User talk:KillerChihuahua/Sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 10:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 06:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

[edit] Description

Tisthammerw (Wade A. Tisthammer) is a pro-intelligent design editor who a has a long history of partisan talk page disruptions at ID and other creationism related articles. Since November 2005 he has conducted a partisan campaign to remove content covering the scientific community's response to ID. During this on-going campaign he has repeatedly challenged the verifiability and reliability of various supporting sources that clearly met WP:V and WP:RS and has attacked as being "suspected original research" statements that were clearly supported by multiple verifiable and reliable sources. He has attempted, and continues to attempt to portray his actions as trying to "get articles to conform to policy" or "enforcing WP:CITE" although the "justifications" are belied by his insistance on objecting only to content that is critical of ID, never that which is supportive. Additionally, he argues for interpretations of evidence that are favorable to the ID point of view and made by ID proponents in such a manner that the guidlines on undue weight would be compromised. In other words, he is always arguing from a single point of view.

Tisthammerw's objections to content or their supporting sources have been repeatedly found to be baseless and partisan by credible long term contributors to the articles tisthammerw frequents.

Tisthammerw's method has been to 1) Pose rhetorical questions that are little more than his position stated as fact; 2) tie up and wear-down regular contributors with incessant objections and quibbles over verifiable facts; and 3) overinterpret responses to put the worst possible interpretation upon them. When evidence in the form of sources is provided pointing out to tisthammerw that he is mistaken or unduly partisan, he invariably dismisses such evidence

When tisthammerw's objections fail to find consensus he has in the past resorted to misusing WP:DR by filing multiple baseless RFCs and RFMs seeking to force the issue, and more recently, taunts and trolling. To date he has filed 7 RFCs on 3 issues on 2 topics, and derailed 1 WP:MEDCAB by failing to mediate, instead offering his opinion.

Articles he has disrupted include Intelligent design, Sternberg peer review controversy, Discovery Institute, Center for Science and Culture]], Second law of thermodynamics, Irreducible complexity, Natasha Demkina, Creation-evolution controversy, and Ontological argument.

Though he makes a pretense about appearing reasonable, Tisthammerw intentionally misrepresents facts, history and others. In the course of his incessant objections it has been shown time and again that he is either mistaken or being tendentious, yet it is not until he is pushed into a corner that he will begin countenance that he may be wrong, and even then any half-hearted admission is always accompanied some excuse or misdirection. Through these actions, and by repeatedly resurrecting previously rejected objections and proposals and interjecting them into other discussions while misrepresenting both facts and the views of others, Tisthammerw intentionally impedes any progress on other issues at the talk pages of the articles he focuses on.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

[edit] Partisan objections, tendentious arguments and disruption

  1. [1] 12:51, 25 October 2006 Acting as if no sources exist supporting content when he is well aware of ample sources in the sub-article, Sternberg peer review controversy, where he is also active.
  2. [2] 11:47, 25 October 2006 The sources tisthammerw calls for, expresses doubt about are present in the Sternberg peer review controversy article which he already is aware of since he was just there objecting to them minutes earlier:[3]
  3. [4] 10:31, 25 October 2006 Dismissing evidence, posing rhetorical questions that are little more than his position stated as fact and overinterpreting responses to put the worst possible interpretation upon them
  4. [5] 13:38, 24 October 2006 Overinterpreting responses to put the worst possible interpretation upon them, selective presentation of facts.
  5. [6] 07:53, 25 October 2006 Specious, partisan objections to well supported content, misrepresenting the nature of the source
  6. [7] 11:30, 25 October 2006 Again, specious partisan arguments and misrepresents facts, history and others
  7. [8] 08:43, 25 October 2006 Partisan, specious arguments, misrepresents facts, history and others, lack of knowledge on the subject matter being discussed.
  8. [9] 12:51, 24 October 2006 Dissembling: the Discovery Institute is the prominent ID organization, not just "a very prominent ID organization." DI has been seeking to make this same point to create the impression of more support than there actually is for ID.
  9. [10] 21:52, 20 October 2006 Calling for a source that is already present in the article, had he bothered to read it. Displaying either a lack of basic knowledge on the subject or a partisan ignoring of facts and evidence in the hope of making his sought after changes
  10. [11] 20:55, 20 October 2006 Misrepresenting self, denying his past documented errors, ignoring calls to drop the issue
  11. [12] 20:39, 20 October 2006 Presenting a thoroughly partisan description of ID arguments as fact, promoting the standard Discovery Institute line
  12. [13] 20:28, 20 October 2006 Ignoring calls to drop the issue, personalizing the debate, misrepresenting his history, denying his past documented errors
  13. [14] 12:52, 20 October 2006 Misrepresenting his history, denying his past documented errors
  14. [15] 11:56, 20 October 2006 Ignoring calls to drop the issue, personalizing the debate.
  15. [16] 11:20, 20 October 2006 Dismissing, ignoring the description of peer review found in Peer review, instead arguing for a looser, far less comprehensive and detailed dictionary definition that would unduly favor the claims made by the Discovery Institute and ID advocates. Personalizing his difficulties at the article.
  16. [17] 10:42, 20 October 2006 Promoting the Discovery Institute's claim about peer review while dismissing or discounting all evidence
  17. [18] 09:39, 18 October 2006 Dismissing evidence, including a recent court ruling, making strictly partisan arguments
  18. [19] 10:12, 14 October 2006 Trying to trying to de-link ID proponents from the Discovery Institute, tisthammerw cites a dictionary definition for the wrong word - affilate, not affilated and then went on to argue this point for 4 days [20] [21] before accepting the fact that he was relying upon the wrong definition. But he still tries make the argued for change even though he's wrong. [22]
  19. [23] 14:18, 13 October 2006 Dissembling, trying to discount evidence that links leading ID proponents to the Discovery Institute
  20. [24] 11:24, 13 October 2006 Dissembling, trying to discount evidence that links leading ID proponents to the Discovery Institute

2005 Evidence showing an ongoing, long-standing pattern

  1. [25] 23:37, 7 November 2005
  2. [26] 14:37, 8 November 2005
  3. [27] 14:50, 11 November 2005
  4. [28] 18:28, 11 November 2005
  5. [29] 23:25, 11 November 2005
  6. [30] 00:05, 12 November 2005
  7. [31] 22:32, 13 November 2005
  8. [32] 12:54, 14 November 2005
  9. [33] 16:46, 14 November 2005
  10. [34] 11:40, 16 November 2005 Raising the same issues again
  11. [35] 18:07, 16 November 2005
  • as both 70.94.232.22 (talk • contribs) and Tisthammerw, Ignoring consensus, disruptively resurrecting a variation of the same issues in a broad, rambling objection
  1. [36] 14:27, 17 November 2005 Raising specious objection, implying well-supported content is original research
  2. [37] 11:50, 18 November 2005 Dismissing/ignoring consensus, continuing the debate and making false accusations of original research
  3. [38] 11:58, 18 November 2005 Moving the target, deflecting attention away from the deficiencies in his objections
  4. [39] 16:25, 18 November 2005 Ignoring/rejecting evidence
  5. [40] 17:21, 18 November 2005 Ignoring/rejecting evidence
  6. [41] 17:27, 18 November 2005 Ignoring/misrepresenting evidence
  7. [42] 20:13, 18 November 2005 Misrepresenting the issues, personalizing the debate and content; in other words, protraying it as Feloniousmonk's issue and Feloniousmonk's content
  8. [43] 10:14, 19 November 2005 Ignoring/dismissing consensus, misrepresenting the issues
  9. [44] 11:47, 19 November 2005 Ignoring/dismissing consensus, misrepresenting the issues
  10. [45] 12:02, 19 November 2005 Ignoring/dismissing consensus, misrepresenting the issues
  11. [46] 12:35, 19 November 2005 Ignoring/dismissing consensus, misrepresenting the issues
  12. [47] 17:12, 20 November 2005 Ignoring/dismissing consensus, misrepresenting the issues, personalizing the debate and content (Posted to an archived discussion)
  13. [48] 17:50, 20 November 2005 Ignoring consensus, personalizing the debate
  14. [49] 18:05, 20 November 2005 Resurrecting his objections once again, despite past consensus
  15. [50] 08:27, 21 November 2005 Dismissing/rejecting evidence, personalizing the debate
  16. [51] 09:51, 21 November 2005 Ignoring call to accept consensus and stop being disruptive
  17. [52] 11:33, 21 November 2005

[edit] Dismissing/rejecting evidence, personalizing the debate

  1. [53] 20:28, 20 October 2006 Ignoring calls to drop the issue, personalizing the debate, misrepresenting his history, denying his past documented errors
  2. [54] 14:32, 2 February 2006 Misrepresenting warnings from admins
  3. [55] 14:40, 8 February 2006 Personalizing the debate, misrepresenting history and that of others
  4. [56] 15:21, 8 February 2006 Reinserting removed personal attack
  5. [57] 15:26, 8 February 2006 Again reinserting removed personal attack for the second time
  6. [58] 15:54, 8 February 2006 Again reinserting removed personal attack for the third time
  7. [59] 16:23, 8 February 2006 Personal attack in heading for a section asking him to cease personal attacks

2005 Evidence showing an ongoing, long-standing pattern

  1. [60] 12:48, 22 November 2005 Dismissing warning about ignoring consensus
  2. [61] 13:00, 22 November 2005 Dismissing warning about ignoring consensus
  3. [62] 13:08, 22 November 2005 Dismissing/ignoring consensus, Dismissing/ignoring evidence, personalizing the debate
  4. [63] 13:39, 22 November Dismissing/ignoring consensus
  5. [64] 19:45, 28 November 2005 Raising the issues once again, despite longstanding consensus
  6. [65] 21:09, 28 November 2005 Raising the issues once again, dismissing/ignoring consensus, personalizing the debate
  7. [66] 12:56, 30 November 2005 Dismissing/ignoring consensus, personalizing the debate
  8. [67] 17:44, 30 November 2005 Rejecting compromise that met all of his objections, reframing the same objections and starting his objection afresh

[edit] Abuse of WP:DR

  1. [68] 15:23, 21 November 2005 Baseless MedCab request after ignoring evidence and consensus that he was wrong
  2. [69] 14:43, 30 November 2005 Baseless content RFC for issue above, ignoring even more evidence and consensus that he was mistaken in his objections
  3. [70] 19:28, 7 December 2005 Another baseless MedCab request, again ignoring evidence and consensus
  4. [71] 19:30, 19 December 2005 Another baseless content RFC
  5. [72] 14:38, 27 December 2005 Restoring baseless RFC
  6. [73] 16:10, 10 January 2006 Another shaky RFC
  7. [74] 12:19, 31 January 2006 A groundless RFM after dismissing all evidence presented
  8. [75] 12:38, 6 February 2006 Tendentious argument insisting on continuing dispute, dismissing evidence provided that it is baseless and partisan
  9. And so on... there are dozens of other examples. Anyone really intersted can see them here: [76]

[edit] Reliable sources

  1. [77] Inserting links to his own personal website of personal original research (as 128.101.39.23 (talk • contribs)
  2. [78] Inserting links to his own personal website of personal original research :#[79] Inserting links to his own personal website of personal original research

[edit] Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. WP:NPOV
  2. WP:NPA
  3. WP:POINT
  4. WP:CON
  5. WP:NOR

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. [80] 22:48, 13 November 2005 Warning about accepting consensus
  2. [81] Attempt to give a fair airing
  3. [82] 18:29, 20 November 2005 2nd warning against being disruptive
  4. [83] 12:53, 21 November 2005 3rd warning against being disruptive (mistakenly titled as 2nd warning on the page)
  5. [84] 14:16, 21 November 2005 Caution about misrepresenting the issue and proper dispute resolution process
  6. [85] 15:29, 21 November 2005 Caution about ignoring consensus and avoiding misuse of the dispute resolution process
  7. [86] 01:43, 22 November 2005 Caution about ignoring consensus
  8. [87] 15:15, 22 November 2005 Suggestion to drop it and move on
  9. [88] 12:27, 30 November 2005 Suggestion to accept consensus and move on
  10. [89] 11:58, 31 January 2006

Suggestion to abide by WP:CON from FeloniousMonk

  1. [90] 15:41, 8 February 2006 Suggestion to de-escalate by not engaging in personal attacks from Jim62sch
  2. [91] 16:12, 8 February 2006

Ec5618

  1. [92] 16:32, 8 February 2006

Plea to move on from Ec5618

  1. [93] 11:27, 20 October 2006 FM asking tisthammerw to drop it and move along
  2. [94] 15:43, 20 October 2006 FM asking tisthammerw to stop wasting everyone's time
  3. [95] 09:18, 25 October 2006 Mr Christopher asking tisthammerw to cease badgering FM

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

[edit] Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

[edit] Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 10:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 06:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.


[edit] Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

[edit] Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/i/l/User_talk%7EKillerChihuahua_Sandbox_b5d1.html"