Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:39, 13 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)

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 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 Misplaced Pages space edits unrelated to this case, so he clearly has some time available for Misplaced Pages. 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages? . Adam Cuerden 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 22:59, 12 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 21:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sufferings

Charles Matthews hasn't edited Misplaced Pages 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 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)

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 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 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 . Less than 12 hours later a proposed decision was started at 04:48, 3 December 2007 , 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 - Why bother with evidence when we can start with the conclusions? Jehochman 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 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 23:03, 12 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 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 Misplaced Pages--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. Both Durova and Giano also had plentiful opportunities to defend themselves. 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 Misplaced Pages - I read Pharyngula (blog) and they've been mentioned there. Adam Cuerden 23:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

And if some articles descend into, or are on the road to, all out war, what is needed are those who are uninvolved. Not those who want to defend the articles. Police, not soldiers. BTW, I saw your post at ANI about Homeopathy - did anyone come along and help? What might also be on 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 Misplaced Pages:Ping pong? Carcharoth (talk) 00:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)