Note: This RfC is convened by direction of the Arbitration Committee at Wikipedia: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.

This RfC is convened by direction of the Arbitration Committee at Wikipedia: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. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence

Applicable policies and guidelines

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

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

Users who endorse this summary

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Carcharoth (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Jehochman ^Talk 03:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Simply stating why we're here. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 ^talk 17:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Zenwhat (talk) 21:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. --Cube lurker (talk) 01:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC) As basic summary of events[reply]
7. "i"s dotted, "t"s crossed, yes. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. For the record. —Whig (talk) 08:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^talk 02:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Carcharoth

Carcharoth writes (in part):

“

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.

”

Well, that's very well in theory, except this whole thing has already cut my editing of Wikipedia 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 ^talk 16:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 ^Talk 17:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. R. Baley (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. I think it's fair to say that this particular "test" was ill-conceived. Durova^Charge! 18:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
6. Here's an idea for Wikipedia, 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)[reply]
7. per Durova, Jehochman. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. While Adam needs to learn to be more careful in use of the tools, this would just be further unnecessary discouragement. .. dave souza, talk 15:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Per most of the above. Mr.Z-man 19:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Adam Cuerden's conduct as an editor and admin has, in general, been extremely valuable to the project. I think it would be a serious loss for Wikipedia to de-sysop him. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. No matter what the outcome of this RfC and the Arbcomm procedure is, I think we are sure to lose Adam as an editor as fallout of this "test case". And we will be much poorer for this shameful hounding and embarrasing harassment of a good admin and editor.--Filll (talk) 01:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. How many RfC's with Adam out there? Anyways, per Durova. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. Too bad Adam isn't an unconstructive, disruptive editor -- then certain admins would rush to give him another chance. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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: [1], [2]; Homeopathy: [3], [4], [5]; George Vithoulkas: [6], [7], [8]), 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 ^talk 17:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
3. Zenwhat (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 ^Talk 06:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
8. Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. per User:B, who has phrased it so well it bears repeating: This is an absolutely terrible finding of fact because it makes blatantly false statements. I (B) asked directly about it at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Matthew_Hoffman/Proposed_decision#Finding_of_fact_9 and no arbiter has responded. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Analysis inadequate to support accusations. .. dave souza, talk 16:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Partial agree. However, Adam's blocking Martinphi for this edit was a grossly inappropriate use of admin tools. --Jim Butler^(talk) 08:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Totally agree Filll (talk) 01:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. Agree with Mast Cell. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. We should impeach arbcomm members who do not research carefully. What a sham(e). ScienceApologist (talk) 08:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. Per B and MastCell. Raymond Arritt (talk) 08:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. R. Baley (talk) 08:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 heart 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia, 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.

Additional diff (added 11:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC))

[9] Deletion of all criticism by user who really should know better.

Users who support this summary:

1. Adam Cuerden ^talk 09:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
4. Zenwhat (talk) 02:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Damn straight; I know I'm not about to step into that mess. Mr.Z-man 03:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 ^Talk 06:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. R. Baley (talk) 09:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
10. There seems to be a malaise covering Wikipedia in recent times - one that sees administrators shirking their responsibilities often as it is "too hard" but primarily as they will be criticised for making a choice. Sometimes when you make a choice it is the wrong choice, but it is far superior to what other admins are infected with - which is making no choice at all and whining about the mistakes made by the compatriots when they fail... Shot info (talk) 05:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. per Mastcell. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. It's very positive that Adam is recognising his incorrect behaviour and highlighting the difficulites, agree with Carcharoth and Mastcell.. .. dave souza, talk 16:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. agree, I concede I haven't gone near it and it needs more input. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. Partial agreement. Adam, I think you should reexamine what sounds like an battlefield mentality, i.e. that you're on the front lines, fighting the righteous fight with little backup. There are plenty of good editors (with varying attitudes toward CAM, but reasonable and wel-versed in WP rules; see edit history on CAM itself) who will help out if you just ask. More light, less heat; more collaboration, less of a siege mentality with CAM articles. best regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 08:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. Article is one of the most stressful. MastCell has it right. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. Per MastCell. Raymond Arritt (talk) 08:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"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 ^talk 01:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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' [screed against me and other admins in the evidence section], 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: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Matthew_Hoffman/Workshop#Adam_Cuerden_acted_in_good_faith.2C_but_made_bad_decisions

Users supporting this summary

1. Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. With reservations, and more strongly worded than I can wholeheartedly endorse, but essentially correct. I specifically do not endorse the comment about AGF "applies only to.. and not to..." as non-productive. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   True. I'll strike that.

3. I agree in principle, though I'm not sure how productive it is to keep making a stink about the tone of the evidence presented or the events of the first 24-48 hours of the case, which were surreal. This widely supported principle from another recent ArbCom case did strike me as applicable here as well, though. MastCell ^Talk 18:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. There appeared to be understandable concern and anger about Adam's treatment of MatthewHoffman leading to a rush to arbcom under difficult circumstances and potentially similar unjust treatment of Adam, this opportunity for community input and review of evidence is welcome. ... dave souza, talk 16:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. I'd feel the same way in your shoes, and on the merits you're right. --Jim Butler^(talk) 08:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   P.S. OTOH, Adam, please consider how your actions have made other editors, like User:LeeHunter, feel (also on the merits). Jim Butler^(talk) 08:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6. Agree to a limited extent. To be honest, my principal concern is that admins become overly timid in the face of trolls, and the site becomes a less friendly environment for all editors, including newbies. Addhoc (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^talk 02:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
3. Strongly endorse. Arbcom wants our take, Arbcom decides to go ahead before they get our take? This is essentially the same as voting in an election before you know anything about the candidates except the brochures they sent out. Why ask the community to assist and voice their views, if you intend to summarily dismiss and ignore same? Somewhat insulting to the community as a whole, who are taking the time to do this; more specifically, this is a slap in the face to Adam, who must feel like the taffy in a taffy-pulling contest where the end results have already been determined. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per KillerChihuahua. A vote, followed by a request for input, is procedurally backwards. Fireplace (talk) 18:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. In spirit at least. Not 100% convinced the decision page should be cleared, but for it to not be taken together with this parallel discussion is completely foolish. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. The decisions should be freshly reconsidered, with an opportunity for answers to be given to assertions. .. dave souza, talk 16:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Per KillerChihuahua. Jim Butler^(talk) 08:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Yep. Addhoc (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Per KillerChihuahua. And per Through the Looking Glass, when the Queen commands "Sentence first - verdict afterwards." Raymond Arritt (talk) 08:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Whig's behaviour is justified (Adam Cuerden, response to Whig's comment below)

1. Whig is, in fact, under probation, indeed, arguably parts of his probation is not being appropriately enforced. This is a response by FT2, neutral admin and member of Arbcom. (forgive if the formatting isn't quite perfect):

I noticed that the admin who was mentoring you may not be around. This presents a slight problem for you, in that you were unblocked on condition of a number of editing conditions and agreements, which were designed and agreed by the community, to help you stay out of problems.

To sum up, these were as follows, as best I understand it: 15 October, following community consensus at WP:ANI: [10]

• 6 months of 1 revert rule, If you revert content in an article more than once per week, you will be blocked. The blocks escalate in duration after each violation.
• Civility patrol for 6 months where any threat or insult, even vague, will result in a block. The blocks escalate in duration after each violation.
• You are prohibited from editing the Homeopathy article for 6 months, you may use the talk page. You may revert simple vandalism.

It has not been six months since October 15th. FT2 goes on to say: "The community decisions of 15 October remain. They were decided by the community, not by mercury."

In short, Whig's allegations against me, which depend on him claiming he is not under probation, are completely and totally without foundation.

Whig's behaviour has also been poor. For instance, he has:

1. done a tendentious Afd on Quackery AfD [[User_talk:Whig/Archive_1#Re:_Quackery_AfD|Discussion about it, warning him for his behaviour] To quote East718:

Like I said, that was a colossal mistake at best; more likely it was you trying out subtle disruption. A dispute of that sort would be best resolved by posting a polite and narrow message on the talk page, requesting third opinions, and then going down further steps of dispute resolution if conflict persists. Please don't repeat such behavior.

1. He was soon after in trouble for edit warring - despite the 1RR.

I think that's probably enough - there's more that could be said, but it does get somewhat complex. In any case, it is my opinion, and I believe justified, that Whig is still in no way qualified to edit without a mentor, and, while he may be improving, has a tendentious and quibbling attitude that makes him very difficult to work with. Example:

(batch diff) Summary: We have a statement, backed by an article in the highly respected "The Lancet" that says homeopathy is scientifically implausible. Whig insists that this is promoting a POV, and that it must be specifically attributed to the Lancet, who, evidently, are not qualified to speak on medical consensus, despite being among the most prestigious medical journals. In the end, he claims, without providing any evidence, "I disagree, as do reliable sources."

His edit in the past week or thereabouts have been almost solely on this RfC, so I'll leave it at that one example.

Users who support this summary:

1. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Whig's behaviour has been less than satisfactory and he has been warned on numerous occassions. His comments should be seen for what they are which is kicking the man while he is down. Very unsporting but not unexpected - any chance to "return the favour" on the admin who blocked you. Shot info (talk)
3. I find the proposed decision extremely 1 sided. Mr.Z-man 11:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Carcharoth's request/Gladys' comment below (Adam Cuerden)

To be clear - I can see why some of my actions against users involved on talk pages I have also been acted on could give an appearance of impropriety, and do not plan to allow such appearance of problems again. However, while I may want to avoid the appearance of impropriety, and thus be very careful, I don't think it useful to take the extreme stance that some recommendations have taken. In short:

1. I don't think it useful to say, as a general rule, that having edited a page 9 months previously means an editor is involved. For one thing, this would mean that 99% of admins watching a page would be blocked from doing anything about most problems there, even if they only edited rarely.
2. I don't think it useful to hold all admins to that rule, particularly with articles that are not the source of strong opinions and conflicts.
3. For some issues, knowledge of the field is necessary to judge problems. An editor who kept adding false equations to physics pages would be very difficult for a non-physicist to evaluate.

In short, I think that the process recommended is overly bureaucratic, and would have poor results for the encyclopedia. A better solution would be to instead use a page to discuss blocks, similar to an AfD discussion (if admin only vote-wise) for any proposed block with a duration more than, say, 3 days, or where the admin feels the block may be controversial. Admins are volunteers, not paid bureaucrats. In any case, it's hard to see why having an "uninvolved" admin, with uninvolved defined in such a way to mean that they can have no knowledge of the editor or articles is an improvement. It'd basically work out to rubber-stamping, because if you actually expect people to do the research, the amount of work just to block one user may well mean that no user is ever blocked, except in the most obvious cases.

I think the problem is real, but that the solution being advocated is a knee-jerk reaction and unworkable.

