Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Intelligent Design

Not the way to do this

RFCs are for a dispute with a single person, for the hope of getting that person to change. Simply lobbing complaints at the ID project isn't going to change anything because there's a lot of noise to have to wade through for an individual editor to figure out what it is that we would like for them to do differently. If there is a particular editor whose ongoing behavior is of a concern, bring an RFC specifically about that person. --B (talk) 20:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That's RFC/U. This is different and is about a generalized conflict. If you would like to raise a concern with an individual editor, please feel free to do so. PouponOnToast (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Multiple members of the Arbcom specifically said at Sceptre's RFAR to file a RFC first. Single RFC, no mention of multiple RFCs. And since Sceptre named more than one party as needing their attention, their response implies that a single RFC would be fine. Odd nature (talk) 18:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This should not be read as necessarily requiring a single RFC. What I would like to see is some effort to (a) clarify, and (b) resolve. It doesn't really matter to me how it's done. Of course, not everything under dispute will be easily resolved. However, I believe there are issues here that CAN be resolved without arbcom, and issues that can be sifted out from this as being unrelated or minor or not suitable for dispute resolution. A simpler, more focused case will improve the odds of the arbcom firstly taking the case at all, and secondly coming out of the process with a less confused result in less time. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I kind of agree with Morven and B on this. A mass of individual RFCs probably would have been less confusing than a single RFC on multiple parties. As it is, there is stuff I agree with in some comments, but often stuff I don't agree with or haven't looked into sufficiently in the same comment. And a lot of the diffs used in these comments link back to statements made by other parties than the specific one being addressed. Amerique^dialectics 15:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Additional items

I think the RfC is a good start, but it misses some elements. Here are a few that come immediately to mind.

• Copious allegations of "POV-pushing" for and against Intelligent design
• Allegations of "ownership" vs. allegations of "tendentious editing" and "disruption."
• Strident debate, continued over many months, about whether or not Intelligent design, particularly its lead, is consistent with WP:NPOV. Some insist it is; some insist it isn't.
• Related debates on a host of articles including Evolution, Objections to Evolution, and Rosalind Picard.

I'm sure there are other issues that should be brought up, but I'm not sure how to include them now that the initial post has been endorsed by multiple users. It would be very helpful if someone would do the grunt work of identifying the dozens of parties to the dispute and notifying them of the RfC. Gnixon (talk) 00:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Very good

This is the best effort I've seen to resolve the situation and I hope it works. One question - is this entirely about Intelligent design or does it extend to behaviour by the editors outside the topic, especially when they disrupt Wikipedia process spaces such as AN/I and AN? Until the RfAr I didn't even know the people involved were ID supporters (I have little-to-no interest in the subject) - I had simply thought they were a group of people behaving like bullies that should be dealt with. When I look at the ID dispute, other people who support ID do not behave in such a manner. The canvassing on a recent RfA and bizarre accusations of racism were just the symptoms of a much wider problem which I've seen unfolding for a few months now. Orderinchaos 02:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that concern is in scope, given the convoluted history that led us here. Of course, you'll need diffs to support the view you have formed if you want others to concur. GRBerry 03:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Once I get these damned assignments and presentations out of the way I'll have time to look :P Orderinchaos 03:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Never mind all this, it seems the thing's going the way I'd hoped anyway in scope terms. I'll put together something in the next few days once I have some free time. Orderinchaos 09:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Please reconsider

I have noticed that User:LaraLove and User:Dtobias and User:Ncmvocalist and possibly a few others have protested their inclusion in this dispute and the associated administrative actions, including one or more of the associated, impending and threatened RfCs. These editors object on the grounds that they are not related to this dispute and want to opt-out of it.

However, I will respectfully point out that this is exactly the situation that the members of the ID Wikiproject, and even a group of editors that are not members of the ID Wikiproject, face in the ID RfAr filed by User:Sceptre, User:SirFozzie et al [1]. The same is true of the impending RfCs and potential Arbcomm actions. As User:Durova noted, this form of mass group administrative action where the group has poorly defined boundaries sets one or more precedents, and might not be the best conceived approach to settling any underlying dispute [2].

The ID RfAr broadly supposedly targets the ID Wikiproject, naming in particular User:Filll (who is no longer a member), User:Orangemarlin (who is no longer a member), User:Guettarda, User:KillerChihuahua, User:Jim62sch, and User:Ali'i even implies that User:JoshuaZ (never a member), User:Baegis, User:Odd nature, User:dave souza (never a member), User:Raymond Arritt (never a member and scrambled his password because of repeated intimidation, including the ID RfAr filing), User:Badger Drink (never a member), User:ScienceApologist (never a member), User:QuackGuru (never a member), and User:FeloniousMonk are also to be included in this broad attack. The RfAr makes allegations of evil collective behavior. There are all kinds of vague and unsubstantiated claims in the RfAr, even though at this writing it has been open for about 13 days, which should be more than enough time to produce at least some minimal evidence of substantial wrong-doing, which has not yet been forthcoming. All of these editors are treated as some sort of evil monolith, and all are blamed for a mistake made by any single editor, and any purportedly uncivil wording of any given editor is attributed to all the members of this ill-defined group.

As User:Thatcher stated on May 30, 2008: "And remember that your conduct in bringing the case will be looked at just as closely as the conduct of those you name in the case, so using the RFC as an opportunity for flamewars and personal attacks is going to be self-defeating." If we going to allow a precedent where 14 editors can be named as targets of a vague catch-all WP:COATRACK-y assault, then the side bringing these complaints will have to endure a similar treatment and scrutiny of their actions associated with this dispute or leading to this dispute, as Thatcher so fairly and presciently states. In fact, since I have been attacked mainly for doing nothing more than defending other members of this purported and mystical "cabal", then those same standards will have to be applied to all. So by that standard, clearly User:LaraLove and User:Dtobias are suitable targets for one or more administrative actions. In addition, User:LaraLove was deeply involved in provoking, enabling and defending some of the behaviors that are part and parcel of this dispute, so should be included on that basis as well. I do not know the particulars of Ncmvocalist and any potential others who might be more tenuously involved, but given that there are demands by SirFozzie and Sceptre et al that they be allowed to attack the widest possible group of editors, then it is only fair that the exact same standards be applied to both sides in this dispute.

I would repeat the previous appeal of User:FeloniousMonk for all involved to just disengage and walk away from this RfAr, the RfC drafts, and any further impending administrative actions, which he made in the deleted RfC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sceptre, Sxeptomaniac, SirFozzie, B. I forsee nothing but wasted time and irritation from this series of RfAr proceedings, RfCs and Arbcomm proceedings. As Thatcher stated, everyone's behavior is going to be under investigation and scrutiny if this goes ahead. No one should be allowed to "opt out", and probably no one will be allowed to "opt out". Any mistake or misunderstanding or ill-considered remark made on Wikipedia, or possibly on other sites such as Wikipedia Review, will be open to examination and second-guessing and potential misinterpretation. Highly improper and uncivil comments like Sceptre's gleeful edit summary that was used when he opened this RfAr are going to be criticized. I would ask everyone on all sides to please use some rationality here and please walk away from this potential huge time sink and impending disaster. All those attacking the ID Wikiproject should not feel so smug, since it is quite likely that a serious examination is going to turn up evidence of bad behavior on the anti-ID Wikiproject and pro-WR side that is not going to necessarily reflect them in the best possible light.

What can be done to resolve this

(1) Stop talking about the members of the ID Wikiproject off-wiki (2)Start assuming good faith of all ID Wikiproject members (3) Stop calling the ID Wikiproject a cabal (4) Stop undermining the credibilitiy and ability of ID Wikiproject members to function effectively.

I personally feel harassed and would like it to stop. I feel I am being driven off the project, since I am constantly being undermined through exaggerated accusations. I have withdrawn from RfAs and RfBs and other polls because of this harassment. I have withdrawn from editing all evolution, creationism and intelligent design articles and all other controversial articles because of this harassment. What more can I do but just leave the project?

So I ask all concerned: Please reconsider.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Come again? You say that I'm a "suitable target" because people who bring cases (RFCs, RFARs, etc.) are subject to examination and criticism themselves... exactly what cases have I brought against you? Although I've commented in several of these RFCs and RFARs (though I don't think any that actually had you as a party), I am not the one who initiated any of them, and have yet to be named a party to any such case myself. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well if any association or defense of anyone for anything that the accuser deems appropriate is considered a crime, which obviously is what the Sceptre ID RfAr is attempting to set as a precedent, then you and just about anyone else could be a target. After all, the same was done to the ID Wikiproject, and anyone vaguely associated with it, even nonmembers, right? If you want to play by those rules, then you have to understand what the consequences are going to be.

So I am asking everyone to just walk away from this madness. Disengage. Back off. Stop calling the ID Wikiproject and associated editors an evil cabal (or for that matter, lumping them together as BADSITES-bashers, for example). Stop attacking them. Start assuming good faith. Just return to sanity, or I fear things are going to get a lot worse around here.--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not even involved in the original dispute, and *I* can see a problem that is in need of resolution. The gross incivility, personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith and disrupting of Wikipedia to make a point has to stop sometime very soon - the community will not let it continue for much longer, and ArbCom's effective rejection of the current case should not be taken as an indication they will not take it again in future if this process does not conclude appropriately. I'm not sure whether to interpret your last sentence above as a threat, but I would note that any deliberate steps taken to escalate this would probably result in blocks for disruption. (Retracted as wording was fixed up) Orderinchaos 20:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Have an editor or two from the ID Wikiproject used profanity? Yes, as members of other Wikiprojects undoubtedly have. And I have cautioned them when I saw it. Was an ID Wikiproject member who lost family in the Holocaust a little overwrought in his response? Yes, but he was cautioned and withdrew it after a day or so. Was he provoked? Yes he sure was. Was there an uncivil response from those on the other side? Unfortunately, yes, which no one was even willing to caution the other side for, and which the other side edit-warred to maintain. Look there is plenty of blame and accusations to go around here. And if the finger pointing starts, it will be quite unpleasant. Do not make the mistake of thinking that all the finger-pointing will be in just one direction. Join me in pleading to end this madness. This set of dispute resolution procedures applied in such a broad manner are not going to produce a reasonable resolution.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for rephrasing. As an aside, I also lost family in the Holocaust - but I don't see what that has to do with people running around in unrelated sections of the encyclopaedia calling people racists and such. If we could at least get an assurance from those who were involved that there will be no more of it, I for one would be happy to see the matter drop - as a vaguely agnostic former creationist, my interest in the Intelligent Design article/debate is about as low as it gets, and I much prefer the Australian politics and geography sections. :) Orderinchaos 22:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I was just going to ask Filll to consider rephrasing the last sentence, given how such sentences have been interpreted when uttered by others. Merzul (talk) 20:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

How is that instead?--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Better. But Filll, you are drawing wrong conclusions from this episode. I can't think of any editor worth taking seriously, who would actually want you to stop editing articles on evolution. I have not seen anyone try to undermine your expertise on evolution and intelligent design. Many people are questioning the attitude on talk pages, and I'm ambivalent on this issue, but I will just state two things and you are free to make whatever you want of it.

First point, if you recall we had a short argument about NPOV, where you convincingly won the debate. You did that when you finally calmed down and explained the context of the article. Second point, there was an editor, who was constantly relying on OR. That disruption became apparent, when you calmed down and just asked for sources.

Whatever you do, not editing in your field of expertise would be the worst outcome of this whole thing. However, if you could moderate your talk page comments, it will be so far more obvious, who is building the encyclopaedia, and who are there only to promote their own opinions. Merzul (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I am being threatened, over and over, in what I feel is an unfair and unreasonable fashion. So, I am not going to edit those articles. Just like people with this hostile kind of attitude drove off Raymond arritt. Just like people with this hostile kind of attitude drove off Woonpton. And dozens of other experts. Do people want to create a hellish environment and publish nonsense? Be my guest. I don't want to fight. And many of the people involved in this dispute do not really edit articles at all, but just get into fights, I have noticed.

