Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Create your own section to provide evidence in, and do not edit anyone else's section. Keep your evidence to a maximum of 1000 words and 100 diffs. Evidence longer than this will be refactored or removed entirely.

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Contents 1 Evidence presented by JzG 1.1 If it walks like a duck... 1.2 When the duck asks nicely 1.3 When is a duck not a duck? 1.4 A content dispute 2 Evidence presented by GRBerry 2.1 Evidence from Irreducible complexity 2.1.1 Pre-Hoffman use of "creationism" in the first sentence 2.1.2 Mr. Hoffman appears 2.1.3 Other editors finally figure out Mr. Hoffman was right, after edit warring about it 2.2 My involvement 2.3 [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]'s recent blocking history is spotty 2.4 [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] and Homeopathy 3 Evidence presented by Carcharoth 3.1 MatthewHoffman account created in October 2005 3.2 Evidence of MatthewHoffman's editing inexperience 3.3 Awareness of Wikipedia jargon 3.4 Content dispute at Irreducible complexity and Talk:Irreducible complexity 3.5 Allegations that MatthewHoffman was a sockpuppet account 3.5.1 Talk:Irreducible complexity 3.5.2 ANI thread (User:MatthewHoffman) 3.5.3 MatthewHoffman's block log and talk page 3.6 [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]'s blocks and unblocks of MatthewHoffman 3.7 Language used and allegations made by [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] regarding MatthewHoffman 3.8 [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]'s actions at Talk:Irreducible complexity 3.8.1 [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]'s editing of Irreducible complexity 3.9 Role of User:Nascentatheist and response of [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] 4 Evidence presented by Charles Matthews 4.1 The kangaroo court, 22 September 2007, is a farce 4.2 The block appeal is scanty 4.3 [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] satisfies no one 4.4 A User is blocked apparently for ever 4.5 Others are broken reeds 4.6 Our appeal procedures depend on admin response 4.7 [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] thinks we are too timid 5 Evidence presented by Jehochman 5.1 Indefinite blocks serve a valid purpose 5.2 Users are rightly fed up 5.3 Dispute resolution 5.4 Profg 5.5 Mateohoffman 6 Note by [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] 6.1 Brief responses to the below 6.2 On all the blocks mentioned, as well as some very relevant information that is being ignored. 7 Evidence presented by CBDunkerson 7.1 Other indefinite blocks by parties 7.2 Indef blocks with little discussion or review have become commonplace 8 Evidence produced by Filll 8.1 MathewHoffman appears to be a sockpuppet 8.2 Combativeness of MathewHoffman on talk page 8.3 Correction of previous statements 8.4 Examples of aggressive discussion by MathewHoffman 8.5 Users are indeed fed up 8.6 Addendum 9 Evidence presented by uninvolved Durova 9.1 Neutrality 9.2 Intelligent design activism and Wikipedia 9.2.1 Discovery Institute 9.2.1.1 Chahax 9.2.2 Overwhelmingevidence.com 9.2.3 Uncommondescent.com 9.2.3.1 I'm from Missouri blog 9.2.4 International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design 9.2.5 Yahoo answers 9.2.6 The ID Observatory 9.3 MatthewHoffman knew site policies 9.4 Administrators aren't perfect 9.5 Podcast 10 Evidence presented by Chaser 10.1 Previous steps in dispute resolution were not tried 10.2 Chaser's thought process in declining the unblock 11 Evidence presented by Irpen 11.1 Chaser has a history demonstrating a cavalier attitude towards blocking 12 Evidence presented by Rodhullandemu 12.1 The block was flawed process 12.2 Failure to effectively review the block 13 Evidence presented by dave souza 13.1 Comments on Irreducible complexity 13.1.1 MatthewHoffman's unusual history 13.1.2 MatthewHoffman's edits 13.1.3 Blocks and appeals 13.1.4 Commentary 14 Evidence presented by Whig 14.1 First supplement 15 Evidence presented by Wanderer57 16 Evidence presented by Jennylen 17 Evidence presented by

[edit] Evidence presented by JzG

[edit] If it walks like a duck...

• Irreducible complexity (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), site of perennial edit warring.
• MatthewHoffman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), a brand new editor...

• whose very first edit [1] includes correct Wikipedia jargon
• whose second edit [2] citing Wikipedia policy
• whose sixth edit [3] got him a 3RR block for edit warring
• who asserts that consensus is equivalent to systemic bias [4] and that this is therefore prima facie evidence of "bias and abuse" (to use his own words)

It was, in my opinion, reasonable to block this account (for a while at least) as a disruptive single purpose account. The length of block is a legitimate subject for debate. The lack of warnings is troubling, but not excessively so; the lack of warning before extending to indefinite is more troubling.

GRBerry's comments below are however persuasive: this was a good faith a perceived problem. Matthew's statements on Talk were, however, immoderate and aggressive, and the past history of the article probably led people to jump to the wrong conclusion.

My thanks to Carcharoth for pointing out the actual textual difference in the change, which (apart from removing a polemical source) was as follows:

Irreducible complexity (IC) is the argument intended to support intelligent design creationism and argue that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, and are at the same time too complex to have arisen naturally through chance mutations.

to this:

Irreducible complexity (IC) is an argument often used to support intelligent design, which posits that certain biological systems could not have developed incrementally through natural selection because they could not function without the simultaneous presence of multiple parts.

I say thanks, actually he made me look like a dunce, but that's reasonable in the circumstances since I seem to have made the same hasty conclusion that [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] did; perhaps that's an indication that it was a mistake which was not so very hard to make.

The edit is not devoid of problems; removing the wikilink to intelligent design as well as removing creationism is an issue because the intelligent design article very clearly identifies ID as a creationist concept, and attempts to obscure that connection are a historical part of the creationist agenda. This could, of course, have been an accident. As could misreading the diff (which I did) - it looks like a much bigger change than it actually is!

On the other hand, very few people will be sufficiently up on the jargon to cite NPOV (as that initialism), discuss the reliability of sources and so on, in detail, as Matthew Hoffman did on the talk page of irreducible complexity, and yet be completely unaware, as he says he was, of the rules against edit warring and revert warring in particular. We're being asked to swallow quite a large pill there, I think. I'd have been... suspicious.

[edit] When the duck asks nicely

There are a couple of good reasons for speedily blocking new users who pitch straight into long running controversies displaying detailed knowledge of Wikipedia's workings:

• to prevent endless disruption
• because many of them are socks

And some reasons for unblocking if they ask nicely:

• they might be new users who "read the manual"
• they might be former anons
• they might not have realised the problem.

[edit] When is a duck not a duck?

If an editor responds to a block with an indication that they understand the issue and will handle the dispute differently in future, then there is no reason not to unblock them. If they carry right on, of course, then we can deal with that.

The questions here are, in my view:

• What is the right balance of escalating warnings for tendentious editing versus speedily blocking troublemakers?
• Is the ability to unblock if the editor indicates they will not resume edit warring, a sufficient compensating control in this case?
• Was indefinitely blocking this account consistent with being a reasonable admin, or was it capricious?
• If Matthew remains unblocked, how long before he's shown the door again? I am reminded of another user whose unshakable belief in his own interpretation of policy caused very considerable friction.

An important missing link here is the identity of the supposed previous account. A possibility not perhaps adequately addressed is manipulation by members of some external forum. This has happened before in such cases.

It seems likely to me that the core error here was jumping too soon; Hoffman was blocked, there was no pressing need to extend the block before he came out of the other side of it, his posts to the talk page were verbose but showed a willingness to engage. On the other hand, you can only have the same discussion so many times before becoming frustrated with ID proponents claiming that ID is not creationism is not creation science, when the dominant world view treats them as inseparable. The discussion on ANI was insufficient. In the absence of good evidence for this being a returning banned user (truthfully there is no evidence beyond a vague smell of socks) the indefinite block is I think problematic.

One more point: the thing Wikipedia needs most urgently is probably not more POV warriors.

[edit] A content dispute

Needless to say, ArbCom will not rule on a content dispute. It is, however, worth noting that the idea that creationism and intelligent design are separate has no obvious currency outside of the ID movement itself. We have been round that loop a few times by now. Is the source used to support ID=creationism the best available? Likely not. Does that mean that irreducible ocmplexity, ID and creationism are separate concepts? Not hardly.

Perhaps we should have an "answers to common questions" page somewhere, where vexed issues that have been done to death can be cited with the expectation that unless you have real, substantial, genuinely new evidence then the debate is closed. Otherwise you just get an endless stream of newcomers repeating the same arguments and the old-timers getting more and more jaded.

[edit] Evidence presented by GRBerry

[edit] Evidence from Irreducible complexity

[edit] Pre-Hoffman use of "creationism" in the first sentence

1. The word was first added 17 June 2007 by Pasado (editing since 2006), citing Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals. A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy Barbara Forrest. May, 2007. (link has been updated since introduction to reflect a website reorganization)
2. On 13 August, Carlon (editing since 2005) questions the word and gets reverted by Dave souza.
3. The cited paper is a public advocacy paper, which makes it not a reliable description of the neutral point of view. Even if it was a suitable source, checking would reveal that this paper uses the phrase "intelligent design creationism" 1) in its title, 2) in a section heading, and 3) in a citation to the title of another paper by the same author. It never uses the phrase in the text. In the text, it uses "ID movement" or "intelligent design movement" 20 times. Had the proposed sourcing been given diligent review by non partisans either when added or when Carlon questioned it, it would have been removed before Mr. Hoffman began editing.
4. There is minimal discussion between Carlon and Dave, archived at Talk:Irreducible complexity/Archive 04, section "Intelligent design creationism[1]". This section remains on the active talk page throughout Mr. Hoffman's editing period. 21:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mr. Hoffman appears

1. 15 September. Mr. Hoffman's first edit is to the talk page. He raises two concerns; the use of "creationism" in the first sentence, and being out of date regarding the arguments about the bacterial flagellum. Later activity and discussion will focus on the first issue; the second gets roundly ignored.
2. Mr. Hoffman's second edit attempts to fix the problem caused by having used a faulty source. He is the first editor who demonstrates that they read the actual source, not merely its cited title. He changes the second sentence and adds a paragraph break between it and the third.
   • He does not introduce, add, or modify any syntax here -- Morechii's claim otherwise is false -- he completely removes a reference, edits words, and uses the newline character to break a paragraph in two.
3. An edit war ensues, in which Mr. Hoffman is reverted by FeloniousMonk twice, reverted in substance with some other improvements to the article by Kenosis once and is reverted again by Filll. Some talk occurs at this time, but not much. Mr. Hoffman gets blocked for the 3RR violation by [[User:[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]|[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]]] ([[User talk:[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]|contribs]] • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights]).
4. 17 September. Mr. Hoffman tries two more times to fix the article. He is reverted by Odd nature and again by Dave souza. After this point, Mr. Hoffman does not edit the article. (He clearly learned the 3RR rule, stopping after two edits this day.) 21:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other editors finally figure out Mr. Hoffman was right, after edit warring about it

One diff per named editor here. If an edit warring sanction is proposed, I'll add the rest. GRBerry

1. 20 September. Tstrobaugh (editing since 2006) begins removing the word "creationism" from the lead sentence. Reverted by Odd nature
2. 21 September. Tstrobaugh removes, FeloniousMonk reverts.
3. 22 September. Tstrobaugh removes, FeloniousMonk reverts.
   1. On the 22nd, Mr. Hoffman makes one post (in 4 diffs) to the article's talk page. He has made no other contributions since the 17th. For this diff [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] blocks for 72 hours with a summary of "Attempting to harass other users: Talk:Irreducible complexity" (what else can it be for? There are no other contributions by Mr. Hoffman in the prior 5 days.)
4. 24 September. Tstrobaugh removes, Jim62sch reverts. Tstrobaugh removes again, Odd nature reverts.
5. 24 September continued. Profg (later also blocked by [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]) removes again, for the 12th time in total. Rossami intends to protect the page but by some accident the page is accidentally unprotected instead.
6. Finally, people start working towards a compromise, and the word "creationism" has never been used in the introductory sentence since Profg removed it. 21:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My involvement

• I had no awareness of this prior to the discussion 28 November, now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive333#MatthewHoffman.
• As is my pattern, when I get interested, I first dig for prior discussion. I found a prior ANI discussion, and linked it.
• After some real life intervention, I reviewed for substance. I found that the 3RR block was legitimate, but that I couldn't see any evidence in favor of the later block. If anything, Mr. Hoffman was being treated incivily; some were blowing him off, one called him a sockpuppet of a particular user without naming names, but nobody took the time to respond to him as if there was a chance he was right. This is unfortunate, since on further review (I learned after this case was proposed) he was in fact right.
• I've said twice that [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] should have engaged in due diligence and been responsive regardless of who was contacting him, and that if he'd engaged in any attempt at due dilligence he'd have realized that Charles' concerns deserved a hearing and serious consideration.
• After [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] lifted the block with unsatisfactory conditions, I endorsed the suggestion that those conditions be lifted and that other editors review the situation. GRBerry 20:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• Because I knew [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] was an ArbComm candidate, I decided to investigate further. 21:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]'s recent blocking history is spotty

MichaelHoffman

• The focus of the case as presented. See block log and unblock conditions evidence provided by others.

