Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Comment on Evidence by JzG

JzG notes "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."

That seems very reasonable, but when I look at Matthew Hoffman's talk page and flick through the "Welcome to Wikipedia" links that were kindly provided to him... okay, I admit I went there specifically looking to see if NPOV came up more than edit warring so maybe I'm seeing what I'm looking for but still, that's how it looks to me. The first link "Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial" I flick through the tabs and I see nothing about edit warring or 3RR but on the "Keep in mind" tab I see NPOV (with that initialism) very prominent. Okay, another link, some of those don't look like they're going to be relevant to either topic so I haven't tried them all."The Five Pillars of Wikipedia" refers to both but I'd say it makes "Neutral Point of View" much more prominent than 3RR (which is mentioned but not explained). One other link that stands out because it's bolded is "Be Bold", people are likely to click that - under "but don't be reckless" it quickly refers to neutrality and verifiability again.

I haven't read everything, or any of it in detail. A more in-depth review might show differently but right now it doesn't seem unlikely to me that people will come across NPOV faster and more often than 3RR, and take it to heart. 87.254.76.137 22:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've added that to my evidence section. I didn't credit you, but I will if you want me to. One thing though, some people around here get worried by IPs editing, and are happier when people contribute under an account. It would probably satisfy some people if you indicated how you discovered these pages and whether you are just a passerby, or are one of the involved parties. Though if you wish to remain anonymous, that is fine as well. Carcharoth 23:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minor comment on JzG's evidence

Regarding this edit, the original leading sentence read "Irreducible complexity (IC) is the argument intended to support intelligent design creationism and argue that certain biological systems are too complex..." is grammatically incorrect (just read it carefully). The version as mended by MatthewHoffman ("Irreducible complexity (IC) is an argument often used to support intelligent design, which posits that certain biological systems...") at least parses better. 131.111.8.102 23:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a valid point. Not sure how to work that into the evidence. I think JzG's point about the wikilinks being lost is more relevant - I've been trying to explain that but can't think of a reason. The only reason I've been able to come up with is copy and pasting something - but there are wikilinks in the rest of the sentence, so that doesn't work. Oh, and the comments about IPs that I made above applies here as well. Anonymous contributions are welcome, but contributing with an account makes things a lot easier. Carcharoth 23:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom conflict?

See also: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration#Arbitration_cases_during_the_ArbCom_elections

In just the past week there have been half a dozen people simultaneously running for and being reviewed by ArbCom. Emotions tend to run high during elections and the candidates are under review by people trying to decide how to vote so it is perhaps unsurprising that candidates might be more likely to be drawn into arbitration at this time. However, arbitration might also be viewed as a means of sinking someone's campaign... or even if filed with the best intentions might well be perceived as such a political maneuver. I think the committee may want to consider some sort of 'recess period' (with exceptions for 'emergency issues') or automatic rejection of cases involving candidates from the start of nominations until voting closes (with winning candidates obviously recused from their own cases if then accepted). Otherwise, how the committee rules and even the motions they consider may weigh heavily on the outcome of the elections. --CBD 00:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note by Vanished user

(refactored [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Matthew_Hoffman/Evidence#Note_by_Vanished user_Vanished user|this section]] to the talk page from the evidence page with this edit. Carcharoth 00:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

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:Vanished user|Vanished user]] [[User_talk:Vanished user|talk]] 22:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind if I continue to add my evidence. Regarding your requests to delay the case, I'm not sure how much precedent there is for delaying or reopening cases when one of the parties does not have time to take part, but I suggest two possibilities: (1) we find the diffs for you and you respond to them; (2) you e-mail the arbitration committee mailing list at the address given at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, and see what they say. For what it is worth, this section isn't really evidence. Maybe one of the talk pages would be best? Which talk page tends to be used for general discussion? Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman has all the comments from the request, so maybe Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence is best for this? Anyway, good luck with your revision and your exams. Carcharoth 23:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Go on. It's probably best to get this sorted. Anyway, my main point is that I acted in good faith, and, perhaps, made a mistake. Also, it probably wasn't a very good day for me to deal with Charles Matthews' e-mail: I was, at the moment I replied, trying to calm down from having the government delay payments for a long-term illness (rather severe depression and tendency to nervous breakdown) for about the 7th time, 4 to 6 months after I had applied for help (depending if you count the first application which they lost. [[User:Vanished user|Vanished user]] [[User_talk:Vanished user|talk]] 23:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh dear. That does sound like a bad day. Anyway, I found that the account was 2 years old, which no-one seems to have noticed before. It doesn't change my opinion, as I still think the editing pattern when he started editing indicates a new user (ie. one that hadn't had much experience of actually editing Wikipedia), or sufficiently like a new user to require the assumption of good faith. Anyway, would you mind if this was moved to the talk page? If you reply in the affirmative, I'll copy this to the talk page, leaving a copy of your initial post and a link to the talk page. Carcharoth 23:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Go on. And, yes, it was a pretty bad day. [[User:Vanished user|Vanished user]] [[User_talk:Vanished user|talk]] 23:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
(end copied section - please add new discussion below)

[edit] Other blocks.

...Am I seriously going to have to explain every block I made in the last few months, per CBDunkerson and GRBerry?

