User:Filll/MathewHoffman

Evidence presented by Filll
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 was clearly opposed by User:FeloniousMonk on the talk page:

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 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 a 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.

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.

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

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.

MathewHoffman
(Diffs will follow)

As can be seen by examining the page Talk:Irreducible Complexity, Discovery Institute and some other subsiduary daughter pages of the main Intelligent design article, we have recently been hit by wave after wave of editors who complain that statements in these articles about intelligent are incorrect or that no sources for these statements exist. This is in spite of the fact that these same statements are discussed in greater detail with numerous sources in the main intelligent design article itself. There have also been many complaints that the statements in the intelligent design article have too many references. The problem is that attacks by various intelligent design supporters push Wikipedia to add more and more and more citations for every single statement. Almost nothing can be assumed and left without a cited reference, even information that is common knowledge, or even if the same material appears in the main intelligent design article.

In general, the editors that support, write and maintsin the articles concerned with creationism and intelligent design have tried to resist this drive to push all the subsiduary daughter articles of the intelligent design article to be as over-referenced (and some would say unwieldy and unreadable) as the intelligent design article itself. For some reason, people are unable or unwilling to consult the intelligent design article for information about intelligent design; they want to fight about descriptions of intelligent design in the daughter articles, which being less well developed, are more vulnerable to attack. And when they find some article that they believe is vulnerable, they use it as a platform to push creationist or anti-evolution or pro-intelligent design agendas. It gets old, after dealing with this several dozen times.

MathewHoffman was one of these editors. After dealing with dozens and dozens of similar newcomers to these articles, editors and administrators can suffer battle fatigue. It is a constant effort to keep these articles from deteriorating into religious recruiting tracts. Just the efforts to maintain these articles at their current levels can make it almost impossible to write new articles or improve old articles. Sometimes the trolls, sockpuppets, meat puppets, POV warriors etc just come so fast and furious that it is all one can do to keep up.

In addition, these editors pushing to change the articles do not just make edits to the article. They also present long-winded arguments, often replete with accusations and threats and complaints on the talk pages. These have to be addressed, or else these editors will quickly become emboldened and attack the articles themselves, possibly using a legion of their friends or sock puppets. Editors have to endure endless insults and tendentious arguments with editors who just cannot accept that black is not white, and want to redefine black to be white. There are long winded exchanges where they dispute the rules of Wikipedia, such as what is a reliable source or what does NPOV mean. They claim religious websites are appropriate sources, and they do not know what science is or the scientific method. It goes on and on.


 * constant flood of attacks and sock puppets
 * insults
 * same issues over and over
 * refusal to read or accept other sources
 * reliance on a column before the trial and a few short dictionary definitions and rejection of peer-reviewed material from experts and trial verdict based on testimony of large numbers of experts on all sides under oath
 * insistence that daughter articles of intelligent design explain intelligent design in as much detail as main article with as many sources
 * refusal to look at main intelligent design article or accepted its well sourced discussions of same issues.
 * threats
 * claims of abuse
 * insults
 * Demands: you need to answer these objections according to WP policy

Evidence produced by Filll
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 was clearly opposed by User:FeloniousMonk on the talk page:. I asked him to make his case on the talk page.

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.

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.

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

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.

Examples of aggressive discussion by MathewHoffman

 * serious violation of NPOV
 * acting biased and partisan
 * to admit such bigotry is brave (? might be someone else)


 * you are engaging in multiple violations of wikipedia policy
 * you are attacking me personally
 * You are the one who does not seem to understand NPOV.
 * 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.


 * 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.


 * Your name, rather, like your tactics, points to an agenda that you seem to be pushing on Wikipedia.


 * Your responses are a complete failure, and in fact back up what I was saying.


 * Stand by what you said...


 * 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.


 * Funny, but anyone who understands science knows there are no facts.


 * And as far as the idea of concensus? Can 99.9% of scientists be wrong? You betcha.


 * 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.


 * Other comments about people murdering others, etc, have no place here...but the admins are not removing the comments.


 * 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


 * I really hope that the level of discourse on this talk page improves


 * You need to quote these articles to defend yourself, rather than just pouring out citations like anyone can do. (In response to Adam listing the relevant WP policy articles)


 * I suggest that you read the Wikipedia entry on "systematic bias", because this talk page shows that in abundance.
 * If the editors use the Talk page to engage in personal attacks, and to defend a certain position on the ID issue, that is itself evidence of bias and abuse of Wikipedia.
 * This talk page, as I have pointed out in previous entries, is filled with such material.