Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Motions and requests by the parties

Appeal for calm

1) Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Workshop#Hello, can everyone calm down please?

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Couldn't think where else to put this to get everyone's attention. Let's get some of the discussion on the talk page, and tidy up the proposed findings of fact and suchlike bits on this page. Carcharoth 21:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

For AdamCuerden

Was this [1] the basis of your 72-hour block of MatthewHoffman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for "harrassment?" If not, what was the basis of your block? Mackensen (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but that sounds about right. Particularly the part beginning "Your personal attacks and accusations against me are more abuse of this forum, and very clear evidence that the editors and administrators involved in this article are trying to use it to push their agenda." I probably should have labelled it gross incivility, though. Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you take into account the context of his remarks, given that he was replying to other editors? Mackensen (talk) 03:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I thought I did, but what I seem to have done is looked at just the diff section - which only gives the paragraphs before the comments - and presumed they were representative of the rest of the content. I have Irreducible complexity on my watchlist, and when checking for problems on my watchlist I usually use diff.

I'll be honest: I hadn't realised before this moment how misleading that way of checking could be. The paragraphs shown on diff give a completely different context than the page as a whole does, since, perhaps by chance, the paragraphs just before his replies happen to be pretty calm and evidence-based, making his comments look far worse. Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Whack a mole

1) When playing whack-a-mole with obvious sock puppets of banned or blocked users, administrators are not required to fill out reams of Vogon forms before blocking. A simple explanation will suffice.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Key word: "obvious." The Uninvited Co., Inc. 06:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. I am thinking of situations like Jon Awbrey (talk · contribs). Feel free to rework the wording. - Jehochman ^Talk 02:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

If you don't know who it is, it isn't obvious. (There are some who are so similar as to be nearly indistinguishable, but then you can name multiples.) GRBerry 03:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I've looked more thoroughly at the talk page thread that started all this, and the impression I get now is of a fairly inexperienced editor (Hoffman) running up against experienced editors who (frankly) eat editors like him for breakfast. They were probably right in what they said, but due to the history of the page they bit first and didn't ask questions later. Hoffman was flailing a bit and flinging around accusations of personal attacks that weren't really any more justified than the subsequent allegations against him. The difference being that he got blocked and they didn't. For the record, it seems that User:Nascentatheist made the first sock allegation (near the start of this post), naming User:Jason Gastrich. Whether the behaviour of Nacentathiest and the others in that thread should be examined, I wouldn't like to say, but I think that thread should be examined closely. On the other hand, I've just discovered this post where Nascentathiest very responsibly points out that the indefinite block was excessive. Adam Cuerden's response can be seen here. The more I look at all this, the worse it seems. I'm going to add this to the evidence page (is anyone still reading that?) Carcharoth 07:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Most new accounts are not sock puppets

2) Most new accounts are not sock puppets, even the ones that use edit summaries, know wikicode and demonstrate familiarity with Wikipedia policies. When there is any significant doubt that an account might be a newcomer rather than a disruptive sock puppet, a careful investigation is required before taking action.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Or at least some evidence. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 06:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Flip side of what I proposed above. Applicable to Hoffman. Again, feel free to rewrite. - Jehochman ^Talk 04:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said in saying the case should be taken "For an adult who takes the time to read documentation and look at examples of article text, it is trivial to understand what Wikipedia is and how it works before contributing." However I, and we, have no statistically valid evidence to even hold an opinion on "most". GRBerry 03:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Banning policy

3) A community ban occurs when an editor is blocked indefinitely, and no administrator is willing to unblock.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

From WP:BAN. - Jehochman ^Talk 12:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

How is this relevant here? Hoffman was later unblocked. It's also misleading. A discussion needs to have taken place. This wording implies that a single administrator indefinitely blocking has carried out a community ban. I suggest adding the words "and the community is notified" after indefinitely. Carcharoth 12:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

An actual quote from WP:BAN is the following: "If no administrator proposes unblocking a user, and the block has received due consideration by the community, the user is considered banned." - which is much better than the oversimplification above. Carcharoth 12:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Most indefinite blocks are not bans - for example, no username block is a ban. Only those which have received significant consideration can be called bans. Snap judgment blocks of "vandalism only" accounts with at most a handful of edits almost never get the required level of consideration. Don't see why this one is relevant. GRBerry 03:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Community errors

4) The community sometimes mistakenly places bans. When this happens, we all share responsibility. We do not blame those who join the discussion in good faith, because that would have a chilling effect and discourage participation. Community members who fail to object, though silent, also share responsibility for the result.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. - Jehochman ^Talk 12:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It is unclear to me that this discussion was in fact a community ban discussion. "To be honest, I think an indef would be preferable here.". There is no mention in the discussion that this was a ban. If there had been, I would have probably commented in that thread at the time. You can't community ban an account that has only been editing for a week and for around 20 edits. That is not enough time to exhaust the community's patience. There is a difference between community bans and indefinite blocks for COI/spam abuse. If you don't see the difference, that might be the problem here. Carcharoth 13:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Objections noted and withdrawing proposal. - Jehochman ^Talk 00:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

No. Admins place blocks. A community ban exists if no other admin will unblock, but the onus is still on the original blocking admin to justify the block if challenged. There is no way to hold a community of volunteers accountable for not doing something, such as thoroughly reviewing a block. If the community "mistakenly places a ban" and "shares responsibility" for a bad ban, but no member of the community can be held responsible, then no one is responsible. This is unacceptable, and a troubling misunderstanding of the block and ban policies and realities. Thatcher131 00:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration

5) Before bringing an arbitration case, editors are expected to discuss their disagreements informally, and use lesser dispute resolution mechanisms when reasonable. Arbitration is the final step in Wikipedia's dispute resolution process.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Can't disagree. My first reaction was to suggest that the "committee should take the case to clarify existing policies." As I've encountered relevant evidence, I am no longer certain that is all that should be done. The committee does have a long history of being faster to accept disputes among admins, and in some sense there still was a dispute over what appropriate behavior is at the time the case was filed. GRBerry 03:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This should probably be reinforced. Unless I'm missing something, in this case the dispute resolution pathway was: send an email → email ignored → send another email → receive unsatisfactory response → ArbCom case. It would be nice to clarify that this is not the typical or preferred algorithm. MastCell ^Talk 21:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You missed "talk page post -> ignored" between the emails and "ANI thread -> conclude there is a real problem". But close. GRBerry 21:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, you're correct. Charles certainly made an effort to address this with Adam. My point was only that there are usually meant to be steps in between failed one-to-one communication and an ArbCom case. MastCell ^Talk 21:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Multiple editors with a single voice

6) It is not always possible to determine with complete certainty whether several editors are sockpuppets, meat puppets, or acquaintances who happen to edit Wikipedia. In such cases, remedies may be fashioned which are based on the behavior of the user rather than their identity. The Arbitration Committee may determine that editors who edit with the same agenda and make the same types of edits be treated as a single editor. (In the spirit of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Starwood)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, since there is now an argument that Matthew Hoffman may be a meatpuppet advocating for an ID group. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably best to define meatpuppet and ID here. In any case, the crux here seems to be how to make such determinations, and what the appropriate remedy. Indefinite blocks seem inappropriate, as that will catch new users who happen to edit with the same voice (it is possible to independently hold the same opinions as others without being a meatpuppet). Maybe topic bans? The problem here though is that this ends up freezing an article on the currently accepted consensus, making it nearly impossible to change, and effectively giving ownership of an article to the current editors. Carcharoth 21:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

While to some extent this is, perhaps, useful, I think at least one of the problems with this case was that I applied it much too fast, so I think if we're going to allow long bans for these kind of things, we need to set some requirements that must happen before the block, e.g. running an RfC, and perhaps a minimum number of edits. Now, obviously, the really disruptive editors - the Genesis vandal socks [which delete the content of Evolution and replace it with Genesis 1-2, in a coordinated campaign of sleeper accounts] - are simpler and obvious, but for these borderline issues... Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

There are a large number of people who have ID beliefs, or are generally informed about them. Is there any evidence to support the argument? The Arbs, with access to the original unblock appeal email, can judge this better than the rest of us. Absent some serious evidence, doesn't belong in the final decision. GRBerry 21:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC) actually about 20 hours prior to timestamp

Comment by others:

Blocking

7) Blocking is a serious matter. Administrators should be exceedingly careful when blocking. Blocks should be made only if other means are not likely to be effective.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Word for word from a Durova ArbCom final decision. --Irpen (talk) 21:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Adam Cuerden acted in good faith, but made bad decisions

1) Adam Cuerden attempted to act in good faith, though his assessment of the situation was incorrect, and his actions foolish and not as careful as they should have been.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The expection is not merely good faith but also reasonable thoroughness in assessing the situation. Also, I am not entirely convinced that you acted in good faith, because I suspect that your true purpose in issuing the block was to influence the content of evolution-related articles. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 06:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed by me as my own assessment of my actions. Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not necessary to be entirely convinced that Adam Cuerden has acted in good faith. Rather, the burden is on those who assert bad faith to show evidence of it. Thus far, I see no evidence of bad faith. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Please, everyone, look through the evidence presented by Carcharoth. "No evidence of bad faith"; hmm. There is plenty of evidence of bad faith after the 72 hour block. So I wonder what evidence would be satisfying here. And I think the whole business a test case; clearly there is a systemic problem when users still on the learning curve can be thrown off the site so quickly. By the way, one test of good faith in Adam would have been to seek to get any input at all from User:MatthewHoffman, to validate his real-world existence. Sounds like a real name, no? Charles Matthews 19:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it is noble for Charles Matthews to try to protect newbies who get bitten. Given the size of this site, I am sure it happens, and we should do what we can to prevent that. On the other hand, Adam Cuerden has been a good faith contributor and trusted member of the community, so we should be prepared to forgive him, at least once, even if he has screwed up badly. Finally, we have several million users to consider. They are frequently plagued by abusers like Jon Awbrey (talk · contribs). Sanctioning Adam Cuerden too severely in this case may have the unintended consequence of hindering valid efforts to protect the project. We must find a suitable compromise. Adam seems willing to accept that he made a mistake and change his ways. Also, we don't see other users stepping forward to say that Adam is a bad faith abuser. If that were the case, they should be lining up to give evidence. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

One of the purposes of users like Jon Awbrey is to get admins to over-react and become over-protective of the encyclopedia. That will end up being as disruptive as they can be. Don't think that all disruption is obvious. If you can cause a site to implode on itself as an over-reaction to the trolls, the trolls have gained a victory. Carcharoth 20:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. We need to work together, not implode. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

It is possible that Adam was trying to influence the content, but I think you would need a lot more evidence before proving that to anyone's satisfaction. The evidence might exist, but someone has to go and find it. Failing that, I'd opt for a parole or temporary desysop, rather than the current proposals (on the proposed decision page), partly because (as CBD has said) this type of action (moving rapidly to an indefinite block) is widespread and making an example of Adam doesn't seem right. Carcharoth 07:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