*sigh* Pretty much every single block I've made has been posted on WP:AN/I for discussion. Is it really the purpose of this case to retry every block action made by me since I became an admin? Because, frankly, if that's the focus, the scale of the necessary defense seems almost ridiculously daunting. [[User:Vanished user|Vanished user]] [[User_talk:Vanished user|talk]] 01:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This is nothing against you personally. It is a wider culture of indefinite blocks that some people are now beginning to agree isn't really the best thing for Wikipedia. That's my view anyway. Jehochman is right to say that indefinite block are valid in certain cases, but none of those are relevant to any of the edits by MatthewHoffman. The point here is that labels such as "single-purpose accounts" and "conflict of interest" are subjective labels and judgment in such cases is difficult given the complexity. That is why indefinite blocks are generally a bad idea for new accounts. The risk of collateral damage to new editors is too great. Without new editors, Wikipedia will wither and die. Carcharoth 01:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
That's fair enough, but it does make for a situation where one really does feel as if your good-faith actions are all going to be sifted through and scrutinised, and you will be terribly punished for any errors made in retrospect. It would be nice if we could get some clarification as to whether this is a review of me, or of wider pricnciples, because if it's of wider principles, I probably won't be quite so stressed out by it all. [[User:Vanished user|Vanished user]] [[User_talk:Vanished user|talk]] 02:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I headed my section on your blocks as "recent history is spotty". I highlighted those that seemed related to what I consider the primary focus of the case. You have 47 blocks and 3 unblocks since October 21. So I highlighted less than 10% of your blocks. I don't intend to go looking for more deserving scrutiny. Only the non-recused Arbitrators can say what they consider to be the focus of the case. Charles' comments will have to speak for him. I, in urging the committee to take the case, asked them to do so "to clarify existing policy" - in ArbComSpeak that implies I didn't think any sanctions would be needed. GRBerry 03:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. [[User:Vanished user|Vanished user]] [[User_talk:Vanished user|talk]] 04:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Admin discretion

"Administrators are normally afforded wide discretion to block users who they believe are a danger to the project." - and that user (User:Sadi Carnot) was later banned by ArbCom for one year, not indefinitely. What does that tell us? And does administrator discretion extend to stonewalling unblocking requests by other admins or users? Carcharoth 02:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom can make maximum one year bans. This is not a substantive difference from an indefinite block. No, discretion does not extend to stonewalling. I totally disagree with how Vanished user has handled this matter. These are separate issues. My evidence addresses the principle that there are valid reasons to place indefinite blocks. - Jehochman Talk 02:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
You'd be surprised how many accounts start up again after those one year bans. I think it was that that led to community discussions and indefinite blocks for "exhausting the patience of the community". You'd have to check the history though. Carcharoth 02:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Policy debates should occur on the policy talk pages. Arbcom is not a dictatorship. Their job is to help the community resolve disputes. - Jehochman Talk 02:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conflicting diffs - care needed

The Wikimedia diffs don't always give the expected results. Care is needed. See this diff and this diff for an example. It is the same "edit" (look at the times). The former is accessed from the user's contributions list. The latter is a diff from the page history and does not show three intermediate revisions. Because these are generated in different ways, they give a different impression of what happened. The user contribution diff is the correct one to use. Carcharoth 02:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Does it matter, provided none of the intermediate diffs are by other people? [[User:Vanished user|Vanished user]] [[User_talk:Vanished user|talk]] 02:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
No, but it can be confusing at first glance. I saw this diff used somewhere else, but can't find it now. Can you remember where someone used this diff? By the way, you might want to look at [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Matthew_Hoffman/Workshop#For_Vanished userVanished user|this question]] over on the workshop page. A friendly notice, given earlier misunderstandings: Mackensen is an arbitrator. Carcharoth 02:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

Since this starts to look a bit like a witch hunt to me, I think we should brainstorm instead about how to make this investigation more constructive. For example, how about:

  • A requirement that all blocks be at most a year in length
  • Some sort of automatic neutral review of all blocks
  • A mandatory waiting period of 1-2 weeks before a long term block is certified
  • A requirement that several people, maybe including a minimum number of other admins, sign off on a long term block to certify it
  • Submission of all long term blocks to a committee of admins for certification

Comments?--Filll 03:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

If ArbComm wrote policy, most of those would be good points for inclusion in a community ban policy. However, as ArbComm doesn't write policy, they are better elsewhere. There is currently a thinly populated discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Community Bans, and Wikipedia talk:Banning policy will always be an appropriate (superior?) venue for discussion. GRBerry 04:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure. If you think any of these are worthwhile, feel free to post them there. I just want to stimulate maybe some productive discussion rather than just use this as an opportunity to roast Vanished user. Maybe the problem is not so much with Vanished user, but the fact that the system does not have enough checks and balances built into it, so an admin feels free to exercise their powers without fear of being raked over the coals for it later. If there was some extra rules or policies or structures for examining the situation or trying to reduce mistakes, then admins would feel less inhibited, which I think is a good thing when we are being overrun by barbarians and under organized attack.--Filll 04:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

