Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Proposed decision

Arbitrators active on this case

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators. If updates to this listing do not immediately show, try .

Proposed decisions versus workshop page

I've noticed that some proposed decisions are being written up already. Does this mean that the workshop page is redundant here? Should those who have presented evidence consider adding to the already existing workshop proposals or not, and have the already existing workshop proposals been considered? Oh, hang one, I now see that UninvitedCompany has commented on those proposals. Ignore this. I'll go over there. Carcharoth 07:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The workshop pages will continue to be considered. Paul August ☎ 15:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Evidence submission completed

I've added some new evidence since the proposed decision page was started. I'd be grateful if arbitrators writing up proposed decisions could review the new evidence, and maybe include new findings of fact based on that evidence. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence. I think that should be all from me. Apologies if the evidence submitted is too long or excessive. Carcharoth 08:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Some comments and questions

If I may, I have a few comments and questions on this case and on what the arbitrators have said so far and what they have not mentioned so far.

• (1) One of the points I would like clarified is the point I raised on the Evidence page that the MatthewHoffman account only began editing nearly two years after the account was created. What does that mean in this context. (i) Should the admins and editors involved have noticed this? (ii) Should the people filing the ArbCom case have noticed this sooner (this was only noticed late on)? (iii) Does it actually mean anything? ie. Can any sensible conclusions be drawn from the age of the account and its long dormancy?
• (2) Flonight says here that the biggest problem was a "lack of follow up and discussion". In my view there was follow-up and discussion. First at the ANI thread of 22 September, then at Adam Cuerdon's talk page on 23 September (see the evidence here), then the unblock request on 26 September and the review of that request by User:Chaser on 28 September. There was no lack of follow up and (token) discussion, but more a failure of the follow up processes. In the end, a fourth attempt by e-mail to an arbitrator got a fifth discussion that resulted in an unblock. Maybe change the word "lack" to something better describing what happened?
• (3) Proposed principle 3 is putting two principles together: (i) cool-down blocks; and (ii) content disputes. Is it not possible to separate these?

I'm still unclear as well as to whether it is worth proposing anything at the workshop page. Would it be possible to get an answer to that, as I have a few proposed findings I'd like to try out for size. Carcharoth 13:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to use the workshop as much as you'd like. Kirill 13:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the workshop page and talk pages are helpful. Continue to offer alternate proposals or tweak the wording of existing ones. FloNight 14:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking at both sides

Adam seems to be unable to mount a defense. This process is inherently unfair if the committee does not consider the good things Adam may have done for the project. At minimum we should put together a paragraph or two summarizing his work. It may be the case that these problems account for a small fraction of what he has been doing. If that is the case, a warning would be more appropriate than de-sysopping. On the other hand, if we find generally poor adminship, then de-sysopping may be appropriate. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone ever been de-sysopped for one bad block? It's certainly very unusual. The findings of fact focus only on Adam's actions in relation to MatthewHoffman, and do not suggest a pattern of administrative misconduct. I'm unclear on why the proposed remedy is so draconian. If the intent is to register dissatisfaction with the way blocking policy is widely applied, or the way WP:AN/I operates, then choosing a hard-working but undeniably fallible admin to make an example of seems like a counterproductive way to address the issue. MastCell ^Talk 17:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone has been desysopped for one bad unblock. The Jimbo-Zscout business. Probably not relevant here though. Carcharoth 22:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

How long was he desysopped for? Carcharoth, there's enough noise surrounding this case already. Let's keep the remarks concise and on topic. - Jehochman ^Talk 23:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Familiarity with the article and issues

Flonight says, in response to proposed principle 4 Blocking of sock puppets: "...there was familiarity with the article and issues that might cause one to think the user was an experienced user returning with a different account making an abusive sock puppet a possibility." - my question here is how on earth can this behaviour be distinguished from that of a new editor who is familiar with the article and issues simply by having read the article and followed the editing history and talk page? Are we to discourage new editors from familiarising themselves with an article and its talk page before starting to edit it? Carcharoth 22:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely... that is why I said "might"...we can not tell one way or the other without engaging the editor in more discussion. That is the problem with this block and the associated block reviews, I think. FloNight 22:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Haste?

Isn't this case going through with unseemly haste? I see that Adam has asked for time to be able to mount a defence as he has forthcoming exams. I know he has submitted some evidence but has anyone checked that he has fully completed his evidence? The case is already into voting. Isn't there a danger that the speed with which this is going through is going to lead, at the very least, to an appearance of unfairness against Adam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spartaz (talk • contribs) 22:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

No arbitrator has voted in over a day. Thank you for raising this point; I hope they give him the normal amount of time if he needs it. Durova^Charge! 00:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It is my intention that a reasonable amount of time be given to Adam to participate in this case. Paul August ☎ 15:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Paul. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. Durova^Charge! 20:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Double edged sword

In my opinion some of our best administrators are ones that spend a good bit of their time editing articles in addition to using their administrative tools to help the Community. I think that they bring a different perspective to the use of their tools than administrators that spend their time almost exclusively doing administrative actions. Unfortunately, article editing administrators are more prone to making a type of error that administrators that rarely edit articles do not make. On occasion they do not see that they are using their tools in a biased manner based on their topics of interest. While the Community should not condone this type of error in judgment, I feel the Community needs to be understanding of administrators that make this error since it is a by product of their type of participation. Giving them calm constructive feedback about their bias is a Good Thing. If after they have received the feedback, these administrators continue to use their tools against our policy, then they need to have them revoked. This is the thinking behind my votes in this case. FloNight (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Indef and 72 hour blocks were outside of policy, content dispute

This contains the line "Cuerden was involved in a content dispute with Hoffman" - I'd suggest rephrasing this to "Cuerden has views strongly opposed to Hoffman's", as otherwise it really distorts the definition of "content dispute". Given I hadn't edited there for about 9 months, unless I missed something, I think that "Conflict of interest" would be a more appropriate criticism of my behaviour. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

also "Administrator tools should not be used i n a content dispute" would be better phrased as "when there is a conflict of interest"

And what ever happened to waiting until after my exams? They end Tuesday, you know. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I sent a post to the ArbCom mailing list with your request that we delay until after your exams. FloNight (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry if I was a bit snippy, but it's a bit hard to do anything with an exam *whimper* tomorrow. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Concerns about FoF #6

I'm deeply unhappy that Arbitrators are supporting this finding of fact. Chaser expressly refered to checking the account's contrib history in responding to 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" and no evidence has been presented to suggest that he had not reviewed the account's contributions. The Committee may wish to criticise the conclusion that Chaser came to, but I think that evidence is needed before accusations are made that admins acted without due diligence. Chaser has in my experience been an outstanding admin, if he said he reviewed those contributions I believe him. I urge you to refactor this finding to something that doesn't suggest that Chaser's unblock reason was untruthful. WjBscribe 18:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, though I see that UninvitedCompany has retracted his vote in light of this. Hopefully the other arbitrators will, or some more suitable phrasing will be found. I would also urge the arbitrators to continue to check the evidence and workshop pages, as there is still some activity there. Given the proposed delay until Tuesday (see section elsewhere), I'm hoping that something can also address the roles of the blocking admin, the unblocking request reviewing admin, and the role of those commenting at ANI. Unless a clear principle is written on this, I fear that the practice of deferring to consensus at ANI will continue. In some cases, of course, consensus at ANI can be a very good guiding principle, but something needs to be said to get the message across to admins that a short thread at ANI with only one substantial input (from Moreschi) does not equate to support for an indefinite block. An attempt at such a principle would be:

The blocking admin should always take primary responsibility for the fairness, length and justness of a block. The unblock request reviewing admin should take responsibility for a proper review, and should provide clear reasons when declining an unblock request. The responsibility of an admin blocking, or upgrading a block, on the basis of "community consensus" should be to state this clearly in the block log, and to provide links to said discussion.

This may already be in the blocking policy. If not, maybe a remedy is needed urging the community to discuss the blocking policy and process guidelines in light of this case. Carcharoth (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be said that I agree. I've proposed an alternative phrasing. I'll take my licks for screwing up the block review, but I'm not happy about the committee claiming I didn't look at his contributions when I did. Thank you to WJBscribe and Carcharoth for bringing this up again and to UninvitedCompany for reconsidering the FoF.--chaser (away) - talk 17:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well, and I'm glad to see this finding being reconsidered. Chaser's block review doesn't stand up particularly well under the microscope, but it's well below the level that typically warrants singling out an admin in an ArbCom case. It leaves the impression that Chaser was a casualty of the somewhat indiscriminate and heated barrage with which this case opened. MastCell ^Talk 17:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Chaser should have provided clear reasons for declining the unblock request, something he should have done to spare the aggrieved editor and any observer of any ambiguity and something that any blocker is required to do. No one should be stuck with having to "believe" anything. Failure to explain the blocking action on-wiki should be the main discovery acknowledged in the decision, not the committee's second guessing on whether he "lied" that he studied the edits or he "erred" while studying them. "Faith" should not be in this picture at all. The blocked editor is entitled to more than "faith" and "belief" that he is treated fairly. --Irpen 23:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Expanding on those concerns

Agreed. I've seen instances before where a block got applied based on flawed analysis and multiple administrators duplicated the flawed analysis at unblock review. To expand upon evidence I presented at my own arbitration, consistency would demand that the Committee also reprimand the following adminstrators:

• LionheartX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) A tangled situation that had been wrong for two months when I found it and that I set right in two weeks. The editor used multiple accounts legitimately, but both of the others were already indeffed. One of the previous indefs had been done by mistake as a WP:SOCK violation and two unblock requests on that other account had been denied.[1][2][3] Full analysis is here.
  • What actually happened: an editor got misidentified as a ban-evading sockpuppet, and blocked indefinitely. Actually the editor had started a new account because he lost the password on his old account, and the indef on that old account was just a procedural courtesy. That got mistaken for a ban so his legitimate new account got indeffed too.
  • Administrators who were mistaken:
  • Mackensen
  • Bishonen
  • Pgk
  • Doc glasgow

