Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/October 2006/Bagginator

Wikipedian filing request:



Other Wikipedians this pertains to:

Wikipedia pages this pertains to:



Questions:
Have you read the AMA FAQ?
 * Answer:

Yes

'''How would you describe the nature of this dispute? (policy violation, content dispute, personal attack, other)'''
 * Answer: As a content dispute, several personal attacks and some bullying by teaming up with friends to get their way.

'''What methods of Dispute Resolution have you tried so far? If you can, please provide wikilinks so that the Advocate looking over this case can see what you have done.'''
 * Answer: I began by trying to talk it out without even making an edit of the article in question. After talking it out and finding a lot of hostility I went to other talk pages asking for advice and got some support but am now receiving criticism for going to others for that support. Finally I have decided to give it some space and take some time off from the dispute but it has followed me to other talk pages.

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?
 * Answer: A better understanding of Wikipedia and how it works. A neutral point of view on my positions and whether i'm being hard headed and stubborn or if my perceptions are correct and i'm being railroaded off of Wikipedia by a small gang of bullies.

Summary:

 * It began a couple of weeks ago when I found myself reading through the Intelligent Design article. Right away I came across a sentence that read, "Its leading proponents are all affiliated with the Discovery Institute". Having read several books on the subject and many website, magazine and newspaper articles I found this statement to be pretty strange. Certainly not all of the leading proponents are affiliated with the Discovery Institute? The sentence also read as strange to my ears, what the heck are leading proponents anway? And what is meant by affiliated? My first thought before doing any research on this was, "Certainly President Bush isn't affiliated with the Discovery Institute?"


 * I then posted on the talk area a proposed change. Wanting to be fair I offered three different changes instead of what I thought would be best. Knowing that the article in question was a political hot potato, instead of editing the article right away I thought of talking it out first on the talk pages. This is when the trouble started. I was immediately told that this discussion had been brought up for the past two years, was already decided upon and didn't need to be brought up again. I then researched through the archives and discovered that the sentence was inserted in January of 2006, was initially disputed in February of 2006 and had been disputed by approximately 20 different editors since then.


 * Each time the dispute came up a different standard was asked for. I decided to try and give as much evidence as possible for all those who might be considered leading proponents of intelligent design not affiliated with the Discovery Institute. During this time I found that the reference used (Only one citation at the time, now there are three) was to Kitzmiller and actually stated "associated" not "affiliated". I suggested making this simple change and was rebuffed by the same group of folks.


 * I also made some mistakes along the way. In my haste I listed as evidence two sources that turned out to be satire. Two people who did not exist but yet I listed them as possible leading proponents of intelligent design who were not affiliated with the Discovery Institute. When this was pointed out to me I apologized for the error and was embarrased. Since that time one editor, Guettarda, insists that i'm not being serious, that i'm obviously just joking around on the talk pages and my protests to the opposite are laughed off and Guettarda continues to insist that i'm just joking. Another editor has made the argument that they no longer need to assume good faith where i'm concerned because of these two mistakes and that ive demonstrated i'm a liar.


 * There were several other sources listed that I believe are purposefully overlooked in order to maintain the article as it is currently written. I listed Legal Times.com (or law.com)(May 22, 2006, p. 13) as a reliable source that calls John Umana "a leading proponent of Intelligent Design." The editors who oppose my position say that legal times is not a reliable source for this opinion and further that since John Umana doesn't get that many google hits he cannot be a leading proponent of intelligent design. I listed William Harris and another editor months ago listed John Calvin as leading proponents. John Calvin was mentioned in the Kansas City Star as being a leading proponent of intelligent design while William Harris was called a leading proponent on approximately 8 different television news stations in New York, Washington D.C., Florida, Indianapolis and Sioux Falls. FeloniousMonk insists that these are not leading proponents and even if they are, because they are co-founders of IDnet (Intelligent Design Network) that makes them affiliated with the Discovery Institute. The reason being IDnet links to Discovery Institute works (As well as other places) and Discovery Institute links to IDnet articles and papers. They also have posted citations that show the co-founders of IDnet attend events with the leaders of the Discovery Institute, calling this affiliation.