User:Profg block log

• Discussion was opened and quickly populated by many of the editors who are prone to treating the scientific point of view as the neutral point of view.
• Isotope23 (the only editor in this part of the discussion I believe is uninvolved) asked if an RfC or an equivalent had been tried.
• [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] says "As a pretty much uninvolved editor - I've seen him around, but not really interacted with him that I can recall, I'm going to pass judgement. Indef blocked." He also tags the thread in a way some users believe indicates that it is resolved.
• The ban is then supported by Skinwalker (involved), and opposed by administrators B and Llywrch and editor Bluemoonlet.
• B says "consider this notice that I am willing to unblock and it is my intention to unblock barring substantial agreement by uninvolved users that the block should remain in place. I would like to offer the proposal to Profg (talk · contribs) that he agree to civility parole and a 1RR restriction and, if he accepts, it is my intention to unblock him. Any thoughts?"
• [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] was [[User talk:[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]#Profg|notified of the pending unblock]].
• 24 hours later B says "I am removing this block as soon as I finish typing this. 24 hours after my previous message, no uninvolved user has weighed in to oppose the unblock. No uninvolved user even weighed in to support the block to begin with. ... Profg has agreed to editing restrictions. If he creates a disruption, that's it. He's gone. I do not take this action lightly, but I firmly believe that the block was incorrect and that the ban discussion was insufficient."
• The editing restrictions are on Profg's talk page. They apply for 6 months. Summary: 1 revert per page per week, discussion required, no incivility or ABF.
• B gets rather thoroughly attacked for his action. No uninvolved admin chooses to comment.
• A day after the unblock, [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] gets around to disagreeing on B's talk patge.
• 4 days later, I archive the thread, pointing out that 1) CSN was closed; 2) an admin has unblocked, 3) no uninvolved admin cared to disagree with the unblock, and 4) it has been several days. I suggest holding an RfC, since it was explicitly denied that one had ever occurred. 22:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Martinphi block log

• During Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] blocked Martinphi for 1 week with a summary of "Soapboxing, POV pushing and other disruption on Homeopathy at the same time as being up at arbcom for doing that on paranormal articles."
• Almost immediately Martinphi makes an unblock request, and in investigating it Jossi [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]_[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]&diff=171099674&oldid=170787221 suggests] that it would be better to have protected the article as multiple parties from both sides are actively editing.
• [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]'s response indicates that he feels it was appropriate but that he was tired and has been under a lot of stress lately, so might not have been thinking clearly
• 19 hours after the block, Jossi unblocked with a summary of "after seeking input from uninvolved admin, as well as consulting with blocking admin"
• The ArbComm left this user subject to an editing restriction. 22:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Whig block log

• This user was also blocked for edits at Homeopathy.
• At Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig 2 [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] was the first to certify the basis for dispute.
• Soon after the RfC started a derivative discussion was begun at WP:ANI by Amarkov (archived here). It came to a consensus for a community topic ban that allowed Whig to comment on the article's talk page.
• A couple weeks later a second ANI discussion had trouble finding consensus. Eventually, during the kerfuffle over the desysopping of Zscout370, [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] reported talking with Mercury, asking on IRC, and deciding to block. He got support from MastCell and then blocked 80 minutes later.
• This generated some opposition due to [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]'s involvement as a party. [5] [6] [7] [8]
• [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] rejected the opposition. Then was supported by Mercury, who had previosuly been the strongest in opposition to further AN/I sanction.
• A day later, Mercury unblocked for mentorship, and 16 days later [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] blocked again. Mercury regarded [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]'s willingness to let the mentorship continue as a condition of the mentorship.
• This ANI conversation reflects a community divided about the appropriateness of the reblock, with some supporting, some saying yes but not by [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]], and some saying it was inappropriate.
• Mercury has now unblocked and resumed mentorship. 01:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Ramsmenon block log

• Was blocked for 31 hours by [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] for "POV-pushing edit warring on Intelligent design after warning."
• Discussion at AN/I showed general support for a 31 hour block. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive305, section "User/admin [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]: violating WP:BLOCK, WP:AGF, WP:BITE, and WP:TPG". 02:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

General blocking activity

• [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]'s block log from sysopping through November 30th shows 99 actions, including those for the users mentioned above. 8 are unblocks (3 to extend). The vast majority of the blocks relate to suspected sockpuppetry by User:Auno3. GRBerry 03:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] and Homeopathy

• [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] is a participant in Wikipedia:WikiProject Homeopathy.
• [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] is a major contributor to and regular editor of Homeopathy. [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]+[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]&site=en.wikipedia.org Interiot's wannabe_kate tool] shows him with 244 edits to the article and 249 to its talk page (5th most edited article, 3rd most edited talk page). He had more than 60 article edits in October 2007 alone, on 32 occasions. The deleted history of User talk:Wikidudeman/Homeopathdraft and User :Wikidudeman/Homeopathdraft also show he had a material hand in this "community rewrite" put on the article 1 September.
• The {{Homoeopathy}} template is [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]'s 3rd most edited template, with 33 edits (and 9 to it's talk, making it his #2 template talk page).
• [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] semi-protected Homeopathy on October 6 without expiry and with a summary of "Too many pov-pushers about. This might at least stop the hit and runs. [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed]" log
• On 7 October [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]], Whig, and other editors edit warred on the semi-protected article over it should have a {{POV}} tag. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] Riana fully protected and ended the edit war. That there was in fact a dispute is evidenced by 1) [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]'s semi-protection summary the prior day, 2) the edit warring, and 3) discussion now archived at [[15]].
• On 30 November [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] semi-protected the page again; editing protection was eliminated 8 hours later by TimVickers, and move protection by me as the page has never been moved. 02:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Carcharoth

[edit] MatthewHoffman account created in October 2005

The user creation log shows that the account User:MatthewHoffman was created on 1 October 2005, nearly two years before the account's first contribution on 15 September 2007. I haven't seen anyone mention this before, but I think that it is unusual (though not unknown) for an account to remain inactive for this long after creation before being used. This raises the possibility that this might be a sleeper sock account, though the use of a real name as the account name remains a mitigating factor. Alternatively, this could be evidence that the user has lurked (wiktionary: 2. (Internet) to view an internet forum without posting comments) for two years, which would explain the knowledge of Wikipedia policies, while not having the editing experience to avoid the initial mistakes pointed out in the next section, but this would also indicate that he should have known to avoid the three-revert rule.

[edit] Evidence of MatthewHoffman's editing inexperience

User:MatthewHoffman failed to sign his first talk page edit, which was also top-posted. He then correctly signed his second talk page edit, forgot to sign his third talk page edit. His fourth talk page edit was an attempt to retrospectively overwrite SineBot's signature with his own. By the time of his first edit of his user talk page, his signature has been changed from the default MatthewHoffman to Matthew C. Hoffman. Later talk page posts are correctly signed, but further new behaviour has been learnt: correcting typos in his own talk page posts, and again here. By the time of this edit we see he has learnt to make two posts in one edit. This may be read both ways, but there is evidence in this edit summary ("Added "1=" per instructions") that this user reads and acts on instructions. The use of edit summaries varied from good to non-existent - again, consistent with a high-end new user. In my opinion, the above shows a trend of learning how to edit Wikipedia, starting from a fairly experienced level consistent with reading the instructions and lurking for a period of time before starting to edit. Overall, there is sufficient doubt here that it should have been assumed that MatthewHoffman was a new user, though this does not preclude meat-puppetry from an external site. The use of what is claimed to be his real name should also have been considered before accusations of sock-puppetry were made.

[edit] Awareness of Wikipedia jargon

One of the assertions (example here) in this case has been that the use of the NPOV (neutral point of view) initialism by MatthewHoffman in his first edit, and his reference to reliable sources, indicate familiarity with Wikipedia, and this led to accusations of sock-puppetry. It should be noted that when his account was created two years ago (1 October 2005), he was welcomed with a standard welcome template with this edit, which provided plenty of reading material, including links to pages mentioning the NPOV policy, reliable sources, and many other policies. This is, in my view, sufficient to explain MatthewHoffman's knowledge of Wikipedia jargon and initialisms. The editing inexperience evidence (see section above) indicates to me that while Hoffman may have been lurking for two years, there has probably been limited experience of editing anonymously or under other accounts.

[edit] Content dispute at Irreducible complexity and Talk:Irreducible complexity

The locus of the content dispute that led to the blocks in question was a talk page discussion at Talk:Irreducible complexity and a series of edits to Irreducible complexity. The talk page discussion, which was initiated by MatthewHoffman, took place from 15 to 22 September 2007, and involved 10 separate accounts and IP editors. During the discussion, edit warring was taking place on the associated article (Irreducible complexity). This resulted in several blocks of MatthewHoffman by [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] (these blocks are described [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Matthew_Hoffman/Evidence#[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]_[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]].27s_blocks_and_unblocks_of_MatthewHoffman|here]]). [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] did not take part in the talk page discussion. After his indefinite block of MatthewHoffman, [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] placed the discussion in a collapsable archive box, effectively ending it.

• Serious Violation of NPOV - the entire discussion at Talk:Irreducible complexity
• the same talk page thread, in a collapsed and archived state, labelled "banned user"

[edit] Allegations that MatthewHoffman was a sockpuppet account

During the above dispute, and the blocks and discussions that followed, several allegations or insinuations were made that the MatthewHoffman account was a sockpuppet, together with denials by MatthewHoffman.

[edit] Talk:Irreducible complexity

The first allegations were made by User:Nascentatheist, referring to a banned editor, User:Jason Gastrich. This exchange took place after MatthewHoffman's 3RR block.

• 00:32, 18 September 2007 - Nascentatheist: "I also find it interesting that such a new editor seems to presume to know so much about Wikipedia policies. Are you enjoying your trip to the Creation Museum?" (with the edit summary: Response to "Matthew") [16]
• 11:15, 21 September 2007 - Nascentatheist: "Your first edit occurred on September 15th and your entire purpose seems to be to address this specific article, using a style (and arrogance [...] common to a banned user..." [17]
• 16:41, 22 September 2007 - MatthewHoffman: "I am not any banned user. In fact, unlike you sir, I am here under my real name." [18]

It should be noted here that Nascentatheist later stated that he may have been mistaken in his allegations, as detailed [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence#Role of User:Nascentatheist and response of [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]|here]]. At the time, none of the other talk page thread participants commented on the sockpuppetry allegation, though some (such as User:Filll) did later submit evidence to this arbitration case to support their opinion that MatthewHoffman was a sockpuppet or meatpuppet.

[edit] ANI thread (User:MatthewHoffman)

The second allegation of sockpuppetry was made at the ANI thread initiated by [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] at 17:52, 22 September 2007 to discuss his 72-hour block of MatthewHoffman.

• [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] opened the discussion with the following: "I've given him a 72 hour block to calm down. A bit of an odd one - he's only been a contributor a week, has done nothing but edit Irreducible complexity and its talk page, with huge screeds attacking every editor of that page, claiming they lack neutrality, etc. It was hostile enough, in my opinion, to justify a bit of a time out and warning, but, well, I suppose there's some hope he'll turn out to be a reasonable editor. Anyway, judge for yourself, and overrule me if you think it justified." [19]
• Around 2 hours later, at 19:40, User:Moreschi responded with: "To be honest, I think an indef would be preferable here. This is quite obviously a sockpuppet, judging by his abnormally well-informed edit summaries and knowledge of 3rr technicalites. Single-purpose accounts that are solely here to push POV (particularly on just the one article) should IMO be shown the egress ASAP." [20]

[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] concurred with Moreschi, and carried out the indefinite block. Apart from [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]'s responses, only one other editor commented in the thread, and no further substantial points or objections were raised. [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] has later stated that he was unaware of the earlier sockpuppet allegation made by Nascentatheist. It is not known whether Moreschi was aware of that earlier allegation.

[edit] MatthewHoffman's block log and talk page

The allegations of sockpuppetry were recorded in MatthewHoffman's block log by [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]], followed by a denial by MatthewHoffman on his talk page in his unblock request, followed by an affirmation of the allegation by User:Chaser, the admin who reviewed the unblock request, and finally in the form of a caution by [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] in the unblock notice two months later.

• 21:30, 22 September 2007 - block log comment by [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]: "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." [21]
• 21:47, 26 September 2007 - MatthewHoffman's denial: "Also, I am being accused of being a "sock" (I assume that means "sock puppet" because I bothered to read Wikipedia policies when making my objections. I am here under my real name! I am no "sock" and I am willing to prove it." [22] and [23]
• 01:20, 28 September 2007 - Chaser declines unblock: "Looking at the article talk page and your contribution history, I agree with the consensus here that you're somebody's sock here to disrupt the project." [24]
• 01:09, 29 November 2007 - [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]: "it looks like there's no call for an indef block, provided you are not a sock" [25]

The allegations of sockpuppetry were also discussed at the second ANI thread and at this arbitration case.

[edit] [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]'s blocks and unblocks of MatthewHoffman

Between 15 September and 22 September 2007, [[User:[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]]] blocked User:MatthewHoffman three times, with one unblock to reblock. This was followed by an unblock on 28 November 2007 (Hoffman's block log). The following is an attempt to follow the course of the disputes that led to the blocks, and the discussions about the blocks.

• (1) First block - 22:03, 15 September 2007 (24 hour block) "Three-revert rule violation"

  Links: User talk:MatthewHoffman#3RR warning (initial warning at 18:31, 15 September 2007, followed by more warnings and then notification of blocking by the blocking admin at 22:07, 15 September 2007).

• (2) Second block - 17:30, 22 September 2007 (72 hour block) "Attempting to harass other users: Talk:Irreducible complexity"

  Links: User talk:MatthewHoffman#Block (notification at 17:33, 22 September 2007 of the new block following the expiration of the previous block).

• (3) Third block - 21:30, 22 September 2007 (unblocked and block length changed to indefinite) "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."

  Links: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive301#User:MatthewHoffman (review at the administrators' incidents noticeboard, initiated by [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] at 17:52, 22 September 2007, resulting in a decision to extend the block to an indefinite block); User talk:MatthewHoffman#Block (notification of the indefinite block was added to the existing talk page thread at 21:31, 22 September 2007, followed by an unblock request at 21:47, 26 September 2007, declined by User:Chaser at 01:20, 28 September 2007).

• (4) Unblock - 18:08, 28 November 2007 - "Second chance"

  Links: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive333#MatthewHoffman (initiated by [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] at 16:43, 28 November 2007 following e-mail contact by User:Charles Matthews), User talk:MatthewHoffman#Unblocked ([[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]'s unblock notification at 18:12, 28 November 2007).

[edit] Language used and allegations made by [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] regarding MatthewHoffman

Regarding the blocks of MatthewHoffman by [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]], the following is a timeline showing the language used by [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] when talking about MatthewHoffman and how the attitude and opinions varied (or not). Contentious points are underlined:

• 22:07, 15 September 2007
  • "I've given you a 24 hour block, because of WP:3RR - basically, to prevent edit warring against consensus, you're not allowed to revert changes more than 3 times in any article in any one day. Calm down, relax, and come back tomorrow =)" [26]
• 17:30, 22 September 2007
  • "Attempting to harass other users: Talk:Irreducible complexity" [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]+[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]&from=20070921000000&until=20070922180000]
• 17:35, 22 September 2007
  • "You have been blocked from editing for 72 hours, due to your extreme rudeness, POV-pushing, and failure to assume good faith on Talk:Irreducible complexity." [27]
• 17:52, 22 September 2007
  • "I've given him a 72 hour block to calm down. A bit of an odd one - he's only been a contributor a week, has done nothing but edit Irreducible complexity and its talk page, with huge screeds attacking every editor of that page, claiming they lack neutrality, etc. It was hostile enough, in my opinion, to justify a bit of a time out and warning, but, well, I suppose there's some hope he'll turn out to be a reasonable editor. Anyway, judge for yourself, and overrule me if you think it justified." [28]
• 21:30, 22 September 2007
  • "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." [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]+[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]&from=20070922213000&until=20070922220000]
• 22:29, 22 September 2007
  • "Ironically, I was only being nice with him because I really wanted to block him indefinitely. I didn't want my emotions to overrule the correct treatment of a possible newbie with strong views and poor social skills." [29]
• 17:47, 28 November 2007
  • "...if Matthew Hoffman wanted to discuss his block, then I would happily reconsider and might well give him another chance. But I fail to see what the point is of unblocking a disruptive user after several months..." [30]
• 18:08, 28 November 2007
  • "Second chance" [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]+[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]&from=20071128003000&until=20071128181000]
• 18:12, 28 November 2007
  • "You have been unblocked, but are on probation. You are allowed ONE revert per article per day, and are cautioned to remain civil and polite. Any further violations and blocks will return." [31] (later struck through following suggestions that the probation be retracted)
• 18:13, 28 November 2007
  • "Oh, fine. I'll unblock him, if you feel so strongly. But I'm putting him on a short leash and probation." [32]
• 22:41, 28 November 2007
  • "...frankly, I still think the block was justified. He was, at best, a type of creationist troll who we get very frequently and who has never once become productive. Sock or not, he was a definite type of disruptive editor, and if I hadn't blocked him, someone else would have." [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]_[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]/Questions_for_the_candidate&diff=prev&oldid=174470488] (statement [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]_[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]/Questions_for_the_candidate&diff=next&oldid=174470488 retracted] three minutes later)
• 22:44, 28 November 2007
  • "Have a look of that log, I don't feel the need to say anything more." [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]_[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]/Questions_for_the_candidate&diff=prev&oldid=174471071]
• 01:06, 29 November 2007
  • "I remember this editor now - it's the one where reading him was physically painful. he just ranted on and on and on..." [33] (almost immediately changed)
• 01:09, 29 November 2007
  • "Having finally had time to review - I was really goaded on to making a decision quickly, and so confused you with a couple other cases - it looks like there's no call for an indef block, provided you are not a sock. Sorry. However, do try to cut back on the rants." [34]
• 01:11, 29 November 2007
  • "[I] was mixing this with a couple other cases, but this one is the ranter, not the really vicious one." [35]
• 01:11, 29 November 2007
  • "I think it was things like this edit for the incivility, as well as a few others. Lots of rules lawyering, huge rants on and on in one day. If the sock puppet doesn't hold up, though, there'd be no call for the indef, however, as I said, I trust other people to make those judgements, and he's certainly a creationist type." [36]
• 14:01, 1 December 2007
  • "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." [37]

The above sequence of comments by [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] on MatthewHoffman's editing behaviour dates from the initial 3RR block notification (in September) to the apology for the block (late November), plus later comments at the request for arbitration and answers to questions asked of [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] for his ArbCom Election campaign. I've failed to find any evidence for many of the allegations made in these edits, but am uncertain how to present this lack of evidence for the allegations. I suggest the arbitrators do what I did, and read all twenty-five of the contributions made by MatthewHoffman at Special:Contributions/MatthewHoffman, and see for themselves if they agree with [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]'s characterisations given above. Alternatively, [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] may provide diffs backing up his allegations. it should be noted that [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] has later said that he was thinking of a different editor when he made some of these comments - a possible case of mistaken identity when reviewing a block - and was also under stress at the time of reviewing the block. However, the responses above are consistent in labelling Hoffman a "ranter", and only the most cursory of apologies has been given, with a warning to "cut back on the rants". In addition, the block log for MatthewHoffman still says "Second chance", implying that the previous blocks were all justified.

[edit] [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]'s actions at Talk:Irreducible complexity

[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]'s first edit at Talk:Irreducible complexity was on 18 November 2006. The following timeline lays out some aspects of his involvement (around 20-25 edits) up to and including the dispute with MatthewHoffman.

• 01:17, 16 December 2006 - contributes to a discussion of the lead section and a sentence similar to the one later edited by MatthewHoffman. [38]
• 19:09, 30 December 2006 - extensive post surveying how other discredited theories are handled. [39]
• 20:43, 23 January 2007 - detailed suggestion for a source to be used in the article [40]
• 17:41, 22 September 2007 - Announcement of 72-hour block: "I've blocked Matthew C. Hoffmann for 72 hours, due to his rather extreme refusal to assume good faith. Hopefully, this will let him calm down. I mention this because he now can't respond, so it would be unfair to presume his silence meant acceptance." [41] (later modified here and here)
• 21:33, 22 September 2007 - Announcement of indefinite block: "After discussion, we agreed he was a bit too knowledgeable of Wikipedia policy to be a newbie, so upped it to the indef block his behaviour deserved." [42]
• 21:35, 22 September 2007 - Two minutes later, the extensive talk page thread in which MatthewHoffman had participated was archived and collapsed. [43]
• 21:36, 22 September 2007 - The archiving and ending of the discussion was finalised with the supplying of a standard template, leaving the talk page saying the following: "user banned" [44] (click on the 'user banned' link to see the talk page section, then click 'show' to see the whole discussion)

The impression I'm left with from all this is that [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] had edited the talk page before and had been involved in discussions similar to the one that MatthewHoffman got involved in. [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] held an opinion on the issues involved, but still chose to get involved in that later content dispute and block someone (MatthewHoffman) who was involved on one side of that content dispute. He gave spurious reasons for the block and then archived and collapsed the discussion with a misleading summary - MatthewHoffman was not banned, but was merely blocked indefinitely. It is unclear from all this whether [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] appreciates the difference between an admin blocking indefinitely, and a ban imposed by the community or the arbitration committee.

[edit] [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]'s editing of Irreducible complexity

Prior to and after the talk page dispute of September 2007 and the block of the MatthewHoffman account, [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] has made (as of 4 December 2007) 12 edits to the article Irreducible complexity. Two of those edits (edit summaries quoted) involved assessment of point-of-view in the article:

• 20:55, 2 December 2006 [45]: "Not really POV: It has no scientific support, after all"
• 23:15 1 October 2007 [46]: "Good-faith edit, but causes severe POV-problems"

This further reinforces the view that [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] was not uninvolved as far as the POV of the article goes and should not have made a block alleging POV-pushing by MatthewHoffman (the other allegations concern editing behaviour and are not content related).

[edit] Role of User:Nascentatheist and response of [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]

There was a postscript to the indefinite blocking of MatthewHoffman. One of the editors heavily involved in the original talk page thread (making some productive comments along with the unhelpful ones) was User:Nascentatheist, who made a veiled allegation of sockpuppetry ("These traits are common to a banned user..."). This may have prompted the later feelings that MatthewHoffman was a sockpuppet. The point of this, though, is that following the indefinite block, Nascentathiest made a post on [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]'s talk page: [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]_[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]&diff=prev&oldid=159721339 see here]. This post (titled A word of interjection - consideration for "Matthew Hoffman") pointed out that the allegations he (Nascentathiest) made could have unduly influenced the subsequent discussions, along with several other points. It is worth quoting it in full:

"Hello. If I may, I'd like to weigh in on the indefinite banning of Matthew Hoffman as a consequence of his participation at the Talk:Irreducible_complexity page. Since my voicing of suspicions may have been a factor in his edits of 22 September in a negative way, I would respectfully suggest that, perhaps, an indefinite ban might be overkill. While I have suspicions that he is a ban-evading sock-puppet of Jason Gastrich, and I believe that I have fair cause to have that suspicion, I certainly cannot prove it, and it may have been an unnecessary and ill-thought edit on my part - until and unless I could accumulate more evidence. I could have left all of that out and still made my case. For that, I apologize.
Of course, I agree with the consensus that "Matthew" is POV-pushing, intransigent, and naive, if not ignorant, about much of what goes on in Intelligent Design and with respect to Irreducible Complexity. I teach science and I've covered this ground many times over the years. My editing experience is fairly lengthy, though I only fairly recently decided to actually create a user account, and I must confess that I don't find "Matthew" any more uncivil than many others who were either never banned or were banned for much shorter periods of time. It does seem clear that "Matthew" is a single-purpose account and he's clearly pushing an agenda. That much was made clear when there were demands for references, references were provided, including two links to web sites that provide commentary from the references, and he elected to move the goal posts. Still, I would be remiss in my responsibilities as an editor if I didn't respectfully suggest that, if an action is deemed necessary, a more restricted ban be instituted, perhaps from the Project for a few days, and a longer ban from the subject article and talk page - just to see if this is, indeed, a single-user account, or if "Matthew" can find other ways to contribute to the Project by editing other articles about which he doesn't have such strong feelings. Thank you." - Nascentatheist 02:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It is disappointing (to say the least) that following this well-reasoned post (which accords with my reading of what happened in that thread), [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]'s reply was the following post:

"You have a fair point, but since I hadn't actually noticed you r comments, and judged on behaviour, and Moreschi and several other outsiders to the debate suggested that I was being too lenient when I first went with the restricted ban, I think this one has a bit more consensus than I'd be willing to overrule. [[User:[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]|[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]]] ^{[[User_talk:[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]|talk]]} 09:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)"

Nascentathiest, upon receiving this response, [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]_[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]&diff=next&oldid=159721339 dropped the matter]:

"Okay. Thank you." - Nascentatheist 13:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Overall, in my opinion, the same pattern is seen here again: [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] is refusing to take responsibility for the block, and is deferring to the opinions expressed by others who he asked to review the block (the merit and reliability of those opinions is covered elsewhere, see here). It seems that [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] relied too much on the opinions of those at the ANI thread, while those at the ANI thread relied too much on his judgment and were too quick to agree with him. For the record, the above talk page exchange started about 4 hours after the ANI thread of 22 September ended.

[edit] Evidence presented by Charles Matthews

[edit] The kangaroo court, 22 September 2007, is a farce

At Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive301#User:MatthewHoffman

The 72 hour block on User:MatthewHoffman was lengthened to indefinite, in a time period of under 4 hours. Participating:

• [[User:[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]]] blocking admin, asks for a 72 hour block reviewed
• User:Moreschi admin, suggests the block be made indefinite
  • This is quite obviously a sockpuppet, judging by his abnormally well-informed edit summaries and knowledge of 3rr technicalites.
• User:Jehochman busybody
  • Here comments Thank you. There's no need to give multiple chances when the editor is an (abuse|spam|coi)-only account.
  • At RfA, closed 11 October, says Even when requesting a siteban for a long term disruptive editor, I tried to be polite to them and explain what they would need to do to get themselves unbanned. Blocking and banning aren't as good as convincing an editor to follow site standards.

No input from the blocked user. [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] later misrepresented this crucial debate as "Moreschi and several other outsiders"; see User:Carcharoth's evidence. In the block log entry, and speaking of a "consensus", when in fact User:Moreschi was the only other admin involved, by a process of misrepresentation, a completely ad hoc procedure was given standing it does not have, of a "decision" made (that could only be unmade at AN/I?). [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] also attempted to blacken the name of the blocked user (User:Carcharoth's evidence, and below). There is a contrast between the certainty he shows about this troll, as he puts it, and the later claim not to remember much of the detail,

[edit] The block appeal is scanty

User:Chaser rubberstamped the indef ban (exchange at User talk:MatthewHoffman); this was the unique occasion on which User:MatthewHoffman was able to defend himself as not a sockpuppet simply because he had mastered some site conventions.

[edit] [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] satisfies no one

Second discussion at AN/I, 28 November

Having completely rejected the offer of any private discussion by email with me (it becomes plain he hasn't placed me), [[User:[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]]] starts another AN/I thread.

[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] stands by his decisions. He states, untruthfully or in a muddle:

I only vaguely remember the details, but reviewing, it seems a fairly clearcut case.

His statement at RfAr later admits he has not yet had time to review the decisions. And, untruthfully:

the e-mailer hasn't given any reason for it to be lifted.

Later some relevant emails from me are quoted verbatim. Included are the following:

What now stands in the block log is unconvincing, and not greatly creditable to Wikipedia.

You blocked with a claim of sockpuppetry. Well, he wrote to the AC about it; I certainly thought he was just who he claimed to be. He may have been a pain, but that log doesn't look any better to me than when I first looked into it. In fact, considering current concern about "deducing" someone is a sock, it looks worse. I'd appreciate it if you'd give this your attention.

Later down the page:

I was mixing this with a couple other cases, but this one is the ranter, not the really vicious one.

The other case or cases are not actually named. In his RfAr statement [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] still claims this case as the worst-ever newbie he has seen.

Reveals prejudicial bias:

he's certainly a creationist type.

In other discussion he states that he is unblocking but only under duress, and wishes to retain control of the block. He bats away all criticism. Further discussion of the terms "vandalism-only", "sockpuppet", "harass" from the block log, "extreme rudeness" on User talk:MatthewHoffman, and whether the second block and upgrading to indefinite had any basis prove entirely inconclusive, despite independent review of all the user's edits. Deadlock all round on the principles of such review, and their desirability, biting the newcomers, and admin responsiveness in the form of whether a "random user" could ask an admin to review, in the form of stonewalling and buckpassing, and so on. (There is a side-issue about non-receipt of a first, spam-blocked mail from me, and that my prompt on [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]'s User talk about it was simply ignored. This first mail is irrelevant, other than to understand the whole chain of events, and why we get to late November.)

In this context, User:Moreschi contests the review in a dismissive way. He later in his statement at RfAr, a few days later, claims not to know what it is all about. To make the point, [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] brought the discussion back to the same forum as in which it was "decided", as a form of re-validation. User:Moreschi paid the review scant attention as to any details.

[edit] A User is blocked apparently for ever

A user was permanently blocked, with no natural justice. The responsibility lying with the blocking admin, [[User:[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]]], he was basing all his subsequent approach on a short discussion in which his only testing of the basis of the ban was that the upgrading was a "good point". This apparently constitutes "consensus". He then failed to bring any critical attention himself at all, looking for a form of re-validation of the same kind, as the unique possible response to a request for review. Encountering actual critical attention to the facts of the case, he failed all tests of level-headed debate.

There are three contested possible untruths in the block log, and at least one more ("excess rudeness" on User_talk:MatthewHoffman). [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]'s second discussion not being a rubber-stamp, he made any number of untrue, muddled, whiny and otherwise unacceptable statements and attempts to shrug off all real responsibility. He blusters on. He does nothing to convince of his fairness to User:MatthewHoffman. Confusion and so on followed also in his statement at RfAr, with wild claims that there was "identification" of the account as a sockpuppet, showing a total lack of factual rather combative rhetorical contact with the behaviour of User:MatthewHoffman. The whole business falls shockingly short of acceptable standards for a Wikipedia admin.

[edit] Others are broken reeds

At best User:Moreschi regards policy as an inconvenience for admins. And User:Jehochman here is a meddling hypocrite, at best. On a later occasion [[User:[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]]] validated a controversial block of User:Jehochman's.

[edit] Our appeal procedures depend on admin response

User:Chaser let past a common pretext as a valid reason to reject an appeal that indefinitely locked a user from the site. An appeal to the ArbCom by this user led me from there to attempts to contact [[User:[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]]] privately. These were much hampered.

[edit] [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] thinks we are too timid

• ...I think one of the major problems we have is that we can be a bit too timid with people..., from [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]]]

Note that the word 'screed' is common to this election document and one of his attempts to smear User:MatthewHoffman; always rhetoric over facts. The whole statement should be read, as supplying a possible reason why the unblock discussion was fraught. If an admin campaigns as a tough-but-fair blocker, one should question not just the fairness, but also whether (as with User:Jehochman's friendly 'thank you' just before an RfA), admins are now running for office on a 'blocking' platform. We would then see unpopular points of view targeted. We would see extreme reluctance to hand over blocks, or admit error. More subtle folk would advocate for blocks but disclaim all actual knowledge.

Well, I think a problem we now have is that we are too timid about taking away with due process sysop powers from those who blatantly abuse them and cover up the fact. A test case here.

[edit] Evidence presented by Jehochman

I would describe myself as a "passerby" or "contributor in good standing" rather than a "busybody" or "meddling hypocrite". If you look at the header on Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard it says, "Although its target audience is administrators, any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here." - Jehochman ^Talk 21:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

There has been no intentional coordination or agreement by [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] and myself to support each other's activities. If we have bumped into each other a few times, that was just by chance. - Jehochman ^Talk 22:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indefinite blocks serve a valid purpose

Examples of situations that may warrant indefinite (or very long) blocks:

• Sockpuppets of a banned user, such as Jon Awbrey (talk · contribs), including User:Earthboat, User:Earthenboat, and User:Earthenwareboat. See also User:Marsboat and many more...
• Tor nodes. An experienced administrator told me to block these for 5 years whenever I find them.
• Accounts that are obviously used for disruption only, such as The respawning trolls (talk · contribs). The username doesn't inspire much confidence, nor do the account's three edits: "Fucking rude", "I AM SO FUCKING GROUCHY AT THE MOMENT I'M GONNA TAKE IT OUT ON WIKIPEDIA!!!", "Seriously, you look totally gay! The pic of you represents a gay image, faggot!"
• Extreme incivility, such as calling another user a Wikicunt.

This is why Arbcom has said, "Administrators are normally afforded wide discretion to block users who they believe are a danger to the project."^[47] - Jehochman ^Talk 01:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Users are rightly fed up

Many users that I speak with are frustrated that Wikipedia allows non-productive editors to harass good faith contributors. Adminship and Arbcom candidates may freely express that view, and if the community agrees, they will support those candidates. - Jehochman ^Talk 18:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute resolution

Nobody notified me about the second ANI thread, nor did Charles Matthews attempt to contact me about his concerns prior to filing this case. I think that the filing of this case without attempting to discuss concerns first was a mistake.

[edit] Profg

Yesterday I blocked Profg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu) for one month for off-wiki canvassing, per a discussion at ANI.[48] This action was taken with the full support of B., the admin who had previously unblocked Profg.[49] . Only afterwards did I discover that Profg was mentioned here on the evidence page. If this is a conflict of interest, which I do not think is the case, any administrator should feel free to review and refactor the block as appropriate. I post here out of an abundance of caution, and for the sake of transparency. Jehochman ^Talk 19:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mateohoffman

The following two accounts appear to be the same user:

• Mateohoffman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• MatthewHoffman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

See deleted contributions. [50] Jehochman ^Talk 22:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I attempted to see deleted contributions, with this result: "Permission error - The action you have requested is limited to users in the group Administrators." Wanderer57 (talk) 04:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Note by [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]

I'm sorry, but it's a week until exams start. I'm not going to be able to do much in the lengthy process of finding diffs and trying to finish boning up on something two months old until afterwards. [[User:[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]|[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]]] ^{[[User_talk:[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]|talk]]} 22:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Threaded discussion moved to the talk page. See: [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence#Note by [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]]].

[edit] Brief responses to the below

1. [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] indefinitely blocked Lozier11 as a sockpuppet of Danaullman (see block above) after a single edit.

   Well, it was making the exact same edit Danaullman made, and Danaullman had just been banned. If you'll look at Danaullman's history, he has a long case history of conflict of interest (he is Dana Ullman), and had been doing so for several years. [[User:[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]|[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]]] ^{[[User_talk:[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]|talk]]} 02:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

2. [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] indefinitely blocked Whig. User had been previously blocked by Mercury and [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] in relation to disagreement on the same page, Homeopathy, as the two blocks above.

   Yes, well, that was a case where I was more-or-less forced to take charge after an RfC, lengthy ANI discussions, and several rejected lesser proposals. Mercury and I worked out a probation after that, but he quickly returned to type, and when a user under probation does that... See the RfC, see the three or four ANI threads. This is, if anything, a pretty well discussed block. Perhaps I wasn't the right person to take charge, but once I did, making proposals for dealing with the community upset against him, I was basically bound to take responsibility. [[User:[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]|[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]]] ^{[[User_talk:[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]|talk]]} 02:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

3. [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] indefinitely blocked ChrysJazz for being a spamming and self-promotion account, (etc)

   And he was. I mean, he's writing about extreme fringe out there theories only found in his own books, and reinterpreting Camus to fit those theories. He had been called up on it before, had damaged almost the entirety of Camus-related articles... See the WP:ANI and WP:FTN discussions.

4. [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] indefinitely blocked Bauxzaux as a "vandalism-only account" after a single edit... which was POV, not vandalism.

   As I recall, another user had just been banned for making huge numbers of vandalism edits to the same article, then immediately another new user appeared, and began making the same edits, if skipping some of the most obvious vandalism parts. I seem to recall that that article was under semi-protection, so it had to be a sleeper account.

[[User:[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]|[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]]] ^{[[User_talk:[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]|talk]]} 02:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Now, I'm not saying that I wasn't wrong in the Matthew Hoffman case, but frankly, disruptive POV pushers are common on those pages - User:kdbuffalo, User:raptor, and rather a lot of socks of both of them, for instance. So, while I would be more circumspect in future, after spending three months dealing with the same highly disruptive user until he is blocked, one does, perhaps, become too adverse to going through that again, and so blocking a bit too easily and too soon can happen after a while. His points were taken pretty much from standard creationist writings - Points refuted a thousand times, in the internet jargon, and he had been showing some incivility to other users. The cool down block was probably justified.

I acted too quickly to presume he was a sock. There are, admittedly, a huge number of sockmasters on the evolution, Intelligent design, and creationism pages - I think the two I've listed alone have had a couple dozen socks, and the "Genesis Vandal" (who replaces the page on evolution with Genesis) has probably had a hundred - as well as regular meatpuppet attacks at times. Mistakes were made, yes, but there's some justification for them given the history of those pages, and there has been little strong opposition to my blocks hitherto, at least from fellow admins. While that may not make me right in this instance, I do think I acted in good faith, and do think the history of the pages and fact that noone really criticised things much at the time mitigate my actions somewhat.

As to my behaviour on AN/I? Well, I didn't remember it, I was willing to let others decide - then Charles Matthews began shouting at me to take responsibility. If I was taking responsibility, that meant unblocking someone who, as far as I could remember, was a pretty awful troll (I did mix him up somewhat), so it also meant I'd have to take responsibility for him. As my dim recollection was pretty bad, but I seemingly had to make a decision immediately, putting him on a short leash seemed the only ethical way to proceed until such time as I could review properly.

