Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, 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.

For this case, there are 11 active Arbitrators (excluding 1 who is recused), so 6 votes are a majority.

Contents

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on /Workshop. Motions which are accepted for consideration and which require a vote will be placed here by the Arbitrators for voting.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

[edit] Case suspended

1) Voting on this case is suspended for 30 days to allow Vanished user to receive community feedback on his administrative actions via a request for comment. If after 30 days Vanished user's responses are unsatisfactory to the Committee, voting may be reopened by a motion requiring 4 votes. If no motion is offered, the case will close without a decision.

Support:
  1. Mackensen (talk) 00:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. I have concerns about Vanished user's past admin actions but I think that rapidly removing his tools is not needed. Additionally, I agree with Mackensen's comments on the case pages and the mailing list about the framing of the case. If the case goes forward, I suggest that we delete the Proposed decision page and start over. FloNight (talk) 12:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC) I understand the desire to delay things but don't see why we need a provision for the case to self-destruct.
  2. Utter cop-out. Kirill 13:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
    Sorry but I do not understand what you mean. We can vote to open the case again after the RFC, right? I think a fresh forum will give Vanished user and the Community a better chance to address the problem with his tools. If you still want the case, we start again with better written proposals. Is there some concern that I'm missing? FloNight (talk) 14:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Paul August ☎ 14:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC) Prefer 1.2.
  4. I agree with Steve on this. James F. (talk) 23:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ... in favour of evidence provision

1.1) Noting that Vanished user has outside commitments and has asked for more time, this case is suspended from further voting or closure until Vanished user informs the Committee or the Clerks that he is ready for it to proceed, up to a maximum of 30 days. Vanished user is expected to focus his Wikipedia participation on responding to the case until his response is complete.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
    Paul August ☎ 14:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC) Second choice. Strike to make it more clear that 1.2 is the operative motion. Paul August ☎ 04:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Second choice Fred Bauder (talk) 19:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Second choice. Mackensen (talk) 22:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 23:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. I think that this case could have functioned as RFC with the Community weighing with comments about their level of concern about Vanished user's use his of bit, but the case went to voting too quickly for that to happen. I think we need to backtrack to give the Community a chance to weigh in. Also see my comment on the first motion. FloNight (talk) 12:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Slightly less of a cop-out, but still one. Kirill 13:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] ... 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 Vanished user's administrative actions via a request for comment.

Support:
  1. Paul August ☎ 14:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. This will work. FloNight (talk) 15:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. First choice Fred Bauder (talk) 19:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Mackensen (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Kirill 05:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC) I had thought the rationale for suspending the case was that Vanished user has not had a sufficient opportunity to respond. Had we thought an RFC would be required first, that should have been brought up when the decision was made to accept the case. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. I agree with Steve on this. James F. (talk) 23:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Administrators

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

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. FloNight 12:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Paul August ☎ 17:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
    Mackensen (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Prefer 1.1. Kirill 17:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. In favour of 1.1. James F. (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

[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.

Support:
  1. Kirill 17:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
    Paul August ☎ 17:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC) Per FT2's and jpgordon's comments below I am striking my support in favor of 1.2 below. Paul August ☎ 06:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. FloNight (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    James F. (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC) In favour of 1.1. James F. (talk) 16:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
    Nothing's written here that's not implied by 1, but as you like. Mackensen (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. Second choice, which means it passes, I think. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. For the same reason FT2 abstained. "To the best of their abilities" is not sufficient; if their abilities are insufficient, what then? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Paul August ☎ 06:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC) prefer 1.2 below.
Abstain:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC) Cannot support due to this sentence: "They are expected to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities" is too limiting for me, a certain standard is clearly expected as well. It's part of both RFA and communal norms and has been for a long time. (For example, see principle #6 Know yourself)

[edit] Administrators

1.2) Administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. 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.

Support:
  1. Paul August ☎ 06:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC) Per FT2's and jpgordon's comments above, I've offered this amended version of 1.1 above, which omits: "They are expected to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities."
  2. Better, thanks. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 16:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC), though I don't believe it should be necessary to vote again for such a minor change in wording.
Oppose:
Abstain:

[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."