(response to Charles Matthews) Undeniably, both blocks were handled badly. The question is how much restorative justice can be achieved, and how much punitive justice is warranted. I have a real problem with making Adam a "test case" for a belief that blocking practice or WP:AN/I are broken. I had the not-entirely-pleasant experience of being a "test case" for Charles Matthews' belief that A7 is incorrectly applied. Improving policy or practice is a laudable goal; however, turning admins into punitive "test cases" to make these points is a disappointing and counterproductive approach. Is there a reason the wider issues require "test cases" rather than discussion at the Village Pump or other such venues? MastCell ^Talk 19:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I bawled you out over something I cared about on your User talk. You chose to publicise it at AN, and someone said I'd spat on you. I then chose to publicise it on wikien, and there were many people who agreed with you, and said I was being too idealistic. Which was quite possibly true. I went off to CAT:CSD as the result of that discussion, learned a lot, wrote some articles, and would now make a more nuanced case for exactly the same thing. That all worked out. I also bawled out a guy once for bad closing at AfD. That's about it. Here, as it happens, we have systemic problems with admins rathr than deletions. Deleted content can be brought back. We can unblock users, but will they love us still? It's more important that we treat the people on the site right, than the content. Rest my case. Charles Matthews 20:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with everything you're saying above. My point was only that operating by creating "test cases" isn't treating people on the site right either. I just don't believe that making an example out of Adam is going to effectively address any systemic problems we have with admins in general. Maybe Adam's actions warrant strong sanctions; the evidence and viewpoints presented here have certainly given me a lot to think about. But as far as the bigger changes you currently hope to see, why not make a more nuanced case for them as well? MastCell ^Talk 21:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant proposal. All this AGF talk of "faith" applies to editing and not blocking. The very basis of AGF is that it's easy to undo a mistake (editing mistake) and we should not jump the gun when we see a stupid edit unless the editor has a history that convinces us otherwise. There is no "faith" about blocks. Admins who issue bad block because their judgment suffers lapses should not be allowed to block regardless of how noble or merely "good faith" their intentions are. Admins who block in bad faith are exceptionally rare and any "faith" should not be invoked when discussing admin decisions. To summarize, unlike a bad edit, a bad block may result in irreparable harm. Faith-based discussion of a block is out of whack since AGF was never written with regards to blockers in the first place. --Irpen (talk) 03:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Since when does AGF apply only to editing? It warns us not to infer malice without demonstrable evidence. That applies to all spheres of activity on Wikipedia, not just editing. MastCell ^Talk 21:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Irpen. MastCell, you are invited to simply read WP:AGF. It is quite explicit. When you are viewing an edit made by another user, you should "assume good faith." I.e. "give the benefit of the doubt." It is a non-policy policy, in that it merely acts as an exhortation and guide for users in how to behave toward one another to avoid conflicts. However, when it comes to block, there is no benefit of a doubt. The blocking policy is pretty clear. When a block is issued, it should 1) have been reviewed, 2) be by an uninvolved administrator, 3) must occur after warnings, 4) should be obvious. In other words, the rationale has to be clear and obvious. There should be no assuming going on at all. You do not ask a person who has been blocked to assume the reason or assume that the administrator had greater wisdom than was demonstrated. Blocks have to demonstrate honest intent and good effect, and they should demonstrate these things ahead of time. Geogre (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I did read WP:AGF, immediately before posting the above. Obviously, I came to a somewhat different conclusion: that it enjoins us to assume that people working on the project are here to help rather than hinder it, and that this assumption presumably extends to admins as well as non-admins. I suppose I could ask you to read WP:BLOCK (which states, explicitly, that "Warning is not a prerequisite for blocking"). Otherwise I agree with everything you've said about the need for blocks to be clearly justifiable; I wasn't aware I was arguing otherwise. I was simply a bit mystified to hear that AGF applies to editing only - after all, I could assume all sorts of things about why this case has taken the shape it has, but WP:AGF tells me that wouldn't be a good idea. MastCell ^Talk 22:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Point is that wrt to committed editors (admins included) there is never even an issue about faith in the first place. We do not have admins that block in bad faith. The only "bad faith" blocks were when trolls hijacked admin-accounts and blocked Jimbo and some others. So, block's being "in good faith" is not a valid excuse. Being a bad faith user is grounds for an immediate ban. Admins previously desysopped by this None of the admins desysopped with the widest support of the community acted with the purpose to harm Wikipedia, violate policies, etc. So, no one is saying that those who blocked, those who applauded and those who refused to lift the block were acting in bad faith. The point is that good faith is already in the equation and is not an excuse of any sort for sloppy adminning. --Irpen 07:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden probably hasn't acted this foolishly before

2) While he was certainly wrong in this case, his other actions are generally much more defensible, and show better judgement - not that that's difficult.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I suppose this is a reasonable assessment, though that probably is there because, well... Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this needs to be investigated. We should look through Adam Cuerden's logs and compile a summary of his activities so we can form an overall view. Thus far we have seen a selective presentation of only negative evidence. That doesn't seem fair. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The block of Whig shows even worse judgment. Adam had protected the relevant article due to POV disputes, less than 24 hours later edit warred to try and keep {{POV}} tag off the article, filed and certified an RfC against the editor on the other side, and then later blocked that editor for violating a community sanction which was an outgrowth of the RfC he certified. Edit warring against his own justification for page protection and then blocking a user he certified being in a dispute with! I suspect that in general his actions are more defensible, but boy is that a doozy. GRBerry 03:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing the remainder of his blocking actions, I sense that Adam should be warned not to use his tools where he is a party to the dispute or holds strong partisan views. As I've seen his logs, this is generally situations where the editor on the receiving end is opposed to the Scientific point of view, which we know is not the Neutral point of view. He has less than 100 blocks and less than 50 protections in his log, so I believe appropriate remedies may be able to change the flaws showing in his pattern of behavior. This is more appropriately a matter for the committee's judgment than mine. GRBerry 03:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher, other blocks have been detailed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence#Adam's recent blocking history is spotty, with the most problematic looking to be the one here. See also User talk:Whig. Carcharoth (talk) 01:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Findings of Fact should not have the word "probably" in them. Either Adam has made other bad blocks (in which case diffs, please) or he hasn't. Thatcher131 00:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden

3) Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has edited Irreducible Complexity and other evolution-related articles in an effort to make the articles adhere to Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view. While this editing is laudable, it makes it clear that Adam Cuerden has specific content goals for these articles in mind.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Yes, his goal is to enforce Wikipedia policy. POV pushing, like spam and vandalism, damages the encyclopedia. I do not yet see evidence of a bona fide content dispute involving Adam Cuerden. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

We're not Vogons. If I repeatedly revert and warn a vandal who adds the irrelevant word "penis" to an article I am working on, is somebody suggesting that I shouldn't be allowed to block him? - Jehochman ^Talk 16:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

No. Why do you ask? Charles Matthews 20:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

To User:Adam Cuerden: yes, it's good practice to get others involved. It hardly matters who makes the block in a clear-cut situation, does it? And if the other won't make the block for you, perhaps it's not that clear-cut. If they just advise you to make the block anyway, it is good practice to look out for any "disclaimers" involved. After all, it's your reputation on the line then, not theirs. Charles Matthews 20:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I ask for the avoidance of doubt. I don't want somebody pointing to this later and saying that we're not supposed to block if we've been reverting vandalism. You know how difficult some people can be. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Bear in mind, please, my approach. I intended to get Adam to correct this mistake, voluntarily, in such a way as could appear a personal realisation that something had not been right, something had been excessive. In such a way that no review process had been needed. An admin had reconsidered an indef block, had read the log - "gosh, that was too strong - a month is enough - didn't mean to put it that way". Unblocks, leaves a Talk page note to MH. Adam and I would have had a little secret. End of story: MH might have left the site, but the matter would have ended in no fanfare. Why do we have a test case? For precisely this reason: the indef block was made in such a way as to obstruct this entirely humane and non-accusatory private review, discussed as between colleagues. Now, I would treat the next bad block just the same way: private email; talk page note, "did you have a mail from me?", no topic mentioned; another private mail, saying more clearly waht the issue is; another private mail asking for attention to the matter; a further mail saying you really ought to give this some attention, and, no, we should talk before you take this to any forum. Tell me, please, whether I'm not acting in the interests of everyone? As opposed to - I start an AN/I thread saying "Adam blocked badly here, and here's my case", and we get an adversarial discussion. Charles Matthews 21:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Query: Did you actually post to my talk page? I can recall no instance of this. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, so you did, but I'm afraid I managed to miss that as well. Mind you, it was on November 1st, and I was on holiday from Hallowe'en until the 5th of November, so it's perhaps not surprising it got lost. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you did just the right thing, until you came here, first I heard of this case, and started calling me names. I need to ask you to go through this Arbitration and refactor those incivil remarks, then I will retract PFF 10 below. - Jehochman ^Talk 21:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

In the interests of working together harmoniously, it might be best if the "dog" comment were retracted. How do you both feel about the "busybody" and "hypocrite" comments? Carcharoth 21:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't like them either. - Jehochman ^Talk 21:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggest adding Homeopathy to the list of relevant articles, based on evidence. GRBerry 03:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Copied from proposed decision to allow input from non-Arbs. WjBscribe 13:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Editing to comply with NPOV is not a "specific content goal" it is a basic requirement of Wikipedia policy. An administrator who has edited an article to do this should surely not be prohibited from acting qua administrator should they encounter a user disrupting that article. If passed, I worry that this proposal would stretch the concept of an "involved administrator" well beyond what is practical. WjBscribe 13:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Everyone who is acting in good faith tries to edit to comply with NPOV, administrators are not an exception. Administrators are not beyond bias, and if an administrator edits a content of an article (other than minor copy editing) he should not use administrative powers on it or on other editors editing it. Calejenden 16:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

That seems a very extreme restriction of administrator powers, and would pretty much mean that any admins who became initially aware of a situation would almost always be ineligible to deal with it, and have to contact others. Which does seem a lot of pointless bureaucracy, if it's even workable. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, a very difficult question. But no one should feel that a person who disagrees about the viewpoint blocks him when they are editing the same article. Comment to Jehochman, obvious vandalism is another matter and I think you could block. Calejenden 16:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit history of Irreducible complexity

4) The Irreducible complexity article history does not show that the article was subject to repeated edit wars, ongoing content disputes, or heavy editing in the weeks leading up to the block. [2].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

So if there is edit warring, and then a consensus version emerges, it is acceptable to wait a few weeks and then resume edit warring? I don't think so. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

There's a subtle fallacy in there. Consensus must never overrule the chance of a new opinion and new version of the page being constructed. It must never be the case that a standing committee at a page is allowed to exclude newcomers. New points of view must always be acceptable in principle. We aim for consensus but we don't allow a consensus version to be the enemy of a better one. So some reconsideration of content should always be allowed, and Talk page discussion should be pointed to: "we did look at this issue; see thread ... in archive". Charles Matthews 19:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, but the "ID <> creationism" idea is scarcely new and has been discussed at great length. It's a cornerstone of the whole idea of ID that its proponents can pretend it is somehow not creationism, but the argument is spectacularly unconvincing. Guy (Help!) 22:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Copied from proposed decision to allow input from non-Arbs. WjBscribe 13:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

True, but open to gaming. Activists on this topic target a range of articles. If ArbCom takes too narrow a vew of this problem, then it gives carte blanche to an activist who watchlists a bunch of articles, then hops in to disrupt one that happens to have been quiet for a while. Durova^Charge! 22:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

With regard to JzG's comment, WP:NPOV enjoins Wikipedia from making such a statement editorially in article space. The best way to handle any contentious issue where the balance of expert opinion is lopsided is to allow the minority view's most articulate advocates to voice their position in their own words, and then document dispassionately how much credence that receives elsewhere. An important distinction to make regarding ID, global warming, and a few other issues is that in some geographical regions the popular reception is at variance with the consensus of technical experts. The proponents of minority views can play an important role in expressing those distinctions in article space when they accept the parameters of site policies on those points. Durova^Charge! 23:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Cuerden's statements about Hoffman not borne out by the facts

5) Adam Cuerden's talk page and block log statements made to justify his block of MatthewHoffman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) include claims of harassment, POV pushing, extreme rudeness, and vandalism [3] [4] [5] (more on evidence page). These claims are not borne out by a review of Hoffman's contributions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I really don't think that the POV-pushing one isn't held up. Otherwise, probably right. However, this does fail to recognise that while my assessment was wrong, I did honestly think that my statements were correct at the time, given my unfortunately incomplete grasp of the facts. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Copied from proposed decision to allow input from non-Arbs. WjBscribe 13:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

POV-pushing holds up. Vandalism is debatable depending on how one rates the source that was getting deleted. The editor was less than courteous, but I've encountered much greater rudeness than that. Durova^Charge! 22:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

72 hour and indefinite blocks of Matthew Hoffman were outside policy

6) Adam Cuerden's block of Matthew Hoffman for 72 hours, and the subsequent extension of the block to make it indefinite, were both outside blocking policy. The reasoning used to justify the blocks was fallacious, and Cuerden was involved in a content dispute with Hoffman. Further, the justification for the blocks in part is to encourage Hoffman to "cool down," which contravenes blocking policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I am skeptical of the content dispute claim. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Given I hadn't edited Irreducible complexity in quite some time when I noticed the activity and had a look in, what content dispute? Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the idea is that you had been fairly involved on the talk page before (see the evidence I presented), and possibly active in the general area of articles related to irreducible complexity. I agree that more evidence is needed. I've looked through irreduciable complexity's entire edit history, and you have edited it 13 times in October, November and December 2006 and January and October 2007. An edit such as this, with the edit summary "Good-faith edit, but causes severe POV-problems", shows that you clearly have views on what is and isn't POV for this article. It is that, and that alone that should have led to you stepping back from blocking someone who was being accused of being a POV-pusher on this article. What you should have done was to report the issue and let an uninvolved admin deal with it. Another good example is this edit, changing "controversial" to "discredited", with the edit summary "Not really POV: It has no scientific support, after all." Again, you are editing to deal with POV and thus are involved with the content of the article. Once you step over that line, you can argue with people you call POV-pushers all you like, but you shouldn't be the one blocking them. It's sometimes a difficult distinction to make, but do you see what I am saying here? Carcharoth 19:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I see what you're saying there, but it seems somewhat... questionable policy to say that editing 13 times - and, since the block was in September, with the last one coming 9 months before the block - is a sign of over-involvement on the page, but, since I am a biology major, let's take some strong opinions on the issue as read for the purposes of this discussion. However, as I said below, I was under the mistaken impression that he was attacking others without provocation, which seemed to make it a simpler and non-controversial issue. Obviously, my interpretation arose from lack of diligence in reading what others, not just him, were saying, and so was an incorrect one, but I did think it was a simpler issue than it was. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Adam uses comparable language about creationists and racists (the 'screed' thing, I mean, which I think revealing). Be careful about narrow interpretation of this. Charles Matthews 19:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that at the time of the block, Adam was not actively editing the article. He was more, in my view, trying to act as a calming influence, blocking socks and trolls and letting the active editors get on with improving the article. Unfortunately, it seems that Adam and the other editors didn't have their "new editor alert" detectors switched on. And that's putting it mildly. To put this into context, I get the impression they were all recovering from a long tussle with User:Jason Gastrich - maybe Adam could correct me on this? Carcharoth 19:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe so, but then, frankly, there always seems to be some sort of problem going on in that family of articles. To the best of my recollection what happened was I checked a diff - the one Mackensen mentioned above, probably, and was rather shocked at it, and looking at the paragraphs around it in the diff, saw no call for such behaviour. [Had I checked the whole page, I would have gotten a very different view, but I did not realise that at the time]. I then scanned the other contributions of the editor, and don't think I really checked the context on those. His behaviour seemed questionable and attacking, and I did not realise - as I only intermittently monitor that page - that he was under very strong provocation. So I gave a 3 day block, and when told he was probably a sock, I was very willing to accept this and upgrade it because, in my mistaken view, he had been attacking other people who had done nothing to him. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It is extemely unlikely that at the time you were checking his edits you checked the diff Mackensen referred to. That diff is a diff across four separate edits (which is why there is a "three intermediate revisions not shown" bit). It is more likely that you checked the four edits separately. In any case, you should have known better than to get context from diffs. For context, always go to the actual page version itself. Well, you know that now! Carcharoth 22:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, certainly I might have seen part of that diff as my first impression, anyway. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Copied from proposed decision to allow input from non-Arbs. WjBscribe 13:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The 72 hour block was probably justified. If I had noticed this case while events unfolded I would have recommended a provisional unblock with mentorship - indeffing seems extreme. What makes me most uncomfortable is how close this was to a content dispute. It's normal for administrators to recuse themselves and let someone else block where doubt exists. If we assume good faith on Adam's part and allow this to pass uncritically, then what would prevent an actual POV-pushing administrator from banning a newcomer who legitimately held an opposing point of view? Durova^Charge! 22:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Matthew Hoffman not a sock puppet

7) There is no evidence to suggest that Matthew Hoffman is a sock puppet.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

In addition to what WJBscibe says below, don't forget that the account was dormant for nearly two years time.[6] Was the user was editing under a different account in the meanwhile? - - Jehochman ^Talk 19:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It is interesting to see the confusion between grounds for suspicion (a sort of box-checking thing) and actual evidence, in one of the other parties in the case. You see, six months off Wikipedia could be for one of a few reasons. For example, work pressures. We should not call intermittent editing evidence at all. It does nothing to tie the account to any other account - nothing at all. At most, a CheckUser request might be acceptable, if the account was disruptive. Charles Matthews 19:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, do you have a standard disclaimer on advice you give about blocking? It would be useful to know. Charles Matthews

I have learned to avoid formulaic messages, preferring to address each situation on its own merits. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course, precisely what you didn't do here. I recall you showing the bit you had written at WP:BLOCK. I don't see that you did consider the situation on its merits. You simply congratulated a guy who was putting his reputation at stake for a worthless comment of User:Moreschi. You were later head-counted in to this fraudulent "decision", even though you were discussing some sort of disruption catchall. Dammit, I wrote half the COI guideline. You were flourishing it then, but you had no right to do that. You and others mission-crept it. Take some responsibility here for some part in this decision. Go on. You were perhaps a bystander. You got counted in as a voice. Did you not realise you were voting someone off the site? Did you not realise what was happening? Charles Matthews 21:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall making that comment, so sorry, I can't explain my motives further than what I've already said. I don't understand why you feel so much animosity towards me. If you like, contact me offline and we can try to resolve that, because people here are becoming annoyed at reading caustic comments. - Jehochman ^Talk 21:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's break this down a bit. First off, a person cannot be a sockpuppet. They can operate a sockpuppet account (ie. be a puppet master), but they themselves remain a real person. We need to distinguish here between the account MatthewHoffman (note the CamelCase) and ther person Matthew C. Hoffman (or Matthew Hoffman). We can state clearly that we know now that the MatthewHoffman account is not a sock puppet, and is in fact an account operated by a person named Matthew C. Hoffman. We have an arbitrator in receipt of an e-mail from said Matthew C. Hoffman, so we can presume that there is no impersonation going on, and that the account name is in fact the real name of the person operating the account. All that is left is to determine whether, at the time, the editors involved should have assumed good faith of a new user, or whether they were justified in their fears of sock puppetry. I suggest a finding of fact that the account MatthewHoffman is not a sockpuppet account, but is an account operated by a Matthew C. Hoffman, using his real name for the account. I also suggest a finding of fact that the editors who initially encountered Hoffman suspected sock puppetry, possibly mentioning the background of the editing environment at that article and the recent history there. The rest of the evidence should flow naturally from that to tell the story, with pauses at various points to say whether the judgment of particular users and admins was good or bad. Carcharoth 20:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Speculation is not evidence. GRBerry 03:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Copied from proposed decision to allow input from non-Arbs. WjBscribe 13:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I agree that evidence that Matthew Hoffman was a sockpuppet was not conclusive, I think saying there was no evidence is incorrect. The account clearly displayed enough familiarity with Wikipedia policy and the article in question that suspicion was legitimate - even if actions taken on the basis of that suspicion proved not to be. WjBscribe 13:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that passing familiarity with Wikipedia policy constitutes evidence of sockpuppetry. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the evidence is inconclusive. Looked extensively for smoking guns myself and couldn't find any. Several things raised my eyebrow, but not enough to make a firm statement either way. Durova^Charge! 22:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. For my money, if it's an obvious sock, it should be possible to identify the sockmaster. None is apparent here. But there is a difference between "not obviously a sock" and "obviously not a sock". This was rather suspicious behaviour; the chances of a user who feels this passionately about the subject making no edits at all in the lengthy period between registering the account and making the edits in question, or lurking for that long without coming across 3RR, is pretty remote. I don't think I would say there is "no evidence", just that it is weak and that a request to unblock in good faith should be taken at face value. Most of the really obvious socks don't bother challenging a block. Guy (Help!) 00:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

When I researched this topic the only reliable method of sock identification was cross-comparison of onsite admissions and offsite disclosures. All of the activist socks I identified that way were short-lived accounts and IP addresses. They don't tend to build up a long enough history for individual identification by other means and they share strategies a lot. That's different from typcial sockpuppet research where a single user leaves a visible footprint across an article or subject. Durova^Charge! 01:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I doubt he was a sock - rather, I'm guessing he should be considered a meatpuppet, of the sort that the Discovery Institute sends our way on a regular basis. (See Durova's evidence). To anyone familiar with the ID-related articles, these kinds are easyto identify. They are also quite different from editors like Raspor, who pops up every few weeks with a new sock, or Ken (User:Conservative on Conservapedia) who used to do the same thing until Conservapedia came along. Have a look at the archives of Talk:Intelligent design, especially archive 23. (Yes, that page actually has 46 pages of archives). Guettarda 17:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you effectively saying that these articles are off limits for new users who have strong opinions and have lurked for long enough to be familiar with Wikipedia, because it is too difficult for the editors of those articles to distinguish between socks/trolls and new users? What about (and I'm not being ironic here) IP editors? Carcharoth 18:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope, not saying anything even remotely like that. I'm saying that when there are outside groups calling on their supporters to edit certain articles, meatpuppets show up. In a case like this, when a new user shows up spouting our jargon, it's parsimonious to conclude that they are yet another DI-related meatpuppet, rather than a sockpuppet. This is strengthened by the nature of the objection (Barbara Forrest, the leading scholar of the ID movement, is their bogeyman; having failed to discredit her they now turn to attacking medium instead of content. Guettarda 20:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

