Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gnixon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 00:16, 18 July 2007), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 19:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC).

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

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

This user makes POV pushing edits to controversial articles such as Wikipedia:Featured article review/Intelligent design, Intelligent design, Evolution, Creation-evolution controversy, Physics, Abortion and the discussion pages for each. This user's edits and commentary contravene WP:NPOV, WP:POINT, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR. He has also posted unfounded complaints on WP:AN/I about other editors regarding WP:STALK, WP:CIVIL, WP:TALK and other issues in order to harass and intimidate those users with opposing viewpoints. In addition, Gnixon has engaged in WP:CANVAS, WP:NPA and failing to utilize WP:AGF.

[edit] Desired outcome

No further editing to any Evolution or Creation articles. One month ban from editing. No further posting to AN/I without discussing with two independent administrators.

[edit] Description

This user has been reverting edits by other users to push his own POV, refactoring talk pages, posting inappropriate and harassing complaints to AN/I, joining in an canvass to remove an article from FA status, and engaging in edit wars to push POV. Gnixon has a habit of utilizing the Wikipedia process to file complaints to reduce

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

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

  1. First ANI
  2. Second ANI
  3. Attempt to resolve second ANI
  4. Third ANI
  5. Reverting of removal of NPOV tag--asked to discuss but still places tag
  6. Uncivil remarks after being warned about NPOV tagging
  7. addition of POV material to Evolution article
  8. POV-pushing
  9. Created POV tone by claiming removal of POV
  10. Further POV-pushing
  11. Personal attack in edit summary
  12. POV-pushing
  13. Refactoring Talk:Evolution without discussion
  14. Editing someone else's comments in same discussion
  15. Major refactoring without discussion
  16. Deleting other user's formatting
  17. Major refactoring without discussion
  18. POV without any concurrence anywhere
  19. Addition of POV statements to discredit author
  20. Addition of POV statements to discredit author
  21. Incorrect POV interpretation of theory and fact
  22. Editing editor's contribution to Talk section
  23. Making POV even harsher
  24. Attempting to characterize an author by their religious affiliation
  25. Edit warring
  26. Massive refactoring with personal attack on edit summary
  27. POV pushing to make a point
  28. Reprimand from Admin
  29. Another reprimand
  30. POV pushing though subtle by describing scientists as boneheads
  31. POV pushing
  32. Revert of deletion of a POV image
  33. Supporting an POV editor that has been banned by the community
  34. Equating the Matrix to Intelligent design in a manner to push the POV
  35. Deleting a talk page commentary and classifying it as rude, and stalking the editor
  36. POV pushing
  37. Accusation of sweeping changes to an article similar to Evolution
  38. Civility
  39. Civility
  40. Civility
  41. Edit warring and POV pushing
  42. Editing another person's comments on talk page
  43. POV pushing and complaining
  44. Claiming a cabal on controversial issues
  45. Support for a community banned editor in POV editing
  46. Uncivil commentary
  47. Highly POV edit proposal for lead of controversial article
  48. Major edits to Evolution without consensus or discussion
  49. Uncivil attack on editor
  50. False accusation
  51. Uncivil attack on editor
  52. Uncivil attack on admin
  53. Uncivil attack on another admin
  54. Uncivil commentary
  55. Trying to remove editors from editing article
  56. Large edits without consensus or discussion
  57. Uncivil commentary
  58. Personal attack
  59. POV pushing on Intelligent design
  60. POV pushing
  61. POV pushing
  62. POV pushing and personal attack
  63. After being canvassed to join this FAR, accuses others of being "owners"
  64. False accusations, not assuming good faith
  65. POV pushing
  66. POV pushing by asking to replace editors
  67. POV pushing after being canvassed to join
  68. POV proposal
  69. Massive edits without consensus or discussion
  70. Personal attack and POV pushing
  71. Massive edits without consensus or discussion
  72. Attempted removal of uncivil personal attack
  73. Four days of massive edits without consensus or discussion
  74. Implied retaliation threat

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. WP:NPOV
  2. WP:CIVIL
  3. WP:NPA
  4. WP:POINT
  5. WP:STALK
  6. WP:TALK
  7. WP:VERIFY
  8. WP:CANVASS
  9. WP:AGF

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

(provide diffs and links)

  1. Attempt for peace
  2. Attempt to resolve by TxMCJ
  3. Resolution attempt

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

  1. Orangemarlin 00:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Filll 00:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Adam Cuerden talk 09:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

  1. •Jim62sch• 10:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. FeloniousMonk 15:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC) Gnixon does a good of appearing superficially reasonable and dedicated to WP:NPOV but is ultimately obdurate and invariably argues agressively against genuinely neutral presentations of intelligent design. His technique is repeatably to pretend to be upholding the scientific point of view while insisting that others justify the mainstream view to his satisfaction - which of course is never forthcoming since the fundamental problem is that he simply prefers the intelligent design point of view despite never admitting as much. This is apparent becausem he is quick to rush to support every intelligent design pov pusher who comes to the article, yet has never taken a stand for any on the mainstream science side. Aside from being evidence of hidden bias, this is unfortunate because these pov pushers are not only huge wasters of time but almost invariably abusive.
  3. Odd nature 19:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. JoshuaZ 19:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response