• Compare the above examples to how I handled this request from an IP[4][5] who had been blocked by mistake a month earlier by a different administrator[6] and whose two unblock requests had already been denied. I restored editing privileges and extended apologies on behalf of my fellow administrators for the failure of the normal review system.[7] The editor thanked me for helping.[8]
  • What actually happened: a productive editor got swept up in the Joan of Arc vandal sock blocks. He didn't even agree with the Joan of Arc vandal's POV, but he sometimes used edit summaries a little bit like that vandal. He claims to be an Australian medical doctor, and based upon the level of expertise that informs his contributions that looks like a credible assertion. Took him a month to find me and request a third review, and by then he had really soured on Wikipedia.
  • Administrators who were mistaken:
  • JzG
  • Redvers
  • Steve block

Durova^Charge! 18:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This is cause for concern. If the review process breaks so easily, what can be done about it? I suspect a community discussion and overhaul of WP:BLOCK might be needed, with clearer guidelines regarding reviewing unblock requests. I am also thinking that a principle should be proposed along the lines that indefinite blocking (or long-term blocking) is something that should be done with caution, and not used unless as a last resort. Blocks of a month or less can be waited out by the blocked user. On the other hand, those who have been unblocked indefinitely unfairly are reduced to filing unblock requests or e-mailing. The first unblock request tends to be done in the heat of the moment and get turned down. I also suspect that, unfairly, admins reviewing a second unblock request are more likely to think "yeah, yeah, trying again to get unblocked?" And only do a cursory review before declining. I've also seen the idea that people don't get unblocked until they realise what they've done wrong and apologised for it. In some cases, this involves reading three or four different policies and writing a mini-essay on why they were blocked. Make a little slip or misunderstanding and it is "nope, request declined". In some cases, those filing to be unblocked are held to impossibly high standards. The mindset should be "presume innocence until proven guilty", not "they were guilty, why aren't they apologising hard enough?" This is complicated, as the proposed principle says here, by the fact that the vast majority of unblock requests are without merit. But still, it is indefinite blocking that should, in my opinion, be subject to more rigorous review. See also Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Community Bans (I see you've contributed there, hopefully others reading this will as well). Carcharoth (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing unblock requests isn't something I habitually do. These two instances came to my attention because I had some level of involvement in each of them and got petitioned to take a look at the cases. In the first instance the editor was exceptionally poor at making his case and there had been enough problems in his history that it was reasonable to suppose he had been banned. The latter instance was an honest mistake during cleanup from a fairly prolific sockpuppeteer who had flown underneath the radar for two years prior to sitebanning. I'd call these circumstances unusual, yet I also hope the Committee bears in mind that some vandals create large numbers of throwaway/sleeper accounts and don't use them often enough for definitive identification from the edit patterns. Down in the trenches, administrators sometimes contend with clusters of proxy editors or a single vandal who changes tactics. Durova^Charge! 00:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

"Irreducible Complexity and other evolution-related articles"

Irreducible complexity is better described as an intelligent design-related article. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

At present, maybe. But part of the problem is the history of such terms. Evolution meant something different 300 years ago to what it means now. Same for intelligent design. If the articles don't make this clear (with due weight), then they should. Carcharoth (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden desysoppal proposal

Creating this section for others to commented on the proposed desysopping.

• For what it is worth, I agree with Flonight here. Adam has been co-operative during the case. Plainly he wasn't before, when engaging with Charles Matthews, but I'm prepared to put that down to disorganisation or jumping to defend himself without fully reviewing the situation (something that is probably unlikely to happen again). Whether the co-operation is because he realises the seriousness of the situation is another matter. Maybe a very strong caution could be a middle ground? On the other hand, I have seen some opinions saying that desysopping shouldn't be seen as something to be used as a last resort. If desysopping was more common, admins might be more careful, at least over things like using admin tools in certain areas and for certain actions (page protections and indefinite blocks). Carcharoth (talk) 12:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I was uncooperative before because I didn't remember the case, and, well, wasn't really having a good day, and was a bit annoyed at the speed - there didn't seem much call for an immedite decision after two months had already passed, and I was pretty much exhausted and so feeling rather overwhelmed. Combined with mixing up who he was, it led to me trying, and failing to cope, and only really doing so because I thought I had made Charles wait too long already.

What I should have done is simply asked Charles if it could wait a couple days, but a bit late to realise that now. Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

my comment is that unlike most admin's who I've observed in this situation Adam has tried to constructively learn from this incident. I would also note that we in general need a better forum for community review of admins. I don't have a good idea of what that should look like (RfC's can be ok, but the current set up is overly prone to trolling, but am unsure otherwise). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

As I stated above, I am not in favor of wielding the de-sysop option cavalierly and often. I think a stern warning is more appropriate. Adam has shown clear evidence of acknowledgement of mistakes and honest attitude of penitance and contriteness. I believe that a far more constructive option would be to put in place a more fault tolerant system, as I discuss above, with more checks and balances.--Filll (talk) 19:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Ludicrous!!!!!

Please ignore this and skip to section "Wording" below, which states my upset more calmly.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Adam Cuerden's use of administrative tools" Oh, for god's sake, what the hell is going on here? Did you even read the supposed evidence? Radionics There was evidence of recruitment on the users' talk pages. Jennylen was talking to Librarian about how she ran out of 3RR, and thanks for helping out. Whether this was actual recruitment or merely something that coincidentally looked very like it was never definitely discovered, but did you bother to investigate this? No. George Vithoulkas: [9] Here someone blocks a page. [10] Here, after the block, I edit then immediately revert myself, seeing the page was protected. [11] Then JzG puts up an AfD tag http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Vithoulkas&diff=next&oldid=116806071 <- So I unprotect it. ...How is this described? Using protect tools during a dispute!!!!!!!! Homeopathy [12] Protected on a version by someone I was in dispute with. Oh no! [13] [14] [15] What the hell are these supposed to be evidence of, anyway? That I edited the page? Was it under protection and I hadn't realised, or something? Blocks: User:Sm565 [16] You're upset over a 3RR block?!?! User:Martinphi I CAREFULLY NOTIFIED HALF OF YOU AT THE TIME. Such sneaky, underhanded behaviour. What the HELL is going on here?!!! Adam Cuerden talk 17:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC) Adam, The principle at work here is that the ability to protect and unprotect pages and block users is not intended to go hand in hand with editing. If you are editing a page for content, you should not, in general, block people who are also editing that page for content, whether for 3RR violations or some other reason. There are exceptions. It would pose no problem, for example, for you to block a user for vandalism because they replaced the entire contents of Homeopathy with "fuck fuck fuckity fuck." I don't think anyone would mind if you blocked two people who were involved in a revert war on Homeopathy where each had reverted a dozen times in the last day (realizing that in practice most of those clearcut cases are caught by the bot operators). And there's a safe harbor for people removing material per WP:LIVING. Better to trust the community to come to your aid. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC) Even still, what's up with that George Vithoulkas claim? Or the protect of homeopathy on the user I was in dispute with's edit? I'm sorry, but I find this whole finding of fact unbelievable, particularly as it appears to have been created by Kirril out of her own research, and done to make me look as bad as possible - and it would appear that none of the rest of you properly reviewed it, at the same time as raking Chaser over the coals. Not to mention after creating this, you ignored my mention that I was in exams, and all rushed to vote on something I never even had a chance to comment on. Adam Cuerden talk 18:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC) Maybe I should go away and let myself cool down. I'll refactor when I get back. Adam Cuerden talk 18:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC) Adam, I think what UninvitedCompany is implying (though I may be wrong), is that if you are desysopped by ArbCom (and that is not yet certain) you could go cap in hand to RfA, show by your answers to questions at that new RfA that you have understood what went wrong here, and see what happens. Whether you do that immediately or after a period of a few months of productive editing, is up to you. I'd recommend waiting a while. What won't help is getting upset. I personally think the page unprotection was OK, but it's not me you have to convince. Carcharoth (talk) 18:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC) If you go by the RfA route, you need at least a year and half, and that's if you can barely make it through. - Mailer Diablo 18:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC) Look, I'm sorry, but I don't really feel like being a test case on trumped-up charges used to besmirch my reputation when I edit under my own name. So forgive me if I'm perhaps a little upset over this unseemly haste to blacken me because it would send an "important" message to others. Adam Cuerden talk 19:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this looks unfair. I would point this out, politely, and make sure they know you are not a bad guy, and have learned from your mistakes. You will slow down and ask more advice. I have never seen you use the tools in an inappropriate way, and you have always kept your cool, way better than most others, including myself. You are calm under fire, and able to deal with these difficult situations which few others are able to deal with, or dare try to wade into. That takes courage and resolve. And I applaud you for it.--Filll (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Admins are generally not permitted to act as admins in areas where they contribute as editors. As an active editor of Homeopathy, Adam should not make decisions on protections and unprotections, but should seek help from uninvolved admins through the noticeboard, IRC or WP:RFPP. Adam should not have blocked Sm565, who was also editing Homepathy, even if the case was clear, but should have sought outside help. Same thing with George Vithoulkas; as an editor of the topic, Adam should not have unprotected for the AfD, but should have asked Guy, who placed the AfD, or another admin, to undo the protection. Adam has a history of using his administrator tools in areas where he is making editorial contributions. This is a no-no, even if no single action was outrageously abusive. His failure to recognize and come to terms with these limitations, placed on admins by the community to prevent abuse, is a further indicator that he lacks the temperament to be an admin. Thatcher131 19:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

...You're trying to say that Admins cannot perform basic housekeeping actions on pages they edit? What is this, Bureaucratic hell? Has common sense disappeared from Wikipedia? Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Unprotecting George Vithoulkas for the AfD could possibly be considered "basic housekeeping" but there is no way that definition applies to protecting an article when you are an editor of that article, nor does "basic housekeeping" apply to blocking any editor, much less an editor with whom you are engaged in a content disagreement. Thatcher131 19:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

May I offer suggestions?

