Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Raspor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Intended outcome? 2 interesting raspors quotes 3 Am I allowed to comment on this page? 4 Educating raspor 5 Procedure question 6 are personal attacks allowed on this page? 7 all you need is love 8 Orangemelon's reply 9 I have better things to do with my time. 10 Moved posts 11 Rehabilitation of raspor 12 Rehabilitation of fill 13 CyberAnth's outside view 13.1 Outside view by Geo.plrd 14 Raspors lack of understanding of the subject matter and outsiders views

[edit] Intended outcome?

Exactly what is the purpose of this RfC? What is the desired outcome? I seriously doubt that it will result in a change of behavior, expecially if raspor never sees the RfC, or chooses to ignore it. -Amatulic 02:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

What is amazing is that I think his lack of civility has scared off individuals who might actually provide reasoned discussion of ID. I may not agree with it, but at least it could be discussed logically. Orangemarlin 19:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This RFC may not change his approach but as far as administrative action goes it's a first step. Raspor will either get his act together or be banned from editing intelligent design. Mr Christopher 21:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

...which would only support his conspiracy theory. Where's the value in that?

Yesterday, after some cajoling from me, he agreed to propose specific sentences on the talk page to rewrite rather than engage in edit warring. He did. That was a good first step. I proposed a slight change, with the intent of evolving his proposal, one small thing at a time, into something he could agree with that doesn't conflict with the focus of the article. That is how the process should work. I was disappointed that FeloniusMonk then came along and spoiled the process rather than going along with it.

My point is, Raspor came in here all blustery and we responded similarly, which was not constructive. I think I have demonstrated that he is willing to engage in constructive discussion about specific revision proposals rather than engage in general ranting. I think the regular editors of the article (including myself, who is not a regular) are partly at fault for not treating him respectfully. We should have demanded specific proposals at the outset rather than argue. -Amatulic 21:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I see...Raspor's behaviour is Felonious Monk's fault, or perhaps our collective fault. Thanks for clearing that up, Amatulic. For a minute there I was thinking raspor is responsible for his own behaviour.

Count me out on treating raspor any different than I would treat anyone else. And who cares about his conspiracy theory? He will be banned from the article if he continues, that is not a conspiracy, it's policy. I have never in my life here at Wiki seen somone as out of control as raspor and I have seen some doozies. Go back and read the early notes on the talk page, he was asked for specific ideas and he was given links. And I choose not to assume responsibity for his actions but you are free to blame yourself. Mr Christopher 21:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoa there Amatulic. No one treated him unfairly or anything. His initial comments were rude and belligerent, and almost everyone gave him advice to chill out and to be civil. Several of us asked numerous times, "what would you like to add." Instead, he kept reverting the main article. Blaming us for his behavior? Sorry, but I believe everyone should take responsibility for their own actions. Orangemarlin 22:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome, Mr Christopher. Anytime. :)

Of course he's responsible for his own behavior. And we should take responsibility for ours. I have dealt with unstable types before. Recognizing that in someone, one can adapt the engagement. I think, in some small way yesterday, I demonstrated that it's possible to engage him constructively, talking about specific sentences for proposed changing, rather than setting him off on a rant. Amatulic 22:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a psychiatrist nor do I play one on either Wikipedia or on TV. That being said, he's wasted our time, and he needs to move along in the world. I appreciate your concern for his behavior, but if you were able to get him to engage constructively, that's fine, but he's worn out his welcome. Besides, just read some of his responses when we reached out. I think the time has passed for the touchy-feely psychology that you've espoused. Not your problem, to be certain, only his. Orangemarlin 22:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

We have a guideline for dealing with disruptive editors: WP:DE. There it describes what constitutes disruptive editing, why it's not acceptable, and provides methods for dealing with cranks, kooks & partisans. It refers to "obvious cranks and aggressively disruptive editors", both of which are apt here. Apart from being a nuisance, these same editors also destabilise perfectly fine articles. Number five of Raul654's laws of Wikipedia (User:Raul654/Raul's laws) is that articles with a strong consensus base are crashed into by agenda-pushers. While the disruption takes place, and the new contributors are taught the importance of NPOV, original research and verifiability, the articles look like a shambles and often remain pockmarked by the attempts to accomodate fringe views. Unfortunately, Raspor is utterly resistant to learning, or at least abiding by, our policies. And you can't claim that Raspor hasn't been given every opportunity to settle down and contribute quietly, it's just that he's squandered every one. FeloniousMonk 22:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Raspor has gotten far better than he's given (or deserved) here. Anyone who can't even be bothered to respond to his own user conduct RFC but instead chose to continue with trollish personal attacks and to continue to crankishly disrupt the very Talk page that earned him the RFC is totally refractory; likely irredeemably so. Luckily the community provides methods for dealing with trolls, cranks and partisans. It is Raspor who has chosen to continue as he has, ignoring and dismissing advice from all quarters. We're here to write an encyclopedia, and there's a limit to how much disruption the community is required to accept before saying 'Enough!' . FeloniousMonk 22:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that raspor has yet to demonstrate an even causual understanding of intelligent design. I don't know how to put it and I don't want to seem rude but he just doesn't get it and seems to think articles are all about original research and "logic". His behaviour also suggests he has not even glanced at any Wiki any policies. Amatulic, there is nothing stopping you from using raspor's talk page as a place where you can tutor him. You said you and he had developed some sort of chemistry (until felonious monk came along and destroyed it according to you) so how about you use his talk page and tutor the guy? Mr Christopher 22:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

All very good points, guys. Raspor merely agreed to propose specific sentence changes and discuss them. Sure, I could do that on his talk page, but such an exercise is futile without the participation of other editors here, because we'd be determining the article's content in a vacuum. Nobody would agree to changes developed that way. -Amatulic 23:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Amatulic, you will be delighted to note that raspor has now chosen to comment here. His claims of excellent knowledge show a remarkable inability to grasp the essentials of WP:NOR, which I drew to his attention along with other policies on 29 December. His protestations that he "didnt get any help" ignore repeated attempts to politely advise him on how to achieve his aims. It is of course entirely possible that he is genuinely unable to understand policies or science. However, it crosses my mind that if he is trolling he is doing so very successfully, and causing a remarkable amount of disruption. .. dave souza, talk 00:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] interesting raspors quotes

This quote I found interesting when I read it. All of the sudden, out of the blue, raspor's english became perfect and he was quite lucid.

I guess one thing I am uncomfortable with is the ethnocentrism of the article. For instance Adnan Oktar has been a proponent of ID for a similar length of time as the Amercian counterparts. He is a proponent in Turkey and in Arabic countries. As you know concepts arise many times simultaneous in different areas. The bias I see in this article is implying that ID is an Amercan Right Wing Christian created concept. It simply is not. There does seem to be a bias againt the Arabic cultures in American elete intellectualism. For instance the 'Dark Ages'. There is little mention as to how much scientific development was going on in the Arabic countries at that time. If one would compare the number of Arabic 'proponents' of ID to the American I really think the numbers would be comparable. But the article seems to imply it is an Amercian phenomenon. Also in France there is an ID 'movement' And the term 'movement' is loaded. I did not seem mention of the evolution 'movement' or the Darwinist 'movement' in those articles. There was not even a criticism section in the Darwinist section.

