User talk:MatthewHoffman

Welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia , I hope you will like it here and decide to stay.

You may want to take a look at the welcome page, tutorial, and stylebook, avoiding common mistakes and Wikipedia is not pages.

Here are some links I've found useful:

Also: To sign comments on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will automatically add your username and the time after your comments. Signing with three tildes ~~~ will just sign your username.

I hope to see you around Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page!

Johann Wolfgang [ T ...C ]

15:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

3RR warning

Please read and abide by WP:3RR. FeloniousMonk 18:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have violated the three-revert rule on Irreducible Complexity. Any administrator may now choose to block your account. In the future, please make an effort to discuss your changes further, instead of edit warring. Please slow down and avoid administrative actions that might end up with your editing priveleges restricted. Thanks--Filll 18:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, my 24-hour block was set at 22:07 yesterday, but the system now says it won't expire until after 02:00 on the 17th...why is my block being extended?

Also, I was unaware of the three revert rule until after I had done the third revert. However, I notice that, although the others reverting my changes were not responding to my legitimate reason for having done so (the source they were using was a public policy paper, not a scientific paper, and it pertained to the definitions of words used by those opposed to the policy advocated by the paper's authors). Matthew C. Hoffman 00:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're apparently not blocked. You might be getting auto-blocked, but I'll have to check it out. Just hang tight. --Haemo 01:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Yep — it looks like the autoblock hung around longer than it should have. You should be okay to edit now. Haemo 01:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Request handled by: Haemo 01:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Matthew C. Hoffman 01:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be aware of WP:3RR. Please note that it's a prohibition on edit warring, not a license to revert three times. Also, have a good look at NPOV: Pseudoscience, NPOV: Undue weight, NPOV: Making necessary assumptions, NPOV: Giving "equal validity", and also see what WP:RS has to say about tertiary sources. ... dave souza, talk 21:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not...

... if you think that Intelligent Design is unfairly characterised as Creationism on Wikipedia, argue that point at Talk:Intelligent Design rather than edit-warring on Irreducible Complexity?

Having changed the definition in the main article, it will be easy to change the way the subject is described in all other articles. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 21:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

MatthewHoffman (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This was totally unjustified. I never once promoted my point of view, and instead objected to others promoting theirs, and attacking me personally (see relevant talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Irreducible_complexity&oldid=159657503 under "Serious Violation of NPOV" which was also archived by Vanished user.). Also, I am being accused of being a "sock" (I assume that means "sock puppet") because I bothered to read Wikipedia policies when making my objections and because I can see that there is an "edit summary" blank that tells you to describe changes you have made, and I used that. I am here under my real name! I am no "sock" and I am willing to prove it.

Decline reason:

Looking at the article talk page and your contribution history, I agree with the consensus here that you're somebody's sock here to disrupt the project.— Chaser - T 01:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Irreducible Complexity debate

Thought you might want to weigh in at Talk:Irreducible_complexity#Intelligent_design_creationism.Tstrobaugh 14:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked

Have the "uncivil" or "impolite" comments by Matthew been removed so that ordinary users can no longer see them? ~~Are you, Vanished user, open to recall as an administrator?~~ Alice.S 21:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Alice, questions like that are best asked at Vanished's talk page, not here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew, please note that there is disagreement over whether your indefinite block was warranted. I for one found nothing incivil or impolite in your contributions. I have asked Adam to provide evidence of this alleged behaviour, but until that time I think you should be allowed to edit under the same restrictions as any other editor, which does, as Adam points out, include not edit warring and being civil. It also includes discussing things on talk pages, but then your contributions show you already know that. Carcharoth (talk) 23:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that, at least by Singaporean standards, I saw no lack of civility. Maybe we're less polite than we believe in the Lion city. Alice.S 01:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Good call, Adam. Thank you for being man enough to reconsider your decision. I guess it must be very difficult with so many vandals and IP's on the loose, but I do think admins should be very cautious about alleging puppetry where folks edit under their real names. Alice.S 01:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back!

May I be one of the first to congratulate you, Matthew, especially as you have been brave enough to use your real name and very politely and patiently make your case for being allowed to help build a better encyclopedia.

Wikipedia is a wonderful place and please do not let this incident discourage you from improving this remarkable educational resource. You were very fortunate to survive an allegation of Sockpuppetry as it is almost impossible to counter this ultimate put-down according to WP's current rules and procedures. Alice.S 01:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration: notification

I've placed a request Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Matthew Hoffman for an Arbitration case, in the matter of your block, in which you would be a party. Charles Matthews 08:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 17:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The Arbitration Committee finds that the blocks on User:MatthewHoffman were unjustified. It also states that Vanished user's adminship will be waived at this time. Vanished user may regain his sysop access by application to the Committee, upon demonstration of six months editing in compliance with communal norms and conduct standards. If regained, he will then be placed on parole with regard to both conduct and admin tool use for a further period of six months. For the arbitration committee, Cbrown1023 talk 13:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]