Misplaced Pages

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)

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)

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 =) Adam Cuerden 22:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

Why not...

... if you think that Intelligent Design is unfairly characterised as Creationism on Misplaced Pages, 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_stalk 21:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Block

After discussion, this has been extended to an indefinite block. Adam Cuerden 21:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

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/search/?title=Talk:Irreducible_complexity&oldid=159657503 under "Serious Violation of NPOV" which was also archived by Adam Cuerden.). Also, I am being accused of being a "sock" (I assume that means "sock puppet") because I bothered to read Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

Unblocked

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. Adam Cuerden 18:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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)

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)

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. Adam Cuerden 01:09, 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.

Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

Misplaced Pages: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, Misplaced Pages: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, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Workshop.

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