User:Gnixon/Intelligent design RfC

Collaborative Workspace

 * 1) Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia.
 * 2) Intelligent Design is a neo-creationist propaganda piece meant to sow doubt about neo-Darwinian evolution simply because certain religious folks are opposed to neo-Darwinian evolution for religious reasons. However, in a secular environment such as education or academia, religious objections are ignored. So Intelligent Design was invented to reposition the arguments of the religious fanatics with a veneer of secularism.
 * 3) Those who believe that Intelligent Design represents a legitimate research program are in defiance with the reliable sources on the subject.
 * 4) The Intelligent Design article represents some of the best work on a fringe subject ever attempted.

ScienceApologist (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not exactly sure what this page is supposed to be used for (or if I should post this here), but I concur wholeheartedly. --Ali'i 16:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) All statements in the Intelligent Design article require verification using reliable sources.
 * 2) Reliable sources should be from peer-reviewed and notable secondary sources.
 * 3) Intelligent design is a fringe theory.

Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 17:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with everything said above, but this is actually very important. Before we get into the behavioural issues, we must look at the content issues, because Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopaedia. My own rating of the ID mainspace is probably A-, most concerned with certain biographies. I suggest the following structure. Merzul (talk) 17:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed, for the most part. I can not say either way whether item number 2 on ScienceApologist's list is correct, as I am not that familiar with the origins of the ID movement.  ID is not really part of my concerns with the group, anyway. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 20:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Merzul is correct. I will not comment on Sxepto's questioning of point two.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 22:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I actually agree that Wikipedia is mainstream and personally, I think ID is a crock of bullshit myself. But Wikipedia cannot make that judgement for itself - we can't call Osama bin Laden a terrorist ourselves. Sceptre (talk) 08:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Two things. Usually, when someone says "blah blah is a load of blah blah", that has, in the past, been proof that the author actually has the opposite POV.  So, we should move on from those kind of statements.  Secondly, and most importantly, the ID article is a featured one, well sourced, and is about as NPOV as you can make it.  Without being critical, I'd say you take a read of it again, and show us where it isn't absolutely fair.  ID is a load of crock, but nowhere in the article is it written that way.  I haven't read it in a few months, but off the top of my mind, the lead pretty much says ID is a teleological argument for the existence of G-d, but a bunch of very reliable sources say it's pseudoscience.  Wikipedia's job is not to say that a small group of people say it's correct, so that's all we present, we give weight to the creationists, but only as much as it is verified and supported by reliable sources.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 16:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * One of the issues that has been raised in the context of these disputes is whether the ID article should be featured. In fact, the ID FAC and FAR are, in my view, kind of important for understanding the nature of the conflict.  Gnixon (talk) 23:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Quality of articles

 * Intelligent design is clearly among the top articles on a controversial topic that we have here on the Wiki. There are minor issues of style, especially WP:WTA; but it is a without a doubt a top article. On the other hand, certain biographies only tenuously related to the movement have been too aggressively targeted for my taste, but this is essentially my only serious concern. Also, I will continue pestering people on Expelled to remove the minor issues of low-quality sourcing. In summary, I think the mainspace of ID-related articles is excellent. Merzul (talk) 17:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Evidence of content policy violations
So where have this group violated content policies? If we want to make progress, it is important to point out very specifically what has gone wrong. Examples? Merzul (talk) 22:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Abundance of editors who don't respect content policies
The key underlying problem to this whole mess is that we are so bad at dealing with people who simply don't respect sourcing policy. These have been called civil POV-pushers by some, but the point is that they drive policy-oriented editors crazy, and then these editors say things like "f*ck off" and then the diff-gathering civility police is there to point this out to all of us, who are seriously shocked at their unprofessional behaviour. If we want to fix the problem, we need to analyse the editing environment. Examples of this kind of frustrating behaviour:
 * Charles Darwin quotation issue. A huge amount of commentary because an editor wanted to use his own interpretation of Darwin to pick a cut-off point of the quotation different from that of the Scientific American, which was our secondary source for that analysis. His argument was based on very strange reading of the words and citing dictionary definitions. The same user has made a lot of valid points, but it is no surprise to me that people don't listen to him, when he stubbornly insist on putting his own opinion higher than that of reliable sources. Merzul (talk) 17:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link to ANI discussion

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

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

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

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

User:Jim62sch
This user has a very checkered past when it comes to resolving disputes here on Wikipedia.

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

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

User:Filll
Has a history of defending the other editors incivility. Has admittedly canvassed multiple editors to oppose a RfAdmin case (he says this is a one time thing, and a mistake, and I assume good faith that it won't happen again). Jumped into the ANI discussion and made things worse. Tends to see "cabals" where there were none.

