Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous): Difference between revisions

Do a Google Search for my username. It's my real name.

First page that comes up, if you're in the UK, anyway - which I am, is a WikiSynergy page, http://www.wikisynergy.com/wiki/Adam_Cuerden_%28Shoemaker%27s_Holiday%29

It's an attack site. And what does it use to attack me?

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Matthew_Hoffman - an ArbCom case which the ArbcCom themselves, years later, admitted was false, should never have been taken, and involved Charles Matthews, then an arbitrator, abusing his powers to attack someone who accidentally disrespected him.

The case was about a block that had happened three months earlier which Charles Matthews asked me to undo, giving no reason, while I was about to head into exams. I offered to hand off to ANI. However, Charles Matthews was upset that I didn't just undo a block that I did not remember because it was several months previous, and didn't have toime to investigate as I was in the run in to exams. This wasn't good enough for him, so he decided to vindictively go for my head - and this after the user in question had been unblocked.

The blocked user was undeniably a single-purpose account, and an ANI thread had reviewed an accepted the block and presumption of sockpuppetry, and an independent admin had reviewed it, and declined to unblock before Charles came around.

Calling it a "test case", he called, for my head, and before I had evven given my evidence, UninvitedCompany had, at the request ofhis fellow-arbitratr, written a proposed decision calling for me to be desysoped, and many pother things. Because, you know, rushing to judgement before the defendant has had a chance to defend himself clearly shows this isn't a kangaroo court.

Charles MAtthews went mad, attacking many respected admins. Quotes from him:

• "At best User:Moreschi regards policy as an inconvenience for admins. And User:Jehochman here is a meddling hypocrite, at best. On a later occasion User:Adam Cuerden validated a controversial block of User:Jehochman's."

• "two admins and a dog" (Attack on Jehochman)

• "I cannot see how it is acceptable to summarise a user in the block log, which is an indelible record, as a "vandalism-only account", when it is no such thing."

Oh, really, Charles Matthews? And yet, four years later, noone can see that block log, but your attack page is the first ranking in Google. Further, knowing that this was a possibility, I was forced to fight this case through my exams, since I'm the only person of my name in the world. This resulted in me having to drop out of university.

Oh, and late in the case, they admitted that no other dispute resolution had occured. So they opened an RfC. The RfC came out strongly against a desysop. UninvitedCompany stated that the community were simply "circl[ing] wagons" and thus could be ignored.

Meanwhile, Arbcom circled wagons around Charles Matthews.

• Uninvited: "Let's try and leave Charles Matthews out of this"
• Paul August: "The issue at hand is what to do about Adam, not what to do about Charles... I can't imagine any reasonable editor thinking that Charles needs anything done about him."

Charles Matthews never received any negative consequences from this case, except for losing his next election in a landslide of anger at him. As mentioned before, the next arbcom reviewed, and ddeclared the case was a farce.

The Arbcom has now accepted that the case was a mistake from start to finish. But they refuse to make any meaningful amends. The top-ranked page in my name is an attack page based on their ethical failures. They could issue a statement, attempt to edit the attack wiki, discuss the problem with others, or many other options. They will do none of those.

Wikipedia has ruined my life.

Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The real lesson here would be WP:REALNAME (i.e., don't use your real name). That, and sometimes you have to put Real Life even over the most dramatic wikidrama. PS As for the "attack page" - I doubt Arbcom can do anything, and if you can't realistically threaten WikiSynergy with a libel action (probably not), then there's probably nothing you can do beyond putting your own version of events out there.Rd232 ^talk 00:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has crept up the rankings because we have deleted everything else. Adam, you were vanished, and you came back, and then even resumed editing under your own name. By coming back, you've lost any right to claim Wikipedia has hurt you as you have made a conscious decision to resume editing under your real name. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look at what's actually linked, Vandenberg. It's not on Wikipedia, it's an attack site which Arbcom has known about for ages. And that's an incredibly self-serving statement, I might add. "We've hur you, but because you showed up again, we can ignore the permanent harm caused". Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"it's an attack site which Arbcom has known about for ages" - so? Arbcom has no control over it, and any attempt to even influence it will surely be rejected. Rd232 ^talk 00:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, Arbcom has no responsibility to correct injustices caused. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What resolution do you seek? —David Levy 00:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"In other words, Arbcom has no responsibility to correct injustices caused" - no, I said quite precisely that it had no power to address your specific concern [or if it wasn't clear, I meant rejected by WikiSynergy]. If you can show that it has any such power, there is something to talk about. Rd232 ^talk 00:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Were the risks of using your real name in this context not obvious to you? If "David Levy" weren't such a common name, I probably wouldn't. —David Levy 00:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was fairly young, rather naive because of my upbringing, and foolishly trusted Wikipedia and the safeguards put in place such as Arbcom to be a safe place. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You describe your behavior as "foolish." I decline to express disagreement. —David Levy 01:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could claim to be young when you vanished after the ArbCom case, however you unvanished in May 2009 in full knowledge of the fact that Arbcom isnt able to control what is said off Wikipedia. When you unvanished, the wikisynergy page looked like this. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick reality check. This edit of yours - "while I was suffering from severe depression, illness, and on the verge of nervous breakdown from the monetary situation at the time - I was literally faced with being homeless" - suggests there was plenty of other bad stuff going on in your life. Arbcom is not to blame for your exit from university and the ruination of your life. At best it is the author of a wikidrama which should be seen as such. Besides, with the best will in the world, who searches for you (or might at the time have been presumed to have been searching for you) on the internet? What is the connection between a spat on wikipedia findable in google, and the ruination of your life? Have you no sense of perspective? And is not this thread you rekindling the wikidrama. WTF? How on earth do you expect to be taken seriously. As to the so-called attack site, it seems remarkably neutral in tone, and corroborates the claims you make here, that arbcom nullified its own decision. Unwelcome as it may be to have a page about one's self on the internet, exactly how is that website attacking you? --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? Fuck you all. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What an interesting response from someone concerned about online content injuring his reputation. —David Levy 01:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I point out that Wikipedia has ruined my life. I got made fun of in exchange. I get told that Wikipedia thinks that it's perfectly fine that everything happened. I didn't even get a modicum of sympathy. So, yeah, fuck you. I give and give to Wikipedia. I get begged to come back, but if I do, the abuse just starts up again, and I feel dirty for having sunk my self esteem yet again because I thought that the goals of the site were worth it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, your claim is self evidently bogus. That makes it difficult to proceed. We can, and I do, sympathise with your predicament. But your analysis I find deeply flawed and your actions self-injuring. The irony - if there is one, and if I understand correctly - is that the premise of the so-called attack site, is that you're a bad man for demanding that fringe science claims be supported by reliable sources, something which fringe science is not all that happy about. In any rational perspective, that puts you on the side of the angels (if you'll forgive the metaphor) and ought to be seen as a badge of honour. It's a shame you don't see it that way. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also Locus of control. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who's made fun of you? Who's opined that your misfortune is "perfectly fine"?

You appear offended by any response other than unconditional agreement that Wikipedia is horrible and single-handedly ruined your life through no fault of your own or any outside entities. —David Levy 01:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like displaced anger, when really, as Tagishsimon points out, the "attack page" (it's not that bad) should be a badge of honour. Rd232 ^talk 01:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My observations of Wikipedia is that it can be stressful, abusive, and grind people up. There is a sort of excuse I call the "one straw argument". Very often, when someone's life goes badly wrong, there is not one sole, single, isolated cause. There are typically multiple aggravating factors. But there's something wrong where for each factor, the cry goes up "I'm just one straw! It was the fault of all those other straws! - and since they obviously caused problems, I can't have caused a problem, so it's not my problem!" -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 02:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Wikipedia can be all those things and more. I do like your "one straw argument". In this case, "Wikipedia" (ArbCom) tried to accept it's role and limit the ongoing damage (granting Adam C a "vanishing" and then revising the old ArbCom decision(turning it into more of a contorted mess than it already was)). No doubt we could have done more to assist, but I get tired of being personally blamed for a decision made by someone else years ago (and at a different stage of Wikipedia/arbitration) and required to go to extraordinary lengths to fix the problem, esp. given that Adam C has resumed using his own name again on Commons and Wikipedia. Grown ups around here need to accept the consequences of their actions. Wikimedia needs to be more clear that it wont protect its users. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification requested - Have you been personally blamed, in the sense of called out by name? Or do you mean that in a looser, more metaphorical sense of the phrase? -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 03:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reality check, part 2.

The initial case, whether Charles was right or wrong, was about misuse of admin tools, and that misuse was well evidenced. If Charles had never existed or had avoided his part, your misuse of admin tools to block content dispute opponents on false grounds and multiple occasions over a period of several months in 2007 was still more than enough for a desysopping case. Your story and claims related to your personal background led to a compassionate offer to consider extenuating circumstances. You were offered your adminship back if you coulkd show stability for a few months. Your story also changed or turned out to include significant contradictory details which didn't impress me very much either (details excluded here because I have no doubt you were genuinely in deep distress and these were partly covered in AC emails as well as in personal correspondence to individual arbs and on-wiki). Nonetheless you were correctly allowed and helped to vanish and multiple apologies for the procedural matters were made to you by various arbs both informally and formally. In 2009 (wrongly as I still believe) the case was fully vacated due to procedural concerns even though in fact its core findings of admin misconduct were not in doubt. You used this, and still use it, as a platform to claim loudly that everything was incorrect - it was not. You then continued to make a loud noise and also resumed editing under your own name.

This is where the sad tale leads. With compassion, you have created most of your own mess here. I wish you had not, but that is what the evidence says. In May 2009, 2 years later and knowing without doubt from the past the possible effect of real name editing, you asked to have your pseudonym account renamed so that you could edit under your real name again, knowing more than most the effect real name editing can have. I stopped keeping an eye on the case around 2009. Now 3.5 years on, here you are ranting again about Charles Matthews and UC, and events from 2007 and making fallacious claims about how others view you.

In sum, you had exceptionally helpful handling, vacating of a case in which you clearly (procedure aside) had done wrong to other users, help vanishing, even an offer of reinstatement as an admin if you could show yourself to be back to stability for a reasonable period of some months. You knew precisely the potential for problems from real-name editing by 2009, having previously vanished. You largely placed the fire under your own cauldron and jumped in. That is why others are linking to terms like locus of control and suggesting displaced anger. You have my sympathy for the outcome, but I cannot let you fully blame others for it in the manner you have done. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is about whether the title should be "Why Wikipedia and Arbcom can be major stressors and when in combination with other stressors, utterly ruin your life". Tip - one gets the moral right to lecture only after one has done something to address the stressor. Otherwise, it's extremely unhelpful hectoring. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 03:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I did something. Several somethings, as the user knows. I reviewed the case de novo, removed grounds that were poorly founded (one proposed issue dated back 8 months and was "out of time"), clarified the evidence on the rest, repolaced a keyt finding he objected to with one more accurate, negotiated recognition of the personal issues and that he could have a relatively easy route back to adminship and the past overlooked, and refrained from jumping on any bandwagon. So by your criterion I have the right to make a comment. But even if I had not done so, there are two other "rights" in the frame. They are the right of others to not have their deeds unfairly described (and the ethics of staying silent when I have good cause to believe claims against others are poorly founded), and the right of the user himself to have straight honest talk and responses from those who knew about the case and to understand where others agree or disagree with his points. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have read what you have written. I would like to stay focused on what has been requested vis-a-vis what can be done. Seth Finkelstein (talk) 03:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This seems like really unpleasant scab-picking and gnawing the bones of old wounds, from both sides. Without any comment on who's right and who's wrong (and honestly, I really don't give a flying fuck; I remember this mess when it first started and it was, to put it mildly, a clusterfuck of epic proportions), can we just archive this and move on? Whether or not there were problems in how it was handled, Adam is doing himself no favours here, and this is just going to devolve into s/he said-s/he said drama. In the interests of both reducing drama and showing compassion for Adam (and his Google results--blah blah, noindex, yeah sure that always works), anyone object to closing this? → ROUX ₪ 03:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Endorse and courtesy blank thread Nothing served, bad judgment to have opened an epic "why I am pissed" that can only end up biting the author himself. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This user seemingly needs protecting from himself. The only question is whether (per Sven Manguard's comments) others also need protecting from him. Rd232 ^talk 03:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To the comment on others needing protection from Adam, I would say so, but I have a stake in the matter. As to the issue of blanking, I suppose there's really nothing for me one way or the other. He's going to be back, and when he comes back, he might want to respond. For all he is, Adam is clever, what he does in public is rarely blockable, what he does in private is rarely verifiable. Unless ArbCom blocks him for breaking the vanished policy or breaking any other promises he made with them, I'm neutral on the blanking issue. If ArbCom does indefinitely block or ban Adam, then yes, I'd say blank this, as he would no longer be around to defend himself. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adam, have you tried to contact the folks at Wikisynergy? Or are you asking our volunteers to do something that you won't do yourself? I don't know anything about the other site, but if it's like us, then we sit up and take notice when the affected person contacts us himself (e.g., through OTRS), not when some third-party contacts us with some story about how the other guy is upset with them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I removed a second posting here, on account of the fact that I really have far better things to do with my time than continue with this. The fact of the matter is this. I believe I am right. Adam believes he is right. The two of us do not have an agreed upon set of facts to use as a starting point for any sort of dispute resolution, so there really isn't anywhere this can go. I'm sure there's other drama elsewhere for people to go watch, if they are so inclined. As far as I am concerned however, this incident is thoroughly tapped out. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]