To the Committee: voting on a proposal before a party has had adequate time for response sends a very strong message to the community that no defense is possible. This arbitration case has not been going on particularly long and Adam Cuerden has asked for a modest amount of time due to his academic exams. This request is a reasonable one. Please honor it. Even if he still deserves desysopping now, it could make a great difference at some future RFA that he demonstrate the flaws of any points that might actually be mistaken. Many administrators in good standing would have difficulty passing a second RFA, because even proper use of the tools often generates resentment. If this case closes by endorsing overstatements against him the result may be an insurmountable barrier against him ever regaining the community's trust.

To Adam: momentary anguish is understandable - I've felt it too - but angry outbursts damage your reputation. When I was in a similar position I found it helped to get a meal and a glass of water. Draft your statements in a text browser and take a walk around the block before posting. Be willing to strikethrough (I recommend you tone down what you posted above). If you need someone to talk to, my e-mail is enabled. Durova^Charge! 19:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I did not know that rule, and clearly he did not know that rule either. So maybe we will all learn something and where the boundaries are exactly.--Filll (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I would also suggest that railroading Adam, when he asked for more time due to the stress of exams, is a very bad signal to send to the community. Even if Adam has committed some egregious offense which has no justification and is unpardonable and for which there is no possible remittance, I think the committee should take the long view. What message will this send? Are there appropriate procedures in place to prevent this from happening again? Or will just the sheer terror that such a punishment will induce in administrators prevent them from egregiously violating the terms of their adminship, written and unwritten? I argue strongly that we need a more fault tolerant system for dealing with these kinds of problems, and do not rush to quickly de-sysop. --Filll (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

There are so many assumptions and biases in that statement that it will be hard to make a comprehensive reply. First, there is supposed to be a minimum of a week between opening the case and the arbitrators proposing a decision, and I hope that is followed in the future. However, Adam offered himself as a candidate for Arbcom during his exams, so presumably he felt he had some time to spend on the project, and since the case opened he has made about 250 article, article talk and Wikipedia space edits unrelated to this case, so he clearly has some time available for Wikipedia. The problem with granting a continuance is what to do in the mean time. Would it be better to desysop him until the hearing, on the chance that he might eventually be desysopped, or leave him with his tools, taking the chance that he would continue to misuse them? The idea that Adam violated "unwritten" rules of adminship is plainly silly; the blocking and protection policies are clearly written and it is an admin's responsibility to understand them before using the tools. The idea that we need a more fault-tolerant system for dealing with admins who misuse their tools is in direct conflict with current sentiment at Requests for adminship where many voters make it difficult for people to become admins precisely because problem admins have not been dealt with effectively in the past. Ultimately each case is judged on its own merits, and I think that Adam's inability [17] [18] to see that he violated several policies is weighing against him here. A spoonful of contrition would have gone a long way when this case was filed, while on the flip side, someone who thinks that blocking an editor with whom he is edit warring is "common sense" should never have access to the block button. Thatcher131 20:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

<undent>I mean no disrespect. I am not an expert in wikilaw, and I am not knowledgable in the ways and mores and requirements of adminship in any detail. However, I agree with you on one important point; the reason that RfA is so contentious is because administrators wield such power with so little oversight and so few controls on them. If a different fault tolerant system was in place, people would be less nervous about promoting people, because their power would be checked a little. And we could have more administrators, which we need, frankly, as the community grows.

Are our requirements for the position of administrator unreasonably high? I suspect that almost none of our present administrators would be made administrator if the community had to do it all over again, as Durova suggests above. Several people I think are fine editors who I believe would be excellent administrators know that it is not worth even trying to stand for RfA, and so they do not even bother. And we lose out. I dare say most of our present bureaucrats or other high level officials would never be made administrator either in the present climate. So I think that we agree on the observation, but interpret it a bit differently.--Filll (talk) 21:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think it should be easier to become and admin and it should be easier for the community to remove adminship. Thatcher131 21:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

And why is it hard to become an admin? Because admins wield too much unchecked power, so people fear making a mistake when granting adminship.

One way to check the power of admins is to de-sysop them at a great rate and to threaten them with de-sysopping frequently, so they are afraid to use their tools. This I think is inhumane and does not allow for mistakes and differences in opinion and judgement. Another way to check their power is to create a fault tolerant system and limit their powers a bit. For example, make it so they cannot permanently ban anyone without certification from others. Make the longest possible ban 6 months or a year. And other limits, as might be determined through discussions. I think there are other options besides just beating the heck out of the people who are currently admins. Just my opinion.--Filll (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

<undent> Compare the system to the legal system. Your proposed system is to have the police be judge and jury and jailer and executioner, but to be able to hire police easily and fire them easily. My proposed system is to split up these functions among several different individuals, with various checks and balances and counterchecks on the system. A system of appeals, and appeals to the appeals, and certifications required at different stages. Although mine is more complicated, it is what the legal system has evolved into over millenia of tests and thought. And we seem to think our legal system is better this way, than the way you are suggesting. Just something to think about...--Filll (talk) 21:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that desysopping Adam without the benefit of an RfC or feedback of any sort (other than email from a single, albeit obviously influential, editor) would be highly irregular. Still, I have to agree that Adam's comments above aren't helping matters. It's just not right to block an editor for 3RR when you yourself are involved in the reverting, regardless of how clear-cut the case is. I've had this come up, and gone to WP:AN3 with good results. It's painful to wait the 12-24 hours for another admin there, but it's worth it in terms of ensuring things are done properly. I understand Adam's frustration, but it's not really possible to defend the block of Sm595, and better to realize this and accept it as lesson learned. MastCell ^Talk 20:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it's also ludicrous to claim this is a very big mistake, and one that clearly means that I must be desysoped.

This whole case hinges around the arbcom's fears that new editors might be driven off, or given a permanent blackmark. This is well and good. However, to this end, the arbcom seems to believe the best way to go about this is to blacken the names of old, respected editors, with notable and major contributions to Wikipedia, desysop them, and forever give them a black mark. Charles Matthews' comments, Thatcher's repeated insistence that it's "clear the RfA made a mistake", and this list of what are, at worst, very minor errors, not to mention the expansion of "content dispute" to include "edited the page 9 months previously, and now made an admin action related to the page", as per irreducible complexity, and the rush to censure Chaser only serves to drive off old, established editors. Certainly, this has greatly reduced my desire to edit Wikipedia. In short, instead of an RfC or other feedback, you chose to jump straight into this. Then, having done so, and having gotten me at a time where I was largely unable to defend myself, you leapt in wholeheartedly, even doing your own research into my page protection and blocking history, in order to blacken my name.

I mean, really, what's the message this case is sending? That new editors are precious beyond measure, but old editors are pieces of garbage that members of the arbcom may freely attack and disparage in the rudest possible language, e.g. Charles Matthews' statements about me, Moreschi, Jehocham, and Chaser. Even if the admin accepts full responsibility, he is now nið for his accidental treatment of a newbie, and shall be raked over the coals, desysoped, and hounded out of Wikipedia? . Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I do agree that it would be highly advisable for ArbCom to make some sort of statement about Charles Matthews' lack of appropriate decorum in these proceedings. Since we're talking about test cases, leading by example, and whatnot. I also agree that Adam is being treated somewhat more harshly and abruptly than I can recall in other similar cases. I understand that the case was brought by an Arbitrator, but still it leaves a bit of a bad taste. FloNight stated that ArbCom would take into account the lack of prior RfC or appropriate dispute resolution. I think FloNight has taken this into account, but few others of the Arbs have. MastCell ^Talk 22:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

With a sitting arbitrator being a major player in the case this would be a great opportunity for arbcom to demonstrate unswerving impartiality even as regards one of their own. I am uneasy at the possibility that some might interpret the course of the present case as contributing to the building of a Blue Wall; we need for arbcom to be above reproach if the community is to function. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Charles Matthews is a sitting arbitrator in the sense that he is a current arbitrator, but for this case he was recused all along. He initially gave evidence, but then, probably because his anger was showing a bit too clearly, stopped. His last edit, over 9 days ago, said plainly that he was upset. Since things are getting messy again, I think it might be best if the rest of the ArbCom did clearly demonstrate the impartiality we expect of them. That doesn't mean that the other arbitrators should feel restricted in what they can or cannot propose and vote on. Carcharoth (talk) 07:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Mystery of Mathew Hoffman

I agree with Mastcell. There is something oddly suspicious about how much weight a single email allegedly from a Mathew Hoffman has. Clearly, this single email has had an immense influence. But, I start to wonder, why? And who is Mathew Hoffman, anyway? And why does he, if that is his real name, have so much clout? What sort of leverage are we witnessing here? I presume that there is information that arbcom is not able to share with the community that clarifies this a bit more. But I will admit that I am a bit curious. After all, such evidence would not be of much value in almost any other venue, such as legal situations. However, I am glad to put my trust in arbcom and its judgement and implicit infallibility in this regard. --Filll (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Reading this after I posted it, I hope that no one thinks I am being sarcastic. So please do not take it that way.--Filll (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It was a routine unblock request of the type that the Committee receives almost everyday. This request seemed to ring true to some of the Committee so it was investigated. FloNight (talk) 21:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the email from Matthew Hoffman called Charles' attention to a bad block. The rest unfolded without any particular reference to who or what Matthew Hoffman was. Allegedly bad blocks are reported to Arbcom all the time; in fact, I was told that the largest single task of being an Arbitrator is not dealing with the public cases but with private requests for unblocking. After reviewing the block, Charles was concerned; he attempted to raise this concern with Adam and became concerned further with Adam's response or lack thereof. In the course of reviewing Adam's administrative actions in light of the (rather hasty in my opinion) proposal to desysop, additional actions were found that were also of concern. Whether he should be desysopped, suspended briefly, or merely warned about these actions is a matter for Arbcom. I will note however, that when weighing the merits of a warning against desysopping, the response "I did nothing wrong and I'm complaining to Jimbo about Arbcom's hypocracy" tends to tilt the scale in a very different direction than "I guess I was hasty with my blocks and I'll be more careful in the future." We now have evidence of at least two blocks that were made in violation of the blocking policy by Adam against editors who were messing up articles he cared about, and no recognition that either block was a mistake. That is a problem. Thatcher131 21:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, fer crissakes. The Sm565 was probably not my place to do, but I can't believe you're attacking me as if I committed some great crime over a 3RR two and a half months ago, for 31 hours. Accepting that it might be against policy doesn't change that a 3RR block where a 3R actually happened, but where I was slightly involved with the user, is not exactly grand evidence of my evil nature. And as to the Martinphi: I accept it was questionable. That's why I agreed with Jossi an unblock would be appropriate, and sought advice widely. But I do think that it's a bit much to persecute me over it now, given ArbCom was notified of it at the time, with full details of the events timing, and unblock. It's not like they didn't know, and yet it's being treated as if it was unconcealed evidence.

