Evolution or Creationism, it took a long time for the mainstream to start editing alternative medicine articles. On the Evolution and Creationism article set, there have always been many editors seeking to uphold the mainstream view, and thus, while a lot of stress can for m there, the problems never get too bad. Most alternative medicine articles are still in gross violation of WP:FRINGE, and it was an uphill battle over several years just to get homeopathy half-way balanced.

In short, Alternative medicine is, quite frankly, the worst of Misplaced Pages, and those editors who seek to clean it up are going to develop a siege mentality unless help can be provided to them. I hate to say this, as Whig has made great steps towards reforming, but I think it's relevant, since the block's come up. Have a look at the ANI thread leading into Whig's first indefinite block. Several admins announced there was a problem there; an RfC, which Whig refused to participate in, except to declare himself the sole person who understood NPOV, and to attack all the people who had problems with him, had taken place... and the uninvolved admins completely ignored the problem. If the community abandons its editors, the editors are going to try to do what they can.

In short, I'm sorry for what I did, but I was operating in the most stressful parts of Misplaced Pages, which had been largely abandoned by other admins, and the other admins refused to get involved. I think this is strong mitigation for my acts there, even if I went about attempting to deal with it in the wrong way. But once I had, and given the articles continued to be ignored by all but the few admins who were already active there, despite my blocks being carefully mentioned on ANI - except to be roundly congratulated by the other admins trying to clean up the place, it's perhaps not surprising that I became fixed in that incorrect behaviour.

Users who support this summary: Adam Cuerden 09:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by Durova

The Arbitration Committee has suspended Adam Cuerden's case for this RFC because no prior dispute resolution had been tried. Several days have passed and no editor has attempted to file a complaint. Although Adam's actions have not been flawless, he has also recognized and apologized for his errors and pledged to learn from them.

Adam's overall history as a Wikipedian has been impressive: he has eight barnstars and various other awards including the imperial triple crown jewels (2 DYKs, 2 GAs, and 2 pieces of featured content). It is my reasoned opinion that his overall actions are beneficial to Misplaced Pages and he has learned whatever lesson dispute resolution is intended to teach him. Since no Wikipedian has come here to express an immediate and pressing grievance against him, no further remedy is necessary. Durova 02:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Durova 02:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Filll (talk) 03:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
3. dave souza, talk 10:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Moreschi 18:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
5. William M. Connolley (talk) 21:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
6. Avb 23:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
7. --BozMo talk 22:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
8. Except there was little "DR" prior to arbitration. R. Baley (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

   So far as I'm aware, there had been no formal DR at all. Durova 21:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

9. Orderinchaos 02:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
10. B (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
11. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
12. WilyD 15:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
13. Agreed. Acalamari 17:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
14. Mr.Z-man 03:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
15. Sagaciousuk 03:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by Heimstern

The proposed decision page of the suspended ArbCom case demonstrates the problems with Adam's use of the administrative tools, and they are serious ones. It is critical that Adam no longer use the admin tools in a way relating to content disputes in which he is involved; for example, not protecting articles which he has substantially edited for content, nor blocking users for editing these articles, except in cases of obvious vandalism.

It is very possible that Adam made these decisions in good faith, and as Mackensen has observed, Adam never really had someone point out what he was doing wrong. If Adam ceases his problematic use of the tools, it's in Misplaced Pages's best interest that he keep them. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Adam Cuerden 12:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC) Though it still seems a little odd that admins can't protect pages in good faith on someone else's version. Oh, well. I can live with that.
3. Jehochman 15:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC) - Before using admin tools, ask yourself, "Could this be viewed as a controversial action?" If so, go to WP:AN for advice or assistance instead.
4. Moreschi 18:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Carcharoth (talk) 11:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC) - with the emphasis on "If Adam ceases his problematic use of the tools".
6. Compared to other arbcom cases where desyopping has been proposed, the situation here is significantly different. Also, some of the blame rests on those editors who approved the bad block. Addhoc (talk) 13:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
7. Agree. What I find most problematic is the history of using tools to block editors he is in disputes with (especially Whig, where Adam was the first to sign the RfC certifying the existence of a dispute - regardless of whether Whig should be editing Adam should not have blocked Whig over a dispute Adam was central to) and semi/protecting pages where he is actively engaged in a POV dispute (e.g. Homeopathy). I continue to be uncertain as to what the best remedy is, and leave that to the committee. GRBerry 14:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
8. dave souza, talk 14:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC) – While some admins have been able to show appropriate impartiality when carrying out certain actions on pages they've edited in the past, Adam evidently had difficulty with this and has to show appropriate restraint as described here to ensure that he avoids any problematic use of the tools.
9. "Involved" can be hard to define, as Adam has pointed out. In my view, if you have been a partisan in similar content disputes in the past, especially concerning the same article, even if you are not involved in the current situation, then you should not be the one pulling the trigger. That said, Adam needs to be given the chance to respond to this input in good faith, and should not be desysopped. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
10. I think this process and what has already happened so far would lead Adam to more carefully consider when, where and how he uses the tools he has been given. If he does not, then it is open for the community to decide at that time, but now is not that time in my opinion. If this were part of an overall pattern of bad behaviour I would have been more concerned. Orderinchaos 02:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
11. I agree with this too. Acalamari 17:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by Carcharoth