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

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

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

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

Discussion about SirFozzie's allegations

 * Dispute with Neil
 * How is it "well poisoning" to explain why I found the decoration on Neil's page offensive? "I did X because..." isn't "well poisoning", it's a statement of fact.
 * Sxeptomaniac issue
 * I made what I believed to be an accurate comment. The statement prompted personal attacks and incivility on the part of Sxeptomaniac, so I removed it.  Anything that prompted that sort of misbehaviour does not further clear communication, which was my only aim.
 * I have nothing further to say to Sxeptomaniac until he strikes his personal attacks. I acted in good faith to remove what he thought was offensive, I expect a minimum level of civility from him if he wants to discuss this matter further.  I strikes me as pointless to try to have a civil discussion with someone who behaves like that.

I know almost nothing of SirFozzie prior to Sceptre's RFAR, so I don't have a very good picture of who he is. Speaking from my limited interactions with him, he does not seem to be very good with the facts. For example he says
 * Further misleading statements by SirFozzie
 * We have Filll canvassing fellow ID Wikiproject members to oppose that same editor; I can find no evidence to support this assertion.
 * What about Filll's admission of canvassing? Balloonman used the WP:CANVASS table (both at RfAr and Filll's talk page) to demonstrate how this violated 3 of the 4 aspects of that guideline. There's plenty evidence to support the assertion. giggy (O) 08:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I dispute some of Balloonman's assertions in that table, as you can see from my talk page. I also did not canvass any fellow ID Wikiproject members to support or oppose that same editor, and there is NO evidence to support this, nor has any been produced. It is a blatant falsehood. I also find it somewhat incredible to be lectured about ethics on RfAs from the likes of Balloonman and giggy.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 20:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * He repeats the same claim of "coatracking", despite the fact that this allegation if demonstrably false.
 * Someone please look at the talkpage for some pertinent comments on the level of demonstration provided. -- Relata refero (disp.) 12:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * He complains about personal attacks, while making egregiously false attacks
 * He accuses the "ID Project" of trying to "shut down discussion" (again, attacks unsupported by evidence) but invokes the failure of "BADSITES" to squelch criticisms of WR. Yes, a policy proposal to ban links to attacks sites failed.  But trying to use that someone makes WR and its contributors immune from criticism?

I would really like advice on how to move forward when you have editors who engage in this sort of incivility and misrepresentation of the facts. Guettarda (talk) 08:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment on Wikipedia Review from mostly-retired User:PouponOnToast
Wikipedia Review is a forum run by a series of people with various grievances against wikipedia. It provides a different moderation system that the official mailing lists and wikiback. It is not "unmoderated," nor "uncensored."

I believe that many of the "legitmate" wikipedia editors who use wikipedia review state that the major professed advantage of their continued engagement there is that it allows users who are otherwise not allowed to comment at wikipedia to raise issues that are rightfully corrected. Some uncontested examples of this would be useful, but allow us to posit for the moment that this is a true-fact.

Some other "legitimate" wikipedia editors have also stated that they use Wikipedia Review as a mechanism for outreach and behavior modification. This, if successful would be a valuable action. I decline to comment on the possibility that the body of editors at wikipedia review can be reformed, but let us assume that editors who have expressed such goals are, in fact, honest.

Though they have not stated it, it is apparent that yet other "legitimate" wikipedia editors appreciate the congeniality and atmosphere of Wikipedia Review. While this serves no valuable purpose on Wikipedia, user’s time is their own to with as they will.

We must also all acknoledge that Wikipedia Review is the organizing point for vicious harassment and abuse. Editors whose names need not be repeated use Wikipedia Review as an organizing and clearing space to engage in everything from infantile penis vandalism to successful long term stalking with the intent to disenfranchise of some of our most valued contributors.

As such, I believe a full categorization of "value-added" activities taken at wikipedia review are:
 * 1) Correcting problems uncovered or created by wikipedia review
 * 2) Behavior modification of wikipedia review members

Activities of zero-cost-zero-benefit to the encyclopedia:
 * 1) Socialization

Activities to the detriment of the encyclopedia:
 * 1) Encouragement of negative behaviors by wikipedia review members
 * 2) Engagement in negative behavior by "legitimate" editors.

Users who chose to engage with Wikipedia Review must walk a fine line lest they do more-harm-than-good. I ask that every editor engaging with Wikipedia Review evaluate their conduct on this scale and determine if they are doing more harm than good. I suggest that recent actions taken by some parities are fully out of line with the functioning of a free encyclopedia, and, to the extent they are unable to engage in Wikipedia-Review in either a net-positive or net-neutral way, they stop engaging there entirely.