So I will ask, again as nicely as I know how, to please please resolve this in a reasonable fashion. Because if it is not resolved, and things continue in the direction it is heading, it will not be good for anyone. It is not up to me. I did not start this fight. I am pleading with people to walk away from this fight however. And I gave concrete suggestions above. I have endorsed FeloniousMonk's suggestion to end this in the deleted RfC. I have endorsed Odd nature's suggestion to end this in this RfC. --Filll (talk | wpc) 21:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That hostile kind of attitude also drove off Videmus Omnia - it's curious that you don't mention that along with those others, isn't it? --Random832 (contribs) 21:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

So would you care to tell me why VO's pattern of editing was completely the opposite of what one would expect of someone who felt they had been threatened? And why was VO allowed to get away with publishing private emails and revealing personal information? And making 2 legal threats? Any answers for those?--Filll (talk | wpc) 21:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Omnibus reconcilation draft by User:PouponOnToast

Both sides have legitimate concerns. They can all be addressed.

The major apparent concern expressed by long-term ID editors is that they are being hounded by long-term not ID editors. The major apparent concern expressed by long-term not ID editors is that long-term ID editors are incivil. Thus

Voluntary civility restriction Users who sign on to the omnibus reconciliation proposal (ORP) are placed on a voluntary civility restriction. In the event they say something incivil to another party to the ORP, they may be informed that they are in violation of their voluntary civility restriction by any party to the ORP. The phrases "clique," "cabal," "crowd," "mob," and "hivemind," are designated incivil by fiat when used to refer to Wikipedia editors in good standing. Users are strongly cautioned that "Member," or "Regular," and similar phrases of affiliation must not be used to place undue weight on any affiliation. Notifications can be withdrawn by the notifier at their sole discretion. Notifiers may only notify any given editor once per month. Editors who are notified of three violations in less than one month are removed from the ORP and may not rejoin.

Voluntary discussion&dispute resolution restriction Users who sign on to the omnibus reconciliation proposal (ORP) are placed on a voluntary discussion restriction. In the event they discuss the actions of another party to the ORP outside of that user's talk page, the article talk page of the sole proximate article or the ORP discussion page, they may be informed that they are in violation of their voluntary discussion restriction by any party to the ORP. Notifications can be withdrawn by the notifier at their sole discretion. Notifiers may only notify any given editor once per month. Editors who are notified of three violations in less than one month are removed from the ORP and may not rejoin.

Voluntary good faith restriction Users who sign on to the omnibus reconciliation proposal (ORP) are placed on a voluntary good faith restriction. In the event they state the actions of another party to the ORP were not done with the goal of improving the encyclopedia, they may be informed that they are in violation of their voluntary good faith restriction by any party to the ORP. Notifications can be withdrawn by the notifier at their sole discretion. Notifiers may only notify any given editor once per month. Editors who are notified of three violations in less than one month are removed from the ORP and may not rejoin.

The underlying thought is that people will stop being incivil so that they don't get attacked on Wikipedia Review. Thoughts?

Responses to ORP draft

Incivility may be some other people's concern, but my concern is that some ID users have a tendency to assume bad faith, which extends to characterizing uninvolved users who attempt to step in and resolve the dispute, or who bring up concerns about their behavior, as somehow being in league with others they are in dispute with. --Random832 (contribs) 19:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Point 3 is an assumption of good faith restriction. PouponOnToast (talk) 19:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough - just pointing out that the AGF problems are concerns in both direction. --Random832 (contribs) 19:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to propose that "WR cabal", along with any other equivalent term or any other term (including inappropriate weight on identifiers like "WR member" or "WR regular" even if otherwise true) that characterizes someone as being a WR member ahead of being a wikipedian, also be designated incivil. --Random832 (contribs) 19:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC) (P.S. incidentally, you misspelled "reconciliation", "discretion", "addressed", "credibility" - and the IRC network is called "freenode")

I've stated I am mildy dislexic. Please correct my spelling. I use a spellcheck in articlespace, but it takes a lot of my time to do so. I've added all of your proposed phrases. PouponOnToast (talk) 20:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that - With your permission I'll simply correct any further obvious spelling errors to avoid drama. --Random832 (contribs)

I do not take corrections of my spelling errors as a personal affront. Most of the time I'm certain that I've spelled it right and that english must have suddenly mutated around me. PouponOnToast (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; this needs to be evenhand:edly applied in all directions. Anything that implies that either side is a monolithic and/or sinister clique, cabal, crowd, mob, hivemind, or any such thing should be regarded as against this pact. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest tightening the discussion restriction to apply to any venue other than the ORPs main discussion page, similar to the dispute resolution issue. If we're not going to let people file RFC's against each other, why should they be allowed to generally "talk shit" on ANI, on one another's talk pages, on IRC, etc, either? --Random832 (contribs) 20:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

And the affected user's talk page but yes. PouponOnToast (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure this would be useful, and I'm concerned it would just add more grounds for the parties to hurl accusations at each other. My fundamental behavioral complaint is that existing policies such as WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:OWN aren't being followed by the involved parties; nor are they enforced by the outside community. If the parties were capable of agreeing to follow those policies and agreeing on what they meant, they (we) wouldn't be here in the first place. Gnixon (talk) 20:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I have found that creating a structured mechanism for enforcement of things and a clear reward/punishment system makes enforcement of such things more likley. This provides a carrot and a stick, an obvious enforcement mechanism and basically gets the parties, who hardly interact anyway, to stop interacting with eachother. The "winner" of this conflict is going to be the first party to say "Those other guys are total assholes. I wish they would stop (beating up on people they disagree with/ExpandingScope to other venues about our disgarement). However, I'm going to stop (defending NPOV so strongly/Discussing this one issue on Wikipedia Review) so that they have nothing left to complain about. Once everyone realize that (they/they) are the ones that won't let this drop, I win!" PouponOnToast (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think it's that simple. I also think Wikipedia Review is only a tangential aspect of the conflict---plenty of the conflict has been carried out entirely on Wikipedia. The parties can't agree on what behavior is expected, so what substantive agreement would all sides sign onto? Gnixon (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

"Disengage." PouponOnToast (talk) 20:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

"Nope". At least if that (the ORP) the only suggestion coming out of this. Plain and simple, Jim/OM/Odd nature et all still believe they've done nothing wrong and that the whole world is out to get them in one vast conspiracy. What this would do is to allow the editors mentioned above free reign to continue to block vote, make unfounded accusations of racism/cabalism/bias, just not to the people who called them on it previously. SirFozzie (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You want a war, or do you want to settle this reasonably? I humbly suggest you follow the suggestion to disengage.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm wiling to settle things reasonably, I just don't see anything reasonable about the solution. SirFozzie (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Other than full capitualtion to your demands that they admit they have done wrong and promise never to do wrong again, what would solve things for you? PouponOnToast (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to be sarcastic and say "I'd like a pony too..." But without an acknowledgement that A) That they in the past have broken WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, WP:NPA, WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, and B) Follow these policies in the future, it's treating the symptoms (The people they inevitably run over/run off/caused grief), and not the disease (the usual and habitual slurs, etcetera) SirFozzie (talk) 22:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Disengage

The problem with the "disengage" idea is that it has essentially been tried by all those who have come in contact with OM/JimSch/Odd, etc., but they keep generating drama with their abuse of newcomers to ID-related pages (independent of whether those newcomers are new accounts or established users). For example, one could look through almost any archive of Intelligent design and find a new handful of reasonable critics of the article with whom they have fought. Gnixon (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

To be more specific, here is a window into one very small fraction of the conflict. First, please read the ID FAR, where critics of the article were systematically smeared as creationist, ID-sympathizing, NPOV-ignoring "POV warriors." To judge whether only an editor fitting that description could validly critique the article, note the criticisms of SandyGeorgia, who was previously 100% uninvolved, and came to the review through her longtime role in the FA process. Second, please read through some of my attempts to bring attention to the extremely uncivil behavior of Orangemarlin. Here is an ANI where "(my) complaint is founded." As always, OM was warned, quickly forgotten about, and allowed to continue his abuse unchecked. Here is OM's absurdly frivolous RfC against me, endorsed by most of the supposed anti-ID "cabal." Please note the analysis of OM's "evidence" by Sandy. Finally, please read in detail the "wikiquette alert" I filed when OM leaped into a discussion to say that I and another editor were supposedly "two creationists masturbating each other to glorious ecstasy." Please also read the original discussion at Talk:Evolution, and note how incredibly difficult it was to overcome OM's successful poisoning of the well, especially with Filll's continuing interjections. At the WQA, outside parties were uniformly critical of OM, who denied any obligation to follow WP:CIVIL. However, in terms of doing anything to remedy the situation, it was crickets from the community. OM was gently warned, and no further action was taken, even after I pointed out how many times he had been "warned" in the past to no effect. Answer me this: how much of OM's behavior would have been tolerated if his editing was perceived to be in favor of ID, instead of opposing it? I emphasize that this is only a tiny, tiny piece of the conflict; it is very time-consuming to document and even more time-consuming to familiarize oneself with it. Gnixon (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll go through everything you wrote in detail, if you will answer this one question with full honesty and a desire to elucidate in clear and unambiguous language, assuming all possible future questions and answering such in one fell clearn and unambiguous swoop.

"Do you hold any beliefs that I would characterize as pseudoscientific or nonscientific of relevence to this discussion?" PouponOnToast (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

No. (Unequivocally, unambiguously, without any doubt. I am willing to convince you of this off-wiki if you require it.) I answer this question specifically in consideration of your good faith promise to read those links in detail; however, know that I strenuously object to the growing McCarthyistic tendency to force editors of these pages to swear an oath of allegiance to science and a denunciation of pseudoscience. The personal views of editors should have no bearing; rather, it is the ability of the editor to participate without fighting to bias articles. It is critical to have the input of adherents to minority viewpoints at the articles about them. Gnixon (talk) 21:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure I would put much stock in that response of Gnixon from what I remember of their edits. I might also add to this, if OM was uncivil, and you felt he was not adequately warned or punished, should everyone that has ever edited with OM or defended OM's point of view on something or agreed with OM or appeared in an organization with OM be attacked for OM's purported incivility?--Filll (talk | wpc) 21:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You have to answer for this, among other things. Gnixon (talk) 22:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

And everyone else? --Filll (talk | wpc) 22:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Orangemarlin, Filll, (Adam), Jim62sch, FeloniousMonk, Odd Nature, JoshuaZ, and KillerChihuaha all, in my opinion, need to answer for endorsing that ridiculous RfC. Gnixon (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

While it was useful to show the "bloc vote" of that group, I don't think that people who I am assuming good faith actually feel that way "need to answer" for that. (The other things that's been well detailed, yes, this, no.) SirFozzie (talk) 22:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I respect your attitude toward WP:AGF, but I think signing such a blatantly frivolous RfC explicitly demonstrates an attempt to game the dispute resolution process in order to eliminate an opponent. The only other possible interpretation is a failure to even look at the basis of the RfC, which demonstrates a failure to WP:AGF towards me. Hence my opinion that they need to "answer" for it. Gnixon (talk) 22:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That is your own narrow, biased, point of view, isnt it? You do not think that others might not have their own lists of things you have to answer for? If you want to get into a mud slinging contest, and dig up ancient grievances, there will plenty of unpleasantness all around. That is why I support the calls for disengagement.--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Please identify any such transgressions on my part, and I will respond. I challenge you to find my signature on anything as reprehensible as that RfC. Gnixon (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You want to relitigate that RfC which is about a year old? What on earth is your problem? You were not sanctioned. Nothing happened to you. Give it a rest. Why do you want to fight so badly?--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not ancient; it's entirely germane to this RfC, which deals with issues that have been festering and ignored for over a year. I don't want to fight, but I will stand up for myself. The RfC was never resolved, and all of you owe the community an explanation or an apology. Gnixon (talk) 02:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Gnixon's response to Ali'i from main project page

Comment It's not true that everyone agrees the ID article is done well. One of the basic points of disagreement has been over whether it displays a bias against its subject (which is possible even if the article is well-researched and well-sourced). Please see, for example, the ID FAR. Gnixon (talk) 20:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There will always be disagreements, particularly when editors are unable to accept the requirements of NPOV: Pseudoscience, undue weight and giving "equal validity". . . dave souza, talk 21:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but we disagree over whether you or I are correctly interpreting and applying those policies. This is why a deep look is required by qualified outsiders. I really don't think it's fair to try and chalk this up to your opponents failing to "accept" policy when so many rational, unconnected individuals have tried to explain that they disagree with your understanding of the policies. Gnixon (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I have slightly altered my statement. I hope this is more suitable and accurate. Mahalo. --Ali'i 22:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Although "very few" may correctly apply to those who have already commented here, I don't think it accurately represents the set of editors who have been seriously involved in this disagreement. For example, I suspect it wouldn't represent the list at the original RfAr. I'm certain it wouldn't be a fair representation if we added to the group a number of individuals who have (a) criticized the article on its talk page in the last year, and (b) specifically denied adhering to ID or creationism. Gnixon (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

If they comment here, I'd be more than happy to re-tweke my statement. :-) --Ali'i 22:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks. Gnixon (talk) 22:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The tweaks look good to me. Thanks, dave souza, talk 22:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if someone "specifically denies adhering to ID or creationism" - Filll will just say that they're lying - he did it to Moulton in the RFC, and he did it to you in the section right above this one. --Random832 (contribs) 04:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

As I have said, over and over and over, it does not matter one bit if an editor adheres to evolutionary explanations or intelligent design or biblical literalism or panspermia or creationism or whatever. In principle, they can still apply the policies of Wikipedia and edit in a consensual manner; this has nothing to do with what they personally believe. However, as I have noted repeatedly, the problem with Moulton's seemingly intentional misrepresentations is that they put me in a very bad position and possibly even subject to arrest because I applied good faith, and took Moulton at his word [3].