OK at least at bottom line can we mention the Arabic ID 'movement' in the article to give it more balance?

raspor 17:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[1]

Then note his comments on Dave Souza's talk page

thanks dave for your comments. somehow you must have gotten aware of the concerns i have with the intelligent design article. as i said there it seems biased. esp the phrase that 'all ID proponents are affiliates of the Discovery Institute' seems to imply that ID is a concoction of the DI and has no merit on its own. I really think for wiki's credibilty the article should be more balanced. I personally found ID to be a viable concept before I even knew who the DI was. I really feel using the word 'all' here is in error. As you know there are very few situtations where it is safe to use it to describe anything. Most scholars will use most, nearly all, to our knowledge etc. And there is a cateogorization error which there is no way to get 'a reliable source' for since it is an internal logic error. And it is not possible to get a 'reliable source' to show that an article has a condemning tone. this is what i see here. I think wiki should try to error on the side of neutrality above all. this should be the deciding factor in differences of opinion on articles. the prime directive. even the appearance of bias should be fervently avoided. certainly is possible to make this article have a more balanced tone without change its content

raspor 20:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[2]

I'm not sure what to make of it other than he seems quite skilled at speaking perfect english when he wants to, and then he does a very nice what I would call Borat impersonation right afterwards. Please compare the above raspor quotes to others you have read and tell me does this seem odd to anyone else? Mr Christopher 01:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Borat is funny. Raspor is not. Orangemarlin 07:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That depends on your perspective. For instance, I bet raspor's sides are going to hurt for weeks from all the laughing he has been doing since he showed up here. Mr Christopher 13:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

should this all be on this page. it does not seem right to me.

sometimes when someone is lot smarter than you the things they say seem confusing. sometimes i dont know how far down to bring the level of converstaion here so people like yourself can understand what i am getting at. yes i probably go too fast. and sometimes my concepts are too subtle for many. i will try to go more slowly in the future

raspor 01:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is: There might be several different people using the raspor account.--Filll 18:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Am I allowed to comment on this page?

raspor 23:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. Erm, might I suggest that you try to make you comments in a more compact way. You have tended to use blank lines to space your paragraphs, and to add section titles to virtually every comment you have left.

Please, consider formatting your posts as I do, using a colon to start a new paragraph and adding new sections only sparingly.

All in all, feel free to comment. Compactly, if possible. Thanks. -- Ec5618 23:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeed you are Mr Christopher 23:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Educating raspor

At Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Raspor#Raspor's comments an (out of place) query by Ec5618 resulted in a brief discussion and raspor requesting "go to my personal page. and i will answer there". The extensive discussion at User talk:Raspor#astrology is not science??? why?? appears to be an exercise in frustration. It is my understanding that individual tuition is generally out of place at Wikipedia, and in my opinion the response given at User talk:Candorwien#whale fossils? was much more appropriate. However it did not prevent further requests at User talk:Candorwien#Remingtonocetidae: very cute pics. where did they get those wonderful snapshots of those creatures? and User talk:Candorwien#you claimed there was a plethora of intermediary whale fossils. i have search for hours and never have seen them. i you have the info share it with the world thanks. These examples suggest that raspor is beyond education, though of course the behaviour is what might be expected from an ingenious troll intent on disruption. .. dave souza, talk 09:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

oh really. well let me ask you this: is astrology falsifiable?

I have noticed that overall the editors here do not have a good understanding of science.

And where are the plethora of whale transistional fossils? hmmm

raspor 13:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking at some of Raspor's edit, I don't think that he is a troll. He does have some views not widely shared on this project, and he doesn't know how to make them heard in a neutral fashion. I'd be glad to volunteer to help him understand some of these things: I think that some of his confrontive messages have been appropriate, and that he may not have a complete understanding of many of the rules, etc. here. --HassourZain 21:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Procedure question

It's possible that I missed it somewhere, but this is the first time I've ever participated in one of these things. What's the difference between a user who certifies this process and one that endorses it? Thanks. Orangemarlin 16:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] are personal attacks allowed on this page?

some deleted something i said becuz they said it was a personal attack . but obviously i do not have the same rights as the darwinists —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Raspor (talk • contribs) 17:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I promised myself that I'd never respond to you, because you refuse to play along. Let's review what you just did here? We asked you to quit creating section titles to ask a question. You still do it. We asked you to use indents. You don't. We asked you to sign your posts. Sometimes you do, sometimes you don't. I'm not even going into your insulting lack of spelling skills. "Becuz"? What's that? But where is the personal attack? You are a troll, and we are presenting evidence to your behavior. You have been disruptive, and we're presenting further evidence. Do you expect that we're going to say "You're such a nice guy, and we dislike your POV, so we're mean to you." No, we're pointing out what you have done, we have made many suggestions on how to be a better person on here, and in each case, you ignore us. So, I don't read anything on here is a personal attack, other than pointing out how personally offensive you have been, how disrespectful you have been to fellow editors and to Wikipedia, and how everyone has extended an olive branch with suggestions on how to be a better editor. You are blind to what you are, and it is getting boring to read your disrespectful commentary. Orangemarlin 17:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

if you think i am a troll then why do you 'feed' me. i feel that you are very offensive also. and you are blind to what you are. i just understand things better than you do. please do not responde to me anymore. its a waste of bandwidth

this is just the way you get rid of your oppostition instead of trying to be inclusive.

raspor 18:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Raspor, I do wish you would realize that inanities and insults, and trying to distract users from the point will never allow you to get your way. --HassourZain 18:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

well i was the one that was mistreated when i first got here becuz i wanted a fair article. yes i know this will never happen here. this is mob rule

raspor 19:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

If by "mob rule" you mean "not allowing single users to have the run of an article, when consensus is clearly against what they are trying to do", then that's correct. Wikipedia is about consensus. --HassourZain 19:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

no mob rule is when the minority opinion gets absolutely no mention and is censored

raspor 20:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The general rule regarding personal attacks is "play the ball, not the man". A user conduct RFC, on the other hand, focuses on the user's conduct, not her/his ideas. The rules obviously work a little differently in an RFC than in the Main space. Guettarda 20:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Like I said on the subpage of the talk page on intelligent design- Raspor, I understand that this is probably a perplexing process and that you are not as experienced as many of the users here that are taking a position different to your own. Their problem is not with you speaking up and being heard, their problem is the fact that the way you are making yourself heard in articles surrounding Intelligent Design does not conform to the neutral point of view policy. I'm more than willing to help you make your points in a neutral manner on the article, it's just that you have been very confrontive to some other users, which makes the editing process here at Wikipedia very difficult to work in. If there'a any way that I can help you, please shoot me a message on my talk page and we'll talk more about this there. --HassourZain 21:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] all you need is love

raspor is now disrupting the Discovery Institute talk page. I am going to ask Filll, Amatulic, HassourZain and any others who feel raspor is just in need of a little love and understanding to please step up their rehabilitation efforts. So far your efforts have failed. Perhaps you might try a new approach? Thank you! Mr Christopher 00:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, someone could just ban him, so that he can find the time to learn some science basics, humility and decorum. -- Ec5618 00:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that will come in time, but for now I was hoping Filll, Amatulic, HassourZain could show raspor some additional understanding and nurturing in the hopes that might cure him. They seem to feel that is the best approach. Mr Christopher 00:05, 5