Users supporting this statement

1. Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Sensible things being said here. Carcharoth (talk) 15:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. With qualifications. With respect to, say, imposing a nine month quarantine on tool use, this type of intruction creep can be a bad thing, both for upkeep of the body of instructions and, perhaps more importantly in this case and many others, as it makes system gaming easier. The WP:AN board is always available. That said, I am a little wary about the alternative, giving admins a special privilege as per that block discussion page suggestion, although so long as all can provide input, it may be workable. The sentence about rubberstamping and doing the research is very telling; bogging down with process the handling of their disruption is a favorite MO of nonconstructive editors. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Well, the details would have to be discussed and hashed out anyway, but I thought limiting voting to admins might help keep feuds in check. I'd certainly suggest that, at the least, only admins can start a vote, because, well, it does seem that too easy this system, used frivolously, could make feuds and edit wars into a whole new level of awful. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I refactored my response above to clarify my position, as Adam's reply seems to demonstrate it was originally ambiguous. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4. This is a pretty good summary of a genuine problem, it's hard to see an ideal answer, perhaps more feedback to admins who make AN/I reports of such cases would keep in check situations where the admin gets too involved. . .. dave souza, talk 18:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Partial support, per Dave Souza's comments. I'd be very hesitant to allow admins to use their tools (other than for blocking flagrant vandals) on articles they heavily edit. --Jim Butler^(talk) 17:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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^Charge! 02:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Durova^Charge! 02:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Filll (talk) 03:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. dave souza, talk 10:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 18:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. William M. Connolley (talk) 21:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Avb 23:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. --BozMo talk 22:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Except there was little "DR" prior to arbitration. R. Baley (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

9. Orderinchaos 02:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. B (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. WilyD 15:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. Agreed. Acalamari 17:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. Mr.Z-man 03:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. Sagaciousuk ^(talk) 03:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. Fireplace (talk) 16:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17. Cailil ^talk 20:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
18. Antelan ^talk 21:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
19. Zenwhat (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
21. gadfium 20:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
22. Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
23. — BillC ^talk 18:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
24. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
25. Shot info (talk) 23:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
26. docboat (talk) 06:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
27. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
28. Bradeos Graphon (talk) 03:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
29. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
30. -Midorihana- (talk) 04:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
31. -- Fyslee / talk 06:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
32. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
33. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
34. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
35. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
36. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia's best interest that he keep them. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Adam Cuerden ^talk 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.[reply]
3. Jehochman ^Talk 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.[reply]
4. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 18:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Carcharoth (talk) 11:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC) - with the emphasis on "If Adam ceases his problematic use of the tools".[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
11. I agree with this too. Acalamari 17:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Fireplace (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. Cailil ^talk 20:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. MastCell ^Talk 06:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
16. Avb 14:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
19. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
21. – Steel 20:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
22. R. Baley (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
23. -- Fyslee / talk 06:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
24. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Antelan ^talk 16:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
25. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
26. Per Antelan. Adam has, in my experience, solicited and accepted feedback with regard to the boldness of his edits (see section in archived Talk:Homeopathy. However, I have significant reservations about his conduct with other editors, cf. my comments below. --Jim Butler^(talk) 08:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
27. I think the fact that Adam wasn't informed of any problems with his behavior is one of the most critical points here. It seems to go against a lot of the normal process which makes Wikipedia what it is, short-circuiting to a huge problem. I've had my own issues with this thing happening, and I can sympathize with Adam on how frustrating this might be. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
28. ArbCom should emphasize that admins can't mix tools and arguments, but there shouldn't be further action against Adam, who seems to have taken the point. (Of course, larger issues remain unsettled.) Gnixon (talk) 06:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
29. Adam has agreed to be more careful in the future and seems to clearly understand the limitations now. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dissent - re "Adam wasn't informed of any problems". I think there is evidence of a recurring pattern of Adam Cuerden being cautioned about acting as an administrator in disputes where he is also an editor, and ignoring those cautions. My “evidence” for this statement is at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence#Evidence presented by Wanderer57. Wanderer57 (talk) 21:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• (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)[reply]

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.[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
4. BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Clear summary of where we're at without passing judgment either way. Orderinchaos 02:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
7. Accurate explanation of the situation. DGG (talk) 07:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes, sanctions are up to ArbCom. DGG (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

8. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Abridged ^talk 00:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Peter morrell 20:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. --Cube lurker (talk) 02:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Agree with this in principal[reply]

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)[reply]

And for anyone who still even remotely believes he is genuinely remorseful read his comments on Jimbo's talk page archive [11] and think again. Peter morrell 21:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Peter morrell 16:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC) -Added by Jehochman ^Talk at 18:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
2. Endorse the first two paragraphs. —Whig (talk) 00:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Arion 3x3 (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. John Gohde (talk) 18:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the voting at Wikipedia: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)[reply]
2. Jehochman ^Talk 19:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. R. Baley (talk) 19:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Adam's transgressions, imho, were considerably less than other admins 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)[reply]
5. In agreement with above statements, this point deserves to be emphasized. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Durova^Charge! 20:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. dave souza, talk 20:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. WilyD 16:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
12. Filll (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. Mr.Z-man 03:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. Desysoping should be protective, not punitive. Antelan ^talk 20:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. As B says, the evidence does not warrant desysoping--Cailil ^talk 20:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. Fireplace (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17. Avb 23:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
19. Not that I'm an "outside" opinion here; I've already said my piece at the RfArb. MastCell ^Talk 06:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
21. gadfium 20:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
22. Zenwhat (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
23. Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
24. — BillC ^talk 18:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
25. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
27. Shot info (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
28. At worst, I think Adam was careless, not malicious. This remedy would be excessive IMO. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
29. Strongly endorse, also per my comments in my endorsement of Proposal related to above, above. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
30. -- Fyslee / talk 18:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC) Endorse.[reply]
31. Desysopping seems excessive, to say the least.Gladys J Cortez 20:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
32. – Steel 20:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
33. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
34. Well-said. Jim Butler^(talk) 08:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
35. Agree. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
36. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 [12]: I also have eight barnstars, but would that be relevant to a case against me? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fully endorse this summary as factually and interpretationally accurate. Peter morrell 07:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Abridged ^talk 23:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
8. More listening is needed. More mentoring and discussion would be good too. And this goes for all pages, not just the ones he is directly involved in. David D. (Talk) 20:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Wanderer57 (talk) 08:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Per David D. Unless I'm missing some important context, blocking Martinphi for this edit was patently inappropriate. I think this case suffices as a call for Adam to change course, and see no need to de-sysop; would recommend a warning and de-sysopping as a consequence if these incidents recur. Jim Butler^(talk) 08:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Carcharoth (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Peter morrell 07:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Abridged ^talk 00:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. John Gohde (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Taemyr (talk) 21:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. DGG (talk) 22:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. No tools are required to be an effective editor. In fact,the tools, especially blocking, are not even required to be an effective administrator when it comes to disputed articles. David D. (Talk) 21:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Neutral - kind of would prefer the reverse (keep sysop, chill out on editing homeopathy for awhile). Naturally, if de-sysop is the outcome, would support a re-sysop soon afterward. Should not be a big deal. --Jim Butler^(talk) 02:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^talk 00:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Abridged ^talk 00:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
4. Peter morrell 18:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. John Gohde (talk) 18:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. i agree with this, far better to comment and give ones opinion but leave the policing to uninvolved parties. David D. (Talk) 17:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. His strong personal POV, affecting his conduct as an administrator, is not limited only to homeopathy related articles. Arion 3x3 (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
5. Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Per Carcharoth. In particular, I heartily agree with ProfM's last two sentences. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 21:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Elitism, cliques and cabals damage the community. Jehochman ^Talk 22:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Perfectly put in all aspects. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Abridged ^talk 23:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Yes, its more than a single incident. DGG (talk) 14:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Peter morrell 18:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. --Cube lurker (talk) 02:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Agree with all of this one.[reply]
14. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 05:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC) Yup. Fundamental.[reply]
15. docboat (talk) 06:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. Arion 3x3 (talk) 15:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17. John Gohde (talk) 18:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
18. this describes the situiation very well. David D. (Talk) 17:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
19. Jim Butler^(talk) 02:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20. Dlabtot (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia and contribute to Wikipedia: 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 Wikipedia policy. Zenwhat (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.[reply]
   1. Actually, Matthew Hoffman was a creationist. The homeopathy thing is kind of a distraction tactic. Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
   2. I agree with you, Adam, actually. In fact, when I first came here, the frequent invocation of Homeopathy gave me the false impression that the issue had to deal with Homeopathy. Zenwhat (talk) 07:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. I agree. I am distressed when longstanding, excellent editors and admins are threatened with severe punishments, while sockpuppets, fringe POV-pushers and incivil editors are coddled. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I question Adam's judgment, in general. He recently attempted to have the Portal:Complementary and Alternative Medicine/Quotes section of the CAM portal deleted, even though almost every portal on Wikipeida has a quotes section.[13]

Since, there are over 100 portals on Wikipedia which have a quotes section, this total lack of good judgment on the part of Adam should bar him from being an administrator since he is incapable of impartial judgement. John Gohde (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Four hours after making this statement, John Gohde was banned by the Arbitration Committee for one year for "incivility, personal attacks, and assumptions of bad faith, grossly inappropriate commentary, attacks in external forums, soapboxing, and gaming the system." See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/John_Gohde_2. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Regardless of whether Gohde was banned, the point about the quotes section is a valid one, in my opinion. Arion 3x3 (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. John Gohde (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Arion 3x3 (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia policies and guidelines effectively.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Zenwhat (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Wikipedia 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)[reply]
4. docboat. But I must also add that I hope Adam must know how ill-advised it is to both edit AND act administratively on an article as contentious as Homeopathy. He has been severly chided for it, and I too think - despite his references at times that suggest I too deserve to be banned - that we need someone of his standing as an admin.
5. per Docboat; and less strongly, per Shot info. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. per Shot info, though I'd phrase it a little more tactfully. Raymond Arritt (talk) 13:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Whig and Morrell have caused a whole lot of problems. Their POV-pushing needs to be restrained. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 14:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Raul654 (talk) 14:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Filll (talk) 15:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. support, including docboat's comment. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Because of the inflammatory section title and language, I did not read this too closely. However, upon rereading it more closely, I offer a qualified endorsement, subject to (1) changing occurences of "witch-hunt" to "system gaming"; (2) adding "and guidance" after "forgiveness"; recognizing that "POV pushers" should be described as just that rather than "groups of" them, unless conspiracy or meatpuppeting can be demonstrated; (4) The last sentence actually made stronger, as the last thing WP needs is to point out yet another way that editors who do not wish to adhere to its policies and spirit can frustrate those who do. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Mr.Z-man 11:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support. I don't think anyone is in doubt that Adam has some issues to deal with here and needs to learn from this experience. It is also important to factor into all this his motivation, which is to protect Wikipedia. We must face realities, and they are that those who are behind this attack on Adam are definitely not without fault and are using processes to get rid of someone whose POV they don't like. Just look at the list of supporters of this whole process and ask the simple question: "Are they here to write an NPOV encyclopedia, or are they here to use Wikipedia for advocacy, POV pushing, and protection of their favorite fringe subjects? Adam is someone who is trying to limit such practices, and that is done in protection of Wikipedia. His style needs adjusting, but his motivation is proper. -- Fyslee / talk 22:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. endorse subject to the qualifications expressed by Docboat, . .. dave souza, talk 18:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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:

• [14] 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.
• [15] Adam says that I am not "a really productive member of the community."
• [16] Adam trivializes my request for respect and civility and calls me immature.
• [17] 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)[reply]
2. he has no respect for anyone and 'assume good faith' has been a joke at homeopathy ever since he arrived Peter morrell 06:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. John Gohde (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Zenwhat: Criticism by itself is not incivility, if it's justified. Zenwhat (talk) 01:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't comments be on the discussion page? —Whig (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All I know of this dispute is what I've read here. I've never edited, or even viewed, the Homeopathy article, and I have a very blurry understanding at best of what homeopathy even IS, or claims, or does. Not only do I have no dogs in this fight, I don't even know any fleas remotely acquainted with any dogs in this fight.