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

Orangemarlin has long had a personal problem with me. A great deal of his time on Wikipedia is spent attacking and mocking creationists and intelligent design advocates who show up on pages like Evolution and Intelligent design. There have been two relevant outcomes:

  • 1) some other users, who similarly believe creationists are idiots who deserve to be attacked and mocked, admire Orangemarlin and support him
  • 2) since I've spoken up in favor of treating creationists/IDers civilly and respecting their comments, Orangemarlin has taken a great dislike towards me

I assume there will be criticism of me here from users such as Filll, Jimsch2, Felonious Monk, and Odd Nature, with whom I've had similar disagreements recently over the hostile environment they create at pages such as Wikipedia:Featured article review/Intelligent design. One could also look at Talk:Mohammed for editors with whom I had unresolved differences. I had a regrettable personal clash with User:TxMCJ a few months ago, which involved Orangemarlin. Other than that, I believe I've been able to resolve amicably any disagreements I've had with others.

If there are critical comments from any of the more rational editors who frequent, say Intelligent design, or from any neutral 3rd party, I'll take this RfC more seriously and respond more fully, with diffs, etc. Gnixon 14:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

People reading this RfC should be sure to click on some of Orangemarlin's links above to see if the text of the hyperlinks accurately describe what they link to. Gnixon 15:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. LuciferMorgan 00:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. The diffs do support Gnixon's view. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to FeloniousMonk

This isn't the forum for discussing the proper way to respond to editors who promote some pseudoscience, but let me assure you that my comments are always genuine. In any case where mainstream science seems to be short of defenders, trust me, I'll be there. Gnixon 15:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Addhoc

Thanks for your reasonable advice, but could you please be more specific about how I should change the presentation of my arguments? I'm fairly certain that I've never supported any view, and I try to always concentrate on the articles. If you could show me an example of where I've slipped and how I could have done better, it would be most helpful. Gnixon 16:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to SandyGeorgia

Thanks, Sandy, for taking the time to write up your analysis of the diffs. I agree with what you've written (is it proper for me to endorse?), and I don't think it would be too hyperbolic to say you've restored my faith in this community and my interest in contributing to Wikipedia.

You listed two items under "Worth examining." Both of them ([1], [2]) were instances of me deleting some or all of a comment by Orangemarlin from a talk page because of incivility. One was an attack directed at a new user, while the other was an attack against me. The guidelines on talk page commentary (WP:TPG) say it is acceptable to delete uncivil comments, and if memory serves, I picked up the practice on Talk:Intelligent design from some of the users who endorsed this RfC. Nevertheless, I was uncomfortable with deleting others' comments, even if uncivil, and soon stopped doing it---those two diffs (which occurred several months ago and were a couple days apart) may be the only examples of me ever deleting others' uncivil comments. For what it's worth, I've found it's much better, in most environments, to simply and politely remind others that our policy is to avoid incivility. In any case, I'm open to advice on how to best deal with incivility directed towards me or others. Gnixon 16:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General response to allegations of "POV-pushing"

Please do not close this RfC until I've had a chance (within the next couple days) to respond here on the record. Gnixon 16:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, I won't bother unless people think this would be productive. If so, please let me know. Gnixon 05:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Tony

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

I've been alerted to this fracas by one of the participants. I don't know Gnixon, but s/he seems like a good person. I respect some of the people who have initiated this process. I haven't performed a complete analysis of all of the information here (i.e., the huge number of links), but it does seem prima facae to be a storm in a teacup. My advice to all here is to calm down, back off, respect each other, and do nothing that would inflame this conflict. I'm totally fed up with energy that goes into this kind of activity rather than improving our wonderful project.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Tony 03:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. RelHistBuff 08:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Addhoc 15:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Except, I have examined the info here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. late, but nevertheless. Northfox 19:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Addhoc

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

My advice to Gnixon is to keep editing the articles, however to change the manner in which he presents arguments. I recommend that he avoids saying that he supports any view and merely expresses ideas on how the article should be improved.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Addhoc 15:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Tony 15:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by SandyGeorgia

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

Because it’s curious that an editor could violate Wikipedia’s core policies and guidelines over 70 times, and yet have no blocks and no admin warnings on his talk page, I took an interest in reviewing the abundance of diffs on this RfC, even though the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for comment weren’t followed, and the RfC shouldn’t have continued.

The diffs provided don’t always show violations, and many appear favorable to Gnixon. Some of the admin statements are from the main contributor to one of the articles where many of the alleged violations occurred—an involved party. I didn’t find any warning to Gnixon from any uninvolved admin, and it doesn't appear that serious attempts have been made to find a resolution or that mediation has been pursued. While other editors have been warned, Gnixon has been supported by uninvolved admins in every instance I examined. Also, one editor asked to join this RfC responded that s/he didn’t have anything to bring to the RfC on Gnixon.

