Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:49, 10 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)
5. Zenwhat (talk) 21:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
6. --Cube lurker (talk) 01:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC) As basic summary of events
7. "i"s dotted, "t"s crossed, yes. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:10, 8 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. One is free to take Adam's word (which I do), or not, on this. But given that this response it certainly plausible, in the grand wikischeme I fail to see how the full impact of this type of proceeding is a net benefit, let alone even necessary. This is a nearly perfect example of why we have WP:BEANS. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
6. Here's an idea for Misplaced Pages, lets persecute all the editors who have proven themselves as useful for the project and replace them with a cadre of unknown editors who may, perhaps, potentially, could be decent editors? Shot info (talk) 23:08, 9 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)
3. Zenwhat (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Some of these actions were unfortunate or even inappropriate, but the finding as phrased is incorrect, as User:B has pointed out. Hopefully it will be amended. MastCell 06:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
5. most of these diffs are just simply ... edits. Others are semiprotections, which in disturbed topics like "homeopathy" may be a plain necessity, and which does not give any honest editor any advantage or disadvantage: it simply buys you peace from the socks and the drive-by vandals. It is completely disingenious to present sprotection as an instance of "admin abuse". I appreciate the arbcom has many demands on their time (partly, it appears, because they decide "we can help here" rather too often, even in cases that are patently free of any merit whatsoever), but they should at least take the time to conscientiously review the things they endorse. And by review I mean critically checking that the diffs given do in fact establish what they are claimed, and ideally even research some of the case's background. In topics as troubled as "homeopathy", we absolutely need bad cop admins like Adam Cuerden, the articles would degenerate into pure madness otherwise. dab (𒁳) 12:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
6. Although I find the use of "slanderous" here nearly as hyperbolic as "in order to further his position in content disputes". This is not in any way condoning of the appearance of furthering his position, however, which seems far more relevant to this proceeding. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
7. O man...is that Witch still floating? Finding of fact...more like invention of fiction. Shot info (talk) 23:10, 9 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.

A few diffs to show the situation there. I'll cut names to try and prevent raking up old disputes too much

I think we need to be clear, all articles must be written from NPOV. That is absolute and non-negotiable. I am not asking for a pro-Homeopathy article. That would be absurd and as wrong as an anti-Homeopathy article. But an article which is about Scientific critiques of homeopathy can describe those critiques, and another on Homeopathy which is descriptive of the subject itself. - Problems: Complete lack of understanding of WP:NPOV, insistence that all criticism should be removed to a separate article.

This addition of a several page, POV, and copyright-infringing section to the start of the Homeopathy article, which reads, in part, Throughout its 180-year history, homeopathy has proven effective in treating diseases for which conventional medicine has little to offer. However, due to its low cost, which threatens pharmaceutical profits, as well as its divergence from conventional medical theory, homeopathy has been continually attacked by the medical establishment. was reverted. One editor, a different one to the one quoted above, says that such reversions and giving a warning template to the person who added it shows that "it will NEVER be a good, fair, balanced NPOV article. period." Again, severe misunderstanding of WP:NPOV, almost ridiculously so.

This is an example - not the best, but the first I found - of a perennial discussion on Talk:Homeopathy - to whit, that all criticism should be completely and totally removed from the lead, and be kept solely in a criticism section, despite the lead needing to summarise the article and all notable viewpoints. In extreme cases, this becomes "there should be no criticism at all outside of a criticism section, late in the article. Lack of understanding of WP:LEAD - justifiable in the case of the new editor in this section, but not in the long-term editors who brought it up regularly.

That's enough archivediving for now.

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:

1. Adam Cuerden 09:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Carcharoth (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC) - I would encourage more diffs from Adam. This is helping to persuade me that Adam misunderstood what admin tools are meant to be used for, and would be able to use the tools properly in the future. I hope that it is now clearer to many that editing and discussion and finding references and writing good articles is the best way to maintain NPOV. Admin tools should be a last resort after that, and should be used by people uninvolved in the articles. Sometimes an admin will get too involved in an article they are initially "policing", and at that point they should find another admin to deal with any disruption. Carcharoth (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
3. I don't know about the Whig situation particularly, but I have seen a lot of problematic behavior on both sides in the religion-politics arena, as well as in the science/pseudoscience arena. I echo Adam's call for level-headed uninvolved admins to wade into these arenas and provide some refereeing. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 21:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Zenwhat (talk) 02:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Damn straight; I know I'm not about to step into that mess. Mr.Z-man 03:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
6. I endorse this insofar as there is a need for significantly more admin/community oversight of alternative medicine pages - they are a perennial haunt of tendentious editors - and it would be unfortunate if this case further discourages admins from getting involved. MastCell 06:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
7. R. Baley (talk) 09:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
8. Exactly like MastCell, "I endorse this insofar as there is a need for significantly more admin/community oversight of alternative medicine pages." Avb 14:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
9. Having edited Hyperbaric medicine and Chelation therapy, I concur with the general descriptions here as applied to those articles (i.e., no comment on Whig, say) and fully believe his generalizations. Other endorsers' commentaries above also on the mark. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

"It makes a difference" (Adam Cuerden)

Some people are criticising me for, when I discovered that Charles Matthews was an arbitrator, saying "It makes a difference."