• (1) If the arbitration case had not been brought, then it is likely that a request for comment (RfC) would have been started on the issues raised at the arbitration case. Instead, the arbitration case (for better or for worse) has acted as a substitute venue for filing complaints against Adam Cuerden.

• (2) Rehashing the arguments raised at the arbitration case will not be productive, and this RfC is best used to gauge community opinion on Adam Cuerden's administrative actions both individually and as a whole, informed by the evidence and arguments presented at the arbitration case, and Adam's response during the arbitration case.

• (3) The administrative tools are not needed for writing articles, and Adam's article contributions should not sway people's judgment when considering whether his administrative actions are beneficial to the encyclopedia.

• (4) By taking the step of suspending the case and requesting the opening of this RfC, the arbitration committee has recognised the need for community input. In turn, the community should recognise that the question of whether any further remedy is necessary should be left to the discretion and authority of those voted for by the community and appointed to serve on the arbitration committee.

-- Carcharoth (talk) 12:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Carcharoth (talk) 12:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC) Unable to support Durova's outside view. Wrote this as a counterpoint.
2. I've been refraining from saying much because I've given evidence extensively at the RfAR and commented some there. Repeating myself seems pointless, and I believe the ArbComm wants outside opinion. I agree with all of the points above, especially #2. GRBerry 14:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
3. While I don't think we should completely lose sight of the value of Adam's contributions, this seems reasonable and realistic. .. dave souza, talk 14:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
4. BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Clear summary of where we're at without passing judgment either way. Orderinchaos 02:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
6. There is little point rehashing history if the ArbCom has persuaded Adam not to use his tools against people he is in content disputes with. —Whig (talk) 03:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
7. Accurate explanation of the situation. DGG (talk) 07:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
8. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
9. Abridged 00:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
10. Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
11. Sounds reasonable. —Whig (talk) 08:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by Peter morrell

I would like to make an input on this matter. Adam has edited homeopathy more than any other single editor in the last ten months and has tended to control it (along with a few others) on a daily basis; he has a long history of reverting other folks edits on the flimsiest pretext, often without explanation, and he seems owning towards the article and hostile towards many other editors; he has created more edit wars and disputes on that article than any other editor; he is intolerant and disputatious and refuses to back down; this is why he blocks people out of sheer frustration that they will not kow-tow to his assertive and domineering manner; he has long abused his admin powers; I see he has a very 'impressive' history for deleting articles and blocking people; he is a self confessed anti homeopath and yet claims to hate editing that article; if he hates it so much, then why doesn't he leave it alone?

I would say he has consistently acted in a most cavalier, rude and hostile fashion and has displayed an arrogant disregard for the skills, expertise and good faith friendliness of other editors. Not once have I have ever seen him praise another editor and he rarely explains himself. He is keen on dramatic edits, especially big deletions. This is always seen to provoke and upset other more cautious editors. He often ignores requests for dialogue and acts in a careless and unremorseful manner. My whole impression of his editing at homeopathy in the past 10 months has been summarised in the words above.