However, unprotecting George Vithoulkas? protecting Homeopathy on a user I was in dispute with's edit? Those are just ridiculous. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sufferings

Charles Matthews hasn't edited Wikipedia in nine days. I feel sorry for him. Adam Cuerden feels like he's been blindsided and railroaded. Could we all please try to remember that it's just a website. If Adam has done something wrong, he should get one solid warning, and maybe even a suspension to underline that we really mean business. Adam's erratic response within the last few hours is an understandable result of frustration and fear. Had this case been handled properly from the start, morale should never have sunk so low. Matthew Hoffman should have his name cleared. Charles should feel welcome to return, and everybody else should just calm down. - Jehochman ^Talk 21:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This is like a bunch of sharks circling, smelling blood in the water. This is silly. It is just a website, after all.--Filll (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Finding of fact 9

I'm concerned about this finding in regards to Homeopathy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and George Vithoulkas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Neither of these protections could be construed as gaining an advantage in a content dispute. In the case of the George Vithoulkas article, unprotecting it was pretty unquestionably a correct decision. The Homeopathy protection was incorrect inasmuch as it wasn't a necessary or useful protection but it was NOT an abuse of the tools. In neither of these cases does the protection meet with the finding that Adam used the tools to "further his position in content dispute" and thus they should not be listed as a part of this finding of fact. --B (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The unprotection of George Vithoulkas for the AfD is to me a minor technical violation only. The semi-protection of Homeopathy was rather pointless as only one edit in the last 48 hours had been made by a new user or IP address. That raises the question of why do it at all. Was it meant to send a signal to the other editors? Certainly with the history as it was, if Adam had made a request at WP:RFPP there would have either been full protection (possibly in the wrong version) or advice to try mediation or RFC. One of the reasons to not use admin tools when you are involved is that it prevents or discourages non-admin editors from pursuing the avenues open to them. Thatcher131 22:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

But my point is that the finding of fact gives these two protections as examples of Adam using the tools to "further his position in content dispute". If Arbcom means that the protections were "a minor technical violation", then they should say that they are a "minor technical violation". In the case of Homeopathy, his s-protection was innocuous as there were no non-confirmed users editing the page at that time and to say that by s-protecting it, he avoided a full protection is really reaching. These protections did not "further his position in content dispute" and so the finding of fact should not say that they did. --B (talk) 22:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't under the purpose of the semi-protection at all. The only thing I can think of is that is was meant to send a message, although I have often been accused of having a limited imagination. The proposal could stand to have the wording tweaked but it wouldn't change the bottom line. Thatcher131 22:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand it either, but whatever the reason, it did not "further his position in content dispute". That's the point I'm trying to make. I'm about to sound like a broken record here but if ArbCom means "we don't know why he s-protected this", they should say, "we don't know why he s-protected this." ;) --B (talk) 22:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't remember - I do sometimes sprotect given small amounts of IP vandalism on a poorly-watched page, but I'm not sure if that would apply to Homeopathy. Was there IP vandalism? If not, buggered if I can remember. Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Desysopping

I was wondering if I could ask the logic behind the desyopping? This is far more severe than previous administrator RfArb decisions - plenty of them have had multiple chances via RfC's and discussion on various noticeboards, yet when it comes here, they get a slap on the wrist and told not to do it again. Adam hasn't even had a chance to get a consensus in an RfC, or for that matter real discussion about his actions anywhere else. He hasn't had one single opportunity to change in light of concerns raised - and all for one bad admin action. It's extremely disapointing that the committee seems to have gone into purely punitive measures now in determining remedies - this just smacks of a punishment. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Another, uninvolved admin came to me today wondering if he would be next. Lightning strikes are not good for morale. Even if Adam has done wrong, the process needs to be deliberate. Decorum needs to be maintained, and he has to be given a chance to explain himself and make corrections if he shows a willingness to do so. - Jehochman ^Talk 22:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

If you have an Arbitrator criticizing you in your email and then on AN/I and you pretty much brush it off, it's not a "lightning strike" to have an Arbitration case filed. Thatcher131 22:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I would dispute "one bad admin action". In addition to the bad indef block of Matthew Hoffman, there is the 3RR block of Sm565, and the block of Whig, which is not even mentioned in the proposed decision but with whom Adam also was involved in the content dispute at Homeopathy. If I were an Arbitrator, I would to see if Adam was expressing recognition that his actions were inappropriate and willingness to learn from this case. Thatcher131 22:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but the communications between ArbCom and Adam have been far from optimal. Ponder that, please. - Jehochman ^Talk 22:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

And this is whose fault? Thatcher131 22:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The case opened after 17:40, 2 December 2007 [19]. Less than 12 hours later a proposed decision was started at 04:48, 3 December 2007 [20], when we normally wait a week. This creates the appearance of railroading. Charles Matthews didn't help matters when he used inflammatory language (I forgive him completely). Has Adam been given a fair hearing? I have my doubts. The proposal to desysop was made at 06:16, 3 December 2007 [21]- Why bother with evidence when we can start with the conclusions? Jehochman ^Talk 22:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, maybe it wasn't just one, but certainly not many mistakes - there's plenty of admins that have done far, far worse than this, and got nothing more than a ticking off. This is why I'm struggling to understand this decision in anyway whatsoever. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a courtesy blanked portion of the evidence that I consider relevant. I'd rather give a hint than a diff. GRBerry 22:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Well then, if that's the reason, can ArbCom discuss that with Adam privately and then post some sort of non-specific public justification? It seems like the stated reason for de-sysopping is "evil" when the real reason might be less sinister. - Jehochman ^Talk 22:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This is just ridiculous. Whig was plenty disruprtive, for weeks on end, and during the RfC of his compatriot in arms. I am sure Whig is back as a sockpuppet anyway, causing more disruption since I have to deal with what I presume is him. So do not worry too much about "poor" Whig, for goodness sakes. And Mathew Hoffman is not some innocent. Nor are the 50-150 or more like him we deal with every month on the ID articles. This is amazing to see this piling on. And it is the holiday season, and Adam has exams, and other real life concerns. And people are baying for blood here. It really does not speak well of the community frankly. The violations of decorum I have witnessed in the filing of this case really are telling. It is quite shameful. Reign yourselves in and show some decency and common sense, and respect here.--Filll (talk) 22:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm just wondering, since there's different signals being sent out from the ArbCom on administrator discretion, what's the rationale on desysopping here. Adam has shown a great willingness to learn from the discussion here, he's not had any real feedback on his administrator activity thus far, there's no great risk to allowing Adam to continue with some sort of warning and if there's no improvement, go for desysopping then. There's no reason this Arb case couldn't be treated as an initial RfC and if no improvement is forthcoming over the next few months, let's all reconvene and take it from there. Nick (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That's more or less my view on the matter. Mackensen (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Amen. MastCell ^Talk 23:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Amen chorus. We're supposed to WP:AGF of trolls and POV-pushers who make one constructive contribution a month, but for admins like Adam it's guilty until proven innocent. Keelhauling admins as the first response -- before an RfC or any other formal attempt at dispute resolution -- is not a sign of a healthy project. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"Nor are the 50-150 or more like him we deal with every month on the ID articles." That's rather revealing. Mackensen (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

RE:"Nor are the 50-150 or more like him we deal with every month on the ID articles." This is not a new claim. Look back at the details here, on this page and others. It is well known that contentious articles or groups of articles are subject to coordinated attack. You are surprised that intelligent design and related articles are among those?

Look at the evidence Durova compiled on the evidence page, for goodness sakes. Now of course, most of these 50-150 (my estimate) are not blocked or banned. However, there is wave after wave of disruptive editors, some with 20, 30, 50 or 100 sockpuppets. There is at least one public relations firm hired to promote intelligent design, with millions of dollars a year to spend involved in disrupting these articles; we have traced IP addresses back to this public relations firm. This is news to anyone?