I have some concerns that an approach like the one described above might not be getting through to him. He has listened (sort of) to my advice about indenting when talking to other users, but that's about the extent of it- he has not shown an interest about learning basic Wikipedia neutrality policies or other standards vital to smooth operation at this project. Unless he begins to show this, I think all effort to this end may be wasted- all the effort in the world would be a waste if he continues making tendentious, hostile edits to talk pages and failing to understand consensus. He appears to mistake proportional representation of an idea that has very little standing in the research community for elbowing-out of other viewpoints. The fact is, the viewpoints are there, but they are widely considered to be without merit, and the article must reflect that, lest it violate the principle of undue weight. --HassourZain 15:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

hassour, i think you one of the few who are sincerely trying to make this an objective article. now tell me where i did this "continues making tendentious, hostile edits to talk pages" just show me an example. if you want i will just make comments on my own talk page. i did follow your instructions about the colons. i will follow YOUR suggestions. i sense sincertiy in you which i dont from many of the others raspor 15:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, specifically what I meant is edits like this one- your tone was hostile, you dismissed the opinions of other editors out of hand, even while calling them "fools". Because of the nature of Wikipedia and the fact that editing disputes can sometimes become heated, it is all the more important that editors be civil and not insult one another. Remember that any valid point you want to bring up can be brought up without speaking poorly of another user. The reason the editors opened this Request for Comment against you is because you didn't understand or know about these policies in the past. As long as you keep your debate civil and don't go out of your way to talk badly about editors, you should be fine here. --HassourZain 15:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

And thank you for listening about the indentation. I know there's a whole lot to learn at Wikipedia, and you just have to come along one step at a time. You've had a rocky start, but as long as you familiarize yourself with the standards and policies here, there shouldn't be a reason for anyone to take issue. --HassourZain 15:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Responding to Mr Christopher: Was that sarcasm, or should I continue to assume good faith? :)

I do what I can, but my day job and family don't permit me to devote full attention to this project. (I can't shake the feeling - correct or not - that the participants here are much younger than myself, perhaps no older than college age, and have a lot more time on their hands.)

I have treated Raspor respectfully on his talk page and he has demonstrated that he can be civil. I don't think that Raspor bears all of the blame for the current situation. Others who added Outside view comments seem to agree. -Amatulic 21:06, 5 January 2007(UTC)

49. CEO of a Medical Products Company. I tell people what to do all day long, so I get to sit here and goof off whenever I want :) As for Raspor, I am tough but I attempted to be respectful of him. I think many others have. I don't know who you are, but I haven't seen you about much in the Evolution and related discussions. Here's what happens. A troll comes in. Throws about garbage. Leaves a stinking mess. Several people who have invested time in the effort clean it up. Patience is limited. Here's what happened with Raspor. He comes in. Throws about a LOT of garbage (let's not forget he called everyone names, called us a mob, etc.). Many of us (see the project page and you can note it better than I can) how many attempts there were to ask him to calm down. If you look on his talk page, a "Christian" came on there and told him that his activities were a disservice to their religion and ideals. Philip Rayment left a comment essentially blaming all of us, because, frankly, he thinks we're a bunch of morons for not thinking that his Creationist philosophy is the right one. I'm sure he thinks we've mistreated him, even though I consider him one of the logical anti-Evolution types (not meaning I think he's anywhere close to being correct, but that's life). I'm one who believes in responsibility. Our responsibility is not to have positive conversations with every troll that walks into the discussions. Whether Raspor is a troll or not will be proven out, I guess, but he came into the discussions with a chip on his shoulder at the very least. When I see an act of contrition, apologies, and better behavior, then I'm willing to forgive (never forget). Otherwise, I don't presume a person is cured until I see the prescriptions, analysis, and a signed order from the shrink. He continues to exhibit reprehensible behavior, and he should be taken to task. Orangemarlin 21:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

HassourZain, I fear that your assessment of 15:13, 5 January 2007, is accurate. The discussion on raspor's talk page today looked increasingly civil, and I made the effort to give considered advice which I hoped would address raspor's concerns here. The quick response from raspor indicates that no effort had been made to look at the explanation at Claim CC401. My response here indicates that in my opinion he's effectively trolling, whether deliberately or not it's impossible to say. By the way, I'm 59.. dave souza, talk 21:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

In my case, 45, project manager at a large defense contractor. I monitor the article's talk page but don't post to it often, and I posted a response to Raspor the same day he showed up. On and off, I've had heavy involvement in evolution related discussions for almost 2 decades (mostly on talk.origins); I know both the science and the creationist tactics. I'm familiar with Raspor's story here. I actually agree with him on a couple of points regarding what the article should cover but doesn't, and was amazed that the regular contributors failed to get that message through Raspor's fog of inappropriate behavior. I agree such behavior should be censured. -Amatulic 21:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

That has been my point with this young man more than anything else. His disrespect of Wikipedia rules and of the editors wrecked his ability to make a point. I still don't agree with anything he wrote, but I I haven't read anything from the fundamentalist aspect on Evolution that made sense. Orangemarlin 22:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Neither have I. My small area of agreement with him concerns only the content of the lead paragraph in the article. I have no problem with the lead mentioning briefly that the concept of Intelligent Design pre-dates the Discovery Institute, which has now co-opted the term. The whole article is about the DI version of ID, and the lead doesn't make that point clear. Also, it wouldn't hurt to mention the teleological argument in the lead. And if any valid rebuttals to criticism of ID exist (I haven't seen any myself, though), then a section covering those rebuttals would be nice to include.

Those are reasonable suggestions. You can find clues in Raspor's rants that he would have been happy with such changes. Unfortunately, Raspor's abusive behavior clouded any constructive purpose he may have had, and got him and everyone else focused on combat. -Amatulic 22:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I took one of Raspor's minor points with which I agreed and put it through the normal process. I don't think he has followed it (he did not support my edit or take part in subsequent discussion and edits) which is a pity. He does not seem to understand that Wikipedia content is kept compliant with our policies - especially WP:NPOV - by the WP:Consensus process. AvB ÷ talk 15:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

HassourZain: ...he has not shown an interest about learning basic Wikipedia neutrality policies...

Are you certain of this? During my recent foray into Talk:Noah's Ark I realised that one cause of friction in these debates is not an attempt to knowingly push a POV, but a difference of opinion about what is POV and what is neutral. Raspor has clearly said that he wants to remove what he sees as a bias in the ID article, not create a bias. The problem appears to be that what he sees as neutral comments, others see as bias, and vice versa. This being the so, it is not the case that he is unwilling to learn policy; it's a disagreement about what conforms to that policy.

...I think all effort to this end may be wasted...if he continues ...[in] failing to understand consensus.

What consensus? The consensus of the ID opponents who outnumber the ID advocates?

He appears to mistake proportional representation of an idea that has very little standing in the research community for elbowing-out of other viewpoints. The fact is, the viewpoints are there, but they are widely considered to be without merit, and the article must reflect that, lest it violate the principle of undue weight.

This is often a point of dispute in these types of articles; it's not something unique to Raspor. There is far too much attempt to refute creationary and ID views, rather than simply describe them in a neutral way, and "majority opinion" (which often switches between "majority opinion", "majority opinion of scientists", and "majority opinion of earth and life scientists" as convenient) is an excuse used to justify this.

OrangeMarlin: I attempted to be respectful of him. I think many others have.

In the same vein as my comments above to HassourZain regarding neutrality, it seems that terms we use of others appear to ourselves to be descriptive, but others see them as pejorative. This was the case on the Noah's Ark talk page with you, OrangeMarlin, who made quite disparaging remarks about my beliefs whilst at the same time accusing me of similar. Even in this very paragraph that I've quoted you from, you claim that I think you are all "a bunch of morons for not thinking that [my] Creationist philosophy is the right one", which I consider to be a (mild compared to some) insult of me, and indicate that Raspor needs psychiatric help.