Are you willing to be arrested for your volunteer activity involved with writing a copyleft encyclopedia? I want to hear an honest answer to THAT question before I hear any more nonsense about how "I am only attacking Moulton because he believes in intelligent design" (which given his other falsehoods, might or might not be true, or might just be a story he made up to create as much turmoil as possible, since he has a long history of doing this online).--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

If someone "specifically denies adhering to ID or creationism" and makes typically creationist statements, as Moulton did, then I assume that they're simply ill informed. We have had self-proclaimed creationists editing the main article, and indeed the DI has claimed that its staff have tried to get the article altered, but individual edits must be judged on their merits. Of course we do get a stream of criticisms made by editors who have difficulty with understanding policies, but then that's pretty normal. . . dave souza, talk 09:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)--I take umbrage with Dave's inaccurate insinuation (by way of Moulton as an example) that those who are accused of being creationists are so accused because they were behaving as such. From the fiasco at the Rosalind Picard entry (see Talk:Rosalind_Picard/archive1) you can add others to list of accused apologists for creationism and ID. Here Odd nature claims that Merzbow, an avowed atheist is a "long time ID fan". Here Filll claims that I have bought completely into the propaganda of the Discovery Institute. FCYTravis made the very apt comment "that everyone who is taking a critical look at the way Picard is being portrayed here, is automatically tagged and tarred as an ID advocate." To which Filll responded with the usual claim that it in fact does not matter if someone believes in ID or not, which makes no sense given the repeated tactical accusations thereof. I think you'll find, as Travis commented, that most uninvolved editors who try to bring an outside perspective into these ID feuds do get tarred and feathered, to the detriment of reasoned discourse. I'm fairly certain that neither FCYTravis, Merzbow, or I believe in anything but biological evolution, but of course that doesn't matter ...PelleSmith (talk) 14:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

As I have said repeatedly, I do not care what you believe (see above). You can still edit according to the principles under which Wikipedia operates, right? The problem arises when (1) A person frantically claims they are an atheist, or believe in scientific explanations, or in biological evolution, or common descent, or whatever, and then takes the opposite tact in arguments lasting hours, days, and months on end; this creates a somewhat bad impression, to say the least (2) Someone like Moulton makes certain assertions, and then people act based on those assertions, and are burned for trusting someone like Moulton. It does not have to be evolution and intelligent design; for example, it be the same if Moulton claimed incorrectly that person X had served with honor in war Y, and thereby induced some editor to act in some manner that put that editor in a bad position, or even at risk. It is the outcome of the misrepresentations that Moulton makes that are a problem, not the misrepresentations themselves. Otherwise, you can believe whatever you like. You can even lie about what you believe; I do not care. Who cares? It only becomes a problem when it negatively affects your fellow editors.--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

"You can even lie about what you believe ..." What a unflattering insinuation Filll. You have touched on exactly the problem with these accusations, by the way (despite your claims of not caring). You want us to believe that what someone claims about themselves is simply a matter of "belief" which has no bearing on the discussion that person is having. On the other hand you want us to believe that your assessment of the POV that this same person is pushing should be taken as "fact". Please note here that it is exactly this faulty assessment that those speaking up about their own beliefs are trying to counteract--no one cares what you claim about their true being, they care about what what you claim they are doing here at Wikipedia. As you say, it is not a problem to believe in X, Y, or Z, the problem occurs when someone acts upon such belief and pushes that POV into entries, or into arguments (which is what you STILL accuse those arguing against you of doing regardless of their true "beliefs"). In effect you are accusing others of breaking the law and then saying that you don't care whether or not they truly wanted to break the law--such accusations require evidence. To that effect can you produce any diffs which show that either I or Merzbow took "the opposite tact in arguments lasting hours"? Maybe just one diff that shows us "taking the opposite tact" at all? Your word doesn't cut it Filll, we need evidence. I also think it is rather clear that we don't believe we took any such "opposite" tact, and were doubly dumbfounded by the accusations given what we know about our own beliefs. So lets see some evidence Filll. If I unwittingly "took the opposite tact" then I'd love to see it so that I can improve my communication skills.PelleSmith (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

(It's "tack," guys, like in a sailboat. Gnixon (talk) 01:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC))

I'm going to have to disagree with you both, here. PelleSmith, your umbrage is at an "insinuation" which I did not make. Speaking for myself, when anyone makes a typically creationist statement I assume that they're simply ill informed and do not accuse them of being creationists. In my opinion Filll is wrong to have asserted that you had bought into ID propaganda, and Odd Nature should not have asserted that Merzbow is a "long time ID fan". It was a heated discussion in which I took little part for time reasons, but you did seem to me to be misrepresenting my statements,[4] though it's likely that your remarks were aimed at others. I'll certainly agree that it's important that discussions focus on improvements to the article and don't get derailed into accusations about behaviour. Hopefully we can all improve our way of communicating. . dave souza, talk 15:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Umbrage to wrongful insinuation stricken with apologies. There may have been miscommunication at the time of that heated discussion, and there most probably is a larger communication problem, as you suggest as well. I agree 100%. That said these types of accusations are a problem, and they sour these discussions from the very beginning. The fact that they often are made without any real evidence of either pro-ID beliefs or behaviors only makes those accused react more strongly. The fact that instead of being retracted they are often explained away by comments like Filll's "it doesn't matter what you believe anyway" also does not help. For instance I would not be asking Filll for evidence after an accusation if he would only admit his mistake, or his misrepresentation and let it die there. Instead he engages in what we can all witness here. Irritation builds and AGF gets harder and harder. I'm no saint, and I've certainly overreacted and/or used language I've regretted from time to time, but should I go around accusing others of policy violations or disruptively editing by way of a fringe POV, I should hope that if I could not produce any evidence others would reprimand me at the very least. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and that's a fair point. . . dave souza, talk 18:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Good heavens, I never said you did lie. What on earth? You have extremely thin skin here, or are just looking for a fight. I am not going to try to dig up any evidence for whatever you claim I should, and which might not even exist. Please give it a rest.--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Filll, please accept that there have been misunderstandings. I fully agree that things have been said in the heat of discussion that hindered rather than helped communication. Jumping to assertions about editors' beliefs has caused problems, and no one should do it. There have been problems in the past with pov pushers and sockpuppets that have led to suspicions being easily aroused by use of certain terms or arguments, but even then, I've found civil discussions useful up to a point. The downside of suspicions became woefully evident in the Picard discussion which led to unnecessary ill feelings, and in future we've got to make a much better effort to assume good faith, discuss things civilly and make a real effort to understand valid points being raised. It's difficult to avoid burnout when dealing with a continuing stream of obvious pov pushing, but we've still got to take care to respond properly to genuine concerns. Not easy, but improvements are needed. . . dave souza, talk 18:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion about current situation

Combined with the comments from Filll and Odd nature about how we're stifling their opportunity to present evidence against myself and others.. you know it's kinda funny, I suggested that we keep the RfC we had because, heck, ArbCom wanted one to clarify the issues to determine what an ArbCom case should be about.

I even suggested to Gnixon that he let bygones be bygones on the RfC and assume good faith that while it was prima facie evidence of bloc voting, that you might actually feel that way. I think more what Filll and Odd nature are more upset about is that their "evidence" has been judged by the community to be misleading, up to a complete smear job, and that we're not backing down from pointing out the facts, that you have made and are making unproven, false accusations, violate the rules on personal attacks and civility on a regular basis, etcetera.

And before you start fulminating about "if you want a war, I'll give you one", Filll, note this. I made multiple attempts to extend an olive branch to you, to try to build a bridge over the gap here. First there was the webchat, which 95% of the conversation was you attacking me. There was no discussion, because you weren't there to discuss, you were there to fight. You were asked multiple times by the chat's sponsor to reign in your attacks, and you refused, and the chat was ended because you couldn't stop with the attacks.

Then, trying to build a bridge again, I offered another olive branch on the deleted RFC talk page. I admitted that I had lost my temper and said a couple things I shouldn't and apologized for them. Said I don't want to see anyone banned over this. I don't want to have to go through yet another draining, drag-out, ArbCom case. I've had enough of those for quite a while yet. I want you guys to cut out calling opposing editors anything like Neo-Nazis, or racists, or anti-semitic, etcetera. Just follow the rules of Wikipedia.. is that so hard?

Apparently it is, because instead of trying to build a bridge, you and others try to napalm the bridge. Say we're keeping you from presenting evidence against us. Attack Moreschi for trying to save you from yourselves (Accusing him of being a WR Cabal-ite wasn't a particularly good idea, when it comes to that subject, I have a feeling he's a lot closer to your side of the ledger then the folks who DO post there). The RfC had descended into a farce because the RfC was long on accusations by Odd nature and yourself (you certified it, after all), and short on proof. 22 people actually signed up to a view that called your evidence against that user, "a joke." I think the phrase they'd use in Texas is "All Hat, and No Cattle".

Now, where we go from is in your court, Filll, OM, Jim, etcetera. You guys can reach out and start bridging the gap, or you can continue widening it, and we can all take our chances with ArbCom. Continuing to attack others isn't going to get you out of the situation. Ball's in your court guys.. what are you going to do with it? SirFozzie (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

This is one of the most incredible posts I have ever seen. You believe that deleted RfC contained my arguments? You have got to be kidding. I have not even begun to dish out evidence. It is just a framework to begin to examine the facts that lead up to this situation. I have not even begun to defend myself. If you think I have, you are sadly mistaken. And you think defending myself is attacking you? Well you have got to be kidding. Is there some sort of policy on Wikipedia stating that I am not allowed to defend myself? Please direct me to such a policy.

You believe I have not extended an olive branch? What on earth? In the RfAr I asked people to drop this attack because it could lead to charges of vexatious litigation. I endorsed FeloniousMonk's statement that this entire dispute should be dropped on the deleted RfC. I sat quietly for the most part while you repeated your litany of attacks and fallacious claims during the "peace conference" [5]. I have asked in the injunction request thread for a peaceful resolution to this [6]. I have asked on the Gnixon RfC talk page for a peaceful resolution to this [7]. I have pleaded repeatedly on this talk page for a peaceful resolution to this situation [8] [9] [10] [11]. Over and over, my appeals or ignored, or dismissed, or ridiculed, or my efforts result in someone figuratively spitting in my face.