I do not think he should be 'let off' this time; I think he deserves to forfeit his admin powers for say 6 months and only be allowed to resume them provisionally on the condition that he genuinely admits his errors and promises to mend his ways, as well as being watched: very closely. Failing that, he should lose them permanently. I have seen nothing in his comments that convinces me he feels anything approaching genuine remorse for his abusive actions or that he will change his ways. He has been a bad and rude editor and an abusive admin throughout the past year. He has been one of the worst WP editors I have had the misfortune to see in action. I also feel that temperamentally he is wholly unsuited to be an admin. It grieves me to have to be so brutally honest; I sincerely wish I could say nice things about him, but in all honesty I cannot. Such are my honest impressions of his work on WP and these comments in no way reflect anything personal against him as a human being. In that respect I of course wish him well. Peter morrell 16:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

And for anyone who still even remotely believes he is genuinely remorseful read his comments on Jimbo's talk page archive and think again. Peter morrell 21:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Peter morrell 16:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC) -Added by Jehochman at 18:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC))

View by User:B

As the voting at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Proposed decision#Adam_Cuerden_desysopped stands right now, Adam will be desysopped at the conclusion of the case.

This remedy is not supported by the totality of the evidence and is inconsistent with previous cases. I encourage the arbitration committee to remove this remedy.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. B (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Jehochman 19:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
3. R. Baley (talk) 19:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Adam's transgressions, imho, were considerably less than other admims who haven't been desyopped. It seems unfair to use Adam to publicize a change in approach. Addhoc (talk) 20:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
5. In agreement with above statements, this point deserves to be emphasized. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
6. Durova 20:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
7. dave souza, talk 20:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
8. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
9. WilyD 16:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
10. There are admins who have done far worse than Adam Cuerden ever has, and they are still admins. Acalamari 17:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
11. Everyone endorsing the views by Durova or Hermstein are implicitly supporting this already, but may as well make it explicit William M. Connolley (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
12. Filll (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
13. Mr.Z-man 03:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

View by User:Martinphi

I have only been involved directly with Cuerden once, when he blocked me for a whole week for this edit to Homeopathy (where he regularly edits and disputes). I don't believe we've ever directly disputed, but I do know people who don't edit WP anymore because of him. Yes, they are fringe types, but given some gentle training, instead of blocking and protecting of the relevant pages, they could probably have been good editors: mentorship et seq would have been a better path. There are two main items to consider:

1. I believe Cuerden has been warned multiple times, by other admins such as DGG. Just go look around, I think especially the AN/I archives (I don't have the time, but I've seen them). No, he didn't have an RfC. But he was not unwarned. And exactly why does an admin need warning about breaching the most basic ethics concerning admins, "don't use your tools in a dispute where you're involved?"

2. His defense of his actions here, showing that ever after the ArbCom threatened to desysop him, and seeing all the evidence against him, he still didn't feel he'd done something wrong.

And BTW, relative to Durova's post above : I also have eight barnstars, but would that be relevant to a case against me? ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Fully endorse this summary as factually and interpretationally accurate. Peter morrell 07:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Abridged 23:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
5. I think this is a fair assessment, but I hope Adam's past mistakes won't prevent him from recognizing the requirement that admins refrain from blocking users they are in a content dispute with. —Whig (talk) 09:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Impact of proposed desyopping of Adam Cuerden

As the voting at Adam Cuerden desysopped stands right now, Adam will be desysopped at the conclusion of the case, but will be able to stand for a new request for adminship. If Adam has the support of the community for his use of admin tools, the community will be able to give him back the admin tools. If it takes a few months until Adam can demonstrate the trust of the community, this enforced break from the tools will benefit the encyclopedia as Adam will be able to concentrate on producing new article content. Adam's editing of articles such as homeopathy will not be affected - he will still be able to edit as normal. Carcharoth (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Carcharoth (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
2. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Peter morrell 07:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Abridged 00:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by Abridged

I give Adam the benefit of the doubt and think he acts in good faith. I believe he genuinely thinks he is doing the right thing. The problem is that he is using his administrative tools in this area where he has an exceedingly strong personal POV approaching zeal, homeopathy. There is no way that this is not a serious problem in the conduct of an administrator, and one which deserves a serious remedy. Abridged 00:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Abridged 00:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Insofar as this is ultimately about what the ArbCom will do, I do not wish to say what remedy is appropriate, but I do believe it has been a serious problem. —Whig (talk) 00:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Endorse this view, with addition that the problem described is not limited only to homeopathy-related articles. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.