If you do not realize this, you better educate yourself a little. I will try to get us some better numbers to deal with, but believe me, we are dealing with a deluge.--Filll (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• This is all interesting evidence that Durova has compiled. I take it as a given that Adam didn't have it in front of him, and none of it implicates Matthew Hoffman (at least not on the first reading). I'm well aware of the history here; I did much of the legwork on Jason Gastrich. It's not clear from the evidence how often there was recourse to checkuser. It's dangerous to issue a sock block based on behavior alone; both behavior and checkuser generate false positives, but it's far less frequent with the latter. Mackensen (talk) 23:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• I would also note that if we're really at Gastrich-level disruption, you might have sought official dispute resolution. We don't mind issuing broad injunctions to deal with that kind of mass disruption. Mackensen (talk) 23:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I was aware that Raul had been outing socks of raspor for months. He always announces it. And I've been involved in defending against several genesis vandal attacks. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Raul does good work there, but checkusers don't generally report what they're doing to arbcom. You can't assume that we're aware of every attempt to disrupt Wikipedia--but we're certainly willing to hear about it. Mackensen (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • And you've hit on part of the problem. Not everyone who doesn't hold the same view as the ID wikiproject about an editing issue is a troll, a sockpuppet, or a single purpose account. Plenty of them are and I'm not disputing that - but it doesn't mean that everyone can be treated that way. --B (talk) 23:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I have never seen anything like this RfAR that reflects so badly on ArbCom and the community as a whole. There have been many cases where sysops have been given no more than an admonishment for actions that are far more disruptive. This takes assuming bad faith to a whole new level, especially given the ridiculous levels of sockpuppetry and tag-teaming on ID and related articles. It is disgraceful. BLACKKITE 23:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• If I had a nickel for every time Arbcom had been accused of that I'd be a rich man. People were saying the same thing about the Durova case, and then the Giano ban remedy didn't pass. Arbitrators are open to having their minds changed, but this isn't really the way to go about it. Mackensen (talk) 23:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I don't agree. Whilst that case might have affected some of the reasoning here, Durova/Giano was a completely different scenario, in my opinion, and the evidence upon which Giano's proposed ban was based was very clear. Giano also had plentiful opportunity to defend himself when the block was proposed. Neither is the case here, indeed some of the evidence appears to be of the "throw everything at the case and see what sticks" variety. In effect, the desysop option seems to be saying "Admins - you're not allowed to make mistakes any more". BLACKKITE 23:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It does seem a bit strange to me, as just a peon. I hear some grand declarations from the Great Poobah about how we will be less tolerant of trolls coming here to wreak havoc, and then I see this situation, where one AC member is almost cursing those involved in the case, then in less than 12 hours a verdict is already prepared, before any evidence is created, in spite of all kinds of requests to slow down to build this case more properly. I would ask that if we want to get a fuller picture of what sort of environment Adam was dealing with, you let us compile a more full picture of the situation on these articles so it can be examined calmly and rationally, and understood by the Arbcomm. --Filll (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I was aware of some of the ID posts inciting people to attack Wikipedia - I read Pharyngula (blog) and they've been mentioned there. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

And if some articles descend into, or are on the road to, all out war, what is needed (as far as admins go) are those who are uninvolved. Not those who want to defend the articles (you need editors for that). Police, not soldiers. BTW, I saw your post at ANI about Homeopathy - did anyone come along and help? What might also be of interest here something I noticed Geogre saying here (the full quote is worth reading):

"It's one of those topics, isn't it? [...] It's a political term and a partisan term. The only potential way out is to never define or cover the thing, but to describe the political fight. If we try to describe the phenomenon, we're participating in it. This is why I used to prefer that we delete such articles or merely redirect them to sections of existing articles. It's not because I'm an enemy of the topic, but because I think the topic is a ping pong ball. Until the game ends, we can't get near the table without either hitting the ball ourselves or getting hit by it, and, either way, the players get ticked off. - User:Geogre (User talk:Geogre) 11:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The above was referring to Politicization of science, but I think it can equally refer to Intelligent design and Irreducible complexity. Maybe someone can write Wikipedia:Ping pong? Carcharoth (talk) 00:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not think it is as bad as that. ID purports to be a part of science, and therefore we can treat it as something that claims to be a science, since the science community and courts have already examined this claim in great detail. And we can easily apply WP:UNDUE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE etc. The difficulty is, Wikipedia has high visibility, and there is a large well-funded aggressive group that wants to turn Wikipedia articles into religious recruiting tracts for a particular religious faith. Therefore, this group frantically wants to get Wikipedia to ignore WP:NPOV and WP:OR and write the Wikipedia articles to conform with their religious agenda, instead of the consensus of the mainstream science community or the judicial community. Basically, they want Wikipedia to be a copy of Conservapedia, at least on these topics.--Filll (talk) 00:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

(Moved from above - was out-of-sequence up there) Carcharoth (talk) 13:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• • None the less, the community should be offering feedback to ArbCom when they're really out of touch. The message being sent is not a good one - almost every admin who's ever made a block of a troll, vandal or persistant bad faith editor is guilty of the same actions as Adam - and stuff like this will create a "chilling effect" where people will feel it necessary to be far more reluctant to take any actions against trolls, vandals or persistently disruptive editors. Certainly it looks to me like I should expect to be desysop'd if any persistent POV warrior asks for it if I keep the Armenian Genocide article anywhere in the neighourhood of NPOV (to pick an example where I am so involved). This is a problem, and those of us who're here to write an encyclopaedia need to come forward and complain that these proposed actions are far too draconian. We can't expect ArbCom to get things right in a vacuum. WilyD 13:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
    • The principle has long been established, for good reason, that admins carrying out actions like protections and blocks should not be "involved" in the article or topic area in question. Good editors are what are needed to keep articles NPOV. Admin tools should be used to prevent non-content related disruption, not to prevent POV editing. Editing tools (and backing up the edits with sources and discussion on the talk pages) are all that are needed to keep a balanced POV in an article. If the option of debunking a fringe POV or arguing against a source, or gathering evidence of content-related disruption, is too onerous, and blocking seems an easier option to "defend" the article, then some admins need to stop and think about what their blocks are really achieving. Carcharoth (talk) 13:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
      • We have Adminisrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Any involved administrator can report a problem there and ask for help. Adam's report did not disclose that he had involvement in the article series. What he should have done was say, "I'm somewhat involved in these subjects, so can I get independent eyes to look at this please." That would probably have produced the correct result. Adam, can you promise to always do that in the future? - Jehochman ^Talk 14:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
        • I'll try to. Always is a little hard for failable mortals to promise, but I'll certainly make an effort. Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Clarification of blocking policy

I'd appreciate a clarification of Carcharoth's statement above that "The principle has long been established, for good reason, that admins carrying out actions like protections and blocks should not be "involved" in the article or topic area in question." Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disputes is clear that "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators." Note the present tense. I've always understood this to mean don't block an editor you're having active discussion or reversion dispute with, though it's in order to block obvious vandalism on articles you're currently editing. I fully agree that admin tools should be used to prevent non-content related disruption, not to prevent POV editing. However, a blanket ban on use of the tools on any articles an admin has edited at some time in the past (or has even edited articles in the same "topic area") appears to be rule creep. Could you point me to documentation of this change? ... dave souza, talk 22:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Indeed, "wannabe-kate" tells me I've edited over 2600 pages ... I can't imagine it's even reasonable for me to know all the pages I've edited. WilyD 15:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  • My view is that minor edits (spelling and grammar correction) and vandalism reverts don't make you "involved". Note that "POV edits" are not vandalism. If you make a substantial contribution of text, or debate NPOV and POV on the talk page, or are involved in long-term editing (a little bit here and there and commenting on the talk page), then you are involved. In Adam's case, he clearly made edits with edit summaries referring to "POV". If you are in doubt, it doesn't take long to bring up the "500" edits page history for most articles (replace 500 with 5000 in the URL if it is a big article), and then search for your name. It took me a few clicks to find out that you've edited Hurricane Danny (1997) 5 times. Those are all minor edits. No edits to the talk page. You don't appear to be a member of the Hurricane WikiProject. If, two years later, a big dispute erupts over that article, you'd still be OK to use protection and block tools and to close AfD and requested moves on that article, in my opinion. Looking at your user page, there is a list of articles you've created and are working on. Those are obviously articles where you are "involved". Does that help? Carcharoth (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Err, I'm not trying to be daft, but these things exist on a spectrum, not in a bimodal distribution. Realistically, many of the articles I've created I'd probably not even remember now (for instance, I created Butch Alberts, but haven't touched it since July 2006). The spectrum from "obvious vandalism" to "obvious trolling" to "persistant disruptive but possibly good faith editing" is continuous, as is the spectrum from "involved" to "uninvolved" - and how this is a function of "time since editing" and all sorts of things. WilyD 16:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

article deletion

forgive me for not knowing where to post evidence. it is evidence related to finding of fact under "Adam Cuerden's use of administrative tools". I saw him delete the article quantum biology [22] without giving a warning or following deletion processes. Phaedrius (talk) 04:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I took a look at the edits he deleted and googled some of it. They appear to have been derived from a whitepaper called "Introduction to Quantum Biology" (see google hits). Deleting the page to remove the copyright-infringing infringing material, then restoring it was a correct decision. --B (talk) 04:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

maybe there was copyright infringing material added at some point but the deletion was going to be permanent. the log does not mention copyright concern either. the article would have stayed deleted accept the person who who created the article with no copyright material asked on his talk page why it had been deleted. this post was before restoring the article [23]. Phaedrius (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I found Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence should I move my post to that page? thanks Phaedrius (talk) 05:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

And where did you spring up from ? Nick (talk) 11:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I was just wondering that myself. At the risk of not AGF, the phrase "point proved" tends to spring to mind. BLACKKITE 11:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Double bluff?? Carcharoth (talk) 12:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If I had my druthers, we'd be more liberal with the use of checkuser in cases like this. --B (talk) 15:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I was told by one checkuser (details on request by e-mail) that User:Jennylen and User:Librarian2 were using open proxies.... Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Note the above was a couple months ago, sorry. Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Case suspension

Some thoughts. I favour an RfC, as that will address the concerns that this case jumped over RfC and went directly to arbitration. My main concern is that this case is not just about Adam. It is also about MatthewHoffman and (to a lesser degree) about Chaser, Moreschi, Jehochman and Charles Matthews. The points raised in this case about those parties should not be discarded because an RfC for Adam results in this case being dropped. Carcharoth (talk) 11:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

See below for some thoughts of mine.I think that the four administrators you name will have read the comments about their actions or tone that have been expressed. Do you think that there is a need for a formal arbitration finding or remedy as to any of them? Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Me personally, no, but it should really be up to the arbitrators. I am concerned that Moreschi's role in this has not been examined at all. Adam bears the brunt of the responsibility for listening to Moreschi, but I think Moreschi's judgment should also be questioned, or at least the point made that peremptory calls for indefinite blocks based on scanty evidence are unhelpful. I'm also not convinced that Moreschi has been following the case. We can't assume he has been reading the pages, and I see little sign he has responded to what has been going on here. The same could be said for Charles Matthews. I suspect he is waiting for the case to finish, or just steering clear, but the manner in which he stopped editing is cause for concern. I would appreciate, and from his recent strike-outs and comments I think Jehochman would also appreciate, some indication that Charles is either following the case, or whether he has taken a much longer break from Wikipedia. I appreciate that this may not be possible, but maybe some of the other arbitrators have made contact with him since that edit? And finally, what about the findings of fact concerning Matthew Hoffman not being a sockpuppet and his block log? Just because one part of a case may be encountering difficulties, it doesn't mean the other parts can't be voted though. Carcharoth (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

And, after searching the case pages, I can confirm that Moreschi has not participated after the initial statement. To be fair, the case has not focused on any of his actions. I would have proposed findings of fact on the workshop page, but that got a bit unwieldy. If you read through what I've written on this case, you will see that I think Adam relied too much on Moreschi's judgment, both in upping the block to indefinite, and in later rejecting Nascentathiest's call for moderation (ie. block length reduction). Carcharoth (talk) 14:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There are now three different motions regarding suspending the case. If the case does get suspended, can I ask whether the parties to the case, and others, can use that time to continue editing the Workshop pages? Carcharoth (talk) 05:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments and suggestions

This is a case about rushes to judgment and the need to avoid them. An administrator's rush to judgment about a user led to a wrongful or excessive block of a potential good-faith contributor. An arbitrator's rush to judgment in posting a proposed decision a few hours after the case opened and before the evidence was submitted skewed the entire development of the case. There were subsequent missteps as well. Let's all learn from this.