Having read all of the above, however: Would it not, perhaps, after a battle involving this much effort and inspiring this much vitriol, be prudent to institute a policy--informal or otherwise--among admins, to the effect of Once you have edited an article, you absolutely may not perform any sysop/admin functions based on disputes, actions, complaints, or observations relating to that article, other than to deal with obvious acts of blatant vandalism??

To me--again, an absolutely Boringly Average editor with no barnstars, no FA's, no nothin'--it just seems like this would eliminate a whole BOATLOAD of Wikidrama.

Just a thought, anyway. Sorry if this is an intrusion.Gladys J Cortez 02:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Addendum: I'm gathering from the comments below that this IS policy, with "a few common-sense exceptions" (Rocksanddirt)/"wiggle room" (DGG). To me--and again, this is to be taken with an entire shaker full of salt, since I am still at the earliest stage of Wikipedianism, where I still straight-facedly think things like I wonder why anon editors are allowed?--but to me, it seems that in order to stop this sort of thing from happening, the community may need to specify what constitutes a "common-sense exception", as apparently there are different understandings of which exceptions are acceptable and which aren't. WP:CREEP? Yeah, perhaps. But I've seen quite a few similar cases, in my wanderings through Wikipedia, where a solid, codified interpretation of what does and does not constitute an "interested" admin would have saved a lot of energy, misunderstanding, and time. (Done yammering now...)Gladys J Cortez 19:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Gladys J Cortez
2. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC) LOL! But that is pretty much (functionally) the policy we have, and that is what the problem is![reply]
3. Per Martinphi. Policies don't matter if they are ignored. —Whig (talk) 04:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. That is the present policy, thought we say it a little less strongly, to provide some wiggle room in case of reverting obvious vandalism or just plain error. What we need to do is enforce it when that doesnt apply. In this case, AC went way beyond any reasonable tolerance, and he must have known it. DGG (talk) 05:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. absolutely spot on Peter morrell 06:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Agree with DGG. When to use admin tools should still be left to the judgment of the admin in question, as not all cases are clear-cut. If in doubt, get advice. I am also concerned that Adam still doesn't seem clear on this point. I think a direct statement from Adam on the matter, along with an acknowledgement that such points are valid regardless of the amount of support he gets from the community, would help here. Simply put: opposing the proposed desysopping does not equate to supporting Adam's actions in this and other cases. Carcharoth (talk) 12:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Arion 3x3 (talk) 14:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. --Cube lurker (talk) 15:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC) This is basically current policy. This is what should already be understood before anyone accepts an RFA.[reply]
9. agree with DGG's clarification of this summary. policy is this, with some common sense exceptions. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. John Gohde (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Yes Abridged ^talk 22:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Agree that this is, with exceptions, a fair explanation of current policy. Antelan ^talk 16:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. Agree. Ombudsman (talk) 03:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. Agree. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. Dlabtot (talk) 18:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. per DGG; Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17. Gladys presents a clear rational view that I've always believed should be firmly enforced. If this is already policy, can someone link me up to it? I'd like to read the exact language. Wjhonson (talk) 01:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection in the case of edit warring is done to enforce a cool down to allow the parts to talk to each other. It is not done to protect the correct version of a page. An administrator that fails to realise that it is bad to revert to his own version and then protecting the page does not deserve the trust the community has placed in him as an administrator. In the case of Adam this is unfortunate because Adam does sterling work as an editor on pages where he routinely has to deal with cranks and POV-pushers. Taemyr (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to above by Adam Cuerden

With the exception of the Jennylen/Librarian2 incident (where events gave every impression of a meatpuppet attack) I believe I've been fairly careful not to protect any specific version. Can you give diffs? Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I see that Adam Cuerden gives as reason that Librarian2 was a meatpuppet recruited by me, this is regrettable as himself he recognized his error at that moment saying:

" Librarian2 claims he was not recruited, and that the thank you came out of nowhere. If this is true, then I may have acted over-harshly. Judge it and see what you think. Adam Cuerden talk 16:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)"

I posted a more detailed comment and facts of that incident at the RfC talk-page Jenny^Len☤ 08:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Regarding his lack of knowledge of the subject of homeopathy: As Lee Hunter said: "At one time I was a very active editor on WP (in the top 100 contributors) but this is the first edit I've made since last spring. I'd been finding the editorial battles on WP very frustrating for quite a while but the straw that broke the camel's back was when I was trying to save an article that Cuerden was trying to delete. The subject of the article was one of the world's most famous homeopathic practitioners, author of maybe a hundred books, subject of at least one biography, cited in perhaps thousands of papers and books, recipient of awards around the world, mentioned in the mainstream media. In other words, notable by even the most excruciatingly narrow interpretation of the criteria for notability that one could possibly imagine. Cuerden and a couple of his cronies were trying to dismiss virtually all of this evidence apparently on the grounds that anything neutral or positive about homeopathy was somehow tainted. In their view, only critics were to be accepted as authorities. To think that this guy has now become an admin and is using his power to continue his little jihad makes me glad that I've stayed away from this nonsense" Lee Hunter (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

2. And back in March 2007 Lee Hunter wrote: "Hi Adam, I see you're engaged in some kind of campaign to purge WP of articles about homeopathy. I suppose that's your right, but would you mind putting in a tiny bit of effort to check whether the articles you are proposing for deletion might actually have some value? For example, Vithoulkas and Sankaran are without question the two most important homeopathic practitioners in the world today and a simple Google search would have confirmed that. I used to be an active editor, but I don't have time for it these days, so it's a little distressing to find that someone's going around trying to delete a whole string of articles just because the editor doesn't have a clue what they're about. Unfortunately I just don't have the time to chase after you and undo the damage. Thanks for your attention." --Lee Hunter 19:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Obviously Adam, you're prejudiced against Homeopathy. If you'd knen anything about the subject, you wouldnt suggest to delete Vithoulkas homepage. Get informed. Who is this, and why does noone want to provide information on why Vithoulkas is notable? Adam Cuerden talk 18:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC) Adam, you have already been provided more than ample resources to prove that Vithoulkas is notable. As I pointed on the AFD page, one only has to use Google to learn that Vithoulkas is the most notable living homeopath and has been for the last thirty years or more. The article itself points to a huge collection of sources. Look up Vithoulkas in Google Scholar. Look for his name on any site that discusses homeopathy. He is nothing less than the most prominent homeopath of the last forty years, and this fact is self-evident from the existing article. As one example, I pointed you to the Swedish parliament's Right Living award page, which in itself would make him notable (although it would actually count as one of his lesser achievements). To suggest that Vithoulkas is not notable in the face of a vast array of information to the contrary borders on malicious editing. --Lee Hunter 20:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Vithoulkas You've just closed this AfD speedily as a copyvio. Can I ask what it is a copyvio of? An earlier check only gave Wikipedia and mirror sites on the text. Nuttah68 00:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC) In the face of overwhelming evidence of the notability of Vithoulkas you have abused the process to delete this article. You should be ashamed. --Lee Hunter 00:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC) Funnily enough, it was that evidence that caused it to be deleted: It turned out to be the same as one of the sources asserting notability. Adam Cuerden talk 00:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC) [18] and [19]

3. Regarding Adam's predilection for big deletions: "please tag it with the ^{[citation needed]} tag instead of just deleting it. This will help bring the statement to attention for editors to go out and find a source. If no source is found and the tag still sits after generally 7 days, please feel free to remove the statement. Pure deletion of a statement without this tag and without the time needed to find a source will most likely get reverted. Thanks. Roguegeek (talk) 07:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)" [20] This approach seems more reasonable and less likely to incite conflicts than Adam's 'hit em first and hit em hard' approach. Yet some people have suggested that Adam did not know the rules.

4. Regarding his rude and overzealous habit of blocking folks: I've blocked User:12.167.224.228 for three months per this rather convincing list of POV-pushing by them as a corporation editing articles related to them and their rivals. Since it's been blocked for that reason before, there didn't seem much point in just warning. Does this seem correct to you? Adam Cuerden talk 21:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC) This seems a bit overzealous, IMHO. We don't often block high profile IPs, especially if they haven't done the said POV-pushing for quite a while. This IP didn't have many edits, and some of them seemed to be removing some of the problem. The thing is: either we should be blocking this for a much longer time period, or not at all. Three months is going to do little. The Evil Spartan 17:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC) [21] Not a very polite approach that engenders consensus or harmony. Peter morrell 08:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Peter morrell 08:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Arion 3x3 (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to the above (Adam Cuerden)

Let's start with Peter's point 3 first. I can only presume Peter wants it believed that this is directed at me. It is not. It is a quote on Samsara's talk page, about one of her actions, and which I don't think I've ever seen, since I don't normally go around reading all the private messages on the talk pages of other admins. Peter says of it "Yet some people have suggested that Adam did not know the rules." Given who the quote is directed to, it is hard to see what Peter intends by that.

Let's deal with the second half of his point 2 next. Peter quotes half of a discussion, ignoring the bits where I showed what it was a copyvio of. The page, George Vithoulkas was a copyvio of [22]. Any admins who can see the deleted material can confirm this. There were some changes, but large sections still were from the original, as order of presentation, etc. I'm in academia, if only as a long-time student as yet, and it certainly reached the level where, if submitted as an assignment, the student would be expelled for plagiarism, and this seems the minimum standard for copyvio evaluation.

As for the rest of 1 and 2, all I can say is this: If an article does not make a convincing case for notability, is not written based on reliable sources, and google does not provide good evidence for notability, I see nothing wrong with an AfD. If the subject really is notable, the evidence of this will almost always come out, and if it isn't, then it should be deleted. You must realise that the homeopathy set of articles was a nightmare two years ago. A large number of articles on homeopaths were obviously created by their subjects - George Vithoulkas by User:Gvithoulkas. Indeed, looking at the list of homeopaths, I find a new one, Jawahar_Shah, created by User:LINUSS who has only ever edited that article.

If one or two notable people and homeopathic subjects got nominated by accident, then AfD has generally done its job and fixed it.

As for his point 4: I was an univolved admin, tried to judge appropriately, and carefully notified others. It was my first dealing with corporate vandals, and I dealt with them like I would any other vandal. Perhaps more consideration of public relations was due. So good thing I've always been very careful to seek the opinion of ANI on these things.

I fail to see how this section by Peter is either helpful or particularly relevant.

Users supporting this summary:

1. Adam Cuerden ^talk 10:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The homeopathy article seems to have assumed some importance at this RfC because it has been mentioned as one of the best examples with which to judge Adam's edits, or at least some of his more contentious ones. I have been editing that article for almost 2 years now, ever since I first came to WP. It is my specialist subject upon which I have been doing published historical research for the last 20 years and prior to which I was a part-time practitioner of homeopathy. My POV about homeopathy is much more neutral than many WP people think. I of course accept that it is a fringe subject that upsets some people. Nor do I reckon it is the great saviour of humanity's health problems. BTW I did not know Adam to be an admin, or even what an admin was, until about September 2007.

If you look at Adam's edits and at the article history you will see that he has not often been a force for the good at that article. He has not tended to promote dialogue, harmony, reconciliation, peace or consensus. His edits have largely tended to be big deletions, tweaking other people's edits, and reversions. He has rarely sought consensus, but has just done his own thing without consulting others. In this way he has provoked conflict and has his own strong POV, being anti the subject he is editing. Furthermore, he has frequently used his admin powers on an article he himself has been editing, ostensibly to enforce and maintain edits that conform to his own strong POV. I regard that as an abuse and have said so.

I would also say that an array of anti-homeopaths have found continuous and unwavering support from Adam. The net effect of this has been to scare away many useful edtors with much knowledge of homeopathy who have no stomach for a fight each time they show up and it has meant that the control and ownership of the article has been in the hands of anti-homeopaths who revert every minute change to the article to give it a less anti POV. This has been disastrous in terms of achieving a stable NPOV and has meant the article is paralysed on a semi permanent basis. Adam has undoubtedly been a key player in maintaining this dire situation.

He has himself reverted many edits sympathetic to homeopathy, argued over NPOV edits, and also stood back and enforced the reversions made by anti-homeopathy editors, rather than seeking dialogue and consensus. I have seen this happen times without number. There have been frequent 'orgies' of deletions and reversions on that article usually during UK night-time, often between 2 and 5 am GMT. I know it sounds amusing, and it is! but this has actually happened. Not just once, but with astonishing frequency. It is fair to say that Adam has not been actively involved in them all, but he has been involved in a good many of them. So Adam cannot truthfully portray himself as a scrupulously neutral admin in his work at the homeopathy article; far from it. What has also been notable and very regrettable about Adam's edits is that he often does not have sufficient knowledge of the subject to actually make these huge deletions that he favours making and so lots of good stuff just gets chucked out by him without him recognising good factual material when he sees it. This again has happened many times. Even his attempted deletion of the George Vithoulkas article falls into this category as does the numerous savage edits he, and others, have made to Samuel Hahnemann and other articles connected to homeopathy such as Potassium dichromate.

Addition - in his first 8 days as an admin these are some of his homeopathic AfDs: nominates Dr John Henry Clarke for deletion 7th March 2007 [23]; deleted George Vithoulkas page 10 March 2007 [24]; nominates for deletion Dr Rajan Sankaran 7 March 2007 [25]; nominates for deletion Drug Dynamization 7 March 2007 [26]; nominates prominent homeopath Dr Rajesh Shah for deletion 7 March [27]; proposes for deletion Clemens Maria Franz von Bönninghausen 7th March 2007 [28] Such a pattern does indeed indicate a jihad as Lee Hunter said, to purge WP of homeopathy and all its kith and kin. Peter morrell 17:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More deletions Oh and here are some more I previously missed from the same period. Nominates Classical homeopathy for deletion 2 March 2007 [29]; nominates for deletion Homeopathic materia medica, 7 March 2007 which he describes as "Patent nonsense, or at best cruft." [30]; nominates for deletion Materia Medica Pura, 7 March 2007 [31]; nominates for deletion Homeopathic repertory, 7 March 2007 which he describes as "100% cruft...Very crufty offshoot of Homeopathy. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and this is pure cruft, and rather unverifiable" [32]; nominated for deletion List of homeopaths 7 March 2007 [33]; nominated for deletion prominent US homeopath, Paul Herscu, 7 March 2007 "Looks like advertising, and it doesn't look like he did anything notable." [34]; nominates for deletion homeopath, George Heinrich Gottleib Jahr 7 March 2007 "provides no evidence of notability, and claims he invented aantibiotics when the first recognised antibiotic, Pennicillin, wasn't developed until 50 years after his death" In fact he invented the first repertory, as any homeopathically informed person would know. [35]; deleted a whole section from Arsenicum album, 30 September 2007 claiming it was "pure POV," when it is in fact a major homeopathic drug. [36] In case the point is still not clear enough, these diffs illustrate some of my previous "assertions," such as his strong deletionist tendency; his total lack of knowledge of this subject; his strong crusading anti-homeopathy POV and his desire, starting within days of being given his tools, of wiping out masses of homeopathy related stuff from WP. Note also that not one of these proposed deletions was announced on the homeopathy talk page. Peter morrell 10:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More deletions He nominated Rajan Sankaran for deletion again a 2nd time 21 March 2007 [37] George Vithoulkas was also nominated twice for deletion by Adam in March 2007 and it was deleted fully on or about 21 March 2007; he nominated for deletion List of common homeopathic remedies 26 September 2007 [38] and he nominated for deletion Clinical homeopathy and complex homeopathy 2 March 2007 [39] Correction, he did not nominate the List of common homeopathic remedies for deletion, he simply deleted the entire article as per, "04:00, 26 September 2007 Adam Cuerden deleted "List of common homeopathic remedies" ‎ (Delete: List has gotten hopelessly corrupt, and has no sources. Has anyone else noticed it includes "sugar" and "water"?)" [40] Peter morrell 07:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC) This mass of evidence must surely speak for itself. Peter morrell 18:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even yesterday he nominated this homeopath, Dr Jawahar Shah for deletion 14 Jan 2008, [41]which shows he is still abusing his tools and still on a mission to delete homeopaths from WP. And still here he dismisses the truthful testimony I have given as irrelevant. Peter morrell 07:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is yet another example of Adam's now legendary homeopathic AfDs. Adam described this article as "Pretty much a POV-fork of the main homeopathy article; at best, a remnant of the recent homeopathy rewrite and consolidation that didn't get redirected, at worst, garbage. I've put it up for AFD." Adam Cuerden talk 04:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC) [42] After unanimous delete votes by a bunch of his cronies, the article was then deleted 19:34, 11 October 2007 by User:Espresso Addict "Homeoprophylaxis" ? (Deleting per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homeoprophylaxis) [43] Adam then redirected the article 13:06, 13 October 2007 Adam Cuerden "May as well redirect" [44] The AfD is at [45] As with his previous AfDs, no mention of these proposed changes appeared on the homeopathy talk page at the time. The AfD was never announced and no input was requested from regular editors and interested parties. It was all kept hush-hush. Once again it was an AfD and deletion 'by stealth' without any notification of his actions to the people who had a potential interest in the AfD. Regarding his rudeness and incivility, in the same month we have this little outburst: "I've blocked him for a week. I'd be surprised if anyone thought I acted wrongly, except, perhaps, for not just indef-blocking." Adam Cuerden talk 03:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC) Eight minutes later, "You know what? Fuck second chances. Indef block." Adam Cuerden talk 03:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC) [46]

I think the cases I have now presented amply justify most if not all of my previous remarks on this page about Adam's activities at the homeopathy page since he first went there. All the impressions I reported here were formed from watching and attempting to improve that article in the last 11 months. One inevitably wonders at the motivation that lies behind all his deletions and blocks, his rudeness and hostility, his reverts and his endless protection of the POV antics of anti-homeopathy editors who still control that article to this day.

Finally, regarding the impact on other editors of this type of behaviour, I would quote an admin who said this, "A culture of blocking that drives away new editors is one of the ways that Wikipedia could decline. Each successive generation of productive new editors will get smaller and smaller as it gets more self-selecting...new editors learn best by experience, which crucially involves being able to edit Wikipedia (not trying to negotiate a shortening of an indefinite unblock). They are not going to learn how to handle themselves correctly after a few exchanges of posts on their talk page with a couple of admins. Discussion on article talk pages is how they will develop into an experienced editor, able to handle themselves. This is why I favour the philosophy of short blocks, and several second chances, with an indefinite block only coming after they have shown they will not change their ways, and crucially, being warned that the next block will be indefinite. Anything else means that inexperienced new users will be caught in the indefinite block net, and that will be damaging to the encyclopedia. The best of the new editors will try again with a new account, and do better the second time round. Some, though, will just give up. What would you have done if you had been blocked indefinitely after your first 20 or so contributions? Tried again or walked away? Carcharoth 20:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)" [47] Peter morrell 11:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is instructive to compare Adam's time at the homeopathy article with that of another admin User:Tim Vickers. He has also frequently edited the article over the last 12 months or so, but unlike Adam not once have I seen him create or condone conflict. In contrast to Adam, Tim has always been a stabilising and reconciling force who seeks and achieves balance with sensitive, light-touch editing and hrough negotiation, civility and respect for others. He always politely seeks dialogue and consensus in his editing. In general terms I would say he has been hugely beneficial to the article. However, as a biochemist, he also has a strong anti POV about homeopathy, but unlike Adam, he has never let it get in the way of his brilliant diplomacy and sensitively executed editorial skills.

Likewise, I would say User:Wikidudeman has also promoted peace, harmony and consensus in his own skillful edits of the article. These are the things I have seen. I have no source of information about this matter other than what I have seen there. While it is true that at times I have become frustrated and angry with others (including Adam), at the mess they have made and the POV pushing, and I have regretted that and been hauled over the coals for it. But I have learned not to be so intolerant and to let folks do as they wish. Articles often tend to stabilise naturally if left alone. It is not an easy lesson to learn. However, this RfC is not about me, it is about Adam. So I repeat that any neutral person who checks the diffs for the last year of these three editors User:Tim Vickers, User:Adam Cuerden and User:Wikidudeman will find that I am right in what I say. It is fair to say that the current article as it stands is largely the work of these editors and myself. My own edits FWIW have been mostly of a factual nature, as any checking of the diffs will show. In the last 6 months or so my contributions have shifted away from editing the article itself more towards dialogue on the talk page as anyone can check for themselves. The reason for this is that I discovered that achieving consensus is the best path towards attaining a more stable article and it was Wikidudeman who always encouraged me in this direction, to his credit.

In the light of many comments here and at talkpage I do believe Adam could become a better admin. Maybe he could edit and use his admin powers if he was more cautious of using them together in contentious articles. Maybe he should confine himself to only using one or the other where he has a strong POV. These changes would remove the problems he has faced and make him a less abrasive and contentious editor than he has been hitherto. I also believe he should negotiate views more openly, strive for genuine consensus more patiently and be more polite to other editors. If he did this there would not be so many problems with his work at WP.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Peter morrell 08:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. I concur with the first four paragraphs of the above. (I don't have enough information to offer any opinion about the other editors mentioned here.) I am a US Ivy League trained physician, practicing Internist, with a faculty appointment at a major US Ivy League medical school (if I bureaucrat gets in touch with me I will confirm my credentials). I have a strong interest in homeopathy. I gather than Adam has gained a strong Wikipedia reputation through his work on "intelligent design", and I don't doubt that he has made strong contributions. He and I had a very civil relationship when I was editing, but I found it frustrating to deal with him because he has taken on the role of "protector of Wikipedia" in the subject area of homeopathy without any knowledge of homeopathy or even a medical background. Evidence of this is the way he placed the bio pages of several truly world famous homeopaths up for deletion rather than calling for their improvement: [48][49] (please also note that in his first three days as an Admin, Adam closed an AFD that he himself opened!). Abridged ^talk 16:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. With respect and sympathy toward Adam, who I believe has always acted in good faith, I think this represents the best summary of the underlying problem. The comparison with User:Tim_Vickers is very insightful. I've never edited Homeopathy, but I've run into AC at other controversial articles. No action from ArbCom is warranted at this point. Too late at night to comment further. I don't endorse the last two paragraphs here because I haven't read them carefully. Gnixon (talk) 08:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. I agree with Peter about Adam's preference to delete rather than improve articles which he does not like. Recently Adam had tried to delete a whole string of articles just because he viewed them as nonsense (without a clue what they were about). He even started a Afd about a religious personality notable in Theosophy for the last 127 years with the derisive comment: "Article about a... thing... that has no notability" [50] Also - an article was suddenly deleted by Adam without discussion nor consensus. On 12 December 2007 03:37 Adam Cuerden deleted Great White Brotherhood [51] giving as his reason that it was "Patent nonsense". Anyone not a believer in a particular religious or philosophical system might think that it is "patent nonsense" - yet that does not give one the right to delete that information from an encyclopedia. I personally had to restore that article from my own backup copy on my own computer, only to have Adam claim that he was the one who restored it (after I exposed him as guilty of this improper deletion). Arion 3x3 (talk) 13:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. I edit homeopathy related articles from the scientific perspective, but I often find myself diagreeing with the editorial guard that Adam seems have on these articles. I have often seen reasonable comments be dismissed because they are from the opposition, not just by Adam, I might add. This is no way to build a consensus and turns the articles into battle grounds. It is important to weigh and discuss edits on their own merit, not based on who makes the edit. Clearly this takes more time but it is important to reach stability. David D. (Talk) 17:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. I agree with the material on Tim Vickers, which is very important. The rest is nothing I know about. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Partial agreement. While I can't vouch for the big-picture statements about how the article has evolved over time, this diff is an example of material that could easily have been improved (with "according to so-and-so..." language) rather than deleted. I agree with David D. that excessive polarizarion among editors, to which Adam has evidently contributed (although not with me personally), has discouraged me and other editors from editing the page. That Adam's conduct was part of what alienated an editor like User:LeeHunter ought to give everyone pause. I believe that at times Adam has erred too far on the side of crusading deletionism, well-summarized by his comment: "Kill 'em with fire and AfD nomination". Adam has a right to express these opinions on talk pages, but it is not surprising that if he puts them into practice injudiciously, a "siege mentality" may become self-fulfilling. Rx chill pill, undiluted.... --Jim Butler^(talk) 21:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to the above (Adam Cuerden)

Peter makes a lot of assertions, but does not back them up with diffs. He claims that I have not been a force of good on Homeopathy. I, however, have a barnstar from Wikidudeman thanking me for my help on the rewrite, and, as well, spent huge amounts of time fixing the prose up to more readable standards after Wikidudeman's rewrite.

Peter provides no actual evidence except that I nominated articles for deletion. Others, I'm sure, are better able to comment on my edits than myself. However, Peter has often flown off the handle, and attacked me over the smallest things before, showing no sense of proportion.

This is a section I prepared for the talk page of this after being asked to. I believe it shows Peter is not able to judge me rationally and accurately, and has been repeatedly criticised for unfounded attacks on me.

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: [52] 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/w/index.php?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: [53] In short, reverting unsupported, OR, conspiracy-mongering attacks on the entire medical community... means that the article will never be NPOV. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 [54])

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.

Users supporting this summary:

1. Adam Cuerden ^talk 10:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Peter's tendency to run roughshod over policies such as WP:V and WP:NOR, while claiming to defend them, is unhelpful. In this light it is illogical to punish Adam instead of Peter. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. DISAGREE. The problem with the above is that it is Adam's actions as an ADMINISTRATOR that we are talking about here, not PM's conduct as an EDITOR. The entire section above sidesteps the whole issue. Abridged ^talk 21:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Yep - the POV warriors are out in force and admins seem to be caught up in their own wrangling to stop them. Peter's comments are excessively about bashing the editor not the administrator. Shot info (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment only --there may indeed be some problem with Peter's editing, but that is not the issue under discussion here. DGG (talk) 02:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment to Shot info - while the RfC is indeed about Adam's conduct as an admin, his editorial conduct is not irrelevant. It is Adam's high level of editorial involvement, and his views expressed as an editor, that should have been firewalled (by Adam himself) from his use of admin tools. --Jim Butler^(talk) 21:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either Wikipedia keeps those who aid the project, or hand it over to those uninterested in that but more interested in their POV. There is no "Third Way" currently as too many admins are interested in fencesitting and politicing...rather than Administration... Shot info (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam is very good (verging on excellent) with some caveats; I don't see why corrective measures in such cases (and there are many; lots of us are good but with blind spots) should be all-or-nothing. (And I certainly don't think Admins should ever use admin tools on articles they edit except for simple vandalism. Indeed, there should be Admins who watch certain topics but intentionally refrain from editing certain them, and these are the folks who should be called upon to use the toolkit, imho.) --Jim Butler^(talk) 02:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't quite see my way through all of this. Adam seems to have made a complete pig's ear of it, but I suppose the issue is whether the community can give him a second chance. I think it's clear that if the tools are removed it's unlikely they will be returned, I think Adam can only prove he has learnt from his mistakes by continuing to have the tools, it would be hard to prove he would not abuse them again to satisfy RFA, I fear. I don't know, maybe an admin parole is needed in this case, maybe a six month parole where each block is posted to WP:ANI for review. Maybe after the six months have a reverse rfa, asking if the tools should be removed.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Hiding T 11:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support the idea of parole, as opposed to full or temporary desysopping. Carcharoth (talk) 23:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Gladys J Cortez. While I can't imagine the mess that would cause over at AN/I, I do agree that it will be very difficult to decide if Adam has learned from his mistakes if we take away the very tools he needs to prove it.
4. Perfectly reasonable, and in line with the idea that removing privileges is done to protect the wiki, not punish the wicked (or anyone else, for that matter). Antelan ^talk 07:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) There seems to be a recurring pattern of Adam Cuerden being cautioned about acting as an administrator in disputes where he is also an editor, and ignoring those cautions.

My “evidence” for this statement is at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence#Evidence presented by Wanderer57. The number of cases in a short time period is quite striking, I think.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Wanderer57 (talk) 07:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Peter morrell 15:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - - - -

2) The following comment is based on what I have seen discussed in Talk:Homeopathy, and on related user talk pages.

I have a great deal of sympathy with the concerns expressed by the anti-homeopathy editors. (I don’t think I am at risk of offending those editors by referring to them that way – at least some of them refer to themselves exactly that way.) They feel they are in a continual battle to keep the article scientifically sound and intellectually honest.

I also have much sympathy for the editors who are trying to keep the Homeopathy article from being, as they see it, excessively negative about homeopathy.

The level of tension between these two groups of editors is usually significant and sometimes extreme. (I searched through the 24 archives of Talk:Homeopathy. Every single one of them has heated argument or at least discussion about whether the article is POV/NPOV.)

I think there is a tendency for the latter group to be blamed for the disputes that arise. Between July 20, 2007 and late October, three editors from this group were subjected to Requests for Comment on their conduct. (Peter Morrell, SM565, and Whig)

The slogan of Wikipedia “the encyclopedia that anyone can edit” is misleading in the case of an article like Homeopathy. As editor Filll has pointed out HERE, the editors of this article include:

• A PhD in physics
• A PhD in biochemistry
• several other PhDs
• An MD
• An internationally recognized homeopath and author with a faculty position at a major university

With this line-up of highly educated people as editors, Homeopathy is a difficult topic in which to put forward a contrarian position.

Someone who comes to the article because they have been helped by homeopathy, finds the article extremely negative about homeopathy, and tries to edit it to adjust this “imbalance” is unknowingly walking into very deep water.

Participants in this RfC should, I think, keep the difficult nature of the topic in mind when looking at the conduct of the participants. Likewise the Arbitration Committee, if this case returns to them.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Wanderer57 (talk) 07:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. re CONTEXT and CREDENTIALS: The narrative above concerning this topic might be accurate, but it is incomplete. When I was editing, the gatekeepers of the subject actually tended to be Adam, who appears to be an undergraduate student on leave from school due to illness, a masters level biologist, an MD, and few assorted scientists outside of any medical field. Due to the implausibility of mechanism, they would only allow the most judgemental language to be used concerning homeopathy. From reading the above, I have leared that Tim Vickers inserted some less judgemental language modeled on an article from The Lancet and it was reverted by Adam. I am an ivy trained practicing and academically-appointed MD with some knowlege of homeopathy. Peter, who is a trained homeopath author and academic is regularly bashed. I did good work to improve many of the small bio articles, but the minute I tried to edit the main homeopathy page, I got bashed and left. From what I have seen, this is a bit of a pattern. The commenters on the RFC and arbcom should also note this pattern and take it seriously. Abridged ^talk 13:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I DISAGREE with this line of discussion altogether. This sort of evaluation is just what we hoped to get away from by "anyone can edit" , and the prohibition of OR. Academic qualifications are and should be irrelevant to the quality of editing. A degree in a subject does not keep one from POV about it, or necessarily increase one's ability to explain it to a non-expert audience. I see no particular reason why more is needed than logic and scientific literacy. Otherwise it becomes a contest of who has the most relevant credentials. DGG (talk) 00:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clear up any potential misunderstanding, I am not suggesting that one needs particular credentials to edit. I am just trying to describe the unproductive unhelpful atmosphere on the page and the topic in general which is characterized by an "us against them" battlefield mentality which doesn't even have any particular expertise behind it. Abridged ^talk 01:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify my comment. Like Abridged, my point in mentioning the credentials was not to suggest they are, or should be, required. It was to help describe the situation of editing Homeopathy. Wanderer57 (talk) 02:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. I'm not sure what point people are trying to make by bringing up the credentials, but Abridged's summary as number 2 above sounds about correct to me, coming from a broad perspective rather than one which has depth in Homeopathy in particular. I wouldn't have felt incapable of editing the article relative to my lack of knowledge -you can do a lot without knowing the subject. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Wanderer's comment along with Abridged's endorsement now represents "the best description of the underlying problem" (quoting my endorsement of peter). I note that my assessment is based on (1) an assumption that the situation at Homeopathy is similar to that which prevailed at Objections to Evolution and Intelligent Design early last year, and (2) my imperfect memory of Adam's involvement and style at those pages. Again, I'm sympathetic to Adam, who I believe has always had good intentions and who I think is being subjected to unfairly harsh attack. Also, I understand DGG's objection to this line of discussion. However, the discussion is relevant because it explains both (1) the general tension at Homeopathy and (2) the specific anger felt by editors who thought (a) that Adam judged edits and editors to be acceptable only if they were "anti-Homeopathy," and (b) that he was using his tools to back up the offending judgment (which in turn would imply an abuse of tools by Adam or an implicit sanction of that judgment by Wikipedia through Adam's office). This highlights the danger of using tools where one edits, even if used with circumspection. Gnixon (talk) 02:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did nominate a lot of articles related to homeopathy for deletion/redirect/etc. This is because homeopathy had gone unmonitored for several years, and had expanded out into a huge walled garden of short articles that did not explain the terms they ostensibly explained (e.g. [55], a few POV forks (See, e.g. discussion by Skinwalker at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Classical_homeopathy), a lot of articles too short to provide context (Succussion is again typical here), and several articles on homeopaths that were just advertising, e.g. [56] (I'm afraid that link is admin-only). If one is not supposed to use AfD when confronted by a situation of this nature, what IS one supposed to do?

Edited to add: Peter criticises me for holding a lot of AfDs in March 2007 "by stealth". Have a look at Archive 14 of Talk:Homeopathy: Talk:Homeopathy/Archive_14#Merge proposal, Talk:Homeopathy/Archive_14#Psora-Homeopathic.2C_Veterinary_homeopathy.2C_Isopathy, and Talk:Homeopathy/Archive_14#Homeopathic_repertory are the relevant sections, and include quite a deal of discussion. After being asked to ramp back, I did, until such time as the major article rewrite made a lot of the old ones redundant. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC) Users supporting this summary:[reply]

1. Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment only: Well, Adam, what you say does not sound like a very convincing explanation. If the situation had been that you had candidly announced your intentions re these AfDs on the talk page in advance, and they had been thoroughly and openly discussed BEFORE you voted on & deleted them, then it might be a different story. Likewise, if there had not been so many of these deletions and AfDs, so many in one month (March 2007), and all done secretly, by stealth. Likewise, if these AfDs had not been accompanied by your constant edit warring on the article and the big deletions of text you did there and your rudeness to others, and your blocking of those who disagreed with your edits, and scaring off at least four editors who have never come back to edit WP, etc etc. If all these more cordial conditions had applied and you had been a friendly and reasonable editor all along, then maybe, just maybe, your explanation would hold a little water. As things stand, none of those conditions apply, not one, so it is very hard to accept this feeble statement as comprising even remotely a convincing case in defence of your actions. Peter morrell 18:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam AfD'd a homeopathy-related article on 14 January, while in one of his more controversial blocks two months earlier he told the editor: "when you're up at ArbCom for your behaviour at one set of articles, it's generally not considered good form to start carrying on at another in the same manner". WP:KETTLE issues are obvious, and per WP:DR, disengaging from homeopathy topics would have been (and going forward, probably will be) a good idea. Users supporting this summary:

1. Jim Butler^(talk) 08:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. agreed Peter morrell 15:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Yes. Abridged (and there he goes again [57] [58] Abridged ^talk 22:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Agreed Dana Ullman ^Talk 23:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Jim Butler (Adam Cuerden)

The AfDs never came up at Arbcom, nor did homeopathy as a whole, and, although a small subset of homeopathic supporters led by Peter morrell - I don't mean to include you, Jim, nor several others - are trying to hijack this RfC, changing it from a debate over use of admin tools on articles and subjects you've edited, to... editing and having opinions on articles you've edited, while being an admin. While I do think you normally have a calm, rational view on things, I do think you're way off in this case: AfD is practically the master template of seeking consensus of uninvolved parties, is not an admin process, as it may be started by anyone, and the article in question has clear notability problems.

Users supporting this summary:

1. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment only I am not hijacking this RfC and nor is it true that I lead a set of editors who have tried to comment on your editing. I speak solely for myself and say only what I have seen. There is only one reason why I have been here and submitted evidence and that is that I have been editing homeopathy for nearly two years and everything there was fine until you showed up last March. All I have submitted here are the things I have seen you do at that article and that is why I consider my evidence important. I don't think there is anyone else who has been there continuously as I have, which is the only reason my evidence assumes any importance at all. It is not a comment upon your editing per se,ás you like to claim, but upon your mis-use of admin tools to push an anti-homeopathy POV. In brief, I think the evidence I have supplied here has been overwhelmingly convincing that you have done that. What is more you are still doing it even today [59] [60] and so you seem most unwilling to learn what has been repeated time and again here and at arbcom, not just by me but by several other folks too. IOW you seem determined to continue in this style of behaviour. For example, [61] I hope that now clarifies my only reason for making these submissions. Peter morrell 16:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for Adam: Starting AfD's is not an abuse of admin tools. Blocking an editor over good-faith edits to an article in which you were deeply involved, however, is. Then proceeding to engage in the exact behavior for which you blocked that editor is (unlike the bulk of your work on WP) simply indefensible, WP:KETTLE stuff. If you want to continue to deny/defend that behavior, go ahead, but I doubt you're helping your cause. --Jim Butler^(talk) 06:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just looked over the statements and their supporters. It is remarkable how the lines are drawn - those who support the content that Adam Cuerden supports have voiced their affirmation of his adminship. Those who have opposed him on content issues likewise oppose his adminship. While I am not unbiased myself, I found this noteworthy, if thoroughly unsurprising.

What would really give us some insight here is to get more feedback from people who have never edited an article that he has edited.

Users supporting this summary:

1. Antelan ^talk 16:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. I suspect I've never (substantially) edited an article he has edited. I think there is an aspect here of what you describe though, probably related to this request for arbitration (old page version - don't edit it!) Carcharoth (talk) 17:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. I too, have never edited the same articles as Adam, but in this context the content is irrelevant to me and I have limited my comments, I believe, to his block of User:Matthew Hoffman and his response to User:Charles Matthews. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. I think THIS is relevant advice. Wanderer57 (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Oh my goodness. Someone turn that into policy, quick! Sage advice. Carcharoth (talk) 22:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes, that would be wonderful. As would be lasting world peace, a cure for the common cold, and an end to poverty. Meanwhile, back here in the real world... Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I cannot specifically disagree with the substance of Raymond's remark. However, I object on the grounds that its main result (intended or otherwise) is to distract attention from the preceding discussion, which I think was sincere, honest and well-intended. Wanderer57 (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5. I support Adams POV but I don't support his use of admin tools to help that POV. As an aside from the admin part of this RFC, I have found some of his contributions to be disruptive and he needs to listen more to his opponents. By giving the apearance of not listening edits wars erupt. What I mean by "apearance of not listening" is that I have often seen him dismiss edits or opinions that are valid just because they come from users whom he perceives to have the "wrong" POV. David D. (Talk) 03:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. This is a problem with this RfC and other similar processes, such as how the POV pushers in the RfC edited over at the AfD for Jawahar Shah. No problem with Wikipedia keeping crap non-notable poorly sourced articles especially if the AfD nominator is somebody Abridged, Arion, Levine, Martin (all key editors mentioned above - and noted by the closing Admin [62]) don't like. Now if Wikipedia rewards these POV pushes ... actually, it does because here we are and also over at WQA, ANi and various forums... When will Wikipedia realise that it's policies need enforcing - O yeah, that's right - those admins are out to lunch expect at ArbCom and RfCs persectuting admins making editors follow policy... Shot info (talk) 10:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Comment: To clarify: Adam has misused his admin priv by using them in areas in which he was actively editing. Starting and participating in AFDS is evidence of his editorial involvement; closing an AFD he himself opened was an example of misuse of admin priv. As I said in the AFD under discussion above, I think it is preferable to improve weak articles rather than listing them for AFD. Finally, I would ask SHOTINFO to examine the quality of my mainspace edits and show why he feels it is ok to slander me by calling me a "POV pusher" or retract his personal attack. Abridged ^talk 15:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I was a new admin, it had been, what, a week since I got adminship? I haven't done it since, that I'm aware. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   NO, you have not done THAT since, but you blocked a user for this edit. You should listen to the call above to wp:disengage from the homeopathy topic. Abridged ^talk 18:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   You should really have a look at your conduct over at AfD and what others have said. Simply put, if it acts like a POV-pusher, smells like a POV-pusher, walks like a POV-pusher and edits like a POV-pusher ... then perhaps just maybe it's a POV-pusher. Rather than getting all offended, how about you stop being a POV-pusher? Shot info (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   It would be better to present some evidence rather than to call me names. Abridged ^talk 21:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Bud, your edit history... Shot info (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the merits of this discussion, IMHO it no longer has a connection with the point that Antelan made when beginning this section, and little if anything to do with Adam Cuerden. I suggest this conversation be continued elsewhere. Wanderer57 (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

1. Antelan rightly called for feedback from independent people (those people who have not edited an article that Adam has edited), and yet, the usual "suspects" have aired their opinion here. I do not want to air mine here, and I hope that Antelan's request would be honored here. Dana Ullman ^Talk 00:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recently became aware of the ArbCom request for comments about Adam Cuerden. I am a fairly new editor with only some months of experience in Wikipedia. I was dedicating a good deal of my daily time to help in Wikipedia as I found the idea behind it most interesting, that is until I was stalked and driven off from editing by Adam Cuerden. As this is a community request for knowing about AC actions, I am here to provide evidence of some of such actions, even if, since I was stalked, I try to stay away from AC and everything related with him, including editing on some subjects, for saving myself from the stress and abuse resulting from such contact.

The stalking I refer to, hit me at the worst time, when I was (and still am) just beginning to learn how to be an editor; making many mistakes such as putting information where it didn't belong or engaging in conflict (I learned later that it is called edit warring) when my contributions were simply deleted. If I have found (as I did in some articles) an administrator who could have shown me my errors in an educational manner instead of bullying me, I would have been more than happy to learn, instead, I was bullied and provoked into making mistakes that could then be used against me; and all the articles I was working on were systematically stalked, making me feel like Adam Cuerden had simply decided to push me out of every place I was in Wikipedia.

I almost started to believe that the way to make your contributions prevail was by the aggressive behavior shown by Cuerden, who was bashing me and so I too engaged in warring, not realizing what it was and how it works and of course not knowing that there are other, better ways; until I was lucky enough to find other editors who showed me how tolerance and middle ways are what must prevail.

What else could I do against someone who knew how Wikipedia works, someone who, instead of teaching me, was using my inexperience against me. Adding on to the weight of the problem was that my attacker was an administrator with all the power, who could simply override all of what I could do, who was placing me as a target for all his like-minded contacts while I had no one to contact who could vouch for me or assist me? I could only abandon editing, at least until he put his eyes on some other target and even then stay away from his sight.

What is evaluated here, in my view, is not Adam Cuerden or his editing capacities; it is simply if Adam Cuerden should have access to the administrator tools at this point in time without unfairly attacking other victims, or imposing over editors who do not have such tools. In my view, as far as Adam Cuerden has shown more than one unfair use, those tools must be withheld from him. Also in my view, if Adam Cuerden shows in his editing behavior that self-control and respect become part of his Wiki-life, those tools should be made available again. If he truly recognizes his mistakes and learn from them, he would be more than willing to show it through a short period of editing with no need to access such tools, after all, administrator tools are only for extreme cases and in such cases there is always a seasoned administrator available to help, isn't it?

Here are simply and briefly the diffs showing how Adam Cuerden stalked me after I entered in disagreement with him at the article Radionics, and even saying, at some point, about my edits and justifying his actions, "I'm a biologist. I can identify utter crap." :

[63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71]

To this stalking of all articles I was working with, Adam Cuerden added some canvassing and offensive description of my contributions so others could also target my contributions [72]

Trying to find out if this behavior was normal with him, I came across these other situations:

Protection of pages he was directly involved in POV [73] [74] [75]

Unprotection of pages he was actively involved in: [76]

Blocking of whom opposed him in edit warring or whom opposed him in articles in which he was actively involved: [77] [78]

Making Checkuser requests targeting his opposition: [79] [80]

One situation that really impressed me because of who was involved and beacuse a seemengly untrue summary was used, was a revert done by Adam Cuerden calling vandal a well respected administrator. The administrator was Jossi and the diff is here.

The situations above are presented as factual information, and they reflect some misuse of administrator tools, however, I cannot say what their effect was on those editors. The only matter about which I can provide a report of the effect of Adam Cuerden's actions on other editors is on my own case, on my near abandonment of Wikipedia because of the stalking by that administrator.

My reason for providing you these is that I believe that Adam Cuerden is abusing of his sysop privileges. I was stalked openly and directly, I contacted some administrators and two arbitrators, no one wanted to take any action and some even told me to take care that I could enter in trouble. I now volunteer this information so others can see what happened at least with me, this is all I can give, I have no more and I will not enter in issues. I was stalked, virtually abused and only now I am slowly returning to edit, I hope that I will not get Adam Cuerden on my back again just because I exposed this facts about his behavior or that his sympathizers come after me as it already happened before.

I see Adam Cuerden as a fairly good editor who perhaps received his administrator tools when still unprepared. He seems to lack the necessary self-control and respect for others and for convictions that differ from his own. Even if often regretting his actions and trying to mend them (not in my case), the fact is that he lacks restraint and uses anything at hand when he "needs" it. His behavioral problems are not only my personal view as it was clearly reflected in the voting at his candidacy for arbitrator. Already an editor who has no respect for others is a problematic editor who may drive off some well intended new editors who lack experience or knowledge for facing his actions. If that editor is also an administrator and uses his tools in an abusive manner, then the problem is worst as then other editors are not only abused but victimized with no chance to respond. This may lead to a situation in which the whole Wikipedia system is placed in cause and fair administrators and editors (the majority) will be tainted by the misbehavior of a few, and many potential good editors will be driven off this worthy project. Someone said that Wikipedia is better with Adam Cuerden as administrator, I ask at the cost of how many potentially good editors?

As Adam Cuerden is an editor with fair capacities whose only problem seems to be self-control, the remedy of retiring his administrator tools until he acquires better self restrain and shows more respect for others, seems to be adequate as far as he may be able to request such tools at a future time when he is better prepared to use them for the good of Wikipedia and never for the good of an own purpose. In this way, what is the source of the problem (administrative tools available) will be held away from Adam Cuerden until he and the community feel that he is able to have access to them but will not use that access unless fully justified. A good editor can continue to be a good editor without administrator tools, in fact many good editors never use them, in my inexperienced view, administrator tools are to be used only in extreme cases and for preserving Wikipedia, not for preserving any particular conviction, and if a situation calls for it, there will be always an experienced administrator who can use those tools when alerted.

If an administrator recognizes he has made errors, he should be more than happy to show that he doesn't need to use those tools for continuing to be a good editor, that those tools are just a trust that he is willing to earn again later; it shouldn't affect whatsoever his capacity of providing solid contributions. I am sure that Adam Cuerden can show this and that he will be able to show everyone that administrative tools don't make him or define him, only complement him, and as such, he can excel as an editor independently of those tools, and come back later as a better administrator. Jenny^Len☤ 09:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who support this summary:

1. Jenny^Len☤ 18:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Endorse I also experienced similar stalking in December of 2007 by Adam and the deletion of an article on 12 December 2007 [81] which I - and various other editors had previously worked on - with no advance notice or AfD. I exposed his improper action and restored the article from a backup copy on my computer, only to have him falsely claim that he restored it himself on 14 December 2007! Arion 3x3 (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   comment Adam did restore the article, as is visible from the fact that old revisions is available in the article history. For reasons of our license this is the preferred method when restoring an article. If no admin had restored the revisions then the article history would start with your edit. How anyone can believe that this article was a csd#1 case is beyond me though. Taemyr (talk) 21:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. Endorse When I read Jennylen's accusation of stalking included in the above, I was skeptical. I looked into the information she gave above. The diffs lead to 6 articles/talk pages that Jennylen first edited sometime between Sept 24 and Oct 14, 2007 As far as I can determine from the histories, Adam Cuerden had not edited any of these articles when Jennylen first edited them. He edited them shortly after. To be precise, 1, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 22 days after she first edited them. He reverted some of her edits. Is this just a case of two editors with a lot of common interests? I don’t think it can be – the edits of the six articles amount to a high percentage of Jennylen’s editing activity in the time period involved. Personally, I think this could be called “stalking”. If that term is not accurate, how about: “following her around and watching what she does”? I can hear people asking what’s this got to do with alleged misuse of admin tools? My question is whether this questionable behaviour is acceptable for an administrator, or whether some time off is needed. Wanderer57 (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Clarification I do not understand why the GWB article history did not show my recreation of the article after it was improperly deleted by Adam, but what I wrote is the absolute truth.[82] I was not able to access the article or the history of the article on December 13, and the deletion did not even appear on my watchlist! The only way I knew it was deleted was the fact that suddenly all the wikilinks to that article - in other articles - appeared red colored and did not work. Mysterious further deletion at the WP:ANI: I wrote to an administrator that I had noticed had been fair in the past, and asked him what can be done about this. He suggested that I go to WP:ANI and report this as an incident. I did this on 14 December 2007 (which is only accessible in my edit history). [83] Mysteriously, Archive 116 (covering that time period) of the Administrators' Noticeboard does not have my posting about the incident, nor Adam Cuerdon's reply. [84] IT JUST DISAPPEARED AFTER ADAM COMMENTED ON IT!! Explain that. Arion 3x3 (talk) 23:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4. Endorse; very well put, speaks volumes, and is obviously from the heart. Dreadstar † 02:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Concur in part To be clear: I endorse the apparent fact that Adam Cuerden took interest in Jenny's edits on one article and inspected her edits elsewhere. I do not endorse the remainder of the commentary, as I believe that this type of action does not inherently constitute "wikistalking" and may, depending on circumstances, be appropriate and protective of the project. Antelan ^talk 03:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Endorse Examples of misuse of admin tools in content diputes in which he was involved as an editor can be found above. His treatment of an engaged newbie in a very uncollegial way speaks more to inappropriate behavior as an experienced editor, not as an administrator, however, and should probably be the subject of a "user conduct" RFC rather than an "administrative conduct" RFC. Abridged ^talk 16:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Endorse Disgraceful behaviour. The most damning and indisputably bravest evidence presented. No sign yet of remorse or apology or promise to mend his ways. Just more of the same. The show goes on. Peter morrell 16:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Endorse, in essence anyway. In scrolling edits to his talk page surrounding one of the early blocks diffed above, I find a series of collegial reminders were posted there cautioning him not to use tools against those he's in disputes with, thus demonstrating he should know better than he let on in the early stages of the arbitration. I found cases in his article protections in which he protected immediately following his own "having the last word" type edits to the article. Most troubling of all, I see a good number of editors who should know better encouraging him to continue in such abuses of his position, and gang banging complainers with ad hominems instead of furnishing good explanations. And I see that it's largely been the same small circle of editors showing up to do so, time after time. Even in cases where the accusation of "POV pushing" is somewhat justified, the accusation is not, and never has been, the accuser's own "Get Out of Jail Free" card allowing him or her to be abusive toward fellow editors, to misuse admin tools in content disputes, to fish in cu, or to canvass. It's embarrassing to see all the jaundiced "post hoc" treasure hunting through later edits to scramble up plausible excuses for a rash block. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Endorse Per Professor marginalia, who seems to say everything well. There might be some technical issues with specialized wiki definitions such as the word "stalking." But that does in no way detract from the essense, which is what I also tried to convey in my comment. Jenny was a new user- that is highly important here. As a new user I came into the same environment, and acted just as she did: I thought edit warring, for example, was just the done thing...... because it was. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Endorse. In particular, Jenny's concluding two paragraphs, and the comments here by Professor marginalia 18:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC) and Peter morrell 16:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC), who wrote "No sign yet of remorse or apology or promise to mend his ways. Just more of the same." --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 08:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Endorse. A tour de force of evidence of repeated behavior. Dana Ullman ^Talk 03:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Jennylen (Adam Cuerden)

Jennylen, in her early days as an editor, had a major problem with... well, here are some quotes from her version of Quantum biology, which was written over and replaced a perfectly good (if short) article on the actual scientific field. [85] (Admin-only link). I'll quote some small bits of it:

"There is no explanation yet for the precise synchrony of motion that occurs in large flocks of birds or schools of fish. Evasive or defensive action as a group as well as unified directional motion cannot be explain through sound or transmitted communication. It seems to exist some kind of field that is helping to coordinate the group's behavior."

In other words, telepathic fields are the only way birds can organise into V-shapes.

[Cyril W. Smith] concludes that living systems produce a characteristic pattern of frequencies as an expression of their electrochemical activities. These frequencies are strong enough to induce observable synchronization in tadpoles in the presence of yellow light. Smith is proposing biocommunication between organisms in the presence of light and a weak electromagnetic field. He suggests that this unseen information transfer is accomplished by the macroscopic systems relying on photon exchange in the presence of magnetic vector potentials. His theory links to Popp's concept of biophotons.

Again, telepathy, with only the vaguest connection to quantum mechanics OR biology.

