Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Vanished user

< Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Carcharoth (talk | contribs) at 01:09, 10 January 2008 (→Punish them both, to appease the witch-hunters: links). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:09, 10 January 2008 by Carcharoth (talk | contribs) (→Punish them both, to appease the witch-hunters: links)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

General comments

The articles where I have encountered Adam are troll-bait, and on the pages of these articles, one encounters a steady parade of POV warriors, sock puppets, meat puppets, trolls, vandals and assorted malcontents, amounting to several new players per day, sometimes.
I have never seen Adam behave in an improper fashion. He has always stayed cool under fire and has exterted a calming influence and been a voice of neutrality on these problematic pages under trying circumstances.
I believe that wider questions, beyond the scope of this single case, should be considered; namely, what sort of signal does this action send? What type of signal is this action intended to send? Has someone or some group decided that some new precedent needs to be set, and an example must be made of someone? Has it been decided that an admin needs to be sacrificed to slake the clamoring crowds?
I am astounded at what the crowds seem to be crying out for (or at least what some claim they are crying out for); to allow more trolls and vandals and POV warriors to have free reign to disrupt Misplaced Pages. When I read over and over at essays like "WP:Misplaced Pages is failing", editor after editor describes the reason they are leaving or have left is because Misplaced Pages did not care at all for reason, or education, or expertise, or NPOV. Instead, Misplaced Pages has let the lowest common denominator run loose on Misplaced Pages and engage in widespread disruption. Why do we want more disruption? I can only think that people who are calling for this are people who have never experienced it, up close and personal.
Adam is an admin who stands for reason and rationality and does not brook any nonsense. And I for one am glad he tries to slow down POV pushing, and act like a damper on this kind of silliness.
Adam might have fallen down a bit in a place or two, or might have not been totally clear on what the expectations were. However, the answer is to make the expectations clearer, and to make the system more fault tolerant, so it is harder for it to fail in the ways this case has revealed. The answer is not to gratuitously punish someone who has down yeoman's service to preserve civil discourse on Misplaced Pages, and protect productive editors. --Filll (talk) 04:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Adam is totally out of order and out of control. Having said that, he is one of the best Admins on this project. Chump Manbear (talk) 20:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Jehochman's advice

Adam Cuerden, I appreciate your efforts to keep out pseudoscience, fringe theories and conflict of interest editing. In dealing with large volumes of trouble an administrator can lose perspective.

To avoid adminitis I recommend spending time on the positive aspects of the projects, such as Did you know, Good articles and Featured articles.
IP editors and new editors are sometimes people coming from sister projects and non-English Wikipedias. They may show familiarity with Misplaced Pages, but they are not sock puppets.
When dealing with sock puppets, consider filing a Suspected sock puppet report or possibly a Request for checkuser. I now do that each and every time. Even if a sock puppet seems obvious, going through the formalities can prevent mistakes and can help identify additional sleeper socks, thereby reducing future disruptions.
If there is a thread at ANI, make sure it gets enough comments to demonstrate a consensus. Add a timestamp to keep it from being archived.
Obviously, be prepared to explain every administrative action and respond promptly to inquiries. Treat everyone as a VIP.
Be conservative about using the toolbox. If there is any doubt about your involvement, get an uninvolved administrator to perform the necessary action.

I will study this list myself. Hindsight is clearer. Jehochman 05:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to do this, not sure how successfully. But it's a bit hard to know how well I'm succeeding because I've lost a great deal of my enthusiasm for Misplaced Pages. Adam Cuerden 23:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You do a lot of good for WP in terms of keeping pseudoscience out of it, just as Randi does in public life. At the same time, WP is supposed to be a team effort. You have many people behind you who believe as you do, and are willing to edit. Perhaps you should leave more of this work to them. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Another general comment

I think part of the problem is that we don't have any guidelines for discussing blocks of this nature. For example, we could insist the discussion is kept open for 24 hours, and invite the user to make a statement. Addhoc (talk) 05:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the sort of thing I have been lobbying for, although not necessarily this particular version.--Filll (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The community decided a while ago that we didn't want this, so we did away first with the guidelines for it, then with the community sanction notice board alltogether, which is where an issue such as Adams with Mattew would have been discussed. It was not perfect but did seem to help. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC running time

Can we decide how long this RfC will run for? Is the ArbCom 30 day thing meant to mean this stays open for 30 days, or is that the point at which they decide whether any further action is needed as regards Adam Cuerden? Presumably they will still need to close out the other aspects of the case, regardless of the outcome of this RfC. Carcharoth (talk) 17:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I misread which suspension motion passed. Voting will resume regardless of what happens here. The point at which voting resumes is: 04:14, 20 January 2007, by my calculation. Presumably this RfC can be closed before then, at that point, or left open. What is the normal protocol for RfCs? Carcharoth (talk) 17:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Normally an RfC runs for as long as it takes to obtain input from the community; there's no fixed procedure for closing them, someone just archives them eventually when no one else is contributing. In this case it probably makes sense to hold the RfC open at least until January 20 and then see where we are. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Community input

Does this RfC need more advertising to achieve genuine community input? I'm concerned that those involved in the arbitration case will overwhelm those who are new to this whole series of incidents. The RfC was mentioned at the latest Signpost issue, but not linked directly. It is listed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct, so that is probably enough. My worry is that if only the editors involved in the case participate here, then the Arbitration Committee will take that into account when deciding whether there has been genuine input by the community. Having said that, I think User:Heimstern Läufer is a new outside view. Carcharoth (talk) 17:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It's listed in all the usual places. Things may be slow due to the holiday. Jehochman 22:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

