Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:55, 7 December 2007

Archives

Archive 1. Archive 2.

If you leave a comment for me here, you should watch this page for any reply that I might make. If I have left a comment for you on your Talk page, expect that I will be watching your page and you should reply there (if you wish) but not here. This way, conversations are kept in their proper context. I reserve the right to delete or archive (but will not otherwise modify) any comments left here.

ANI request

I have asked an uninvolved admin to assess if your recent actions are disruptive editing. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Whig. Tim Vickers 19:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to take whatever steps you deem proper, and I still welcome arbitration if it comes to that. Whig 19:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Alex Hanley

Hi Whig:

I think I have been fair and NPOV throughout the homeopathy discussions. Perhaps that might help you trust me on this issue.

Hanley in those two papers has nothing to say that has scientific credibility. He doesn't have good references or logical arguments.

Please feel free to delete this.

Best wishes, Wanderer57 22:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather not delete this, but I hope I can respond without it being considered disruptive. I am not competent to disregard a paper written by a published physicist which claims a plausible physical mechanism for homeopathic potency. I would welcome any other similarly qualified source which disputes this. Whig 22:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the process works the "other way" - i.e. unless there is positive support for his views from "reputable sources, scientists" we MUST disregard it under Misplaced Pages policy. I can't imagine finding that kind of support for those papers. Wanderer57 22:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't agree. We should not take him as a reliable source to say that homeopathic potency is physically plausible, we should however attribute that view to him according to his expertise. So we should say something like, "According to physicist Alex Hanley, Ph.D., a physical explanation of homeopathy is plausible." Whig 22:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd put two cites there, one for the first and one for the sequel paper. Whig 22:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Noted. Wanderer57 02:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Many thanks for the unexpected barnstar! It's very kind of you. cheers Peter morrell 16:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Question for Whig

Block

You have been blocked from editing due to the RfC and your refusal to accept any compromises or behavioural changes in the administraor's noticeboard discussion. This block is for a period of one month. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org. Adam Cuerden 20:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Sharavanabhava (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have not violated terms, per Mercury's ban. Mercury has said he would oppose blocking or banning me further from talk pages. Whig 20:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

No reason to unblock provided. You are blocked as a result of Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Whig 2. Your unblock request does not refer to that discussion, and no ban by anyone called Mercury is apparent in your block log or in that RfC. — Sandstein 22:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

User:Mercury is present in my block log. Whig 23:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Unblock

After discussion with Adam, I'd be willing to unblock if you will agree to mentorship with me. Mercury 01:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, may I archive your talk? Mercury 01:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not know what mentorship means in Misplaced Pages. You may archive my talk. Whig 02:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Basically... we make a deal. I help you, and give you advice here or via email. You take my advice. :) I'll hear and vet complaints regarding your behavior. If there is a behavior concern on your talk page, you stop the behavior until we can talk. I'll be your second set of eyes... the ones with the eyeglasses. Thats where we start. There will be more conditions, but I want to know if you are welling to attempt this before I propose an agreement between the two of us. Regards, Mercury 02:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem having more eyes. I welcome your help. Whig 02:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It is manifestly preferable to resolve disputes if they arise in this way, rather than going through repeated ANI. Whig 04:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

For the record, as I don't want him getting in trouble for something I encouraged him to do: Mercury's actions have my approval. If Whig can be given the opportunity and support to develop into a good contributor, I would like that; however, Whig has shown reluctance to even acknowledge the problems brought up in the RfC, which is why a block was necessary. If we can move beyond this, great. Adam Cuerden 12:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

Here is my proposal:

• You agree to send (refer) all complaints about your behavior to my talk page.
• I agree to handle those complaints.
• When you receive a complaint about your behavior or edits, you will stop the disputed behavior until you and I can talk here or via email.
• I agree to check and see whether the behavior is valid or not.
• You agree to heed my advice.
• I agree to give you the very best advice I can.
• I will unblock you.
• I will reblock you if we breach our agreement.
• You and I will re evaluate our agreement after one months time.
• You agree to explicitly comment on edits, and not comment on editors. You also agree not to use profanity on talk pages unless quoting a source or another editor.
• You agree that you will not edit Talk:Homeopathy until we can talk via email.
• This agreement is in addition to the current editing restrictions.