 * 1) PouponOnToast (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

An aside on "White Pride"
There are differing opinions on the racism or not-racism of "white pride" vs. "white power" vs. "white nationalism." Mainstream anti-racists are typically of the belief that these various terms (along with "racialism") are functionally identical, and that the use of "white pride" is very-thinly veiled code language. Supporters of white pride disagree, arguing that you can have "white pride" without being a racist.

I believe the appropriate position on this issue is in line with Jimbo's position on divisive userboxes ("Userboxes of a political or, more broadly, polemical, nature are bad for the project. They are attractive to the wrong kinds of people, and they give visitors the wrong idea of what it means to be a Wikipedian.") I make no statement as to the racist attitude or not of any user, but merely state that to alledge you have "white pride" on wikipedia is anathema to the editing of an encyclopedia. Users should avoid statements unrelated to the encyclopedia that are likley to enflame. Users who are closely related to a fringe movement ("white pride") should refrain from editing articles related to their fringe movement (Stormfront (website)).


 * 1) PouponOnToast (talk) 16:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Tutorial

 * Construct a simple tutorial on editing controversial articles. If I had known some basic advice, I could have avoided offending people. For example, it is almost never helpful to go to a controversial article and make generic complaints about the article being biased. Instead, focusing on specific problems is more helpful, and also not assuming that one is right and the main contributors of the article are wrong certainly helps in reaching compromises. Merzul (talk) 21:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would comment that the same operates in reverse: the main contributors are not correct by default, either. It comes back to AGF, or, just as good, don't assume. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 22:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In my experience, the main contributors consistently point to reliable sources and ask the newcomers to produce sources to support their strongly held convictions, so it's a learning curve for newcomers. The idea of a tutorial is good, there's a simple guide at the top of talk:Intelligent design which we can try to improve and refer newcomers to it more often. .. dave souza, talk 22:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Mentoring

 * Some of the more aggressive editors are asked to look at Dave Souza as an example of how to effectively deal with POV-pushing without losing one's temper and preserve an openness to legitimate criticism. Maybe Dave would be willing to more actively mentor his fellow editors in this topic? Merzul (talk) 21:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Fellow editors again raises the chimera of an ID cabal. This will not help the process.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 22:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, everyone's a fellow editor here. I'm reluctant to raise civility issues in the middle of vigorous discussions unless it's reaching the stage of personal attacks, but perhaps we can all try to do more in a way that doesn't raise the temperature. An agreed guideline might make that easier. . . dave souza, talk 22:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And yet, on this very talkpage...-- Relata refero (disp.) 12:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, we are all fellow editors, but I agree with Jim that my comment is stereotyping. After a while on those pages, it becomes obvious how different each editor is, and these kinds of accusations are part of the problem. It would have been more wise to have said that Dave tries to influence any user he sees fit and that he finds worth spending the time to advise and mentor, or something like that, as advising editors on their conduct is quite time-consuming; but I have found the advice of other Wikipedians very useful. Merzul (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * WR has also been used in unrelated matters, in order to poison the well and discount editors' contributions. I think it's fine to address both WR and concerns regarding a possible clique/cabal/group in the proper context, but using membership, supposed or otherwise, in order to deflect from the actual debate at hand should not be done any more. Fair enough? Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 23:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to me it isn't. Since 98% of scientists agree that ID is a load of woo, and a lot of scientists show up here, there might be 20 different editors next year that write, with reliable and verifiable sources, that ID is a load of woo.  Are you going to invent another arbitrary cabal/group/clique when they show up?  Let's not set a precedence that intelligent people might actually write the same thing, and, for some arbitrary reason, label them arbitrarily.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 23:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What? I have stated in several different contexts that it's behavior, and not belief, that I have a problem with.  Behavior such as assuming what an editor believes based on no evidence, or even contradictory evidence, and then attacking them based upon the false assumption. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 23:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's worth acknowledging that upholding the NPOV policy in this area is almost uniquely difficult. The problem being that ID believers seriously maintain that non-believers should consider their religious beliefs to be plausible areas of scientific research, which makes dispute resolution significantly more difficult. The supposed ID cabal has the intention of upholding Wikipedia's content policies, I can't say the same about the WR cabal. PhilKnight (talk) 23:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * But many of the complaints about the "ID cabal" have been raised by individuals who claim they don't believe in ID; in fact, several have gone to great pains to distance themselves from ID. Gnixon (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This tactic of saying "I do not believe in ID" is ALWAYS used by those pursuing the ID agenda on the ID and evolution and creationism articles. This is so common and has been used so often that its appearance almost guarantees that the person using it is a proponent of intelligent design, and somehow mistakenly believes that if they make this disclaimer, they will get to put whatever nonsense they like in an article, unimpeded. Sorry, but that sort of argument holds no water.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 17:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Awesome. So when either you, OrangeMarlin or Odd Nature accuses a long-term editor of being a creationist/ID proponent/anti-science pusher, and said editor responds with "no, I'm not", this proves the accusation is true. And you still don't see why so many editors have a problem with these Orwellian tactics? - Merzbow (talk) 00:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Orwellian or Pythonian? Quack-quack! (Meaning this, of course. Gnixon (talk) 01:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * fascinating... -- Ludwigs 2  01:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you were familiar with these articles, I doubt you would be making these unhelpful comments. There are lengthy edit wars between two sides, and it's slightly odd that the side which appears to be attempting to make the articles less critical, go such lengths to distance themselves from ID. PhilKnight (talk) 01:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight - sorry, I didn't mean that to be unhelpful. I really am fascinated by the rhetorical strategies that are being used in this debate, and I am trying to bring myself up to speed on the history so that I can participate more fully. I mean, this doesn't strike me as a difficult problem to resolve in a rational context, but it seems to be impressively difficult to construct a rational context to resolve it in. at any rate, I will try to make my future comments more on point. -- Ludwigs 2  18:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you agree or disagree with this statement: The fact that there exist bona-fide creationist POV pushers who lie about their beliefs and intentions make it OK to assume the same of long-term, established editors that one disagrees with. - Merzbow (talk) 02:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Obviously editors are expected to assume good faith to new and established users irrespective of views about ID. PhilKnight (talk) 05:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So, Filll, once you've decided an editor is pro-ID, how would they exonerate themselves if the accusation is false? Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 04:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Civility sanctions

