Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case Opened on 17:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Case Closed on 13:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case. Only add a statement here after the case has begun if you are named as a party; otherwise, your statement may be placed on the talk page, and will be read in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but it should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

Contents

[edit] Involved parties

[edit] Statement by Charles Matthews

I'm asking for a review of admin actions in the matter of the indefinite blocking of User:MatthewHoffman; the indef block has been lifted, but the matter is still contested after serious discussion, and there are wider issues, such as the biting of newcomers of unpopular views. I feel that the ArbCom should look at each admin who validated the block: Vanished user, who made the block; User:Moreschi and User:Jehochman (correct myself, not then an admin), who participated in an ad hoc discussion (archived) in which it was "decided" that a short block, itself suspect in my view, should be made indefinite with an allegation of sockpuppetry; and User:Chaser, who turned down the appeal of the block. I believe it is important to know to what extent such decisions have become endemic, as a workaround of the gathering of hard evidence confirming sockpuppetry.

In particular I'm calling for Vanished user to lose his sysop powers. He admits no fault here. I cannot see how it is acceptable to summarise a user in the block log, which is an indelible record, as a "vandalism-only account", when it is no such thing. (He has said in an Vanished user|election statement: "I'm not advocating off-the-bat banning newbies, unless they're vandalism-only accounts or obvious sockpuppets." What these phrases actually mean, and who gets to say that, is at the heart of the case I'm proposing.) It seems plain to me that his actions were in fact affected by the opinions being expressed by User:MatthewHoffman; his comments placed on User talk:MatthewHoffman are contested for accuracy by other admins. If for no other reason, the AC should take this case to clarify the issue that has developed, between admins, of the rival versions; if V has been maligned, that should be cleared up. I hope that a case of wider scope will be accepted, to let us all see what has been going on, with the admins who think that the sockpuppet allegation was perfectly fine under scrutiny but able to put their side in evidence.

I was unable to engage Vanished user in any private discussion of the block. There is essentially no meeting of minds on the central issues. With V saying he is being 'goaded' or 'bullied', I don't see that this discussion can be taken forward in the way it was first raised at WP:AN/I. He asked in the AN/I discussion "Why should we add a pointless layer of bureaucracy between the people monitoring the pages and actually dealing with problems?". This seems to attack the whole idea that admin actions are subject to review. And I note that even the ArbCom itself cannot hand down an indef block, so I'm certainly troubled by three admins two admins and one other doing it so quickly. Charles Matthews 08:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Add comment to User:Moreschi's evidence. We want users to read our documentation. Accusing those of them who do of being reincarnations would tend to discourage that. Charles Matthews 11:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Add comment to User:Future Perfect at Sunrise: I believe the same admins would act the same way tomorrow, if this case were not brought. The "escalation", as you call it, is because of the gulf between policy and their actions. As for unblocking myself, WP:BLOCK is quite clear: Administrators should not unblock users blocked by other administrators without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator and discuss the matter with them. V made this impossible; in particular by not responding on his User talk. Charles Matthews 13:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Add comment to Vanished user: I don't see what "named user" or identification was ever brought up in this matter; diff please. Also, can you show me where you asked anyone to take over this block? You did say you'd unblock yourself, putting the user on a "short leash" and "probation". I think your response shows why a case is necessary. Your email quote shows you refusing to discuss the matter privately, so the consequences are really on your shoulders. Charles Matthews 14:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
V, engage brain before typing. This works in the real world, too. Charles Matthews 14:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Deferral so you can be on the hustings? I don't think so. But the first sensible word from you - contact Arbitrators. I'd like to point out that the delay is not on my side; all I ever wanted here from you was a trial unblock, with a block log message saying "the previous two summaries were misleading, sorry". It would not have been hard, discussed in complete privacy. Charles Matthews 10:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Now we have comments from each of the admins involved in the indefinite blocking, I think there is a clear pattern of shrugging off all actual responsibility. There has been misdirection here, as to the criteria for disruptive behaviour (diff shows how this is infectious), and while I think WP:VANISH|Vanished user is unfit to continue as an admin, part of the reason is that he was so keen to hear what was very poor advice (and even "thanks" for acting wrongly). I urge the AC to look further into any further "advice" User:Jehochman has given, mentioning spam|abuse|coi as a catchall; and any other blocks involving similar "validations". Charles Matthews 17:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Moreschi

In all honesty I have no clue what's really going on here, but a user that, on his first edit, posts on a talk page discussing the concept of NPOV (using the acronym) with a full edit summary, and on his second edit starts a revert-war with a particularly biased and controversial edit using particularly - unbelievably - sophisticated wikimarkup? Then goes on to revert-war (and note the jargon of "reliable secondary sources" used already) despite 3 different users reverting him? How many newbies manage all of this in their first 5/6 edits? Quack quack, anyone? Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 10:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Might, of course, be a perfectly legitimate alternate account. But one that gets blocked in under 10 edits for 3RR vio? I can't think of another genuine newbie that's done that, nor an innocent alternate account. The use of sockpuppet accounts is discouraged, particularly if you're going to create trouble with them in this manner. The ArbCom is not here to stamp upon common sense. Please reject. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 10:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Carcharoth

The matter of the particular case at hand (the conduct of User:MatthewHoffman at Talk:Irreducible complexity and the subsequent blocks and allegations in the block logs by Vanished user and the handling of the unblock requests and the various discussions) should be fairly simple to handle, with the deadlock being broken decisively one way or the other with a more extensive review.

Like Charles, though, I think there are wider issues that need examining, in particular the practice of jumping straight to an indefinite block, or extending a short block to indefinite, after a short review among a few admins (wider discussion is really needed in those cases - an ANI thread can sometime be missed or passed over - and the discussion should be logged and linked from the user's talk page). There is also a practice of handing out indefinite blocks to so-called "single-purpose accounts", often labelled as "trolls" or "disruptive". Some of these accounts are merely new (new accounts often look like single-purpose accounts), and people's definitions of trolling and disruption (and the extent to which "second chances" are given) vary widely. In my view, escalating blocks of a definite length are preferable to indefinite blocks - as Charles points out, even the Arbitration Committee does not hand down indefinite blocks.

In my view, an indefinite block should be a temporary block to allow further discussion to take place before deciding on what should be done. At the moment, contesting an indefinite block is difficult if the blocking admin stonewalls and refuses to unblock or make it a block of a definite length. In contrast, if you disagree with a block of a definite length, it is possible to suggest shortening it or waiting for it to expire and noting your concerns on the talk page of the user concerned. What I would like to see emerge from this is a recommendation that when blocks of an indefinite length are contested, that a review should be started with the following possible outcomes in mind.

The outcome of the review should be either: (a) unblock if another admin is willing to take responsibility for the unblock and notes this in the unblock log (the blocking admin should assume good faith and gracefully pass over responsibility for the block); (b) turn the indefinite block into a block of an agreed definite length (and trust later admins to act appropriately if the behaviour resumes after the block expires); (c) based on previous blocks and behaviour, propose turning the indefinite block into a community ban or seek ArbCom sanctions if the case is serious but still unclear or heavily contested. In all cases, the discussion should be logged and a link provided in the block log or on the user's talk page. What is not acceptable is to leave an indefinite block in place when other admins disagree with it.

There is a principle that an uncontested indefinite block is a de facto community ban, with the rule "if no other admin can be found to unblock". However, this can conflict with the understandable reluctance of some admins to undo another admin's actions. If they discuss with the blocking admin, deadlock is reached if the blocking admin refuses to unblock or turn the indefinite block into a definite block. In other words, I think in cases independently contested by other admins, indefinite blocks should only be a temporary solution, and should always be turned into something else more amenable to review. Carcharoth 10:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Response to Moreschi: some people lurk before getting involved, and some people take to Wikipedia like a duck to water. Accusing such people of being sockpuppets without evidence of who they are a sockpuppet of, and/or with checkuser requests, is severe biting of a possibly new editor. Please undertake an extensive review of the habits of new accounts before coming up with blanket statements based on your personal experiences of new accounts (not just the ones you mentally label as sockpuppets). If we are going to get into discussion of common habits, how common is it for sockpuppet accounts to be registered under a real name, and how common is it for sockpuppets to e-mail an arbitrator asking for a review of their block? Carcharoth 11:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Vanished user

This was, perhaps, the worst new user I've seen. He was giving lengthy rants, with some signs of attacking others, and being highly disruptive, as well as acting very strangely. A short block seemed in order to give him time to calm down. Upon it being said he was probably a sock of a named user, with no opposition to this identification at the time, it was upped to indef. If that was wrong, and he was not a sock, it's a pity, but it seems to have been resolved through proper processes, and there was no need for Charles Matthews to bully me because I didn't have time to review the case, had very little memory of it, and told him I was happy for him to take it over by bringing it up on WP:ANI. Instead, he bullied me and attacked me repeatedly, and turned someone willing to help into a stressed-out person on the defense. Frankly, if this is what he considers appropriate behaviour for a member of ArbCom, it makes my candidacy all the more important. Vanished user talk 14:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

To Charles Matthews: I see the user wasn't, in fact named, for which I apologise, I still haven't had time to really look this over, and, frankly, am unlikely to have the time until after exams. You know, those things that actually matter to my future life? However, from my e-mail to you: "Ah, yes. Hmm. Bring it up on the Administrator's Noticeboard. I'm not opposed to an unblock if that's the consensus, but don't want to do it without discussion." Your response was to say that was not good enough, and so force me to deal with something I barely remembered as best I could. I put it up on the ANI, and was promptly met with you attacking me over it, saying "It seems clear that V, by refusing to discuss the block with me privately, feels that the buck doesn't stop with him, but here." Yes, that's surely the right response to an administrator attempting to deal with a two-month-old block that he cannot really remember. I was bullied into dealing with the unblock as best I could at the time, and so made a lot of mistakes. I hardly think these mistakes are as significant as the bullying that led to them.Vanished user talk 14:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
By the way, if we are going to do this, can we recess until early January? I honestly doubt I'm going to be able to put together anything before then, between exams, some trouble with governmental funding, and Christmas holidays. It is dealing with something that happened 2 months ago, after all. Vanished user talk 17:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Jehochman

I said:

Thank you. There's no need to give multiple chances when the editor is an (abuse|spam|coi)-only account. That's been written into WP:BLOCK: "Accounts used primarily for disruption are blocked indefinitely."[1]

That is the sum total of my involvement in this matter. Otherwise, I have no idea what is going on here. The text cited from WP:BLOCK was written by me six months ago.[2] Nobody has felt the need to change it since then. My motivation in commenting at ANI was to inform people of what policy said, and to thank the administrators for enforcing it. At the time of this comment, I was not an administrator, just an ordinary user.[3] My RfA

The block has already been lifted. However, upon full review, I see that there is a serious issue about the poor response to Charles Matthews' block inquiry. If there is confusion about the proper criteria for indefinite blocking, I think we should look at WP:BLOCK to see if there are ambiguities or contradictions that can be fixed. Arbcom is not a substitute for community discussion.- Jehochman Talk 15:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher131, your point is valid. My comment on the original ANI thread assumed that the administrators had correctly understood the facts. At the time they had higher user rights than I, so I trusted their judgment. My intention was to thank them for enforcing policy. I did not represent that I had conducted an independent review of the facts. Becoming an admin has opened my eyes to the fact that admins should not be trusted so much, especially in light of the Durova case. - Jehochman Talk 03:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Charles Matthews, I have looked through my own contributions and did not find any similar messages of encouragement written by me. Contemporaneous with the Michael Hoffman incident, there was an ongoing thread about JzG where I left this comment. My comment at the Hoffman case was me acting on the sentiment expressed in the JzG thread that Wikipedia's insufficient response to disruptive editors results in the loss of rule-abiding editors. I was a rule-abiding, non administrator for 2.5 years, so I had felt that pain many times. - Jehochman Talk 05:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I request to be removed from this case because I have no additional knowledge of the matters in dispute, nor have I edited the articles in question. Thank you. - Jehochman Talk 06:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by GRBerry

I think the committee should take the case to clarify existing policies. My gut sense is that there is a pattern far wider than this specific block or the named admins. Had this pattern matching algorithm been applied to me at the beginning of my editing; I might well have been blocked. Fortunately, I didn't start on a contentious - or even existing - page. It is pretty darn easy to have a first edit be decent, albeit imperfect. (That one lacks sourcing, etc...) Here is my sixth edit. Already at AFD, already understanding the basics. For an adult who takes the time to read documentation and look at examples of article text, it is trivial to understand what Wikipedia is and how it works before contributing. GRBerry 16:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Chaser

I'd like to point out that I wasn't aware of the second, longer ANI thread about this. That said, I accept that we (and I) may have gotten this one wrong. The contrasting threads from Thatcher131 and Fut.Perf (both uninvolved) illustrate the divergence in handling these cases, and probably a few go each direction that really should go the other (User:Bmedley Sutler anyone?). I guess I'm in Fut.Perf's camp. Perhaps I've become too quick to block and decline unblock requests. I'd be happy to talk to Charles Matthews about that issue in general. I don't have any particularly strong feelings about whether Matthew Hoffman should remain unblocked or not.--chaser - t 17:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Rodhullandemu

I am a fairly new editor here (August 2007) but have learned the policies, sometimes the hard way. So a lot of what I say may well be impressionistic and perhaps naive (this is my first ArbCom, BTW); however, I have developed certain expectations of admins.

  • The block of User:MatthewHoffman. I looked at his contributions as a result of the report to WP:ANI and formed the opinion he was forceful, seemed to be an experienced editor, and had been rightly blocked for breach of WP:3RR. I have real problems with the second, indefinite block, which I think may have been unduly caused by V's acceptance of Moreschi's Duck comment. If sockpuppetry is suspected, I think it should be proved, as we have a mechanism for doing this, and it should at least have been investigated before blocking for that reason. And of course WP:DUCK has a second paragraph, which I have just read, and seems to be largely forgotten.
  • The review of the block. There seems to be a breakdown here of communication and due diligence, both of which I consider essential qualities for the exercise of powers (and responsibilities) of admins. I usually ask myself "what would I have done in these circumstances?" In this case, time and time again, answer comes back "not that". I will reserve point-by-point details until the need arises.
  • I think the Committee should accept this case, not necessarily to punish, but to set out community expectations in these, and similar circumstances. In this I am not influenced by User:Charles Matthews' role, simply because had I been in his situation, I would have expected a more committed response from an admin, and my status should have made no difference. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 19:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment on comment by User:Calejenden-*If it matters, this is this user's first and so far only contribution to editing WP. "Curiouser and curiouser!", said Alice. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 20:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Preliminary decisions

[edit] Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/0/1/0)

  • Recuse. Charles Matthews 08:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Accept. There seems to be enough doubt here that review would be useful. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Accept. We need to look at the way that the block and unblock requests were handled by all involved. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
    • The Committee is more likely to get involved in disagreements between admins as they may become disruptive to the Community without our involvement. Instead of an AN/I or talk page discussion, arbitration allows all parties to present their concerns more clearly with a better outcome. The fact that no RFC has been done will be taken into consideration by the Committee. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Accept. Kirill 17:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Accept. James F. (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Accept. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary injunction

[edit] Case suspended in favour of RfC

1.2 ) Voting on this case is suspended for 30 days. In the interim, the community is encouraged to provide feedback on V's administrative actions via a request for comment.


Passed 5-3 at 04:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

[edit] Principles

[edit] Administrators

1.1) Administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. They are expected to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, consistently or egregiously poor judgement may result in the removal of administrator status.

Passed 6 to 2 at 13:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Don't bite the newcomers

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. Blocking policy 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."

Passed 9 to 0 at 13:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking of sock puppets

4) Evidence that a user is familiar with Wikipedia 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.

Passed 9 to 0 at 13:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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."

Passed 9 to 0 at 13:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Know yourself

6) It is important for all users, but especially administrators, to be aware of their own agendas, feelings and passions, and to deal with them appropriately, avoiding both biased editing and ill-considered administrative actions.

Passed 8 to 0 at 13:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Administrators: use of administrative tools in a dispute

7) Administrative tools may not be used to further the administrator's own position in a content dispute.

Passed 8 to 0 at 13:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Confirmation bias in block reviews

8) Despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of unblock requests are wholly without merit, those who choose to review them are expected to carry out an impartial, evidence-based review. Administrators are specifically cautioned to be on the lookout for confirmation bias in the course of a block review.

Passed 9 to 0 at 13:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Findings of fact

[edit] Vanished user

1.1) Vanished user (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has edited Irreducible Complexity and other evolution-related articles with specific content goals for these articles in mind. Based on the frequency and the type of participation with these articles, there is evidence that Vanished user was too involved to use his administrative tools in an unbiased manner.

Passed 9 to 0 at 13:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History of Irreducible complexity

2.1) The history of the article Irreducible complexity does not show a need for hasty action such as blocking involved users, such as repeated edit wars, ongoing content disputes, or heavy editing in the weeks leading up to the block. [4].

Passed 8 to 0 at 13:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vanished user's statements about Hoffman not borne out by the facts

3) Vanished user's talk page and block log statements made to justify his block of MatthewHoffman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) include claims of harassment, POV pushing, extreme rudeness, and vandalism [5] [6] [7] (more on evidence page). None of these claims are borne out by a review of Hoffman's contributions.

Passed 8 to 0 at 13:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 72 hour and indefinite blocks of Matthew Hoffman were outside policy

4) Vanished user's block of Matthew Hoffman for 72 hours, and the subsequent extension of the block to make it indefinite, were both outside blocking policy. The reasoning used to justify the blocks was fallacious, and Vanished user 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.

Passed 8 to 0 at 13:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew Hoffman not a sock puppet

5) There is no evidence to suggest that Matthew Hoffman is a sock puppet.

Passed 7 to 0, with 1 abstention, at 13:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vanished user's use of administrative tools

9.1) Vanished user (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) repeatedly used his administrative tools against usual norms and policies, on articles and in disputes where he was personally involved. On several occasions he blocked or prevented editing by users with differing viewpoints, furthering his own position in the dispute:

  • reverted another user twice on Radionics to his favored version and then applying protection, preventing their editing of his changes [8] [9] prot
  • semi protected Homeopathy, an article in which he was heavily involved as an editor, at least in part to impede editors described as "pov pushers" [10] [11] [12] "pov-pushers" prot;
  • semi-protected Homeopathy a second time, citing IP "vandalism". A review of IP activity from Nov 27 - 30 2007 shows the edits related to POV differences and minor edits, not vandalism (WP:VAND refers). The effect was to exclude IP editors with whom he disagreed as well as IP editors adding valid formatting edits. [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] etc prot;
  • blocked users who were also editing Homeopathy but from opposing views: Sm565, with whom he was in a revert war, for 3RR [19], and Martinphi [20].
Passed 6 to 0, with 1 abstention at 13:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Remedies

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.

[edit] 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.

Passed 7 to 1 at 13:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vanished user provisionally desysopped for six months

4) Vanished user's adminship will be waived at this time, and the case provisionally closed. Vanished user may regain his sysop access by application to the Committee, upon demonstration of six months editing in compliance with communal norms and conduct standards. If regained, he will then be placed on parole with regard to both conduct and admin tool use for a further period of six months.

Passed 7 to 2 at 13:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)