If this continues, I and others will defend ourselves. And my prediction is, you will not like the defense very much. So I am asking once again, for what must be approaching the tenth time, to please disengage and walk away from this very poorly conceived mass attack, this "Sh_t storm" that your allies so gleefully dubbed this scurrilous assault.--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Gah...facepalm... Really it's terrible to see things come to this. It was a spur of the moment chat, an attempt to build bridges, and it didn't work out. My hope had been that you could find common ground or at least walk away having left no stone unturned. SirFozzie, please withdraw the comment about submitting that to arbitration. Filll, please delete that blog post. You don't like each other; we all know that. But please don't generate a situation where other people in future conflicts become afraid to conference with me. I walk enough eggshells already. Durova^Charge! 05:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I will remove it if you want, once he has acknowledged reading it and possibly assimilating some of the content. We will see.--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

SirFozzie's failure to assume both good faith and any responsibility for helping create this situation is appalling. Equally appalling is Filll expanding this matter to his blog. I'm really disappointed in both of you; I really thought we were making some progress here. If SirFozzie and gang do not accept some responsibility for their actions at Wikipedia and comments at WikipediaReview having inflamed and to some degree created this situation and Filll does not refrain from spreading this conflict to his blog, I don't see anything other than arbitration settling this situation. Odd nature (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

BTW, Odd, I have posted a link on my talk page with a link to all my posts on WR, and specific links to the four posts I made on this situation there. I invite you to review them. SirFozzie (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright that makes two people decrying that blog post. Well, it just gives my version of the "peace conference". But if it so offends everyone, I will remove it.--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that this case would best be handled by formal mediation, not arbitration. Mediation allows for a better focus on content, and a de-escalation of disputes about conduct. However, for it to be successful, all active editors (as well as any involved administrators) have to be involved in the mediation, not just editors who are involved in a conduct dispute. Bwrs (talk) 08:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

And that's exactly why Mediation is not an option. We're not focusing on content , but conduct. SirFozzie (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree this is about conduct, but some non-trivial analysis of content is needed in order to appreciate that these guys haven't just been beating up on vandals, trolls, and "POV-pushers." For example, it is helpful to judge whether the Picard biography was acceptable content before trying to judge whether Moulton was being "disruptive" or insisting on a valid point. The parties accused of bad conduct have often defended themselves with a "defending Wikipedia" excuse, which has unfortunately been an effective excuse. Gnixon (talk) 18:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, this has been explained over and over. And repeating it again and misrepresenting it yet again really does not do credit to you, or do anything to try to quell this situation.--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Gnixon, that's an interesting if rather complex case, but you should remember that all concerned were acting in good faith. The problem with Moulton's intervention was not so much a content issue, though that itself is a valid area of discussion, as his insistence on putting forward his lengthy original research as the basis for the changes he demanded. His refusal to comply with core policies has still not been resolved, despite extensive negotiation and discussion, and his conduct was both extremely tiresome and a barrier to resolving the question of appropriate content. The community can not have infinite patience, and when a few editors find themselves spending a huge amount of time coping with ill informed editors they can find it hard to maintain an ideal level of civility. As Raul's essay on civil pov pushers shows, there's no easy answer but more eyes on contentious articles is probably the best way forward. . . dave souza, talk 19:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this entire debate boils down to POV, and that is a content issue first, and a conduct issue second; in fact, assuming that everybody is acting in good faith, it is a content issue only. Furthermore, mediation does not exclude conduct from its purview, as long as everybody is agreeable and civil. Bwrs (talk) 03:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no "content issue" Bwrs. Intelligent design is a featured article, it's already met Wikipedia's highest standards for content, and has been such for many, many months. That you fail to recognize or understand this distinction calls into question your understanding of Wikipedia's content policies, much less your opinion about the specific content or behavior around it. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Dave, I agree it's complex, and I think it's difficult to disentangle the content and conduct issues. I really do appreciate your OR frustrations with that case, and I know there were a lot of words to parse. There is a substantive discussion worth having about how much good faith to extend to new editors whose edits make one suspicious of bias: one can worry about allowing them to bias an article or waste others' time; alternatively, one can worry about too hastily rejecting them, thereby missing valid points or losing future positive contributions. There are deletionists and inclusionists; likewise, one can have an open or protective philosophy. The critical thing is that we keep the conversations collegial and honest. I don't think I buy Raul's "civil POV-pusher" theory. There are trolls and bullies (whose behavior can and must be dealt with), and there are reasonable people who can eventually be convinced by reason. If articles can't be maintained without shoving aside reasonable, wrong people, then the entire concept of Wikipedia is flawed. If an argument is good enough to convince one wrong person, then others will have heard it, and can use it to convince the next wrong person when you're too exhausted to carry the flag. Returning finally to specifics, I maintain that Moulton's valid concerns could have been addressed without relying upon OR or otherwise compromising our policies. The tactics used to silence him were shameful. Gnixon (talk) 05:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Questions

I have some questions for you, if you think you are so smart about this. (1) If Moulton was such an easy obvious "shameful" case, why did 20 people have trouble with him at his RfC? Including those who initially supported him? (2) Why were his appeals to Arbcomm turned down twice? (3) Why did all three of the people who wanted him unblocked and wanted to mentor him recently all decide that they did not think he should be unblocked and that they did not want to mentor him? (4) Why did Moulton not do what Filll requested to clean up the issues Moulton supposedly had with the article? (5) Why did Picard not indicate that she had the same concerns as Moulton when in communication with Filll? (6) Why did Moulton not do what Durova asked him to clean up the issues Moulton supposedly had with the article? (7) Why was Moulton banned from at least 4 other online communities before this? (8) Was Wikipedia really so unfair to Moulton? Has he not had way more time and attention than most people in his situation? Including at least 3 appearances on WP:NTWW and several AN and AN/I threads and two RfArs and most recently a chance to build a case for himself on his unlocked talk page? So please let's cut with the whining and deal with the facts here. If you think he was so hard done by, why do you not volunteer to mentor him, with the condition that if he screws up again, both of you are banned immediately, no questions asked? How does that sound? Are you ready to stake your editing privileges on it? --Filll (talk | wpc) 14:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you're unnecessarily conflating unrelated issues. The fact that Moulton is a difficult person to deal with, and has personality issues which have caused him problems in many communities and sometimes alienated even those who were originally friendly with him, is independent of whether there is any merit to the issues he has brought up. You seem to want to turn your concerns with that user into a great big straw man in which anybody who ever advocates for any idea similar to Moulton's is expected to answer for, and bear personal responsibility for, every past, present, and future misdeed of Moulton's. *Dan T.* (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope. If anyone wants to take responsibility for Moulton, feel free. I have already made my feelings on the situation perfectly clear here. And if someone is willing to take responsibility for him and will keep him away from places he previously got into trouble, fair enough. Just bear in mind that there are a good 30 or more people at Wikipedia who went down this road before you and who have given up. But if you want to waste your time and energy, be my guest. Just do not expect others to want to clean up any mess that Moulton creates for you.

And I have also discussed at great length the problems with plagiarism and copyright violations and WP:UNDUE and efforts to get more career information and efforts to get statements about Picard's religious beliefs and efforts to get statements about Picard's position on intelligent design and so on. This just didn't start yesterday you know. This has been ongoing since mid-August, 2007. And the issues have not changed. Just more and more people who know less and less have come in and yelled and screamed and thrown tantrums about a situation they know nothing about. --Filll (talk | wpc) 15:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I agree. Dave (and co.) at the time you did what you thought was right. That's cool. It'd suck if you did the opposite - what you thought was wrong - but you didn't. But now it seems, from comments here and from many members of the wider community, that the general mood is that while you thought it was right, others don't think so. Again, that's cool. Our opinions can differ - they must differ at some points or we'll all be robots. So now that we know that quite a few people don't think the way you went about things was cool (though your motive was good!), we need to work on better ways to solve problems of people like (dare I say it) Moulton. Yeah, he was in the wrong... yeah, you were in the right... yeah, your motives are good. We just need to find a better way of communicating all this, one which gives Moulton a chance to learn our ways and change his ways based on them, rather than kicking him out dazed and confused. (And it's not just Moulton, but that's a relevant example. The whole point is that, in general, some people aren't fond of the way some people do things - that's the problem that I'd love to help fix.) giggy _(:O) 11:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

What I think you are ignoring here, is that Moulton has done this over and over and over on different online communities . He has appeared, tried to disrupt them and then been banned from one after another, for many years. This is fun for him. He does it on purpose. He wants to cause trouble and fights and disruption (and we have plenty of evidence, if you missed that part). So you can try to "reform" Moulton all you like. Just do it somewhere else, and do not make someone else clean up the mess he creates. Ok, fair enough?--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment on content, not on the contributor. *Dan T.* (talk) 14:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I might say the same to you Dan. And how about you answer my 8 questions?--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Filll, I find it frustrating that you often refer to "plenty of evidence" but never provide any of it. One of the fundamental complaints about behavior raised in this RfC is that baseless accusations and insinuations are thrown around in order to "poison the well." In any case, can't we independently assess Moulton's ability to contribute constructively? So far, from what I've seen, he's demonstrated an ability to improve articles (Picard) even when extensive discussion is required, and he's shown he has the spirit of a good Wikipedia contributor by posting extensively on his talk page about topics he finds interesting. Presumably, some of those contributions would have instead improved our articles if he hadn't been blocked/banned. Gnixon (talk) 14:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

How about you start with this, and then answer my 8 questions?--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Filll. It's very helpful to have links, because I can judge the evidence for myself. For example, one of the people you quote has the username "notluom" ("Moulton" backwards) and told Moulton that he "looked up your phone number and address and signed up for hundreds of free offers in your name." I don't find that user to be a credible witness to Moulton's character. All it demonstrates to me is that some jackass on some other site got upset at Moulton. I can see that Moulton has run into conflict at other sites, but I don't see evidence of whether or not he's at fault (let alone evidence that convinces me he has a generally impudent character). I'll go look at your questions now. Gnixon (talk) 03:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

But I'm not dating your teenage daughter! :-) *Dan T.* (talk) 15:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at the "evidence" page you linked to, and it seems to consist of a series of quotes of personal attacks against Moulton from off-wiki sites, some of which give his real name. This sort of thing would be labeled "harassment" and "stalking" and "outing" and "personal attacks" and "linking to off-wiki attacks" and "a WP:BLP violation" if it were done to anybody in better favor on Wikipedia. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You can try to explain it all away, as I am sure you want to.

Do you want him unblocked? Ok, see if you can get him unblocked with you as his mentor. But do not expect anyone else to deal with the mess that might result. If you want want to volunteer, feel free to volunteer your time and efforts. Just do not demand anyone else deal with a mess you might create. Take responsibility for your own disasters. If you want to create one, clean up after yourself. Do not expect anyone else to do it for you. And to show that you are serious, why not put your own reputation on the line as a sign that you stand behind all the statements and claims you make, with your editing privileges? After all, others have had to risk theirs to deal with this situation, over and over. So just do not argue for the right to shove this problem on someone else's doorstep and expect you can get away with no consequences. Let's see how serious you really are. --Filll (talk | wpc) 16:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

What statements, claims, demands, or wants have I expressed besides my dislike of your unproductive attitude and your lumping together of everybody who disagrees with you about anything? You seem eager to put ideas in my mouth that I never actually expressed. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you just want to complain, or do you want to do something about it? Because if you are not willing to do something yourself, then your input does not mean very much here.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you mean to say that his input doesn't mean much to you, or are you speaking for everyone here? Gnixon (talk) 03:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

My opinion, is that people who just complain but never step up to the plate really are not helping things here. And in fact, often those who complain have very limited knowledge or experience in the areas they are complaining about. They want to volunteer other people's time and effort, but are not prepared to put their own necks on the line and show how it can be done better, although they claim it can be done better and attack all the other people who tried and did not do it the way they think it should have been done. That frankly, stinks. And if you like being told that, fair enough, that is your right. But then do not complain when you are deservedly treated with contempt or ignored. --Filll (talk | wpc) 17:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Filll, I don't want him unblocked. Let's get that straight. My point is that the way he was treated was crap - ultimately he got his just deserts (as is evident now) but at the time it was unjustified. Please try and open your mind to the possibility we're arguing different things to what you're talking about. giggy _(:O) 03:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