And what is wrong with refuting arguments on talk pages, rather than blocking? In the case in question, the discussion was instructive. Some people probably learnt something. If you see trolls and socks around every corner, well, then you get what you deserve sometimes. Carcharoth 16:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
It's easy enough for a disruptive user to register sock puppet accounts. If we can convince them to stop, or better, become productive that is a better solution. That said, there will always be some folks who are making a determined effort to spin the encyclopedia, or just wreak havoc. These people do need to be blocked. Sometimes it can be effective to watch a questionable user. Eventually, anybody who needs to be banned will prove it conclusively. - Jehochman Talk 16:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Precisely. Inexpert attempts to defend a page by dealing out excessive blocks (rather than shorter blocks) can, as well as biting new users, lead to sock puppets multiplying and (horrors) turning into meat puppets and external campaigns. Better practice earlier on can get a better result, with surgical intervention (backed up by checkuser requests) when hardcore cases are identified. Carcharoth 17:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
FT2 is a master. Notice how many Arbcom votes he's gotten. If anybody needs tips on this strategy, he is a good person to consult. - Jehochman Talk 17:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip. I noticed he was getting a lot of votes. Sad to say I was also thinking "who?" I'll have to take a look. I've also tweaked my previous statement as well (bad habit of mine), but I hope your reply still holds (it was mainly mentioning the biting aspect that I really think is crucial). Carcharoth 17:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


And what is wrong with refuting arguments on talk pages, rather than blocking? Don't look at me. I never blocked anyone (I am not an admin of course, so I cannot). And I always try to push people edit warring to the talk pages instead so their arguments can be explored and discussed.

Just look at my past contribution history. I have made 522 edits to the talk page of Intelligent design and 30 edits to the Intelligent design article itself. Similarly, I have made 12 edits to Irreducible complexity and 25 edits to the talk page of Irreducible complexity. I have made only 36 edits to evolution and 504 edits to the talk page of evolution. Do I appear someone who is unwilling to engage people on the talk pages, and instead just engages in edit wars, and makes snide edit summaries? Show me how I am refusing to talk to people on the talk pages and just asking my administrator friends to block people who disagree with me instead.

It is not that people who object to evolution and support intelligent design or creationism are not being encouraged to go to the talk page and their concerns discussed. There are more than 16000 edits to the talk page of intelligent design, and around 10000 edits to the intelligent design itself.

In the case in question, the discussion was instructive. I beg to differ. About 3 or 4 or more sock puppets and POV warriors complained about the same issue in the Irreducible complexity article, over and over. This was a silly complaint, since it was about intelligent design, not about Irreducible complexity itself at all. The reference did support the use of the term "intelligent design creationism" and had its own references that made this case. We tried to direct these editors to intelligent design, where this was more fully described, rather than repeat material unnecessarily, but these editors would not be placated. Finally, I went and repeated the same material in both places. And these editors then went on to nitpick about other similar things on this family of articles.

One of the biggest complaints about intelligent design is that it is over-referenced. However, this nit-picking and these organized attacks force us to put 5-10 references on every single sentence, turning the article into a heavily-cited mess that is unwieldy and hard to read. And we are unable to refer people to other articles in the family of articles where their concerns are addressed? Even wikilinks or other links are not enough? This seems ridiculous, frankly. Do we have to just repeat every detail and reference from intelligent design in every other article about intelligent design? And vice versa? That is quite a requirement to espouse.

If you see trolls and socks around every corner, well, then you get what you deserve sometimes. I am really taken aback by this comment. Clearly you have not spent much time on these controversial articles, or have some sort of hidden agenda. Wow. What a statement. I really do not know what to think after that.--Filll 17:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

No need to get upset. Read what I wrote above: "Inexpert attempts to defend a page by dealing out excessive blocks (rather than shorter blocks) can, as well as biting new users, lead to sock puppets multiplying and (horrors) turning into meat puppets and external campaigns. Better practice earlier on can get a better result, with surgical intervention (backed up by checkuser requests) when hardcore cases are identified." - that is what I mean by how over-attention to blocking sock-puppets can make things worse. Carcharoth 17:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
The short version. Blocking sock puppets doesn't stop sock-puppetry. Discussing things to death (well, it feels like it sometimes, as you probably know), does help. Sometimes. Carcharoth 17:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, I did not read your post before I wrote my last response because of an edit conflict. I do agree that blocking can sometimes make things worse. And sometimes it can make things better. Sometimes talking to them is good. And sometimes it is bad. After all, remember WP:DNFTT. The right course of action, if such a thing exists, is almost impossible to be able to know ahead of time, or even a posteriori. When dealing with 5-10 or more new socks or trolls per week on these articles, there really is not much more than can be done except to try to keep the articles from being destroyed. It is beyond human ability to be able to make wise sound calls, because there is an immense community that wants Wikipedia to be written as a religious recruiting tract. They will lie, they will cheat, they will break the rules, and engage in hostile behavior and attacks using the rules of WP against itself because they are fighting a holy war against science. We do not have time to do more than stick a finger in the dyke.--Filll 17:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. Do you think you could put me in the "clearly you have not spent much time on these controversial articles" category, and strike out the "hidden agenda" comment, please? Carcharoth 17:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
And can I ask whether those defending pages against socks and trolls ever lose sight of the need to not bite new users? Calling a new user a sock is the most likely thing to drive them away. Carcharoth 17:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Many new users are welcomed and in fact needed since there is constant attrition of experienced users. I think that if one looks at those talk pages, in fact even in the case of MathewHoffman, experienced users bend over backwards to not trod on them.

In MathewHoffman's case, this is although MH posted a couple of dozen obnoxious statements. We tried to answer his comments. He just escalated and escalated. And two others who might have been socks or friends joined in. After he left, several others with the exact same agenda joined in, who also might have been socks or friends. It is possible that as many as 5 or more editors, either sock or meat puppets, were coordinating their efforts to attack this article. And over a meaningless, groundless complaint. Rather than fix the issue, or understand our explanations, they just wanted to harass users.

And then the next week or the next month, they or friends of theirs will be back to do it all over again about some other piece of minutae.

I think that the experienced users demonstrate incredible tolerance in the face of provocation. Try dealing with 100 or 200 new editors, whose first edit is to say "black is white, and you are a jerk if you do not agree, and I demand you provide me 20 references to prove that black is not white", effectively. As soon as you are done with one, another one pops up to say the same thing. And then again. And again. I think we do a great job considering the situation.

The vast majority of these single purpose accounts have no intention of being productive editors ever. And now that MathewHoffman is unblocked, if MathewHoffman does not become a productive editor in the next few years and does not avoid administrative trouble in the next few years, are you willing to stake your reputation on his performance and behavior? Feel free to step up to the plate. But then realize that there might be terrible consequences for you on Wikipedia if you guess wrong, under the current system.--Filll 20:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You say: "MH posted a couple of dozen obnoxious statements". I don't know about you, but I use the word obnoxious with care. It is a very strong word that shouldn't be used lightly. At the time of the November ANI thread, I reviewed all of Hoffman's contributions and found nothing I would have described as obnoxious. Please provide a diff pointing to a statement of Hoffman's that you would call obnoxious. Vanished user has already said that he confused Hoffman with someone else. Are you sure you are not doing the same thing? Carcharoth 20:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
You said: "The vast majority of these single purpose accounts have no intention of being productive editors ever." - how do you define a single-purpose account? A new editor starting out, and a single-purpose account starting out, can look much the same. You also say the "vast majority". What about the minority? Is it acceptable to consider a few good editors lost as collateral damage? I don't think so. A productive editor can be around for years. One sock or troll missed can be blocked later, further down the line. Carcharoth 20:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
You then said "there might be terrible consequences for you on Wikipedia if you guess wrong, under the current system". You are joking right? Are you referring to desysopping? That is not the end of the world. I spent years without the admin bit, but I can tell you one thing - I won't be basing any of my admin actions on guesswork. Carcharoth 20:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


  1. obnoxious statements Maybe we have a different definition for "obnoxious statements". After MH accusing people over and over of attacking him and being unfair and not following WP rules,[[User:Vanished user]] very blandly listed the relevant WP policy articles. MH responded, "You need to quote these articles to defend yourself, rather than just pouring out citations like anyone can do." I personally found that pretty obnoxious. What did Vanished user do to deserve that? Where is the attitude coming from? Here is another example: "Funny, but anyone who understands science knows there are no facts". This I find highly offensive. If I made a comparable statement about religion or churches, I would be rightly be chastised. This is not just wrong, it is incredibly provocative and tendentioius. It is the sign of someone itching for a fight.
    1. For the record, I think Filll means User:Dave souza [[User:Vanished user|Vanished user]] [[User_talk:Vanished user|talk]] 02:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. single purpose accounts It is highly suspicous when an editor immediately goes to one of the most controversial and vulnerable articles on their very first edit and displays a copious knowledge of WP policy and jargon from their first edits. On your suggestion, I looked at a few other editor's first edits; they were like mine. Quite clumsy and awkward, not at all like MathewHoffman. I had no idea what NPOV was for 6 months or more. I didn't know how to sign my name for a long time. Many others are exactly the same. MH was not at all like this.
  3. terrible consequences Under the current system, if an admin guesses wrong, they lose face and their reputation suffers. This does not have to go as far as being de-sysopped of course. I would not advocate de-sysopping anyone over a wrong guess. That is my entire point. The system has to be made fault tolerant so that admins are not allowed to make bad judgement calls so easily. I do not want to punish admins for making simple mistakes and I want to make the system self-correcting of any mistakes that admins make. Clearer?

Look, no matter what we do, we are going to make mistakes. We have no perfect filter that will allow in only productive editors and block only trolls and POV warriors with a minimum of disruption. I am asking that instead of pillorying Vanished user here, lets think about how we can make the system better. --Filll (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

(1) <sigh> I want you to quote what MatthewHoffman said that you thought was obnoxious. You provided one quote and then paraphrased the rest. Getting upset over "Funny, but anyone who understands science knows there are no facts" is just not worth it. Either he doesn't understand what he is saying (in which case you should correct him), or he is trying to upset you (in which case getting angry is not the right response, but neither is blocking him). As for "accusing people over and over of attacking him and being unfair and not following WP rules", it depends on the language used and how often. From where I'm sitting, the language is forceful but not anything to warrant the reaction seen. And The original talk page thread is here. Typical comments by Hoffman include:

"I am not going to let this go. 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. This violates Wikipedia policy. I simply want an accurate description of the controversy presented, with both sides."

"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. This is not the place to engage in that. I am not any banned user. In fact, unlike you sir, I am here under my real name. Are you? Your name, rather, like your tactics, points to an agenda that you seem to be pushing on Wikipedia. Also, I have every right to begin editing wherever I wish. Anyone can edit a Wikipedia article, and the very modest edit I tried to do was very very legitimate."

"Please answer my points directly, without personal attacks. Please adhere to Wikipedia policy. 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."

What is being said there may be right or wrong, it may be someone pretending to be a new user and pushing an agenda, it may even be a new user who has read policy and followed a few talk page discussions and has chosen a controversial subject to get involved with with their first edit (it's not an impossibility). It is an over-reaction, though, to respond with cries of "obnoxious", "harassment", "extreme rudeness" and so forth. To me, it looks like a new editor getting upset at not getting a fair hearing and being called a sock puppet. You may not agree with that assessment, but given that several uninvolved editors reviewed that exchange and found that Hoffman got as good as he gave, is it not possible that it is you that is over-reacting here?
(2) On Matthew Hoffman's editing experience, you say "I didn't know how to sign my name for a long time. Many others are exactly the same. MH was not at all like this." This is ironic, because Hoffman failed to sign his very first edit and he top-posted his talk page post. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence#Evidence of MatthewHoffman's editing inexperience for more details on the classic "new editor" mistakes he made, and the swift improvement he made. You did read the other evidence on that page before adding your own, didn't you? Note also that the account was created two years ago, which could mean any number of things, all impossible to prove. This is all inconclusive enough that accusations of sock-puppetry are not warranted, and the default option of assuming good faith should have been taken.
(3) Yes, that is clearer now. Thanks.
I hope that those three replies makes things clearer overall as well. The point is that when there is uncertainty, driving people away with blocks is the wrong approach. Carcharoth (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me try to clarify this a bit more:

  1. Obnoxious You asked for examples. I gave you two examples, word for word, direct quotes that gave me pause. I could have given more; I just picked the two that I found especially troubling. I did not get angry at him. I did not block him. I did not advocate blocking him. The suggestions of sockhood did not come from me. I am not claiming that everything done in this case was perfect. I am asking if it is not possible to think of ways to engineer the system to make it more difficult to make these kinds of mistakes that allegedly were made in this case.
  2. I of course did see the evidence of him that is used to suggest he is just an inexperienced newbie. I still forget to sign my name. If not signing one's name once or twice and placing a comment at the top of a talk page is enough to fool everyone into thinking he is not a sock or a meat puppet, then so much the better. I could very easily use some simple tricks like this to generate socks then, I guess. I will note that MH learned at an unbelievable rate in a very short period of time. I know what it is like to figure out how to edit here and the policies; it is just not that easy. If MH is some sort of super genius, he gave no evidence of it in what he posted and the positions he took.

I am NOT advocating driving people away with blocks. I am suggesting maybe thinking a bit about why this happened and what can be done to improve the process to reduce the chance of it happening again. Just blaming it on Vanished user is unrealistic and will lead to similar drama in the future, since there is obviously a hole or two in the system that lets this happen.--Filll (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Good points there. You are right that blaming Vanished user won't avoid drama in the future. What do you think are the holes in the system that need filling? Carcharoth (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Well that was the point of this section/thread. I wanted to brainstorm with others and try to stimulate them to think of problems with the current system and things we might suggest to avoid this sort of problem in the future.

For example, if someone is blocked right now, there really is not a clear path for the blocked editor to take. One can appeal the block, and then more often than not, the person appealing gets a terse note from someone who does not want to be bothered, and is just left frustrated if a mistake was made.

I think that all long term blocks should be reviewed automatically by a committee, or need certification by other editors and/or administrators to implement it. I think something as onerous as an RfC might be too much. However, the hole here obviously is that one admin, maybe distracted, was able to make a short term block, and then make it a long term block and although he did post a notice of it, no one was forced to look at the situation to make sure it was proper.

Also, the blocked editor's pleas for assistance or pardon went unheard since he did not know who to contact for assistance. I can only imagine the frustration. There needs to be standard way for blocked editors to get their case reviewed, and a clear path for them to follow.--Filll (talk) 00:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. You might want to consider reposting at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Community_Bans. Carcharoth (talk) 02:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article probation?

The situation around intelligent design has become very caustic. Something similar happened at Scientology. We brought the matter to arbitration, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS and one of the remedies was article probation. This seems to have helped. Playing whack-a-mole with disruptive socks eventually leads to problems where new users get caught in the crossfire, and good admins get burned out and bad things. Let's focus on solving the problem first, and then we can decide what to do about the individuals involved. - Jehochman Talk 17:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not familiar with it, but if it works, why not? I would follow the advice of more experienced editors in this matter, however.--Filll (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discovery Institute

