User talk:Gnixon/Intelligent design RfC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Suggestions

Here are some thoughts:

  • Format Please try to use this page for discussion, and the companion page for posting sections that might be useful in the RfC itself
  • Post "stories" I think it would be very helpful if individuals would post brief summaries of their experiences with these conflicts. The most useful ones would be as short as possible and very well-referenced.
  • Research participants It would be very useful to have a list of parties to the disputes, and to ask each of them for their input. For example, one might sift through the archives of Intelligent design or Rosalind Picard.
  • Research disputes It would be very useful to have a list of articles where these disputes have occurred, and a list of specific discussions. For example, the ID FAC/FAR.
  • Ultimate goals As a deferred goal, given the size of this case, I think it would be very helpful if groups of editors could agree on a representative summary of their views. Ultimately, I believe our goal is to get input from outsiders who have not participated in the disputes. We should try to make that as easy as possible, particularly by keeping things concise.

I hope these pages are useful and lead to a productive RfC. Gnixon (talk) 18:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

This doesn't appear to have anything to do with the concerns raised at the RFAR. Lara❤Love 18:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

A wide range of concerns were raised at the RfAR, and discussion indicated that a RfC was appropriate to get more community input. The first section below is a paraphrase of the linked statement on the talk page of the RfAR. Hope that helps, dave souza, talk 19:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
To amplify on Dave's comment, the point of this RfC is presumably to identify and focus on specific concerns which warrant further action. The RFARB was possibly useful as primal scream therapy or something, but for anything more useful to occur, it would be helpful to have for discussion specific actions by specific editors, backed by specific diffs, presented with the dramastat on "low". It's a pain in the ass to compile diffs - more fun to fulminate about cabals and cliques - but I find that the process often leads me to revise my earlier conclusions. Anyhow, anyone is free to add any underrepresented concerns to the RfC, I would think. MastCell Talk 21:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
If you think an RfC would keep the dramastat on low, I have a bridge you might be interested in. Also, most ArbCom evidence pages consist mainly of diffs. (Unless a certain Culture ship is around.) --Relata refero (disp.) 21:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Relata, I appreciate that there's no rule against sarcasm, but that sort of borderline incivility has contributed to the problems we're discussing and it would be best to try to set a good example here. . . dave souza, talk 22:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd love it if it was borderline incivility expressed as sarcasm that was the problem. That I think most of us can handle.
In any case, it isn't sarcasm. I was being pretty directly negative about MC's points, because "fulminate about cabals and cliques" struck me as quite un-necessary, and the claim that diffs would be irrelevant in an RfArb because that was "primal scream therapy" is, of course, flat-out wrong. Is that better? May I point out that accusing people making a valid point of borderline incivility is pretty close to the border itself? --Relata refero (disp.) 22:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we're talking past each other. This RfC is going to happen, so I'm asking that we try to be as objective and un-melodramatic as possible here, though I'm not especially optimistic. I'm also asking for more light and less heat - that is, specific concerns about specific editors or actions, supported by diffs, rather than blanket accusations of cabalism and so forth. I found the RFARB to be heavy on the latter and weak on the former, and I think that's a major reason it hasn't been accepted. I likened the RFARB request to primal scream therapy because there was a strong element of venting, and a commensurate lack of objective, specific, diff-supported concerns. I feel like we must not be understanding each other, or are in heated agreement, or something, since I think we both want to see concrete, diff-supported concerns addressed here. MastCell Talk 22:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Civility is going to be difficult to uphold when you have one group (and I mean this broadly, not with regards to Wikipedia) who is against science, and another group that uses science (and all that means) for support. However, I concur with your recommendation. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I think a good first step in any RfC/RfAr/whatever would be to make it clear that it is possible for Wikipedians to support science, and participate on WR/not support coatracking of BLPs/other related issues. It should be made clear that there is no direct correlation between posting on WR and being anti-science. giggy (:O) 08:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The main problem in my view (and this isn't the only instance of it on Wiki) is a lot of people with very strong views about each other which override any capacity to collaborate. I was asked to contribute given my comments at the RFAR but this is really the only related point I can find. Orderinchaos 10:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Whoever said about an RfC that its one great advantage is that would provide plenty of diffs of unacceptable statements was clearly correct. I look forward to comments on evidence from one section being used as evidence in another, till this RfC eats its tail like the World Snake. (In which, I hasten to add in the present company, I do not believe.) --Relata refero (disp.) 07:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