As I have said before, maybe the process should have been dragged out so he could have had a 2 month long RfC instead of an 8 day RfC. It was not my decision. And in the last 10 months, he has had a 2nd chance and a 3rd chance and a 4th chance and so on, in fact way more chances than most people ever do to make his case, and has never been successful. So I think you will have to try pretty hard to make the case that he has not had enough chances and reviews of his situation.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Neither do I. My position is that there needs to be some give and take on both sides before his situation can change, including an admission on his part that he failed to follow Wikipedia policies correctly and agrees to do so in the future. Since this doesn't seem forthcoming, I'm not advocating his immediate unblock. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I have laid out weeks ago exactly what needs to be done to make things better. In fact, I laid out a plan for him to make things better in August of 2007 which he just dismissed since he knew better. He was warned a good 20 or more times that he would get in trouble, but again he dismissed all the warnings. And one wonders if he was not doing it on purpose, given his past online histories and his writings about it and his statements about running an experiment on us to see how we would deal with his intentional disruption. And Durova laid out a plan for him in early fall of 2007 to help him, which he again dismissed. And so on. The ball is in his court. And has been since August of 2007. What people are not quite getting, is that this situation was probably created intentionally by Moulton. He has done it before at many other online communities, and he is even using his same patter here he used at those online communities ("framing", "theories of mind", "Spammish Inquisition" were all terms he used in his previous disputes at other online communities; he has almost a script of nonsense he follows over and over and over and over). He thrives on this sort of situation and turmoil. He has zero interest in actually writing an encyclopedia; he could easily go to any one of hundreds of other Wikis which have different principles than Wikipedia does and write encyclopedia articles there. For example, Moulton objects to WP:NOR and WP:V and WP:RS and WP:NPOV and so on. But these do not exist at most other Wikis. He could easily go to any of them. Instead, he spits and fumes and causes trouble. He even objected strenuously to removing the article that he is most upset about; Picard's biography. Because if it was removed, there would be nothing to fulminate against.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, if people do not want him unblocked, then why keep whining about it? It just is valuable as a weapon, right? So you can attack your political "enemies" right?--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

You do at least as much going on about this stuff as anybody else, so perhaps you should think about what your own motives are? Mine are simply to seek fair play and oppose double standards. Moulton is insistent that he's right about everything and that all his problems are other people's fault, and that all the compromise and change needed to settle his issues need to be done by other people, not him. I disagree with him on this, and said so when I was on the Not the Wikipedia Weekly show with him. But I also disagree with those, like you, who insist on the mirror-reversed position, that you're right about everything and all the problems are solely his fault. There's plenty of fault and blame to go around, and regardless of his annoying style and tendency to repetitively bring up a few memes and tropes he's obsessed with, he does have some valid points that your side chooses to dismiss. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Answers

See Filll's questions above. I'm answering these in consideration of his response to my request for a link to some of his "plenty of evidence." I'll sign each answer in case of further comment. Gnixon (talk) 04:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(1) If Moulton was such an easy obvious "shameful" case, why did 20 people have trouble with him at his RfC? Including those who initially supported him?

I didn't say it was easy or obvious, just that it was handled shamefully. Gnixon (talk) 04:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(2) Why were his appeals to Arbcomm turned down twice?

Interesting question. I'm not sure. I suspect they're busy, and they didn't look deeply enough to appreciate that their intervention was required. I believe one arbitrator later said something to the effect of "we probably got this one wrong." (Happy to go dig up link if you require it.)

(3) Why did all three of the people who wanted him unblocked and wanted to mentor him recently all decide that they did not think he should be unblocked and that they did not want to mentor him?

If I recall correctly, it had to do with the fact that he refused to specifically ask to be unblocked. One interpretation of his refusal is that he found it unfair to be forced to swear a specific oath to the conduct policies in order to be reinstated, when it was his opponents whose conduct he thought was grossly inappropriate. I don't know if it was even appropriate for well-meaning outsiders to suggest to him that he needed mentoring. Happy to discuss further.

(4) Why did Moulton not do what Filll requested to clean up the issues Moulton supposedly had with the article?

I don't really know. What I recall from a cursory look at your advice is that you recommended he (a) generate published personal statements from Picard or news stories about her to represent her position on ASDFD and (b) address WP:UNDUE by adding information not about ASDFD instead of trimming the ASDFD stuff. I personally thought there were simpler ways to address the problem. Perhaps Moulton chose not to follow your advice because he disagreed with it, but that's pure speculation.

(5) Why did Picard not indicate that she had the same concerns as Moulton when in communication with Filll?

I don't know much about her communication with you, but I've seen that she tried to address the concerns by editing the article directly. Gnixon (talk) 04:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(6) Why did Moulton not do what Durova asked him to clean up the issues Moulton supposedly had with the article?

Moulton was asked to generate published articles for reference or a personal request from the subject of the biography. I was surprised Durova thought such extreme measures were required---I thought there were easier solutions. Gnixon (talk) 04:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(7) Why was Moulton banned from at least 4 other online communities before this?

I don't really know, and I think it's only relevant if there's a striking pattern of egregious behavior on his part. The evidence you've provided doesn't convince me there is such a pattern, so there may or may not be one. See my other responses to this point upthread. Gnixon (talk) 04:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(8) Was Wikipedia really so unfair to Moulton? Has he not had way more time and attention than most people in his situation? Including at least 3 appearances on WP:NTWW and several AN and AN/I threads and two RfArs and most recently a chance to build a case for himself on his unlocked talk page? So please let's cut with the whining and deal with the facts here. If you think he was so hard done by, why do you not volunteer to mentor him, with the condition that if he screws up again, both of you are banned immediately, no questions asked? How does that sound? Are you ready to stake your editing privileges on it?

Moulton is a distinguished scientist who earned his Ph.D. from Stanford years before I was born. I would frankly feel quite silly offering to "mentor" him. I do think Wikipedia treated him unfairly. Since you're asking my opinion, I think it happened because a group of editors was so caught up in their crusade against ID-on-Wikipedia that they couldn't recognize valid criticism, and moreover, that many of those editors resorted to despicable tactics in order to get their way. Gnixon (talk) 04:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Moulton/Answers WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

WAS, was there a reason you posted that? •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

GNIXON:

1. You appear to be making a bold statement without any corroborative evidence. If it was truly shamefully handled, please explain why so a similar mistake can be avoided in future.
2. I would think it was more a mater of looking at the case and seeing no compelling reason to revisit the case. Of course, as I am speculating, I could be wrong.
3. More likely, it was his apparent attitude for contempt of the rules here at WP.
4. Providing reliable source to support one's statements is de rigeur here at WP.
5. Could you please supply evidence for the statement?
6. Providing reliable source to support one's statements is de rigeur here at WP.
7. Actually, if it is true, it points to a trend that has a bearing re Moulton's possible disposition and cooperative abilities.
8. see WP:NPA for starters. In reality it is more likely that WP editors who believe in the concepts of WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V and WP:CONSENSUS were being frustrated by Moulton's aparent disregard for the same.

At least, that's how I see it. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Response

(1) If Moulton was such an easy obvious "shameful" case, why did 20 people have trouble with him at his RfC? Including those who initially supported him?

I didn't say it was easy or obvious, just that it was handled shamefully. Gnixon (talk) 04:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Well perhaps our banning procedures should be changed so that all RfCs are a minimum of 2 months long. Or 3 months. Why don't you try to change the policy accordingly? In many situations, can we afford to have 2 or 3 extra months of disruption? If you think it is shameful, blame yourself; these are the community's policies, and you are part of the community.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(2) Why were his appeals to Arbcomm turned down twice?

Interesting question. I'm not sure. I suspect they're busy, and they didn't look deeply enough to appreciate that their intervention was required. I believe one arbitrator later said something to the effect of "we probably got this one wrong." (Happy to go dig up link if you require it.)Gnixon (talk) 04:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I suspect it might have had something to do with all the negative evidence presented, and not just to the fact that the arbitrators are "busy" and "got it wrong". But you are free to claim it is all one collosal mistake. So put your money where your mouth is and fix the "mistake". As I stated above, why not volunteer to mentor him, with the priviso that if he screws up, you are both summarily banned from Wikipedia? After all, there should be some risks associated with having him unblocked, just as there were some risks associated with trying to get him blocked. Let's make things fair, so people do not lobby to get him unblocked so he can attack others and cause disruption for others. Those who lobby for him should be prepared to share in the pain and risk. Fair is fair. Otherwise, it just looks like pointless hot air and posturing.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(3) Why did all three of the people who wanted him unblocked and wanted to mentor him recently all decide that they did not think he should be unblocked and that they did not want to mentor him?

If I recall correctly, it had to do with the fact that he refused to specifically ask to be unblocked. One interpretation of his refusal is that he found it unfair to be forced to swear a specific oath to the conduct policies in order to be reinstated, when it was his opponents whose conduct he thought was grossly inappropriate. I don't know if it was even appropriate for well-meaning outsiders to suggest to him that he needed mentoring. Happy to discuss further.Gnixon (talk) 04:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

As I recall, it is just all endless wordgames and nonsense that have been going on for more than 10 months. But if he won't follow the principles of Wikipedia, he is going to have problems. And he does not want to follow the principles of Wikipedia, and so he has had problems. Wow is there any surprise there? And he does not intend to follow Wikipedia principles. So he needs a mentor. And why not you? Or are you just full of advice for others, but not willing to take any risk yourself?--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(4) Why did Moulton not do what Filll requested to clean up the issues Moulton supposedly had with the article?

I don't really know. What I recall from a cursory look at your advice is that you recommended he (a) generate published personal statements from Picard or news stories about her to represent her position on ASDFD and (b) address WP:UNDUE by adding information not about ASDFD instead of trimming the ASDFD stuff. I personally thought there were simpler ways to address the problem. Perhaps Moulton chose not to follow your advice because he disagreed with it, but that's pure speculation.Gnixon (talk) 04:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course there are easier ways to address it. Just delete her article. Which Moulton also disagreed with. I think the more obvious answer is that he wanted to cause disruption. And so he did. As he has done over and over and over at previous online communities he was a member of. And so he just followed the standard procedure he always does. What else is new?--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(5) Why did Picard not indicate that she had the same concerns as Moulton when in communication with Filll?

I don't know much about her communication with you, but I've seen that she tried to address the concerns by editing the article directly. Gnixon (talk) 04:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe she did, maybe she did not. We have Moulton's claims that she did, but we do not know. Perhaps this turmoil is all just created in Moulton's mind and has nothing to do with Picard and her position? After all, what is wrong with believing in intelligent design? If she does, so what? If she doesn't so what? Good lord. Let her believe whatever she wants to believe. Stop fighting these phantom battles about nothing.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(6) Why did Moulton not do what Durova asked him to clean up the issues Moulton supposedly had with the article?

Moulton was asked to generate published articles for reference or a personal request from the subject of the biography. I was surprised Durova thought such extreme measures were required---I thought there were easier solutions. Gnixon (talk) 04:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

How hard is it to write a 1 paragraph letter to the MIT school newspaper? Give me a break here... If this is important to Picard or Moulton, it would be trivial to correct. Instead we spend literally hundreds if not thousands of hours on this nonsense. And Moulton does as well, since this is entertainment for him. Amuseument. Exciting. The obvious conclusion is that Moulton just wants to yank our chains and cause disruption. Which is what he is doing, and you are assisting in that. Interesting...--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(7) Why was Moulton banned from at least 4 other online communities before this?

I don't really know, and I think it's only relevant if there's a striking pattern of egregious behavior on his part. The evidence you've provided doesn't convince me there is such a pattern, so there may or may not be one. See my other responses to this point upthread. Gnixon (talk) 04:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

So maybe he is innocent. So why don't you take responsibility for him if you are so sure? With consequences of course in case he screws up.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(8) Was Wikipedia really so unfair to Moulton? Has he not had way more time and attention than most people in his situation? Including at least 3 appearances on WP:NTWW and several AN and AN/I threads and two RfArs and most recently a chance to build a case for himself on his unlocked talk page? So please let's cut with the whining and deal with the facts here. If you think he was so hard done by, why do you not volunteer to mentor him, with the condition that if he screws up again, both of you are banned immediately, no questions asked? How does that sound? Are you ready to stake your editing privileges on it?

Moulton is a distinguished scientist who earned his Ph.D. from Stanford years before I was born. I would frankly feel quite silly offering to "mentor" him. I do think Wikipedia treated him unfairly. Since you're asking my opinion, I think it happened because a group of editors was so caught up in their crusade against ID-on-Wikipedia that they couldn't recognize valid criticism, and moreover, that many of those editors resorted to despicable tactics in order to get their way. Gnixon (talk) 04:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

That has to be the weakest argument I have ever seen. Distinguished scientist? Give me a break. Stanford will give a PhD in engineering to anyone who pays, and AT&T was paying. And plenty of those he is dealing with here have comparable or superior credentials. And yes, why don't you mentor him since he does not seem to be able to follow the rules? Perhaps he is suffering from age related dementia or some other mental disorder. He is certainly obsessed with the DSM IV, far more than any regular engineer would be. And he has had chance after chance after chance after chance to clean up his act here. And he has refused. And somehow all the claims about bad tactics have never actually revealed any inappropriate tactics, let alone "dispicable" tactics. It looks like everything was done by the book. If you want to change the book, go ahead and start a campaign to change the procedures; good luck. Frankly, the use of the term "dispicable" is decidedly uncivil. Under our new standards for civility, do you think that is worth an administrative action?--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

...while diagnosing illnesses in people you're discussing, and badmouthing their degree credentials, is perfectly civil? *Dan T.* (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I have not diagnosed him. I just wonder. It is something one can conjecture about. If you want to worship a Stanford PhD in Engineering, paid for by Network Systems Planning, be my guest. You are welcome to ignore any input from anyone who knows more than you on its relevance.--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Moulton/Answers WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I looked. Probably best not to respond since that is probably what he wants; just more endless turmoil and stupidity.--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Opinion

Giggy made a good point above, that "We just need to find a better way of communicating all this, one which gives Moulton a chance to learn our ways and change his ways based on them, rather than kicking him out dazed and confused." I've read through talk:Rosalind Picard and the old versions of Moulton's user talk, and while it's possible that he was confused or put off at first by the usual acronyms such as WP:NOR, he could have followed the links and it's clear that considerable effort was put into trying to get Moulton to learn our ways, both by ID project members and by "outsiders" brought in by a BLPN request. Where he was raising valid points, these were acted on to his expressed satisfaction, but disruption continued.

After he began at the Rosalind Picard article on 22 August 2007 by deleting all mention of her signing the Discovery Institute petition,[12] he argued on the basis of his personal knowledge that the New York Times was not a credible source, and in discussions it was pointed out that this raised problems of conflict of interest and original research.[13] He repeatedly asked other editors to phone him, and unfortunately Filll took him up on this. Moulton went on to produce elaborate original research to discredit the NYT.[14] He agreed that a revised version met his concerns,[15] and after another editor in a "Note to WP evolution supporters" raised the idea that that in "defending science" less should be said about individuals, Moulton expressed thanks to those who had "worked conscientiously to transform this biography into a reasonably respectable example of a BLP."[16]

However, he continued to make contentious edits and propose original research. At 16:09, 3 September, an uninvolved editor responding to the BLPN request wrote "This circular discussion of more than 30,000 words is very telling. Moulton will not take no for an answer. I suggest that Moulton study our rules (especially WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:CONSENSUS) instead of (hopefully unwittingly) trying to convince experienced editors to violate them, or selectively quoting the do no harm pillar of WP:BLP". Moulton's response "I have studied Wikipedia's rule-based system, and examined how well and how efficiently it achieves the overarching goal of rising to a reasonable standard of accuracy, excellence, and ethics on online journalism." gave a link to his second off-Wiki article complaining about the issue (under what presumably is his real name),[17] which says "editors on Wikipedia are anonymous and largely untrained in journalism. The concept of ethics in journalism isn't even on their radar screen" and complains about Wikipedia's rules on verification from reliable sources. It describes Wikipedia as a "profoundly dysfunctional" "rigidly rule-driven bureaucracy" unable to meet his ideas of "ethics on online journalism".[18] It was only after further discussion that he was accused of disruptive editing, and a RfC filed. He was advised on how best to respond,[19] but defiantly rejected the advice.[20]

So, could we have done better at welcoming Moulton with kindness and explaining policies at greater length? The evidence is that he was made amply aware of policies, but rejected them on principle. Further efforts have been made recently to help him to understand that we just don't do journalism, with ambivalent results. Sure, we made mistakes in trying to educate him. Specifically, Filll made the mistake of trusting him, communicating directly with him and trying to contact Picard to get her side of the story in the way a journalist might. Not good ideas. It's understandable that Filll feels hurt, but he should let it go and not appear to be continuing to attack Moulton, that's just counterproductive. Reasonably patient pointing out policy is essential, but as volunteers we can only go so far. And from recent statements it seems Moulton doesn't want to edit here, presumably he prefers to use his blog and Wikipedia Review as sounding boards to lobby for us all to change to comply with his ideas. Unfortunately these ideas conflict with core policies, and they're not going to be changed in a hurry. . . dave souza, talk 12:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It was stupid of me to call him and try to help him. I know that now. I, like all the other editors now pleading to give Moulton another chance, was duped by Moulton and thought he was a rational and reasonable person. Ok so he wasn't. Live and learn. I have no objection if someone else wants to ignore all the advice and experience of the more than 30 people that have dealt with Moulton or examined the situation. However, I think that the editors lobbying to let Moulton edit in an unfettered way should take some responsibility for their requests, so others do not have to deal with any potential consequences for them. And I think Moulton should be required to edit in areas where he has not previously encountered difficulties; i.e., a topic ban should be imposed.--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Moulton views WP as a psychology-sociology experiment: not that WP doesn't lend itself to that approach, but performing the experiment on-wiki is really not constructive. By injecting himself into his own experiment/analysis he cheapens the experiment, and cannot possibly perform an objective analysis of WP. Eh, whatever. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

new question

How do I link to this Rfc from the main RFC page? Please allow me to rephrase the question: may I put {{RFCsci}} at the top of the RFC page, so as to allow it to be listed here? And, should I also use {{RFCreli}} because intelligent design is a belief, rather than a testable scientific theory? Or, should I edit WP:RFC directly to point to here? Thank youl Bwrs (talk) 05:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC) 15:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's inappropriate to tag this as a content dispute as I have no problem with the articles - I brought the RFAR to look at meta-issues surrounding editors that edit them. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

pretty offensive stuff

This, and many of the other pages currently considering the broader issues, are, in my view, tending towards further escalation, and have some pretty offensive stuff on them. Embarrassingly so. How would folk feel if we asked any of the arbcom clerks to step in with some fairly aggressive re-factoring etc.? - I think someone like User:AGK or User:Jayvdb could really help, if they're trusted by all.

I believe we need a firm, independent hand here to return things from beyond the pale. Privatemusings (talk) 05:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'm willing to have someone try to de-escalate things. I've already de-esclated with one editor, and trying to with a 2nd editor in this :) SirFozzie (talk) 05:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty much always been my opinion that the interest of a respected outside party (or parties) is needed in order to solve these problems. Gnixon (talk) 16:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I have asked and asked and asked, at least 10 times, for people to just walk away from this dispute. Because either people who are being attacked be allowed to defend themselves, which I am sure will offend many of the current attackers who cannot imagine that anyone would ever attack them for their behavior. Or else, the attackers will come to their senses and just walk away from this nonsense. In which case, there will be no reason to mount a defense, and therefore irritate any thin-skinned attackers. So please please please back off. Disengage. Use some common sense here.--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that View by User:Rocksanddirt makes a very valid point that labelling gets in the way of finding common ground which is being obscured by the perception of group behaviour. There are clearly shared aims as well as particular areas of disagreement, and focussed attention to resolving individual disputes as necessary will be a more fruitful approach than trying to lump together a complex mass of issues. . . dave souza, talk 16:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Cutting out the labeling would help a lot. I'm on the fence over whether it would be more productive to try to isolate individual disputes. I might be in favor of doing so if the same (outside/authoritative) parties would commit to reviewing all of them. Gnixon (talk) 16:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well if the RfC continues, there will be a defense. I do not care about an outside review or not. If this continues, there will be a defense. To imagine otherwise is just completely unrealistic. So if you do not want to see a defense, please please please disengage and forget this ridiculous attack.--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This must be the 5th time you've made some vague threat on this page alone. I can't see how that's at all helpful. If you have a grievance to air, by all means, get on with it. Gnixon (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the characterization. It is an appeal to bury this dispute, and for everyone to walk away. When the RfC Odd nature created appeared, many were upset that it was a more "balanced view" than what those who formulated the RfAr had envisioned. That is, that RfC examined the entire dispute in broader terms, including examining the behavior of those who had started this dispute. However, it was pretty much of a bare bones affair when it was deleted. It could have been fleshed out with far far far more material, and would have been if it had continued. Nevertheless, even the skeleton version was very upsetting to many people. So this is not a threat. This is not some attempt at coercion or extortion; it is just an account of what has already happened, and what will most likely happen if we do not make a serious move to disengage from this dispute and back off. Let's not create more hard feelings than necessary. Let's not make more people feel bad. Let's stop with the attacks. Let's end this now.--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Filll, how can you characterize this---RfC/Sceptre Sxeptomaniac SirFozzie B---as "a more balanced view" that "examined the entire dispute in broader terms"? Have you no shame? Gnixon (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It was just getting started when it was deleted.--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Were they still working on the title? Gnixon (talk) 19:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's just close the RFC and take all underlying POV questions to the mediation committee. Bwrs (talk) 18:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Giggy's off site personal attacks

From Giggy's blog: "Intelligent Design cabal" ... "ID cabal" ... "have flat out abused admin powers to get their way, and have made the project worse for everyone" There's dozens in the same vein at WikipediaReview by many of the editors participating here against what they call the "ID cabal."

Per Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki_harassment and in the interest of resolving this conflict personal attacks such as these not only cease but be withdrawn. Giggy says in his response that he's "happy and willing to assume good faith of any user on this project" but goes right on to violate WP:AGF in the next line when he states "ID cabal terminology is, regretfully, surprisingly accurate."

Filll has made a good faith effort by recently removing content referring to Moulton from his blog. It's time for Giggy to put his money where his mouth is and make his good faith step in this proceding by removing the references to a "ID cabal" who have "have flat out abused admin powers to get their way, and have made the project worse for everyone" from his blog.

I'm making this request here first. If Giggy ignores it I'll add it to my section of the RFC for community input. Odd nature (talk) 23:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to bring it up to the community via the RfC. I'm happy to assume good faith—I assume you've raised this for a valid reason, not to try and smother criticism—but I'm not going to take back stuff I stand by because it's offending you. Your best bet is to change your (and the group of editors who have been associated with this) behaviour, and thus prove my blog comments irrelevant. giggy _(:O) 00:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

In other words, you're not willing to withdraw your personal attack or assume good faith. I see. That attitude isn't going to resolve this conflict. I see your off site characterizations of these editors as clearly a personal attack and failure on your part to assume good faith and your refusal to withdraw it as a further malicious act. I suggest Odd nature add this to the RFC unless Giggy withdraws his characterizations. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead, add it to the RfC. If the community consensus (define community ;-)) is to remove my blog post, I'll do that. (And do what I can about WR postings in the same sense.) giggy _(:O) 08:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice attitude. By all means please keep it up. FeloniousMonk (talk) 16:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, and we can add YOUR particular outing of someone's real name to the request as well, that lasted what, a month before you deleted it? SirFozzie (talk) 05:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Striking, as I've made a request to have the diffs oversighted and looking for Guidance from WP:RfO on how to handle this. SirFozzie (talk) 07:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

FM, did you out someone? If so, I formally request here that you give up your admin privileges, with prejudice, and save us all some time. Cla68 (talk) 12:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Do X or I'll tell the teachers, you just wait you pesky kid.... Minkythecat (talk) 07:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

And the Cabal would have gotten away with it, if it wasn't for you meddling kids! *Dan T.* (talk) 13:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Is any of the above serious, or is it all just rhetorical? The best response to the oft-repeated accusation of cabalism is to debunk it, if possible, not to insist it be withdrawn. Likewise, defending the accusation with evidence is a better response than "change your behavior." It's simply dishonest to claim that the Giggy quote shows a failure to AGF---on the contrary, Giggy's assertion is that "cabal" is backed up by the facts. If FM "outed" someone deliberately, then that's a serious charge, but it's premature to call for his tools to be revoked without knowing that he did it deliberately and maliciously. Gnixon (talk) 13:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, you have failed to read dave souza's response that shows how Moulton outed himself several times. If anyone should be desysopped, it's Sir Fozzie for making a specious and defamatory accusation against FM. You guys are on such a vendetta, it's pathetic. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I had read DS's comment when I posted above. It was difficult to know when FM posted Moulton's identity because FM recently deleted that page. You and I could discuss sometime what sort of behavior is "pathetic." Gnixon (talk) 15:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been thinking the same thing. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we'd be better off if nobody was desysopped as a result of this section... giggy _(:O) 14:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh my gosh. This is outrageous. I ask again, please everyone just disengage. Let's just walk away from this ridiculous pointless dispute, or bad feelings will result.