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. True, but it is important to note that with good reason administrators often block sock puppets of indefinitely blocked or banned users with little on site discussion. The biggest problem here was the lack of inadequate follow up and discussion after the block. FloNight 12:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Kirill 17:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. Paul August ☎ 18:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC) It appears that this important principle is being ignored with regularity. It is much better to err on the side of caution in situations like this. Disruptive editors will eventually be identified and dealt with soon enough. Good new editors are a necessary resource for the project. If treated poorly they usually leave becoming a permanent source of bad PR, dissuading many others from participating as well. This is a serious matter. One good editor lost does far more harm to the project than dozens of disruptive editors not blocked at the first possible moment.
  6. And I would like to particularly associate myself with Flo's and Paul's comments. James F. (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    Mackensen (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  8. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. No matter how tempting it may be. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Blocking policy

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

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Right or wrong, the blocking policy specifically says "Brief blocks solely for the purpose of "cooling down" an angry user should not be used, as they inevitably serve to inflame the situation." Fred Bauder (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Paul August ☎ 18:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Personally, I do not think that "cool down" blocks are useful and usually make the situation worse not better. But thoughtful administrators disagree with this position saying that our policy allows for wide discretion for them to block to stop disruption. FloNight 12:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. "cool-down" has never been well-defined; it's debatable whether the intended meaning applies here. Kirill 17:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Too messy. James F. (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    Mackensen (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Blocking policy

3.1) With the exception of removal of material per the policy on biographies of living people, blocking policy proscribes the use of blocks in situations where the administrator is in a content dispute with the editor to be blocked.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    Mackensen (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Paul August ☎ 01:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Unwise, but policy Fred Bauder (talk) 11:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC) In some ways better than #7; use of tools in a content dispute against another editor in this way is proscribed generally whether or not it "furthers" the admins position. If there is a possible COI on use of the tools in a content dispute, best practice and expected norm has always been that another admin will deal with it, precisely to ensure no impression of COI attaches.
Oppose:
  1. Prefer just passing P7. James F. (talk) 03:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. Redundant to #7, which is somewhat broader. Kirill 05:54, 11 December 2007 (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.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. True, but the situation is more complex here. By my reading of the evidence, in this instance 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. The other possibility is a meat puppet which also might be blocked if after discussion administrators think they are carrying the banner of a blocked user in a manner that is disruptive. FloNight 12:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Kirill 17:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. Paul August ☎ 18:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC) There appears to be rampant paranoia concerning sock/meat puppets, and an over zealous concern to detect and block them as quickly as possible. We should judge editors by their edits, not by who we think they are.
  6. James F. (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    One might ask if ignorance of policy is the mark of an established user. Mackensen (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  8. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. Gosh yes. I've been seeing too much of "He suddenly showed up knowledgeable of editing conventions so he's a sock"; when I started editing, I did everything possible to make my edits indistinguishable from an experienced Wikipedia editor. Why should that make someone suspect? Not all nubes are rubes. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[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."

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. True, the main problem in this case is an inadequate review of the block by the blocking administrator and other admins. FloNight 12:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Kirill 17:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. Paul August ☎ 18:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. James F. (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    This has come up in other cases. The community may want to discuss/establish some guidelines for proper block review. Mackensen (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. Agree with Flo, Mackensen; perhaps some work needed by community Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  8. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC) and agreeing with FloNight.
  9. I'd like to change "full facts" to "available facts", if nobody objects. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
    "are expected to examine and familiarize themselves with the available facts of the matter"? A review implies rechecking for omitted facts, or re-examining to an extent from scratch, not just looking at the prima facie case as the first (blocking) admin may have seen it. Feel free to edit as you see fit to improve this. FT2 (Talk | email) 20:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[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.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder (talk) 16:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. FloNight (talk) 16:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kirill 17:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Paul August ☎ 18:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. James F. (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    Mackensen (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC) Yes. Many editors have biases. Not importing them into the project to the extent that one edits to an agenda is important. More so for admins, who may be perceived to have some kind of standing in disputes.
  8. "Know thyself? If I knew myself I'd run away." - Goethe. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[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.

Support:
  1. Kirill 17:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Paul August ☎ 18:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. FloNight (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. James F. (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    Mackensen (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC) Prefer 3.1.
  8. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[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.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC) I realize this is a partial dup of #5 but I think it deserves its own principle.
    Otherwise a bot might as well do it. Mackensen (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Paul August ☎ 01:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kirill 05:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 03:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. Some vigor is required if you undertake the task. Fred Bauder (talk) 11:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. FloNight (talk) 11:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  8. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. Maybe too subtle; clarification will likely be necessary. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Feedback

9) Feedback is a process of sharing observations, concerns and suggestions with a third party with the intention of improving his/her performance as an individual. WP:CONSENSUS implies that editors and administrators will inculcate the values which are expressed around them, and in the absence of negative feedback continue to act in a like fashion.

Support:
Mackensen (talk) 23:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. An administrator is obligated to conduct themselves responsibly regardless of what others are doing around them. Fred Bauder (talk) 03:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Per Fred. Kirill 03:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Administrators are expected to be familiar with the project's policies and core values, per WP:A and WP:RFA. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Paul August ☎ 15:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC) Feedback is a good thing, but agree with Fred and UC.
  5. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Vanished user

1) Vanished user (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has edited Irreducible Complexity and other evolution-related articles in an effort to make the articles adhere to Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view. While this editing is laudable, it makes it clear that Vanished user has specific content goals for these articles in mind.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Not much editing, but definitely has a point of view, see [1]. Fred Bauder (talk) 16:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
    I'm not opposing based on my opinion about if Vanished user has a point of view about this article or not. I'm opposing this Fof as worded because it does not state clearly state that Vanished user has a point of view, rather saying that he was trying make the article adhere to policy. As worded I feel this Fof might be interpreted as stopping admins from protecting pages, blocking sockpuppet accounts or using their administrative tools to enforce policy when they are not over involved with the topic but merely enforcing our core policy. I'll suggest other wording. FloNight (talk) 16:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Paul August ☎ 18:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. These articles need to have more participation from experienced editors and administrators trying to make them read from a neutral point of view. I reject the idea that administrators approaching articles in an effort to make them adhere to Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view should be completely ineligible to make blocks of sockpuppets or banned users they find editing them. This seems to be the point of this proposal. Rather, if you feel that Vanished user has a strong point of view that is influencing his editing and administrative actions then that would be a reason he should abstain from using his tools. To me there is a significant difference between the two and so I oppose as I can not support this wording. FloNight 12:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. In favour of 1.1. James F. (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    Mackensen (talk) 23:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

[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.

Support:
  1. This better states the issue, I think. FloNight (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. First choice Fred Bauder (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    Mackensen (talk) 23:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. True, but only part of the issue. Kirill 06:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. Paul August ☎ 15:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Edit history of Irreducible complexity

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. [2].

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Most of the dispute, heated as it was, was on the talk page, and most of the heat came from users reacting to Matthew Hoffman, not from him. Fred Bauder (talk) 16:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Paul August ☎ 18:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC) per Fred.
Oppose:
  1. Don't see how this is relevant, particularly as worded. Kirill 17:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
    The relevancy is, that the lack of current ongoing disputes, argues for taking a slower, more cautious and thoughtful approach. Paul August ☎ 18:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. See below. James F. (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    Mackensen (talk) 23:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] ... reworded

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. [3].

Support:
  1. James F. (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder (talk) 19:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    Mackensen (talk) 23:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Kirill 06:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. Paul August ☎ 07:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[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 [4] [5] [6] (more on evidence page). None of these claims are borne out by a review of Hoffman's contributions.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder (talk) 16:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kirill 17:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Paul August ☎ 18:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC) (Note I've slightly reworded this for clarity)
  5. James F. (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    Mackensen (talk) 23:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[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.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder (talk) 16:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kirill 17:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Paul August ☎ 18:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. James F. (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    Mackensen (talk) 23:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Matthew Hoffman not a sock puppet

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

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 06:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. In fact, posting at the top of a talk page is evidence that he is not an experienced user. Fred Bauder (talk) 16:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kirill 17:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Paul August ☎ 18:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. James F. (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    I understand this as a purely negative declaration. Mackensen (talk) 23:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. Not much proof either way Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC) Not enough compelling evidence presented to form a view whether he is or not.

[edit] User:Chaser

6) Chaser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) failed to familiarize himself with the full facts of the matter before declining the unblock request. In particular, Chaser relied upon discussion at the Administrators' noticeboard without reviewing the evidence himself.

Support:
# The Uninvited Co., Inc. 06:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC) I'm no longer comfortable with this given Chaser's response on the evidence page, and have come to the conclusion that a more general finding is best. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  1. Apparently so Fred Bauder (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
    Kirill 17:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
    Paul August ☎ 18:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
As UC. Mackensen (talk) 23:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  1. Not useful at this point. Kirill 03:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:
Comment:
True, but I feel that singling out this user is overly harsh since this routinely happens at AN and AN/I. A general caution is better here. FloNight (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hot button

7) Efforts by the intelligent design movement and its advocates to establish "knowledge" in Wikipedia that there is a "scientific" basis for creationism excite understandable passion in advocates of scientific reason.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder (talk) 15:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Implicitly a content decision. Kirill 17:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Paul August ☎ 18:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    Mackensen (talk) 23:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC) Would appear to semi-legitimize "We were justifiably excited so we engaged in misconduct" if it became applied in other disputes in future. The flip side that unregulated excitement and passion pro or anti a subject, is not necessarily a constructive force and often should be engaged only with caution given what it can lead to, is missing for me. See WP:DBF: - Calmness and focus is hard, but essential, and the presence of opposing views strongly held is something editors must expect they will encounter.
Abstain:

[edit] MatthewHoffman

8) MatthewHoffman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) in his talk page posts, and in his few edits, strongly advocated recognition of the claims of intelligent design under our stated policy of neutral point of view.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder (talk) 16:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Although this isn't really relevant. Kirill 17:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Paul August ☎ 18:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC) I disagree that his posts are accurately characterized here.
  2. James F. (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    Mackensen (talk) 23:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Vanished user's use of administrative tools

9) Vanished user (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) has repeatedly used his administrative tools in order to further his position in content disputes, including protecting and unprotecting pages he was editing (Radionics: [7], [8]; Homeopathy: [9], [10], [11]; George Vithoulkas: [12], [13], [14]), and blocking other users editing those pages (Sm565, for edits on Homeopathy; Martinphi, for edits on Homeopathy).

Support:
It seems there's more substance here than the initial complain, unfortunately. Kirill 06:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Paul August ☎ 07:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  1. Per Kirill. This finding articulates the sense that I had when writing the remedies initially. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 03:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder (talk) 11:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    FT2 (Talk | email) 03:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC) Yes. Sadly. See below
  5. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) We can do better on this statement. Prefer 9.1.
  2. If it's that big a deal, we can pass 9.1 instead. Kirill 03:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. Some of these diffs are troublesome, but others (per Vanished user's submissions) less so, and all occurred before the RfC in which Vanished user was provided community input on his uses of administrator tools, so I don't see much value to this finding at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:13, 25 January 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 [15] [16] 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" [17] [18] [19] "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. [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] etc prot;
  • blocked users who were also editing Homeopathy but from opposing views: Sm565, with whom he was in a revert war, for 3RR [26], and Martinphi [27].
Support:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC) A better description of the issues described.
  2. James F. (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC) Second choice. But why not have it as a dozen separate FoFs if you're going to this length?
  3. Kirill 21:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Second choice.
  5. First choice. I'm supporting although I do not think this specific Finding is needed. I hope that it will help get the case closed. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  6. Paul August ☎ 18:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Already discussed at the RfC, so I'm not sure rehashing all this again serves a useful purpose, per my disagreement with the committee's current approach to the whole case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External coordination

10) Articles related to Intelligent Design have been and remain the subject of coordinated off-wiki attempts to influence content and coverage. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence#Intelligent design activism and Wikipedia.

Support:
Mackensen (talk) 00:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  1. Fred Bauder (talk) 03:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Perhaps true, but of no relevance here. Kirill 18:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Paul August ☎ 15:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC) Per Kirill
  3. Per Kirill/FT2. James F. (talk) 16:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Not relevant.
Abstain:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC) Appears to be true, and completely unacceptable. But irrelevant per Kirill and Paul August: we use dispute resolution for this or seek input from uninvolved admins if so. Abstaining since 1/ not relevant to this case hence not minded to support, but 2/ I am unwilling to oppose what seems to be an accurate statement about the activities concerned, or 3/ imply any acceptance of off-site co-ordination by ID activists aimed at biasing the project.