If I might say a bit more calmly, I tried to be helpful at first - if in somewhat of a shattered sor t of way - but when saying that you think that it would be best to discuss it with other admins before the unblock is met with insistence that you take responsibility and deal with it promptly, you get blundering about like happened there. It was a trainwreck. I don't deny it. I was shattered by the day's events and barely able to read, and yet trying to deal with a situation spiralling out of control. And I flubbed it.

This is more defensive than I like to be - if this was an RfC, I'd probably just say that I was sorry, explain that the errors were made partially in a too strong reaction against disruptive users who were allowed to continue for months and years, and then move on, not acting in the same way again. But in an Arbcom case where everything's going to be picked through and judged, you can't really do that. So, I'll just say that the last ANI thread on this was not typical of my editing, is not typical of my responses with other admins, and I do hope that my entire history as an admin will not be judged based on one error, corrected and apologised for. [[User:[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]|[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]]] ^{[[User_talk:[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]|talk]]} 02:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It's been pointed out I've not explicitly said this, so: No, I don't intend to indef block so foolishly again. He was My comments are simply to explain why I acted as I did at the time. [[User:[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]|[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]]] ^{[[User_talk:[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]|talk]]} 03:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

On Whig - I was just asked about him, so I'll copy my response here, and ask Mercury to comment.

FromUser talk:Sandstein

I probably shouldn't have been the one to block him, but there's a wealth of discussion that shows the community was unwilling to put up with him any more, e.g. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig 2 and several particularly lengthy WP:ANI threads. The first indef block came, as I recall, after he publicly announced on AN/I that he refused to be bound by any restriction, and that he was the lone person who understood NPOV, etc, in response to attempts to negotiate a behavioural change from him. User:Mercury tried to mentor him, with my agreement, after the first indefblock. Perhaps you should ask his opinion as well? [[User:[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]|[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]]] ^{[[User_talk:[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]|talk]]} 23:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On all the blocks mentioned, as well as some very relevant information that is being ignored.

Let's see if I can recall the big sources of blocks - I don't think any of them were controversial.

The User:Auno3 case was... not fun, and pretty horrible, really. Think I got it done right, but I have to admit I largely depended on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Auno3 (2nd). I reviewed the named users, but it's possible there were some IPs blocked (for a month - you never block IPs indef) in error. I think that user alone is about 50 of my blocks. It's possible, of course, that all the IP blocking was pointless, and a shorter range block would have been easier and more appropriate. Oh, well. I suspect that noone's going to raise much fuss over that case.

There was also a funny case involving an edit war over formatting in some Pop music articles - that'll be about 10 blocks, mostly gradually escalating blocks of a user who refused to stop edit warring, coming out of block only to promptly edit war the exact same way again. I started by giving both in the edit war a pait of 24 hour blocks, one then built consensus, the other kept edit warring. Can't remember the user name.

So, that probably leaves a few more that deserve comment. Poke me if I miss any out that I shouldn't have.

• Martinphi - Well, Arbcom surely knows all about that one, since I specifically contacted several of them individually to let them know what and why I did it (basically, I recalled he was under arbitration, and looking at the proposed decision, saw that he was up for behaviour similar to that h e was now exhibiting at the new article he had moved to. Jossi thought it might be too harsh, I thought he had a point - as I recall saying at the time - not sure if it was in the block log or where - I would never have blocked him if it weren't for the arbcom case, which had entered voting, and showed a majority had already voted for several remedies and findings of fact that were directly relevant to what he was bringing to the new article. The article was Homeopathy, though, so I may have shown bad judgement in not recusing myself. However, given I wrote the arbcom to let them know about this block, giving details, and asking them to check it was within the spirit of what they intended, I did rather think that I had done everything in my power to try and make sure the decision on this was right. [[User:[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]|[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]]] ^{[[User_talk:[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]|talk]]} 02:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Whig: Complex case. There's plenty of evidence that the community was fed up with him, but he had managed to get a great number of admins upset with him, and recusals were making it difficult to move forward. It was during the period when Arcom was still perceived as glacially slow (though I think it had improved somewhat, in fact), so everyone was hesitant to go here, and he finally threw down a challenge - would nobody deal with him? If not, he claimed his behaviour was right, and, I, probably foolishly, rose to the bait, and suggested some compromises. Which were met by him announcing that he would not be bound by rules, and intended to carry on as he was. So I blocked him.

Yes, I know, that was foolish, and I shouldn't have risen to the bait, but once I had suggested compromises, I felt like I had taken responsibility, and had to try and see it to the end. I think my decisions were probably right, but that I was not the one who should have made them, and that I was foolish to let him draw me into action. [[User:[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]|[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]]] ^{[[User_talk:[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]|talk]]} 02:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• ChrysJazz: I'm a little surprised this one is controversial - he had outed himself as the author of the fringe theories he was writing about, and only edited to promote his theories and the pages on himself. [[User:[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]|[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]]] ^{[[User_talk:[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]|talk]]} 02:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Bauxzaux: You may be aware of someone colloquially known as the Genesis Vandal on the Evolution page. Basically, every couple months, the Genesis vandal sets up a series of Sleeper accounts [Evolution is on permanent semi-protection, so all accounts must be 4 days old] , and then uses them in quick succession to repeatedly replace Evolution with the text of Genesis 1-2, switching accounts as they're blocked. Bauxzaux, while not in the standard modus operandi of the Genesis vandal, was the last edit at the tail end of a Genesis vandal attack, coming only minutes or moments after the last replace with Genesis, and, as I said, Evolution is semi-protected, so I knew it MUST have been a sleeper account. [[User:[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]|[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]]] ^{[[User_talk:[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]|talk]]} 02:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It's also probably worth pointing out these three edits, by the way - these are not atypical announcements to find on intelligent design-related pages - and these are just the last few that I was easily able to find, by searching for Raul's contributions, as he's the checkuser who most frequently spots, confirms, and announces them: [51] [52] [53]

While not justifying our behaviour, I think you'll agree that a steady diet of posts like that do explain why we were all so ready to believe people were socks - I'd estimate that at least half of the new users on those pages ARE, in fact, socks at the moment. People were all willing to presume he was a sock, because there are, in fact, checkuser-confirmed socks by the dozens. I really don't think that an ongoing problem like that can be ignored in a case like this. [[User:[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]|[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]]] ^{[[User_talk:[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]|talk]]} 02:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Other relevant pages include Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Raspor, Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Jason_Gastrich, and, although old, Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Kdbuffalo. This will begin to give you some idea. Indeed, I would suggest that a small study, calculating how many new editors to, say Intelligent design, Talk:Intelligent design, and maybe Evolution would almost surely show that at least 33% of new users who mainly edit those pages and related were sockpuppets. There are SEVERE PROBLEMS in that set of articles, and it does little good to punish the people trying their best to cope with the worst parts of Wikipedia. [[User:[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]|[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]]] ^{[[User_talk:[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]|talk]]} 03:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by CBDunkerson

[edit] Other indefinite blocks by parties

• Moreschi overturned a 24 hour block on Danaullman to extend to indefinite. User never blocked before.
• [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] indefinitely blocked Lozier11 as a sockpuppet of Danaullman (see block above) after a single edit.
• [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] indefinitely blocked Whig. User had been previously blocked by Mercury and [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] in relation to disagreement on the same page, Homeopathy, as the two blocks above.
• [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] indefinitely blocked ChrysJazz for being a spamming and self-promotion account. Note that among other non 'self promotion' edits user created this article... which was then deleted by JzG, apparently for "bias".
• [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] indefinitely blocked Bauxzaux as a "vandalism-only account" after a single edit... which was POV, not vandalism.

I only looked through the five most recent indef blocks by [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]], Moreschi, Jehochman, and Chaser. In most cases there were several previous blocks or considerable discussion and thus I did not include those instances in the list above.

[edit] Indef blocks with little discussion or review have become commonplace

The following indefinite blocks were made in a one hour period earlier today;

• [54] - Username block on 'Charlesthethurd'. User had one deleted edit, which was vandalism.
• [55] - Blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Pionier. No discussion or checkuser found on a quick search.
• [56] - Blocked as open proxy.
• [57] - Username block on 'Calnea' - many (not all) edits included info on a company of the same name. Several previous warnings.
• [58] - Blocked as spam only account. Several previous warnings.
• [59] - Blocked as sockpuppet of unnamed user after one edit.
• [60] - Username block on 'Nicepooperzine'. Note, account's sole edit looks reasonable.
• [61] - Username block on 'Lsdaelyfeiadjkfhiurehhfkjahsfehakjfsdf'.
• [62] - Blocked as vandalism only account (vandalism deleted).
• [63] - Blocked for hoax pages and edits. Several previous warnings.
• [64] - Blocked as vandalism only account.

Note that in all cases the indefinite block was the first block received. As the above represents a single hour it seems reasonable to extrapolate that well over a hundred indefinite blocks are being placed every day without significant warnings, discussion, or previous blocks. With that level of blocking and little discussion indefinite blocks on 'salvagable' and even occasional 'good' users are inevitable.

[edit] Evidence produced by Filll

[edit] MathewHoffman appears to be a sockpuppet

I believe MathewHoffman is a sockpuppet, or that there was strong reason to believe so, for the following reasons:

1. sophistication of initial edits
2. knowledge of WP procedures and policies
3. combative and defensive argumentation
4. interest only in irreducible complexity article

I first encountered MathewHoffman 18:45 September 15, 2007 when I reverted what appeared to be a massive edit: [65]. He had made a couple of posts to the talk page, but had not at this point gained anything like the consensus he would need to implement what appeared to be a huge change. His edits were clearly opposed by User:FeloniousMonk on the talk page:[66]. I asked him to make his case on the talk page, since this is a lot of material to change without consensus.

I find it highly doubtful that someone with so little experience in editing would have made the edit I reverted, and made the sort of arguments showing knowledge of WP policies that MathewHoffman did on the talk page. For me, this, coupled with his combativeness, is very strong evidence that he is likely a sock puppet. The extensiveness of his edits go far beyond the way that others on this page have characterized them; this was not just some complaint about the use of Professor Barbara Forrest's paper as an "improper" reference for ID=creationism, as claimed by others here.

This is even more likely given our experience with dozens of other similar cases. Over and over, several times a week, we encounter editors with almost identical editing habits that are proven to be sock puppets. The chance that MathewHoffman is not a sock puppet is almost zero, at least in my opinion.

[edit] Combativeness of MathewHoffman on talk page

MathewHoffman then proceded to engage in a series of very combative and defensive posts on the talk page. He was joined by User:143.111.22.21, who appeared to be another sock or meat puppet to me, as well as long term irritant and POV warrior, User:profg, who might also be associated with MathewHoffman in some way. In the heat of arguments, it is very difficult to know who is who, particularly when many of the editors have a limited editing history.

MathewHoffman rejected all other sources that were suggested, and all other reasoning, and single-mindedly pushed his anti-evolution POV. He was offended and became defensive if anyone disagreed with him.

The discussion mainly focused on MathewHoffman's claim that intelligent design is not creationism and should not be described as such in this article, in spite of the fact that this was carefully documented in the intelligent design article already (Increasingly, editors attack the daughter articles of intelligent design for matters already well addressed at intelligent design).

In the course of the discussion, MathewHoffman badgered and insulted other editors, and made numerous demands with minimal to no provocation (see below). This made him appear to be just interested in disruption and trolling.

[edit] Correction of previous statements

The characterization of intelligent design as creationism was in the 2nd sentence originally with one reference; it is now in the 3rd sentence, supported by 6 references. It was never in the first sentence, as erroneously stated above. The succinct phrase "intelligent design creationism" has been removed and relegated to the intelligent design article itself.

MathewHofman did not just complain about the use of Professor Barbara Forrest's paper as an "improper" reference for ID=creationism, as claimed by others here. He was asking for a much more extensive rewrite of the article.

[edit] Examples of aggressive discussion by MathewHoffman

1. serious violation of NPOV
2. acting biased and partisan
3. to admit such bigotry is brave (? might be someone else)
4. you are engaging in multiple violations of wikipedia policy
5. you are attacking me personally
6. You are the one who does not seem to understand NPOV.
7. I am not going to let this go
8. It seems very obvious that you and FeloniousMonk are using the page to advance your own point of view, and not to explain both sides of this controversy.
9. This violates Wikipedia policy.
10. 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.
11. Your name, rather, like your tactics, points to an agenda that you seem to be pushing on Wikipedia.
12. Your responses are a complete failure, and in fact back up what I was saying.
13. Stand by what you said...
14. Please answer my points directly, without personal attacks.
15. Please adhere to Wikipedia policy.
16. If you continue to attack me personally and bring up issues that are not related to the topic, you will only prove that you are guilty of what you have falsely accused me of: an attempt to use Wikipedia to further your own personal agenda.
17. Funny, but anyone who understands science knows there are no facts.
18. And as far as the idea of concensus? Can 99.9% of scientists be wrong? You betcha.
19. I want to note that some who are opposing me on this are using the forum to attack ID proponents (saying that practically everything they say is false, etc), comments that are not appropriate.
20. Other comments about people murdering others, etc, have no place here...but the admins are not removing the comments.
21. It seems that there is an air of confidence among the obviously anti-ID people here that the rules simply don't apply to them, or will always be conveniently interpreted in their favor...is that correct?
22. I am waiting for a rational, clear, and direct response to the evidence and arguments I have placed above, without editorial comments about ID itself, which is not appropriate for this page
23. I really hope that the level of discourse on this talk page improves
24. You need to quote these articles to defend yourself, rather than just pouring out citations like anyone can do. (In response to User: dave souza listing the relevant WP policy articles)
25. I suggest that you read the Wikipedia entry on "systematic bias", because this talk page shows that in abundance.
26. If the editors use the Talk page to engage in personal attacks, and to defend a certain position on the ID issue, that is itself evidence of bias and abuse of Wikipedia.
27. This talk page, as I have pointed out in previous entries, is filled with such material.