If someone replaces an article on an actual, well-accepted scientific field with patent nonsense, combed from the farthest fringes, deleting the information that was there, then it is right and proper to check their other contributions.

Users supporting this summary:

1. Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. But can't you recognize The Truth^TM when you see it? Don't fall for those who would have you believe quantum biology has to do with boring old stuff like ATP synthesis... Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. I would hope others would do the same to/for me. Indeed, people have done this. So long as the other contributions are weighed per their own merits, and not unduly colored by perceptions of the original offending edits, this seems a reasonable approach. Antelan ^talk 03:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. What we have here is a classic case of a newbie ignoring an experienced editor and then the Community. Its a classic tale - the newbie, rather than taking the advise, reading policy and doing all those thing we expect of them - as we have all done - ignores policy and forgies on POV pushing and being disruptive. If editors don't wish to follow policy - then too bad - goodbye - there are plenty of blogs out there than can comment on. And if this is more evidence against AC, then OMG, it's time for editors to start wondering why we have all the policies to begin with and exactly what we are doing here in Wikipedia... Shot info (talk) 03:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Adam. Let’s see if I have this straight. You don’t trust someone’s edits because you think that a vague and tentative discussion of goose migration is nonsense. So you study their edits of at least six other articles that YOU HAVE NEVER EDITED to see if they make sense to you. You do not trust the usual editors of those articles to keep an eye on new edits of their articles. Is that a fair statement?

   While I am here, I also want to ask about a little biography article titled George de la Warr. In October, editor Jennylen made an edit, adding information to the short article. She left the edit note “aded content, will add sources”. Three hours later you removed that information, with the edit note: “Remove unsourced content.” Since you had not edited there before, I believe you followed her edit trail to get there. The question is this. In a Wikipedia bulging with ^{[citation needed]} notes, is removing obscure biographical details because they lack sources A) an urgent priority to maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia OR B) a way of being a nuisance to someone whose edits you do not like? Wanderer57 (talk) 05:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   If you notice someone making very bizarre, misleading, and poor-quality edits in one article, it's entirely reasonable to check whether they're making poor edits in other articles. Edit histories are open for everyone to see. This "stalking" nonsense is, well, nonsense. (By the way, the TYPOGRAPHICAL EXUBERANCE isn't helping your case.) Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   It's very, very, VERY odd that Wanderer seems to fight the fight against vandalism, and doesn't think that checking (and possibly editing) those vandals edits in other articles is normal practise? I can only assume this is wikistalking using his odd version of policy? Shot info (talk) 05:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   In response to Wanderer's question, it was A. Urgent maintenence of the integrity of the encyclopedia. Jennylen was running around and MAKING THINGS UP off the top of her head, or, as B later pointed out, copy and pasting copyrighted material that someoene else made up off the top of their heads. Indeed, checking it out, we can end here: The George de la Warr stuff? Also a copyvio: Her edit All the new material comes from here. Adam Cuerden ^talk 06:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I think you went back to the George de la Warr material, found a copyvio, and are now retroactively using that justification for the revert. If that was the original reason to revert, it would have been normal to mention it then.

   I apologize for the typographical exuberance. Let me try again.

   Adam. Let’s see if I have this straight. You don’t trust someone’s edits because you think that a vague and tentative discussion of goose migration is nonsense. So you study that person's edits of other articles that you have never edited. You do not trust the usual editors of those articles to keep an eye on new edits of their articles. Is that a fair statement? Wanderer57 (talk) 14:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5. I am afraid if this sort of evidence is going to be used to condemn Adam, we might as well get rid of all admins, and all of us just leave Wikipedia to predation by WP:FRINGE elements. We could easily turn all of Wikipedia into an Encyclopedia of the Paranormal. I am sure it would be interesting to read and entertaining, and maybe have some good material in it too, but if I am not mistaken, this is not the goal of Wikipedia.Filll (talk) 01:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Filll -- Please tell me what it is about my evidence that causes you to label it "this sort of evidence"? Wanderer57 (talk) 01:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I am sorry, if you have to ask, and are not able to see the evidence clearly right now from what is presented here, then I do not think I want to get into more of a discussion on this point. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 02:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I am concerned about such an outcome as well, and fear that it may well happen. Over on Wikipedia Review they propose that with the level of dysfunction on Wikipedia, the best thing that a principled scientist can do is to walk away from the project. I am beginning to think they are right. By providing a veneer of credibility to a place where aggressive purveyors of nonsense are nurtured and protected, might we ultimately be doing more harm than good? Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6. Comment only. I don't see the word telepathy. Those things are indeed unexplained. If she's talking about them in QB, then mayhap she's talking about something like the new -and scientific- discovery of magnetic molecules in birds -I think their eyes. This is QB, but not telepathy, and similar to the above.

   And Cuerden, what are you talking about calling those quotes telepathy? Magnetism is a very legit way of communication, and is not related to telepathy, except in the ideas which went out of vogue a long long time ago. In the paranormal in the first quote, the term would be morphic resonance, and the quote isn't talking about that. So why did you even think she was proposing something paranormal or unscientific? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, Besides the quotes from Jennylen's edits above, it might also be beneficial for us to see some diffs where Adam gave Jennylen helpful advice. I'm a bit curious as to why Adam made the diff he uses as his example an "admin-only" version. It doesn't appear to violate policy or guideline in a way that would necessitate admin deletion, it doesn't seem to be an extreme circumstance, didn't have personal information or libelous content..what exactly was the reason for the article's deletion, then subsequent restoration of all the edits except for Jennylen's September edits to the article. Why not just do a standard revert, leaving them in the revision history? Dreadstar † 07:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several reasons: #1 It's copyrighted material [though that was discovered later], so couldn't be restored later on, #2 the details of the history, which are somewhat complicated - basically, it was CSd'd - I think after some quick discussion, but I can't swear to that - as patent nonsense (CSD #1), which, as it seems to be simply making things up, is probably a fair judgement. I was then asked by the page's original contributor why I deleted it, and in looking at it, discovered Jennylen had overwrote an article that actually described the academic field. This was around the time Jennylen was causing trouble and edit warring in a lot of places, so it didn't seem worth restoring those versions. Judgement call, probably wouldn't make the same one now, but, you know. It was fairly early in my admin carer, and I was trying to guess at the best way to do things. Adam Cuerden ^talk 08:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*::Adam. Sorry to be so persistent but I'm still hoping to see an answer to my question: Let’s see if I have this straight. You don’t trust someone’s edits because you think that a vague and tentative discussion of goose migration is nonsense. So you study that person's edits of other articles that you have never edited. You do not trust the usual editors of those articles to keep an eye on new edits of their articles. Is that a fair statement? Wanderer57 (talk) 01:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Enough with the "have you stopped beating your wife?" badgering. You're bordering on WP:HARASS. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I for one would be in favor of the community ban option being considered at the second RfC for those bringing basically gratuitous charges and engaging in harrassment, to also be applied here, to editors I see engaging in the same bad faith edits and nastiness. Let's create a cost for those who use these Wiki mechanisms to harrass others. If you go against community standards and consensus and engaged in disruptive behavior, you get banned. Even if you are not the target of the RfC.--Filll (talk) 02:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond, Filll and Adam: I apologize for continuing the Rfc "process" beyond the point where it is apparently supposed to have ended. My explanation is that the Rfc process and its boundaries are not clear. I was under the impression that discussions that were officially ended were locked or marked "do not edit". Wanderer57 (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compulsion to some type of actions and lack of self-restraint are, without doubt, repetitive behavior very difficult to control by who suffers it. Please observe Adam Cuerden's behavior on 22 January 2008. After responding to my view, he "remembered" Radionics and he also went to revert my contributions at the article Psychoneuroimmunology where he has never edited before.

As a comment to Adam Cuerden's response to my view, please be aware that:

• Who cares to study my contributions and goes to the References and Further reading (when there are no inline ref-calls) will see that I always include sources; by checking those sources, the basis of my contributions will be found. I am not in the habit of "making things up in my head." My time at Wikipedia is for helping particle by particle and not for shining with erudition and self-aggrandisement.
• In many of the diffs that I provided, together with the text, Adam Cuerden deleted sources, in some cases University press sources and even registered patents
• Any editor who believes that anything beyond his limits of knowledge is made up in the mind of others, and is "utter crap," instead of researching the sources provided and expanding his knowledge, is not exactly an asset to an educational or encyclopedic project. To also believe that his knowledge is on a par with advanced fields of research or insensible to the passage of time and advances in diverse fields is unhelpful to the project and patronising to other editors.
• To point to sites reproducing information found in Wikipedia is questionable as it raises the question of where that was found first. A clear example of this is here where Adam Cuerden, who has now re-started his stalking of my articles, reverting my contributions in articles that he has never edited before, shows it very clearly.

But most important: Any actions I may have had, even the most incorrect, should not have obliged Adam Cuerden to his actions, those were chosen by him from many existing possibilities, most more educative than the ones he took. To discredit me or to try to lead my summary to question who I am or how bad an editor I am, will not magically vanish the stalking I was subjected to, the attitudes and behavior of Adam Cuerden or his abuse of administrator tools in the diffs I provided, it may only work as a sleight of hand, trying to distract the focus of attention and so make the observer become less aware of what is really happening.

I kindly remind that my summary is directed not to why Adam Cuerden behaves as he does but to the fact that he does. And that this behavior has been repeated many times and is still happening now. Adam Cuerden's lack of self-restraint seems to be Adam Cuerden's worst enemy. Jenny^Len☤ 00:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who support this summary:

1. Jenny^Len☤ 00:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. —Whig (talk) 00:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Arion 3x3 (talk) 03:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. endorse Peter morrell

1. Jenny posted her comment at 09:14, 21 January 2008. Adam posted his response at 00:03, 22 January 2008. Adam's first edit to Psychoneuroimmunology occurred at 06:16, 22 January 2008. His edit reverted all JennyLen's recent edits. He also just now started on Radionics again. He once tried to block me for a week, saying:

For god's sake, lad, when you're up at ArbCom for your behaviour at one set of articles, it's generally not considered good form to start carrying on at another in the same manner. I'm giving you a one-week block for soapboxing and edit-warring at Homeopathy. As always, if you disagree with this, {{unblock}} is the way to request a review. Adam Cuerden talk 01:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[86]

No, Adam is not up before ArbCom for stalking, or whatever this is called, but this indicates to me seriously wikicidal behavior, not to mention that one thing we're considering here is whether he has the ability to hold himself back or not (relevant to his use of admin tools). I believe Adam is a good guy, and edits according to his best intentions and judgment. But if it were me, I'd say good judgment just now would have been to leave Jennylen alone. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Endorseper Martinphi above. This behavior is problematic. Comment, however, better for RFC on user conduct than RFC on Admin conduct. It really feels like we are working on two separate RFCs here. Abridged ^talk 19:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find this extended discussion difficult to follow here. Can it be moved to the Talk page? —Whig (talk) 05:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think moving this discussion elsewhere is going to help. Wanderer57 (talk) 15:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.