There is no need to keep the case open and hanging over anyone's head for another month. The committee can simply vote its disapproval of the indefinite block, remind Adam Cuerden not to use administrator tools in matters where he is involved or on which he has expressed a strong POV, and urge him to attend closely to comments on the RfC. If there are no further problems, that can be the end of the matter. If there are further problems, a new case can be brought or a motion for a review can be made. There is no need instead to create a special kind of limbo. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Delaying the case was offered as a way to fix the problem of not giving Adam and the Community a chance to comment before the case went to voting. If the case closes now, Adam will be desyopped, I think. FloNight (talk) 14:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I support Newyorkbrad's common sense approach. Unfortunately, process and decorum were not followed at the initiation of this case. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Responding to FloNight, I see your point and would endorse holding the case open if the alternative is desysopping now. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

the community had a chance to voice their view during the arbcom case. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Apologies

Let's deal with the obvious first:

I know I acted rashly in the Matthew Hoffman case. I did not read the full context, and so got a completely wrong impression, and allowed this completely wrong impression to make me too quickly accept a suggestion of sockpuppetry. In future, I shall use checkuser in all but the most obvious cases (e.g. Genesis vandal), and, now that I know that just looking at a user's diffs can give a misleading impression, will be more careful on that front as well.

On the Whig case: The decision may have been right, but I wasn't the one to make it. I allowed myself to be goaded, which I shouldn't have been, and then felt unable to let go of the responsibility I felt I had taken on by having started to deal with the user, leading what was a minor negotiation that may have been within policy to expand to a block that was certainly not.

Sm565: I'm not sure I understand why 3RR blocks can't be done by admins involved on the page. I won't do it, but some clarification of the underlying principles would be helpful. Is it to avoid the appearance of bias?

Martinphi: Again, not the one who should've done the block, whatever its merits. Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Alert

I will be gone from the 20th to the 28th of December. If you need any input from me, please get it before then, or wait for me to return. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Wording

"4) 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."

Can we PLEASE kill the words "content dispute" in that description? It's an offense to the English language to call "Adam had edited the article 9 months previously, before he was an admin" an ongoing content dispute. Conflict of interest, sure, and the rest may hold up, but that part is simply objectively wrong. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, can finding of fact 9 be struck, and reworded to accurately reflect the contents of the diffs given? Because I'm afraid I still find that one slanderous. It claims that all those diffs are evidence that I used administrative powers to my advantage in a content dispute. Several diffs show me simply editing, not using admin powers at all, one shows me unprotecting a page because another admin started an AfD, another shows me protecting a page on the version of an editor I have opposite views to. Even if I shouldn't have done the 3RR on Sm565 - and I shouldn't have - it did not advance me in a content dispute. Likewise, the Martinphi - perhaps a bad decision and understanding of the ruling on him, but not intended, at least, to advance a content dispute. Finally, the Radionics one was because of strong evidence of meatpuppetry, which, in the end, proved to be...well, unprovable. There's some oddities remaining about those two.

Keeping this finding of fact as worded would be, in my opinion, a miscarriage of justice.. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Adam that "conflict of interest" (in the vague sense) is a better wording than "content dispute". Also, some clarification (not necessarily in the actual FoF 9) would be helpful to indicate to Adam what the diffs are showing. I could try, but it might be best to talk directly to Kirill to see what he finds wrong with those edits. One point I would make is that "unprovable" meatpuppetry in the Radionics case brings us back to what this case was about. When something is "unprovable", the reaction shouldn't be accusations of meatpuppetry in the edit summaries for page protection and reverts (the Radionics case) or accusations of sock-puppetry in the block log summaries (the MatthewHoffman case). When something is unprovable, don't rush to judgment. There is a reason ArbCom cases, even when going through quickly, require pages of evidence and deliberation by arbitrators and input from others. And that is only for year-long blocks at most. Having indefinite blocks handed down on less evidence and with less time taken to consider the ins and outs of the case, is ultimately what this case has been about. Carcharoth (talk) 05:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Jennylen posted on Librarian2's talk page, thanking him for helping out to get around the 3RR rule. Librarian2 subsequently claimed it was spontaneous, and, though the two had a longish history together, Librarian2's statement was possible. Checkusers to try and find out what was going on showed they both were using open proxies. Meatpuppetr might be unprovable, but there's a hell of a lot of evidence that something strange was going on. Adam Cuerden ^talk 06:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Can an arbiter comment on finding of fact #9? In the case of Homeopathy and George Vithoulkas, it is an obviously false statement that Adam "used his administrative tools in order to further his position in content disputes" in those cases as the two protections could not reasonably be inferred to give an advantage to anyone. I echo Adam's request that this finding be modified. I asked about this above and no arbiter replied. Adam has asked about it here. Could an arbiter say something about it? "I agree", "I disagree", "B needs to comprehend the English language better", something? --B (talk) 03:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Case reasoning and guidance for other administrators

I note that there have been comments in several places stating that elements of the proposed decision are difficult to understand, and that the decision may lead to confusion among administrators about appropriate use of blocks. Therefore, I would like to share some of my rationale for the findings and remedies in the case. Please note that these are merely my views, and I do not presume to speak on behalf of other members of the committee.

To me, this case is primarily about the extreme inaccuracy of block summaries and other communications from the blocking admin. Hoffman was blocked as a "vandalism only" account when even a cursory review of Hoffman's contributions shows that this is simply not the case. Our treatment of vandalism is very specific and narrow. We do not use "vandalism" as a catch-all for edits we don't like. In like fashion, another block was for "attempting to harass other users." Harassment is a matter we take seriously but again one that we define, and Hoffman's edits aren't harassment.

Reviewing the block log vis a vis Hoffman's actual contributions was enough to satisfy me that the community could no longer trust Cuerden with the admin tools. Blocking someone -- twice -- citing a block reason that simply doesn't apply at all is an egregious violation of the trust we place in admins. I don't see any way to excuse this as mere bad judgment. The best construction I can put on those actions is that they were performed either in ignorance of policy or in reckless disregard for policy. Blocking is a serious matter, and admins who place blocks are expected to understand policy and follow it unless they deliberately choose not to do so.

The balance of the case, for me, was a matter of looking for mitigating factors, and the other principles and findings try to address that. I would not have supported revocation of adminship privileges had a search for mitigating factors been more successful. For example, if there had been a dozen possible socks making interleaving edits with Hoffman's, I would understand that a mistake might have been made. If Cuerden had made dozens of carefully-considered blocks showing that this was an isolated incident, I would have been inclined toward a warning only. And if Cuerden had been more willing to acknowledge and reverse his mistake in the ensuing discussion on AN/I and (subsequently) when contacted by Charles Matthews, I would have been inclined to support only a warning.

In that light, I offer this counsel to admins who are concerned about the ramifications of this case:

1. If you're going to block users, read and understand the relevant policy.
2. Use an accurate block summary that does not overstate the case. If you're making a dodgy block but think it's justified anyway, say so. Be transparent in what you do.
3. Be willing to discuss the blocks you make, especially the dodgy ones.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for this helpful comment. - Jehochman ^Talk 22:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Not any intentional me-too, but thank you for offering this. I readily admit that my own perspective might be prone to distortion on these issues. In general, may I suggest what (I hope) is a reasonable middle road? Except for obvious emergency situations such as clearwater wheel warrring, please give traditional dispute resolution a fair chance. Adam Cuerden has been, by turns, apologetic and infuriated. I've walked several miles in similar moccasins. Admin conduct RFC has traditionally run several weeks before arbitration was proposed or accepted. That tradition worked, and as I hope my own evidence here has shown, several of Wikipedia's best administrators would have been prone to arbitration and possible desysopping if the same standards that have operated in the past month had been practiced in the early months of 2007. I have endeavored to learn many things from my own mistakes. Not quite all of those lessons turn inward. Experienced and dedicated volunteers are a scarce resource. Wikipedia is fortunate to have them. The counterpart to the expectation of polite behavior expressed in WP:CIVIL is that sincere repentance, and the willingness to learn from mistakes, involves a mutual obligation of reconciliation. It is far easier to demand an apology than to give one or to accept one. If we wish to foster an environment where apologies are worth making, and where personal reform is meaningful, then it is imperative to set the example from the top down. The compensation I received for my own apologies and attempts at atonement was public vilification. That extended to the mainstream tech press and the blogosphere and may have long term impact on my career prospects. This creates serious negative pressure against following my example: if we create an environment where accountability is punished, then very few people will step forward and make themselves accountable. Durova^Charge! 23:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I may be misreading that but to me it sounds like you think that an apology is offered in return for something else. That's not how it works. Apologies are for the benefit of the person you're apologising to. If you feel that an apology might actually inflame a particular situation (can happen) then that would be a good reason for not giving one, but if you're thinking "what do I get back?" then you're not apologising, you're manoeuvring for advantage. 87.254.77.236 (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, apologies should be gifts freely given, not part of any quid pro quo. Paul August ☎ 16:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Please interpret my words in better faith than that. It's rather hurtful to see two people construe such cynicism and insincerity. What I do mean operates in the broader sense of WP:CIVIL: apologies are courteous, particularly when they come from the heart. So is the acceptance of apology. What we have right now is a site culture where it is socially acceptable to treat apologies with scorn, even when the apologies are accompanied by real acts of contrition. In several instances I've seen recently it has been a more successful strategy for the person who erred to stonewall, and the most effective tactic of all has been to violate WP:SOCK in ways that checkuser can't detect and snipe at people. Think about what kind of site culture you want to foster when you label apologies opportunistic and disruptive, but endorse those other behaviors.[24] Durova^Charge! 16:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry Durova, my remarks were not intended as you seem to have taken them, they certainly weren't intended as any criticism of you. But I think it would be possibible for someone to see your remarks as saying "why apologize if it's not going to be rewarded." I don't think you were saying that. But I think it is important to repudiate such a notion. Paul August ☎ 18:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflicted) The principles listed at the top of the thread are certainly unarguable and longstanding. Adam's block rationales were inappropriate, and he failed to respond to a reasonable email request for discussion of the block. However, I think that a further unmentioned ramification stems from what happened in the first 24-48 hours of this case. This case was explicitly framed as a "test case" by its initiator. The rapid and atypical acceptance of the case without prior dispute resolution implied endorsement of the idea that this is a constructive way to change practice; this was compounded by the proposal of sweeping findings and remedies within about 12 hours of the case's acceptance. Happily, longer reflection has led to greater focus.