[edit] Users are indeed fed up

One of the most disappointing things about Wikipedia is the constant flood of trolls and disruptive editors that make the editing of these articles difficult. I have witnessed several editors and administrators who were sufficiently badgered and harassed that they eventually just left in discouragement.

Wikipedia has to be very careful how tolerant they want to be of this kind of activity. It is nice to be completely open to all editors, but at some point being too accepting of all behavior reduces the productivity of the editing community. The balance that must be sought is to be open enough to encourage new editors to become productive contributing members, without poisoning the atmosphere so badly that the productive experienced editors leave.

In my opinion, [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] is not at all excessively punitive or restrictive, and to suggest this based on the case of MathewHoffman or some of the others above is unrealistic. If Wikipedia insists on defending disruptive editors and punishing experienced users and administrators for trying to defend Wikipedia from this sort of attack, there will eventually be negative consequences.

I would suggest that if administrators are to be given free reign to try to control the development of the project, but then punished for taking action, then maybe the policies for dealing with disruptive editors should be reexamined. Some mechanisms for insulating administrators from these sorts of problems need to be considered.

[edit] Addendum

I have been informed that because MathewHoffman claims to have Mathew Hoffman as a real name, this proves that MathewHoffman could not be a sock puppet. I am not sure I agree with this assessment, but I apologize if my statements above caused any offense. I still think that MathewHoffman acted as a sockpuppet, whether he is a sockpuppet or not. At the very minimum, there is something strange going on here.

[edit] Evidence presented by uninvolved Durova

[edit] Neutrality

Intelligent design is a controversial and polarizing topic. I do not edit articles on the subject. At the Agapetos angel case I was the lone supporter of a young earth creationist, although my own beliefs are Darwinist. I set ideology aside when I approach this subject. I have had no involvement at all in the present dispute.

[edit] Intelligent design activism and Wikipedia

[edit] Discovery Institute

Some editors speculate that MatthewHoffman may be a sock- or meatpuppet of an experienced editor. While researching that possibility I found no direct connection between this account and any other. I did, however, locate a series of official DI blogs that accuse Wikipedia of bias:

• “Notice to Students:Wikipedia no Longer an Acceptable Source” (Discovery Institute blog November 27, 2007 by Casey Luskin) - compares Wikipedia’s coverage of intelligent design to white supremacist vandalism of the Martin Luther King, Jr. biography.
• “‘Design’ Proponents Accuse Wikipedia of Bias, Hypocrisy” (‘’The Christian Post’’ May 9, 2007 by Doug Huntington) – protests the siteban of an unnamed pro-ID editor, accuses Wikipedia editors of anti-ID bias.
• “Wikipedia ‘Intelligent Design’ Entry Selectively Cites Poll data to Present Misleading Picture of Support for Intelligent Design” (Discovery Institute blog May 9, 2007 by Casey Luskin) – claims Wikipedia misuses statistics from a 2005 Harris poll on ID beliefs in the United States.
• “Did an ANTI-ID Wikipedia Editor Shut Down a Darwin-Dissenter?” (Discovery Institute blog April 30, 2007 by Casey Luskin) – complains about the block of a pro-ID editor.
• “Wikipedia (Mis)Rules!” (Discovery Institute blog, April 26 2007 by Bruce Chapman) – disparages use of Wikipedia as a source of information about the Discovery Institute or Intelligent Design.
• Airbrushing the Evidence for Reverse Engineering in Biology: Darwinist makes Wikipedia reference ‘Disappear’” (Discovery Institute blog April 17, 2007 by Michael Egnor) – claims the Wikipedia entry on reverse engineering was altered the day after he published an article about ID and reverse engineering, implies the alteration was done deliberately to undercut his argument at an offsite publication.
• “Wicked Wikipedia” (Discovery Institute blog April 3, 2007 by Bruce Chapman) – claims that FeloniousMonk makes factual distortions on the Discovery Institute article. ‘’No matter how we try to correct it.’’
• “Putting Wikipedia On Notice About Their Biased Anti-ID Intelligent Design Entries” (Discovery Institute blog September 6, 2006 by Casey Luskin) – complains that Wikipedia “moderators” skew articles unfairly.

[edit] Chahax

Reviewing those Discovery Institute blogs in detail led to the following:

• User talk:216.67.29.113[67]: 216.67.29.113 is Chahax and possibly other socks.

Although this individual claimed not to be an ID proponent, he or she consistently engaged in ID activism and appears to have been in communication with a Discovery Institute staff member.

What's interesting about this IP is that it raised the attention of Discovery Institute staffer Casey Luskin, who also cofounded the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center, even though the address made only 24 edits over three days. I make no estimate about whether this is the same person as Matthew Hoffman, but both share some characteristics that suggest they were either experienced editors or had received coaching before they began to edit.

• Fourth edit: applies neutrality and controversy templates, uses an edit summary, and refers to Wikipedia jargon "edit-war".
• Fifth edit: Under the properly formatted heading, "I won't edit war", since someone deems it necessary to edit war over a SINGLE word, I have no choice but to add a banner indicating that there is dispute. So for the record, I dispute ANY difinative wording such as "all", "every", "none", etc. unless it can be proven. Such wording is unscientific and unprofessional. I'm not even a IDer, so such wordings are doubly embarrassing to me. When we show such biases, we give undue credibility. 216.67.29.113 20:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Sixth edit: Alters the intelligent design article to suggest that ID belief is broader than Discovery Institute affiliation.
• Seventh edit: adds a weasel word template to the article.
• Ninth edit: nominates the article for featured article review.
• Sixteenth edit: Well versed in site jargon. I have reverted a POV push...
• Seventeenth edit: edit summary Reverted strong POV push- ie. Claim that evolution is a fact. No scientist in the world says this.
• Eighteenth edit to User talk:Chahax replacing previous sockpuppet tag with a statement that suggests this IP address is a POV sock of Chahax. block log. The checkuser archives do not list a report for Raul654's comment about checkuser-confirmed sockpuppetry. With reference to Raul654's block note about the edit history suggesting the account was a sock of some previous unidentified account, note the account history. In particular, Chahax completed the FAR on the intelligent design article that the IP had started.[68]

[edit] Overwhelmingevidence.com

At this forum thread several ID proponents complain about Wikipedia's coverage of the subject. A member by the name of Patrick quotes a long addition he had made to the vermiform appendix article. That quote matches this edit by 24.110.145.120.[69] The material was later deleted with the note remove unsourced, unfounded statements regarding purported functions of the appendix.[70]

Lower in that discussion, a poster advocates canvassing and meatpuppetry. I got one little change made to that page. It looked like the change took hold. However, I had to make the case very persuasively, and I had another I.D. advocate who submitted the change, and I also re-submitted the change after someone changed it back to the original. The more persuasive the case, and the more people you get to submit the change, the more likely you are to be successful.

[edit] Uncommondescent.com

An ID proponent profiles established Wikipedians and accuses them of hatchet jobs on ID-related biographies.[71] It concludes with a call to action. If you have a blog, please add an article about Wiki’s bias against ID and refer to the URL for this article so it gets spread around far and wide. This is going to take a concerted effort but if enough people from our community get involved we can fix it. If Denyse O’Leary and some of you managed to get us relisted at Google by making a big fuss I can’t help but believe the same thing can work with Wikipedia.

Links from that blog post to Wikipedia yield two IP addresses:

• 66.61.147.69[72] via this post.
• 72.183.101.183[73] preceded that with this report about prominent ID proponent William A. Dembski, after making a legal threat It is not only irrelevant it is libelous. After three reverts I'll have my lawyer make the next motions. In the next edit, elaborates upon the legal threat with specific reference to WP:BLP[74] and adds I will keep reverting it until you lock the page then I'll get my lawyer involved. Fair warning. I don't care if you block me. I'll just use a dynamic IP until you're forced to lock the page. The editor follows up with last chance to avoid libel action That IP address got blocked shortly afterward.[75]
• 66.61.157.76[76] True to the vow to evade blocks via dynamic IP addresses, a new IP becomes active shortly after the last one gets blocked.[77][78][79] until it gets blocked. Then confirms that this is the same person as before, openly violating WP:SOCK and WP:BLOCK. Of course it's me. I told you'd I'd just use a dynamic IP if blocked. I'm going to hang up now and go back to my cable modem because this analog modem is slow. I'll never have this IP address again so don't reply to it. Some other person that also uses Time-Warner's roaming dial-up will have it assigned to them.[80]
• 66.61.158.11[81] Links to a blog post about Wikipedia administrators.[82]
• 66.61.144.11[83] Taunts the administrator who implemented previous blocks. Blanks entire article.
• 66.61.158.74[84] I'm a night owl, Josh. And I'm retired. I can keep this up until the cows come home. I'm heating up some nice Green Tea as we speak. Ummmmmmmmmmmmmm... Do you like Green Tea? We were just having a discussion on a big ID listserv about what it takes to sue wiki because we're all so fed up with the bias displayed here against anything to do with ID....[85]. Pushes POV on article.
• 66.61.147.178[86] Evades block again.
• 66.61.156.74[87] Evades block again.
• 66.61.157.97[88] Evades block yet again.[89]

[edit] I'm from Missouri blog

Page protection follows. Even though the final messages denigrate all outgoing links to blogs, this person had himself added such a link. That particular link returns a 404 error now, but I found several other anti-Wikipedia posts at the same blog that span a period of over a year: The following is a manifesto against Wikipedia...[90][91][92]

[edit] International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design

A forum post canvasses for pro-ID support at a Wikipedia discussion.

[edit] Yahoo answers

A blocked ID supporter solicits advice and gives the highest feedback rating to the response that coaches how to evade the block.

[edit] The ID Observatory

A forum post accuses Wikipedia editors of suppressing pro-ID information.

[edit] MatthewHoffman knew site policies

• First edit: refers to NPOV as an acronym.[93]
• Second edit: refers to reliable sources.[94]
• Third edit: refers to neutrality.[95]
• Fourth edit: refers to neutrality.[96]
• Fifth edit: lectures a Wikipedia administrator about policy.[97]
• Sixth edit: refers to neutrality again.[98]
• Seventh edit: refers to NPOV.[99]
• Eighth edit: refers to NPOV.[100]

With regard to WP:BITE and WP:AGF, when a new account or IP address consistency cites policy, then administrators may reasonably determine that the editor already knows policy and needs no further advisement before they respond to disruptive behavior by using the tools.

[edit] Administrators aren't perfect

(adapted from a post from the proposed decision talk, with segments reposted from my own arbitration case)

As an administrator I didn't do unblock reviews very often, but I did tend to address difficult cases. So I cannot estimate how common these types of mistake are. In both of these cases there were weeks of delay before I was contacted, although I had been a blocking admin or principal investigator. No RFC, let alone arbitration, came under consideration in either instance.

• LionheartX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) A tangled situation that had been wrong for two months when I found it and that I set right in two weeks. The editor used multiple accounts legitimately, but both of the others were already indeffed. One of the previous indefs had been done by mistake as a WP:SOCK violation and two unblock requests on that other account had been denied.[101][102][103] Full analysis is here.
  • What actually happened: an editor got misidentified as a ban-evading sockpuppet, and blocked indefinitely. Actually the editor had started a new account because he lost the password on his old account, and the indef on that old account was just a procedural courtesy. That got mistaken for a ban so his legitimate new account got indeffed too (this is a summary version of the longer analysis linked above).
  • Administrators who were mistaken:
  • Mackensen
  • Bishonen
  • Pgk
  • Doc glasgow

• Compare the above examples to how I handled this request from an IP[104][105] who had been blocked by mistake a month earlier by a different administrator[106] and whose two unblock requests had already been denied. I restored editing privileges and extended apologies on behalf of my fellow administrators for the failure of the normal review system.[107] The editor thanked me for helping.[108]
  • What actually happened: a productive editor got swept up in the Joan of Arc vandal sock blocks. He didn't even agree with the Joan of Arc vandal's POV, but he sometimes used edit summaries a little bit like that vandal. He claims to be an Australian medical doctor, and based upon the level of expertise that informs his contributions that looks like a credible assertion. Took him a month to find me and request a third review, and by then he had really soured on Wikipedia.
  • Administrators who were mistaken:
  • JzG
  • Redvers
  • Hiding

All of the above administrators are experienced sysops in good standing, and a sitting member of the Committee that weighs this case is among them. Good faith mistakes do happen, especially under unusual circumstances. Given enough time and enough log entries, nearly any sysop who actually uses the tools will accumulate some errors. Wikipedia's traditional response to this has been to weigh the administrator's willingness to learn from mistakes, except in extreme instances such as wheel warring or deleting the main page. While the loss of a potentially productive editor is distressing (I was particularly disappointed to see the way Cwiki was handled), please balance that concern with respect for volunteers with proven track records of thousands of edits and long service to the project. Durova^Charge! 17:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Podcast

[109] Durova^Charge! 04:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Chaser

I think others have competently presented evidence and analysis regarding whether Matthew Hoffman is a sockpuppet, so I'll only focus on prior steps in dispute resolution, but I'll add what I was thinking at the time.-chaser - t 09:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC) --chaser (away) - talk 17:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Previous steps in dispute resolution were not tried

This is only regarding myself, not other admins involved in this case.

I didn't get any talk page notification (and was unaware) of the second ANI thread (28 Nov) where Charles Matthews disputed the block. See my most recent talk page revision with first message from Charles regarding the RFAr and the associated talk page history. I wasn't emailed about anyone doubting the block either.

Besides that second ANI thread, no other first or intermediate steps in dispute resolution were tried. The Request for Arbitration was the first I heard that anyone (besides Matthew Hoffman) disputed the block. According to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution policy, Arbitration is the "last resort" in dispute resolution.--chaser - t 09:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chaser's thought process in declining the unblock

Reserved. I probably won't be able to present this until Thursday.--chaser - t 20:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The first and most obvious thing I noticed was that Hoffman used NPOV in his first edit [110]. I wasn't aware at the time (as Carcharoth pointed out) that Hoffman had gotten a talk page welcome message two years prior that linked to that policy page. Although I was aware of the concept of "lurking" at the time and even sleeper-socks, I don't have any more extensive internet background than the average person of my generation. So the possibility that Hoffman learned "NPOV" through a history of lurking didn't occur to me, though it probably should have. Instead, I took that as moderately suspicious, but certainly not definitive.

The other thing that raised mild suspicion was that his first post was to a talk page rather than any article. The article at the time he posted had no tags directing contributors to discuss POV problems on the talk page. Again, nothing definitive, but first contributions are usually to articles rather than their talk pages.

The next odd thing was that he edit-warred with his third, fourth, and sixth edits (see contributions). Although some newbies do this, a lot of the frustrated articles I read about Wikipedia in outside press are about how things were immediately changed by unknown others (what's a history page? how do I keep them from changing it back?). I'm not saying newbies don't edit-war, but when I declined the unblock request, I was operating on the assumption that it's more common that they're too clueless or not obsessed enough with editing to do so, but this edit-war was spread over three hours. Additionally, others have noted the disjunct that Hoffman was aware of NPOV but edit-warred as if he wasn't aware of 3RR. Whatever that may mean, I hadn't noticed it.

Finally, Hoffman referenced "personal attacks" in the discussion before anyone else did [111]. Now I note that WP:NPA was linked from the top page header and in an advisory paragraph directly below it. I didn't notice that before, so the reference to "personal attacks" made it appear that the editor had more experience with Wikipedia than he was letting on.

Beyond the sockpuppetry issue, the account was disruptive. Even in his early edits to the article, Hoffman proclaimed that was "not going to let this go" [112]. Noting that accounts used primarily for disruption are blocked indefinitely, I concluded that a likely sockpuppet that was primarily there to argue, even after he was presented with a pile of references, was appropriately blocked indefinitely.--chaser (away) - talk 18:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This combination of factors prompted me to agree that he was likely a reincarnation (sockpuppet) of some previous user. In looking back on it, I suspect that if I'd made all these reasons clear while declining the unblock request, Hoffman himself, if not someone else, might have caught some of these errors and pointed them out to me. Although the sockpuppetry issue wasn't the only thing that prompted me to decline the unblock request, I wouldn't have declined it based on the disruption alone, as that disruption was not severe.--chaser (away) - talk 12:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Irpen

[edit] Chaser has a history demonstrating a cavalier attitude towards blocking

I originally thought that this issue is short enough to post to the workshop but since someone requested it posted to the evidence page, here are the diffs.

After I restored twice within a short period the well-referenced and relevant facts someone was removing from the featured article [113] [114] Chaser suddenly kicked into my talk page with this block threat. It was shocking (and unwarranted) to immediately resort to block threats over such matter without asking any questions on what was going on or spending time to familiarize oneself with the matter. I explained that to Chaser in no unclear terms but his original response was irrelevant to the issue at hand and later he let others to argue points for him. Full details here. --Irpen (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Rodhullandemu

I don't propose to go through a lengthy recitation of the facts, which have been adequately set out above. I will, however, address the two issues which cause me concern in this matter.

[edit] The block was flawed process

1. Although the first, short, block may have been justifiable for POV-pushing, I think [[User:[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]]] at some point lost sight of his personal responsibility and too easily accepted the opinions (which were no more than that) of others.
2. The subsequent decision to indefinitely block on the grounds of sockpuppetry should not have been taken so lightly; as a relative newcomer here I gauge such an allegation to be an implicit imputation of ultimate Bad Faith to an editor, and therefore should be supported by cogent evidence; this is disregarding the risk of raising false positives by the CheckUser function, which we are all now aware can cause extreme and unforeseen results.

[edit] Failure to effectively review the block

I assume here that [[User:[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]]]'s account of the emails between user:Charles Matthews and himself is correct.

1. [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] claims to have missed the original email in the midst of spam. It may be that [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] is not a very sophisticated user of an email client, but it is reasonably simple both to avoid receiving spam and to separate out those messages which might be relevant.
2. Even had he not missed it, it should have been plain that it referred to a matter maybe requiring some attention, regardless of its sender.
3. Subsequent email and User Talk messages to [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] from User:Charles Matthews were either missed or ignored.
4. On 28th November, almost two weeks after the original email, [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] asked Charles to remind him of the issue, which was done, with a brief explanation.
5. "AC" is overloaded as an acronym, but a moment's consideration, given the context, should have solved it. I usually refer here to "ArbCom" for the avoidance of doubt.
6. Rather than review his own block, [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] set up a discussion on WP:ANI. Although I am aware that [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] has been taking exams, this appears to me as diversionary, although not a deliberate dereliction of duty. Nevertheless, as the block was his responsibility, so was his duty to review it.
7. The locus standi of the editor requesting the review should have made no difference, although I think with due diligence, [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] could have discovered who was making the request. His response "Right. Well, that makes a difference" is to me an implicit assertion that "some editors are more equal than others", which should not be the case.

--Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 14:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by dave souza

[edit] Comments on Irreducible complexity

[edit] MatthewHoffman's unusual history

MatthewHoffman's first contribution was at 13:04 on 15 September 2007, and his contributions were confined to the Irreducible complexity article and its talk page until 26 September when he edited his talk page.[115] However, he had created the account [116] at 15:37 on 1 October 2005, and a welcome template was added to his talk page at 15:55 on 1 October 2005 by user:Johann Wolfgang, creating what seemed an unusual disparity between the date of this welcome and his edit history. It seems that on that day Johann Wolfgang began a spree of adding welcomes to new accounts, several of which have still not made any edits.[117] This seems to have been a burst of enthusiasm rather than any attempt to set up sleeper accounts.

[edit] MatthewHoffman's edits

1. 13:04, 15 September 2007 Talk:Irreducible complexity‎ stated that "in general, this article constitutes a serious violation of NPOV" giving two "salient examples". He objected to the term intelligent design creationism, stating that "If the advocates of intelligent design define the term in a certain way, that definition must be accepted." This contradicts NPOV: Pseudoscience. His "second salient example" asserts that the bacterial flagellum section does not show answers given by ID advocates to criticisms. He gave no details of these claimed answers, but it is my understanding that all such answers have in turn been rejected in detailed responses by mainstream scientists.
2. 15:50, 15 September 2007 second edit, to Irreducible complexity‎ (Gave more precise definition of intellgient design, and eliminated "creationism" due to lack of reliable secondary source (source given was a public policy paper, which has partisan intentions)). This mischaracterises Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals. A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy by Barbara Forrest, whose expert testimony was tested and fully vindicated in the Kitzmiller ruling. This source provides a reliable secondary source of the majority views required by NPOV: Undue weight.
3. When MatthewHoffman's change was reverted with the comment that it was not neutral and ignored sources, he reverted it back.[118] Two minutes after the advice was given on the talk page that the scientific community is the majority view with reference to WP:UNDUE,[119], he reverted back.[120] Notice was given on his talk page of 3RR.[121] He then responded on the talk page[122] and 11 minutes later made his fourth revert.[123] He continued discussion on the talk page, refusing to take advice from various experienced editors[124] before being blocked for 3RR at 22:03, 15 September 2007.
4. After his block expired, MatthewHoffman returned to the talk page at 01:56, 17 September 2007, responding to earlier advice about undue weight, alternative sources describing ID as creationism, and NPOV: Making necessary assumptions, by now introducing the argument that definitions should be taken from dictionaries or a 2005 (pre Kitzmiller) article at Slate. Discussion was in progress at 02.14.[125] He did not respond to a question and at 20:38 again deleted mention that intelligent design is creationism and deleted the source he disputed.[126] This was reverted, and he reverted back to his version.[127] At this stage I reverted his edit, and reminded him on his talk page that 3RR prohibits edit warring, of NPOV policy including NPOV: Giving "equal validity", and of WP:RS.[128]
5. 16.41 to 16.53, 22 September: MatthewHoffman returned to the talk page and in a series of edits (with no intervening responses by others) accused other editors of multiple violations of Wikipedia policy, of attacking himself personally, systematic abuse, personal attacks and debate over ID, bias and furthering personal agendas in not accepting his proposal to use dictionary definitions.[129]

[edit] Blocks and appeals

1. 17:30, 22 September, [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] blocked MatthewHoffman, (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 72 hours ‎ (Attempting to harass other users: Talk:Irreducible complexity). Between 17:33 and 17:35 [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] added a block notice to MH's talk page, giving as reasons "extreme rudeness, POV-pushing, and failure to assume good faith on Talk:Irreducible complexity".[130] At 17.52 [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] discussed the block at AN/I, describing "A bit of an odd one - he's only been a contributor a week, has done nothing but edit Irreducible complexity and its talk page, with huge screeds attacking every editor of that page, claiming they lack neutrality, etc. It was hostile enough, in my opinion, to justify a bit of a time out and warning, but, well, I suppose there's some hope he'll turn out to be a reasonable editor. Anyway, judge for yourself, and overrule me if you think it justified."[131]
2. 19:40, 22 September, at AN/I, Moreschi advises an indef block.[132]
3. 21:30, 22 September, after agreeing with Moreschi at AN/I, [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] changed the block to an expiry time of indefinite,‎ (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.).[133], and added a statement at MH's talk page "After discussion, this has been extended to an indefinite block."[134] At AN/I Jehochman expressed thanks and agreement with the indef block.
4. 22:29, 22 September, at AN/I [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] comments "Ironically, I was only being nice with him because I really wanted to block him indefinitely. I didn't want my emotions to overrule the correct treatment of a possible newbie with strong views and poor social skills".[135]
5. 21:47, 26 September, MatthewHoffman appealed block,[136] "I never once promoted my point of view, and instead objected to others promoting theirs, and attacking me personally..... I am here under my real name! I am no "sock" and I am willing to prove it."
6. 01:20, 28 September, Chaser declined request,[137] reason given "Looking at the article talk page and your contribution history, I agree with the consensus here that you're somebody's sock here to disrupt the project." MatthewHoffman does not make further appeals on his talk page.
7. 15 October, Charles Matthews emailed [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] "I have concerns about the ungrading to indefinite of the block on User:MatthewHoffman. Would you like to talk me through it?"
8. 20 November, Charles Matthews emailed [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]], "I haven't heard back from you about this blocked account. I think it would be a good idea for you to unblock it and see what happens. I can see that the editor is partisan. What now stands in the block log is unconvincing, and not greatly creditable to Wikipedia."
9. 28 November [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] responded "I'm sorry, I can't remember the details of this. Could you remind me?", Charles replied "You blocked with a claim of sockpuppetry. Well, he wrote to the AC about it; I certainly thought he was just who he claimed to be. He may have been a pain, but that log doesn't look any better to me than when I first looked into it....."
10. 16:43, 28 November, [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] opened a new AN/I thread.[138]
11. 18:08, 28 November, during the discussion, [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] unblocked MatthewHoffman with the comment (Second chance),[139] and at 18:12 added a new "Unblocked" section to MH's talk page with the comment "You have been unblocked, but are on probation. You are allowed ONE revert per article per day, and are cautioned to remain civil and polite. Any further violations and blocks will return."[140]
12. 01:09, 29 November, [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] struck through his earlier comment and stated "Having finally had time to review - I was really goaded on to making a decision quickly, and so confused you with a couple other cases - it looks like there's no call for an indef block, provided you are not a sock. Sorry. However, do try to cut back on the rants."[141]
13. 17:34, 2 December, Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman Case Opened
14. 06:20, 3 December, Proposed Decision: Proposed remedies – [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] desysopped, He may reapply only by appeal to the Committee.

Analysis shown, a further section including commentary to be added. . . dave souza, talk 15:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Last diff corrected, and clarifications to 22 September info, information about blocks added. .. dave souza, talk 17:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocks and appeals added .. dave souza, talk 21:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Further detail as requested. .. dave souza, talk 18:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commentary

1. The arguments presented by MatthewHoffman, his tendentious refusal to accept that NPOV does not mean portraying fringe theories in the manner presented by their advocates, and edit warring rather than discussing alternatives, are all characteristic of the disruptive editing which is a commonplace on intelligent design articles. As Durova has shown at #Intelligent design activism and Wikipedia, ID activists do engage in disruptive campaigns at Wikipedia in concerted attempts to skew articles. Regarding #MatthewHoffman knew site policies, as is common with such activists his understanding of NPOV was superficial, and specifically contradicted points covered in the policy page Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ. Repeated attempts were made to improve his understanding of policy, but were rejected by MatthewHoffman. This is clearly shown by his edit of 16.49, 22 September, where instead of reading the linked policy sections he breaches WP:CIVIL and completely fails to WP:AGF: "You need to quote these articles to defend yourself, rather than just pouring out citations like anyone can do. I suggest that you read the Wikipedia entry on "systematic bias", because this talk page shows that in abundance. If the editors use the Talk page to engage in personal attacks, and to defend a certain position on the ID issue, that is itself evidence of bias and abuse of Wikipedia. This talk page, as I have pointed out in previous entries, is filled with such material. --Matthew C. Hoffman" [142]
2. "#Other editors finally figure out Mr. Hoffman was right, after edit warring about it" misrepresents both MatthewHoffman's position of outright refusal to accept any description of ID as creationism, and the developments in a subsequent edit war. At Talk:Irreducible complexity/Archive 04#Protection I proposed an interim compromise "The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science,[1] but is repackaged creationism.[2]" This sentence now appears in the article, but has been positioned too far from the first mention of intelligent design, and as was pointed out in the talk at the #Protection section does not accurately reflect expert opinion of historians, philosophers of science and theologians who also describe ID as creationism: see s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/2:Context#1. An Objective Observer Would Know that ID and Teaching About “Gaps” and “Problems” in Evolutionary Theory are Creationist, Religious Strategies that Evolved from Earlier Forms of Creationism. Further editing is needed to avoid giving undue weight to ID disclaimers.

First comments added: commentary on blocking under consideration. .. dave souza, talk 19:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Whig

• [143] [[User:[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]|[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]]] has been in a content dispute with me since October 3, 2007, over Homeopathy and other articles.
• [144] On October 10, he was the first user to certify an RFC against me, which I contested.
• [145] Despite the fact I contested the RFC as meritless, he then used this to justify a series of blocks against me, and is still seeking to use this as a club to have me blocked again.

I ask the arbitrators to take this into consideration and would like my own block record to be annotated if deemed appropriate. —Whig (talk) 01:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First supplement

• [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] has brought a new RfC solely for the purpose of having me permanently banned from Wikipedia. —Whig (talk) 19:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Wanderer57

My particular focus here is discussion that went on between September 23 and late October 2007, and the appearance of repeated behaviour.

[[User talk:[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]/Archive3#A word of interjection - consideration for "Matthew Hoffman"|HERE, on September 23]], editor Nascentatheist suggested to [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] that the action taken against Matthew Hoffmann went too far.

[[User talk:[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]/Archive3#user:Dematt block|HERE, on September 26]], Firsfron of Ronchester discussed the Dematt block and wrote: “[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]], please be less aggressive with your blocking; no part of that block seems valid” and then went on to say: “Blocks can have a Chilling effect on users; that should be avoided whenever possible.”

[[User talk:[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]/Archive3#EMSPhydeaux|HERE, also on September 26]], a block of editor EMSPhydeaux by [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] was questioned by JoshuaZ and reversed by AuburnPilot. (EMSPhydeaux and [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] both edited Creation Science.)

[[User talk:[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]/Archive3#Sysop abuse of privileges|HERE, on October 2]], administrator Fang Aili wrote “You really should not protect an article that you are currently involved with.”

[[User talk:[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]/Archive3#Your abuse of WP:BLOCK|HERE on October 3]] , editor NodeKeeper raised a concern about [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]’s block of Ramsmenon, and advised of a [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive305#User/admin [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]: violating WP:BLOCK, WP:AGF, WP:BITE, and WP:TPG|posting to ANI]] about the block. (Both [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] and Ramsmenon had edited the Intelligent Design article in the recent past.)

[[User talk:[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]/Archive3#|HERE, on October 3]], admin Tim Vickers wrote: “I was reading through the past history of the Homeopathy article and I noticed that you had blocked this user (SM565) while you were engaged in an editing dispute with them. I'm not commenting on the content of the dispute, but this is certainly not a wise course of action.”

- - - - - - - -

HERE, on October 28, on a discussion of Whig on the Administrator’ noticeboard, [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] wrote “I don't see any choice but a block. Any objections to that?” This was at 18:55 (UTC).

Eighty minutes later, at 20:14, [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] wrote: “Right. It is done. He is blocked for one month, with indef block as the next step up.”

At 20:15, I posted an objection, which I had spent considerable time composing.

Seven minutes later, at 20:22, [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] replied, rejecting my objections.

At that point, I stated that “I do not think you qualify as a neutral administrator in this particular case.”

I did not see any reply from [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] to this concern.

- - - - - - - -

There seems to be a pattern of [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] being cautioned about acting as an administrator in disputes where he is also an editor, and ignoring those cautions. Wanderer57 (talk) 05:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

- - - - - Appended Note - - - -

HERE, on November 13, [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] blocked another Homeopathy editor. This block was reversed later the same day by another admin. Wanderer57 (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Jennylen

Note: The information below was posted also at the RfC. As I assume its possible relevance as evidence in this RfA, I also post it here, not knowing however, if this is the correct procedure.

I recently became aware of the ArbCom request for comments about [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]. I am a fairly new editor with only some months of experience in Wikipedia. I was dedicating a good deal of my daily time to help in Wikipedia as I found the idea behind it most interesting, that is until I was stalked and driven off from editing by [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]. As this is a community request for knowing about AC actions, I am here to provide evidence of some of such actions, even if, since I was stalked, I try to stay away from AC and everything related with him, including editing on some subjects, for saving myself from the stress and abuse resulting from such contact.

The stalking I refer to, hit me at the worst time, when I was (and still am) just beginning to learn how to be an editor; making many mistakes such as putting information where it didn't belong or engaging in conflict (I learned later that it is called edit warring) when my contributions were simply deleted. If I have found (as I did in some articles) an administrator who could have shown me my errors in an educational manner instead of bullying me, I would have been more than happy to learn, instead, I was bullied and provoked into making mistakes that could then be used against me; and all the articles I was working on were systematically stalked, making me feel like [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] had simply decided to push me out of every place I was in Wikipedia.

I almost started to believe that the way to make your contributions prevail was by the aggressive behavior shown by [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]], who was bashing me and so I too engaged in warring, not realizing what it was and how it works and of course not knowing that there are other, better ways; until I was lucky enough to find other editors who showed me how tolerance and middle ways are what must prevail.

What else could I do against someone who knew how Wikipedia works, someone who, instead of teaching me, was using my inexperience against me. Adding on to the weight of the problem was that my attacker was an administrator with all the power, who could simply override all of what I could do, who was placing me as a target for all his like-minded contacts while I had no one to contact who could vouch for me or assist me? I could only abandon editing, at least until he put his eyes on some other target and even then stay away from his sight.

What is evaluated here, in my view, is not [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] or his editing capacities; it is simply if [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] should have access to the administrator tools at this point in time without unfairly attacking other victims, or imposing over editors who do not have such tools. In my view, as far as [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] has shown more than one unfair use, those tools must be withheld from him. Also in my view, if [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] shows in his editing behavior that self-control and respect become part of his Wiki-life, those tools should be made available again. If he truly recognizes his mistakes and learn from them, he would be more than willing to show it through a short period of editing with no need to access such tools, after all, administrator tools are only for extreme cases and in such cases there is always a seasoned administrator available to help, isn't it?

Here are simply and briefly the diffs showing how [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] stalked me after I entered in disagreement with him at the article Radionics, and even saying, at some point, about my edits and justifying his actions, "I'm a biologist. I can identify utter crap." :

[146] [147] [148] [149] [150] [151] [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]_[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]&diff=prev&oldid=161814085] [152] [153]

To this stalking of all articles I was working with, [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] added some canvassing and offensive description of my contributions so others could also target my contributions [154]

Trying to find out if this behavior was normal with him, I came across these other situations:

Protection of pages he was directly involved in POV [155] [156] [157]

Unprotection of pages he was actively involved in: [158]

Blocking of whom opposed him in edit warring or whom opposed him in articles in which he was actively involved: [159] [160]

Making Checkuser requests targeting his opposition: [161] [162]

One situation that really impressed me because of who was involved and beacuse a seemengly untrue summary was used, was a revert done by [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] calling vandal a well respected administrator. The administrator was Jossi and the diff is here.

The situations above are presented as factual information, and they reflect some misuse of administrator tools, however, I cannot say what their effect was on those editors. The only matter about which I can provide a report of the effect of [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]'s actions on other editors is on my own case, on my near abandonment of Wikipedia because of the stalking by that administrator.

My reason for providing you these is that I believe that [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] is abusing of his sysop privileges. I was stalked openly and directly, I contacted some administrators and two arbitrators, no one wanted to take any action and some even told me to take care that I could enter in trouble. I now volunteer this information so others can see what happened at least with me, this is all I can give, I have no more and I will not enter in issues. I was stalked, virtually abused and only now I am slowly returning to edit, I hope that I will not get [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] on my back again just because I exposed this facts about his behavior or that his sympathizers come after me as it already happened before.

I see [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] as a fairly good editor who perhaps received his administrator tools when still unprepared. He seems to lack the necessary self-control and respect for others and for convictions that differ from his own. Even if often regretting his actions and trying to mend them (not in my case), the fact is that he lacks restraint and uses anything at hand when he "needs" it. His behavioral problems are not only my personal view as it was clearly reflected in the voting at his candidacy for arbitrator. Already an editor who has no respect for others is a problematic editor who may drive off some well intended new editors who lack experience or knowledge for facing his actions. If that editor is also an administrator and uses his tools in an abusive manner, then the problem is worst as then other editors are not only abused but victimized with no chance to respond. This may lead to a situation in which the whole Wikipedia system is placed in cause and fair administrators and editors (the majority) will be tainted by the misbehavior of a few, and many potential good editors will be driven off this worthy project. Someone said that Wikipedia is better with [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] as administrator, I ask at the cost of how many potentially good editors?

As [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] is an editor with fair capacities whose only problem seems to be self-control, the remedy of retiring his administrator tools until he acquires better self restrain and shows more respect for others, seems to be adequate as far as he may be able to request such tools at a future time when he is better prepared to use them for the good of Wikipedia and never for the good of an own purpose. In this way, what is the source of the problem (administrative tools available) will be held away from [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] until he and the community feel that he is able to have access to them but will not use that access unless fully justified. A good editor can continue to be a good editor without administrator tools, in fact many good editors never use them, in my inexperienced view, administrator tools are to be used only in extreme cases and for preserving Wikipedia, not for preserving any particular conviction, and if a situation calls for it, there will be always an experienced administrator who can use those tools when alerted.

If an administrator recognizes he has made errors, he should be more than happy to show that he doesn't need to use those tools for continuing to be a good editor, that those tools are just a trust that he is willing to earn again later; it shouldn't affect whatsoever his capacity of providing solid contributions. I am sure that [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] can show this and that he will be able to show everyone that administrative tools don't make him or define him, only complement him, and as such, he can excel as an editor independently of those tools, and come back later as a better administrator. Jenny^Len☤ 09:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Update on evidence provided by Jennylen

Compulsion to some type of actions and lack of self-restraint are, without doubt, repetitive behavior very difficult to control by who suffers it. Please [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]_[[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] observe [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]'s behavior on 22 January 2008]. After responding to my view, he "remembered" Radionics and he also went to revert my contributions at the article Psychoneuroimmunology where he has never edited before.

It seems that [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]] has re-started to stalk my contributions as you can see here His behavior is still happening now. [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]'s lack of self-restraint seems to be [[[WP:VANISH|Vanished user]]]'s worst enemy. Jenny^Len☤ 00:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by