And what are the consequences when such means of identifying sockpuppets and meatpuppets turn out to be wrong? Just say sorry and let the new editor go on their way as if nothing had happened with a pat on the back and a "this sort of thing happens all the time on Wikipedia, awfully sorry about that, hope there are no hard feelings, don't worry about the block log, no-one will care about that if you run into trouble somewhere else". That is assuming the new user even stays to get an apology. I'll repeat what I've said elsewhere. Productive users can stay for years and contribute lots to Wikipedia. Trolls and socks can be blocked later, once they are really obviously socks and trolls. Obviously not too much later, as the damage they do can also put off new users, but the balance needs to be right. In this case, it plainly wasn't. Carcharoth 20:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Chaser

Chaser and blocks

8.1) Chaser (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has a history demonstrating a cavalier attitude towards blocking. [7]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Evidence should be presented on the evidence page. GRBerry 21:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC) Now done. GRBerry

This looks like sour grapes. - Jehochman ^Talk 21:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed by Irpen (talk). Feel free to rephrase for better style. I only had a single encounter with Chaser and it was a shocking one. After I restored twice within a short period the well-referenced and relevant facts someone was removing from the featured article [8] [9] Chaser suddenly kicked into my talk page with this. It was shocking (and unwarranted) to immediately resort to block threats without asking any questions on what was going on or spending time to familiarize oneself with the matter. I told that to Chaser in no unclear terms but his original response was irrelevant to the issue at hand and later he let others to argue points for him. Full details here. I believe Chaser's failure to appreciate the effect of blocks and even block threats on the editors is part of the same pattern as in the issue at hand. --Irpen (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Posted to evidence per request above. And no sour grapes whatsoever. We parted in peace and I have no beef left to Chaser. But the incident that prompted this ArbCom and that older incident, I believe, demonstrate the same problem. --Irpen (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Your example concerns edit warring over the main page featured article. We don't protect the main page FA so edit warring can only be dealt with by blocks - his warning to you seems appropriate and he gave the same warning to the other party [10]. Given that it was a content dispute it was not for him to choose which edit warrior's version he prefered. This really isn't relevant to this case. WjBscribe 22:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring is disruptive and should be dealt with adequate measures, including blocks. You and I agree on that. The crux is that mere reverting and edit warring are different notions and the former may or may not be the latter. If you take you time to read the discussion that followed you would not have even brought up the "edit war" here. There was no edit war and certainly no reason for a block threat. A polite inquiry was all there was needed if the admin was unclear on what's going on. --Irpen (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

He warned you (not blocked you) once, 3 months ago, and that's a pattern of cavalier behavior warranting chastisement from ArbCom? This is clearly not a matter warranting an ArbCom finding of fact, unless it's one encouraging editors not to use this forum to pile on unrelated grudges. MastCell ^Talk 04:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I repeat, I bear no grudges. We parted in peace. So, please do not try this for a third time, OK? There is no reason why editors should tolerate insults in a form of unwarranted block threats that obviously lack any basis. A policeman pointing a gun towards a person is a serious matter by itself regardless of whether the shot was actually fired. If Chaser was arbcommed for an unrelated matter, say, POV-pushing, a single instances of uncalled for offensive and sloppy block threat would have been irrelevant indeed. Here, the issue is relevant as both instances indicate that Chaser does not realize how a serious the blocking matters are. At instance one he is waving with the block failing to sufficiently study the matter, in another incident he declines an unblock request, also failing to sufficiently study the matter. I assure you that I would have never brought that incident up in relation to Chaser if anything other than the blocking matters were discussed in relation to this admin. --Irpen (talk) 04:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Handling of the unblock request by Chaser

8.2) Chaser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) failed to familiarize himself with the full facts of the matter before declining the unblock request. In particular, Chaser relied upon discussion at the Administrators' noticeboard without reviewing the evidence himself.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Has anybody bothered to ask Chaser for an explanation? - Jehochman ^Talk 14:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I specifically remember looking through his contributions when I declined the unblock request. I wouldn't have referenced them otherwise. As per WJBscribe's quote below, I didn't reference anything specific (like his first edit quoting NPOV as an acronym) from his contribution history, so all I can ask is that you trust me that I wasn't lying when I said I reviewed his contributions and the article talk page. For what it's worth, my reviewing didn't go into the kind of detail of some of the analysis on the evidence page, and that analysis does prompt me to doubt my original decision. I certainly wouldn't reblock this user now.--chaser - t 09:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Copied from proposed decision to allow input from non-Arbs. WjBscribe 13:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Chaser's only statement about this has been here - I cannot see how his comment can be interpreted to say that he only read the ANI thread and did not review the evidence. Indeed he says quite the opposite when giving his reasons for declining the unblock request: "Looking at the article talk page and your contribution history, I agree with the consensus (at AN/I) that you're somebody's sock here to disrupt the project". Unless ArbCom is able to read his mind, I think writing this proposal before he has presented evidence in this case is a stunning assumption of bad faith on the part of someone I know to be a good and competent administrator. One of the things that ArbCom seem to be taking a strong stance on here is the assumption without evidence of the worst in others - I worry that UninvitedCompany is doing just that in this case. I simply cannot see the evidential foundation for this finding of fact. WjBscribe 13:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Amen. MastCell ^Talk 18:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

As a Clerk, I've notified Chaser that this case has moved to voting very quickly, that he's mentioned in the propose decision, and that if he wants to add to his statement or submit evidence he should do so relatively quickly. Newyorkbrad 22:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see what else he has to say. Durova^Charge! 22:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Chaser erred

8.3) Chaser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) erred in declining the unblock request. This was an error in analysis of Hoffman's contribution history, rather than Chaser not analyzing that history at all, as has been alleged.--chaser - t 15:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. I think this is more fair. Feel free to drop the second sentence if you still don't believe me.--chaser - t 15:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Charles Matthews has failed to assume good faith

9) Charles Matthews, in dealing with this, has consistently failed to assume good faith on the part of the administrators involved.

Comment by Arbitrators:

He's angry, to be sure. Mackensen (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Per Irpen, AGF is inapplicable here. Paul August ☎ 18:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I'm sorry, I didn't want to bring this up, but comments like those sprinkled throughout his evidence, e.g. "At best User:Moreschi regards policy as an inconvenience for admins. And User:Jehochman here is a meddling hypocrite, at best." do not seem appropriate behaviour from an arbitrator, who are supposed to be the definition of neutrality and attempting to see both sides of the story. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Mackensen, somebody wise told me, "Don't make important decisions when angry." - Jehochman ^Talk 17:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Charles Matthews has described his fellow editors as:

• "dog".[11]
• "moral pygmies" [12]
• "meddling hypocrite", "busybody" [13]

These comments bring disrepute on the project and call his judgment into serious doubt. - Jehochman ^Talk 00:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

(Apologies for adding in the wrong place initially). I'm recused here. I'm bringing evidence. If Adam wants "the presumption of innocence" then I'd be greatly surprised if he didn't get exactly that from the empanelled ArbCom. I have asked for review of his actions, and of others. The scope I have my ideas about, but is not determined by me at all (to User:MastCell, that point). I don't get to say what is "minor". I wonder, to put it another way, what User:MatthewHoffman would say about AGF here; I wonder whether he would feel that the block review was but a small event in his life.

I'm not sure what I can properly reveal about his mail to the ArbCom; it is not really in Evidence in this case, beyond its existence and the fact that I felt prompted to look into this one matter, out of the very many such appeals. However, it obviously had some qualities. That I could discover a likely match on Google. That was one point. Also there was anger, a common thing. Perhaps it is safest to say that my strong feelings in this matter come from what has finally been turned up in evidence. By the way, saying different things to different groups according to what it is they clearly wish to hear is prima facie evidence of hypocrisy. Charles Matthews 18:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

As for real-world identity, I don't think we should be discussing identification of a User very lightly. Especially one who has been called a "vandal-only account". Look, until you knew a lot more, you couldn't be sure whether tying a real person to this mass of wiki-borne evidence would be a good idea. This user has been smeared, frankly. There are parties here who seem ten times more concerned about an admin's sysop bit, than what effect this all might have on a real person, whose life prospects may have been affected. In a sense, it is still up to the real person to come forward. He chose not to leave an email, so that's about it. There are multiple Hoffmans, and while I believed I knew the one, should I post it on the wiki? No, because then maybe someone will try to badmouth him some more. Bah. The ethics of the whole business stink to high heaven. Anyone at all can read our block logs. Charles Matthews 19:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

As for editing gaps, is it like 10% of accounts get used at all? There will be some people who actually write their password down, come back later, and actually read the site policies. These would be, what, over 16 years old. I don't think we should treat them as potential abusive socks just for these reasons. Charles Matthews 20:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Let's leave the real-world identity out of it, and remember the ethical concerns as we move forward. Do you have anything to say about the second part of what I wrote? The Nascentathiest exchange with Adam and Adam's response, and which bits of the evidence have aroused strong feelings in you. I found Adam's response to the Nascentathiest post a dereliction of his responsibility as an admin. What do you feel about it? Carcharoth 20:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I obviously feel that M and J were parties to a lousy decision; I think their opinions were used to "endorse" the block, which is entirely Adam's responsibility, and the major reason he shouldn't be an admin. Not feeling directly answerable for your own blocks should mean you aren't an admin here. Nohow. Ever again. M and J backed away from failure immediately; human nature that. Deny all involvement. Technically they are correct: the buck stops with Adam, and if he doesn't see that, too bad. In that sense they are more responsible than Chaser; though Chaser could have stopped this in its tracks. Their opinions were later cited in support of the block. More than once - Adam made it a reason to deny my reasoned request for review and another. Why am I angry? User:Moreschi gains popularity as an anti-fringe guy, at no cost in actual accountablity. So, on to the "noticeboard culture". If the ArbCom cannot indef ban anyone, why should two admins and a dog at AN/I have a right to, on the basis of some piffle about the user knowing how the site works? Why am I angry? Why should anyone even care what goes on at AN/I at a slow time? Why should anyone on the site ever say: "the buck stops with me; I am accountable for this action; you can deal directly with me; I will not fob you off"? Really. Why should anyone care about corruption in our actual and wannabe admins? Shall we just let this case slide, and issue a reprimand? Charles Matthews 20:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. That makes things a lot clearer. Do you think that can be turned into something like principles and findings of fact and remedies, or do you want to avoid doing that as a recused arbitrator? I think what might be acceptable is for you to indicate whether you would be happy with anything less than Adam's desysopping? Do you think there is a way to drive the point home and then step back and see if the lesson has been learned? What about Moreschi and Jehochman and Chaser? Finally, what about Adam's response to Nascentathiest's post? See here for details. I'm going to take one more look at the evidence as a whole and see what the most salient Findings of Fact would be (I'm not that good with principles - the proposed decision has most of those already), and then see what things look like after that. Carcharoth 20:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Really, I'm upset now. This is just crap we are listening to about how the admin bit makes you a demigod, and it is death to become an ordinary mortal once more. I can't think legalistically about all this. I came here to Wikipedia to write articles, not to deal with moral pygmies. Too right I can't AGF of the AN/I shower. Charles Matthews 21:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Charles, a minor point first, as a party, shouldn't you be commenting up in this section? A more relevant point is whether you can reveal which Matthew C. Hoffman we are talking about here? I've Googled but haven't been able to find anything definitive. I believe Guy found a Matthew Hoffman who is a newspaper editor, but there are lots of Matthew Hoffmans out there (as Google is telling me). If this is prying too much, please tell me (and others) to stop this line of questioning. Moving on from that to another point, what has puzzled me is the inactivity of Hoffman following his unblock - is he sitting this out and watching it, or waiting to hear back from you, or what? Several IP addresses (from various locations) popped up on the evidence talk page - from past experience with other arbcom cases, I've known "silent parties" to post as IP addresses during the proceedings, so you will understand the possibilities here. Finally, is it possible for someone to e-mail Hoffman and politely enquire about the 2 year gap between registering the account and beginning to edit. I have speculated that this accounts for the knowledge of Wikipedia processes and policies, but when we get right down to it, none of this speculation is needed. The presumption should have been to extend good faith to a new user, rather than (despite the apparently sock-puppet infested location) suspecting sock-puppets round every corner. My view is that the late discovery I made of the post by Nascentathiest is really the crux to the whole business. Nascentathiest, realising his possible mistake with his accusation of sockpuppetry, urged Adam Cuerden to reduce the indefinite block, and Adam failed to take responsibility here, deflecting the responsibility to those who he had asked for advice at ANI - primarily Moreschi. I think that should be the crux of the case now, but I don't really know what others think. You say that your strong feelings comes from "what has finally been turned up in evidence". Are you talking about specific points of evidence here, or the general patterns and culture revealed? Carcharoth 19:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I rarely find commenting on AGF helpful. There are so many other possible explanations - one can believe someone is acting in good faith but incompetent generally, acting in good faith but screwed up this time, acting in good faith but wrong on what is best for the project, et cetera. I think some of the alternatives fit better in this situation. His actions certainly show anger. His word choices are blunter and show less decorum than I expected. Checking his userpage I see that he is an editor from the UK, and from my pre-Wikipedia employment experience and my Wikipedia experience I have come to generally expect less civility from my UK colleagues than from my US colleagues. GRBerry 03:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It's funny you should say that. I find it tends to be the other way round... Of course, the rest of the English-speaking world are unanimous in their agreement that the British and the Americans are as incivil as each other. :-) Seriously, I think factors such as personality and style (diplomatic or brusque), language (straight-talking or fancy circumlocutions) and age (the brashness of youth and the wisdom of older, calmer heads) play greater roles than national culture. "HTH, HAND" might be considered polite by some, but can be considered a condescending and insulting brush-off by others. Carcharoth (talk) 00:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Since this case seems to be focusing an unusually intense magnifying glass on the minor failings of everyone even peripherally involved (see Chaser above), it seems fair to note that describing an established, good-faith editor as a "meddling hypocrite, at best" is remarkably poor conduct for anyone involved in an arbitration, much less an sitting Arbitrator. Unless that makes me a meddling hypocrite as well. MastCell ^Talk 18:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