[edit] Template

X)

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed 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] Vanished user desysopped

1) Vanished user (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights)'s administrative privileges are revoked. He may reapply only by appeal to the Committee.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 06:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Paul August ☎ 18:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC) Second choice.
  3. Second choice. Kirill 06:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. No RFC or other attempts were made to give this administrator feedback. This is much too extreme compared with the other cases where we revoke admin tools. FloNight 11:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Failing to respond appropriately to a vigorous and intelligent user with an activist agenda is err but not grounds for desyopping. Fred Bauder (talk) 15:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
    Too strong for a single example. However, if there is a next time... James F. (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC) Too strong to ban from RfA restanding for this, but necessary I feel. James F. (talk) 03:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
    Mackensen (talk) 23:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 04:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC) See proposed remedy 4. I feel that proposed remedies 1 and 3 based on summary desysopping or cautioning are respectively too harsh, or too light. I want Vanished user to continue his good work, but I need assurance that he demonstrates over a sensible period, that the past activities were laspes or set aside, and that they will be replaced by better conduct and tool use decisions. Bare desysopping with no assurance of a way back, seems to harsh taking all factors discussed by the committee into account, and yet the lapses were serious, and repeated. I therefore look for serious change in these areas where he made mistakes, and if I see it, I would hope that he will be welcomed back to normal adminship. But change in the few problem areas must be visible.

[edit] ... RfA possible too

1.1) Vanished user (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights)'s administrative privileges are revoked. He may apply to have them reinstated at any time, either through the usual means or by appeal to the Committee.

Support:
  1. First choice. Kirill 06:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Paul August ☎ 07:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 03:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Fred Bauder (talk) 11:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
I'm not comfortable with this. Arbcom-ordered de-sysoping is the kiss of death, and while a long litany of offenses and infractions has been compiled, at no time was Vanished user really taken aside and told what the problem was. We accepted this case, in part, to examine the problems of block review. We might also glance at the problems of admin review, and the difficulty in obtaining useful feedback. Mackensen (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  1. Failing to respond appropriately to a vigorous and intelligent user with an activist agenda is err but not grounds for desyopping. Fred Bauder (talk) 13:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 04:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC) See comment at 1.

[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.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 06:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Paul August ☎ 19:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC) The blocks were unjustified, and the blocking summaries of "attempting to harass other users" and "Vandalism-only account: After discussion on WP:AN/I, it was decided he's probably a sock, due to knowledge of Wikipedia policy, edit summaries, bad attitude, etc." are grossly inaccurate and slanderous. To argue, as Fred seems to below, that although MatthewHoffman was neither a vandal nor a sock, that because of his alleged "POV pushing", these comments are nevertheless somehow deserved, is simply wrong.
  3. James F. (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    Mackensen (talk) 23:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Kirill 06:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC) Agree with Fred but in this case, factually fair. An error was made on this occasion. A future admin considering block history should be made aware this block was not endorsed by the community. The block log presently shows "second chance" which implies a well chosen block with good reason and a fair option at a second chance 2 months later. This is very different from the consensus view on the matter, sufficiently so that a note to disregard is necessary for fairness.
  6. Support, although it should be emphasized that this remedy is reserved for instances where a block was clearly unjustified or excessive, and should not become routine. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. Fred's right, but still. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


Oppose:
  1. No, that's POV pushing karma. Fred Bauder (talk) 15:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Vanished user cautioned

3) Vanished user is cautioned to avoid taking significant administrative action with respect to content or other issues regarding which he has strong opinions.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder (talk) 15:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. I believe that Vanished user has gotten the message and will use better judgment in the future. FloNight (talk) 17:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    Mackensen (talk) 23:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Far too weak, given the pattern of abuse. Kirill 06:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    Vanished user has acknowledged that he made errors and acted in a civil and cooperative manner during the case. Desyopping without a RFC and a chance to reform seems to be outside of the past Community and Committee norms. FloNight (talk) 11:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC) I don't see a pattern of useful, valid, legitimate use of the admin tools in the brief time Vanished user has had them available. It appears that we made a mistake at RFA. Let's correct it, and Vanished user may reapply at some future point.
  3. Insufficient. Paul August ☎ 15:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 04:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC) See comment at 1.

[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.

Support:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC) Should be read in conjucntion with note at #Discussion by Arbitrators.
  2. FloNight (talk) 01:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC) This was not my first choice. I preferred a remedy of voluntary desysop and closing the the case without a ruling. But I support as a reasonable way to end the matter knowing that this decision can be altered later by a motion. FloNight (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Kirill 02:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Paul August ☎ 02:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. James F. (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC) Regrettable, and not how I wanted this case to go.
Oppose:
  1. I support a warning. If not that, then close the case with no action. Fred Bauder (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. On reflection, my concerns about the handling of the case (discussed just below) call for an opposition rather than an abstention. This is not an endorsement of all of Vanished user's administrator actions—far from it—but disagreement that this remedy is necessary or warranted at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Abstain:
:# Given that the case was suspended to allow for an RfC, and Vanished user has committed to take the input from the RfC and this case into account, I find this disposition too severe. I have circulated an alternative proposed disposition within the committee, under which this administrator would be admonished to abide by the input he has received and not to use administrator tools in matters where he is involved in disputes or has strong personal views, but would retain his adminship so long as no further problems occurred. The case could be reopened if further problems occurred within a stated period (say, 6 months). My proposal would also have vacated any findings voted on earlier, prior to the RfC (with the possible exception of the Matthew Hoffman finding). My proposed resolution did not find widespread support within the committee and I will not formally post it here to see it voted down, but it would to my view be a more appropriate disposition. On the present proposal, I abstain rather than oppose because it is necessary to resolve the case, and this disposition is more reasonable than some other alternatives that have been proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC) Changed to oppose. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template

5) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

6) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Discussion by Arbitrators

Proposed remedy 4
This case involves the conduct of Vanished user, including but not limited to an indefinite block of User:MatthewHoffman, which was subsequently overturned as being excessive, and general conduct to other users. The case was suspended for 30 days to allow for an administrator-conduct request for comment (see, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Vanished user). Following discussion, Vanished user has requested the case be suspended indefinitely, with his adminship being waived pending resumption.
The committee have formed the view that the concerns represented in the case (conduct and admin tools) are significant. The Committee have also formed the view that resuming a case in this way, after a delay of some months, would be problematic due to passage of time. The Committee take the view that the issues here are that Vanished user needs to learn, and demonstrate he has learned, different ways of handling situations. The proposal is aimed at preventing harm to the project and its community due to misuse of tools, or other conduct issues, and to instead encourage improvement by a keen editor.
Accordingly, if Vanished user can indeed demonstrate change, then the proposed remedy should be looked upon as a way to eventually ease him back into adminship under parole and upon condition of continuing good conduct, rather than a way to desysop him on a permanent basis. That is our deep hope. We also hope the hiatus in adminship and close of the case will remove much of his stress and allow him to face the future knowing he has a way back and no pressure. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] General

Damn, have to think about this one. Fred Bauder (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

No good, having to work! Fred Bauder (talk) 16:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Motion to close

[edit] 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.

Principles 1.1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 pass
Findings 1.1, 2.1, 3, 4, 5 and 9.1 pass
Remedies 2 (annotation of block log) and 4 (desysopping for 6 months) pass
Updated to note FoF 9.1 now passing instead of 9. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vote

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

Support:

  1. Motion to close. The only problematic item not passing is the principle on administrators, where we can't seem to agree on wording, and this is well established enough that it is not crucial to repeat it here. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Close after I cast my vote for Fof 9.1. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. Close. Paul August ☎ 18:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. Close. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  5. Close. Kirill 03:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

Oppose closure at this time. My regret about the unnecessarily harsh outcome and tone of the decision would not lead me to oppose closing the case, but we still need to decide whether we are passing FOF 9 or 9.1 or neither. I continue to have serious reservations about adopting such a harshly critical finding based entirely on events that took place before the RfC in whose favor the case was suspended. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Withdraw opposition to closing. All of my feelings remain as expressed above, and I disagree with the way the majority is resolving the case, but we've lost the user in question, so there's no point to keeping the case open any longer. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Motion to close immediately

Move to close instanter, waiving the 24-hour rule.

Support:

  1. Per all comments above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Close. Kirill 04:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. I don't think we even need a motion for this, just a direction to the clerks. Clerks, please close this immediately. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. Adding my close vote. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: