Misplaced Pages

:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration | Matthew Hoffman

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jehochman (talk | contribs) at 18:17, 3 December 2007 (→Indefinite blocks serve a valid purpose: correct). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:17, 3 December 2007 by Jehochman (talk | contribs) (→Indefinite blocks serve a valid purpose: correct)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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.

Evidence presented by JzG

If it walks like a duck...

  • whose very first edit includes correct Misplaced Pages jargon
  • whose second edit citing Misplaced Pages policy
  • whose sixth edit got him a 3RR block for edit warring
  • who asserts that consensus is equivalent to systemic bias 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 Adam 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.

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 Misplaced Pages'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. 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.

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.

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". 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 Misplaced Pages: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

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.
  • The uninvolved editors (Isotope23, Wikidudeman) asked if an RfC or an equivalent had been tried. Later Wikidudeman states that he would not object to a ban.
  • Adam 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, 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?"
  • Adam was 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, Adam finally gets around to disagreeing with it 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.
  • Profg has not contributed other than to his user page and talk page since the thread was archived. 22:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Martinphi block log
  • During Misplaced Pages: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."
  • Almost immediately Martinphi makes an unblock request, and in investigating it Jossi suggests that it would be better to have protected the article as multiple parties from both sides are actively editing.
  • Adam'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
  • 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

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 Misplaced Pages 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.

Evidence of MatthewHoffman's editing inexperience

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 Misplaced Pages, 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.

Awareness of Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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.

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.

Language used and allegations made by Adam Cuerden regarding MatthewHoffman

Regarding the blocks of MatthewHoffman by Adam Cuerden, the following is a timeline showing the language used by Adam 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 =)"
  • 17:30, 22 September 2007
    • "Attempting to harass other users: Talk:Irreducible complexity"
  • 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."
  • 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."
  • 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 Misplaced Pages policy, edit summaries, bad attitude, etc."
  • 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."
  • 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..."
  • 18:08, 28 November 2007
    • "Second chance"
  • 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." (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."
  • 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." (statement 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."
  • 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..." (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."
  • 01:11, 29 November 2007
    • " was mixing this with a couple other cases, but this one is the ranter, not the really vicious one."
  • 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."
  • 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."

The above sequence of comments by Adam Cuerden 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 Adam Cuerden 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 Adam Cuerden's characterisations given above. Alternatively, Adam Cuerden may provide diffs backing up his allegations. it should be noted that Adam Cuerden 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.

Adam Cuerden's actions at Talk:Irreducible complexity

Adam Cuerden'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.
  • 19:09, 30 December 2006 - extensive post surveying how other discredited theories are handled.
  • 20:43, 23 January 2007 - detailed suggestion for a source to be used in the article
  • 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." (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 Misplaced Pages policy to be a newbie, so upped it to the indef block his behaviour deserved."
  • 21:35, 22 September 2007 - Two minutes later, the extensive talk page thread in which MatthewHoffman had participated was archived and collapsed.
  • 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" (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 Adam Cuerden had edited the talk page before and had been involved in discussions similar to the one that MatthewHoffman got involved in. Adam Cuerden 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 Adam Cuerden appreciates the difference between an admin blocking indefinitely, and a ban imposed by the community or the arbitration committee.

Role of User:Nascentatheist and response of Adam Cuerden

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 Adam Cuerden's talk page: 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), Adam Cuerden'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. Adam Cuerden 09:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)"

Nascentathiest, upon receiving this response, dropped the matter:

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

Overall, in my opinion, the same pattern is seen here again: Adam Cuerden 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 Adam Cuerden 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.

Evidence presented by Charles Matthews

The kangaroo court, 22 September 2007, is a farce

At Misplaced Pages: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. Adam Cuerden 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?). Adam Cuerden 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,

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 Misplaced Pages.
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 blocked 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 Misplaced Pages 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. On a later occasion User:Adam Cuerden validated a controversial block of User:Jehochman's.

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.

Adam Cuerden thinks we are too timid

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.

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 Misplaced Pages:Administrators noticeboard it says, "Although its target audience is administrators, any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here." - Jehochman 21:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

There has been no intentional coordination or agreement by Adam Cuerden and myself to support each other's activities. If we have bumped into each other a few times, that was just by chance. - Jehochman 22:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite blocks serve a valid purpose

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

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

Users are rightly fed up

Many users that I speak with are frustrated that Misplaced Pages 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 18:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Note by Adam Cuerden

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. Adam Cuerden 22:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Threaded discussion moved to the talk page. See: Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence#Note by Adam Cuerden.


Brief responses to the below

  1. Adam Cuerden 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. Adam Cuerden 02:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Adam Cuerden indefinitely blocked Whig. User had been previously blocked by Mercury and Adam Cuerden 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. Adam Cuerden 02:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Adam Cuerden 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. Adam Cuerden 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.

Adam Cuerden 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. Adam Cuerden 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. Adam Cuerden 03:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by CBDunkerson

Other indefinite blocks by parties

  • Moreschi overturned a 24 hour block on Danaullman to extend to indefinite. User never blocked before.
  • Adam Cuerden indefinitely blocked Lozier11 as a sockpuppet of Danaullman (see block above) after a single edit.
  • Adam Cuerden indefinitely blocked Whig. User had been previously blocked by Mercury and Adam Cuerden in relation to disagreement on the same page, Homeopathy, as the two blocks above.
  • Adam Cuerden 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".
  • Adam Cuerden 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 Adam, 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.

Indef blocks with little discussion or review have become commonplace

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

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

Evidence produced by Filll

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

I first encountered MathewHoffman 18:45 September 15, 2007 when I reverted his massive edit: . 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 such a huge change. His edits were clearly opposed by User:FeloniousMonk on the talk page:. 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.

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.

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.

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages.
  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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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:Adam Cuerden listing the relevant WP policy articles)
  25. I suggest that you read the Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages.
  27. This talk page, as I have pointed out in previous entries, is filled with such material.




Evidence presented by {your user name}

{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.