Misplaced Pages

:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Workshop: 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 19:11, 3 December 2007 editCharles Matthews (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators360,238 edits →Adam Cuerden acted in good faith, but made bad decisions← Previous edit Latest revision as of 01:34, 27 May 2011 edit undoNukeBot (talk | contribs)Bots4,368 editsm Noindexing Arbitration pages 
(407 intermediate revisions by 31 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman}}
This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions&mdash;the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the ] and for general discussion of the case.
<!-- This copies the notice at the main decision page to ensure consistency. Daniel -->


{{NOINDEX}}
Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the ] page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.

==Motions and requests by the parties==
===Template===
1)

:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::

:'''Comment by parties:'''
::

:'''Comment by others:'''
::

===Template===
2)

:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::

:'''Comment by parties:'''
::

:'''Comment by others:'''
::

===Template===
3)

:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::

:'''Comment by parties:'''
::

:'''Comment by others:'''
::


==Proposed temporary injunctions==

===Template===
1)

:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::

:'''Comment by parties:'''
::

:'''Comment by others:'''
::

===Template===
2)

:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::

:'''Comment by parties:'''
::

:'''Comment by others:'''
::

===Template===
3)

:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::

:'''Comment by parties:'''
::

:'''Comment by others:'''
::

===Template===
4)

:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::

:'''Comment by parties:'''
::

:'''Comment by others:'''
::

==Questions to the parties==
===For AdamCuerden===
Was this the basis of your 72-hour block of {{userlinks|MatthewHoffman}} for "harrassment?" If not, what was the basis of your block? ] ] 22:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

:I'm not sure, but that sounds about right. Particularly the part beginning ''"Your personal attacks and accusations against me are more abuse of this forum, and very clear evidence that the editors and administrators involved in this article are trying to use it to push their agenda."'' I probably should have labelled it gross incivility, though. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

::Did you take into account the context of his remarks, given that he was replying to other editors? ] ] 03:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
:::I think I thought I did, but what I seem to have done is looked at just the diff section - which only gives the paragraphs before the comments - and presumed they were representative of the rest of the content. I have Irreducible complexity on my watchlist, and when checking for problems on my watchlist I usually use diff.

:::I'll be honest: I hadn't realised before this moment how misleading that way of checking could be. The paragraphs shown on diff give a completely different context than the page as a whole does, since, perhaps by chance, the paragraphs just before his replies happen to be pretty calm and evidence-based, making his comments look far worse. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

=Proposed final decision=

==Proposed principles==



===Whack a mole===
1) When playing ] with obvious sock puppets of banned or blocked users, administrators are not required to fill out reams of ] forms before blocking. A simple explanation will suffice.

:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
:: Key word: "obvious." ] Co., ] 06:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

:'''Comment by parties:'''
:: Proposed. I am thinking of situations like {{user|Jon Awbrey}}. Feel free to rework the wording. - ] <sup>]</sup> 02:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

:'''Comment by others:'''
:: I've looked more thoroughly at the that started all this, and the impression I get now is of a fairly inexperienced editor (Hoffman) running up against experienced editors who (frankly) eat editors like him for breakfast. They were probably right in what they said, but due to the history of the page they bit first and didn't ask questions later. Hoffman was flailing a bit and flinging around accusations of personal attacks that weren't really any more justified than the subsequent allegations against him. The difference being that he got blocked and they didn't. For the record, it seems that ] made the first sock allegation (near the start of ), naming ]. Whether the behaviour of Nacentathiest and the others in that thread should be examined, I wouldn't like to say, but I think that thread should be examined closely. On the other hand, I've just discovered where Nascentathiest very responsibly points out that the indefinite block was excessive. Adam Cuerden's response can be seen . The more I look at all this, the worse it seems. I'm going to add this to the evidence page (is anyone still reading that?) ] 07:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

===Most new accounts are not sock puppets===
3) Most new accounts are not sock puppets, even the ones that use edit summaries, know wikicode and demonstrate familiarity with Misplaced Pages policies. When there is any significant doubt that an account might be a newcomer rather than a disruptive sock puppet, a careful investigation is required before taking action.

:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
:: Or at least some evidence. ] Co., ] 06:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

:'''Comment by parties:'''
:: Flip side of what I proposed above. Applicable to Hoffman. Again, feel free to rewrite. - ] <sup>]</sup> 04:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

:'''Comment by others:'''
::

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

:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::

:'''Comment by parties:'''
::

:'''Comment by others:'''
::

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

:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::

:'''Comment by parties:'''
::

:'''Comment by others:'''
::

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

:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::

:'''Comment by parties:'''
::

:'''Comment by others:'''
::

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

:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::

:'''Comment by parties:'''
::

:'''Comment by others:'''
::

== Proposed findings of fact ==

===Adam Cuerden acted in good faith, but made bad decisions===
1) ] attempted to act in good faith, though his assessment of the situation was incorrect, and his actions foolish and not as careful as they should have been.

:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
:: The expection is not merely good faith but also reasonable thoroughness in assessing the situation. Also, I am not entirely convinced that you acted in good faith, because I suspect that your true purpose in issuing the block was to influence the content of evolution-related articles. ] Co., ] 06:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

:'''Comment by parties:'''
::Proposed by me as my own assessment of my actions. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
::It is not necessary to be entirely convinced that Adam Cuerden has acted in good faith. Rather, the burden is on those who assert bad faith to show evidence of it. Thus far, I see no evidence of bad faith. - ] <sup>]</sup> 14:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
:: It is possible that Adam was trying to influence the content, but I think you would need a lot more evidence before proving that to anyone's satisfaction. The evidence might exist, but someone has to go and find it. Failing that, I'd opt for a parole or temporary desysop, rather than the current proposals (on the proposed decision page), partly because (as CBD has said) this type of action (moving rapidly to an indefinite block) is widespread and making an example of Adam doesn't seem right. ] 07:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
::Please, everyone, look through the evidence presented by ]. "No evidence of bad faith"; hmm. There is plenty of evidence of bad faith after the 72 hour block. So I wonder what evidence would be satisfying here. ] 19:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

===Adam Cuerden probably hasn't acted this foolishly before===
2) While he was certainly wrong in this case, his other actions are generally much more defensible, and show better judgement - not that that's difficult.

:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::

:'''Comment by parties:'''
::I suppose this is a reasonable assessment, though that probably is there because, well... ] <sup>]</sup> 04:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
::I think this needs to be investigated. We should look through Adam Cuerden's logs and compile a summary of his activities so we can form an overall view. Thus far we have seen a selective presentation of only negative evidence. That doesn't seem fair. - ] <sup>]</sup> 14:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
::

===Adam Cuerden===
3) {{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.

:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::

:'''Comment by parties:'''
:: Yes, his goal is to enforce Misplaced Pages policy. POV pushing, like spam and vandalism, damages the encyclopedia. I do not yet see evidence of a ''bona fide'' content dispute involving Adam Cuerden. - ] <sup>]</sup> 14:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
::: We're not ]s. If I repeatedly revert and warn a vandal who adds the irrelevant word "penis" to an article I am working on, is somebody suggesting that I shouldn't be allowed to block him? - ] <sup>]</sup> 16:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
::Copied from proposed decision to allow input from non-Arbs. <span style="font-family: Verdana">]]</span> 13:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

:::Editing to comply with NPOV is not a "specific content goal" it is a basic requirement of Misplaced Pages policy. An administrator who has edited an article to do this should surely not be prohibited from acting qua administrator should they encounter a user disrupting that article. If passed, I worry that this proposal would stretch the concept of an "involved administrator" well beyond what is practical. <span style="font-family: Verdana">]]</span> 13:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

::::Everyone who is acting in good faith tries to edit to comply with NPOV, administrators are not an exception. Administrators are not beyond bias, and if an administrator edits a content of an article (other than minor copy editing) he should not use administrative powers on it or on other editors editing it. ] 16:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::That seems a very extreme restriction of administrator powers, and would pretty much mean that any admins who became initially aware of a situation would almost always be ineligible to deal with it, and have to contact others. Which does seem a lot of pointless bureaucracy, if it's even workable. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

::::::Maybe, a very difficult question. But no one should feel that a person who disagrees about the viewpoint blocks him when they are editing the same article. Comment to Jehochman, obvious vandalism is another matter and I think you could block. ] 16:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

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

:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::

:'''Comment by parties:'''
:: So if there is edit warring, and then a consensus version emerges, it is acceptable to wait a few weeks and then resume edit warring? I don't think so. - ] <sup>]</sup> 14:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

:'''Comment by others:'''
::Copied from proposed decision to allow input from non-Arbs. <span style="font-family: Verdana">]]</span> 13:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

===Cuerden's statements about Hoffman not borne out by the facts===
5) Adam Cuerden's talk page and block log statements made to justify his block of {{userlinks|MatthewHoffman}} 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.

:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::

:'''Comment by parties:'''
::I really don't think that the POV-pushing one isn't held up. Otherwise, probably right. However, this does fail to recognise that while my assessment was wrong, I did honestly think that my statements were correct at the time, given my unfortunately incomplete grasp of the facts. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

:'''Comment by others:'''
::Copied from proposed decision to allow input from non-Arbs. <span style="font-family: Verdana">]]</span> 13:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

===72 hour and indefinite were outside policy===
6) Adam Cuerden's block of Matthew Hoffman for 72 hours, and the subsequent extension of the block to make it indefinite, were both outside ]. The reasoning used to justify the blocks was fallacious, and Cuerden was involved in a content dispute with Hoffman. Further, the justification for the blocks in part is to encourage Hoffman to "cool down," which contravenes blocking policy.

:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::

:'''Comment by parties:'''
:: I am skeptical of the content dispute claim. - ] <sup>]</sup> 14:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
:::Given I hadn't edited Irreducible complexity in quite some time when I noticed the activity and had a look in, what content dispute? ] <sup>]</sup> 15:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

:'''Comment by others:'''
::Copied from proposed decision to allow input from non-Arbs. <span style="font-family: Verdana">]]</span> 13:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

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

:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::

:'''Comment by parties:'''
:: Don't forget that the account was dormant for a long time. Perhaps the user was editing under a different account in the meanwhile. - ] <sup>]</sup> 14:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

:'''Comment by others:'''
::Copied from proposed decision to allow input from non-Arbs. <span style="font-family: Verdana">]]</span> 13:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

:::Whilst I agree that evidence that Matthew Hoffman was a sockpuppet was not conclusive, I think saying there was ''no evidence'' is incorrect. The account clearly displayed enough familiarity with Misplaced Pages policy and the article in question that suspicion was legitimate - even if actions taken on the basis of that suspicion proved not to be. <span style="font-family: Verdana">]]</span> 13:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

===Chaser===
8) {{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.

:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::

:'''Comment by parties:'''
:: Has anybody bothered to ask Chaser for an explanation? - ] <sup>]</sup> 14:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

:'''Comment by others:'''
::Copied from proposed decision to allow input from non-Arbs. <span style="font-family: Verdana">]]</span> 13:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

:::Chaser's only statement about this has been - I cannot see how his comment can be interpreted to say that he only read the ANI thread and did not review the evidence. Indeed he says quite the opposite when giving his reasons for declining the unblock request: . Unless ArbCom is able to read his mind, I think writing this proposal before he has presented evidence in this case is a stunning assumption of bad faith on the part of someone I know to be a good and competent administrator. One of the things that ArbCom seem to be taking a strong stance on here is the assumption without evidence of the worst in others - I worry that UninvitedCompany is doing just that in this case. I simply cannot see the evidential foundation for this finding of fact. <span style="font-family: Verdana">]]</span> 13:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

::::Amen. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

===Charles Matthews has failed to Assume good faith===
9) Charles Matthews, in dealing with this, has consistently failed to assume good faith on the part of the administrators involved.

:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
:: He's angry, to be sure. ] ] 17:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

:'''Comment by parties:'''
::I'm sorry, I didn't want to bring this up, but comments like those sprinkled throughout his evidence, e.g. "At best User:Moreschi regards policy as an inconvenience for admins. And User:Jehochman here is a meddling hypocrite, at best." do not seem appropriate behaviour from an arbitrator, who are supposed to be the definition of neutrality and attempting to see both sides of the story. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
::@Mackensen: Somebody wise told me, "Don't make important decisions when angry." - ] <sup>]</sup> 17:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

:'''Comment by others:'''
::Since this case seems to be focusing an unusually intense magnifying glass on the minor failings of everyone even peripherally involved (see Chaser above), it seems fair to note that describing an established, good-faith editor as a "meddling hypocrite, at best" is remarkably poor conduct for anyone involved in an arbitration, much less a sitting Arbitrator. Unless that makes me a meddling hypocrite as well. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
:::... and really. Describing someone as a "busybody" and a "meddling hypocrite" for voicing an ''opinion'' on a block at ]? What sort of message are we aiming for here? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

:'''Comment by Charles Matthews'''

::I'm recused here. I'm bringing evidence. If Adam wants "the presumption of innocence" then I'd be greatly surprised if he didn't get exactly that from the empanelled ArbCom. I have asked for review of his actions, and of others. The scope I have my ideas about, but is not determined by me at all (to ], that point). I don't get to say what is "minor". I wonder, to put it another way, what ] would say about AGF here; I wonder whether he would feel that the block review was but a small event in his life.