If you really wish, Adam, you could ask Ral315 to add a link to the RFC into this week's Signpost. Durova —Preceding comment was added at 22:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this may happen regardless of Adam's wishes. The question is whether anyone should actively contact User:Ral315 (the Signpost editor) or User:David.Mestel (the editor who does the arbitration case reports), and suggest the link addition, or instead rely on them linking the RfC? Given that the RfC was not linked before (though this might be because it hadn't opened), maybe someone should contact them. On the other hand, given that the opening of the RfC is all there is to report on this case, I expect David will link and say something. Carcharoth (talk) 13:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I spoke too soon. Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2008-01-02/Arbitration report doesn't link directly to here. Oh well. Carcharoth (talk) 17:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed that link myself. Durova 17:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Community input on the findings of fact

I've made clear in my outside view that I think rehashing the arguments won't be productive, and that the remedies should be left to the arbitration committee (mainly because they disagree enough among themselves on exactly what sort of remedies to hand down - we don't really want to muddy those waters). I do think, however, that it would it be useful to gauge community input on Adam's actions and behaviour in the form of the four findings of fact that relate most directly to Adam, all of which looked to be passing at the time of the case suspension, and failing any specific community input will presumably pass when voting resumes. So I propose to put up the following four views:

I propose to copy them verbatim, diffs and links and all, with links back to the arbitration case page, and people can then support here as they wish. I realise this may be a bit too radical, so I'm floating the idea here first to see what people think. An alternative would be me putting these four views up separately, as I support all four. There are also some points on the Workshop page that never made it into the Proposed decision page. I could pull some of those out as well, in particular this one. What would be best here? Carcharoth (talk) 13:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that seems reasonable. My preference would be to have each put up separately, as there are aspects to which my support would be qualified. dave souza, talk 14:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I still disagree strongly with the phrasing of the fourth, but, yeah, let's get comment on it. Adam Cuerden 15:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Carcharoth, I'd like to explain some context for one of the objections you made. I mentioned Adam's barnstars and mainspace work in part because of the way his arbitration was handled. Any volunteer run organization's most valuable resource is the volunteers who have already proven their dedication. Adam is such a person. He did have some problems and probably deserved an admin conduct RFC. He did not deserve to get rushed into a jam between defending his administratorship and studying for his university finals. Durova 18:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't object to what you said. I just felt it needed balancing with what I said, and doing a new outside view was the only way I could see of doing that. Carcharoth (talk) 18:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Perfectly fair. This is a very strange RFC. The people who post later in the game have the advantage of seeing earlier comments they can refine. At the time when I posted there had obviously been a problem, but no formal complaint. Durova 18:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The RfC doesn't exist in a vacuum. The arbitration case was plainly a prior attempt at dispute resolution. It may have been the wrong order, but there was a dispute and extensive discussion about the dispute. Anyway, I'll try and put the four findings of fact up tomorrow. And yes, this is a very strange RfC! Carcharoth (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman has raised an objection on my talk page about excessive input from me. He may be talking about the "impact of desysoping" view (in which case a new section is needed to discuss that). He is probably also talking about the "four findings of fact", and his comment that we don't want to imitate the arbitration case is a good one. Accordingly I've removed my additions until they can be discussed further here. Carcharoth (talk) 16:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I recognize that Carcharoth is trying to be helpful. My concern is that this creates an appearance that he is proposing many different views, and this may discourage other community members from posting their own views, buried at the bottom of the page. Rather than copying the arbitration findings verbatim, can be make a note and provide a link to the workshop and invite people who wish to do so to add their views to the workshop? This will provide a central place for feedback on the workshop proposals. The RfC views will serve as an independent source of feedback from the community without pre-framing by ArbCom. Jehochman 16:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The above proposal might have seemed OK in theory, but I had nagging doubts about it. These were not dispelled when I eventually added the four sections, and I'd like to thank Jehochman for pointing this out (which prompting me to change my mind and remove them) before things went further (ie. anyone supported them). One point I'd like to make though, is that the reference to WP:OWN in an edit summary might be overdoing it. I hope my subsequent actions have dispelled any fears of that. Carcharoth (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I was commenting on appearances created by the volume of your posts, and I am sure you were strictly acting in good faith. To those who may not know us already, Carcharoth is prolix and I am terse. I think of us as The Odd Couple of Misplaced Pages, and consider him to be a friend. Jehochman 16:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Aw. Thanks! Me too. :-) And friends can disagree amicably. Carcharoth (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that a recent RfC (Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Kmweber 2) had multiple views from the same editors. This is particularly a problem when a dispute is broad. Having a view on one aspect doesn't mean that you can't have a different view on another aspect. Putting the two together in the same summary can be unhelpful in finding out what people really think, especially as people may support part of the summary or view, but not the other bits. Carcharoth (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I have been a bit confused by some of these statements myself. By signing on, would we be agreeing simply that this is what ArbCom is saying? Or would we be agreeing with ArbCom? How would one register disagreement? Is it our business to comment on ArbCom's doings? I think perhaps we should limit the RfC to clearly propositional statements about Adam. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Peter's comment

You know, I'm getting a bit tired of Peter. Peter is an endless POV pusher who's been warned dozens of times about attacking me, and now, the moment I'm down, he shows up to put the boot in a bit.

And, more generally, yes, I'm sorry I did what I did. But I'm tired f this "You must show remorse to our satisfaction! Grovel, pig! And don't dare speak up in defense of anything you did, no matter how baseless that particular accusation!" nonsense that seems to be rife in this Arbcom case. I'm sorry, I won't do it again, but I'm afraid that I'm not a demonstrative person, and am getting a bit sick of being told I haven't shown "enough" remorse to convince people I won't do X again, and getting told that simply making amends and apologising isn't good enough, that I must abase myself, and accept anything said about me, no matter whether I can find a basis in reality in it or not. Adam Cuerden 01:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The people who haven't found themselves on the wrong side of that dynamic should do more to intervene. Implacable resentment really does more long term harm to WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL than a few random curse words. Durova 02:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't like it either, but what should be done? I would suggest Peter go and add diffs to the evidence page of the ArbCom case. One reason why I'm not being more proactive is that I don't know whether or not Peter is a POV pusher. It would take me a while to look. It is easier to just say to him "provide evidence". I'd say the same to Adam - provide evidence that Peter is a POV pusher. Carcharoth (talk) 03:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Adam, I think (hope) that the point of this RfC is to clear some of the toxic air that has surrounded the ArbCom case, which has been due to the fact that real consequences were hanging over your head before you had had the chance to receive and respond to constructive criticism. People like Peter should be able to air their opinions without restraint (I am speaking of the content of his statement, and will not make any judgment at present about its civility). But if the community is reasonable, as I trust it is, constructive comments like Heimstern's will find a great deal more support (as is currently the case). I hope that each aspect of this RfC can be taken for what it's worth, neither more nor less. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I hope the views without evidence or substance will find less support. Carcharoth (talk) 03:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but Peter is kind of a special case, as his behaviour is... well, he seems to be following me around a bit. Don't know if that's true, but he does appear in the most surprising places to attack me. Adam Cuerden 17:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a relatively high profile case. Anyway, if he was following you, why didn't we see him at the ArbCom case? If you feel he is attacking you, why not talk with him first and try and resolve your differences? Carcharoth (talk) 00:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I know you mean well, but you have no idea what you're talking about. Adam Cuerden 01:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody has endorsed his comment. That should say something. --B (talk) 01:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Adam, what am I meant to say in reply to a comment like that? If you can't say clearly what is going on here, then that is unfair on the rest of us. We are not mind-readers. If you are referring to other places Peter has appeared, then tell us. If you can't tell us, then tell someone you can tell. Carcharoth (talk) 03:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Adam, this kind of hard confrontational language is perhaps why it would be better to stick to the less-controversial articles, which require less patience. I should know. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Adam will care to provide some actual evidence that I am an "endless POV pusher" (his terminology), that I have been "warned against him DOZENS of times" (i.e. I take dozens to literally mean between 30 and 40; in reality I think it is perhaps 3 or 4 all of them provoked by his savage (AKA wreckless) editing style already alluded to) or that I am "following him around." I will try to find some diffs in support of my own comments but a search engine might help. I have little time or appetite for ploughing through piles of pages and edit histories to find them, but maybe that is what is required. Most of my impressions of him were formed in March/April and again in October of 2007. BTW, Adam, please don't try to blame me for the unfortunate situation you are in; it is entirely of your own making. Peter morrell 08:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Because Adam has not replied to my questions above, I wonder if he has not provided us with an example of what I said here: I would say he has...displayed an arrogant disregard for the skills, expertise and good faith friendliness of other editors....he rarely explains himself...he often ignores requests for dialogue... In the last 24 hours he has made replies to comments by some fellow admins whose comments thusfar seem to show they will close ranks anyway to protect him from a grim desysop fate. That he has declined to reply to my questions--a humble non-admin prol, footsoldier, ordinary WP user--might give the impression that his attitude is indeed already accurately summarised in the words above and that he has amply illustrated one of my points. Peter morrell 10:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe I just really hate archive diving and hoped someone else would do it if I gave it a little time. Anyway, is pretty typical of Peter's anti-science rants. Fairly tame compared to some of them. Adam Cuerden 19:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the comment you diffed, Adam. What Peter said seemed perfectly reasonable to me. —Whig (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This isn't his worst rant, but things like "science zealots" and "This prejudicial disbelief which is recycled constantly within the so-called 'scientific' community keeps a strong ambient disbelief and hatred going against it in polite society..." are typical of Peter's rejection of science out of hand. Adam Cuerden 21:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Adam, you have made it clear that you have a POV. I have not submitted diffs in this RfC because I believe you understand you have made mistakes with your admin tools, but I think you also fail to genuinely respect people who disagree with you. I can provide diffs if you like, but here you are making an accusation about Peter Morrell which you have not supported with a diff that shows him doing anything wrong. —Whig (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The October 30th Incident

This is one I was able to find because I left for holiday a couple days after, and came back on Guy Fawkes night, giving me some dates. Peter's behaviour during it is illuminating.

Background: An anonymous editor adds a huge amount of new, highly-biased, unsourced material to the homeopathy article. Sample paragraph: "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." (I don't want to quote too much of this, because it soon came out that in addition to these problems, it was a copyvio) I, of course, revert it. And put a warning on the user's page. I used {{uw-npov4}} - perhaps a little strong, and {{uw-npov2}} would have been better, but, then, the offense was pretty excessive, an OR, POV, unreferenced, conspiracy-mongering attack piece on the medical community.

Peter's responses: On the user's page: Peter's comment includes the phrase "an excellent piece of original research"

On Homeopathy: Attacks all editors who disagree with him. Levine tells him to take it to a talk page [http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Homeopathy&diff=next&oldid=168135801 Cool Hand Luke at this point points out it's a copyvio (see the next edit for the link).

But then Peter comes to the key point against him of this sequence: In short, reverting unsupported, OR, conspiracy-mongering attacks on the entire medical community... means that the article will never be NPOV. Adam Cuerden 22:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Other things to note

Peter has a habit of attacking prominent critics of homeopathy and claiming that they are not reliable sources to talk about them, despite being published in prominent newspapers or medical journals (See also )

Tim Vickers' reply, "So you think the only authoritative sources on alternative medicine are ones that are supportive of alternative medicine? I don't agree with that." seems appropriate.

Adam Cuerden 22:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You can carry on criticising me as long as you like Adam; YOU are in trial here not me. So please just remember that. It is your behaviour not mine that is under the microscope even though you fantastic admin chums will close ranks and bail you out as they have already decided in advance that you did nothing wrong and have dismissed all evidence against you. Kangaroo court? perhaps. What you should be doing is defending your own actions not muddying the waters by attacking me. As you will also recall I apologised to you for our disagreement in October and that was totally sincere. I don't think I have seriously misbehaved since. What does that tell you about me? In that same period you have gotten yourself into even more trouble. What does that say about you? As I said before, answer my points, which you have still declined to do. All you have supplied thusfar is evasion, irrelevance, laziness and obfuscation. I stand by all my previous comments about you and your confrontational editing style. Peter morrell 22:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, that you would call it "carrying on" when AC clearly posted in response to the above statement by Whig. Quoting Whig from the section preceding this one, ". . .but here you are making an accusation about Peter Morrell which you have not supported with a diff that shows him doing anything wrong." Whatever misuse of the tools that did occur, AC's actions should not be considered in a vacuum. That's all I can say at this point without being perceived as insulting. . . R. Baley (talk) 23:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I would observe that Peter and Adam seem not to like each other very much on a personal level. I could find instances of incivility from Adam as well, and this RfC is not about Peter Morrell. I'm not agreeing with either party, but pointing out that there are obvious personal issues here on both sides. —Whig (talk) 23:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the civility issue is relevant - it is the POV-pushing one, and that is amply demonstrated here, and, in, for instance, Tim Vickers' comment, Cool Hand Luke's, Levine's, etc, we see evidence that other editors feel the same. Feel free to show diffs about me - this is, after all, an RfC about me. However, I think you'll find it difficult to find many incidents where my reaction is not trivial compared to Peter's statements at the same time. Adam Cuerden 03:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

. 'Nuf said. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

More broadly, this RfC will be most useful if it solicits outside opinions rather than rehashing well-known disputes and conflicts. It's fine for Peter to leave his view; if he makes a good case, it will be endorsed by others. So far that hasn't happened. It's obvious to even a casual observer that Peter is hardly a neutral party here. It's not particularly useful to refight an old battle here. MastCell 18:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment to Adam

I have no desire to feud with you, and hope you are feeling less under stress now. You have acknowledged in the ArbCom case that it was a mistake at least to have blocked me, instead of finding a neutral admin and asking them to do so if you thought it was appropriate. I would like you to consider making a notation in my block log or helping in some way to clear my record and if other admins think that I deserve to be blocked let them make that judgment without prejudice. Thank you. —Whig (talk) 03:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like my record cleared as well, come to think of it. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Block log should be the least of your worries right now. Jehochman 11:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This does not seem the time or the place to deal with this. Bring it up on WP:ANI and see if there's support. I'm not against notation, but arbcom cases aren't the same as general amnesties, and I'm not going to try and second-guess every block I ever made while suffering from a mild case of flu. Adam Cuerden 17:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, ANI or e-mail arbcom. Carcharoth (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Inasmuch as this concerns me (and I do not know anything about Martinphi's circumstances), I will wait before again asking ArbCom to take a look at my block log because this RfC pertains to the person whose blocks of my account I think were inappropriate. It would be premature to ask them to intervene when they have suspended the case involving that admin for this RfC to take place. I believe that this is the appropriate place for me to raise the issue, but I do not need to belabor it further, except to note that I have asked Adam to consider it before and I continue to hope he will do so. —Whig (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well, I'll send you an e-mail. Adam Cuerden 04:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I note for the record that in the e-mail, Adam Cuerden declines to address this now. —Whig (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Whig, you've been arguing to have your block log amended across several forums for quite some time now. It might be better to take a broader view. Based on the outside input solicited at your most recent RfC, you're fortunate to be editing at all, albeit under a nebulous mentoring agreement. I'll be the first to say that I've been impressed with your improved civility and behavior since being unblocked, but at the same time I don't think it's a good use of time to continue agitating for a block-log amendment given the level of support evident at the RfC. Better to move on, as you're otherwise doing. MastCell 18:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That RfC is contested, as you know. Please do not continue to raise it to use as an implied threat. I do not appreciate it. —Whig (talk) 02:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid it was only really contested by you. Still, though, why not start another RfC asking people to say what they think of you now? It might be to your benefit, as proof that people think you'vre improved since the time of your last RfC. Adam Cuerden 03:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not interested in playing games, Adam. If you will not reconsider then there isn't much more I have to say to you about it here. —Whig (talk) 03:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

There's no implied threat here. You are arguing across numerous forums for your block log to be amended. It is therefore relevant to note what the community had to say at your recent RfC. The block is long since expired. It was hardly unilateral in that a wide segment of the community found your behavior at the time problematic, as evidenced in the RfC. As I said, your conduct has improved markedly since then; I would urge you to let the block go and move on. That's all. MastCell 19:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I will not "let it go and move on." I will however defer my request until the ArbCom resumes consideration. I have not "forum shopped" but asked Adam, and only Adam, to reconsider, apart from seeking consideration by the ArbCom. This RfC is about Adam Cuerden's admin behavior. As such, his blocks are directly relevant to the subject of this RfC. I really do not think that my conduct is at issue here except insofar as I have been insulted here and responded without being similarly rude. I find it ironic that I am accused of forum shopping however in that just a few days ago Adam Cuerden suggested I take up my cause on another forum. And then suggested I start a new RfC on myself. You might consider my blocks to have been justified but Adam's were against policy. —Whig (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Martinphi

Martinphi was blocked by Rlevse on December 30, 2007 for 72 hours for violating terms of an Arbcom editing restriction. Given that, and the fact that misdeeds and warnings were asserted but not supported by diffs, I am not convinced by this outside opinion. Jehochman 11:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I would not expect you to be persuaded by my opinion, even if I were Jimbo. The facts expressed are what should convince you. I would expect that people here are not going to be convinced either by arguments based on authority or ad hominem. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record: The Martinphi block was one I was uncertain about at the time, so attempted to seek wide opinion afterwards, and gladly consented to an unblock when Jossi objected. Perhaps the other order might have been better, but he was being at least somewhat disruptive in a manner similar to his behaviour on paranormal articles. Wrong person to do it? Probably. But "involved" is a rather confusing and difficult term, and I didn't think, at the time, that involvement with the article counted, because I presumed that knowledge of the article and content would be considered useful to sorting out disputes. Was I wrong to presume that I could (usually?) judge cases neutrally by simply ignoring my views? Who knows. Should I have tried to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest? Yes. Adam Cuerden 17:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA possible too

What is the point of "RfA possible" remedies from the ArbCom if people disdain RfA as a popularity contest that is not suitable for assessing the suitability of active admins who have upset some people by taking hard decisions? Maybe a different method for resysopping should be explored, or even saying to the ArbCom that you would happily accept a temporary desysopping? Carcharoth (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

In the present case a suspension would be a valid option. The question is what percentage of current admins could pass RfA now if they had to do it again? Will it be a net gain for the project to do that with Adam, or would it be better to give him a warning or a break from admin chores? The fact is, he's had the tools for a month since the case opened and he's been able to control himself. Is there any reason to doubt that the trend would continue now that he's on notice? Jehochman 21:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think judging someone on their conduct after an arbcom case has been filed is the best metric to use. Carcharoth (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Carcharoth is right that the manner of sysoping WP uses is very poor. Anyone who knows how to use the tools should have them, and it should be easy to de and re sysop, based on clear standards of behavior. This whole thing is stupid, Adam should not have to go through all this emotionally just because he abused the tools. Because what users sysops need is a 6 month break when they even begin to abuse the tools. In the current situation, we have to take them away basically for good because they are too hard to give and take. They couldn't be taken away, so he really began abusing them, and now it's a big deal. If they were easy to take away, it wouldn't be such a big deal to be a sysop, and if they were easy to give, it wouldn't be such a big deal either. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Martinphi, inasmuch as there are very straightforward policies which Adam has violated here and he knows that but he apparently was encouraged to violate policy by other editors, some of whom may also be admins. Therefore he was given a peculiar understanding of policy, perhaps, based on what his peer group was telling him. There needs to be some consideration of how this admin bit creates a tiered class of Wikipedian, which is inappropriate. I've been an editor here for many years and am continually treated by certain editors and admins as if I am some sort of probationer. —Whig (talk) 03:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I once asked why I was being treated without rights on WP, and was told that the goal is not to have civil society but to write an encyclopedia. I don't think it's a good way to run things in the larger view, since values tend to spread. But democratic/civil values are not what one can expect here. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

But... Whig, you are a probationer, per Mercury's judgement and your agreement with him and East. Adam Cuerden 04:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you will find that my agreement with East718 was from the beginning a voluntary mentorship and in no way a condition of my editing privileges. I have no current mentorship agreement with Mercury, and I believe you are treating me incivilly by saying this. —Whig (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Even if someone is on probation, they deserve to have an exit strategy - a time when the probation ends or their case can be reviewed. Adam, do you remember when you placed MatthewHoffman on probation without any indication of when it might be lifted? Probation is not a life sentence. You have to clearly stated when a probationary period will end, otherwise it is becomes a permanent mill around someone's neck. Carcharoth (talk) 12:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but while Whig has improved a lot, it's hard to see him as a really productive member of the community yet. Not exactly exit time. Adam Cuerden 03:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This is uncalled for and insulting, in my opinion. —Whig (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

May I remind you both that the topic at hand is Adam's RfC, not the terms of Whig's probation? Both of you, please disengage. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well this is now completely relevant to his RfC, because he is abusing his admin status right now by treating me with disrespect. Even if he were correct in his characterization, he should not treat me that way. —Whig (talk) 03:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I find myself agreeing with Whig. My point about exit strategy was not that periodic discussions should take place but that there should be a fixed date to work towards, and after that date either all restrictions are lifted, the probation continued, or an alternative discussed. What is unhelpful is to, during the probation period, point out to someone who is on probation (whether voluntary or not) that "it's hard to see him as a really productive member of the community yet". And yes, Whig did raise the subject of probation first, but as Raymond says, you should both drop the subject for now. Carcharoth (talk) 10:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but perhaps "Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!" is not the best way to show you've matured enough to be ready to be on your own. Adam Cuerden 14:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you need to comment on my maturity either, Adam. As I said, I've been an editor here since before you. I don't think your comment is helpful. —Whig (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I disagree with that view, however, because for this to be a successful project it has to have an ongoing community to sustain it. The encyclopedia is not a fixed goal but an evolving and growing body of knowledge, just like the university. By the way I want to say that I don't necessarily agree with your suggestion about time frames or penalties, as I leave that up to the ArbCom. —Whig (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

MartinPhi's comment

Reply to Martinphi:

As I've already explained in part on the talk page of this RFC, the Committee was moving toward a finding that new editors are Misplaced Pages's most valuable resource. While I agree that new editors are valuable, I also think it's a serious misuse of WP:BITE to drag an editor with Adam's record of service to the project into arbitration with zero prior efforts at formal dispute resolution, then propose to desysop him a mere twelve hours after the case opens. What started this chain of events was a complaint by an editor who had made fewer than 50 highly POV edits in two years since registering. I've participated in a lot of volunteer organizations and in all of them, the core of dedicated volunteers who do real legwork are the most valuable resource. Of course this does not entitle those individuals to flout policy. By the same token, it is foolishness to discard customary grievance procecures in order to insult and humiliate core volunteers. Durova 18:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I find nothing to disagree with here. It is well balanced, but truthfully, I find it so well balanced I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Adam isn't a new editor, so where does BITE come in? ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Further (possibly all) discussion should take place on the talk page here. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 10:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I see more of what you're talking about now. But Cuerden's actions were not just against new editors, and they were sustained after warnings from other admins. And I find some of his responses on this page and its talk page, and also Jimbo's talk page, to be inflammatory and disturbing. It just isn't the kind of basic attitude I'd expect in an admin. So I don't see him as being able to use admin tools responsibly at this time. That doesn't mean he couldn't gain them again in the future, and he will still be an editor in good standing- thus his efficacy will not be diminished to any great extent if he doesn't have the sysop tools. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Martin, part of the problem we face as a site is that certain volunteer areas are seriously undermanned. And partly because they're undermanned, the community doesn't discuss them very much or recognize them as priorities while the people who try to hold things together in those areas are seriously overworked and stressed. If you've seen my evidence to the arbitration case you know that Adam volunteers at a subject that is the target of coordinated efforts to skew content through meat- and sockpuppetry.

The solution is to raise the community's awareness and spread the work around. Go help Adam out. Become active at WP:COIN and WP:SSP and encourage other people to do the same. If we as a community continue to pretend that the limit of our obligations is school vandalism and AFD, then the inevitable result will be news stories like this one about editors who take each other to court because our site failed them.

The editors who contribute featured content have my greatest respect. I've contributed some myself; I know how much work that represents. It's equally important to make sure those efforts aren't wasted. If the public learns to despise this site because of other individuals who succeed at manipulating articles for profit or ideology, then our featured articles won't get read because the general reader won't trust them. Durova 22:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you completely, being myself one of those editors who has tried to maintain NPOV and get little for it but frustration and being called a POV pusher. I sympathize completely with Adam in terms of his trying to do what he thinks is right. But maybe one of the reasons those articles are undermanned is because editors get put off by the highly derogatory and confrontational tone of others, which I'm sorry to say Adam is partly responsible for. It just isn't appropriate to call beliefs kooky or stupid or bullshit, or to call those who hold them true believers. Even if it is true, and even if you don't name specific editors. This tone will drive away any editors who might become NPOV. NPOV is a learning curve, and I didn't have it right myself when I came.

Help Adam? He tried to block me for a week when I tried. You saw the edit, I think, and there was only one thing which looked POV (saying that Homeopathy is widely used), and that came directly from a highly critical and mainstream source and gave general context. I don't believe in Homeopathy. So I very much believe there is a problem here. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I find it very unfortunate that you believe your non-belief in Homeopathy should allow you to edit the Homeopathy article, but editors who express a positive attitude towards the subject seem to be discouraged from participation even in discussion about the article in the talk space. Inasmuch as Adam Cuerden is one of the people who has discouraged my participation in that talk space (and has used his admin tools against me for doing so), it is probably relevant for me to bring up here. Should editors who express a positive view of homeopathy be discouraged from participating in helping to shape the article? —Whig (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

All POVs should help if they can act NPOV. My only reason for saying that is that I was being treated as a pro-Homeopathy POV pusher. Thus, I was saying just how unlikely that was. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the NPOV policy must be maintained in article space, to be sure. I don't think it is necessary that we conceal our POV in talk if we have one. It is clear enough to me that Adam Cuerden has an anti-homeopathy POV, and I don't mind he has that view. No one should have to swear they don't believe in Homeopathy to edit, and this is not directed toward you Martinphi but it is directed at the purpose of this RfC, which is to comment on how editors with a positive view of Homeopathy have been systematically blocked in the past from editing by virtue of the fact that admin tools were being used by a POV holding participant. —Whig (talk) 06:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) On subjects such as homeopathy and intelligent design, where scientific consensus and popular perception are not aligned, good NPOV should treat those aspects as separate entities. That is, the unanimous voices of twenty Nobel scientists do not change a Gallup poll if the poll reports 40% of the public disagrees with the scientists. Nor does a Gallup poll of layman views have any bearing on scientific consensus. Durova 02:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Right.... ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Without wanting to bring content disputes here, but since Durova has raised it, homeopathy has nothing to do with intelligent design, and is not comparable nor pseudoscientific since it makes clearly testable predictions and is empirically based. —Whig (talk) 05:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope the examples don't offend; I don't raise this point to assign a pejorative label to either. The point is that popular consensus is noticably different from expert consensus in both cases. The same could be said of global warming. Since our task is to present information neutrally, any subject where a gap of that sort exists ought to simply treat those elements as separate entities, rather than attempting a unified "neutrality" as an average of the two. Does that sound fair? Durova 05:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure I understand what you are saying, but I certainly believe that if reliable sources criticize homeopathy they should be cited and given weight in accordance with their prominence. I don't think that we should make a special determination of which sources are correct, however. We should present the controversy, and let our readers make up their minds. I do not believe there is as much of a consensus against homeopathy as a lack of consideration by many people outside a small group of adherents and skeptics. It may be that we are saying the same thing in other words. —Whig (talk) 06:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Pertaining to this RfC, it seems to me that Adam Cuerden is more concerned with maintaining a specific POV that homeopathy is pseudoscience than even whether homeopathy is accurately described. I may provide some diffs to back this up if appropriate. In a recent discussion, he complained when I criticized his omission of the shaking step in potentization as "nit-picking" or words to that effect. Again, I'm trying to limit the amount of content here, but accuracy is important. —Whig (talk) 06:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This is because you deleted the entire description of homeopathy (on Quackery) instead of adding the two words that would fix it. Adam Cuerden 06:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe that the description needs to be there at all and I'm not required to make your language accurate, which may violate SYNTH. I believe the inclusion of Hahnemann and the description given currently in the Quackery article violate NPOV. I am still very unsatisfied with the language but my last edit was reverted by you, and you have declined to discuss it except to say you don't think my edit reads well and suggest I bring it up with Orangemarlin (which I did regarding his/her revert before bringing it to your attention, and before the edit which you reverted here). —Whig (talk) 06:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Durova, my observation is that instead of just saying in a neutral way that -to take Homeopathy as an example- a lot of people take it and it's used widely in medicine, and giving a description of methods and what homeopaths say their treatments do. And also saying that there are many prominent sources including (etc. etc.) which due to a lack of any known mechanism by which it could work and studies which do not clearly show it to be more than a placebo, describe it as pseudoscientific. Instead of saying these things in a neutral way like I just did, they try and lead the reader into a specific belief (when I was there, the article was biased toward homeopathy as disgusting bunk). This is my observation spread across many scientifically controversial articles.

I suggest we stop the trend to bring specific disputes here. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 09:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if so much threaded discussion hadn't followed I'd strikethrough right now. FWIW I'm not involved in any homeopathy dispute. There are some interesting wrinkles on NPOV regarding several medical topics and in some cases the expert consensus changes across national and cultural boundaries. Durova 20:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeh. They aren't so sure acupuncture and placebo are quackery any more, are they? Now they have a name for it, if not a real theory.... ummm.... bioneuroimmunology or something? ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, expert opinion and consensus change as new data are produced. A couple of decades ago, if you suggested that bacteria could cause a stomach ulcer, you'd be laughed at. Now it's widely accepted. The problem comes in when people try to put Misplaced Pages at the forefront of this progression, rather than allow it to properly lag a bit behind the leading edge of research. Perhaps in 10 years our understanding of acupuncture will be much more refined and it will gain more mainstream acceptance. Perhaps in 10 years megadose Vitamin C will be widely recognized as an anti-cancer therapy. Perhaps homeopathy will be re-evaluated (though doubtful). In any case, though, we need to wait until after the shift in expert opinion/consensus occurs, rather than trying to anticipate it, on Misplaced Pages. MastCell 22:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Right. No dispute there, what I see is largely a matter of tone and arrangement, where people are not trusting the reader to understand a neutrally put statement, or want to arrange things in such a way that one side is pushed. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Mainstream acceptance in what country, though? Homeopathy is part of the mainstream of medicine in India, as is Ayurveda, and acupuncture is part of Traditional Chinese Medicine. —Whig (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)MastCell has just raised one of my favorite examples (stomach ulcers). Be aware, though, that acupuncture is mainstream medicine in China and has been for a very long time. Part of the challenge when addressing some medical topics is to avoid systemic bias. I happen to be fixing some green tea at the moment, which is regarded as alternative medicine in my own country, but it's known to contain a mild antioxidant and a number of Japanese population studies have associated the consumption of six or more cups of green tea a day with lower rates of a variety of cancers. It's a challenge to the Wikipedians who edit in these areas to avoid violations of WP:SYNTH, and to restrain their own preferences from affecting the article balance. Durova 23:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Durova, I'm a student at an American med school, and they teach us the same thing about green tea. It's certainly gained acceptance in mainstream science. More importantly, there's no theoretical reason that what you said regarding cancer couldn't/shouldn't happen. We find medicinally useful compounds in plants all the time. Things that are more intractable include homeopathy, where there is good physical theory and empirical physical evidence to suggest that some core tenets of homeopathy are not in good standing with the physical world as we know it. Thus, there is scientific resistance to the field coming from more international fields such as physics (which are less prone to regional bias than medicine). While there may be popular acceptance internationally for various fields, a real evidence-based scientific acceptance of some practices is lacking. I think this highlights the issue addressed in your Nobel laureate / nonscientist example, above. Antelan 23:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Antelan, you're completely right I think (and isn't willow bark an earlier example?). The problem is that rather than the neutral sounding statements which you and I have put on this talk page, the article did not sound neutral at all. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly right, I think willow bark is the most famous example (perhaps rivaled by foxglove). Antelan 04:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Votes

I was looking at a diff, and discovered a couple of the votes have disappeared over the last day. Can someone check what's going on? I'm off to bed. Adam Cuerden 00:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I came under pressure and pulled out a vote. Sorry. Intimidation.--Filll (talk) 01:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I accidentally had double-voted in one case and deleted the second. —Whig (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Right.. So long as they were removed by the original authors, that's fine. Adam Cuerden 01:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Feedback

Adam, I think this edit summary "Rvt. tag added by someone with no understanding of policies, except so far as he can use them to make threats" largely exemplifies the problem people have with you, aside from issues concerning your use of admin tools. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The user has been making those threats across talk pages and in edit summaries on the mainspace. I don't see this as a particularly contentious edit. Antelan 04:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Antelan in that I've noticed this. —Whig (talk) 04:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course Smith is doing the wrong thing. Then warn him on his talk page. Don't leave hostile edit summaries. This doesn't help the wiki, it makes things worse. Explain things. I've also noticed Smith is willing to negotiate, he is willing to learn. So such a hostile put-down of an edit summary is an un-adminlike thing to do. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone tempted to believe Martinphi's characterization of User:Smith Jones should take a good look at User:Smith Jones's contributions and then decide for themselves. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Raymond, I may be wrong, but that is my impression. I believe the edit summary is the kind of thing that makes things worse. However, if no one else agrees, I withdraw the comment. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

When removing a tag, particularly one added with a threat, one must give a valid reason in the edit summary, even if it is somewhat harsh to the user in question, and Smith Jones' behaviour on talk pages, threat, and previous edit warring over it seemed to justify the description. Perhaps a little more politeness could have been used, but it's hard to give clear reasons why a user's addition of a tag is wrong in the dozen or so words an edit summary allows already. Adam Cuerden 11:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment on the content in the edit summary. If you want to comment on the user, go to their talk page. Simple rule of thumb. Carcharoth (talk) 12:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh?

"Actually, Matthew Hoffman was a creationist. The homeopathy thing is kind of a distraction tactic." - Adam Cuerden.

Adam, what do you mean by this? You seem to be dismissing the legitimate concerns raised about your use of admin tools at homeopathy. Please understand that editing homeopathy is fine, but using admin tools like you did is not. Please can you understand that simple point? And calling Matthew Hoffman a "creationist" is a gross oversimplification. You cannot say that simply from the edits he made, and given the points he was trying to make (trying, rightly or wrongly to distinguish between ID and creationism), calling him that simply inflames the situation. You may be right, but that you still say things like that (trying to label someone) demonstrates, in my view, that a problem still exists. Carcharoth (talk) 12:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

And I've just noticed that you refactored from an earlier edit that said "...that homeopaths are very happy to try and get added to this case." - there are people who are homeopaths and creationists, but you seem to be labelling people rather than their edits, and then dismissing out-of-hand what homeopaths and creationists have to say. What should be happening is that both you and them should be allowing the sources to speak, not imposing your views of the "other side". Carcharoth (talk) 12:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The Arbcom case was ostensibly about Matthew Hoffman. That was a creationist, and the scope of the case never expanded much beyond this, really, except for a few brief comments. On this board, a few homeopathy editors that I have had disputes with, but mainly have not used admin tools in any relationship to, seem to be trying to drag in the same old "We're being oppressed" nonsense that's rife on Talk:Homeopathy. Outside of the Whig case, which has been gone over in pretty great detail, it's hard to see why Homeopathy is becoming the defining feature of this RfC. Adam Cuerden 13:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, Adam, I think Carcharoth is absolutely right in that we must try to cooperate with, and draw on the expertise of, all editors whether or not they're creationists or homeopaths. What editors have to accept is the very specific provisions of WP:NPOV and WP:NPOV/FAQ that essentially require such articles to be framed with reference to majority expert scientific views on the subject. I've just commented in another talk page here about the George Vitwhatever article, which seems to have deteriorated a bit but still has the very sensible criticism by a homeopath who fully accepts the scientific method. It's an endless task, and right now we're trying vainly to educate Uncle Ed at the ID article, and GusChiggins21 at the Behe article. They've got to be kept from being too disruptive, but over-quick blocks or bans aren't productive and patience is needed. Sorry I've been a bit busy, hope to get freed up to get back to this soon. .. dave souza, talk 14:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec with Dave, and agree with what he said) Adam, I was under the impression that this RfC was about your use of admin tools in general, not the specific Hoffman case (the arbitration case seems to be dealing with that adequately). And the issue with homeopathy was always there on the fringes of the arbcom case. It probably started when Whig's block was examined by GRBerry when he looked at your other blocks, and it was kept there by Whig's appeals and submissions to the arbcom (or a clerk, not sure which) about his case, and it was brought to the fore by Kirill specifically citing your actions in the finding of fact he proposed. That's my reading of it anyway. Please correct me if I'm mis-stating anything here. Carcharoth (talk) 14:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Eh, well, fair enough, but there's several homeopathic editors who do not accept WP:NPOV, and they... well, have a look at the case's talk pages, where Lee Hunter attacks me for... starting an AfD, through the normal procedures. It got a little harder to take their criticisms seriously after that. Adam Cuerden 14:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Who said you had to take Lee Hunter seriously? Be polite, keep reminding him of policy and majority expert opinion, and if he needs blocked or whatever, get someone else to do it. Tact and diplomacy is essential :) .. dave souza, talk 15:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Punish them both, to appease the witch-hunters

Just a thought I had of how this is likely to turn out:

See the article: False compromise.

In general, if there is a controversy at ArbCom over a certain user, they may feel a tendency to just punish them both in order to appease both sides. This is not how judicial systems should work. The degree of controversy and amount of public support for both sides is irrelevant. Adam did not violate policy (and if he did so, it was unintentional) and as such should not have his privileges taken away. Matt violated policy seemingly knowingly and as such was blocked.

A possible admonishment of Adam would be a good idea, but here's basically the lack of logic behind punishing both users: If you assume bad faith in the case of Adam, you have to assume it in the case of Matt, unless you're also a fringe-pusher. Adam's a veteran with impressive edits, Matt's a newbie pushing creationism. The claim, "Adam abused his privileges!! Burn him!! Burn the witch!!" seems to turn WP:Assume good faith on its head by assuming bad faith for an experienced admin and assuming good faith for a creationist troll.

Thus, Adam cannot be "partially" right. Either he's right completely or he's not right at all. It would seem wholly contradictory to both uphold Matt's block (thus agreeing with Adam's decision) while at the same time taking away his admin privileges for establishing that block. For any admin upholding the block of Matt, you have zero grounds to say Adam's privileges should be taken away, other than to help violate WP:FRINGE on articles totally unrelated to the original issue. Zenwhat (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No, there is such a thing as doing the right thing in the wrong way. If I'm editing an article and another user blatantly violates 3RR, then the "right thing" may be to block them, but that doesn't give me free license to be the one to do it. Many of Adam's admin actions under discussion were indeed "partially right", in that they were reasonable in general but he should not have been the one to carry them out. MastCell 21:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Right. Actually, this makes the main issue clear: not what the others did or didn't do, but what the response was. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. If matt ought to be blocked he should be blocked. that's one question. That Adam used admin privileges when it is not appropriate for him to do so is another. He shouldnt use them relating to articles he's editing even if he's 100% right. There would not have been the least problem asking an uninvolved admin to do them. No person may be a judge in his own case is as basic a requirement for even minimal fairness as one can possibly get. DGG (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Zenwhat, your comments are repeating what was the original problem. You are assuming, on very little evidence, that MatthewHoffman is a "fringe pusher", and then you compound this by calling Hoffman a "creationist troll". The whole point of the arbcom case has been that, even if you are later proved correct, you must not rush to judgment and say things as strong and as insulting as this to a new editor only on the basis of a few edits. Furthermore, you seem to be under the impression that the Hoffman block is being upheld, which is just plain wrong. The initial 24-hour 3RR block of Hoffman was uncontroversial and is not really disputed. It is the later 72-hour block and its extension to indefinite that caused all the problems. It is those blocks that the arbcom are saying were completely unjustified and it is for that (and his language about Hoffman, and for failing to review the block properly), as well as the other stuff, that the arbcom are proposing to sanction Adam. Your final comment about "helping to violate WP:FRINGE on articles totally unrelated to the original issue" is a bit unclear. I presume you are talking about homeopathy, but homeopathy would survive perfectly well without Adam's use of admin tools - remember, Adam would still be able to edit and point POV-editing out to other editors and admins. Carcharoth (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)