... and really. Describing someone as a "busybody" and a "meddling hypocrite" for voicing an opinion on a block at WP:AN/I? What sort of message are we aiming for here? MastCell ^Talk 18:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be good form to refactor some of these comments. Community banning would be much more equitable, in my opinion, if standards existed regarding the duration of a discussion and number of responses. That's a systematic problem, not the fault of the particular individuals here. It seems counterproductive to drag the few uninvolved parties who did participate into arbitration and characterize their actions in negative terms. I fear a potential chilling effect that could make Wikipedians fear to participate in ban discussions at all. Durova^Charge! 22:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I certainly think a finding about Charles Matthews is required in view of the evidence. Stifle (talk) 09:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

No opinion on whether CM should have acted differently, but, per this, the faith-talk is inapplicable here. --Irpen 18:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Decorum is possibly an issue, but I agree with Irpen on the distinction between editing and blocking. AGF is meant as a forgive-and-forget pass for problematic editing. Nearly all admins block in good faith; it is their judgement that may be called into question, and there is no AGJ policy, nor should there be. Thatcher131 19:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden abdicated his administrative responsibilities

10) See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence#Role of User:Nascentatheist and response of Adam Cuerden

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Carcharoth 23:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This was a draft proposal that I had initially saved in this state. Newyorkbrad and Durova commented while the draft was being finished, so I've put the finished proposal below (number 11). Ironically enough, my rewrite had already addressed their concerns before I had seen them! This unfinished draft could be removed in its entirety if the clerk chooses to do so. Carcharoth 00:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

If the arbitrators agree with Carcharoth's summary of his evidence, the section title needs reworking: "abdicated" is too strong, and the wording makes it looks like a finding of habitual failure to perform the duties of adminship rather than error in one or a limited number of instances. Newyorkbrad 23:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Newyorkbrad. Durova^Charge! 00:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden was reluctant to take responsibility for unblocking

11) On two occasions, when it was suggested that the indefinite block of MatthewHoffman was excessive, Adam Cuerden abdicated his administrative responsibilities, citing others as a reason to not unblock, or passing the responsibility for the decision to unblock to others. The first case is described at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence#Role of User:Nascentatheist and response of Adam Cuerden. On being told directly, hours after the blocking, that the indefinite block may have been excessive, he declined to unblock, citing the opinions of others. The second case involved Charles Matthews asking for a review of the block and asking Adam to deal with it himself. Rather than deal with it himself, Adam passed the decision over to the administrators' noticeboard: "I'm not opposed to an unblock if that's the consensus, but don't want to do it without discussion." In that discussion, several people suggest that Adam should unblock, and he did so with bad grace, imposing a probation (later retracted) and then complained that he was "bullied" into unblocking.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Carcharoth 00:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The title could still do with some work. I'm happy with the main text though. Carcharoth 14:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably fair, though one problem in the second ANI discussion was that I didn't have time to review it properly, and so was reluctant to take responsibility for an unblock because I felt it would make me responsible for the subsequent edits of the editor in question. After two months, there didn't seem much reason to sort it out immediately, that day. I wanted some good evidence before the unblock (yes, I know, the evidence I thought I had was wrong), if possible, so that I could be sure that it wasn't a mistake. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I generally think that the notion that an unblocking admin is responsible for the accounts later edits is a pernicious notion. Sometimes giving them enough rope to hang themselves is in Wikipedia's best interests, sometimes we think someone can become a good editor and get it wrong, sometimes we think someone can become a good editor over time and get it right. GRBerry 04:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a concern to me. I'd say, however, that the title should be more about taking responsibility for his block than for unblocking. Even if there is a good community discussion, the admin who acts is still responsible for their action, and shouldn't take it unless they themselves are convinced it is the right thing for Wikipedia. GRBerry 04:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Adam Cuerden was not an uninvolved editor at Irreducible complexity

12) As shown at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence#Adam Cuerden's actions at Talk:Irreducible complexity, Adam Cuerden had over the past year been involved in occassional content editing at Irreducible complexity (13 edits) and its talk page (21 edits), and thus was not an uninvolved party. After blocking User:MatthewHoffman for a breach of the three-revert rule, he responded to the continuing content dispute after that block expired by a further block, and made an allegation of point-of-view pushing in the block notice on that user's talk page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Carcharoth 01:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC) Later modified before any comments made. Carcharoth 12:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC) Now completely rewritten. Apologies for excessive draft editing. Carcharoth 12:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with this, as it seems to make a very poor guiding prinple to say an admin who had edited an article 9 months previously - I don't even think I was an admin at the time - is by default an involved party. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Too strict. An edit here or there doesn't make a party involved in a content dispute. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I've now updated the evidence section to include edits to the article, both with edit summaries mentioning POV. I agree that the sporadic nature of the edits shows that Adam wasn't deeply involved in the article, but he was to the extent that alleging POV-pushing in a block notice is unacceptable. Blocking for "extreme rudeness" or "harassment" (if he can demonstrate that Hoffman did that) is OK, but blocking on the basis of a content dispute is a big no-no. At the very least he should not have blocked because he felt Hoffman was a POV-warrior, because: (a) POV arguments should be rebutted, not silenced; and (b) he was not objective enough to be able to tell the difference between a forceful promotion of a POV and a discussion of how the article should be written. Carcharoth 16:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This is questionable enough that best practice would be to avoid using tools. - Jehochman ^Talk 17:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I can agree with you there, but this would make for astoundingly bad policy. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

If you are a passionate editor of Pokemon articles you should not block someone for problematic editing of Pokemon articles, even if you haven't edited the specific article in question. Thatcher131 19:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Early history of the MatthewHoffman account

13) The MatthewHoffman account was created over two years ago (1 October 2005). On the same day, this user was welcomed with a template that included many links to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The account's first edit, not made until 15 September 2007 (nearly 2 years later), was a post to Talk:Irreducible complexity‎.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Uncontroversial facts, but the account creation date was missed for a long time. Carcharoth 01:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a relevant fact. During the two intervening years, it is possible that the party was editing with other accounts, or spending lots of time studying policy but not editing. To this moment, we can neither prove, nor disprove either hypothesis. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

...and thus we should assume good faith, is, I think, the unwritten conclusion to that. Carcharoth 16:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

No administrator (possibly excepting Charles) knew until after the case was filed, so unless we should have looked, the relevance to administrative actions is limited. GRBerry 04:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Responding to Thatcher, this finding of fact would lay out the background to the case. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that those involved at the article level both failed to assume good faith (and we could stop there, which I think is the point you are making), and also failed to look more closely at the background, other than a simple "it's new, it knows policies, it's argumentative, ergo it must be a sock". Failure to see a 2-year old welcome template on the talk page shows a rush to judgment. Admittedly a judgment that should never have been made in the first place, but still, rushed and sloppy. Carcharoth (talk) 20:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

So? Thatcher131 19:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Broad notice was given, and nobody objected to the block

14) The block was posted on ANI for about 48 hours. Even though only two additional editors placed comments, untold numbers of editors looked at the thread and had the opportunity to comment if they disagreed with the result. The lack of objections was an implicit approval by the community of the indefinite block.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by Parties:

I think it is unfair to single out Moreschi and myself when untold numbers of editors and administrators looked at that thread and implicitly approved the block by failing to object. Broad notice was given, and nobody objected. That is the standard from WP:BAN. - Jehochman ^Talk 12:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Moreschi's "quite obviously a sockpuppet" comment probably deterred further review. Furthermore, it appeared the thread was finished after about four hours. What should have happened was a request for more opinions at that point, but Adam, who admits he had wanted to indefinite block anyway, hurried things through. Again, systemic failures rather than broad notice being given. I've also added a link to the thread for convenience. Carcharoth 13:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Did Adam Cuerden manually archive the thread before its time, or did he leave it there so everybody would have a chance to comment? Did Adam do anything to stifle discussion? "Hurried things through" seems like an assumption of bad faith. What's your basis for saying that? - Jehochman ^Talk 14:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

My basis for "hurried things through" comes from Adam's "Good point. Indef blocked." in response to one opinion after less than four hours. He could have waited the full 48 hours until just before the thread was archived before blocking and making a note about it. He could have waited for more opinions before blocking. Any number of other options. Waiting for one opinion and then blocking is hurried, in my opinion. Did he do anything to stifle discussion? Not on the ANI thread, but he did over at the Talk:Irreducible complexity page. He announced the indef block and then collapsed the talk page discussion into a small box saying "banned user" with a "show" link if people want to read the whole discussion. As GRBerry said, a chilling effect. Disagree with us on this talk page and you get blocked. Carcharoth 14:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