These are the concerns to address, if we want to improve Wikipedia's coverage of these articles. I'm sorry, but I simply couldn't care less about external sites one way or another. I'm only pissed off at WR right now, because before this whole drama started, we were actually making progress on the Expelled page. After Nightscream's somewhat topic-related lecturing on the article talk page, the tone did soften dramatically. In particular, most of my suggested changes have been incorporated by Dave Souza into the article. These recent external attacks have all mostly served to distract, and I don't see what exactly people are hoping to achieve be hitting people in the head, who are mostly doing excellent writing. Care to clarify??? Merzul (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's the problem I'm having. My involvement with this group has nothing to do with the science articles. I'm in agreement with them on this stuff, and I post to WR occasionally, so we're not all anti-science. It's really sad how this group lumps people together without anything to support their claims. That's twice on me now, at least. What I read the RFAR as being about was this group's activities outside of their science articles, and the frequency of incivility amongst them... The way they move as a group to support each other in all areas of the project and on various topics. That is how I got involved in this mess. If this is about science, I've got nothing to contribute. I'd probably be better for me to just file an RFC/U on Orangemarlin. Lara❤Love 14:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. Editors moving together is indeed a frustrating phenomenon. When editing the same articles and fighting trolls together, policy-oriented editors start trusting each other, and only each other, gradually developing an us-vs-them mentality. This has lead to many genuinely well-meaning editors being targeted, but let's not focus on the divisiveness. Instead, why not seek dialogue with those who are willing to talk. At least Dave Souza is looking towards some reconciliation. This is what he said to Giggy after the RfA:
I've been greatly impressed by the work you've done and the extent of your expertise in the tools and procedures, and was sorry that you were unable to meet the concerns that were raised. Glad to see your intention to be back after a short Wikibreak, and hope that it suits you to continue with your excellent contributions. The RfA has brought out and exaggerated the divisiveness of thinking or acting in terms of opposing factions, and I trust you'll be able to look beyond the simplistic stereotypes presented in some areas and approach robust debates in an open way, considering issues on the detailed merits of the evidence. We'll need to build more mutual respect and friendship, and I'm sure you can contribute greatly to that as well as doing excellent work on articles. Look forward to seeing you around, dave souza, talk 11:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I hope the discussion can continue along those sentiments. Instead of filing one-sided RfCs against each other, working together here to understand all the concerns would be the way forward. That other RfC has in my opinion only further divided us, so I hope you will engage in discussing all concerns collaboratively instead of going on a counter-attack, so to say. You could expand the current page to incorporate any concerns you have. Merzul (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
See, that's good. I sent OM an email and explained myself in detail. I got no reply, but he had some negative things to say about emails in giggy's RFA, which must be about other's, as his comments don't mesh with mine. I don't see there being some sort of discussion that mends this situation. It's fundamental differences in beliefs. I can appreciate his view, and respect it, but he can't even begin, nor does he care to try, to see mine. I warned in the email that I wasn't biting my tongue anymore. That the comments had to stop. But they haven't. So what is one to do? Lara❤Love 16:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Is this about white power/pride? It is probably best for supporters of white pride to stop talking about it, persuant to my aside on the subject. PouponOnToast (talk) 16:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
No, it's not just about white pride and white power. It's about Orangemarlin's incessant inaccurate comments made for no other reason than to discredit admins because he refuses to acknowledge, as others have, that the editors he keeps spewing his hate about aren't racists. It's not probably best for "supporters of white pride to stop talking about it." There wouldn't be anything to talk about if Orangemarlin would let it go. But he, like someone else, has been way out of line in his comments. Lara❤Love 18:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
He believes, like many others, that people who use the phrase "white pride" to describe their beliefs are racist agitators. I have no idea why anyone on wikipedia would uses that phrase to describe their beliefs, because this is an encyclopedia, not myspace. Perhaps if people did not use that phrase and apologized for any misconceptions, this problem would go away. PouponOnToast (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Lara, let me be blunt. I would never in a million years reply to any email from someone in a battle with me. First of all, someone might willingly post the information on an attack site (not that you have, but you might forward my email to someone who might), and I have no indication, either explicitly or implicitly, that my reply would be kept private, up to and including IP addresses, email addresses, contents, and real names. Second of all, if I can't reply to you (or anyone else) by email, and I won't publicly post what you wrote me, I can't reply to it without a confusing conversation. So, I did not ignore you, I just won't reply on email. If you so choose, I can cut and paste your email someplace (because I don't think Wikipedia sends you a copy of what you wrote), and we can discuss it there. But I'd want an explicitly written statement of permission on my talk page to do so--I don't want you accusing me of giving out private secrets someplace. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
OM, I have the email in my inbox, but you can feel free to post it on-wiki and discuss this here. I would never share your information, but I can appreciate the caution you have with that. If you would like, a subpage of either of our user pages, perhaps. I have to go to work in a few, so don't think I'm ignoring you. I'll be back late this evening. And, I would appreciate it if the discussion was between only you and I and any commenters keep their opinions on the talk page. I think that would help keep things calm. Lara❤Love 20:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Basis of RfC