I also hereby make a public pledge that if anyone is offended by some blog post of mine, please let me know and I will try to alter it so it is inoffensive, or if that cannot be done, I will remove the blog post. And I challenge giggy to step up to the plate and join me in making this commitment.--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Filll, your repeated cries to disengage seem rather ironic by virtue of the fact you won't disengage (or engage in much else, for that matter). If you would lead by example I'd be happy to follow. giggy _(:O) 14:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me see. I have already removed a blog post about a "peace conference" that was more of an excuse to attack me, which people asked me to remove. I have not had anyone else ask me to remove a blog post.

In most of my blog posts, I take care not to reveal anyone by name or username, particularly if my post might be taken negatively.

I have disengaged from all RfA and RfB voting.

I have disengaged from all editing of intelligent design, creationism, evolution, and alternative medicine-related articles.

I have presented at most minimal material in my defense in the 3 RfCs and the RfAr. I have declined to present a full defense. I have declined to present a counterattack.

So what else should I disengage from, oh great high school sage, oh profound pubescent savant?--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Filll, the last 9 words here are not necessary, and only serve to inflame the situation. Giggy, Filll has tried to tone down comments on his blog. Both of you, be cool. Wasn't that the name of some horrible Tim Allen Travolta movie? --Ali'i 15:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

...and a line in I caught in Pulp Fiction last night.  :) Gnixon (talk) 15:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I am cool. I have been attacked and threatened over and over and over and over for the last month here and have hardly responded at all. Let me see if I attacked any of you with about 20 friends for a month, if you would be able to do the same?--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Gnixon Gnixon (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Even if true, which I dispute, it does prove my point. You are not able to do the same.--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

So you should be allowed to write articles by ignoring WP:CON, as a dictator? Ok that is good to know.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

So you should be allowed to eat babies by ignoring WP:CulinaryArts, as a serial killer? Ok, that is good to know. Gnixon (talk) 18:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

What happened here is that SirFozzie has nearly succeeded in changing the topic from off site personal attacks by Giggy to whether or not I outed Moulton (which I did not, he outed himself: [21]). This sort of behavior, shifting the focus from you onto your critic/raising bogus allegations, is just the sort of activity that will prevent this RFC from resolving the conflict, assuming that is everyone's goal here. I'm not sure it is. FeloniousMonk (talk) 17:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably an error to ascribe motive. SF's behavior had the effect of derailing the conversation from off-site personal attacks to an alleged outing. It is this sort of focus shift that stops us from resolving the conflict - users acting in good faith should stop accidentally ExpandingScope. PouponOnToast (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right of course, so I've struck that.

I've shown that since Moulton had already revealed his identity on Wikipedia with this edit [22] on May 15 I could not have 'outed' him since it was much later that I reused the links he provided, May25/26.[23] I'm asking SirFozzie now to kindly remove the allegation that I outed Moulton from his section of the RFC. I've shown it to be false, taking it down or moving it off the main page is the right thing to do now. I'm willing to assume his good faith and view his making allegation as an honest mistake. His removal of it would be a significant and meaningful step towards de-escalation and resolution and much appreciated. FeloniousMonk (talk) 17:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

That's reasonable, to expedite removal of the allegation by SirFozzie, I'll remove my comment from that section now that the issue is explained on this talk page. . . dave souza, talk 18:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Moulton says here at Post #36 "it never fazed me that FM 'outed' me". WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

We really shouldn't be encouraging editors to use that silly troll site by quoting their statements there. If they have something to say they should say it on the wiki. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 02:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Excellent idea. Fix it so Moulton can do that without breaking the rules. But since he claims to not understand the rules, and acts in reckless disregard of such an admitted lack of knowledge; I don't see how that is possible. WAS 4.250 (talk) 09:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's recap. SirFozzie attempted to change the topic of this thread from off-wiki commentary to on-wiki outing. This entire RFC is a change in topic from the RFAR, which had nothing to do with ID articles. FM did not out Moulton because his name had been previously revealed via off-wiki link in a post. Moulton did not out Filll because his name had been previously revealed by someone else in a user name. FM is off the hook, Moulton is still blocked. This whole situation is a clusterfuck and will never be resolved through RFC. The only way to deal with this is through Arbitration or loss of will, the latter being Filll's greatest desire (noted, you can stop asking now). And that's pretty much the bare bones overview. Glad we got that cleared up. I've been avoiding most of this particular mess for a while, but now I'm with giggy. This giant pile of digital FAIL is coming off my watchlist. I'll meet everyone back at Arbitration, whenever that will be, but we all know it's inevitable. LaraLove|Talk 03:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Moulton did not out Filll because his name had been previously revealed by someone else in a user nameMmmm...no. Moulton revealed his own name, both on and off wiki. Filll hasn't done the same. When SirFozzie asked that FM remove the name, he did so promptly, even though he hadn't outed Moulton. When Moulton was warned about outing Filll, he repeated it. And when SirFozzie unprotected his user page, he did it again. There's a slight difference here, don't you think? Guettarda (talk) 17:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is a difference. But the fundamental problem lies in "unreasonable" behavior on both sides. (As in "All progress comes from the unreasonable man because he insists on changing the world instead of changing himself.) WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Disengaging

This page is now off my watchlist. Filll (et al), I encourage you to follow. Good luck to those who hang around... hopefully we won't meet again at arbitration. giggy _(:O) 02:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Et alia? It seems that until Cla68's decision to stir the pot over things that really can't been seen in a negative light unless one presupposes "negativity" everyone had disengaged. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 20:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Very discouraging. I guess someone doesn't want to disengage for some reason.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I so tire of teh dramaz. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 20:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Blame Filll and the amazing Technicolor "You must disengage". Even when folks disengage they get told to disengage again. And it seems to me that when one group posts evidence, it's evidence, and when the other group posts evidence, it's "stirring the pot". SirFozzie (talk) 21:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You do not have to disengage. I just think it is the best possible outcome. Just back away, please.--Filll (talk | wpc) 21:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You know, your repeated assertions to disengage would come off as a whole lot less ironic if they weren't coming from somebody who appears to be one of the several figures in this battle who steadfastly refuses to disengage himself. Nevertheless, it's good advice, which I'm largely following myself; it's been several days since I've posted to the pages related to this particular controversy, and I'll try to stay clear in the future. It's totally ridiculous that I should be getting into fights with people with whom I actually agree more than disagree on the key substantive subjects of evolution vs. creationism and science vs. pseudoscience, but it keeps happening anyway, so I'm probably best off staying away from these issues. *Dan T.* (talk) 01:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I would respectfully beg to differ:

• I have been named as a party and I have been repeatedly attacked in the RfAr and on this RfC and on another RfC, and on the associated talk pages. I have not responded in any substantive way to any of the accusations, although I have plenty to say. I have disengaged.

• I have not counterattacked my accusers, although I could easily do so. I have disengaged.

• I have not posted my name or made comments several places on this RfC where I could. I have disengaged.

• The section I contributed to this RfC is tiny and paltry, and only consists of an appeal to disengage. This is not evidence of me not disengaging, surely.

• I removed a blog post I made about a related "peace conference" on request, although I have plenty to say about it. The other participant in the peace conference has left his blatant attacks on me, but I have removed my response to these attacks and my side of the story. I have not answered these attacks; I have disengaged.

• I have removed or struck comments on these RfC pages and associated talk pages; I have disengaged.

• Most of my posts for the last couple of weeks have been pleas for disengagement. I do not think that a plea for disengagement is evidence of someone who declines to disengage or someone who has not disengaged.

• I have stopped editing completely the articles that some regard as problematic and at the core of this dispute. I have disengaged.

• I have stopped voting in any RfAs, RfBs or similar polls, which also figured in accusations and attacks against me. I have disengaged.

• I have declined several requests for me to present my side of the story at WP:NTWW. I have disengaged.

• I stopped answering any attacks on me by User:Moulton on his pages. I disengaged.

So in light of all this, I would ask you to please show me how I have not "disengaged".--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting that your idea of disengagement includes making more posts to this page than anyone else. It would arguably be more constructive for you to actually respond to "these attacks" instead of repeatedly threatening to do so unless everyone "disengages." Given that many of the complaints lodged in this RfC have been directed at you, it's a little strange for you to be pleading for everyone to "disengage"---aren't you afraid folks will think you're just trying to squirm out from under the spotlight? Why not instead post a rebuttal of "these attacks"? One of the repeated complaints in this RfC is that you and others have said a lot of things (smears, phony RfCs, etc.) that aren't backed up by the facts. A post full of evidence showing that you've been unfairly criticized would go a long way toward encouraging some of us to "disengage." Gnixon (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not think so. I think if I mounted a serious defense, a good half dozen or more people's feelings would be badly hurt, right off the bat. I think that they would feel they would have to defend against my posts, and attack me even more fiercely. And I would have to respond. And so on. It would fill many many kilobytes. It would take many days, or weeks, or months. It would just inflame the dispute.

Look at how upset people were at the barebones RfC that was deleted. People were upset they were named. People said it was unfair. And on and on and on. And that RfC did not even get started. There was no meat on those bones at all. It was the barest beginning.

You would see Wikipedia Review completely outraged. There would be a massive campaign to recruit more people to attack and threaten. The attacks would escalate. People who were blocked 6 months or a year or two ago would get excited and jump on the bandwagon.

In fact, I would view your post as WP:BAIT. Many people who want there to be a dispute would try to capitalize on a huge battle. I could rip into you for your outrageous statements. But I will decline to do so. Thanks for the opportunity, but I think it is best that I just disengage at this time.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, right, you're being baited. So much for AGF then. The only way anything can ever get settled is if everyone responds to the posts. Keep a calm head. Any evidence that can be refuted, refute civilly. Applies equally to both sides. Unilaterally stating disengagement whilst then claiming if you'd replied "people's feelings would be badly hurt", repeating a meme about WR... just seems to me this whole drama could be handled better on all sides. Minkythecat (talk) 18:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about Filll? You were one of the ones most upset by the deletion of the previous RfC, as evidenced by your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/ID RFCs. I have responded to your claims against me in the previous RfC as well as this one, and will continue to due so in the future, if necessary. WR has not been terribly "outraged" by your previous attempts at evidence against various people, so I see no reason why the site as a whole would be at any you might have in the future.

Frankly, your sensationalist claims regarding your supposed evidence that you won't actually submit echoes Joseph McCarthy to the point of parody. Submit the evidence, or don't, but don't talk big about something you're not actually going to do. To be blunt, it just looks ridiculous. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 20:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. And Sxeptomaniac, I have not made any claims against you in any RfC. I am disengaged and I am not commenting. And ridiculous looking or not, I would ask you to join me in disengaging.--Filll (talk | wpc) 22:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

As the primary editor certifying the previous RfC [24], I would say that you did make several claims about me (and I answered all of them [25]). If you want to disengage, that's fine, but blustering about the amazing knock-your-socks-off evidence you're not going to actually show isn't a very good way to do it.