I have designed this in hope that I might be able to help you understand where folks are coming from, what I believe may be valid complaints, and that I believe are not valid complaints. If you like I will also give you my interpretation of your RFC. If you enjoy this project and enjoy making the articles, then I can help you. I can not help otherwise. I truly believe that you intent is not malicious but each individual is different and their approach is different to the project. You are under no obligation to agree to any of this, as am I under no obligation to unblock you. As always, you can appeal to the Arbitration Committee. But I think this arrangement may be best for all concerned. Would you like to give this a spin? Mercury 12:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It does no harm to give this a try. I'm willing to work with you. Whig 15:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Forgive my intruding on your talk page Whig, but I wanted to tell you (and you, Mercury) how delighted I am at the proposal and acceptance. I look forward to seeing your future work! docboat 00:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked again

Being given probation does not give you carte blanche to run around do ing everything that got you banned in the first place. Goodbye. Adam Cuerden 20:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No reason to block has been provided. I would like this block to be reviewed. Whig 20:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Sharavanabhava (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

No reason to block has been provided.

Decline reason:

This is not true. The following reason was provided: "reblock of user unbanned on probation. Being unblocked is not a reason to go doing everything that got you blocked in the first place all over again." — Yamla 22:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

"go doing everything" is not a reason. Whig 22:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It appears that Adam Cuerden blocked me for concurring with David D. in a thread which then quickly resolved consensus in favor of David D.'s position. Whig 22:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This block is under discussion at WP:AN/I#Reblocked_User:Whig. If you wish to contribute to this discussion Whig you can either e-mail me a response or put it here and I will copy it over. Tim Vickers 16:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

TimVickers actually beat me to the punch. Same offer applies. Its preferable that you post it here however, IMHO, and it can be copied from the talk. I won't comment on the block untill I can read over what happened. For clarification, our agreement ended when the reblock occured. Regards, Mercury 17:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how our agreement ended without being breached, Mercury. I can't even defend myself since there are no reasons given for this block. -- Whig (talk) 18:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

An important facet (albeit unspoken) was Adam's willingness to allow me to reverse his block. If he is now unwilling to do so, then I can not mentor any longer. I consider the action of reblocking, a reversion of his blessing if you will. Regards, Mercury 22:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Mercury. As I understand wheel wars are undesirable, I now request ArbCom review. -- Whig (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Look, you came back after a month. Ignored - as far as I can tell - Mercury's prohibition as part of the unblock to lay off Homeopathy without talking to him first, and were trying to shove in homeopathy everywhere, into articles with the most tangental connection. Adam Cuerden 22:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I took a two week break at most, Adam. -- Whig (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

As for Mercury's advice, I took it as far as I thought it was appropriate and I have heard no complaints from him about my recent behavior. -- Whig (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I request assistance from any editor who will place my request for ArbCom review on RfAr. Whig (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

As an Arbitration Committee Clerk, I am willing to provide you with a limited unblock for purposes of filing an arbitration case, provided there are no objections from other administrators. You would be restricted to editing pages relating directly to the arbitration. Alternatively, if you prefer or if there are significant objections to your being unblocked for this limited purpose, then you can request an unblock review from the arbitrators by e-mail. You can send the e-mail to me using the "e-mail this user" feature on my talkpage, and I will forward it to the Arbitration Committee mailing list for their consideration. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I was unable to access Misplaced Pages from my normal browser since last night, I do not know if that is due to a block or some technical problem, but I am now able to connect from a different browser.

This is my statement to the ArbCom, which I have already e-mailed to Newyorkbrad:

I request review of my editing conduct and for restoration of editing privileges. To the extent that this requires the investigation of the editing and admin conduct of other users, I encourage the Arbitration Committee to look at the participants in the RfC which was brought regarding me and consider all responses carefully.

Whig (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I am forwarding your e-mail to the Arbitration Committee for their consideration. If one of the arbitrators elects to unblock you to pursue a case here, you will be notified. Otherwise, you should hear directly from an arbitrator regarding their opinion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Whig (talk) 03:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I also request the ArbCom review the adminship of Adam Cuerden, an involved participant in Homeopathy and who is the blocking admin. Whig (talk) 07:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Since I cannot write to Adam's talk page, what noticing procedure should I follow at this time? Whig (talk) 07:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I sent an e-mail to Newyorkbrad, which might be the proper procedure after all. Whig (talk) 07:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I have also noticed Adam by e-mail. Whig (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to make an offer of settlement with Adam Cuerden. Please remove my block and allow another admin to review it. If you do so I will withdraw my request to include you in arbitration. I will also e-mail this offer to Adam. Whig (talk) 03:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

This is tantamount to extortion. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Tut tut, Whig - this is not acceptable. I have to agree with Raymond. I do feel that Adam Cuerden has been unwise, I feel his re-block was unjustified, but this approach you have taken is not tantamount to extortion, it is extortion. And it will be treated as it deserves - with an unlimited block. There would have been much better ways of dealing with it, but this was not one of them. Sorry, man. docboat (talk) 04:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is somewhat debatable whether this comment by Whig is best characterized with a word as grave as "extortion," though I agree it would have been better left unsaid. Whig's allegation, which I am not agreeing with, is that it was inappropriate for Adam Cuerden (AC) to block him because AC was involved in the underlying conduct dispute. Assuming that Whig believes (rightly or wrongly) that AC should not have been involved in the block, the appropriate remedial action would be for AC to post the block for independent review by uninvolved administrators. The statement that AC's supposedly wrongful action might be brought to the attention of the Arbitration Committee if he did not rectify it, but would not have to be raised if he did, is not a particularly decorous or appropriate way of framing the situation particularly in view of the fact that the block has already been reviewed by several admins, but I don't think rises to the level of extortion that itself would warrant a sanction. I hasten to add that I am aware of no evidence that AC engaged in any misconduct. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

No extortion was intended. I meant exactly what Newyorkbrad has said here. Adam Cuerden as an involved participant should not be using his admin authority to block. If other admins concur then it should be no problem for another one to institute a new block in place of Adam's. Whig (talk) 05:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It is my hope to avoid making more accusations or involving more editors in a dispute than necessary. I wish to give any person an opportunity to consider whether conflict can be avoided and whenever possible to settle differences before arbitration. If I have misunderstood some rule in making such an offer, I am sorry for doing so. No extortion was intended, but Adam's behavior in blocking was in my opinion incorrect. Whig (talk) 05:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

My position is that if the ArbCom accepts review, this is going to arbitration one way or another. There are editors who want me banned from the project and I am satisfied if the ArbCom reinstates my editing privileges without further sanction toward any other admin or editor. It is not a threat or extortion to say that if an editor or admin corrects the behavior that I am complaining about, I have no complaint against that editor or admin. I hope that this explanation is satisfactory to those who have accused me (quite unfortunately and wrongly) of extortion. Whig (talk) 05:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It is also my understanding that Misplaced Pages encourages resolutions short of arbitration whenever possible. I ask for accusations of extortion to be retracted. Whig (talk) 05:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It is also the case that I consider the RfC brought against me to have been misconduct. Whig (talk) 05:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Assuming that Adam Cuerden will not agree to remove my block whether it was somehow inappropriate to offer a settlement, then I would make this complaint against him and I would like to begin submitting evidence that this entire dispute (however characterized) began between Adam Cuerden and me on October 3, 2007. I would also submit that Adam Cuerden brought the RfC which I have already characterized as misconduct. It was admin abuse for Adam Cuerden to block me both times he did, as an involved participant and upon the strength of the RfC he initiated himself. I am not listing the other editors on the RfC at this time because they are not currently preventing me from editing. If it is proper for me to include other editors, and I am informed of the protocols so as not to be accused of things, then I may do so. It may be proper to include all of Homeopathy as this originates as an NPOV dispute. Whig (talk) 05:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Whig, it is relatively unlikely that many, if any, arbitrators are reading the dialog on this page. If there is anything you wish to add to the e-mail previously forwarded to the arbitrators, please send me another e-mail (just one please) and I will forward it to the committee. It will probably be to your advantage to focus primarily on whether you if unblocked you would be able to edit in accordance with our policies, and less on the more procedural type issues. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I violated 3RR once. I am not aware I have violated Misplaced Pages policies or procedures in any other way. I will compose these together into a paragraph or two and e-mail it to you to forward to the ArbCom. Whig (talk) 06:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I have sent an e-mail to Newyorkbrad summarizing briefly, which he may forward to the ArbCom. Whig (talk) 06:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Email received

I got your email. Thanks for pointing me at one more place to look. Not so much thanks for my now needing to look in even more places ;) this thing is consuming more time than I ever wanted it to. GRBerry 20:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing glaring struck me. Can you provide evidence (diffs) for the "used as a weapon against other" editors bit? GRBerry 02:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see my Fifth response in the RfC and observe this diff. Whig (talk) 03:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

With regard to item 2 in today's email. I am not acting because I'm not certain that acting would be in Misplaced Pages's best interest. See the second to last bullet in the relevant portion of my evidence. I also don't think my escalating matters would be a good idea. GRBerry 17:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom MatthewHoffman case

Any user is welcome to add me to this case if it is appropriate to do so. Whig (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, I would like User:Adam Cuerden to set forth evidence why I should be permanently blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Whig (talk) 19:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I will address this to the clerk. Whig (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request renewed

Any admin who considers the evidence submitted so far in the MatthewHoffman case may wish to review my block and restore my editing privilege as long as it will not interfere with ongoing or pending arbitration. Whig (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Use the {{unblock|reason}} template. Your page may not be watchlisted by many. This will add it to CAT:RFU. Mercury 18:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I already posted an unblock request some time ago, which was declined. The message states, "Do not replace this message with another unblock request or add another unblock request." Whig (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sharavanabhava (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Can another admin review the above? Mercury 22:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Request unblock from ArbCom at arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org — Lara❤Love 12:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

If nobody will unblock you (I shouldn't because I am unfamiliar with your case, and I am tangentially involved in the Hoffman matter), I think you should email Arbcom and ask to be unblocked so you can participate in the case. Go to WP:ARB and you will find an email address there, somewhere. - Jehochman 22:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not, but administrators are volunteers with limited time on their hands. Please state very clearly and very briefly, providing links where necessary, why your block violated the blocking policy and should be lifted. Sandstein (talk) 22:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec)I think reading Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence#Adam's recent blocking history is spotty - subsection on Whig - and the later section "Adam and Homeopathy" would be enlightening to whichever admin reviews this request. The first has links to all the prior community discussion that I could find about this block, the latter contains some relevant context. I also am a party in that case so am not opining on the merits. GRBerry 22:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec)I strongly agree with Sandstein. At this point, I think that it would be best to pursue unblocking by contacting WP:ARBCOM. I also can't say I'm thrilled with stuff like this: . However, that was almost two weeks ago, I suppose. SQL 22:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Would it make sense for someone to propose a motion to the committee to include him in the case? That would put the decision ball squarely in their court. GRBerry 22:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

(ecX2)Yeah, I think, that would make sense. I'll hunt down an arbcom clerk, and point them here. They can unblock as well, if needed for this user to participate in a case. SQL 22:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sandstein here. If you could briefly condense. Mercury 22:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sandstein and Mercury, I'm not sure what diffs I can provide since there is not even a concrete allegation of having done anything wrong. Please read the Matthew Hoffman evidence which GRBerry has supplied, as I believe that contains most detail necessary to determine that I am improperly blocked by an involved administrator in a content dispute over Homeopathy. Whig 22:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

GRBerry, I welcome any such motion if appropriate. Whig 22:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Up until an arbitration official intervenes, I'll follow standard unblock request protocol and ask the blocking admin to comment on this unblock request. Please stand by. Sandstein (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I have been standing by a few weeks now, and do not mind waiting a bit longer if it is necessary. Whig 23:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like any unblocking admin to consider the comments and responses at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Whig 2. This RFC, coupled with Whig's reactions to it, led directly to his block. I have no problem whatsoever with Whig being unblocked to edit in other areas, or to participate in the arbitration, but he needs to stay away from homeopathy. He was a seriously disruptive presence there, both before and after his ban from editing the main article, and it wasn't only Adam who had a problem with his behavior. Cheers, Skinwalker (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Whig, what, if any, of your actions/behaviors do you believe were incorrect and plan to change? To be perfectly honest, I was sympathetic when this came up 1.5 months ago, but the way you seem above under #Blocked again to be as interested in going after Adam Cuerden as you are in being unblocked isn't doing you any favors. I could be wrong, but as it stands now, I doubt you will find any admin willing to unblock you. --B (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless otherwise noticed I will refrain from editing the Homeopathy article in accordance with Mercury's original ban. I will also comply with his original 1RR parole. I should not have reverted more than three times in one day but I would welcome advice on how better to draw attention to a suppressed NPOV dispute. Whig 23:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

My only interest in Adam Cuerden is that he is the blocking administrator and is involved in a content dispute with me. Whig 23:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This is mightily confusing. IF this section is a discussion of process (which is how it began), I'm staying out of it. IF it is turned into a discussion of the merits of the case, which is what a couple of the recent contributions (Skinwalker and B) seem to be doing, then I have a few comments.

I think it would be best to get the process clear before getting into discussion of the "merits of the case." Wanderer57 (talk) 23:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that, out of good faith, we should consider unblocking this account. However, if the incivility issue is not addressed this time around, I will not be opposed to an indefinite community ban. Maser 04:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you be specific and provide a diff where I was uncivil prior to the present block? Whig 04:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I missphrased, I'm sorry.You were known for incivility at one point, however after viewing your contributions I feel you should be uunblocked in good faith. I don't believe you were recently uncivil - I was referring to past actions. I think that you have tried hard to improve your conduct - and that is why I think you should be given one more chance. :) Maser 06:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)