Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Intelligent Design

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a bare-bones RFC that will allow for this discussion and resolution of the numerous conflicts surrounding a series of editors that have edited Intelligent Design, along with a series of editors that have found themselves at odds with the first group.

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

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

[edit] Desired outcome

  1. That articles on Wikipedia serve our goals of collecting and developing educational content and to disseminating it effectively and globally.
  2. That editors be able to edit such content with a minimum of conflict and strife.
  3. That such content follow our policies, including but not limited to representing a Neutral Point of View, being Verifiable in Reliable Sources and not consisting of Original Research.

[edit] Description

There are a series of disagreements. I will attempt to outline some.

[edit] Moulton

User:Moulton is blocked/banned due to disruption. Some believe he should be unblocked. Others disagree.

[edit] Civility

Some of the users in this dispute are alleged to have been incivil. Other users are alleged to be racists of some sort.

[edit] Cabalism

Some of the users in this dispute are alleged to act as a cabal to prevent Intelligent Design from being discussed fairly. Other of the users in this dispute are alleged to act as a cabal to engage in behavior that does not help in building the encyclopedia, but rather is either actively detrimental or serves as a non-helpful backdrop of drama and poor feelings.

[edit] Personalizing

Some of the users in this dispute are alleged to have personalized disputes.

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

  1. PouponOnToast (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC) The desired outcome portion, at this time.
  3. Odd nature (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  4. Guettarda (talk) 21:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  5. Ameriquedialectics 16:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC) (I don't see anything to disagree with here so far as the desired outcome and parameters of the dispute are described. I would need to see more concrete diffs on all named users before i signed off on SirFozzie's section.)
  6. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  7. dave souza, talk 19:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response

[edit] Viewpoint of SirFozzie

What I would like to see out of RfC is that OrangeMarlin, Guettarda, Jim62sch, and others act in a more collegial manner according to Wikipedia policies. We have numerous incidents where the above named editors, amongst others resorted to name-calling, and well-poisoning. They need to ESPECIALLY avoid using loaded terms to describe other editors.

This is a first draft, and I will reserve the right to add more to it.

[edit] User:Guettarda

User_talk:Guettarda#Oh_for_God.27s_sake Discussion between Neil and Guettarda, where Guettarda instantly poisons the well, by saying to Neil Neo-nazis and their apologists piss me off. If you want to sanitise Hitler through cutesy captions, use your own web site. Don't use Wikipedia to promote your pro-Nazi humour.

[1] This post by Guettarda attacking numerous editors without evidence. He made the false statement that Sxeptomaniac, you've made post after post on WR attacking various editors over here. You've gone so far as to threaten to introduce pro-ID POV into articles that most people admit are pretty good.

When asked to either produce this evidence, or apologize for his statement, and disengage the situation, which is what he should have done, he instead escalated the situation by refusing to either admit he was mistaken in his statement or produce evidence to back his statement up.

This led to a heated discussion on ANI where Filll, OrangeMarlin, Odd nature and Jim62sch (the editors who I have the most problems with their behavior in this whole thing) jump in and continue to attack other editors. Again, well-poisoning. These editors have let their hatred of another site and particularly, one of its users (who rightly or wrongly, is currently blocked from Wikipedia, although there was discussion on unblocking him) affect their good sense.

Link to ANI discussion


[edit] User:Orangemarlin

This user has full rights to believe that certain phrases that he uses are code-words for racism and the like. However, he does not have the right to personally attack other editors by calling them Neo-Nazis, and racist, anti-semitic enabling pigs. WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are non-negotiable policies. You do not get free passes to ignore these policies because you disagree with others over the meaning of a phrase.

Statements like Racism is uncivil, and, therefore, can be treated in any manner chosen. There is no reason to treat a racist, anti-semitic pig anything but uncivilly. are fundamentally incorrect when it comes to Wikipedia policy. If he finds that he cannot abide those rules because it's too important to him to fight his interpertation of a phrase, then maybe Wikipedia's not the best place to be for them.

OrangeMarlin also shares a history with User:Jim62sch, and supported User:Jim62sch's threats against another editor, threats for which Jim62sch was sanctioned for. This created a hostile enviroment that eventually forced the user to retire.

OrangeMarlin has a history of treating wikipedia as a Battleground and of not working within Wikipedia's rules regarding civility and NPA, and accusing opponents in editing as Anti-Semitic: See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jim62sch/Evidence#Personal_attacks_and_incivility_by_Orangemarlin for more evidence of this behavior.

[edit] User:Jim62sch

This user has a very checkered past when it comes to resolving disputes here on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jim62sch is a case where Jim62sch was sanctioned for threatening another user and contributing to a hostile enviroment, which eventually caused his opponent to leave Wikiipedia.

Jumps into the AN discussion linked in Guettarda's section above, and starts attacking other editors.

[edit] User:Filll

Has a history of defending the other editors incivility. Has admittedly canvassed multiple editors to oppose a RfAdmin case (he says this is a one time thing, and a mistake, and I assume good faith that it won't happen again). Jumped into the ANI discussion and made things worse. Tends to see "cabals" where there were none. I have attempted to discuss the whole issue with Filll, and got nothing but further insults and attacks for my attempt to resolve issues.

[edit] User:Odd nature

This statement has said it all. The real issue as not the ID editors, most of whom have been productive and trusted Wikipedia contributors for years, but rather the campaign being run against them by WikipediaReview regulars like Cla68, Sceptre, Moulton, The undertow, etc. at WikipediaReview. Now that's a topic worth discussing. Posts no evidence to support that.

(as I said, this is a first draft, and will be added to in the future)

[edit] How to fix it?

Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter intelligently and engage in polite discussion. If a user acts uncivilly, uncalmly, uncooperatively, insultingly, harassingly, or intimidatingly toward you, this does not give you an excuse to do the same in retaliation. from WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND.

The users involved need to understand that by their behavior, and assuming Bad Faith of anyone who has good-faith concerns about their behavior they are creating the very same "enemies" that they claim to be defending Wikipedia from. SirFozzie (talk) 00:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Those Who Endorse this section
  1. SirFozzie (talk) 02:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. Orderinchaos 09:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. giggy (:O) 09:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  4. Sceptre (talk) 10:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  5. Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC) - especially the conclusion.
  6. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 16:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  7. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 16:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  8. Only the bolded section in "how to fix it." Users should be civil to eachother. PouponOnToast (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response by Odd nature

What I'd like to see out of this RFC is for Sceptre, Sxeptomaniac, UserB, SirFozzie, LaraLove, Giggy, and Random832 to:

  1. Start assuming the good faith members of Guettarda, OrangeMarlin, Filll, and Jimsch62.
  2. Stop undermining the ability of Guettarda, OrangeMarlin, Filll, and Jimsch62 to continue contributing to Wikipedia by referring to them and others in Wikipedia:WikiProject intelligent design as a "ID cabal" and by raising weak or exaggerated concerns over their behavior. [2] [3] [4] [5][6][7][8][9]
  3. Per Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki_harassment stop using discussing Guettarda, OrangeMarlin, Filll, Jimsch62 and other Wikipedia:WikiProject intelligent design members at WikipediaReview as seen here: [10][11][12][13][14] Guettarda, OrangeMarlin, Filll, and Jimsch62 all feel it is harassment and it is clearly an aggravating factor in this dispute.
  4. Stop undermining attempts at DR that seek to address any behavior beyond that of Guettarda, OrangeMarlin, Filll, and Jimsch62, such as their own.[15] [16]

[edit] Those Who Endorse this section

  1. Odd nature (talk) 17:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. Of course, I'd appreciate this. However, I cannot endorse including User:B in this action. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. Guettarda (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  4. With reservations, and to the extent that the requests are concrete and quantifiable. On 1, I do not intend to imply that good faith has not been assumed in the past, rather that all parties should take care to do so going forwards. On 2, the request to not refer to the series of editors as a "cabal" is very reasonable, and should be accomidated. On 3, the request to not discuss editors on the other site is very reasonable and should be accomidated. On 4, attempts at dispute resolution should not be undermined, but I do not intend to imply that such undermining has happened. PouponOnToast (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  5. Let's end this charade before things get worse, which they undoubtedly will if this sort of broad attack and witchhunt continues.--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response to B's claim of being uninvolved

User:B has a history of making poor-founded allegations against me, FeloniousMonk going back to December 2007. At the Ferrylodge RFAR B introduced weak circumstantial "evidence" (ultimately rejected) that I was a sockpuppet of FeloniousMonk: [17][18] He's continued to advise others on how best to go after FeloniousMonk at WikipediaReview: [19][20][21]

[edit] Comment on the above

That is a different dispute. PouponOnToast (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Agree with PouponOnToast - this issue is beyond the scope of this RfC and thus another dispute--Cailil talk 19:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response by User:B

Regarding the above section by Odd nature, #'s 2-4 obviously don't apply to me because I have never done any of the them, nor have you provided any evidence whatsoever that I have. Listing seven names and providing a diff that at least one of the seven has done something that you don't like is not evidence that all seven are engaged in a campaign of harassment.

In regards to item #1, OrangeMarlin and I have, I believe, resolved our differences and have had nothing but cordial conversations for a few months now. In regards to Jim62sch, I don't think I have even interacted with him since his arbcom case several months back. In regards to Guettarda, the only conversation I can recall recently is where he, on the deleted RFC, left a comment calling my introduction of arbitration evidence an attack and making other false claims. I gave a lengthy reply 5 hours before the RFC was deleted. I have temporarily posted it for inspection of interested parties at User talk:B/ID arbitration evidence. Whatever it is, this is not a problem of me assuming bad faith. Regarding Filll, we disagreed over an image in D. James Kennedy a few months back and I didn't pursue it any further once it became clear that consensus supported Filll's version. I never questioned that he was acting in good faith. That's about our only disagreement since the FL case I think.

The point is that none of this has anything to do with me. If you want an RFC on my conduct, then you are free to open one. But this mass RFC has nothing to do with me. --B (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Those Who Endorse this section

  1. B (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. PouponOnToast (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  4. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  5. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  6. --Tombomp (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by User:Random832

I am not involved in any of the underlying content disputes and do not have any significant affiliation with anyone else named in this RFC. I therefore regard myself as an uninvolved user, and object to my inclusion in e.g. Odd Nature's section. I have reason to believe that some of the users on one so-called "side" haveOdd Nature has a tendency to label anyone who does not agree with them as supposedly being "friends" or "pals" of one another[22], so I suspect that some of the other named users are also similarly not actually involved.

[edit] Those Who Endorse this section

  1. --Random832 (contribs) 18:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC) - fixed, don't know why I couldn't find that diff before.


[edit] Response to this R832's outside view

While I support the vast majority of what you write above, R832, I would note you are a frequent and active commenter on editors who frequently edit ID articles at wikipedia review. One of the requests presented by some of those editors is that people stop exacerbating the conflict by discussing it over there. If you were to pledge to not discuss this issue at that external website, I would regard your piece in this dispute as closed.

  1. PouponOnToast (talk) 19:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)