Misplaced Pages

:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Proposed decision: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration | Matthew Hoffman Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:14, 3 December 2007 editUninvitedCompany (talk | contribs)Bureaucrats, Administrators11,112 edits →Proposed findings of fact: Chaser← Previous edit Latest revision as of 01:34, 27 May 2011 edit undoNukeBot (talk | contribs)Bots4,368 editsm Noindexing Arbitration pages 
(277 intermediate revisions by 17 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman}}
After considering ] and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at ], Arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here. Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain. Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed. Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.
<!-- This copies the notice at the main decision page to ensure consistency. Daniel -->


{{NOINDEX}}
For this case, there are 10 active Arbitrators (excluding 1 who is recused), so 6 votes are a majority.

==Motions and requests by the parties==
Place those on ]. Motions which are accepted for consideration and which require a vote will be placed here by the Arbitrators for voting.<br>
''Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.''

===Template===
1)
<!-- uncomment and un-nowiki when motion passes <nowiki>
'''Passed''' on 05:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
</nowiki> -->
{text of proposed motion}

:Support:
:#

:Oppose:
:#

:Abstain:
:#

==Proposed temporary injunctions==
''Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")''<br>
<small>24 hours from the first vote is ''normally'' the fastest an injunction will be imposed.</small>

===Template===
1)
<!-- uncomment and un-nowiki when injunction enacted <nowiki>
'''Enacted''' on 05:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
</nowiki> -->
{text of proposed orders}

:Support:
:#

:Oppose:
:#

:Abstain:
:#

=Proposed final decision=

==Proposed principles==

===Administrators===
1) Misplaced Pages administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Occasional lapses may be overlooked, but consistently poor judgment may result in revocation of adminship.

:Support:
:# ] Co., ] 04:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

:Oppose:
:#

:Abstain:
:#

===]===
2) New contributors are prospective Wikipedians and are therefore our most valuable resource. Editors are expected to treat newcomers with kindness and patience. Nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility. ] states, "Warning is not a prerequisite for blocking, ... but administrators should generally ensure that users are aware of policies, and give them reasonable opportunity to adjust their behaviour accordingly, before blocking."

:Support:
:# ] Co., ] 04:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

:Oppose:
:#

:Abstain:
:#

===Blocking policy===
3) ] specifically proscribes any use of "cool-down" blocks, and (with the exception of removal of material per ]) proscribes the use of blocks in situations where the administrator is in a content dispute with the editor to be blocked.

:Support:
:# ] Co., ] 04:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

:Oppose:
:#

:Abstain:
:#

===]===
4) Evidence that a user is familiar with Misplaced Pages editing conventions (such as the use of Wikitext markup, edit summaries, and core policies) is, by itself, insufficient basis to treat the user as a sock puppet.

:Support:
:# ] Co., ] 04:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

:Oppose:
:#

:Abstain:
:#

===Review and discussion of blocks===
5) Since administrators are strongly discouraged from reversing one another's blocks, it is of particular importance that blocking admins respond to good-faith requests to review blocks they have made. Similarly, administrators who perform independent reviews of unblock requests are expected to familiarize themselves with the full facts of the matter before marking the unblock request "declined."

:Support:
:# ] Co., ] 05:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

:Oppose:
:#

:Abstain:
:#

===Template===
6) {text of proposed principle}

:Support:
:#

:Oppose:
:#

:Abstain:
:#

===Template===
7) {text of proposed principle}

:Support:
:#

:Oppose:
:#

:Abstain:
:#

===Template===
8) {text of proposed principle}

:Support:
:#

:Oppose:
:#

:Abstain:
:#

===Template===
9) {text of proposed principle}

:Support:
:#

:Oppose:
:#

:Abstain:
:#

===Template===
10) {text of proposed principle}

:Support:
:#

:Oppose:
:#

:Abstain:
:#

===Template===
11) {text of proposed principle}

:Support:
:#

:Oppose:
:#

:Abstain:
:#

===Template===
12) {text of proposed principle}

:Support:
:#

:Oppose:
:#

:Abstain:
:#

===Template===
13) {text of proposed principle}

:Support:
:#

:Oppose:
:#

:Abstain:
:#

== Proposed findings of fact ==

===Adam Cuerden===
1) {{userlinks|Adam Cuerden}} has edited ] and other evolution-related articles in an effort to make the articles adhere to Misplaced Pages's policy on ]. While this editing is laudable, it makes it clear that Adam Cuerden has specific content goals for these articles in mind.

:Support:
:# ] Co., ] 05:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

:Oppose:
:#

:Abstain:
:#

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

:Support:
:# ] Co., ] 04:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

:Oppose:
:#

:Abstain:
:#

===Cuerden's statements about Hoffman not borne out by the facts===
3) Adam Cuerden's talk page and block log statements made to justify his block of Hoffman include claims of harassment, POV pushing, extreme rudeness, and vandalism (more on ] page). These claims are not borne out by a review of Hoffman's contributions.

:Support:
:# ] Co., ] 05:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

:Oppose:
:#

:Abstain:
:#

===72 hour and indefinite were outside policy===
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 ]. 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.

:Support:
:# ] Co., ] 05:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

:Oppose:
:#

:Abstain:
:#

===Matthew Hoffman not a sock puppet===
4) There is no evidence to suggest that Matthew Hoffman is a sock puppet.

:Support:
:# ] Co., ] 06:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

:Oppose:
:#

:Abstain:
:#

===]===
5) {{userlinks|Chaser}} failed to familiarize himself with the full facts of the matter before declining the unblock request. In particular, Chaser relied upon discussion at the ] without reviewing the evidence himself.

:Support:
:# ] Co., ] 06:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

:Oppose:
:#

:Abstain:
:#

===Template===
6) {text of proposed finding of fact}

:Support:
:#

:Oppose:
:#

:Abstain:
:#

===Template===
7) {text of proposed finding of fact}

:Support:
:#

:Oppose:
:#

:Abstain:
:#

===Template===
8) {text of proposed finding of fact}

:Support:
:#

:Oppose:
:#

:Abstain:
:#

===Template===
9) {text of proposed finding of fact}

:Support:
:#

:Oppose:
:#

:Abstain:
:#

===Template===
10) {text of proposed finding of fact}

:Support:
:#

:Oppose:
:#

:Abstain:
:#

===Template===
11) {text of proposed finding of fact}

:Support:
:#

:Oppose:
:#

:Abstain:
:#

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

===Template===
1) {text of proposed remedy}

:Support:
:#

:Oppose:
:#

:Abstain:
:#

===Template===
2) {text of proposed remedy}

:Support:
:#

:Oppose:
:#

:Abstain:
:#

===Template===
3) {text of proposed remedy}

:Support:
:#

:Oppose:
:#

:Abstain:
:#

===Template===
4) {text of proposed remedy}

:Support:
:#

:Oppose:
:#

:Abstain:
:#

===Template===
5) {text of proposed remedy}

:Support:
:#

:Oppose:
:#

:Abstain:
:#

===Template===
6) {text of proposed remedy}

:Support:
:#

:Oppose:
:#

:Abstain:
:#

===Template===
7) {text of proposed remedy}

:Support:
:#

:Oppose:
:#

:Abstain:
:#

===Template===
8) {text of proposed remedy}

:Support:
:#

:Oppose:
:#

:Abstain:
:#

===Template===
9) {text of proposed remedy}

:Support:
:#

:Oppose:
:#

:Abstain:
:#

===Template===
10) {text of proposed remedy}

:Support:
:#

:Oppose:
:#

:Abstain:
:#

===Template===
11) {text of proposed remedy}

:Support:
:#

:Oppose:
:#

:Abstain:
:#

===Template===
12) {text of proposed remedy}

:Support:
:#

:Oppose:
:#

:Abstain:
:#

===Template===
13) {text of proposed remedy}

:Support:
:#

:Oppose:
:#

:Abstain:
:#

==Proposed enforcement==

===Template===
1) {text of proposed enforcement}

:Support:
:#

:Oppose:
:#

:Abstain:
:#

===Template===
1) {text of proposed enforcement}

:Support:
:#

:Oppose:
:#

:Abstain:
:#

===Template===
2) {text of proposed enforcement}

:Support:
:#

:Oppose:
:#

:Abstain:
:#

===Template===
3) {text of proposed enforcement}

:Support:
:#

:Oppose:
:#

:Abstain:
:#

===Template===
4) {text of proposed enforcement}

:Support:
:#

:Oppose:
:#

:Abstain:
:#

==Discussion by Arbitrators==
===General===

==Motion to close==
===Implementation notes===
''Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.''

===Vote===
''Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")''<br>
<small>24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close. </small>

:#

Latest revision as of 01:34, 27 May 2011

This page has been blanked at the request of a participant in the case. The content previously on this page should not be restored, but may be reviewed in the page history if necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


information Note: By motion of the Arbitration Committee, the findings and remedies contained in this case's final decision are withdrawn insofar as they reflect adversely on the editor identified as "Vanished user." The Committee notes that after receiving feedback about the use of his administrator tools, the editor identified as "Vanished user" voluntarily agreed to give up his tools and to consult with the Arbitration Committee should he wish to become an administrator in the future.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 06:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Following review of the case, a statement was adopted on 29 June 2009 that "The present Arbitration Committee has reviewed the Matthew Hoffman case, which took place in December 2007 and January 2008. The Committee has concluded that a series of significant irregularities occurred which, in combination, were prejudicial to Shoemaker's Holiday." It listed the irregularities, and stated that "This unique confluence of irregularities resulted in a fundamentally flawed process and the present Committee takes this opportunity to apologize to Shoemaker's Holiday and to the community. Further, the Committee has determined that all findings reflecting adversely on Shoemaker's Holiday, under any account name, are nullified. The Committee notes that Shoemaker's Holiday has agreed to consult with the Committee prior to re-seeking adminship."