 * For what it's worth, one of the things I filed the RFAr for was to get civility sanctions put on several editors (esp. Orangemarlin) because the community won't do anything. There should also be a general warning about canvassing and discussion participation. Sceptre (talk) 07:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Right. You didn't trust the community to give the results you wanted through the well established process of dispute resolution, so it appears that you went straight to Arbcom with no coherent idea of the dispute other than what you seem to have read on WR, and without bothering to provide diffs or any detailed examination of the alleged problems. The guideline WP:CIVIL provides sound advice, and the policy WP:NPA sets out a strict line editors must not cross, all of which can be taken through normal dispute resolution procedures. These behavioural standards don't apply to Wikipedia Review, and while there do seem to be editors there with a range of views, some trying to gently restrain the wilder excesses of others, the discussions I've seen paint a very distorted picture of Wikipedia with a focus on editors and their alleged conduct rather than on article content which is what I'd hope we're all here for. I don't think it's practical for civility sanctions to apply to off-wiki remarks, but such remarks should certainly be taken into account when they relate directly to on-wiki behaviour, and although it should be superfluous, perhaps editors should be reminded not to take off wiki discussions seriously without carrying out detailed research and exploring issues through normal dispute resolution procedures. . . dave souza, talk 09:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * But I can understand Sceptre's frustration. For example, Orangemarlin has been "warned" about rude remarks by a number of admins, but no further action has ever been taken, and his behavior seems unaffected.  I, for one, would like this RfC to shed light on why the community seems unwilling to deal with behavior that is supposedly unacceptable.  Gnixon (talk) 23:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Community doesn't liek t3h dramaz. Seriously. Sceptre (talk) 23:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I think another factor may be the amount of time required to familiarize oneself with even a small part of the "drama."  For example, it took me literally an entire day to read through what happened at Rosalind Picard, an article only tangentially related to the core conflict.  I suspect there are other reasons.  Gnixon (talk) 00:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a compelling reason to put in the work to break this dispute up into discrete, organized, bite-sized chunks that can be easily discussed by the community or ArbCom. With the current amorphous state of this contretemps, neither the community nor ArbCom is going to be able to resolve it in a way that anyone will find satisfactory. MastCell Talk 17:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree; it's just that it's soooo muuuch wooork.... and it's impossible to collaborate with others to put things together without things deteriorating into, well, this. Gnixon (talk) 01:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)  For example, it took me nearly an hour just to write up this tiny piece of the case.  Gnixon (talk) 01:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is just becoming a list of personal attacks from editors of all stripes. I'm not sure this is very useful.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 18:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)