::I'm not sure what I can properly reveal about his mail to the ArbCom; it is not really in Evidence in this case, beyond its existence and the fact that I felt prompted to look into this one matter, out of the very many such appeals. However, it obviously had some qualities. That I could discover a likely match on Google. That was one point. Also there was anger, a common thing. Perhaps it is safest to say that my strong feelings in this matter come from what has finally been turned up in evidence. By the way, saying different things to different groups according to what it is they clearly wish to hear is ''prima facie'' evidence of hypocrisy. ] 18:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

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

:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::

:'''Comment by parties:'''
::

:'''Comment by others:'''
::

==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>

===Adam Cuerden===
1) Adam Cuerden's administrative privileges are revoked. He may reapply only by appeal to this committee.

:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::

:'''Comment by parties:'''
::Seems overly harsh and punitive rather than preventative. - ] <sup>]</sup> 16:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
:::I'm going to have to object to this: It does seem particularly harsh, given that I only really got an indication my behaviour might be problematic when this whole case got dragged up, despite seeking comment on all my actions. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


:'''Comment by others:'''
::Copied from proposed decision for comment. <span style="font-family: Verdana">]]</span> 13:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
:::Desysopping Adam Cuerden would be a pretty harsh remedy - justified presumably on the basis that that Adam Cuerden does not seem to appreciate that his block was wrong, and that should have responded better to the request for a review of his decision by Charles Matthews. I cannot see, if ArbCom is insistant on this course, why he could not request the return of his sysop flag through RfA. Surely there would need to be very serious misconduct indeed to remove the Community's ability to decide if an editor is fit to be an adminsitrator. <span style="font-family: Verdana">]]</span> 13:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
::::I agree; prohibiting Adam from going through RfA seems dramatically out of line with the abuses suggested in the findings of fact (which amount to two bad blocks on one editor). I'm not clear on why Adam's actions warrant such a disproprtionate reaction. If the intent is to make an example of a productive but imperfect admin, then I think that's a seriously counterproductive approach to changing policy or practice. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

===MatthewHoffman===
2) The block log is to be annotated to show that this committee has found the 72 hour and indefinite blocks of MatthewHoffman to be unjustified.

:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::

:'''Comment by parties:'''
::

:'''Comment by others:'''
::Copied from proposed decision for comment. <span style="font-family: Verdana">]]</span> 13:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

===Adam Cuerden admonished===
3) Adam Cuerden is admonished to exercise greater care when issuing, reviewing and discussing blocks.

:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::

:'''Comment by parties:'''
:: Proposed, in case we find that these matters are atypical of Adam Cuerden's administrative behavior. - ] <sup>]</sup> 13:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
:::I believe this is thoroughly justified. I'd also be willing to have my blocks reviewed regularly, or be warned against blocking for a certain period. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

:'''Comment by others:'''
::

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

:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::

:'''Comment by parties:'''
::

:'''Comment by others:'''
::

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

:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::

:'''Comment by parties:'''
::

:'''Comment by others:'''
::

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

:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::

:'''Comment by parties:'''
::

:'''Comment by others:'''
::

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

:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::

:'''Comment by parties:'''
::

:'''Comment by others:'''
::

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

:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::

:'''Comment by parties:'''
::

:'''Comment by others:'''
::

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

:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::

:'''Comment by parties:'''
::

:'''Comment by others:'''
::

==Proposed enforcement==

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

:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::

:'''Comment by parties:'''
::

:'''Comment by others:'''
::


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

:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::

:'''Comment by parties:'''
::

:'''Comment by others:'''
::

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

:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::

:'''Comment by parties:'''
::

:'''Comment by others:'''
::

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

:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::

:'''Comment by parties:'''
::

:'''Comment by others:'''
::

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

:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::

:'''Comment by parties:'''
::

:'''Comment by others:'''
::

==Analysis of evidence==
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

===Template===

:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::

:'''Comment by parties:'''
::

:'''Comment by others:'''
::

===Template===

:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::

:'''Comment by parties:'''
::

:'''Comment by others:'''
::

===Template===

:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::

:'''Comment by parties:'''
::

:'''Comment by others:'''
::

===Template===

:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::

:'''Comment by parties:'''
::

:'''Comment by others:'''
::

===Template===

:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::

:'''Comment by parties:'''
::

:'''Comment by others:'''
::

===Template===

:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::

:'''Comment by parties:'''
::

:'''Comment by others:'''
::

===Template===

:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::

:'''Comment by parties:'''
::

:'''Comment by others:'''
::

==General discussion==
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::

:'''Comment by parties:'''
::

:'''Comment by others:'''
::

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."