If one of my administrative actions ends up angering the wrong person, I don't want to become the next "test case" to be hurriedly arraigned and vilified (along with any passersby who expressed a mildly misguided supportive opinion at AN/I), without intervening feedback from the community. That's the ramification I'm concerned about. MastCell ^Talk 23:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree in part (while noting that MastCell has had a run-in with Charles Matthews before - which means both that he has good reason to say the above and that he may not be able to objectively assess whether this is really a widespread problem or not). But to be fair, if I'd known that the arbitration committee would have accepted the case so readily and come up with the proposals they have (some of which will be useful to point people towards in the future), I would have filed a case myself. It would have been interesting to see how the case would have developed if someone else had filed the case. What might be more helpful, though, is a response to this question: "If editors see other admins behaving in a manner similar to that seen in this case, should they file an arbitration case (as happened here) or should they file an RfC first?" (Obviously after having discussed with the admin in question). Carcharoth (talk) 23:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to belabor my "run-in" with Charles; basically, he took issue with one of my speedy deletions and questioned my competence as an admin on that basis, which I thought was fairly aggressive, particularly given the actual content of the article I deleted. We went back and forth about it. He's actually been very polite to me about it in one or two other brief conversations we've had, especially given my somewhat defensive reaction up front. I don't bear him any ill-will; still, in retrospect, I do feel like I might have dodged a "test case" bullet myself, as the issue of A7 application was apparently discussed on the mailing list using my deletion as an example, so perhaps I'm particularly sensitive to this point. MastCell ^Talk 00:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I largely agree with MastCell. Charles Matthews' actions certainly have had a chilling effect on my own use of administrative tools, even in what look like open-and-shut cases. There's always a tiny chance of being wrong and I don't want to be the next "test case." What's especially galling is that Charles sees fit to refer to admins as "dogs", "moral pygmies", and worse. If an admin referred to other editors like that, they'd (rightly) be raked over the coals. But when a member of arbcom does it there's no refactoring, no apology, no reprimand, nothing. It gives the impression that admins are fair game for any manner of abuse from members of arbcom, and that arbcom implicitly endorses such behavior by averting its eyes. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• I know arbitration cases aren't meant to make new policy, but I'm tempted to quote UC's post above wholesale at WT:BLOCK and start the process of making these points clearer in the current blocking policy. Does anyone agree? Carcharoth (talk) 23:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I believe they're already covered to some degree at WP:BLOCK, but they are important and unarguable points and more clarity on them can't hurt. It might help to define "transparency", though - after all, Adam has been quite scrupulous in following the currently recommended guidelines for transparency on potentially controversial blocks - he posted them to WP:AN or WP:AN/I. Unfortunately, at least in the cases under discussion here, doing so didn't avert a couple of bad blocks. MastCell ^Talk 00:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I ssuppose that's why I'm so upset at some of the points in this case. I may have misunderstood the situation - even disasterously so - but I did try for transparency, and the summaries I used, while not reflecting his behaviour, reflected my mistaken impression of the behaviour (I did think POV-pushing, in the extreme form, counted as vandalism, though) In short, I tried to act correctly, and realise I made huge mistakes. But when you've realised you've made huge mistakes, it's somewhat upsetting to then feel that people are insisting they weren't mistakes, but intentional attempts to mislead and deceive; and when you try to explain why you made the mistakes, to show they were mistakes, everyone seems to presume you're trying to deny they were mistakes. It's like noone's reading what I wrote. Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Amen, brother. Durova^Charge! 05:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as probably the main editor engaged with Mathew Hoffman, I did view him as a bit obnoxious, and his behavior was bordering on harassment or at least disruption. And there were 2 other trolls involved at the same time. And a couple with the same point before. And a couple with the same point after. And none of them had much of a reasonable point anyway. Their claims were just bogus and they would not listen to reason, and just became obnoxious in their behavior.

When I deal with 5 or 10 users in a row with almost identical behavior and complaints, and unwillingness to compromise or discuss or even understand the arguments of others, it does become frustrating. Given that we deal with literally dozens and dozens of socks and trolls and POV warriors on the pages having to do with that topic, I think it is completely reasonable to wonder about someone else who behaves in the same manner as the last 50 editors with similar complaints. Maybe Adam did not follow the rules exactly, although I am no expert in the rules for admins. However, I for one am glad he took action to at least try to slow down some of the attacks on these pages.--Filll (talk) 03:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The trouble is that your view that these were "attacks" and "disruption" is in a minority. You are misusing the word harassment, which should be reserved for more serious cases, and you are over-stating the case. A lot of what you have written above comes across as hyperbole when an uninvolved editor looks at Hoffman's contributions to find the things you are referring to. Overstating a case can be as damaging as not doing anything. It makes it look like you have ulterior motives (I'm sure you don't). And if you find this sort of thing frustrating, then that is a sign that you might not be able to assess the situation objectively. Carcharoth (talk) 09:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It is clear from Carcharoth and others what the attitude is of the regular lowly admins and editors on WP. I am sorry to say it, but it does appear that anyone who claims to be a newbie and who wants to edit Wikipedia is more worthwhile than someone who has been productive and contributed to Wikipedia in the past. Any behavior of someone who claims to be a newbie is forgivable. But it is perfectly ok to deride people who are regular contributors as "dogs" and "moral pygmies". But it is not ok to even suggest that a newbie appears to be a "sock".

You know on some topics, we have confirmed socks appearing very frequently to edit? (My previous estimate was 50-150 a month, although not all of those are confirmed of course) Do you know that these socks behave in a certain pattern, over and over and over? Do you know that there are organized efforts to generate socks and meat puppets and to harass (yes, harass) the editors of the articles on these topics? Do you know that the editors of these articles are even identified by name on websites where assorted socks and meat puppets and POV warriors are recruited?

No offense, but it does appear that the meaning of the word "harassment" has been declared unilaterally here, by fiat and fatwa; all hail the Ayatollah! Use of the word "harassment" is overstatement? How on earth is it not overstatement to refer to admins as "dogs" and "moral pygmies"? It is quite telling that among those seeking to railroad Adam, no one even admits that this sort of dialogue might be inappropriate.

I do have an ulterior motive; to be able to write an encyclopedia. Calling those of us trying to write an encyclopedia "dogs" and "moral pygmies" is really not constructive. Wanting to decide on guilt in the first 12 hours of a case that has not followed regular procedures to send a "message" is really not constructive. Allowing anyone who claims to be a newbie to have more say than longtime productive editors is quite telling. Turning a blind eye to topics which are pounded regularly by organized groups, and deriding people who report it to you, sends a message.

Of course I am not objective. I never claimed to be. I gave you the perspective of the editor involved. No one else has my subjective view of this situation. And I think that I should at least give my subjective view so that can be considered with other less-informed or differently-informed views of various kinds. I should stay quiet so there is no input from someone involved? That might be more convenient for you than to hear my point of view on this topic? Well I beg your forgiveness; I did not realize that this would be inconvenient for a pre-ordained, pre-decided pillorying of an admin to send a message and as a "test case". It definitely appears from the outside that the lynching of Adam was decided before this case even began. And it does smell a bit bad, to those of us on the outside, who are not so "objective" as you are.--Filll (talk) 16:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