I'm not sure I can really "join you in disengaging." My involvement in the debate for the past week is one endorsement on the project page and now two comments here. I've been slowly backing out of this RfC for a couple of weeks now; I just didn't make a show of it. However, just because I'm backing out doesn't mean I'm not watching, and won't respond to patently false claims if they are made. So, having made my recent comments, I plan to go back to quietly watching the page. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 23:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I won't even respond to the patently false claims. And assorted attacks. Such as those above.--Filll (talk | wpc) 23:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well thanks but I do not want this fight.--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It's only a fight if you want it to be a fight or respond aggressively to others attempts to make it a fight. Minkythecat (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course, and so I won't. --Filll (talk | wpc) 22:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Filll: You might want to work on not telling everyone you're "disengaging" quite so much... your time might be more productively spent in other pursuits, don't you think? ++Lar: t/c 00:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it would do you credit to recognise that Filll is making a genuine attempt to disengage in the face of stupid and ridiculous provocation. Do you think you're capable of that? --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 01:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm very capable of recognizing genuine attempts to disengage. And of recognizing disingenuous ones, as well. I'll repeat, perhaps a bit more directly: I think Filll would be better served by less protesting and more changing of his behavior. As Gnixon says, it's an interesting disengagement that has so many posts as a part of it. ++Lar: t/c 01:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me as if your victimizing someone who has been provoked beyond reason. Stop it. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 01:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment and your repeating yourself isn't likely to change matters. "Provoked beyond reason"??? That's quite rich, Tony. The RfC itself is quite telling. Have you actually read it and studied the diffs? Or are you in "lalala... I can't hear you" land just as you were with the MM RfAr, and just as you are now with the FM/SV RfAr? If the answer is what I think it is, you can save the electrons. ++Lar: t/c 01:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Please be serious. I understand your problems with the Mantanmoreland arbitration in which I disagreed with your attack on the Committee's decision and the lynchmob that was subsequently got up by other parties. I understand your disagreement with me on the Cla68 arbitration. Neither of those disagreements, in which you (as a person) disagree with me (as a person) justifies your personal attack on a party (who is not me or even anyone I have ever engaged with) involved in this RFC. Would you please engage with my contention that,your behavior her is inexplicable, unjustified by the evidence, reprehinsible, and intrinsically damaging to Wikipedia? And I'm one of the guys who *like* you. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 01:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Lar's behaviour is none of the above. To be honest, I have been trying to think of a way of quietly suggesting to Filll more or less the same thing, that the best way to disengage is to take the page off one's watchlist and then not return. I understand Filll's feeling that he is beleaguered. I understand that just about everyone involved in this RfC feels as though they have been poked and prodded beyond reasonable limits - all of them, on all sides - and that it is nearly impossible to suppress the desire to strike back. It really is time for *everyone* to disengage for a while. Rehashing this over and over is not helping anyone right now. Risker (talk) 02:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you didn't notice that Filll is one of those addressed in this RFC. His views are, in fact, solicited, and his decision to disengage himself is an unusual act. Of course he's beleagured, he's being attacked in ridiculous and inexplicable ways simply because he doesn't agree with other editors. This can be a disorienting experience. If he wants to disengage, we should facilitate that disengagement, not act like arseholes. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 02:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Tony: What Filll needs most to disengage from is the problematic behavior that he and others engaged in which led to this RfC (and various other attempts to address the issue)... As a secondary thing, he could disengage from stating he's disengaging. But at this point, just dropping this from his watchlist won't make it go away. The matter is serious, and as I said in my response to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Intelligent_Design#Outside_view_by_Ludwigs2, this sort of behavior that was seen from the anti ID forces is a pattern we have seen elsewhere and which is (to use your words) "inexplicable", "unjustified by the actions of those they oppose", "reprehensible" and "intrinsically damaging to Wikipedia". You need to take your head out of the sand (or wherever it is) and look around a bit more. I'll let you have the last word if you insist, because I am repeating myself... but this matter is festering, and the longer it festers, the more bad behaviour is engendered... by folk on all sides, just as Risker says. ++Lar: t/c 02:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

What is an "anti-ID force"? Being a thinking person obviously I don't want people promoting creationism or anti-creationism on Wikipedia--it just isn't a discussion venue. However there seems to be an enormous amount of accusation of cabalism backed up by a pretty small amount of evidence. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 02:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, I see not much more than a pile of rubbish in many of the posts above. My goodness. Says a lot about human nature I guess.--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the rubbish part but I'm more optimistic about human nature than you are, I guess. My advice to you remains unchanged. Rubbish it if you like. ++Lar: t/c 17:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see calling others' comments or opinions "rubbish" to be particularly productive or constructive; it seems like the sort of thing that people ought to be disengaging from. If somebody says something you regard as nonsense, either calmly and factually refute it, or ignore it; no need to make what amounts to personal attacks on the people who said it. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I am sure you feel superior. Go right ahead.--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Cla68, FM and Moulton

Seems to me Cla68's comments about the Moulton imbroglio and what FM and others saw as a threat to out them is a separate case since it is presently being considered in the Cla68/FM/SV RFAR. I raised a similar issue about B and agreed to drop it from this RFC when it was made clear to me that it was really a separate issue. I suggest this is the same for Cla86's gripes about FM et al. Drop it from this RFC Cla68, it's already being considered in a RFAR and raising it again here only raises creates more heat without shedding any more light and settles nothing. Odd nature (talk) 22:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

RfAr/Orangemarlin

In light of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Orangemarlin, particularly Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Orangemarlin#Findings of fact and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Orangemarlin#Other Arbitrator comments, considered alongside progress already made here (e.g., Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Intelligent_Design#View_by_User:Rocksanddirt) toward reaffirming principles of collegial editing, I wonder if we should move this RfC to a close, with cautious optimism that we can move past the issues raised, even if not all issues have been addressed completely. Thoughts? Gnixon (talk) 18:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You mean apart from the fact that secret trials are totally unacceptable and that the arbcomm has violated the trust of the community by engaging in one? The obvious one that pops into my mind is "what's the process for recalling the arbcomm?" Guettarda (talk) 18:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, well, I guess if people disagree with the decision (in addition to disagreeing with the process), then it probably doesn't move us closer to resolving the stuff here. Gnixon (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Let us here simply note the existance of that decision. It is obviously relevant, and probably moots further use of the RFC to modify Orangemarlin's behavior. But this is not really a good venue for discussing it; let's confine discussion of it to the decision's talk page, which is the best venue for discussing it. GRBerry 19:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• And now I suppose we should note the NON-existence of that decision, pending further clarification, per AN. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Here is the "retraction" pending further clarification that KC mentions. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I am making OM some nice polite templates :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Considering the latest update from FT, that it appears there WAS consensus on Arb-L, even if it was early, then I think we should note the quite solid existence of that decision, pending even further clarification. SirFozzie (talk) 00:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Once again, that's from FT2. So far precisely ONE other ArbComm member has spoken, and he/she didn't exactly concur. You might want to put away the Champagne for a bit. Sorry dude. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom does occasionally hear cases in private. Typically this is used for cases involve sensitive material posted off-wiki. There's nothing new about this as far as I can tell. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• How does it feel for the group that loudly proclaims that There Is No Cabal, and any intimations of cabalism coming from critics are just a lot of ridiculous conspiracy theories, to now be the victim of an ArbCom decision reached and rendered in a highly cabal-ish manner? It seems like the shoe is on a different foot now. *Dan T.* (talk) 00:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Now Kirill says there WAS discussion, and consensus just not what he considered the required vote. [26] SirFozzie (talk) 01:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

You want to know how it feels for me now, Dan? It's the usual "oh no there goes Dan pushing the same old Cabal button" feeling. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 02:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

policy misuse

new topic. I am a bit annoyed at the misuse of policy on the ID talk page. I am finding myself making what I think are completely valid and sensible arguments, just to see them dismissed through inane references to policy and stupid, Machiavellian editorial tricks, and frankly I'm fed up with it. so let me make one point perfectly clear.

You can not have consensus-driven neutrality on a page where discussion is prohibited

even the attempt to do that guts the core principles of wikipedia. It is obvious to anyone who looks at the ID page that it is clearly and unambiguously biased - regardless of any wikilawyer protestations to the contrary - and it is obvious to anyone who looks at the talk page that the article is being held that way through a crass form of collective page-ownership. heck, I don't even like ID, and I can see that; I can only imaging what it looks like to someone who has sympathies that way.

Now, fortunately or not, I am stubborn, and I will continue making myself heard on that page until it has some effect. I may even begin rewriting it to neutral tone on my own, just to see what happens (which should prove... I think the word is 'amusing'). however, I'm beginning to believe that no changes will happen through anything like normal-editorial processes because - as it stands - there is no space on this article for anything resembling reason, rational discourse, or common sense. it's going to take a bigger pair of nutcrackers than I have to get through the obstinacy on this page.

With that in mind, I would like to open a conversation about what more powerful tools can be brought to bear on this mess. I don't know anything about arbitration or mediation or anything like that. I'm not quite ready to go up the ladder yet, mind you, because I haven't exhausted the more pragmatic approaches to the problem, but I'd like to have a sense for what the options and pre-requirements are for various actions, so that when I do get there (which unfortunately seem inevitable) I'll have all my ducks in a row. take this section as an open planning and advice session. --Ludwigs2 02:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs, as you can imagine, neutrality is/will be extremely tricky to acheive with this page and a huge amount of effort and negotiation has taken place over time. You come in and make a few statements and expect everyone to part ways. You were told that hte best thing to do is to bring the references to the table so to speak and carry on from there. When that happens, material can be gone over in a methodical manner. People will be most happy to discuss then. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Casliber that you need to take it slowly. I've read the page (and even commented) and the overwhelming feeling seems to be that you're introducing an argument based on original research into a situation where the factual content of the article is extremely well sourced. I'm not involved in the ID debate [I'm in the UK, where Darwin is safely interred in Westminster Abbey so we're all comfortable that evolution is part of the establishment and not at all dangerous ;) ] but it does look like ID is being presented in the context of science, so the fact that it isn't good science seems pretty critical, although there may be more to write with proper attention to due weight. Take it easy and be patient. --Jenny 03:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

well, that sounds nice in theory, but in actual practice every comment I make is archived away without discussion or comment. and that's even when I did start to bring references to the table.

look, I understand what's going on here (and you would too if you read my - now hidden - discussion carefully). for one reason or another this page has gotten locked into a self-enclosed point of view, such that all statements that are not already part of the view are dismissed as irrelevant. this stems from a combination of some peculiar interpretations of wikipedia policy, a mistaken reading of scientific methodology, and editors who (I suspect) are burned out by arguing and just don't want to think about it anymore. I doubt it's entirely conscious or purposeful, and (with a couple of exceptions) I wouldn't accuse anyone of trying to be particularly evil, but the fact is the editors here are collectively locked into a self-referential, prejudicial loop.

and yes, prejudice is the correct word. the first and clearest (and I'd even say definitive) sign of prejudice is when one group forces a definition on another group in terms that group would find objectionable, the way that ID is forced to be defined in terms of its critics. Shades of white man's burden...

how this loop operates (in part)

1. editors do not consider arguments that are not (to their mind) 'properly sourced'
2. 'properly sourced' is interpreted in such a way that it can only apply to a particular kind of source which happens (mostly) to be deeply opposed to the topic
3. editors load the article with proper sourcing (i.e. load it with sources deeply opposed to the topic) and proclaim that the article is now thoroughly sourced
4. complaints that the article is not neutral are met with an insistent demand that complainers provide proper sourcing for other opinions (via point 1) which smacks them immediately into point 2, where they cannot - by definition - find proper sources
5. complaints that editors are using an incorrect, unjustified, and biasing set of rules in point 2 (such as the argument I made) are dismissed as being irrelevant to the conversation, and immediately refactored

and so we are left with an article that can only become more biased over time, even as the editors pride themselves on doing a wonderful job. how sad is that?

so look, I know exactly how to fix it. the minute that second step comes under proper scrutiny, this whole ugly mess will disappear like a bad dream, and we can get back to establishing neutrality in this and other articles. I had hoped that editors would be reasonably self-reflective and willing to consider that something might have gone wrong in this process, or in their thinking about things, but so far not... <shrug>

but no worries Jenny, I'm very patient. I'm just not always mild-mannered about it.  :-) Give Darwin my regards the next time you swing by the abbey, would you? --Ludwigs2 04:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

it's no big deal, but it confused me a little, so I thought I'd drop a note here - that Jenny (who is User:RegenerateThis) used to be 'Anticipation of a new lover's arrival, the' and remains the well known wiki chap, Tony Sidaway! :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

it is no big deal. I always take people at face value on the internet, and if they want to change faces (and aren't doing it just to cause trouble) then a new face it will be.  :-) --Ludwigs2 04:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ouch! I wish you guys wouldn't whisper! I removed the "small" tags so I could read what you were saying. Yeah, it's no big deal, the information about my recent change of username is at the top of my talk page. --Jenny 04:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

lol - I will say though, that while it's fine intellectually it does create some confused hormonal reactions. though on the other hand, it's good to know I'm still young enough to feel that crap.  ;-D --Ludwigs2 04:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

In slightly edited form, this post would make a nice "View" on the main page, which I would like to endorse. A full reading of Ludwig's discussions at Talk:Intelligent design is quite illuminating. Gnixon (talk) 04:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to put it over there as well, if no one would object to my making a second comment. what edits did you have in mind? mostly tone, or something specific? --Ludwigs2 05:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Gnixon may have been referring to comments such as this one [27] by Dave souza. Cla68 (talk) 05:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I had hoped previous comments like that from DS were an aberration, but I've seen enough now to be convinced it's a well-considered tactic. Generally, Ludwig had a rude and hostile reception clothed in polite words---an important evolutionary step in the gamesmanship (and resolution?). One specific complaint would be dishonest carpet-bombing of policy links. Gnixon (talk) 13:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

(Re edits of the post here, only your conversational tone. Gnixon (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC))