Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence

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.

Evidence presented by JzG

If it walks like a duck...

• Irreducible complexity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), site of perennial edit warring.
• MatthewHoffman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · 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 as a disruptive single purpose account. The length of block is a legitimate subject for debate.

The persuasive point here for me is that 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Evidence presented by GRBerry

Evidence from Irreducible complexity

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 Calton questioned it, it would have been removed before Mr. Hoffman began editing.
4. There is minimal discussion between Calton 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)

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. (And is unsurprising, almost all internet discussions of this issue are out of date as the arguments evolve, and as an encyclopedia we are especially likely to be out of date.)
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 first sentence and adds a paragraph break between it and the second.
   • 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 Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
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)

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 Adam 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 Adam) 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)

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 Adam 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 Adam 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 Adam was an ArbComm candidate, I decided to investigate further. 21:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Adam's recent blocking history is spotty

This section incomplete and not ready yet

MichaelHoffman - the focus of the case as presented

Profg

Martinphi block log

1. During Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist Adam 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."
2. 19 hours later, Jossi unblocked with a summary of "after seeeking input from uninvoled admin, as well as consulting with blocking admin"
3. where is the input from others?
4. The committee left this user subject to an editing restriction, not blocked or banned.

Whig - I don't know this case, but it is my understanding that an email was forwarded to the committee on or around 22 November. This user was also blocked for edits at Homeopathy.

Evidence presented by Carcharoth

Indications that MatthewHoffman was a new user

User:MatthewHoffman failed to sign his first talk page edit. 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.

Adam Cuerden's blocks and unblocks of MatthewHoffman

Between 15 September and 22 September 2007, User:Adam Cuerden 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"
• (2) Second block - 17:30, 22 September 2007 (72 hour block) "Attempting to harass other users: Talk:Irreducible complexity"
• (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."
• (4) Unblock - 18:08, 28 November 2007 - "Second chance"

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{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:Adam Cuerden 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.

(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.

{Adam Cuerden 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:Adam Cuerden starts another AN/I thread.

Adam Cuerden 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 Adam 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 Adam'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, Adam 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.

{A User is block apparently for ever}

A user was permanently blocked, with no natural justice. The responsibility lying with the blocking admin, User:Adam Cuerden, 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). Adam'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.

(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.

(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:Adam Cuerden privately. These were much hampered.

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.