Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:10, 4 January 2008

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)

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:

• Adam Cuerden was too involved at Irreducible Complexity
• Adam Cuerden's statements about Hoffman are not borne out by the facts
• Adam Cuerden's 72 hour and indefinite blocks of Matthew Hoffman were outside policy
• Adam Cuerden repeatedly used his administrative tools to further his position in content disputes

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)

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)

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 you have support. Arbcom cases aren't the same as general amnesties. Adam Cuerden 17:10, 4 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 remarks. Jehochman 11:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)