Philip J. Rayment 01:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I disparaged the fact that you want pseudoscience claimed as facts, that you wanted myth claimed as facts, and that you regularly and consistently lectured me on my apparent lack of understand of NPOV and POV. Sure, I must have treated you like crap. Of course, you took what I just wrote out of context (and I'll refrain from a pejorative statement therein), so here's the rest of what I wrote: "I'm sure he thinks we've mistreated him, even though I consider him one of the logical anti-Evolution types (not meaning I think he's anywhere close to being correct, but that's life)." I do think you think we're morons, atheists, or whatever else. But if you want to file a complaint about me, please do, I'm willing to defend myself. But staying on topic here, I don't think Raspor needs psychiatric help, you once again, taking my comments out of context, miss the point that I don't think that others can make a determination of his ability to get along with everyone else. My point was, he's a long way from being a nice boy, and I didn't like what was written that somehow he saw the light and was miraculously cured of his evil self. Orangemarlin 01:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I disparaged the fact that you want pseudoscience claimed as facts, that you wanted myth claimed as facts...

That's your interpretation; I disagree that creation/ID is pseudoscience or myth, and I don't expect either presented as fact, as I have explained before.

Of course, you took what I just wrote out of context...

It's true that you also paid me a compliment, but note that word "also". In the same paragraph where you complimented me, you also made a (mildly) insulting claim about me. I was not trying to suggest that you think I'm all bad; I was merely illustrating how readily people insult others, possibly without realising that they are doing so.

I don't think Raspor needs psychiatric help, you once again, taking my comments out of context..

Perhaps, but again, my point was to highlight how readily comments we make can be construed as insults. Like in this post that I'm responding to where you refer to Raspor as "evil". How is he supposed to take that? I grant that some of your comments here may not be intended as insults, but I would argue that the same applies to some of his comments that people have taken offence to.

Philip J. Rayment 03:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orangemelon's reply

Just to be clear, I never said and do not believe that Raspor has been 'miraculously cured'. In fact, I stated that I still believe he should be censured.-Psychohistorian 20:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Apparently you missed the point that I "'endorse'" your view, that I wasn't speaking of you, I was speaking of User:HassourZain and User:Philip J. Rayment, both of whom think he's been abused or something, and that I thought your issues were completely and utterly valid. But thanks for misunderstanding what I wrote, then being rude back. It's user:Orangemarlin in case you forgot who I was. Orangemarlin 20:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Getting your name wrong was a simple mistake for which I now apologize. I'm sorry about that.-Psychohistorian 01:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I have better things to do with my time.

All the extreme anti-IDers think i am guilty. i reverted a revision. it was my first time. i didnt even know what i did was considered reverting

this is just a game where any tactic will be used to squish the pro-ID view.

have fun kids.

i have a life

raspor 15:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moved posts

the following have been moved from the project page (Outside view by Geo.plrd) to here. Please read the instructions under Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Raspor#Discussion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: You seem to be glossing over nearly all the evidence presented here in favor of shooting down only the 2 objections of when Raspor's edited the article. That's called a straw man argument where I come from. FeloniousMonk 05:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• For starters, Raspor is probably some clueless noob. If so, that would bring up WP:BITE. Oh and where i come from, inserting properly cited material is not vandalism. i say that users are trying to garner support for their ideal, because if Raspor was what is alleged, he/she'd already be blocked for vandalism and trolling. Geo. 06:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• • If someone wants to characterize ignoring weeks of consensus as vandalism, I'm not going to quibble. FeloniousMonk 07:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Well, I didn't know that this RfC was to discuss the merits of the ID and Creation mythology. Since it isn't, let's discuss the preponderance of evidence of his misbehavior and other activities. Reverting edits was the most minor of his transgressions. His behavior, disrespect of Wikipedia rules and editors, and multiple reversions were significantly more problematic than his pushing a discredited POV. Orangemarlin 06:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Why hasn't he/she been blocked then, if there is a preponderance of evidence? Filing a RfC is not necessary to block someone. Geo. 06:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Why? Because doing so is called for in WP:DR and WP:DE. Would you prefer we'd sought a community block instead? We long term contributors to the ID article chose to file RFCs to give editors like Raspor every opportunity to learn from their mistakes. This is consistent with the spirit of [WP:BITE]]. Following WP:DR and DE by providing for community input also denies the victim bullies their opportunity to cry "abuse of admin powers" by "rogue" admins. Raspor presented us no shortage of justifications for a community block, as the evidence above shows. FeloniousMonk 07:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe that if you have the evidence to block him, block him. Looking at his behavior, he ain't going to change. Don't put on a dog and pony show, which coincidentally will give credence to the Anti ID POV. Geo. 07:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

And you just accused all of us of being "grandstanders" on Raspor's user page. Thanks. I'm really happy to see your support. Orangemarlin 07:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Please note the page title. This is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Raspor. Comment on Raspor's behavior and actions, not on the others who brought this before the community. If you believe some of the people here are violating WP:POINT, WP:BITE, or other policies and guidelines, open a separate Rfc on them - and if you believe Raspor has not violated the policies and guidelines listed above, simply say so, without indulging in ad hom attacks on others, or indulging in misdirects and logical errors such as questioning why a community block has not been sought prior to, or instead of, this attempt at dispute resolution - which is such a bizarre notion I question whether you understand how Wikipedia works at all. For your information, community block is for those who have exhausted the patience of the community - which the posters of this Rfc clearly feel has not been reached. If you do not understand what Rfc is, then do not participate. I have placed this comment on the project page not the talk page, although that is incorrect, so it will be with the inappropirate derailing of the Rfc which prompted me to post this. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not a matter of Raspor's position on the issues. It is that he causes turmoil on the page and is reluctant to produce anything useful. There are others who share his philosophical position, and they have learned and are being cooperative. Raspor does not seem to be able to do this, at least so far.--Filll 15:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

and you have been spamming my talk page! STOP IT!! raspor 15:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• END of posts moved from Outside view by Geo.plrd

• Moved from Outside view by Psychohistorian:

jeez you act like a made a million changes. i think i made 2 and both were reverted. i contacted the cabal. i asked for a mentor. jeez. and psycho, how can yours be an outside view when you are in the middle of this??????????????wow, i am beginning to think there is too much pathology here raspor

This why I think a couple of you who keep trying to convince the rest of us that you have miraculously cured Raspor of his belligerent attitude need to look once again. Look at this statement. Insulting. He doesn't use the proper method to signing his post. There has been no reform. There has been no change in attitude. Orangemarlin 20:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

My impression of raspor is not totally positive. He seems unwilling to learn or to be cooperative. I tried to instruct him numerous times about what he had to do to make progress, but he did not seem to be able to absorb it and function in a more reasonable fashion. I do not mind someone disagreeing with me, but belligerence is not helpful for writing an article. I would note that there are several ID supporters and creationists that I have no problem working with. Unfortunately raspor is not one of them. His constant abuse of other editors and efforts to be difficult impede the writing of the article. He often makes off-topic comments or personal attacks. He tries to distract the editors from constructive activites. He does not seem to be able to learn what scientific or WP standards are. I am not optimistic he will be able to do so in the future.--Filll 21:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I am less and less convinced by Raspor's ability to be rational and to compromise. He seems belligerent. He wants to pick fights. A prime example is his rejection of all operational definitions and dictionary definitions of the term "supernatural" and to use this as a basis for personal taunts and jeers. There is a lot of this, but for example, [3][4] --Filll 17:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

you never gave me an operational def cuz you dont know what it is raspor 17:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• End of moved discussion