 * There are also others that were suggested as leading proponents in archive 32 (The discussion was archived prematurely I believe) such as Steve Fuller, Gerald Schroeder, and Mat Staver who are all called leading proponents in different venues.


 * Because of the accusations levelled against me in these discussions and because of the ganging up I decided to try going somewhere else for a little while then coming back to it once things have cooled down. My plan was to post an RfC after getting some AMA help on how to do that. I went to read through the Wedge Strategy aticle that I've heard about before but have never read and see how that went. One of the sentences there in the beginning didn't sound right to me, so I edited it and posted on the talk why. I was immediately attacked by the same group of people and accused of all sorts of things as though ive been editing that page for months.


 * I'm at a loss for what I should do and hope to find someone to help me out. I can see that it is possible that i'm simply being stubborn, am completely in the wrong, and should apologize and get out while I still can. This is what i'm hoping an advocate can do for me. Be a third party in this, let me know in a kind and gentle fashion where ive gone wrong, and put me on the right track. Or, if i'm actually in the right on this and have behaved properly, can counsel me about the appropriate way of responding and moving ahead with my disagreements with this group of editors.

Discussion:
John Umana is a senior trial and appellate lawyer in Washington, DC with a Ph.D. in analytic philosophy from Michigan. In 2005, Umana authored the book, “Creation: Towards a Theory of All Things.” This book was the source of the Legal Times statement in its May 22, 2006 issue that he is a leading proponent of intelligent design. He is both biological evolutionist and intelligent design theorist, and not affiliated with Discovery Institute or any group. He argues that the debate on evolution suffers from confusion from the failure of some to distinguish two different senses of the term ‘evolution.’ MEANING NO. 1: In one sense, evolution means that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor (and that different species share common ancestors, such as for example the hippopotamus, dolphin and whale share a common ancestor). It maintains that all organisms on earth are descended from a common ancestor. Umana argues that Dr. Darwin’s theory that living things evolved or descended from common ancestors is true and proved by the convergence of the sciences. MEANING NO. 2: But ‘evolution’ in Dr. Darwin’s full-blown sense is taken to mean that a new species originates as a result of "natural selection," random incremental mutations over millions of years. In this biological and Darwinian sense, the term ‘evolution’ means a process whereby life emerged from non-living matter and subsequently new species emerged and developed entirely from natural means. Darwin’s theory is that all complex species and organs such as the eye and animal instincts “evolved by the accumulation of innumerable slight variations ….” (1859, p. 459) This latter thesis is impeached by modern microbiology and is bad science, Umana argues. The book maintains that the evidence (including Big Bang analysis from NASA’s WMAP probe) points to a cause external to the physical universe as responsible for the biodiversity that exists on this planet and on other worlds. Umana’s theory predicts that there is no other life and never has been life elsewhere in this solar system – an empirically verifiable theory that will be tested in the near future with life-searching NASA landers (e.g., the Phoenix lander and the Astrobiology Field Laboratory) set to explore Mars. At the same time, he argues in his chapter 8 that the universe is teeming with life and teeming with intelligent life. Umana maintains that science and exploration offer the best hope of answering these questions.

Followup:
When the case is finished, please take a minute to fill out the following survey:

Did you find the Advocacy process useful?
 * Answer:

Did your Advocate handle your case in an appropriate manner?
 * Answer:

On a scale of 1 (worst) to 5 (best), how polite was your Advocate?
 * Answer:

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel your Advocate was in solving the problem?
 * Answer:

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel the Advocacy process is altogether?
 * Answer:

If there were one thing that you would like to see different in the Advocacy process, what would it be?
 * Answer:

If you were to deal with this dispute again, what would you do differently, if anything?
 * Answer:

AMA Information
Case Status: closed

Advocate Status:
 * I'll take this one. -Royalguard11 (Talk·Desk) 23:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll keep this open for another week to see if the advocee comes back, gone since 18th. -Royalguard11 (Talk·Desk) 00:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Closed, advocee has appeared to have left. No contribs since 14 October. If he does come back, contact me on my talk page and I'll re-open. -Royalguard11 (Talk·Desk) 22:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)