I recommend that all involved editors pursue mediation, and if that isn’t successful, then it might be beneficial for ArbCom to examine all of the parties and issues (including this RfC) thoroughly. I don’t find cause for the desired outcome of banning Gnixon from editing, but I do recommend that he find less tense of areas of Wikipedia to edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Some examples from the diffs posted originally (I have repeated the original descriptions of the diffs even when/if I may not agree with them; not all included – I stopped reviewing after a pattern emerged):

My favorite
  1. Editing another person's comments on talk page – Common sense please, and a sense of humor.
Support for Gnixon at ANI, no admonition of Gnixon, or FM (an involved party) is the only admin to make a statement about Gnixon
  1. First ANI – Gnixon’s complaint was “founded”, Orangemarlin was warned, nothing against Gnixon here.
  2. Second ANI – bad diff, see [3] – view expressed that TxMCJ was a single purpose account who followed Gnixon to other topics, “consistent with malicious wikistalking on the part of TxMCJ”.
  3. Attempt to resolve second ANI – response from FM, an involved party, calling Gnixon an “aggressive and overly assertive editor” who should “grow a thicker skin”.
  4. Third ANI – nothing here except admin acknowledgement of unpleasantness on the featured article review, nothing against Gnixon at all.
  5. Accusation of sweeping changes to an article similar to Evolution – from FM, an involved party
  6. Uncivil attack on admin – Why wasn’t he blocked?
  7. Uncivil attack on another admin – Why wasn’t he blocked?
  8. False accusation – AN/I showed support that Gnixon was "maliciously" stalked.
Possibly misunderstood
  1. Reprimand from Admin – Reprimand? By FM, an involved admin
  2. Another reprimand – Appears to be a mild personal impression by someone who happens to be an admin, not commenting in any admin capacity, on the talk page of another editor. Doesn't seem to be a reprimand or an admin reprimand. TimVickers (talk · contribs) later had this conversation with Gnixon.
    Personal attack – related to above
  3. After being canvassed to join this FAR, accuses others of being "owners" – There was no canvassing
  4. POV pushing after being canvassed to join – There was no canvassing
Purported personal attacks or incivility don’t seem to evidence same
  1. Uncivil remarks after being warned about NPOV tagging – uncivil? “I hoped you would show me a page illustrating consensus on usage of the tag, rather than just explaining your personal preference.”
  2. Personal attack in edit summary – “OM, please stop arbitrarily reverting my changes. Your reason didn't even make sense. I didn't restrict to theistic evolution--I just made a tighter sentence. Pleae reread it.)”
  3. Massive refactoring with personal attack on edit summary – (rv rv. OM, do you honestly think my refactoring of Mandaclair's discussion wasn't useful, or did you want an excuse to delete the two new topics I added?)
Worth examining
  1. Deleting a talk page commentary and classifying it as rude, and stalking the editor – Removal of talk page comments, but it doesn’t seem wise to be calling attention to Orangemarlin’s posts like this; I didn’t come across anything of this magnitude from Gnixon.
  2. Editing editor's contribution to Talk section – Warrants explanation and examination. But, if the other statements are considered attacks by Gnixon, then by that standard, so is the edited statement by Orangemarlin.
A proposal from Gnixon to end warring at Intelligent design, suggesting they all leave the article alone, including himself. A wise suggestion?

Trying to remove editors from editing article, POV pushing by asking to replace editors

Can’t determine based on one diff, apparently Gnixon has never been warned, blocked or reported.

Edit warring, Edit warring and POV pushing, Major edits to Evolution without consensus or discussion, Large edits without consensus or discussion, Four days of massive edits without consensus or discussion

The following diffs, listed originally as “POV pushing”, are to talk page commentary, not article edits

POV-pushing, POV without any concurrence anywhere, Incorrect POV interpretation of theory and fact, Attempting to characterize an author by their religious affiliation, POV pushing though subtle by describing scientists as boneheads, POV pushing, Supporting an POV editor that has been banned by the community, Equating the Matrix to Intelligent design in a manner to push the POV, POV pushing, Highly POV edit proposal for lead of controversial article, POV pushing on Intelligent design, POV pushing, POV pushing, POV pushing to make a point

Refactoring allegations were apparently attempts to install hats, and four of these are one diff, repeated

Refactoring Talk:Evolution without discussion, Editing someone else's comments in same discussion, Major refactoring without discussion, Deleting other user's formatting, Major refactoring without discussion

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. LuciferMorgan 22:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. This is looking a bit incestuous, but I trust Sandy 100% in the performance of a disinterested analysis. Tony 03:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. I haven't checked all links, but for what I have seen, Sandy summarizes the discussion quite well. Northfox 19:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Tim Vickers

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

  1. Another reprimand – Appears to be a mild personal impression by someone who happens to be an admin, not commenting in any admin capacity, on the talk page of another editor. Doesn't seem to be a reprimand or an admin reprimand. TimVickers (talk · contribs) later had this conversation with Gnixon.
    Personal attack – related to above

As a comment on this, as far as I can remember I have never interacted with Gnixon in editing an article and cannot offer any valid assessment of this how this user edits and interacts with other editors. Consequently, I would be uneasy with any of my comments or discussions being used as part of this RfC. Tim Vickers 22:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

[edit] Discussion

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