[edit] Rehabilitation of raspor

I have tried to engage him in productive discussions, but he has just been attacking frantically. For example, when we were discussing why the supernatural cannot be part of science, he refused to give his own definition of the supernatural, rejected dictionary definitions of the supernatural and my own operational definition. He continued to jeer and then engage in personal slurs and snide remarks. Some creationists and ID supporters are rational and can be productive contributors. I fear that raspor is not rational and cannot be productive.--Filll 18:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rehabilitation of fill

you never gave an operational def. show it to me. and is the above 'rehabilitation' slam really in the wiki spirit? i thought you were a veteran. raspor 18:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You had your chance. Multiple times. It is done now.--Filll 18:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Raspor, Filll was one of your best adovcates here in the past, and all you done over the 24 hours is attack and troll him. You'd be wise to stop trolling and move along. You've disrupted the project long enough and exhausted the community's patience, and there's a limit to how much disruption the community has to put up with and there are processes for dealing with it. FeloniousMonk 18:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I spoke out in his name saying that he was probably a newbie unfamiliar with process on this talkpage above. After a few days away from Wikipedia it looks as if he has ignored all of my advice as far as civility and user-interaction policy goes, instead going after other users and being as hostile as ever. Any doubts that I had in his favor appear to have been mistaken: he doesn't seem to have any interest at all in becoming a better editor or working together with anybody. Some editors at the topics have been defensive, which probably exacerbated the problem, but in spite of my trying to get Raspor to read and follow important policies like WP:CIV, he went back to posting barbs on his and other pages. I tried for some hours to lay it out in a way he would get, but to no avail, as evidenced by his recent contributions and the opinion of other editors above. --HassourZain 18:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Saying that "some editors at the topics have been defensive, which probably exacerbated the problem", is quite an understatement, in my opinion. Philip J. Rayment 12:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

i am really disappointed in you. look at what fill said about me. so i just have to take insults and never say anything back? thats the way it is? and souza said i did good. he said that i had correctly found a very bad error in the discovery article. seems like you are saying i have to take abuse and if i fight back at all i an wrong. that is bull. these artciles are bob jobs. completely incorrect quotes and uncite and yet that is ok cuz fel---- did them. and fill bitches about 'supernatural' all the time but cant define it. this is bull raspor 19:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Raspor, I had hope that you would listen to my advice and tread very carefully so as not to violate WP:CIV or WP:NPA. Your edits to articlespace don't bother me, I understand you're coming at the issue from a different point of view, but being hostile to other editors who are trying to act in good faith, when I have tried to stress again and again how important it is to try not to insult anyone even if you disagree with them, is something that I have done my best to assume good faith on. Even in just your above comment, you make fun of one established editor's name as an obscenity and accuse another editor of "bitching". Arguing and debating is not just acceptable but encouraged. Insults are not, but I tolerate them up until I can see that tolerating them is wasted effort. --HassourZain 20:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You'll have to point out to me where in that post above he made fun on an editors name, because I've reread it a few times and can't see it. Philip J. Rayment 12:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

hassour, they have been taunting me. they call me ignorant and uneducated, etc, etc, etc, so i shoot back at them. if they would stop i will stop. but they are supposed to be the seasoned veterans. what obscentity did i use?? 'bitching' is an obscenity? they told me i was 'bitching' look at the records. they used that word first. they should lead by a good example not insult me constantly. why dont you tell THEM to stop insulting me? i think you are a good guy but it his hard to be insulted over and over again like they do to me and not fight back raspor 20:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that the only thing that Raspor will listen to and respect, is a ban, either temporary, or if things do not improve, permanent. He does not seem to get the message. Snide comments, insults, name-calling, etc are not helpful to his cause. His style of debate is completely irrational. It is not that I disagree with his positions, but that he is not at all cooperative or reasonable. I have worked previously with other creationists and ID supporters and I have no problem with them. Raspor seems so bent on his cause, at any costs, that it seems to induce him to engage in completely unproductive behaviors.--Filll 20:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

no productive??? i got a bad quote of an article. why dont you try not to insult a while. that might help. now you are calling me irrational. well this irrational person spotted an error that no one else here saw. and these articles are full of errors. raspor 20:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you pretending that you fixed an article? You didn't; your objections were baseless. I reworded the article on my own to make it more focused, not because you were making any valid points, which most here feel you have failed to do. Please do not misrepresent yourself, the situation, or your impact on the project. And please stop trolling talk pages, intentionally misspelling usernames, and causing disruption. Consider this a warning. FeloniousMonk 20:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

you are full of it. i brought up the error and others agreed with me. and now you are taking credit. that is unethical raspor 20:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, the old text suggested that the Wedge document was the source of the quote, which it wasn't. raspor did find something that required fixing. Good on him. -- Ec5618 21:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, he did have a valid point, which was supported by Ec5618, so FeloniousMonk's claim that he didn't is not only wrong, but only serves to enrage Raspor more. But for some reason, it only seems to be Raspor that is criticised. Philip J. Rayment 12:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

(In response to Raspor's last response to my comment)- I agree that some of the other users have been very defensive about your edits. Being uncivil to them because they've been to you, though, is a recipe that only leads to escalation, and escalation does not make for a place to make an encyclopedia. Turning the other cheek, in addition to being good advice in real life, would do wonders here. (Additionally, the obscenity that I referred to was using a corruption of FeloniousMonk's name to refer to a sex act. Like I said, insults are bad medicine. If you don't act hostile to other editors, I think you might make it, but if you continue the way you have above, I am concerned that your disregard for the value of civility might make it too hard for me to support giving you another chance.) --HassourZain 20:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

So you acknowledge that Raspor is being uncivil (sometimes at least) because they have been uncivil to him, yet you are only criticising him and not them! Seems rather one-sided to me. I agree that he should turn the other cheek, but so should the people arguing with him.

I would suggest that it is a presumption on your part that "fel***" is a reference to the name he gave him on one other occasion. You may well be right, but you can't be certain enough to throw that accusation. Also, you claim that this so-called obscenity is what you "referred to", but in the post that you were referring to, he did not use that name. In fact he didn't refer to FeloniousMonk at all by name in that post.

Philip J. Rayment 12:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

'fel---' is hardly a logically abbreviated version of 'FeloniousMonk'. He did use that name. -- Ec5618 12:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

look what fel*** says now. i found that error and he is taking credit. and why dont the atheists turn the other cheek? what obscentiy are you talking about. i am supposed to be civil while being taunted, insulted and now my contribution's credit is being taken away from me? is that the way it is around here. that is thievery. and the lies. you can look thru the records. fill lied to me. and fel***** is stealing my credit. what is felonious sex act? what do you mean? he stole my credit read it above. i have never see such lying and stealing in my life. just look at the records. they should be banned not me. look what they have done to me becuz i want the truth. raspor 20:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