We all agree that Adam Cuerden's handling of this matter leaves much room for improvement. Can you show actual bad faith by Adam? You haven't thus far. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The findings of fact I'm proposing are not meant to show bad faith. They are meant to be broadly factual findings, showing what I think were the mistakes and misjudgments made. Whether these were genuine mistakes or bad faith, I'm leaving up to the arbitrators to decide. Carcharoth 14:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Replying to Jehochman's original post - if posting to AN/I or AN constitutes notice, then we can't also say (next proposal) that anyone wasn't noticed; the two positions are incompatible. This is the one that is most clearly wrong. GRBerry 18:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This proposal is now mooted by another proposal to make sure that this does not happen: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Clerks. Good point, Durova. - Jehochman ^Talk 18:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

There aren't enough hours in the day, never mind hours available for editing Wikipedia, to review everything that crosses ANI. Looking at the archive, I can tell which threads I looked at at this time, and this isn't one of them. As Durova says, silence is not consent, silence is silence. GRBerry 04:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Others:

I thought a primary lesson of my own arbitration was that silence does not imply consent. Different circumstances here - and apologies if this goes over the wrong way because I mean it respectfully - but this proposal appears contradictory in light of that. Durova^Charge! 18:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Of the three issues in this case (bad block, failure of the admin to communicate, failure of ANI to give good advice) this third is the least actionable. While we hope that noticeboard regulars will read all topics and give good advice, we can't force people to do so. It may simply be a function of the statistics of small numbers that the few admins who took notice had the same opinion. Admins are ultimately responsible for their own actions no matter how good or poor the advice they receive may be. Thatcher131 19:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration process misused

15) At least three two parties were summoned here, criticized, and even insulted, without any prior discussion or attempt at dispute resolution.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. The three two parties are Moreschi, Jehochman and Chaser. We were excluded from subsequent discussions of the block where we may have been able to correct matters or clarify our original involvement. At no time did the person making the request for arbitration discuss his concerns with us. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that Charles Matthews originally intended, and subsequently asked for, the unblock discussion to be just between him and Adam Cuerden, by e-mail. It was Adam who requested and eventually initiated the wider ANI discussion. In my view, Adam should have, at that point, informed all the relevant parties. Moreschi took part in that ANI thread, but Jehochman and Chaser were unaware of it. Once Charles filed the arbitration case, the clerk notification system took over. Not ideal, but I think Adam should have made more effort to notify parties. Carcharoth 15:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Both Adam Cuerden and Charles Matthews should have notified us. I am always ready to shed light on any matter I am involved in. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Really, this was started, what, about 2 days after the ANI thread? After the ANI thread was finished, and the user unblocked and I apologised, I thought that it was over with, a black mark on my record, perhaps, but done. Why should I have contacted people? Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I would have liked to have known about the second ANI thread. - Jehochman ^Talk 17:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I was only on it for a couple hours, then left and spent several hours relaxing and calming down, and by the time I got back, it was over. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

To me it's not an issue of Charles or Adam failing to do something, but simply that it wasn't done (no matter who's responsibility it may have been) and what effect that has on Jehochman (who's involvement was more minor) and me in terms of the appropriate escalation of dispute resolution.--chaser - t 12:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Lack of current notice is true for Jehochman and Chaser. However, I'm not thrilled with title or wording, both can be improved upon. I was quite surprised myself to find the RFAR filing notice from Charles on my talk page; I'd thought the matter was ended for most purposes. I certainly was going to reference it in the current ArbComm voting, however. GRBerry 04:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Responding to MastCell, while going straight to arbitration wasn't ideal, I think a lot got uncovered here (and fruitfully discussed) that would have been even discussed or brought up at an RFC. The evidence page of an arbitration case forces people to actually discuss and respond to facts, instead of hand-waving and impassioned pleas. Carcharoth (talk) 18:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but this still marks a significant departure from standard (and recommended) practice. The point of an RfC is to make it clear to an admin that people have a problem with their approach, and to give them a chance to adjust in response to feedback. In this case, we apparently went straight from off-wiki disapproval from a single editor (albeit an Arb) to an ArbCom raking-over-the-coals and desysopping proposals, without any intermediate steps. I'm not convinced that these same issues would not have been discussed at an RfC, and I think there's been a regrettable amount of handwaving and impassioned pleading here as well, but perhaps that's me being a moral pygmy. MastCell ^Talk 18:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I agree with GRBerry - I don't like the wording, but there should be some formal indication that this case was accepted without the usual steps in dispute resolution. There is a serious proposal to desysop Adam (with prejudice) on the basis of one bad block. Even if a pattern of bad blocks is present, there has been no admin-conduct RfC, and the only prior attempt to resolve this issue or give feedback to Adam, as best I can tell, was an email from Charles Matthews, which Adam should have answered but didn't. That's well outside my experience of ArbCom's standard practice, and there should be some formal statement of why this case was taken, and such harsh remedies proposed so rapidly, while the standard steps in WP:DR to give feedback to Adam were largely bypassed. MastCell ^Talk 18:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

ANI groupthink

16) A group of administrators frequents ANI and tends to reinforce each other. This can unintentionally lead to feedback loops that prevent the formation of a representative consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, trying to see the other side's point of view. Unsure how to fix this problem, but at least we can identify it. - Jehochman ^Talk 17:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Good proposal. May I suggest "Noticeboard culture", "groupthink" (sometimes a pejorative term) and other terms? ANI shower might be embarassing to the originator of that term, and just plain confusing to everyone else. Carcharoth 17:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The term shower has a simple meaning: "group", but I changed it. Additionally, I have initiated a proposal Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposal for ANI clerks to help overcome this problem. - Jehochman ^Talk 17:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Very... Vogonesque! :-) See also my remedy. One of the notes I had here was to initiate an AN discussion on noticeboard culture, so thanks for doing that for me! Carcharoth 17:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I dislike it. Undercuts the value of community discussion. Absence of sufficient discussion does not imply that the venue itself is flawed in this way. Durova^Charge! 18:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think it is. There's a reason you have a trial by an appointed jury, rather than a trial by whoever happens to show up in court one day. Ban discussions and block reviews need to be handled by a select independent group ... otherwise, you can't know if the ban decision reflects the will of the community or merely the will of those who care enough to speak up. You can call that group clerks, call it a "lower arbcom", or keep with the present system that community bans must have the unanimous consent of admins (or at least that no admin feels strongly enough to overturn it) ... but "community discussion" doesn't mean anything when you have no way to ensure that those discussing adequately represent the community. With articles, if we get it wrong, it doesn't matter that much - there's always next time - but you don't always get that chance with people. --B (talk) 03:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Often, those showing up, especially those showing up first, are those who are parties to a dispute. At least as regards blocking and banning they should act as witnesses rather than jurors or judges. GRBerry 04:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with GRBerry, and that's why the original version of the disruptive editing guideline specifically discounted the opinions of disputants from having a direct effect on community banning. Agreeing also that "whoever happens to show up" isn't the best way to determine these things. Those are structural problems, not the personal responsibility of Adam Cuerden or the editors who happened to show up for this particular discussion. The community should be resolving those issues on the community level. Durova^Charge! 20:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Adam Cuerden desysopped

1) Adam Cuerden's administrative privileges are revoked. He may reapply only by appeal to this committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Seems overly harsh and punitive rather than preventative. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have to object to this: It does seem particularly harsh, given that I only really got an indication my behaviour might be problematic when this whole case got dragged up, despite seeking comment on all my actions. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

No doubt you do object. I have highlighted quite a number of misleading statements you have made. You're hardly coming across the truthful, conscientious, responsive type. You just pass the buck and excuse yourself, endlessly. "Harsh" is interesting - very interesting indeed; but you will have due process, and a chance to defend yourself. (You indefinitely banned a user by saying "good point" to a load of old rubbish.) And User:Jehochman has it wrong. Prevention of further misuse of admin powers is the idea, rather than punishment. Charles Matthews 19:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Has he failed to heed past warnings? - Jehochman ^Talk 02:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The only prior warning to him on use of tools that I found was a bit of friendly criticism on 2 October against protecting a page that he had been editing. This proposed remedy is far stronger than I had expected to be considered coming in, but as I found more relevant evidence my expectation for the upper end of possible remedies increased. Even at the upper end, I can't see why not to allow RfA possibly after a suitable interval. GRBerry 04:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence#Statement by Adam Cuerden: You know, maybe I haven't been completely honest. may constitute reason for this. Or may not. GRBerry 18:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Copied from proposed decision for comment. WjBscribe 13:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Desysopping Adam Cuerden would be a pretty harsh remedy - justified presumably on the basis that that Adam Cuerden does not seem to appreciate that his block was wrong, and that should have responded better to the request for a review of his decision by Charles Matthews. I cannot see, if ArbCom is insistant on this course, why he could not request the return of his sysop flag through RfA. Surely there would need to be very serious misconduct indeed to remove the Community's ability to decide if an editor is fit to be an adminsitrator. WjBscribe 13:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree; prohibiting Adam from going through RfA seems dramatically out of line with the abuses suggested in the findings of fact (which amount to two bad blocks on one editor). I'm not clear on why Adam's actions warrant such a disproprtionate reaction. If the intent is to make an example of a productive but imperfect admin, then I think that's a seriously counterproductive approach to changing policy or practice. MastCell ^Talk 18:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Chilling. This is a controversial subject and a target of extensive activism. I don't agree with Adam Cuerden's choices, but disagreeing with an administrative decision is a far cry from demanding desysopping. Better to address the problem topic at this stage. Durova^Charge! 22:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

If you look through the evidence, the reason some people are calling for Adam to be desysopped is not because the subject of the article is controversial, but because of the way Adam handled himself throughout following the block. The upping to indefinite block was carried out by, to use Charles's wording (which I agree with), a "kangaroo court", where Adam needed only the slightest of encouragement from Moreschi to extend to indefinite, and where Jehochman backed him up with a vague generalisation. This was followed by a talk page post from one of the editors who had been involved in the discussion with Hoffman (and had alleged he was a sockpuppet), telling Adam Cuerden that he could have been mistaken and that he thought an indefinite block of Hoffman was excessive. Adam's response to this was stunning in its abdication of responsibility: "...since I hadn't actually noticed your comments, and judged on behaviour, and Moreschi and several other outsiders to the debate suggested that I was being too lenient when I first went with the restricted ban, I think this one has a bit more consensus than I'd be willing to overrule". He is saying that it is not really his block any more, but that of Moreschi and "several other outsiders" (presumably Jehochman). That is absolutely indefensible from where I'm sitting. Later, Chaser declined an unblock request. Adam doesn't appear again until he responds to a communication from Charles Matthews and, rather than take responsibility for the block himself, starts a new ANI discussion. Several people suggest that he should unblock, and he does so with very bad grace, imposing a probation (later retracted) and then complains that he was "bullied" into unblocking. A long sequence of poor administrative judgments by Adam. That seems to be the reason for the calls for desysopping. I'm not convinced that is best, but I can certainly agree that some sort of sanction or admonishment is needed to send the message that this sort of behaviour is not acceptable. Carcharoth 23:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It's poor practice to desysop an administrator with a generally good history because of one instance where he arguably abided by a poorly written policy. I fail to see how opening an ANI thread can be construed as failure to take responsibility. One person asked, the blocking administrator had misgivings, so the blocking administrator sought broader feedback. I don't endorse Adam's choices, but I don't absolutely condemn them either. The potential content dispute weighs more with me than any of the factors you outline. WP:AGF toward one editor isn't a valid reason to assume bad faith toward another. Durova^Charge! 00:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The ANI thread after Charles's e-mail was reasonable, but I don't see how anyone can justify Adam's decision to maintain an indefinite block after the following post (titled A word of interjection - consideration for "Matthew Hoffman") pointed out that the allegations Nascentathiest made could have unduly influenced the subsequent discussions, along with several other points. It is worth quoting it in full:

"Hello. If I may, I'd like to weigh in on the indefinite banning of Matthew Hoffman as a consequence of his participation at the Talk:Irreducible_complexity page. Since my voicing of suspicions may have been a factor in his edits of 22 September in a negative way, I would respectfully suggest that, perhaps, an indefinite ban might be overkill. While I have suspicions that he is a ban-evading sock-puppet of Jason Gastrich, and I believe that I have fair cause to have that suspicion, I certainly cannot prove it, and it may have been an unnecessary and ill-thought edit on my part - until and unless I could accumulate more evidence. I could have left all of that out and still made my case. For that, I apologize.
Of course, I agree with the consensus that "Matthew" is POV-pushing, intransigent, and naive, if not ignorant, about much of what goes on in Intelligent Design and with respect to Irreducible Complexity. I teach science and I've covered this ground many times over the years. My editing experience is fairly lengthy, though I only fairly recently decided to actually create a user account, and I must confess that I don't find "Matthew" any more uncivil than many others who were either never banned or were banned for much shorter periods of time. It does seem clear that "Matthew" is a single-purpose account and he's clearly pushing an agenda. That much was made clear when there were demands for references, references were provided, including two links to web sites that provide commentary from the references, and he elected to move the goal posts. Still, I would be remiss in my responsibilities as an editor if I didn't respectfully suggest that, if an action is deemed necessary, a more restricted ban be instituted, perhaps from the Project for a few days, and a longer ban from the subject article and talk page - just to see if this is, indeed, a single-user account, or if "Matthew" can find other ways to contribute to the Project by editing other articles about which he doesn't have such strong feelings. Thank you." - Nascentatheist 02:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It is disappointing (to say the least) that following this well-reasoned post (which accords with my reading of what happened in that thread), Adam Cuerden's reply was the following post:

"You have a fair point, but since I hadn't actually noticed you r comments, and judged on behaviour, and Moreschi and several other outsiders to the debate suggested that I was being too lenient when I first went with the restricted ban, I think this one has a bit more consensus than I'd be willing to overrule. Adam Cuerden ^talk 09:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)"

Overall, in my opinion, the same pattern is seen here again: Adam Cuerden is refusing to take responsibility for the block, and is deferring to the opinions expressed by others who he asked to review the block (the merit and reliability of those opinions is covered elsewhere, see here). It seems that Adam Cuerden relied too much on the opinions of those at the ANI thread, while those at the ANI thread relied too much on his judgment and were too quick to agree with him. An abdication of responsibility all round, and meanwhile a user remains indefinitely blocked. Carcharoth 00:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It's the way you construe seeking input as failure to accept responsibility that concerns me. I can agree that Adam didn't make the best business of it, but I'd rather see an administrator ask the community to review a block than not. Durova^Charge! 01:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not the 'asking the community to review' bit that I'm talking about. It's the attitude of "once the community discussion has taken place, it's not my responsibility any more", the metaphorical washig of the hands. The block log is still in the admin's name, so it is still that admin's responsibility. They can't take on the responsibility of declining what was effectively an unblock request, and on the other hand say "I can't over-rule the community". Carcharoth 01:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this is doubly harsh. The evidence doesn't bear out a desysop and if it did, why should he have to appeal to ArbCom rather than have the choice of going to RFA, which is probably a harder venue anyway? (To my knowledge Guanaco and Carnildo are the only users to have been desysopped at ArbCom and resysopped at RFA.) Stifle (talk) 09:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar. Extraordinary circumstances there, far more serious misconduct than anything demonstrated in this arbitration. Durova^Charge! 10:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Can I make a point here? the point of my response to Nascentatheist was that he was concerned that his allegations of sockpuppetry may have caused MatthewHoffman to be identified as a sock. I hadn't read Nascentatheist's comment, and it never came up in discussion - so I could assure him that MatthewHoffman wasn't blocked because of him. At the time, I think I thought that other people thinking he might be a sock - even if not sure, and not wanting their judgement to be the only criteria - seemed to be further support of a block of an editor I was still thinking of as attacking others without cause. (and yes, I know that was a mistaken impression). Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

FWIW I thought the Jason Gastrich comment looked off target even when I first read it. Didn't seem like the same person or even the same ideology. Durova^Charge! 22:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I've disagreed with Adam before, but any remedy involving desysopping is absolutely ludicrous based on the evidence to date. --B (talk) 03:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Quite harsh unless there is considerable evidence of a pattern of bad blocks and failure to communicate that goes beyond this incident. There is a feeling of "Don't you know who I am?" going on here. Thatcher131 19:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It is quite harsh compared how things are usually done on Wikipedia and might seem unfair to Adam. But actually it is how things should be done. Bad blocks due to an excusable judgment error made after the consideration done with due care are the only type of forgivable bad blocks. Bad blocks due to rash and sloppiness are inexcusable. However unfair it may seem to Adam to be the first one to be punished for what others have been unpunished for a long time, there is always a first time for everything. This should start a trend, see my statement, and it would be a rightful decision. If ArbCom wants to really make a difference, other admins who acted sloppily in this incident should be desysopped as well. Blocking is a very serious matter. If you don't treat with due diligence, you should not have a button. --Irpen 19:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree. Adam made at least two errors in judgement here (the block and failing to respond adequately to concerns) but except in outrageous or persistent cases, our first response, as with problem editors, should be education and guidance. Unless there is a persistent pattern here, a more appropriate remedy would be a brief suspension and possibly mentorship. (Note that I have been a significant player in 3 or 4 desysoppings so I hope you give me some credit as not having too lax a response to admin misconduct. Thatcher131 20:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The key words here are errors in judgment vs misconduct. Making blocking decisions in rash is misconduct. Making an error in blocking decision after an investigation is undertaken with due diligence is a judgment error. The evidence suggest that Adam has acted sloppily, blocked without a proper investigation. The evidence also suggests that Chaser reviewed the unblock sloppily as well. The evidence suggests that Moreschi, who expressed the unequivocal support to an indefinite block, also did so without investigating the history. Being careless and sloppy is a misconduct as far as we are dealing with the block button. A recent Durova's block of !! was indeed a judgment error, nothing more, as she certainly took a great effort to arrive to her conclusion. She is desysopped not for a whimsical block but because she, and her friends, organized a whole system of sneaky under-the-carpet games, and she also demonstrated such a poor judgment (her evidence was laughable to anyone who've seen it) that she cannot be trusted with a button. Perhaps Adam, Moreschi and Chaser would not have made an error if they simply took an effort to study the matter on which they made decisions. But making blocking decisions without due consideration is misconduct that cannot be reduced to "a judgment error". --Irpen 20:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Clarification, Irpen: I was not desysopped. I resigned. I was open to recall, which played a significant role in that. Durova^Charge! 20:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: this is a side issue but you refused to acknowledge or even react to multiple calls at your talk to initiate a recall and only resigned in view of unavoidable desysoppping by ArbCom. Not sure how it is all relevant here. I brought up your example only to demonstrate a block which can be called a "judgment error" rather than a "whim". Non-gross judgment errors are excusable. Whimsical blocks are not. --Irpen 20:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right: this is a side issue. This arbitration is about Matthew Hoffman and Adam Cuerden. I disagree with several of your assertions, but let's keep the discussion to the matter at hand. I respect your opinions, Irpen, even though we often disagree. Perhaps a different example for comparison would be a more productive analogy for the present discussion? Durova^Charge! 21:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Durova, leaving in the midst of arbitration is generally "left under a cloud." To suggest, "You can't fire me, I quit" is kind of a dodge. Never mind that, though: the issue is that a block cannot be quickly made good. Yes, a user can be unblocked, but the blocked user carries a block log. Take a look at the current ArbCom elections for how that plays, where people don't actually read the decisions or the log. Blocking should be our last act and our least common one, and the block policy takes this into account. It is serious, and misuse of admin tools in any other area is more forgiveable. You protect too often? So what? You delete an article? Big deal. You block in a "whoopsie?" That's a very, very serious issue. Geogre (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden desysopped, but can reapply normally

1.1) Adam Cuerden's administrative privileges are revoked. He may reapply through RFA or by appeal to ArbCom at any time.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Not my favorite, but better than the other one. - Jehochman ^Talk 12:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Clearly better than 1.0 above. GRBerry 04:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Alternative 1. Stifle (talk) 09:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Clearly better that the remedy proposed above. Absent special circumstances, ArbCom should not prejudice the community from deciding if someone can be an admin. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Support. No need to force him to go through the committee that desysopped him. Adminning is the matter of the community trust and RfAdm is the only tool we now have to gauge it. --Irpen 20:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Premature at this stage. He's asked for more time to present evidence. I respectfully request we keep an open mind. Durova^Charge! 20:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden's adminship suspended

1.2) Adam Cuerden's administrative privileges are suspended for a period of 30 days.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Reasonable, for failing to respond to inquiries, not for simply misinterpreting the evidence. - Jehochman ^Talk 12:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Possibly useful as a "we really mean it" emphasis to accompany an admonishment. But put the admonishment before this is in the final list of remedies. GRBerry 04:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Alternative 2. Stifle (talk) 09:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly I find this th preferred alternative. Despite his mistaken actions in this case, I believe that he can be a productive admin in the future. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Somewhere between 7 and 30 days is about right here, unless there is considerable additional evidence that this incident is part of a long-term pattern. Thatcher131 19:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

MatthewHoffman

2) The block log is to be annotated to show that this committee has found the 72 hour and indefinite blocks of MatthewHoffman to be unjustified.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Historically the committee has been very reluctant to do this. A log was expunged once, but this was not requested. The community has in the past discussed one-second blocks to log notes; I don't recall there being consensus to do this. Anyone else remember? Mackensen (talk) 01:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Geogre and Doc both raise good points. I think the obvious way out, were this course adopted, would be to make "corrective" blocks the provenance of the Arbitration Committee and reserved for truly serious errors. I'm still somewhat uncomfortable with the idea, but mainly because it's new ground. Mackensen (talk) 12:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The intent of the remedy is to make a 1 second block or some other circumlocution. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Copied from proposed decision for comment. WjBscribe 13:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Definitely a good idea in terms of ameliorating the harm from the bad blocks. MastCell ^Talk 20:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure the 72 hour block was wrong. Would endorse this for the indef. In terms of my reasoning, the sock/not a sock issue is moot. The editor articulated policy at a level that voiced familiarity and experience. It doesn't really matter whether this person acquired that knowledge through extensive lurking and reading or less ethical means: he demanded respect as someone who did understand policy, and being treated like he knew what he was doing is the flip side of that coin. Durova^Charge! 22:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