As a basis to formulate this RfC, Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration#Intelligent Design has proposed the goal as being to develop a focused presentation of alleged harms and desired outcomes, organized logically with headings such as "Biography problems", "Hostility toward other editors", etc. to present the best evidence, filtered and focused. The aim should be toward improvement of the encyclopedia, trying to present some remedies and desired outcomes that flow logically and proportionally from the evidence.

To achieve this, incidents where harms are alleged will have to be analysed in detail enough to establish the circumstances and suggest remedies. To begin the process we need to list the incidents concerned, with links to key evidence. We also need to show efforts to resolve the dispute and as a first step we could look at developing guidelines or procedures aimed improving behaviour from now on. I'll try contacting involved editors to see if we can get that under way. . dave souza, talk 13:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a project to write an encyclopaedia, and the community necessary to support such an endeavour. Not a battleground, not a playground, not a place to play politics, not a place for advocacy for fringe ideas. But we have a lot of very fundamental problems that converged here.

  1. Fringe group advocacy: The main reason that editing articles related to creationism, intelligent design and the rest of the PCCTL articles. But that's just the way it is. Advocates of these ideas flock to Wikipedia. Content-based conflict arises. In some cases, the advocates figure out our policies and try to work within them. In other cases, they figure out how to manipulate our policies. In yet other cases, they flame out. Climate change was dragged before the arbcomm as early as 2005. Homeopathy has had a series of cases. We've had a couple Pseudoscience cases. And we've had ours. The problem lies in the inability of the community to support editors active on PCCTL articles. ScienceApologist summarised it; not exactly the way I would have, but he hit the main points quite well. Right or wrong, you can't look at "behaviour" in isolation from context.
  2. Anti-Wikipedia advocacy outside of the project: While this does converge with the former, it's a distinct problem. We have websites like Wikipedia Review which exist primarily to attack Wikipedia editors and undermine the project. While they have attracted a number of prominent Wikipedians, they primarily exist to give a voice to trolls and people who have been banned here. They are a blight on the project. Not only has Wikipedia Review been used to attack and smear editors, it has also been used to stalk and harass people. Now there are people who respond to statements by saying "OMGBADSITES", but that is, of course, nonsense. The fact that a policy proposal which banned links to attack sites was not approved does not mean that we can't call a hate site a hate site. The forum provided for Moulton at WR for the last several months has led to major disruption, including User:The undertow's flameout and was the basis for User:Krimpet's advocacy at the Rosalind Picard article.
  3. The "adminship mill": I think Irpen's statement at the RFAR should be required reading for anyone who is thinking about how we are failing to be "a project to write an encyclopaedia". I was truly shocked when I looked at an editor's Admin coaching page. A project dedicated to teaching people how to game WP:RFA?
  4. Not a battlefield: I have a hard time seeing the filing of the RFAR as anything other than an editor with a long-term grudge seeing a chance to act on it.

Of course, like any other perfect storm, these things have a habit of coming together in just the right way. Moulton has been hammering away at this for months, attacking what he called the "ID WikiClique". A remarkable number of editors took him at his word - note the allegations that the Picard article was a "COATRACK" (mind you, neither policy nor guideline, but rather just a badly-written essay). But by the time we were done hashing it all out, the language had been changed trivially. Slightly tweaking the language does not a "coatrack" undo. Other people have accepted (as if it were fact) the idea that the ID WikiProject lacks ID supporters (see here; even after the idea was refuted, it gets repeated here).

The result of all this is the creation of needless drama and a relentless hounding of good editors. Yes, Filll made a mistake in emailing three editors about the DHMO RFA. It was a bad idea. It is something the closing 'crats should have been made aware of. (And they were.) People make mistakes. And while people might overlook that fact given his 30,000 or so edits, Filll is a relatively new editor.

I think the Picard article is a perfect exemplar of what's wrong here.

  1. Moulton discovers the article, which User:Hrafn (then a brand new editor himself) has just pruned of all uncited material. An edit-war ensues, driven in a large part by the fact that neither Hrafn nor Moulton really understood policy. And they shouldn't be expected to at that stage of their editing career. Other (still fairly new) editors joined in - Filll and ConfuciusOrnis, and later others like me. Moulton refuses to accept our sourcing policies, and is eventually banned from the project after an RFC.
  2. Moulton takes his advocacy elsewhere, in search of other anti-Wikipedia outlets. He first tries Larry Fafarman's blog, and later ending up at WR. At WR he finds a home.
  3. Krimpet sees Moulton's complaints about the Picard article, and edits it to remove some of the material he wanted removed. When she gets reverted by OM, she makes procedural complaints on his talk page and at ANI, but refuses to discuss the content of her edit.
  4. Krimpet, in her only comment on the article's talk page accuses others of accuses others of "instead of discussing this and working out a compromise, certain folks refused my invitation to discuss it..." when she, in fact, was the one who refused to discuss the article through normal channels.
  5. Krimpet repeats Moluton's allegation that the article was "coatracky" (despite abundant evidence to the contrary), and claims that the people Moulton has identified as his enemies are "enforc[ing] their desired negative slant on biographies of living persons" - again, an assertion that is unsupported by the fact, unless she is adding people like PelleSmith and Relata refero to her "enemies list".

The fundamental problem here is that outside advocacy at an anti-Wikipedia website has led to all sorts of problematic behaviour. The problem isn't Moulton's statement of his gripe. The problem is that sites like WR become echo chambers. You read a statement often enough and it becomes true. Krimpet's assertion that the article was "coatracky" is demonstrably false. But it's been repeated so often that people believe it was true. Like any good attempt at misdirection, it possesses a kernel of truth.

When Moutlon first edited the article, Hrafn had purged uncited statements. The remaining (cited) statement was the contentious one. People at WR keep repeating "look at the state of the article when Moutlon first edited it". Yes, that version could be considered "coatracky"...if you follow a link from WR. But if you look at it in context, you see that it was purged as part of a good-faith attempt to implement BLP policy. And no matter how maliciously you choose to interpret Hrafn's edit, that was almost a year ago. But in the echo chamber of WR, "coatrack" and "look at this version" get repeated over and over. And you end up with the assertion that the article was a "coatrack" nine months later when Krimpet edited it. And since the offending text has only been changed a trivial amount, either the current consensus version is still a "coatrack" (with the complicity of people like PelleSmith, Relata refero and FCYTravis), or the original version was not. (There's a wide gulf between "slightly slanted" and a "coatrack".)

Our BLP policy is important to the project. But like all of our policies, it's a means to an end, not an end in itself. Some people would interpret it to mean that all uncited statements should be removed from an article that relates to living people. That, of course, violates the UNDUE provision of the NPOV policy - or, to be less legalistic - it creates something other than the balanced encyclopaedia article that we seek to write. Others interpret BLP solely through the lens of "COATRACK". This again leads to the production of something other than a balanced, neutral encyclopaedia article since context is essential for any statement to have meaning. "There's a link" just isn't good enough. Wikipedia is hypertext, yes. But Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not simply a hypertext encyclopaedia. If we strip all explanatory context from articles out of fear of producing a "coatrack", we fail in our mission to be encyclopaedic. Guettarda (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes this truly is an amazing piece of revisionism. As far as my position on the entry that still contains the original "COATRACKy" commentary, please see this very qualified "complicity". I have also commented on this elsewhere, when Filll, another believer in the "lets not present diffs with our accusatory essays movement", took it upon himself to also misrepresent events. Diffs are of course available upon request :). BTW, the entry now contains a serious amount of information about the living person and her work, which quite drastically alters the way in which the entry can be construed as a COATRACK, even if language much similar to the original also remains in one sentence. I believe, in fact, that your lot was the first to point this out on the talk page, thus trying to nullify the concerns caused by the original entry which was quite clearly a conscious COATRACK. What persists is less of a COATRACK, clearly, but still a concern for WP:BLP. As I note in the commentary I linked to above, the extreme version argued for by Fill, Odd nature, and co., seems at present to have been a ruse successfully enabled you to offer a "compromise" similar to the original, which is what is now in the entry. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 11:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm amazed by the rewriting of history here, as well as the wilful misrepresentation of the letter and spirit of BLP. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Instead of personal attacks, please provide diffs that would indicate that Guettarda is doing anything but stating a very clear history of the situation.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The moment he does. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Another personal attack on Guettarda is not going to help this conversation. Rather than my being uncivil, I guess I'll just let you have the last word. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
"The moment he does" is a personal attack? Wow. If only standards were always this high. --Relata refero (disp.) 00:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
You seem to use the term "personal attack" quite liberally. A personal attack is, by definition, a comment on an editor and not his/her actions, which is the opposite of what Relata was saying. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 02:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • There's no personal attack. Stop it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps a side issue, but "wilful misrepresentation" is a direct accusation of lying, and thus a personal attack as well as a failure to assume good faith. If Relata refero feels there are misunderstandings in Guettarda's analysis of these serious issues, a detailed critique supported by links or diffs will be of great assistance. However, arm waving doesn't help. . . dave souza, talk 09:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Dear lord. Being called anti-science is OK, but pointing out that that narrative - with lines such as 'Krimpet's assertion that the article was "coatracky" is demonstrably false' and what not, completely unsupported by any line of argument except handwaving - consists of misrepresentation, which would have to be wilful - since Guettarda was involved in the discussion, and knew what the concerns were, and yet chooses to caricature them - is apparently not OK.
As I said, if anyone makes an argument with actual diffs in them, instead of well-poisoning arguments about "outside advocacy at an anti-Wikipedia website" - which I take as personally infuriating, as I spend all my time here fulminating against the influence of outside advocacy - I will naturally respond. Till then, please accept that misrepresentation and caricaturing of complex arguments from someone involved in the discussion will appear wilful, and be called such. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just a note

I thought I would note that I'm cataloging and evaluating posts to wikipedia review in publicaly viewable locations by editors in good standing on my user subpage User:PouponOnToast/LWR‎. My goal is to determine how wikipedia is failing to provide an outlet for these users to engage in whatever they need without damaging the encyclopedia via encouragement. PouponOnToast (talk) 15:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Excellent point. If completely reasonable editors are drawn to an external site to express criticism, then we are doing something wrong here. Merzul (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
That is my working hypothesis. I would consider it proved if it turns out that there is a lot of valuable content being posted there that would be prohibited here for some reason (it is in response to a banned user, it is on a topic that cannot be mentioned here). PouponOnToast (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)