(Returning indent) The sex act reference that I am talking about is referring to FeloniousMonk as "Fellatio" or whatever corruption of it, as you did in the above post. You have been warned about it on more than one occasion and infractions are listed out in the main RFC. I have not seen on more than a few occasions users say things to you that could be construed as insulting, whereas I have seen you plainfacedly insult other users left and right. I don't know what you mean by someone else taking credit for your contribution, either. You have been disruptive and haven't done anything to help (indeed, you've posted comments on your talk page that have made worse) the situation. All that I'm asking is for you to start acting with the respect that you expect other users to give you. If that doesn't happen, I'm afraid it might be in my best interests to forget trying to speak out in your favor here and go to greener pastures. --HassourZain 21:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

no one ever told me not to call him fellatio. i really dont remember that. i havent called him fellatio in a long time. look thru the posts. is there someway to search for the word fellatio. i was just mad cuz he kept insulting me. look thru the records. he took credit for my work. sorry he is a blowhard. he has taunted since the first day i was here to get rid of me. i thought i should fight back since no one was helping me defend against him. i changed one little sentence in good faith and he called me a vandal. well i think being called a vandal is worse than a fellatio. what can i do? no one protected me from him. so i had to fight on my own. and i contributed on that quote in the discovery article and F**** took credit. dont you see what he is doing. he knows i am on to him so he is settting me up. and the 3Rs. i didnt understand that. i have not did it since i understand it. and i have not called him fellatio since you asked me not to civl

raspor 21:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, you are misrepresenting easily verifiable facts. I specifically talked to you about your trollish misuse of my username nearly a week ago... to refresh your memory: [5] [6] [7] FeloniousMonk 21:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

And you used this nickname eight hours ago. You well know that it isn't nice to call people names. -- Ec5618 21:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

From what I read at Talk:Discovery Institute#i just read the wedge document it appeared to me that raspor started that section by stating two points. Accepting the comments on the page without further checking, the first seemed to accurately describe a problem with citing quoted words – that's a point worth raising, and it appears to have helped the article. The second point was nonsense, but unfortunately that was the first thing responded to, and the discussion rapidly went off topic. I'm always happy to give praise for constructive edits, and did so at the same time as trying to get the discussion focussed on improving the article. If my assessment was wrong in any way I apologise. Unfortunately raspor's continuing arguing and point scoring present problems. They divert editors into trying to provide personal tuition or debating issues, which is not what Wikipedia's for, and so disrupt community work. They also damage raspor's reputation. Here, your reputation is what you have to go on. Effectively, raspor has been a very disruptive troll and thus damaged his/her credibility. Given that the definition of trolling involves motives or intentions, I am unable to say whether this is trolling, but it's had the same effect. Although raspor could be effective in researching and questioning points in articles, his/her argumentative approach has to end to make these contributions worthwhile. .. dave souza, talk 21:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CyberAnth's outside view

CyberAnth has provided a view on the basis of a spot check of raspor's contributions. The same view was posted at WP:ANI, and what follows is a copy of my response there. [While sympathy is entirely understandable,] the impression that raspor was immediately set upon by a mob is not supported by looking at his start on the ID article. His first contribution there on 22 December was unfortunate, as he deleted the previous post and was reverted.[8] [9] with the comment (please do not remove or edit others' posts), then he did the same again on the talk page[10] and on the page of the editor who'd reverted the first comment.[11] This could of course be a newbie's error, but oddly enough it's a mistake raspor did not make almost a month earlier when first editing a talk page.[12] Anyway, that mistake was sorted out and discussion resumed at Permission. If you read down you'll find editors responding to raspor's opinions by asking him to "please read" archives at links they provided, "If you have some new points which have not been hashed out already, please feel free to bring them up" and to "Please provide a reliable source" for his assertions. He did not do the latter, despite having learnt the hard way about the need to cite sources on his first article by the 28th of November.[13] His responses lack such niceties of politeness, and introduce allegations of bias and inaccuracy without any supporting citations. If that's being set upon by a mob, it was a remarkably polite and patient mob. .. dave souza, talk 10:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

comment moved from RfC page

CyberAnth, in an effort for us to make sure we have seen the big picture and aren't overlooking important evidence, could you provide some diffs or examples of the seemingly "good contributions" raspor tried to make to the article? Especially those that have verifiable and relevant, well supported cites in the article and any good contributions he has made on the talk page(s) as well. Could you also provide a few diffs that demonstrate raspor is even knowledgable about intelligent design (the subject of the article and not his own personal version of what he feels intelligent design is)? That would be very helpful to me and others. Thank you for your contribution to this matter. Mr Christopher 14:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I find it difficult to take seriously CyberAnth's opinion on an RFC on which he admits he hasn't even considered the evidence presented. That's why there's a 'Evidence of disputed behavior' section for chrissake. I'd like CyberAnth to explain to us here why should his outside view be allowed to remain on the page when it ignore the very evidence presented there. FeloniousMonk 18:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

CyberAnth, additonally, I'd really like you to elaborate on "I suggest the non-ID folks settle down, take a break from the articles for a month, and then come back and really listen to Raspor's concerns and see that some of his ideas very probably should be incorporated into the articles of his concern. The contributions I saw he tried to make seemed good"[14]. Specifically, which of his ideas do you feel should "probably" be incorporated into the article? And also specifically which of his contributions did you feel "seemed good" that are being overlooked/ignored by the other editors? Thanks Mr Christopher 19:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Geo.plrd

discussion moved from RfC page

Geo, it is difficult to take your "outsider view" seriously when you are on raspor's talk page encouraging him to take this conflict offsite. You curiously advised raspor:

"Maybe you should pay a visit to Free Republic, and mention your treatment here Geo. 17:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)"[15]

Perhaps you have an agenda that the rest of us are unfamiliar with. Could you explain why you're encouraging raspor to go to Free Republic, a right wing group known for "freeping" online communities and air his treatment there? How will improve raspor's cause? My understanding is that taking a conflict offsite and enlisting people to come back and disrupt Wiki is not only frowned upon, it could result in (raspor's) permanent banning. Care you explain your advice? Mr Christopher 15:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I also find this very disconcerting.--Filll 15:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, Geo, could you provide us a diff of raspor's edit you claim was properly documented ("The edit was properly documented")? And also its relevance to the article on intelligent design. That would help us to make informed conclusions regarding your "outsiders view". Thanks again and cheers! Mr Christopher 15:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Raspors lack of understanding of the subject matter and outsiders views

A few people have portrayed raspor as a victim of a crusade and suggested he is not only knowledgable but also may be a subject matter expert. The evidence I see suggests otherwise. I am as perplexed about the notions that raspor has attempted to make quality contributions to the intelligent design article as I am the idea he is an subject expert. I'm providing a small sample of some of his early posts on the talk page and edits to the article as evidence for my concerns about some of the commens by "outsiders".

• Raspor makes a case for including a Turkish creastionist in the article and to portray him as a leading ID proponent "...For instance Adnan Oktar [aka Harun Yahya] has been a proponent of ID for a similar length of time as the Amercian counterparts. He is a proponent in Turkey and in Arabic countries...Harun Yahya is a forceful, popular proponent of ID. To the best of my knowledge is is not affiliated with the DI..."[16] I pointed out that Yahya not only is not a leading ID proponent, he believes ID to be a tool of satan[17]. raspor ignored the quotes and link I provided him and replied "I think a lot of those quotes were out of context." Clearly raspor is not even familiar with the views of this person he wanted to include in the article.
• Raspor tells us that "the pope the vatican are proponents of ID" [18] yet he has still never provided any evidence to support this assertion. He has yet to offer any books, or articles written by the pope on intelligent design or Irreducible complexity or Specified complexity. He has not provided any talks given by the pope on intelligent design, and most importantly he has not provided any evidence of any ID experts quoting or citing the pope on intelligent design.
• Raspor tells us that "creationism is a subset of id" [19] in spite of a recent federal court case that said otherwise. He has yet to support this assertion.
• Raspor make the same mistaken assertion "the pope is an IDer" [20]
• Raspor again makes it obvious he is unfamiliar with the subject matter "Anyone who believes in God is an Ider"[21]
• Raspor again presents his lack of understanding "another inaccuracy i see is that ID is considered a type of creationism. it is simply not. creationism is a type of ID. i just like accuracy"[22].
• Raspor continues to promote the same mistaken notion "As far as I can determine the pope believes that God was the 'intelligent cause' of life and the universe for that matter which makes him an IDer... Anyone who believes in God is an IDer"[23]
• Raspor yet again insists "Many times people have tried to get into this article that ID is not creationism and have been deleted. This is simply wrong...ID is not creationism..."[24]. This of course flies in the face of a recent federal court ruling.
• Raspor continues "Creationism is a sub category of ID just as much as dogs are a sub category of mammals...And again the pope is and IDer."[25]
• Raspor continues and it's worth pointing out he ignored any evidence provided to him "I would like to see one reliable source that says creationsim is not a subset of ID"[26]
• Raspor in the same vein "In wiki it is said that ID is a subset of Creationism. Is there a source for that? [27]
• Raspor wrote, "in the wiki article it seem that it is saying that ID was this concept invented by the evil Discovery Inst. to undermine science. I think that is bordering on paranoia"[28] Most anyone familial with ID is aware of the DI's wedge document and it's goals to undermine science and replace it with "theistic understandings". Clearly raspor is not.
• Another curious, mistaken assertion "most americans believe in ID, sorry."[29]
• Raspor reveals the fact he has yet to even read the intelligent design article when he wrote" Behe has said some very astute stuff. where is that."[30]. Had raspor bothered to read the intelligent design article he would have noted Behe is quoted extensively. How can you work with an editor who does not bother to read the article?
• Here Raspor quotes a UK education minister's public comments stating "Intelligent design can be explored in religious education as part of developing an understanding of different beliefs.” and then "OK now tell me why Adonis is not a leading proponent of ID"[31] The minister in question has never given talks on ID is not cited in the literature as being an expert or leading proponent. Raspor seems to confuse anyone noteable person who mentions ID is automatically a leading ID proponent.
• Raspor seems to not understand what exactly the article is about. "Felony has state in the article that 10% surveyed believe in ID. Yet he says that belief that God created life is ID. He biasedly forgot to add that 64% belive humans were creaed by God. And the title of the article is 2/3 of US believe humans were created by God. If you ought there do not think that is bias you need a course in logic"[32] Clearly raspor doesn't grasp the article is not about how many people belive in god or think they were created by god.
• Raspor once again shows a lack of fundamentals "Try to read more carefully. Of course creationism is ID but ID is not creationism. Creationism is a subset of ID."[33]
• Raspor sugegsts the absurd "would it be OK to say God or aliens designed the first living entity equiped with the DNA code and then evolution took over from there?"[34] (raspor does not seem to understand that we cannot just make stuff up).

Raspors first ID article edit:

Felonious Monk included a Harris poll that showed 10% of the American public subscribed to Intelligent Design. A relevant bit of information for the intelligent design article regarding the scope of influence and the public's interest in intelligent design. Raspor had other ideas.

Here, and without warning, raspor deletes a cited Felonious Monk edit "According to a 2005 Harris poll 10 percent of adults in the United States subscribe to intelligent design" raspor's reasons for the deletion are "this addition takes a study and cherry picks stats that support a personal point of view without giving an accurate picture of what the whole study is saying" raspor seems to have a diffuclt time understanding the article is about intelligent design and not belief in god. [35] Raspor's edit was correctly reverted.

Raspor's second ID article edit: After re-inserting the cited information above ("According to a 2005 Harris poll 10 percent of adults in the United States subscribe to intelligent design"), raspor again deletes it with this justification "the source was not correctly cited. it cherry picked biased info".[36] Raspor's edit was correctly reverted.

Raspor's 3rd 3edit to the ID article raspor once again deletes relevant, cited information ("According to a 2005 Harris poll 10 percent of adults in the United States subscribe to intelligent design") with this justification "cite was biased quoted"[37] Raspor's edit was correctly reverted.

Raspor's 4th edit to the ID article Raspor once again deletes relevant, cited information ("According to a 2005 Harris poll 10 percent of adults in the United States subscribe to intelligent design") With this justification: "the source was not correctly cited. it cherry picked biased info"[38] Raspor's edit was correctly reverted.

Raspor's 5th edit to the ID article Here raspor asserts "and nearly two-thirds of U.S. adults believe human beings were created by God"[39]. This has no relevance to intelligent design but suggests raspor has a competing agenda. Raspor's edit was correctly reverted.

Raspor's 6th edit to the ID article [40] Here raspor asserts "However the same poll also shows that nearly three times as many college graduates believe in intelligent design as compared to high school graduates" It was pointed out showing how many college students v high schoolers believe in ID is not relevant. Raspor's edit was correctly reverted.

Raspor's 7th edit to the ID article Raspor re-inserts the above irrelevant ("However the same poll also shows that nearly three times as many college graduates believe in intelligent design as compared to high school graduates") that was rightly removed. His edit note was "If the % of US who believe in)"[41] Raspor's edit was correctly reverted.

Raspor's 8th edit to the ID article Once again raspor re-inserts the irrelevant "However the same poll also shows that nearly three times as many college graduates believe in intelligent design as compared to high school graduates" and justifies it with "(it is relevand (sic) see my last commnet (sic))[42] Raspor's edit was correctly reverted.

In summary, I am convinced raspor has a mistaken and grossly incomplete understanding of the subject matter and Wikipedia editing policies. This makes working with him a nightmare to put it nicely. Is it any wonder why he was met with wholesale resistance? He demonstrated he had not read the article, demonstrated he is/was unfamiliar with the subject matter, demonstrated he is unfamiliar with Wiki editing policies and yet continued to delete relevant, cited, supported, and well sourced material from the article. And he was met with wholesale resistsancs. This is not shocking or a crusade, it is predictable.

And I am looking forward to those outsiders who suggested raspor is knowledgable on the subject and/or has attempted to make quality edits to the article to come forth with their evidence. Mr Christopher 18:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I have the same impression as Mr Christopher. Raspor has not shown any expertise or special knowledge about religion, Christianity, ID, creationism, science or anything as near as I can determine. Except for one or two exceptions, almost all of his posts were rambling and replete with grammatical and spelling errors. When I tried to discuss his views in an intelligent manner, he would typically retreat to belligerent exchanges. When pressed on his expertise, in Christianity or other subjects, he has admitted he has no expertise in this area. I am very discouraged and I suspect we are seeing someone who thrives on pure trolling rather than constructive productive engagement, discussion and editing.--Filll 18:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I want to be very clear. I do not expect raspor or anyone else to be a subject matter expert or have any specialized expertise to contribute to the project, they need not. It was suggested he is in fact a subject expert is what I am questioning. I am also pointing out raspor's comments suggest he is wholly unfamiliar with the subject, wholly unfamiliar with basic editing policies and had not even read the entire article which is contributing to the conflict. Mr Christopher 18:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been reading these posts from Philip J. Rayment, Geo and CyberAnth, and I'm wondering if they have some axe to grind rather than seeing Raspor for what he is. I don't care if he believes in ID or not. He was disrespectful, rude and, in the case of FeloniousMonk's name, downright insulting. Everything else is irrelevant. If any of "us", meaning those of us who do not subscribe to religious interpretations of science and fact, wrote what Raspor did, they'd be whining, complaining, and filing every known Wiki-charge (invented word) against any of us that they could find. It's not like this is subject to interpretation. He did what he did, and he should be thrown out of the Wikipedia community. I think a couple of people have been more than fair and more than patient with him, and he's rejected advice and continued along the pathway that he created. Why are we wasting so much time on this? Can't he just disappear? Mr. Christopher must have taken up a good two hours that he's not getting back laying out the case above. Enough is enough. Throw him out. Orangemarlin 20:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Orangemarlin is right. Raspor's understanding of the subject matter has been made irrelevant by his attitude and actions. Throw him out. But let him return when he is ready to abide by Wikipedia policies, especially WP:AGF. AvB ÷ talk 02:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This is mostly a response to Mr Christopher's (MC) comments, but to a couple of others at the end.