No idea about the specifics, but seems like a bad precedent. With 1400 sysops we have many bad block calls, and rightly most are reversed. It's good form if when that happens the sysop can apologise or there can be a record somewhere on the wiki of other sysops disputing the block. But if arbcom start the notion that bad blocks "deserve" an official reversal, you'll either have every blocked person coming to you, or sysops wheel-waring with one second blocks noting "the last block was unjustified" "oh no it wasn't". Best to let regular wiki commentary speak for itself. A finding that the block is regrettable should suffice.--Doc^g 02:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Durova^Charge! 10:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Doc and Durova, you're wrong on this. Set aside whatever feelings you have about the "person." The block log will follow the user around for the rest of her or his time on Wikipedia, and it will be cited repeatedly. At RFA, the block log. At ArbCom elections, the block log. Content dispute? Block log. Because it requires moving Heaven and Hell to undo a block's log summary, a "whoopsie" carries with it permanent harm to the user's career. It is never sufficient, therefore, for there to be a finding of fact. The finding of fact may or may not be cited, but it is going to have to be a diff held in the user's space and kept as insulation for the next citation of block log. ¶There is a real, past case to think about, here. I can think of an instance where a user got blocked with a block summary of "Hate speech." That was so far, so very far away, from the reality that not only was the person unblocked, but the admin was demoted by Jimbo. A clear injustice had been done, but the block log stayed there. It had, frozen in it, this charge, this extremely dark bit of hate speech. To undo the injustice of "you can't edit" was easy. To undo the damage of "this person is blocking people improperly" was harder. To clear that block log, though, took massive trouble and time. ¶I feel strongly that 1 second blocks with summaries designed to exonerate should not be commonplace. However, it is an efficient method and sometimes the only way. Therefore, I recommend that either the clerk of the case or one of the arbitrators do the 1 second exoneration block "on behalf of the arbitration committee." It's a kludge. It's ugly. It could get out of hand. It's also necessary, though. ¶Imagine this user becoming a better and better user, a user with better and better edits and contributions, one climbing the learning curve and maturation. Now imagine a run for any position of trust. Now imagine having the block thrown back and effectively re-arbitrated over and over again. No administrator should wield that kind of power, and when there is an arbitration that finds that it was incorrect on its face, we either have to have block log editing (which is very difficult) or another method. A hand stamp saying "Not Insane" will never be as good as something in the same medium (the block log). Geogre 11:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, ideally there would be some developer-level fix for the dilemma and a trusted level of user privilege that could erase a block from the history. Although I sympathize with your argument, Geogre, Doc makes a very strong case about the impracticality of any attempt to scale this proposal. Durova^Charge! 11:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Scaling isn't an issue. First, it is already scaled, in that admins who unblock sometimes "clear the log" by performing a one second block. Second, the argument here is that someone on ArbCom perform the block after a finding of fact. That is not a very commonplace occurrence and certainly not much work. Geogre 11:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I have no feelings about this user either way. I've not met him, and not reviewed this case. Arbcom members don't carry through their own remedies anyway - so it would be some random admin. And any admin can block him for a second anyway and note the FoF, so this remedy is superfluous at best.--Doc^g 14:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of me-tooing, I haven't met the editor either but I did review this case in depth after arbitration opened. I have no principled objection to making a notation when a block was done in error. Durova^Charge! 15:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

When this is all over, I'll talk to Adam about a common wording for a log note. No promises, but we'll try. I do agree that it's not generally appropriate for ArbCom to do it. I'd go further in saying that it's wise leaving such notes to the blocking (or block-reviewing) administrator, lest the block log become a discussion board. That said, if anyone besides Adam or I add a note to his log, I wouldn't go yell at them on their talk page or anything.--chaser - t 11:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden admonished

3) Adam Cuerden is admonished to exercise greater care when issuing, reviewing and discussing blocks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, in case we find that these matters are atypical of Adam Cuerden's administrative behavior. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe this is thoroughly justified. I'd also be willing to have my blocks reviewed regularly, or be warned against blocking for a certain period. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Endorse, in light of Adam's comments. Durova^Charge! 22:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Too light. There was a prolonged refusal to recognize any fault here. Thatcher131 19:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Admonishment variant 1

3.1) Adam Cuerden is admonished not to use his administrative tools when he is in a dispute with the user or about the page or holds a strong POV and the other editor holds an opposing POV.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Given what I see in the evidence this is a very important warning to issue. All the blocks on named users in my evidence and the page protection at Homeopathy illustrates this forming pattern. It may be early enough yet for admonishment to change the pattern before it becomes habitual. GRBerry 04:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Admins who are passionate about Pokemon should not block editors for problematic editing of Pokemon articles, even if they have not edited the specific article in question. Thatcher131 19:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Admonishment variant 2

3.2) Adam Cuerden is admonished not to use his administrative tools in non-obvious cases when he is under extreme mental stress or suffering.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Other evidence suggests this might be appropriate. GRBerry 18:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem here then becomes who verifies all this. It has long been a principle that editing Wikipedia when under stress is not a good idea, with the related concept that Wikipedia is not therapy. Also, no offense to Adam (I know that depression is a serious illness) or implication in this case, but some people will take advantage of such a ruling and there could be an outbreak of "stress" across lots of arbitration parties possibly facing sanctions. There should be ways to verify and handle such cases, though, if there are genuine grounds for such, and without the need for the people concerned to make public statements about their health (a private matter). Carcharoth (talk) 18:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Condescending. Admins are expected to take responsibility for their actions. We should not have to warn admins about not adminning while their judgement is impaired, whether through ingestion of recreational or therapeutic compounds or circumstances in real life. Thatcher131 19:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Article probation

4) Irreducible complexity, intelligent design, and related topics are placed under article probation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Where are the "usual parameters of article paroles". Can we have a link, please? Carcharoth 00:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Article probation. Strong Support Adam Cuerden is a good person who got burned out fighting trolls, and did bad things. I am hopeful that he can be rehabilitated, and that the articles can be improved. - Jehochman ^Talk 18:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd gladly support this - indeed, I'd support one for Alternative medicine (particularly Homeopathy as well. But can we deal with these as a separate issue, so that the people on talk pages of the relevant pages can be brought in, without adding a lot of new discussion to an already complex case? Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Amendable per the usual parameters of article paroles. This topic needs a steady hand. Durova^Charge! 22:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The regular editors on these articles would have no idea that this remedy is being considered, as the previous description of the case concerns a particular block of a particular editor. If this is to be seriously considered, consider whether notice of the case should be given, perhaps on the talkpages of the articles concerned. Newyorkbrad 02:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Might be worth it, in light of the background. The most generous reading of the ID sites suggests they resort to violating policies because they don't think they're being allowed a voice any other way. I'm not sure how much credence to give that, but I generally think article parole is useful in areas where real world conflicts migrate onto Wikipedia. Durova^Charge! 03:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Strong Oppose as this is way outside the scope of this arbitration. As per NYBrad, this is a case about a block by Adam. The articles do have a steady hand, as there is a team of editors that work very hard to keep the articles as neutral and stable as possible. Why handcuff those who have worked hard on these articles by carrying out this action? The only people that will be hurt by this are the regular editors on these topics. The people come for the sole purpose of trolling and disrupting the articles don't care about being blocked. The intentions are good, but completely unfeasible on these topics. Baegis 02:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Beyond the scope. Pesky editors of all points of view should be handled through the normal processes. Thatcher131 19:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Charles Matthews reminded

5) Charles Matthews is reminded to assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary and to maintain civility even when such evidence is presented.

5.1) Charles Matthews is reminded to maintain decorum.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree with Stifle, because Charles hasn't refactored, nor has he apologized for calling me, and others, a "dog", "moral pygmie", "meddling hypocrite", and "busybody". - Jehochman ^Talk 12:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I think actually what happened is that he left the computer and took a break. He hasn't edited since this edit at 21:34, 3 December 2007. At that point I suggested he take a break. I don't know if he saw my message or left straightaway, but I think it would have been better for you Stifle to wait for a response from him before proposing this. For the record, he also referred to AN/I as a "shower", which I believe is also not complimentary. Carcharoth 14:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't propose this. Stifle did, below. You may want to refactor your comment for accuracy. How is "shower" insulting? - Jehochman ^Talk 14:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, I missed who proposed this. See wikt:shower#Noun, definition 6. Carcharoth 15:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Would prefer a reminder about decorum, which I think more accurately describes the issue of concern than this wording does. GRBerry 18:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. See 5.1. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Stifle (talk) 09:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

No. Per Irpen, we assume good faith with editors to give them a chance to adapt to our culture before jumping all over them. Any admin that acts in bad faith should be run out on a rail. WIth admins it is not good faith, but judgement, and there is no AGJ policy. Charles' approach could have used a bit more decorum, though. Thatcher131 19:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Reluctantly, I have to agree with this. Enough time has passed that I'm surprised no refactor has been forthcoming. Vigilance isn't an excuse for incivility. Durova^Charge! 20:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Carcharoth advised him to take a break and I suggested greater decorum late on the 3rd. Charles hasn't edited at all in the two days since. I'd hate to think that taking an advised cool down break becomes a factor against him. GRBerry 21:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - disengaging and taking a break is what we're supposed to do when we get upset here. The comments as they currently stand are inappropriate, but before we push this angle any further let's give him time to cool off and look them over. MastCell ^Talk 00:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I would gladly change my opinion if he retracts the insults. Durova^Charge! 00:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this is necessary because it's not an isolated incident on Charles' part. Although he's never vented his spleen in my direction, I've seen enough of it that it has had a chilling effect on my own actions as an admin, "This guy's obviously a vandal/troll, but there's maybe a 1% chance that I could be wrong, and if I am, will Charles -- a member of Arbcom -- start unloading on me?" Although AGF may not be applicable here in a narrow, formal sense, standards of civility and decorum still apply. Any teacher will tell you that when you catch someone making a mistake, rubbing their nose in it seldom is helpful. Raymond Arritt (talk) 07:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Editors encouraged to display independent thought

6) When discussing issues at locations such as the administrators' noticeboard and the administrators' incidents noticeboard, administrators and other editors are encouraged to take responsibility for their own actions, to provide their own arguments, and not to be overly reliant on the opinions and arguments of others that agree with them.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed to address concerns of 'noticeboard culture' (groupthink). Carcharoth 17:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC) Additionally, encourage continuing community input at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Clerks. Carcharoth 18:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, but change administrators to editors. We should be as inclusive as possible. - Jehochman ^Talk 18:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed. So modified. Carcharoth 20:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be an announcement that this sort of thing is being discussed on WP:ANI? Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's an unorthodox rememdy. I don't think the arbitrators are likely to take it up, and am just floating it as a proposal. Would like to get a day or so of feedback here first. In any case, a discussion at AN about groupthink (though we should avoid using that word) should be done regardless of this case. Carcharoth 18:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

In other words, editors are expected to exercise good judgment and engage in due diligence. If we need this, most frightening. However, I think a reminder would be useful. The underlying principle applies not just at AN/ANI but in reviewing sources in articles (even those which look at first glance to support your own POV), RfC discussions, RfA discussions, XfD discussions, DRV discussions. In fact, it applies everywhere on Wikipedia. Are there any good essays about this? If not, who can write one? GRBerry 04:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

If you have to put this in writing then you have already lost. (And the idea that having Clerks tidying up the noticeboards will raise the level of discourse, prevent distractions, encourage more thorough block reviews, and generally promote more independent thinking is, I fear, charmingly naive.) Thatcher131 19:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

If somebody had added a timestamp to the original Hoffman thread to prevent it from being archived, and called for more opinions, "Hey, this person is being indefinitely blocked and only two editors have commented thus far", I think we could have nipped this problem in the bud. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Template

7) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

8) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

9) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

5) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: