Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:32, 12 December 2007

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 purging the cache.

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 Misplaced Pages: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 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 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 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 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 20:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. Durova 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 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 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 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 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. 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 who had been blocked by mistake a month earlier by a different administrator 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. The editor thanked me for helping.
  • 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 Misplaced Pages.
  • Administrators who were mistaken:
  • JzG
  • Redvers
  • Steve block

Durova 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 Misplaced Pages: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 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 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 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!!!!!

"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:

• Here someone blocks a page.
• Here, after the block, I edit then immediately revert myself, seeing the page was protected.
• Then JzG puts up an AfD tag
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=George_Vithoulkas&diff=next&oldid=116806071 <- So I unprotect it.

...How is this described? Using protect tools during a dispute!!!!!!!!

Homeopathy

• Protected on a version by someone I was in dispute with. Oh no!
• 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

• 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 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages? Adam Cuerden 19:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)