There is rather a lot to respond to here. Plenty of people on both sides have commented on Charles Matthews' comments. If you read his talk page, you will see that I asked him to calm down, as did GRBerry. I hope you will agree that this refutes your statement "no one even admits that this sort of dialogue might be inappropriate". As for "it is not ok to even suggest that a newbie appears to be a "sock"" - you are correct. Read WP:BITE. Sock accusations shouldn't be used to suppress discussion. If you suspect a particular article or area is being over-run by socks, try and gather evidence (to the standard of an ArbCom case) and get the help of a checkuser. If you mean meat-puppets and external campaigns, that is harder to deal with, but still, the response should not be to hand out blocks left right and centre. That results in collateral damage. Blocks are OK in clear-cut cases (and no, this was not a clear-cut case), and should be judged by those not involved in the article. Sometimes a better option is page protection to force editors to discuss on the talk page. Finally, when you say "Allowing anyone who claims to be a newbie to have more say than longtime productive editors is quite telling" - this is the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit". Not the encyclopedia where "the long-term editors decide on a whim who can edit". It's a question of getting the balance right. Not leaving articles so open that they degenerate, but equally not drawing the net so tight that it is difficult for anyone else to get involved. That veers close to WP:OWN. Carcharoth (talk) 16:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Mathew Hoffman was not BITTEN. He was treated with deference, and Mathew Hoffman responded with hostility (in my humble opinion, which I realize is discounted here). I did not accuse Mathew Hoffman of being a sock at the time; only in retrospect when I look at the situation, I get the "quacks like a duck" impression. I did not call for Mathew Hoffman to be blocked, but I will admit I was not upset when he was. It probably would have been better to lock the page. And I agree about the statement about balance; the question is, where is the balance being set, and where is the line being drawn? As for stating that we should collect information on socks and organized campaigns, I will note that we have asked for time to do so here, and this has fallen for the most part on deaf ears, as near as I can tell. I also will point out that Durova compiled a substantial amount of information along these lines that appears to be summarily dismissed by most. Quite telling. This is not a matter of WP:OWN. This is a matter of trying to slow down wholesale organized attacks on FAs and related daughter articles.--Filll (talk) 17:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Who judges the deference and hostility? I think he was given only a short time to understand the culture, and instead of being guided and educated, was summarily ejected. Is that the sort of message you want to send? WP:BITE does not only apply to the first few edits. Even experienced editors can be bitten when they stray out of areas they are used to. The more-experienced editors realise the wisdom of dipping your toe in the water first when focusing on a new area. Some people even lurk and learn. Some are WP:BOLD on their first edits, and end up paying the price for it. Carcharoth (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Filll's comments skirt around what I perceive as one of the most serious problems with the project. We must WP:AGF toward trolls, sockpuppets, tenacious POV-pushers, and the like, but if a constructive editor dares make a mistake he gets nailed to the wall. For God's sake, we have people here who have been blocked 15-20 times and contribute virtually nothing of substance, but continue to be given last last last last last last last last last chances. In functional and sane enterprises you give your committed workers the environment they need to do their job and ease the misfits out the door. But at Wikipedia we do the opposite. The message to those of us who edit constructively and have to put up with the constant provocation and POV-pushing is clear: "Your time is worth nothing. You must do whatever it takes to be supportive and nurturing toward those who are uncivil and are tendentiously pressing their conspiracy theory du jour, because someday, maybe, possibly, with enough chances and nurturing and mentoring, they might make a useful edit. If that means you don't have time to add content to the encyclopedia, tough. Deal with it." Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Those last cases are something different, and nothing to do with MatthewHoffman's case. He had a 3RR block. Big deal. His next block was "upgraded" to indefinite. There is a mentality that indefinite blocks save time later. In fact, indefinite blocks wrongly and prematurely applied created a lot of drama. Much better to use a series of short blocks, let the evidence accumulate, and then move to indefinite. From what you are saying, we should have a guard on the door and only let in those with approval. Did you miss the "anyone can edit" bit on the way in? Or is that something that get lost as editors get jaded? Carcharoth (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll assume you aren't deliberately misrepresenting my point, so I'll try to state it more succinctly. We must be open for anyone to edit. We must also recognize that there's a learning curve, and that humans will occasionally screw up. But some will reach a point where they demonstrate that they aren't here with constructive intent. When that point is reached we should insist that they apply their talents in a more appropriate venue. But all too often, when they reach that point we continue to nurture them, protect them, and mentor them; the worse they behave, the more we reward them by giving them the time and attention that they crave. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Test case

<undent> The assessment by The Uninvited Co. reads well, and I wouldn't disagree with the basic case. However, MastCell points to a basic problem with the way this case has been handled – that Charles Matthews framed this as a "test case" when he initiated it, and did not allow time for community input or attempts to give Adam an opportunity to mend his behaviour. It is understandable that Charles was infuriated by the way the situation unfolded and by Adam's responses at a time when Adam was distracted by exams and illness, but it seems clear that Adam was acting in good faith and, if anything, putting too much effort into Wikipedia. His understanding of blocking procedure was clearly imperfect, and as Irpen has pointed out, he did what too many admins may be doing and trod on the wrong toes. That's a good case for re-education and for clarifying the line for everyone, but a very poor case for humiliating and stressing out an editor who has contributed a great deal of good work, just to make an example of him. Matthew Hoffman showed little sign of being a constructive editor, arguing dogmatically on his own misunderstanding of policy while refusing to heed advice, and there was enough evidence that he might be a sockpuppet for the possibility to be investigated further. We should welcome and take care of newbies, but should also ensure that established good editors are treated fairly and with due procedure. Which has been lacking in this case. ... dave souza, talk 11:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's try and leave Charles Matthews out of this. He's recused. The case isn't about him, at least not to me.

I don't see this as a test case. Charles may have seen it as a test case but that's beside the point. As far as I'm concerned, this is in particular about Cuerden's actions in light of long-standing Wikipedia policy on blocks and admin conduct. I'm not interested in picking unlucky editors and making examples of them, and that's not what this case is about. This is about grossly inaccurate and misleading block summaries, at least for me, as I explained above.

Adam's protestations that he made a good-faith mistake are beside the point, because even if true, his actions show (in my opinion) a breach of the trust the community places in administrators.

I am not suggesting that we coddle trolls, vandals, or POV pushers. Admins who are out there dealing with trolls, vandals and POV pushers should be confident that they have my support. Nonetheless, I expect admins to be transparent and forthright in what they do. I've made dodgy blocks too. But I've always made it clear that they're dodgy and taken seriously my responsibility to lay out the case for what I've done and to answer follow-up questions. Now, I wouldn't have blocked Hoffman, but I can understand that there are admins who would have, and if the block durations were reasonable, the explanations clear, and the proper follow-up present, then there's no need for arbcom and we can discuss limits over at RFC or WT:BLOCK.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

"Let's try and leave Charles Matthews out of this." Despite the fact that he initiated the case, and brought a substantial part of the evidence? I realize there's no realistic chance that arbcom will address Charles' actions, but I have to point out that I think there's a double standard here, and that by applying such a double standard arbcom seriously compromises its credibility. I'm aware that nothing will ever be done about the situation, so I'll step back from the horse now, but it's galling. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You've missed UC's point, I think. The issue at hand is what to do about Adam, not what to do about Charles. And, as an aside, I can't imagine any reasonable editor thinking that Charles needs anything done about him. Paul August ☎ 18:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The point is that in apparently rushing to make an example of Adam, there hasn't been careful discussion and consideration of evidence before beginning to reach conclusions. The behaviour of all should be scrutinised, and all might benefit from good advice. It's a main point of the issue of Adam's behaviour that "Hoffman was blocked as a "vandalism only" account when even a cursory review of Hoffman's contributions shows that this is simply not the case." The standard "Reasons" tag was the only mention Adam made of vandalism, he summarised the 72 hour block as (Attempting to harass other users: Talk:Irreducible complexity), then changed that to an indefinite block as (Vandalism-only account: After discussion on WP:AN/I, it was decided he's probably a sock, due to knowledge of Wikipedia policy, edit summaries, bad attitude, etc.). The description does not match the tag, but it does match the Abusing sock puppet accounts tag which comes just under the vandal-only tag on the pop-up menu. Has anyone explored the possibility that Adam simply missed the tag he meant, and neither he nor the checking admin noticed? ... dave souza, talk 18:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, if you believe that Matthews' behavior warrants a response from us, make your case.

I would again like to clarify that there was never any effort to "make an exmaple" of Adam. The case moved quickly because I found the evidence to be very clear, and other committee members have agreed.

I considered the organization of the Special:Blockip page in reviewing this matter. The page contains a drop-down list that enumerates the permitted reasons for a block per policy. The default is "other reason," and selecting anything else causes the relevant reason to be prepended to the block reason text. I agree that it is possible that an administrator might choose the wrong reason by simply clicking on the wrong one with the mouse. However, I have difficulty believing that this happened twice, and the "harassment" and "vandalism" reasons were both inapplicable; also, there was hyperbole in Cuerden's posts at AN/I. The underlying point that Cuerden's justification for the block was grossly inaccurate and misleading remains even if we presume that the "vandalism" comment in the block log is due to a mistaken choice on the drop-down. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Dave souza makes excellent points, and as the Committee is aware, there is no requirement to provide a detailed and useful blocking summary when making a block, the drop down summary will suffice. I wonder if the committee believe this is ideal or whether the drop down list makes it far too easy to block a user with an incorrect and often insufficent block summary. Nick (talk) 18:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

When Charles Matthews named himself as an involved party he demanded that the rest of the Committee scrutinize his conduct. He then proceeded to make several direct insults against other named parties and has not withdrawn those personal attacks in two and a half weeks. I'd like to suppose some extenuating circumstance exists, but nothing is visible. What's particularly troubling is that Charles Matthews's own unresponsiveness to feedback mirrors the unresponsiveness from Adam that had so offended Charles. The feedback from the community to Charles Matthews has been gentle indeed: we know Adam's response was hindered by health and academic concerns. The proposed decision has the very strong appearance of a double standard. Months ago, a 3RR block on Raul654 demonstrated the principle that arbitrators are not exempt from policy. That was a powerful example of fair play. Durova^Charge! 18:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom has frequently (and correctly) held admins to a high standard of civility and good behavior, and has also made a practice of examining the conduct of all participants in a case. In that light, the above suggestions that the case is solely about Adam, or that we leave the initiator's conduct out of the equation, seem a bit incongruous - especially given the intense scrutiny applied to tangentially involved users like Chaser, Jehochman, etc and the parallels raised by Durova. That said, I'm not interested in vilifying Charles, nor do I think anything needs to be "done about" him. I suppose in an ideal world a finding would encourage him to maintain appropriate decorum for an Arbitrator, but I recognize that those sort of things are sometimes best handled privately, off-wiki, rather than by putting someone in the public stocks. My point wasn't really about Charles per se; it was that no matter how the case is reframed now, the way this case was handled up front has ramifications, and those are largely unaddressed. MastCell ^Talk 18:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

An ideal solution would be that he save face by striking through a handful of statements. Durova^Charge! 18:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe that an evaluation of Charles' comments would be a distraction from the core issues in this case. In general, I believe cases should be constrained to the matters for which they are opened, and have tried to be consistent in refraining from focusing cases upon themselves. If there is a case to be made against Charles, [{WP:RFAR|bring it]]. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)