I wonder if this thread is connected to the current case. The Discovery Institute and Intelligent design article problems seem to be intertwined. - Jehochman Talk 22:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, it is highly likely that problems at intelligent design, Discovery Institute and Irreducible complexity and perhaps quite a few others are all related. Many of these are probably because of coordinated attacks.--Filll (talk) 22:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Have we ruled out that Matthew Hoffman might be involved? Just because the block wasn't supported by proper evidence does not mean that Hoffman is squeaky clean. Perhaps this calls for a proper investigation. - Jehochman Talk 23:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I suggest looking at the creation dates of all the accounts involved. If all the others were created recently and Hoffman's was the only one created two years ago, then it is likely that Hoffman is not part of this hypothesised co-ordinated attack. But really, if Hoffman is who he says he is, then opening an investigation into him is not going to help. If there are problems later, they can be dealt with then rather than trying to pre-empt them now and get egg on your face if you are wrong. Carcharoth (talk) 23:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflicted) The purpose of my research and evidence was to disprove or confirm that hypothesis. I could do neither. If I had been aware of this situation before the Committee became involved I would have unblocked with a recommendation to WP:ADOPT and observed whether the editor adjusted to site standards. If he did, wonderful; if not, other blocks would follow. I'd wait and see on that without particular reprimand toward Vanished user, although I'd probably confer with him about recusal. DurovaCharge! 23:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on Dave souza's evidence

A few comments here on Dave souza's evidence. I'll invite him to comment here.

  • First up, thanks for looking a bit deeper into the history behind the welcome template and the other additions of welcome templates by Johann Wolfgang. That is something that needed to be mentioned and checked.
  • You say "creating what seemed an unusual disparity between the date of this welcome and his edit history" - two things need to be made clearer here: (1) Were you aware of this disparity at the time, and if so why was it not mentioned until I pointed it out several days into the arbitration case? (2) Who says this seems unusual, and why is it unusual? What inferences are being drawn from this? It is better to be clear rather than vague, and to provide further evidence to back up any inferences. (3) Does Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence#Evidence of MatthewHoffman's editing inexperience mean anything? If it looks like a new editor, it should be treated like a new editor.
  • Thank-you for focusing on Hoffman's edits. No-one has done that so far. Could you also focus on the response of other editors in that talk page thread? I've only looked at the allegations of sock-puppetry (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence#Allegations that MatthewHoffman was a sockpuppet account), but the attitude of the other editors in that thread also needs to be taken into account, in particular the dismissive and unhelpful "Nah, just ignore him. He obviously doesn't understand what he's talking about." from Guettarda.
  • The main thrust of this case is not on the 3RR block, which everyone agrees was needed, but on the propriety of the 72-hour block and the indefinite block, and the failures in the review processes. If you look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Proposed decision, you will see what the arbitrators are focusing on and what they have already voted on. Thus Hoffman's edits after the 3RR block are probably most relevant.
Carcharoth (talk) 12:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your enquiries, this evidence was what came up when I'd time to look through the developments. In September my involvement was limited to helping to deal with issues raised on an article which was on my watchlist because I'd made some relatively minor edits.
  • When dealing with a questionable edit, I'll often look at the contributions page to see what other edits they've made, though I don't recall noticing anything in this case. MatthewHoffman's edit history clearly shows a new user, and I'd deal with him as such. However, His first two edits show him throwing his weight around and claiming expertise in policy. The unusual disparity comes when aware of the short edit history and noticing the date on the welcome template – I did not notice this at the time, and it's not something I've come across before. Once I'd looked into the other accounts welcomed by Johann Wolfgang it became obvious that it's quite common for accounts to never make an edit, and such accounts are sometimes welcomed. From memory, one other account created at the same time made its first and only edit this year, a minor grammatical correction. What looked to me at first glance a couple of night ago as suggesting a possible conspiracy, turns out to be innocuous. Just that, having done the research, I thought it worth recording.
  • I didn't want to go into too much detail on responses by other editors, my impression is that responses were generally polite and helpful. Though the welcome was formal rather than friendly, this was in response to a rather aggressive opening statement alleging that the article as a whole "constitutes a serious violation of NPOV".
For an idea of how the discussion developed it's worth reading the thread as it was at the point when Guettarda made the edit you note:[1]. MatthewHoffman's essential argument is that "If the advocates of intelligent design define the term in a certain way, that definition must be accepted.", and when he's referred to WP:UNDUE and the opinion of the scientific community as the relevant majority view, he then A) disputes the source, and B) he reiterates his argument that the proponents define the term, ignoring WP:UNDUE ("Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them... But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view").
When others offer further evidence re. A), he describes that as a red herring, and claims that not using the definition provided by proponents violates NPOV. This argument is repeated, with others referring him to WP:NPOV#Undue weight and offering more citations, and MatthewHoffman accusing them of using the page to advance their own point of view. He is supported in his interpretation of NPOV by Profg, and gives a detailed response about relying on secondary sources, ideally the word of scholars who are experts in the field such as Forrest. MatthewHoffman then introduces a large section of "evidence and arguments" based on the idea that dictionary definitions and an article in Slate should determine the definition and question of whether ID is creationism, concluding with the following assertion –
"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?
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."
The three responses then are a suggestion that he take it to a forum, a question as to whether he is going to force the addition of references for every statemt, and Guettarda makes the suggestion that he be ignored. To the regulars this is a restatement of WP:DNFTT, but it must have seemed pretty rude to MatthewHoffman who plainly has not read the "undue weight" part of NPOV and related parts of NPOV/FAQ. Unfortunately, the regulars have had repeated experience of ID pov warriors and sockpuppets making very similar arguments. (should this part be checked over and added to the evidence page?)
  • In retrospect, repeatedly copying and pasting the policy provisions might have helped to clarify matters, but it's surely reasonable to expect an editor lecturing others on NPOV to be able to follow links to the relevant part of the policy. There's also the danger of extracts being read out of context.
I've been working towards some comments and have been looking at the propriety of the longer blocks, but am still forming my ideas on that. My own inclination has been to try to mediate or help resolve the arguments, thus diequalifying myself from making such blocks. Blocking for sockpuppetry or disruption is outside my own experience, but I'm aware of its value. .. dave souza, talk 19:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
And thank you for the replies. :-) I think in general those that edit Wikipedia a lot lose sight of the fact that many accounts only edit sporadically. A recent example I came across is Special:Contributions/Sphemusator. The reasons for this are numerous, and include: people spend most of their time reading instead of editing; people spend most of their time doing other things and only log on to en-Wikipedia occassionally (eg. real-life, other online activities, other wikis, or even just plain old editing 'anonymously' as an IP address). I generally agree with you about how the discussion went, but feel that a bit more patience might have worked wonders. It comes across quite clearly that the "experienced editors" run out of patience very fast. This is, in itself, biting behaviour. It is quite possible for a new editor to appear to know policy, but to in reality need guidance. I think one bit in Hoffman's replies is very informative. He says "I suggest that you read the Wikipedia entry on "systematic bias"..." - to me this indicates that he is reading around polices and guidelines, but hasn't quite learnt to link to them yet. Have a read of WP:BIAS (strange, I thought there was an essay on this, not a WikiProject - ah, Hoffman was more likely to be referring to the Wikipedia article systematic bias, rather than any essay) and see how Hoffman might have thought there was a case to answer for this article. Carcharoth (talk) 21:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I wasn't surprised that many accounts only edit sporadically, but was surprised about how many never edit at all, and that some of these accounts get welcomed – that's just the bias of my experience, and now I know better :)
As for losing patience, five editors over two and a half days tried to point Hoffman to policy that he clearly did not understand, and he not only kept insisting on his own new policy that proponents define how their movement is described, but produced a large screed based on the misconception. It's at that stage that two editors indicated that he was off-topic, or trolling. The message about policy could have been spelt out more fully, but Hoffman had the difficulty that I've noticed before with people like managers, who are used to being boss and issuing instructions that are not to be questioned. I did have a look over the bias project page and systemic bias article earlier, and nothing seems to be directly related to his complaint. He is right in that Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ gives the project a systemic bias against pseudoscience. Of course finding the right balance isn't easy, and while intelligent design creationism is concise and to the point, it's arguably too blunt.
You asked on my talk page about Nascentathiest's comments – his first edit followed Guettarda's, but almost a day later at 00.37 on 18 September, and hinted vaguely at the sock question by concluding "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?".[2] While not surprised as socks are a commonplace on these articles, I gave it no particular attention and if anything thought it might simply be someone he knew as a creationist. It was at 11.15 on 21 September that Nascentathiest directly questioned if Hoffman might be banned User:Jason Gastrich.[3] The next to edit was Hoffman with his series of edits starting at 16:41, 22 September 2007, and looking at them again the accusations of personal attacks seem to be aimed directly at Nascentathiest, though without saying what the "personal attacks" were or answering the question as to whether or not he was Jason Gastrich.[4] As far as I can recall this is my first encounter with Nascentathiest, who only got an account on 30 April 2007 as 'Veteran of anonymous edits, finally decided to get an ID.'[5] ... dave souza, talk 23:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on Mateohoffman

I'd like to thank Jehochman for presenting the evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence#Mateohoffman. What I'd like to discuss here is whether there is any chance of conclusively linking the two accounts, and whether this makes any difference. What I'm wary of is Vanished user and some of the people supporting him feeling justified in what they did. Justification after the fact is a very dangerous road to go down. By the way, Jehochman, how did you discover this? I remember trying a few alternate names and not finding anything. Did you think to look at the deleted revisions of Matthew Hoffman? Carcharoth (talk) 23:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not so smart as you think. The evidence appearedVanished user_Vanished user&diff=184351832&oldid=184106159 on Vanished user's talk page, courtesy of User:B. I verified it to the best of my capabilities, and then posted the apparent facts here. Let the facts speak for themselves. I have no intention of making any arguments based on this information, but others are free to do so. Jehochman Talk 00:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll go and ask User:B how he found it. I suspect the redlink for Matthew Hoffman at What the Bleep Do We Know!? might have been noticed by some people. But still, this is all very confusing (see below). Carcharoth (talk) 02:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's how I noticed it. I was patrolling CAT:RFU and saw the request from ScienceApologist (talk · contribs). As I looked at the dispute in question - What the Bleep Do We Know!? - I noticed the name on the page and thought, "wait, I know that name from somewhere". ;) I googled it and couldn't find anything conclusive, and even if Hoffman the movie writer is a completely different person, seeing two professing conservative Christian Wikipedians named Matthew Hoffman necessarily negates the notion that there is no evidence that the latter was not a sock. (finding of fact #5). There's no evidence of sock abuse but that's different than there being no evidence of socks at all. --B (talk) 02:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

They might be the same. They might not. However, I would not be very surprised if they were the same. I would not be surprised if there were not other similar accounts. What I would like is for the Admins who are 99.999999% sure that Hoffman is an angel, to actually wake up and smell the coffee. We are under assault by many many many editors, some in organized groups, that would like to get science out of Wikipedia, except for WP:FRINGE material and religious recruiting tracts, and are prepared to engage in any kind of bad behavior to do so. The evidence is clear, and has been for years. I am just astounded at how frantic some are to explain it all away and ignore it. So I still think we should test your assumptions and claims in a scientific fashion. Let's see if you are right.--Filll (talk) 01:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but what about my "justification after the fact" point? I agree with you that it is imperative to keep Wikipedia articles balanced, but preventing certain types of editors from editing because you think they hold a certain point of view is not the way to do it. If they try and make an article unbalanced towards a certain point-of-view, then yes, that needs to be prevented. But you have to win the argument fairly, not by impatient use of admin tools, and rushing to judge an editor after only a few edits. And regarding whether these accounts are the same, I have done some digging around the internet. There are lots of Matthew Hoffmans (two listed at IMDB, for starters - and IMDB may be mixing up several different people), and some of those do not correspond with the details in the deleted version of Matthew Hoffman (not saying what those details are - the page was deleted for a reason). Reading Hoffman tells you how many notable (or fairly notable) Hoffmans there are. Perusing the user name logs also shows that different people do use the same names. In short, what I am saying is that a connection seems likely, but it is not impossible that these are different people (a lot of people do take an interest in these topics). Finally, although Mateo is equivalent to Matthew, it can be a name in its own right. So I'm not sure this hasn't raised more questions than it has answered. As always we come back to the contributions, and the bottom line is that some people see the behaviour of the MatthewHoffman account as grounds for an indefinite block, and others do not (including most of the ArbCom so far). Later, maybe, but only when clear evidence arises. Acting sooner than that is a recipe for potential injustices. Carcharoth (talk) 02:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Read the deleted article - it was definitely written in the first person. Mateo is self-identifying as Matthew. Whether they are the same Matthew is anyone's guess. If the IMDB bio of the Matthew Hoffman writer is accurate, he probably isn't one in the same with the Matthew whose deleted bio we have - the birthdate doesn't line up with the IMDB acting jobs and if Matthew had any such experience he would have mentioned it. But whether the writer = the Wikipedian isn't really relevant as anything more than a curiosity. What is potentially relevant is if the two Wikipedians are one in the same. If they are, then a finding of fact in this case is incorrect. That's my only point - a finding of fact is a different question than justification. I haven't made any secret about my opinion on this case - I think it's a slippery slope for the actions of admin actions to be dredged up long after they are stale and the context lost, particularly in this case where Vanished user got some bad advice that the block was proper. If this is the convincing (or an excuse) that arbcom needs to realize their ruling is errant, so be it, but I really had no motivation in bringing it up other than to show that a finding of fact in the case is incorrect. With apologies to Freud, sometimes an edit is just an edit. --B (talk) 03:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I believe few if any would agree that what happened here to Matthew Hoffman was optimal, or even good, including Vanished user. I would like to see if we can think of ways to make the system less likely to make the same mistake again, because otherwise, it will happen again, no matter how you punish or do not punish Vanished user. However, this case and the related RfC are a big wakeup call; there is something going on at Wikipedia that I think many are ignoring or want to ignore.--Filll (talk) 02:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Time for a bit of theory. The way to deal with WP:BITE violations is to socialize people, not to block or punish them. We have given Vanished user a lot of feedback. Since this case started six weeks ago, has he engaged in further problematic use of tools? I haven't heard any complaints. If he can exert self control over such a time frame, it is realistic to think that he will continue to do so. What purpose does it serve at this point to punish Vanished user? Surely he understands that if there are further problems, he should not expect leniency next time. Jehochman Talk 02:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I generated a list of about a dozen names (variations on a Matthew Hoffman them). They don't have contributions that I can see. Should I do anything with them? (post here, email someone, delete as useless?) Just wondering, R. Baley (talk) 06:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe doing the same for the names of other parties would help show whether duplication of names is a common thing? Remember that some names are very commonly used. I think this would get silly fairly quickly. The only useful discussions would be where the contributions show a possible (ie. treat with caution) link in editing patterns or subject matter, as with this one pointed out here. Carcharoth (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The only thing I can see (as a non-admin) is the date their acct. was created. So either they have no edits or their edits have been deleted (page deletion or oversight, afaik). Oh and at least one account has no creation log (which has always puzzled me -occasionally accounts don't have one, why is that? I assumed at one time, this might apply to older accounts, but now I'm not sure why some accounts don't). R. Baley (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm assuming it is almost certainly older accounts. "This log goes back to approximately June of 2006; some accounts older than that appear in the log, but most accounts created May 2006 and earlier do not." [6]. I don't appear in the account creation logs, for example - January 2005 is my earliest edit, and my account was created around that time, but no specific date that I can find. Yours, in contrast, was 5 October 2006. Carcharoth (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it generally has to do with older accounts, but have wondered of late if there are exceptions. I vaguely recollect researching socks of more recent origin that also had one or two accounts in the mix that did not have this info. . .can't remember where to look for that for example though. R. Baley (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)