I don't know who MC was referring to who "suggested he is not only knowledgable but also may be a subject matter expert", as I don't recall anybody claiming that of him, except perhaps himself, and critics claiming that's what he thinks he is. As possibly the one who has defended him the most strongly, I have never described him this way. The most that I've said is that he has made some good points. But the other aspect I find disturbing about this whole section on his so-called lack of understanding is that it's so one-sided. As a creationist who has studied creation and evolution for decades, I can assure you that there are anti-creationists here who have practically no idea about the creationist view, yet pretend to know enough to be able to insert large slabs of material into articles on the subject. In other words, I don't think that Raspor's knowledge of ID is any worse than some editor's knowledge of creation, but that is more of a comment about the latter than the former.

MC made a number of comments about the Pope, etc., not being supporters of ID, such as "Raspor make the same mistaken assertion 'the pope is an IDer'". This needs clarification. It has been said that the ID article is about the particular brand of ID promoted by the Discovery Institute, and I accept that that is the intention of most of the contributors. But is that the way that Raspor was using the term? Did he understand the distinction when he claimed that the Pope was "an IDer"? Clearly, the Pope would believe that God designed his creation, regardless of what method the Pope believed that God used, so in a general sense, it is obvious that the Pope would believe in intelligent design. Perhaps this is what Raspor was claiming. So was Raspor "mistaken", or was he simply meaning something different than people thought he meant?

MC quotes Raspor claiming that "ID is not creationism..." and responds with, "This of course flies in the face of a recent federal court ruling.". Despite the court ruling, I agree that ID is not creationism. ID people say that they are not creationists, and creationists say that ID is not creationism. Apart from this one judge, the only people who conflate the two are the critics of both, and perhaps the judge is not an exception to that! And to forestall a criticism of my comments, I'm sure that if a judge declared that creation was science, you lot would reject the judge's declaration somehow, probably by arguing that it should be scientists, not judges, that decide what is science and what isn't. But of course this particular judgement went your way, so you are happy to throw it at opponents. By the way, I disagree with Raspor that creationism is a type of ID.

MC quotes Raspor saying, "in the wiki article it seem that it is saying that ID was this concept invented by the evil Discovery Inst. to undermine science", and responds that "Most anyone familial with ID is aware of the DI's wedge document and it's goals to undermine science and replace it with 'theistic understandings' ". However, in doing so, MC gets it wrong and reveals his own bias. The wedge document, according to the Wikipedia article, does NOT say that it aims to undermine science. It says that it aims to overthrow materialism, and replace it with a different view of science. To represent this as being synonymous with a "goal to undermine science" is nothing more than a POV. It is this sort of POV "interpretation" that is being pushed into so many creation/ID articles under the guise of "neutrality".

MC lists Raspor's edits and reversions, and in all cases comments that others reverting his changes did so correctly. Perhaps so, but I'll comment on that more in a moment. But it overlooks the edit comments of those reversions of Raspor's edits that, as I have argued before, were sometimes unhelpful and not correct, including calling him a vandal. As for the validity of his edits, it does appear to me that his original edits detailed by MC above were not relevant, and that reversion of them was correct. However, the case is not so clear with his sixth (and subsequent) edit(s). The earlier edits MC criticises because "the article is about intelligent design and not belief in god", but the later edits were about the acceptance of intelligent design. The bit in the article, that 10% of adults accept ID, shown that acceptance is in a minority. The bit that Raspor wanted to put in appears to show that acceptance is greater among people with a higher education. Clearly, this shows ID in a better light, so is not allowed by the anti-ID crusaders. And in my opinion, if the figures went the other way (i.e. showing that acceptance dropped with a higher education), the anti-IDers would put it in themselves. MC says that "It was pointed out showing how many college students v high schoolers believe in ID is not relevant", and he would be referring to his own post here. This condescending comment does little more than state an opinion that it is not relevant, and I find the comment unconvincing. In other word's Raspor's opinion is just as valid (if not more so) as MC's.

Orangemarlin commented "I've been reading these posts from Philip J. Rayment, Geo and CyberAnth, and I'm wondering if they have some axe to grind rather than seeing Raspor for what he is." Speaking for myself, I don't believe that I have any more of an axe to grind than people on your side of the argument (including you) do. As I've posted on FeloniousMonk's talk page, the anti-creationist/ID people have a passion and zeal that would do any Christian proud. However, perhaps I need to make explicitly clear that despite my defence of Raspor, I'm certainly not defending everything he has done. He is by no means without fault, both in his actual arguments and in his style of delivery. I have been motivated to defend him because of the unfairness of much of the criticism of him, as much as anything deriving simply from opponents having a different POV (although also acknowledging that his style of arguing has contributed significantly).

AvB wrote, "But let him return when he is ready to abide by his own standards." The link, for those that haven't looked it up, is to a Bible verse. I find that amusing. I have been accused (by Orangemarlin and/or Filll) of presuming that all evolutionists are atheists, although I've never claimed that. Yet here AvB is presuming that Raspor is a Christian, apparently solely on the grounds that he is trying to defend Intelligent Design! And Raspor has explicitly said that he is not a Christian!

Philip J. Rayment 07:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I've refactored my edit above. Thanks for pointing me to this information from Raspor on your talk page. Nevertheless, this Bible verse is a description of what Raspor expects from others but does not do himself. AvB ÷ talk 13:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

For information, the suggestion of raspor's expertise came up in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Raspor#Outside view by CyberAnth. Fully agree that the aim of ID is to overthrow the methological materialism underlying modern science, replacing it with a theistic science in keeping with pre-Darwinian natural theology, and discussion of how that can be made clearer in the article will be welcome. Regarding the poll, as I commented on the talk page the inference raspor was drawing from the figures does not appear in the linked reference, though the statement that it shows 10% support for ID was stated in the introduction to the survey report. The inference was original research and not relevant to the point of overall levels of support which the link was a reference for: the figures also show overall support for creationism/ID dropping as educational attainment increases, but that point would be equally irrelevant. .. dave souza, talk 10:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC) p.s. see also Theistic realism .. dave souza, talk 10:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that I said, "I don't recall anybody claiming" that Raspor was knowledgeable, because now that you remind me, I did read that bit by CyberAnth. Mr Christopher claimed that "a few people" had said that of Raspor. Were there in fact others? Regarding the poll, I'm still not convinced that it's irrelevant, but I do accept that putting it in the way Raspor was proposing was not a fair reflection of the poll results. I can't see how it constituted original research, though; rather a misreading of what the poll was saying. And I don't know what I'm supposed to get from the link to Theistic Realism. Regarding making the article clearer, whilst not proposing anything specific and not directly relating to materialism, you might like to read my post on HassourZain's talk page about bias in the article. Philip J. Rayment 11:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)