What you must realise is that on the more controversial articles, you tend to get cliques who will defend other people in their cliques against anything or in any argument, no matter how much evidence there is against them, or how little sense they're making.

Since Charles Matthews was only sending one-sentence e-mails that didn't get to the heart of his problems with the Hoffman block, it was not unreasonable to just presume this was a mail in that vein, particularly after several one-sentence e-mails that simply said, in effect, "You must unblock him! He's not a sockpuppet!"

Two months after the block, from someone I didn't know, in an area where sockpuppets are indeed rife - for all I knew I was talking to Raspor, and until he gave a good reason for the unblock, there was little point arguing wih him. Him identifying himself as a member of Arbcom gave him a reason to be e-mailing me, and at least gave a reasonable presumption he was being neutral.

There may not be tiers of users, but if you're not going to explain what the matter is or why you're seemingly ranodomly getting so upset over a two-month-old block, it does make a difference to say a reason you're interested, and his being in Arbcom was a reason, and so made a difference.

I think I'll move the rest of my comment to a separate voting.

Users who support this comment:

1. Adam Cuerden 01:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Standards (Adam Cuerden)

I suppose that one of the most frustrating things about this case is that I seem to be getting held to a different standard than the arbcom holds themselves to. I used block summaries which were slightly misleading, though they reflected my understanding at the time, and the findings of fact, Charles Matthews' statement, and so on presumed I did it intentionally. Meanwhile, Finding of Fact #9, discussed above, which made misleading statements about me using diffs that did not support the specific statements made... got 6 votes from the Arbcom.

In a case where I was being criticised for rush to judgement, a proposal to desysop me appeared within 24 hours, before I had said a word in my defense, except to alert that there would be exams.

Charles Matthews' , which called other admins dogs, among other language, remains unrefactored and uncommented upon by the Arbcom. Meanwhile, Proposed principle #2 reads, apparently without irony, "New contributors are prospective Wikipedians and are therefore our most valuable resource. Editors are expected to treat newcomers with kindness and patience. Nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility."

Oh, and evidently, Assume good faith only applies to Hoffman, not to admins: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Matthew_Hoffman/Workshop#Adam_Cuerden_acted_in_good_faith.2C_but_made_bad_decisions

Users supporting this summary

1. Adam Cuerden 02:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal related to above

It seems reasonable to me that the entire Proposed decision page should be cleared, and restarted after I have a chance to actually put together evidence. I am willing to have my admin bit removed in the interim, provided this does not prejudice me against it being returned at such time that I have the time and am able to face the stress of this uphill battle.

Users supporting this summary

1. Adam Cuerden 02:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
2. --Cube lurker (talk) 03:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC) I have to admit i believe that the issues under discussion are serious, but for fairness sake, if the arbcom ordered an rfc, the final discussion should be restarted. it's the only way it avoids the appearance of an rfc for appearance sake only.--Cube lurker (talk) 03:13, 10 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)
16. Fireplace (talk) 16:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
17. Cailil 20:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
18. Antelan 21:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
19. Zenwhat (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
20. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
21. gadfium 20:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
22. Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
23. — BillC 18:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
24. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
25. Shot info (talk) 23:12, 9 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)
12. Fireplace (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
13. Cailil 20:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
14. MastCell 06:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
15. --Cube lurker (talk) 02:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC) The first paragraph strongly, the second is good in theory but not sure if I can judge if the change in practice can be made.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
16. Avb 14:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
17. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
18. Clearly. I would add that even the appearance of using one's tools to influence a content dispute is problematic; Jehochman's advice is superb. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
19. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:07, 9 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. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
12. Yes, sanctions are up to ArbCom.DGG (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
13. Peter morrell 20:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
14. --Cube lurker (talk) 02:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Agree with this in principal

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)
14. Desysoping should be protective, not punitive. Antelan 20:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
15. As B says, the evidence does not warrant desysoping--Cailil 20:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
16. Fireplace (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
17. Avb 23:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
18. don't necc. agree with above, but agree with B that deadmin doesn't seem appropriate. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
19. Not that I'm an "outside" opinion here; I've already said my piece at the RfArb. MastCell 06:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
20. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
21. gadfium 20:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
22. Zenwhat (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
23. Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
24. — BillC 18:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
25. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
26. The "remedy" is punitive and unnecessary, given that lots of people are watching Adam now. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
27. Shot info (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
28. At worst, I think Adam was careless, not malicious. This remedy would be excessive IMO. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:06, 9 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)
6. I agree that while no Rfc or formal warnings or guidance had been provided, plenty of informal seems to have been. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
7. I did try, but I did not try very hard or often, since AC seemed totally resistant to all advice. It has taken the ArbCom and this RfC to actually get his attention to the problems. DGG (talk) 14:40, 7 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)
4. Peter morrell 18:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by Professor Marginalia

Adam's comments during the dispute reveal some disbelief or confusion on his part that sysops are honor-bound to step aside from using tools in articles they're involved in, and leave it to uninvolved admins to take on the sysop duties. This goes to the core of what role admins are to take with tools, and it is baffling to me that all admins don't have a clear understanding on this point from day one. So penetrating questions are necessary in this RFC, going beyond the single Hoffman incident. Also, his dismissives in response to inquiries into the block unfortunately came across as haughty and arrogant, a tone which almost always creates more conflict rather than facilitating resolutions to it, as is obviously one of the main objectives in using the tools. Though he's explained he was succumbing to real life pressures at the time, he'd also mirrored some of the same sort of bully-vibe I've increasingly seen taken in conflicts in articles where the fringe and skeptics intersect, articles where NPOV is very hard work and requires as much independence and objectivity as an editor can bring to it, but instead "cliques" have formed which are more inclined to forge through their fellows' edit histories than they are the best available published references. In such a climate, fairness and independent judgment is essential to help ensure the tools are not used abusively. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Agree completely about not using the tools in articles you're involved with. However, I accept Adam's explanation concerning real life pressures. Addhoc (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
3. This, coupled with Adam's statement above, seems to get to the heart of the matter. Carcharoth (talk) 19:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
4. If Adam's real life pressures prevent him from doing a good job, perhaps he should consider voluntarily setting down his tools. —Whig (talk) 20:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
6. Per Carcharoth. In particular, I heartily agree with ProfM's last two sentences. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 21:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
7. Elitism, cliques and cabals damage the community. Jehochman 22:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
8. Perfectly put in all aspects. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
9. Abridged 23:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
10. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
11. Yes, its more than a single incident. DGG (talk) 14:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
12. Peter morrell 18:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
13. --Cube lurker (talk) 02:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Agree with all of this one.

Outside view by Zenwhat

• In general, there seems to be a huge desparity between the general public's perceptions about homeopathy and what the mainstream scientific consensus is. A number of reliable references can be used to support this. Even if you believe homeopathy is itself useful, you have to at least acknowledge it is not widely accepted. Matthew regularly invoked both unverified claims and unreliable sources. Adam did not. Unverifiable claims or claims made by unreliable sources are irrelevant and, if pushed through edit-warring, constitute a violate of policy. Adam's actions appear to have involved protecting Misplaced Pages from the kind of systematic fringe views that regularly end up, for example, on articles related to Eastern Europe -- something he should be commended for, not punished. His past decisions on these issues were not called into question until now.

• This case appears to partially involve some minor misunderstandings of diffs, that were blown out of proportion, on both sides -- which is acceptable since we're all human (no offense intended to any furries present) and Misplaced Pages's decentralized nature (relevant articles aren't always linked, including in the edits made by users, which can be obscured by various editors editing an article together, all at once) This can make it difficult for even experienced editors, like admins. Any possible administrative mistakes in the past by Adam simply demonstrate the fact that admins are not infallible. Fallibility is no reason to take away his administrative privileges if it can't be shown that his actions were made in bad faith. This is precisely why ArbCom cases rely on consensus among admins. Without noting past consensus for past administrative actions, noting "a number of cases where he's made bad decisions" is misleading.

• Adam's continued editing of homeopathy is irrelevant. The claim that "it would be good" to force him to focus more on editing appears to be a specific argument to avoid, since administrative privileges can only be taken away for violation of policy -- not simply because certain editors think it's a good idea or because they don't like the admin or his edits. Adam's continued editing of homeopathy shows nothing more than an interest in the topic and a desire to protect it from mobs violating WP:FRINGE. The attempt at taking away his administrative edits appear to be nothing more than wikilawyering in order for certain editors to get away with violating WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV by taking away administrative privileges from those editors who regularly block other editors that regularly violate these rules through edit warring, which Adam does and Matthew did.

• Because of the diversity of his edits, the lack of any major contentious edits, and the amount of awards he has received, it doesn't appear to me at all that Adam's "trustworthiness" as an admin is called into question at all.

In conclusion, removing Adam's administrative privileges would further undermine the credibility of Misplaced Pages and contribute to Misplaced Pages: Expert rebellion by allowing WP:FRINGE to continually be violated, for the sake of a false appeal to WP:CONSENSUS. Wikipedis is not a democracy where WP:FRINGE can be violated simply because large amounts of editors support such. Even assuming Adam's block of Matthew Hoffman was contentious (it appears to have been supported by a number of other admins), per WP:IAR his actions are fully in accordance with the spirit of Misplaced Pages policy. Zenwhat (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Reserved for Zenwhat 22:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
2. R. Baley (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Would have left out 'per IAR' myself, but otherwise endorse.
   1. Actually, Matthew Hoffman was a creationist. The homeopathy thing is kind of a distraction tactic. Adam Cuerden 02:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Witch-hunt

Aspects of this case look a lot like a witch-hunt. Adam is a good administrator, not a perfect administrator. Nobody is perfect, and perfection is not something required of our administrators. Many of the people asking for Adam to be removed as an administrator are documented POV-pushers and edit warriors hoping to skew Misplaced Pages toward accommodating pseudoscientific POV in defiance of the neutrality for which this encyclopedia strives. In my humble opinion, there are, percentage-wise, more problematic editors supporting sanctioning Adam than there are supporting forgiveness. In light of the evidence and the advocacy of these groups of POV-pushers, I believe that while Adam should be counseled to use his admin tools wisely, there is nothing to indicate that he should have taken away. Doing so will likely hamper the efforts of the community to regulate Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines effectively.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Zenwhat (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Misplaced Pages at the moment seems to be hell bent on becoming a collection of useless knowledge and encouraging bad editors of useless knowledge to remain, while persecuting good editors (and admins) of useful knowledge. The above reads like a witch-hunt or rather a "I have to be seen to be doing something". Shot info (talk) 23:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by User:Rodhullandemu

You'll forgive me, I hope, if I fail to grasp protocol as fully as I might; I was an occasional commentator in the original thread at WP:ANI that begat all this, and hence a party to the ArbCom case that brings us here. However, as usual as far as I can see in these cases, there are too many trees and not enough wood. My original concerns were only tangentially related to edit-warring on Homeopathy; however, I did not want to, and still don't want to, get involved with disentangling that morass. In my view, there were other venues for that debate, and I am not qualified to express an opinion either way. My concerns in WP:ANI were principally-

1. • That Adam had intervened qua administrator in relation to a content-related dispute on an article which he had previously edited, and not merely in a trivial, but in a content-related manner. In relation to that, I have nothing more to add beyond that I do not think that was wise on his behalf.
   • That when it came to a decision to block Matthew Hoffman, Adam showed less than due diligence in too rapidly accepting suggestions or hints of sockpuppetry from other admins, admittedly more experienced than he, but the decision was his, and his alone, and hence his responsibility.
   • That when asked to review this block, Adam failed to exercise due diligence in reacting to emails and talk-page messages from User:Charles Matthews; even as an administrator, can it be that every day emails arrive in one's inbox asking for review/clarification/opinion, whatever, that they are lost or ignored? But when Adam realised that those emails were from an Arbitrator, his reaction was that "that makes a difference"; wrong, wrong, and wrong again. We do not have such a hierarchy here, I hope, that some are more equal than others. We may not have a democracy, but we should have respect for each other such that if someone asks me something, I don't care whether they are Jimmy Wales or the newest proto-vandal on the block; see User_talk:Olirampling, for example, of a failed attempt to educate rather than discard.

It is the latter point which has been somewhat lost in the ensuing brou-haha. I don't wish that Adam should suffer from all this; I think overall, he's a good admin with one minor lapse of judgement to his record, at a time when arguably he should have been concentrating on other matters. Shoot me down, and in flames if you like, but if all the text and effort expended here, and above, had gone into developing articles, there would probably be about five more Featured Articles on the list. Good evening. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

View by User:Whig

Having tried to work matters out with Adam Cuerden in light of the fact that he has been informed and should now understand that his blocks were outside of policy, he continues to treat me with incivility and disrespect, and makes inaccurate statements about me which I must continue to correct, which I do not believe is behavior consistent with a Misplaced Pages admin. I will be adding some diffs but they will be taken from the talk so they should already be clear to anyone who reads these pages. Here are examples from just one thread in the talk:

• Adam calls me a probationer, citing mentorship agreements which are either not in force or entered into voluntarily and not as a condition of editing.
• Adam says that I am not "a really productive member of the community."
• Adam trivializes my request for respect and civility and calls me immature.
• Adam misrepresents what I said on Talk:Homeopathy, and suggests I am "not ready to edit medical-related articles."

Users who endorse this summary:

1. —Whig (talk) 03:13, 10 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.