Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:34, 3 December 2007

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Most new accounts are not sock puppets

3) 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

4) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

5) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

6) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

7) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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)[reply]

Comment by parties:

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment by others:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment by others:

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Comment by others:

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

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)[reply]

Comment by others:

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment by others:

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment by others:

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

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)[reply]

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

Chaser

8) 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)[reply]

Comment by others:

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

~~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)[reply]

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)[reply]

... 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)[reply]

Charles Matthews has been grossly incivil

10) Charles Matthews has said, "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?"[7] He has made other insulting remarks and refused to remove them even after having been notified that they are unacceptable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. The two administrators are presumably Adam Cuerdin and Moreschi. I was the third person on that ANI discussion. Presumably, he's calling me a dog because I wasn't an admin at the time. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment by others:

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@@ Line 336: / Line 336: @@
 :::::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? [[User:Charles Matthews|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 [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Matthew_Hoffman/Evidence#Role_of_User:Nascentatheist_and_response_of_Adam_Cuerden|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. [[User:Carcharoth|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. [[User:Charles Matthews|Charles Matthews]] 21:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 ::<s>Charles, a minor point first, as a party, shouldn't you be commenting up in this section?</s> 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? [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] 19:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:34, 3 December 2007

Motions and requests by the parties

Appeal for calm

Template

Template

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

Template

Template

Template

Questions to the parties

For AdamCuerden

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Whack a mole

Most new accounts are not sock puppets

Template

Template

Template

Template

Proposed findings of fact

Adam Cuerden acted in good faith, but made bad decisions

Adam Cuerden probably hasn't acted this foolishly before

Adam Cuerden

Edit history of Irreducible complexity

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

72 hour and indefinite blocks of Matthew Hoffman were outside policy

Matthew Hoffman not a sock puppet

Chaser

Charles Matthews has failed to Assume good faith

Charles Matthews has been grossly incivil

Proposed remedies

Adam Cuerden

MatthewHoffman

Adam Cuerden admonished

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Proposed enforcement

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Analysis of evidence

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

General discussion