Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Intelligent Design

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. PouponOnToast (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC) The desired outcome portion, at this time.[reply]
3. Odd nature (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Guettarda (talk) 21:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Amerique^dialectics 16:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC) (I don't see anything to disagree with here so far as the desired outcome and parameters of the dispute are described. I would need to see more concrete diffs on all named users before i signed off on SirFozzie's section.)[reply]
6. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. dave souza, talk 19:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 22:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Accurate and neutral summary of the problem. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Link to ANI discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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)[reply]

1. SirFozzie (talk) 02:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Orderinchaos 09:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. giggy _(:O) 09:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Sceptre ^(talk) 10:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC) - especially the conclusion.[reply]
6. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 16:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 16:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Only the bolded section in "how to fix it." Users should be civil to eachother. PouponOnToast (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Lara❤Love 19:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Just the section about Guettarda's labelling me a Neo-Nazi apologist(!), which was ridiculous. Neıl 龱 00:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 18:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Mike H. Fierce! 02:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. Cla68 (talk) 03:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. Viridae^Talk 10:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. Wizardman 22:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17. Everyking (talk) 06:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
18. Championdante (talk) 21:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
19. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20. NewbyG (talk) 23:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

1. Odd nature (talk) 17:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Of course, I'd appreciate this.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Guettarda (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. With reservations, and to the extent that the requests are concrete and quantifiable. On 1, I do not intend to imply that good faith has not been assumed in the past, rather that all parties should take care to do so going forwards. On 2, the request to not refer to the series of editors as a "cabal" is very reasonable, and should be accomidated. On 3, the request to not discuss editors on the other site is very reasonable and should be accomidated. On 4, attempts at dispute resolution should not be undermined, but I do not intend to imply that such undermining has happened. PouponOnToast (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Let's end this charade before things get worse, which they undoubtedly will if this sort of broad attack and witchhunt continues.--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 22:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Endorse - Wikipedia ia an encyclopedia, not a social networking site where the aim is to increase your edit count and become an administrator. Shot info (talk) 04:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Filll (talk | wpc) 13:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering Random832 nominated the RFC of Sceptre, Sxeptomaniac and SirFozzie for deletion [17] and the number of times he shows up at WikipediaReview to comment in threads about ID editors, particularly Sceptre's thread, [18][19][20][21][22][23] he's clearly involved himself in this matter.

1. Guettarda (talk) 08:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC) More to the point - what content dispute? I see it as dueling behavioural claims. I see two issue here - on one hand there are claims that members of the ID WikiProject are rude, and on the other hand I see harassment by a large group of editors linked to Wikipedia Review. So regardless of whether Random is actually part of the harassment, s/he's certainly involved in it. Guettarda (talk) 08:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 15:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Filll (talk | wpc) 13:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple members of the Arbcom specifically said at Sceptre's RFAR to file a RFC first:Wikipedia:RFAR#Arbitrators.27_opinion_on_hearing_this_matter_.281.2F4.2F0.2F2.29 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. Furthermore, the scope of this RFC is far more focused/less nebulous than Sceptre's RFAR that prompted it, Wikipedia:RFAR#Intelligent_design_editors.

1. Guettarda (talk) 08:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC) As I read it, this is what the arbcomm asked for.[reply]
2. I agree (but read otherwhere that a multi-user request is de facto uncertifiable... not that I agree with that), and appreciate PouponOnToast trying to formulate this, I just don't think it's focused enough to work. --Ali'i 12:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Filll (talk | wpc) 13:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not involved in any of the underlying content disputes and do not have any significant affiliation with anyone else named in this RFC. I therefore regard myself as an uninvolved user, and object to my inclusion in e.g. Odd Nature's section. I have reason to believe that some of the users on one so-called "side" haveOdd Nature has a tendency to label anyone who does not agree with them as supposedly being "friends" or "pals" of one another[24], so I suspect that some of the other named users are also similarly not actually involved.

1. --Random832 (contribs) 18:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC) - fixed, don't know why I couldn't find that diff before.[reply]
2. If RFAR cases are filed, people will comment upon them. You've done that. You also filed and later withdrew the MFD on the prior pseudo-RFC/attack page. I can't see anything else you have done or alleged to have done. I totally disregard PouponOnToast's viewpoint; reading or posting to wikipediareview is a more valuable and useful than reading or posting to the official wikien-l mailing list and WP:BADSITE is thoroughly and rightfully rejected. GRBerry 20:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. LaraLove|Talk| 15:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

1. PouponOnToast (talk) 19:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 15:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Filll (talk | wpc) 15:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Random832 (contribs) 19:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Orderinchaos 23:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. giggy _(:O) 10:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This request for comment is starting to look like a waste of time and energy. It was originally set up to look at the topic of Intelligent Design, but (in my opinion) the Intelligent Design article is done very well, and very few people here dispute that. Most other articles on the subject are also done well and covered accurately. There still might be a few issues, but a request for comment shouldn't be needed to work these out.

This request for comment is just turning into another omnibus user request for comment which (I guess) are uncertifiable, and so far it looks like it's shaping up to be another bomb-throwing two-sided affair, with both sides using invective and both perhaps not assuming the best faith they can.

I don't think the whole Moulton issue is being discussed here (it's being better handled at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Moulton and User talk:Moulton).

I don't think the whole Wikipedia Review thing is necessarily at the utmost importance regarding this topic (and could perhaps be dealt with in it's own right).

I think the whole request for comment is still too nebulous to actually do any good. I don't know whether or not it should be closed, but I can't help but to express a little frustration with the whole affair. Mahalo. --Ali'i 19:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC) tweaked slightly per Gnixon on 22:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. --Ali'i 19:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Lara❤Love 19:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Merzul (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC). Not sure, but currently I agree with this. There seems to be a wisdom in RfC/U being limited to a single editor. The intention is, after all, for the editor to be able to improve. Merzul (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Since I've generally avoided Intelligent design, and there is some dispute, I can't really speak to whether it's a good article or not. However, ID has never had much to do with my dispute with the editors, even though I have been attacked multiple times for supposedly being pro-ID. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 21:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Agree in principle, this follows on from an unfocussed RfAR which was openly presented as a "shitstorm" attacking a group of editors, and has mainly succeeded in being a waste of time. Improvements in behaviour will be welcome, but this process is suitable for nothing more than exhortations and patient use of all stages of dispute resolution would be more appropriate. . . dave souza, talk 21:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Well said. PhilKnight (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Endorse comments about the Moulton affair and the Wikipedia Review "evidence" - the issue should be stream-lined for dispute resolution. Discussion of these tangential matters will neither resolve them or help resolve this issue. However I think this approach generally has promise if it can be kept on target--Cailil ^talk 22:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Agree the RfC is ambiguous. My understanding was that it was in response to the "Intelligent design editors" RfAr, but it does not seem to adequately address the body of issues raised there, nor does it address a narrowly-scoped-yet-significant subset of those issues. I'm unsure whether we should improve the RfC or abort it. Gnixon (talk) 23:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. The "desired outcome" is a joke. Mr.Z-man 23:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. giggy _(:O) 10:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Intelligent design has been stable for a long time. I'm not even sure why we're fighting these battles. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. JoshuaZ (talk) 10:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 16:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. When I see an RFC that looks as messy, unfocussed and unproductive as this, I find it helps to take a look at this picture: Image:I IZ SERIUS ADMNIM THIZ IZ SERIUS BIZNIS lolcat.jpg
    • If the RFC was an attempt to clarify the nature of the dispute, it has failed. I concur that Intelligent Design is a reasonably well written article, so clearly something good is coming of this mess. Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 03:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. It always was a waste of time. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17. unfocused and unproductive accurately summarises this RFC.--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
18. Good analysis. Doc Tropics 00:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I have also stated here and here, I think this case is ripe for mediation; IMHO the real debate is about content. The nice thing about mediation is that it seeks to de-escalate conflict. The bad thing about this RFC is that it's linked to from too few places; for example, I see no obvious link to it even from its parent page. Bwrs (talk) 15:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Championdante (talk) 21:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the Cabalism section of the statement of the dispute does not accurately describe the dispute for most of us. I have not clashed with any editors on any articles directly related to ID (simply because ID is not an interest of mine), nor have those disputes been directly about ID. Looking at Talk:Intelligent design, I don't see any of the editors involved in recent major disputes outside of the group from Wikiproject:Intelligent design.

Part of my problem with several editors from the Wikiproject is that disputes tangential, or even unrelated to ID are frequently treated as if they are. Editors who find themselves in conflict with these editors for any reason are often attacked as pro-ID or "anti-science" with little or no evidence. [25] [26] [27] [28] (this one was despite this)

For this reason I do not feel the statement of the dispute is accurate. My biggest problem with this group is not content related, but their tendency to assume bad faith in any dispute.

1. I have consistently done my best to AGF, but I can't say I've received the same courtesy, as I have been attacked as supposedly believing things I do not believe, and for comments I have not made, and have seen the same done to others. [29] [30]
2. Guettarda, OrangeMarlin, Filll, and Jimsch62 have undermined themselves. They didn't need my help, or anyone else's, to do so. I and a few others warned them (Filll in particular) back in September that their behavior was causing problems (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Moulton#Outside view by Sxeptomaniac).
3. Honestly, if they want discussion of them at WR to stop, they need to stop giving WR members reasons to talk about them, and it wouldn't be a difficult thing to do. It's not like there are any nefarious purposes at play, basically, they just need to pay attention to what other editors have been saying about their behavior all along. I have attempted to open up dialog on WP, only to be rudely turned away [31], so what reason do I have for giving up discussion at WR? Besides, even if all the named editors stopped now, there are several others that would continue discussions, and WP editors could just join under alternate pseudonyms and say the same things. Even if you got us to stop, it would change little, other than give those at WR something more to talk about.
4. I have undermined no attempts at DR, and neither have the other named editors. I responded to the previous RfC [32] and remain neutral regarding the deletion. [33] The RfC was deleted by an uninvolved admin at the request of an uninvolved editor. On the other hand, uninvolved editors have argued that OrangeMarlin and others have undermined DR processes in the past. [34]

Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 03:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. BINGO. SirFozzie (talk) 03:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Sceptre ^(talk) 10:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. BINGO. giggy _(:O) 10:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. LaraLove|Talk| 15:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Amerique^dialectics 15:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC) (I don't see anything wrong with this either. The "Cabalism" section may not have been accurate or detailed, but I think it was intended as a general outline of the dispute. No comment on the response to Odd Nature; in all honesty, I haven't sufficently looked into all of this to make any sort of determination.)[reply]
6. I didn't even know it involved ID until the RFAR, so it's clearly spread to other areas in which the ID editors are involved. Orderinchaos 02:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Cla68 (talk) 03:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Viridae^Talk 10:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually asked for an edit overlap check - there are only three pages apart from editing hotspots (e.g. ANI, AIV, etc) and gnome work where there are a significant number of edits by more than one of me, B, Sxepto, and Fozzie - User talk:Alison, User talk:Jimbo Wales, and User talk:Phaedriel. To accuse us of cabalism is absurd.

Regarding the "shitstorm" comment, I knew I was opening the flood gates when making the RFAR, but felt it was an urgent enough matter for the AC to consider. It's in no way an attack against the parties.

And regarding good faith: who do you think you're kidding?; everything is dead. You're being very hypocritical here, given the parties' massive failure to assume good faith (general Dalekian attitude, grave personal attacks, and even Odd nature's conspiracy theory), especially given that one of them has a challenge for editors to do so. We're assuming good faith to the best of our abilities because we're supposed to, but as KillerChihuahua points out:

AGF is not a suicide pact. If someone writes a post with blatant personal attacks, signs another user's name, then starts posting in multiple places calling for the banning of the innocent party, they are a troll. Calling them such is not a failure to AGF: it is a logical deduction.

Response to #Response by Odd nature.

1. I am happy and willing to assume good faith of any user on this project, I merely ask they do the same of me.
2. The "ID cabal" terminology is, regretfully, surprisingly accurate, and is something that this (or one of the other) RfC is hopefully going to look at. I find your describing good faith complaints of incivility, etc. etc. as "weak or exaggerated concerns" pathetic, to be honest, and though I have never actually raised a concern as to the incivility of this group of users (outside the infamous blog post), I certainly am not going to stop after this stunning inability to assume good faith on the part of those with genuine concerns.
3. Please see WR's provisional posting rules, specifically, "Any Wikipedian who wishes to dispute statements on this site is welcome to become a member and, within the bounds of decorum that operate here, rebut [statements they disagree with, etc. etc.]." If you don't with to use WR, for whatever reason (and may I suggest Tor for the most likely concern), you are welcome to change your behaviour.
4. Lol wut?

1. giggy _(:O) 10:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Orderinchaos 02:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Viridae^Talk 10:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could editors stop adding views that are nothing more than our side is completely right, and your side is completely wrong. It's blatantly unhelpful to dispute resolution.

1. PhilKnight (talk) 13:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. I'd like to see more focused views. Focus a view by topic or individual, or even individual&topic. Yes, this may mean someone posts 5 or 10 focused views in the form of "User1's View of Behavior2 by User3", but it allows a single alleged behavioral issue to be reviewed, making it possible to see specific issues and the community to comment on specific issues, hopefully leading to specific behavior changes. GRBerry 13:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Yes, behaviour and issues should be the focus, not who is "right" or "wrong". Orderinchaos 02:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Mediation is a good way to halt attacks and focus on content. Formal mediation is better for something that has gotten this far, but for it to be effective, it should include all users or at least all admins. involved in the content, not just those involved in the conduct dispute. Bwrs (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that because the Wikipedia community refuses to enforce content and sourcing standards, this has caused people to argue over editor behavior instead. The administrators who do enforce content and sourcing standards are decried as "abusive". They should rather be given the keys to the city. Most of those opposing the administrators who are enforcing sourcing and content standards are either woefully under-educated about the subjects they are battling over or are agenda-driven editors who either harbor peculiar misconceptions about or actively promote dismantling the mainstream academic understanding of certain subjects. Editors and administrators who do not conform to the content standards of the encyclopedia should be directed elsewhere. They can fight vandalism, copy-edit, do wiki-markup, or categorize articles. They shouldn't be writing text.

The fact is that the behavior standards on Wikipedia are subjective and up to interpretation. I have seen ostensibly "civil" editors write mean and nasty things and I have seen some of the worst trolls and offenders write beautifully concilliatory statements. Then I have seen other editors give opposite interpretations of the very same posts. Who's to say who is right? The Civility guideline on Wikipedia is a good guidepost, but there is no way it can be objectively or righteously enforced. Can you really determine when an accusation is "ill-considered" without reading the other person's mind? Can you really be certain that a "tone" is "judgemental" when you can't hear what the other person is saying or see them sign the words? No. There is plenty of academic evidence to support this as well in the literature of social interaction. Try sticking your middle finger up in some cultures and you'll get decked. Do it in other cultures and you'll be saluted.

Different communities have different standards of civility -- even if they use the same set of criteria to define it. What may seem mean to you might be nice to me. We need to be willing to fix perceived incivility as situations arise where people feel slighted, but to try to mandate civil discussion from above is unreasonable and overtly insulting.

On the issue of lack of content and sourcing policy enforcement, I know firsthand how stupid it is that this community refuses to kick out editors who want to insert unreliable and counterfactual opinions into articles as if they were facts. We have on any given day dozens of editors trying to promote a certain miracle cure that has no scientific backing, show why science is evil, parrot claptrap about observable facts being a myth, and claim that overtly racist positions are somehow innocuous. A collaborative community is fine when everyone is on the same page for how to best write an encyclopedia. However, when there are people who think that reliable sourcing of text regarding the intelligent design movement vaguely violates their sense of fair play, (e.g. WP:BLP gets carted out as the prime example -- it's a very British sensibility to think that you shouldn't say anything that can remotely be construed as negative about public figures) those people should be told to direct their attentions to other Wikipedia issues and stop bothering the experts.

The people who are opposed to the expert editors (and by "expert", I mean people who have evinced an understanding of the topic that adheres most closely to the content standards of Wikipedia) of intelligent design articles do not themselves seem to have any evidence for an ability to do any better. Occasionally, expert editors have challenged the challengers to write a proposal in a sandbox. Invariably we either get high-grade baloney or the editor can't seem to "get around to it". There is no evidence that the group of people willing to certify RfCs against editors at Intelligent Design have the ability to write a good article on the subject of Intelligent Design.

I think a fair solution to this problem would be to separate the two groups. The "Friendlies" can go on welcoming people and doing the elf and gnome work that is important to this encyclopedia. The "Experts" can go on maintaining the integrity of the content. Detente will work as long as the two groups make efforts not to intrude on the other's territory.

1. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Overall agree. Don't entirely agree that expertise is strictly necessary; to edit or administer competently in areas relating to creationism a modicum of understanding of science, religion, and the the history of the political / legal wrangling is all that is required. Of course, expertise in a relevant field could be very useful, however I'm not convinced that it's required. PhilKnight (talk) 15:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I tried to clarify what I meant by "expert". It's not the same as the sense of WP:EXPERT, for example. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. I basically agree with this.--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Odd nature (talk) 17:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Guettarda (talk) 18:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Right on dude. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Endorse --Shot info (talk) 23:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Yep •Jim62sch•^dissera! 16:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Agreed, and I'm a Friendly, not an Expert. I know my place  : ) Doc Tropics 00:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reserve the right to add material to my section in the future.

I have asked over and over, right from the initial RfAr, for the accusers to please back off before this gets out of hand. Please assume good faith, and please stop your attacks. Please disengage. We do not need any more drama, and if this continues, it will just be a waste of time and effort for all concerned, and create needless bad feelings.

1. Filll (talk | wpc) 16:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Spot on. Odd nature (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Guettarda (talk) 18:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per point 1 of my statement. giggy _(:O) 02:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since my name is being tossed about herein, I may as well respond. Per what User:ScienceApologist has said, in a nutshell, civility is being used as a methodology to trump many other core principles, including WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:VERIFY, and WP:FRINGE. Moreover, many so-called civil editors tend to violate those core principles, utilizing a tendentious style of editing (either numerous small edits to an article, or numerous long discussion edits). It is frustrating to me, which leads to my becoming uncivil to these individuals. I'm sure each one of you can pull out 100 or so diffs of mine where I wrote an intemperate edit summary. I have reduced that sarcasm and commentary to a much much much lower level. I have never told an editor to "fuck off", so I guess I do try to keep it to some reasonable limit. Anyways, I can't make a promise that I'll be friendly to the 28th editor who places an unsourced edit stating that standing under a crystal will cure cancer, but I know I've annoyed a lot of you, I know that I'm still here because of being productive (probably pissed off a lot of you), so I'll focus on being productive AND not annoying or angering you.

But, my attitudes aside, it is clear that admins have stand behind NPOV, RS, and VERIFY first, lecture about civility much much later. An atmosphere of tendentious and troublesome editing is, in itself, uncivil fostering an unhealthy atmosphere.

So, in conclusion, I understand a part of the point of this RfC, although I don't see where it's going to get far--the usual suspects are on both sides of this issue. Honestly, it's getting boring. I only responded here, because I am seeing whithering attacks on me by certain individuals, and though I still think it's attacking me personally, I can read beneath the lines to know I share the burden of guilt in this process. So for that, I sincerely apologize. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Odd nature (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. John Nevard (talk) 14:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

x-posted: Wikipedians: There is truly no need to remind me of my past uncivil comments: I haven't forgotten them, nor has the arbcom I'm sure. It seems obvious to me that people on both sides of this dispute (including myself) need to be more civil and do a better job of maintaining a welcoming environment at Wikipedia. For those times I've not been civil, I apologize, and note that I've been working to improve: anyone who ran across me a year ago will recognize that. However, when faced with harassment, it's a much harder row to hoe. For those who have, and continue to attack me at WikipediaReview, the elimination of the harassment would make my job here at WP much easier; as would the assumption of my good faith at Wikipedia. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 22:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Reply to Cla68": huh? •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a slightly different take on a lot of this dispute. In my opinion a fair bit of it is less about civility/personal attacks/stalking/tenditions editing/lack of collegiality than it is about the need for some folks to label stuff. One of the things a great big database encyclopedia does is encourage and provide a comfortable environment for those who need labels on things, people, groups, ideas, etc. There is a tendency for those people to want to label EVERYTHING and EVERYONE. This has lead to several arbcom hearings (all the fringe and pseudoscience ones), lots of disruption (see the continuous DR threads regarding science appolgist and Martinphi, amongst others), and a general environment of unpleasantness. This need for labels comes across as harrassment at times.

My recommendation on how to limit this disruption is for EVERYONE to refrain from labeling other editors as anything except 'editor' or 'admin' or something similar. If you have a complaint, state it plainly with out using a label. "I think that what you wrote regarding xyz promotes an unbalanced pov in the article..." rather than "you pov pushing nutter, leave that crap out".--Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Very true. This RfC is founded on the idea that an "ID group" has to be reigned in, and it's clear that some co-ordination or cheerleading is coming from an off-wiki discussion forum, but such "labels" obscure the fact that a wide range of views and actions are involved, and it's wrong as well as disruptive to blame a "group" of editors for individual issues. Obviously people do often label themselves and friendships inevitably lead to trust, but introducing the idea of the "other" disrupts the necessary finding of consensus. Robust disagreements are part of healthy debate, but labelling should stop, and individual behavioural issues should be resolved on an individual basis using normal DR procedures. . dave souza, talk 16:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. If the labeling of other editors ends, it would solve a major part of my problems with several editors in this dispute. Wikipedia:Don't assume would be another major piece, and WP:NPA would help round things out. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 20:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. I consider the label "ID cabal" to be a personal attack, so yes. Odd nature (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Yes, I agree that labels are a big part of the problem. Using terms like "ID Cabal" or "WR editors" replaces people with stereotypes and creates "guilt by association". Not only can we not be held responsible for the actions of others, it isn't helpful when we prejudge people on the company they keep. And yes, I realise that I've been part of the problem. Guettarda (talk) 02:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Utilizing the term "ID cabal" to describe a group of editors that edit articles based upon scientific reasoning and are opposed to giving undue weight to fringe theories is a personal attack and is uncivil. So I agree. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. This applies to all sides and all alleged cliques and cabals. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Endorse --Shot info (talk) 03:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Labeling is a symptom of the broader problem of prejudice against those who seem to be on the other "side." I apologize for the mistakes I've made based on wrong assumptions, associations, interpretations, and extrapolations. Gnixon (talk) 04:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Per Dan. giggy _(:O) 06:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Labeling any group of editors a "cabal" is clearly a personal attack. Odd nature (talk) 23:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Yup. "ID cabal" is just as bad as "ID fan". - Merzbow (talk) 03:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. I resent all labelers and label-enablers... and all their cronies and their little dogs too. Amerique^dialectics 21:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. Endorse, with obvious exception of Amerique's "little dogs" comment, which I find offensive and an unnecessary labeling. (/humor) KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. Endorse. A real commitment by arb com to effectively endorsing NPA even with respect to established editors would work wonders. Their proper role is behavioral standards. DGG (talk) 02:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. good start, and it receives my full endorsement, but it won't solve the problem. the labeling is symptomatic, not causal. --Ludwigs2 03:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. A good start indeed, and one I think all could agree with. Doc Tropics 00:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's anything here that couldn't be resolved by all parties stepping back a bit and toning down the rhetoric. We obviously have some excellent editors working on these subjects and this shows in the generally high quality of the content (which is all the more remarkable considering the vehemence with which much of the debate on Intelligent Design is pursued in venues outside Wikipedia). Pseudoscience has always been a tricky matter for Wikipedia, but we're equal to it. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Odd nature (talk) 23:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Wikipedia is very much equal to pseudoscience. Amerique^dialectics 21:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. PhilKnight (talk) 02:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Guettarda (talk) 00:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Doc Tropics 00:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree much progress could be made if some of us would "step back a bit," however I seriously doubt that would solve everything. Put simply, the problem isn't solved until all editors feel welcome to contribute to controversial areas such as ID and Homeopathy.

There are many ways that potentially good contributors can be made to feel unwelcome. New users, handled roughly, typically become upset and engage in blockable offenses such as edit warring or blatant incivility. More established users are put off or intimidated by all the hard feelings, or end up worn down by the same. Typical methods of dispute resolution are largely ineffective because they rely on input from casually-observing outsiders, most of whom are predisposed to suspect vandalism and defend against promoters of pseudoscience, and are unable to identify which statements come from involved parties. By recognizing or intuiting these facts, some long-involved editors have become extremely adept at gaming the system, and are utterly shameless about their behavior. They hear little or no criticism from their "side."

In this environment of hostility and prejudice, it is impossible for even the most level-headed editors to work out their differences with civility and good faith---even the most concerted efforts to build trust and edit cooperatively are derailed by angry snipers. The end result is that articles are written not by collaboration, but by power politics.

I don't know the way forward, but I'm sure we won't get anywhere unless mature, responsible, widely-trusted outside parties are willing to (a) take a deep look at the situation that has prevailed over the last year or so, and (b) encourage or enforce improvements in the way this part of the community functions.

1. giggy _(:O) 06:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. LaraLove|Talk 03:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Cla68 (talk) 03:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Ludwigs2 06:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 23:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to preface this view by saying that I have had issues with several of the involved parties in other arenas. I am not interested in extending those issues here, but I do wish to note them in the interests of clarity.

what I see happening in the conflicts on ID (and other pages) strikes me as good faith gone horribly wrong. while I have not been editing long enough to have seen the full history of these page conflicts, my sense is that somewhere along the line the battles shifted from independent debates about the content of individual pages, to abstract meta-battles that are trying to drive particular influences out of wikipedia as a whole (probably with the best of intentions, mind you, but still...). this is, I think, the root of the name-calling problem and the imputations of cliques and cabals that have sprung up: they are symptoms of the abstraction of the conflict, because there is no other way to carry a battle across pages except to manufacture (through labels) an opposing group that is also carrying on across pages.

This is a horrible mistake from Wikipedia's perspective. Editors who are focussed on meta-battles are less concerned about the content of particular pages, and so the quality of some individual pages is sacrificed in order to maintain positions in other battles. new editors are viewed with distrust, and subject to rapid, reactionary attacks if there is any hint they might sympathize with the opposing side. logic and rational discussion are disregarded in favor of firm ideological stances, because (again) ideological stances are easier to port from page to page. worst of all is the possibility that one side or the other might eventually win - worst, because the only way that will happen is if the conflict reduces parts of Wikipedia to such shambles that the other side gives up in disgust.

now I don't know how to convince people to give up meta-battling. I suspect most of those who do it, do it because they think there's something inherent to Wikipedia that needs defending, and it's really hard to convince people that the cure they are using is worse than the disease they think they're fighting. nonetheless, I think that's what has to happen. --Ludwigs2 07:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This rings true. Thanks. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 08:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC) Struck through in view of subsequent accusations with which I will not be associated.[reply]

1. Yes, except I don't think this breaks down into a "pro-science" side and a "pro-ID" side, the latter of which doesn't exist or isn't part of this dispute. Gnixon (talk) 12:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Not as clear cut as pro-science v. pro-mainstream v. pro-fringe v . pro-ID v. pro-deletion v. pro-inclusion. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. We've seen it in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict (most of the "Allegations of Apartheid series" being a flagrant example), some WP:COATRACK#The Attack Article biographies in this topic space, Category:Signatories of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism", in articles related to major political campaigns (like the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign) et cetera. This sort of meta battling is not responsible editing, regardless of who undertakes it. It is intolerable if it leads to creating attack biographies. GRBerry 22:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Very apt observation. I'm sure the editors named off by SirFozzie, above, and others who some associate with the "ID Cabal" (really, the "anti ID cabal" would be a better name), started out absolutely meaning well... but if you become the thing you're "battling" against, if you start to use the very tactics you were trying to counter, you lose. Especially when there actually may not be as much of an "other side" as you think... there really doesn't seem to be much of an "pro ID Cabal" at all... just regular editors aghast at the tactics employed. It's ironic, really, because ID as an idea has been advanced in the outside world by some means that are rather unsavory... and it's needful to make sure that ID doesn't get undue weight in our articles. But these named editors have went too far, and apparently don't seem to be willing to admit it, or apparently even realize it. They have, in my view, given the ID POV pushers (few and far between that they are) credence by their overreaction. To the extent that this state of affairs exists elsewhere in Wikipedia, it's a real problem. ++Lar: t/c 01:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Good observations. I, for one, am not in any way "pro-ID"; I'm as pro-science and anti-pseudoscience as anybody; I was a subscriber to The Skeptical Inquirer at one point. Still, the tactics and attitude of some "defenders of science" have put me in opposition to them in some of the meta-battles even without my being in conflict with them about actual article content. *Dan T.* (talk) 14:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. A GOOD STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES Championdante (talk) 22:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(porting this over from a talk page discussion, with edits and additions... I have placed it after the endorsements section above so that there is no false impression of endorsement)

It seems clear to me from recent experiences that - for one reason or another - the ID article and talk pages have gotten locked into a self-enclosed POV, such that all statements that are not already accepted are dismissed out of hand 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 prone to thoughtless and reactive behaviors. I doubt it's entirely conscious or purposeful, and I wouldn't accuse anyone of trying to be particularly evil, but the fact is the editors there 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 that group would find objectionable, the way that ID is forced to be defined there in terms of its critics. Shades of white man's burden...

at any rate, the loop operates (in part) like this

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 argument I have made) are dismissed as being irrelevant to the conversation, and immediately refactored

I just mean this as a description of what happens there, nothing more. anyone who examines the talk page comments and diffs will see what I mean. The result is an article that naturally and unavoidably becomes more biased over time, even as the editors pride themselves on doing a good job. I can't even say that their pride is unjustified, because (within the worldview that's been developed over there), they probably are doing a good job.

I think this was characterized, somewhere, as a deficiency of efficiency, though I'd have to hunt for the source...

I'm not sure what mechanisms there are in Wikipedia for dealing with an article that has absorbed a POV as a defended norm. Wikipedia policies, as a rule, are based on the assumption that ongoing, legitimized (e.g. sourced), civil discussions will over time achieve a proper balance between points of view, something that (tangentially at least) approaches neutrality. Here, though, we have a case where the efforts to oppose uncivil and illegitimate discussion have actually changed what counts as legitimate and civil. I don't think it's a question any more of how to apply Wikipedia policies on the ID page. Instead, it's become a question of whether or not Wikipedia policies are at all meaningful there, because the central assumption on which those policies are based no longer really applies. The ID article has become a banana republic, espousing all the ideals of a consensus system without really allowing any of them to be implemented.

I have no idea what to do about that, but it does strike me as worth pointing out... --Ludwigs2 19:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Full disclosure: I requested of Ludwig that he post this "afterthought". Gnixon (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. not sure I completely agree, but interesting observations by ludwig. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As has been pointed out many times, the way content is added to and remains in Wikipedia articles is by the consensus of participating editors. This means, of course, that a group of editors can often control content in articles by allying with each other and giving an appearance of consensus support for the content in question. Perhaps this is one of Wikipedia's weaknesses or perhaps it is a strength, but it is what it is. If the content that any of these groups is pushing meets our policies, i.e. WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, etc. and if they edit within the policies and guidelines (WP:NPA, WP:CANVASS) then there isn't a problem.

If a group of editors violates our policies and guidelines, however, there is a serious problem, because this means that POV content may be being added and kept in articles and editors may be being ganged-up-on who try to oppose the group doing so. By acting as a group, the editors can diffuse and obscure individual responsbility and accountability for the problems that they are creating. Unfortunately, a group of editors discussed in this RfC have apparently engaged in behavior that violates our policies and guidelines, to such a degree that evidence of it has been introduced in a recent, indirectly-related ArbCom case [35].

Some recent experiences of my own I believe give some evidence of problematic behavior by a group of editors whose account names feature prominently in this RfC. The following diffs come from my user talk page.

During the first week of May, on Wikipedia Review, I responded to a comment made by Moulton [36] about discussion he had had with the press about the situation in Wikipedia surrounding the Rosalind Picard article. Soon after, Guettarda, Jim62sch, dave souza, and Filll all arrived at my user talk page within a day of each other to take me to task on my comments [37] and to accuse me of threatening to "out" them. After apparently losing the argument [38] [39], FeloniousMonk showed up and left a veiled threat [40] (full thread [41]).

Since that time, Filll and Jim62sch have continued to post rude or hostile comments on my talk page, directed at me or other editors [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48]. This behavior by these editors on my talk page appears to match what others have experienced and described in this RfC and elsewhere [49] [50].

I'll put it simply. This type of behavior by this group is unacceptable, and, if still ongoing, needs to stop. Cla68 (talk) 03:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Everyking (talk) 06:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. For the record, I was made aware of this statement here. giggy _(:O) 06:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. I'll note that I took an interest in this some time ago because I understood how Cla's comment could be perceived as a threat. After investigating, I don't think it was at all intended as a threat. I'll also point out that Guettarda seems to have handled the issue well, posting a polite comment calling Cla to task for what he thought was a threat. I saw no further comments from Guettarda after Cla denied intending a threat. Jim, Dave, and Filll, on the other hand, were unnecessarily rude. Gnixon (talk) 14:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Same as giggy. LaraLove|Talk 14:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC) - as far as this sort of behavior should be curtailed, and is what gives the appearance of a 'cabal' of editors.[reply]
6. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 23:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Exactly so. ++Lar: t/c 00:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've read this page from top to bottom, read off-wiki blogs of various kinds, followed various diffs, etc etc etc, and darned if I can tell the good guys from the bad guys. All I see is a daisy chain of pots and kettles all calling attention to one another's soot. When "drama" extends through time, it devolves into "soap opera". I say, let it go to ArbCom en masse; let ArbCom tell the lot of them individually to avoid interacting with one another. Hopefully this will clear the smoke—let well-intentioned but perhaps too-emotionally-involved editors (if any) fade away, and then any true bad guys will eventually emerge. Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 12:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 12:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Similar to the comment by Ali'i - this RfC hasn't achieved anything; it's degenerated into 'our side is right, your side is wrong'. PhilKnight (talk) 00:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. There's too much blind partisanship, "support our friends, oppose our enemies" regardless of who's right or wrong in any particular instance. I have my doubts about whether ArbCom can or will untangle it, though. *Dan T.* (talk) 14:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason you cannot tell what is going on is that one side has presented very little evidence. And the other side has not presented evidence for the most part, but has pleaded for both sides to disengage from this dispute before more feelings are hurt. So you are not really seeing much of substance here, to be honest. And I would like to see both sides just walk away from this.--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This RfC opened with desired outcomes in terms of article content policies, and in relation to behaviour "That editors be able to edit such content with a minimum of conflict and strife." The description notes disagreements about civility, allegations of cabalism with reference to some users dealing with intelligent design and others allegedly creating a non-helpful backdrop of drama and poor feelings, as well as some alleged personalized disputes.

#Viewpoint of SirFozzie named specific users who deal with intelligent design, and stated an aim of getting them and others to "act in a more collegial manner", citing name-calling, well-poisoning and use of loaded terms to describe other editors as behaviour to be avoided. While SirFozzie then produced flimsy evidence of alleged problems, putting an exaggerated slant on complex issues, the aims in terms of behaviour are worthwhile and I am glad to see that the named editors have accepted that their behaviour is part of the problem, and that they need to be more civil. #View by User:Rocksanddirt gave a perceptive analysis of an underlying problem of uncivil "labelling" coming across as harassment. It was widely accepted that everyone should refrain from labelling editors in group terms.

It was therefore disappointing to find that a subsequent thread at Wikipedia Review was titled "ID Cabal Request for Comment", and that the #Outside view by Cla68 alleges "problematic behavior by a group of editors whose account names feature prominently in this RfC". In my opinion the evidence Cla68 presents does not stand up to detailed examination, and he shows a remarkable sensitivity to criticism, particularly when he seems untroubled by what WR's provisional posting rules apparently call "the bounds of decorum that operate here". More significantly, he is talking in terms of "behavior by this group". Editors who have posted to Wikipedia Review have very reasonably objected to being described as "Wikipedia Review editors" or "Wikipedia Review members" as though that defines their behaviour, and similarly they should not stereotype other users.

From a recent Wikipedia Review thread it seems that there have been complaints there about editors working on intelligent design as long ago as June 2006, and a post there dated 6th July 2007 apparently alleged a "Science cabal" editing on Global warming, intelligent design and so on.[51] This does seem to be a pervasive atmosphere on that forum, and all editors here must be careful to set aside such prejudices and poisoning of the well in order to contribute to Wikipedia in a collegiate manner.

In conclusion, there have been faults all round, and we should all endeavour to achieve higher standards of behaviour. Doubtless there will be occasional lapses which should be treated in a way that defuses tensions rather than building up drama, but these principles should be followed –

1. Editors should avoid labelling other editors, and take care to be civil in a way that avoids harassment.
2. Editors must set aside any prejudices or or preconceptions about other editors, disregarding any allegations about "group behaviour", and take full responsibility themselves for carefully considering each case on its merits.

dave souza, talk 21:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Update - link added to WR thread "ID Cabal Request for Comment" [hat tip to giggy's endorsement of Cla68's view]. For my earlier analysis of the situation Cla68 describes, see here. . dave souza, talk 07:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. I for one am truly have tired of the cabal bit. I'm sure we could find enough editors on the Britney Spears article who've edited said article for some time and propose a "Britney cabal". •Jim62sch•^dissera! 23:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. PhilKnight (talk) 23:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Guettarda (talk) 00:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Filll (talk | wpc) 13:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Extremely tired of the OMG Cabal! bullshit. No apologies for the language; also extremely tired of the OMG Think of the Children! language police. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. ZayZayEM (talk) 03:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. per KC, it's bullshit and I'm tired of it. Doc Tropics 00:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The #afterthought - structural critique by Ludwigs2 expresses eloquently Ludwigs' failure to understand the guidance on WP:TALK that verification, neutral point of view and no original research policies apply on talk pages, and "There is of course some reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion and personal knowledge on talk pages, with a view to prompting further investigation, but it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements." Several editors have taken this up with Ludwigs, both on the article talk page and on his user talk page. . dave souza, talk 20:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I entered the neighborhood of Intelligent design at 18:13 on 28 June 2008. (Talk:Intelligent_design#Accepting_the_reality_of_the_SUB-COMMUNITY) I knew that simply following the BE BOLD guiding principle would create an unintended firestorm, so I entered with my hands up, making it clear that I was neither a proponent nor opponent of ID -- I was just here to help. I knew it wasn't going to be a bed of roses, but I hadn't expected to find myself in the middle of a gang war, in which even totally disinterested intellectuals could end up casualties. For every observation that could possibly be construed as pro-ID, I had a counterbalance. Didn't matter.

The word "avoid" is used two times in as many sentences in the introductory paragraph -- I hoped that, without any substantive content changes in mind, my stating this plainly might encourage a saltation in the wording. (Barbara Forrest gets AMPLE, and essential, attention in the body of the article; there is no need to make ANYONE'S case in the first four sentences, though.) I made note of the seeming determination to deny the presence, however small and otherwise unsupported by the broader scientific community, of highly educated (even if somewhat cockeyed) people on the intellectual landscape. Perhaps, some incremental change in tone toward them might be in order -- in the interest of civility. Nope.

User:Guettarda continually misses the point: it's not about the sources cited, "it's about representing sources in a balanced fashion," -- I'm quoting him. There is no "safe place" in the article -- seemingly not even for non-pro-ID (that was awkward) editors like me. AnticipationNLA says to Be Bold, even as he reminds that reversion of the edit can be expected. Ludwigs2 states the lead is fairly balanced -- I wouldn't be so gracious based on the repetition of "avoid" I've mentioned. But he proceeds diplomatically: the article doesn't outright condemn ID as a "political gambit" designed to circumvent" the law, but it's "thoroughly implied." He then proceeds to outline his thoughts, seemingly to achieve some common ground. User:Dave_souza makes this response: "You might find it rewarding to work on other articles which cover the field you're interested in, perhaps those related to theology such as teleological argument." He could easily have added: don't let the door hit you on the way out. He also characterizes Ludwigs2 as "wildly inaccurate." Ludwigs2, though he does that flow of conciousness thing (as do countless editors on Talk pages), ultimately states his position cogently. As do I. User:Hrafn boasts that addressing Ludwigs2 will be "child's play" -- then morphs the argument into one of Verifiability. This is not a friendly spot.

I see no point (and I've only been on the page for a week) of seeking to make any editorial contribution while this atmosphere is tolerated by the broader community. Intelligent design can be presented accurately without pugnacity. Guettarda, Hrafn and Dave_Souza function as an archiving, wikilawyering, rapid-fire triumvirate on the Intelligent design page -- brandishing policy and making precipitous comments, then crying "Good Faith." Many others mirror this general tone. All the while, open discussion on a very important issue is squelched: as currently configured, MUCH OF Intelligent design IS NOT A NEUTRAL PRESENTATION OF OTHERWISE NEUTRAL FACTS.
Championdante (talk) 03:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Addendum:

I would normally have let my original View stand, but today's archiving of the Proposed Definitions section little more than 24 hours after it was posted was an unwise, capricious act. The first segment was addressed TO ME: archiving it before I've had a chance to read it and post a response is inexcusable -- another manifestation of ownership. There are numerous points that were raised in that thread, beyond the scope of WP:RS -- it was premature archiving, plain and simple. It also smacks of content-hiding. It is a TALK page -- we're gonna talk!

Further, flinging charges of continuing Original Research at Ludwigs2 on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#inappropriate_content_hiding_on_Intelligent_Design, closely followed by charges of gaming the system, is absolutely outrageous. We are engaged in a serious attempt to shed new light on the ID article and make it better -- we are not spouting about how many days it took God to create Cleveland -- a little repetition is inevitable when new people are on the scene. But it is making Wikipedia better: My continual pressing on the issue of preponderant "avoidance" tone has manifested an appropriate citation, where before it was assumed to be self-evident. Not bad for a page that hasn't changed substantially since 2005.
It's time for some new blood that doesn't give a damn about Intelligent Design and just wants a good article on it. Note: I favor absolutely no changes to the introductory paragraph other than replacing "avoid various court rulings" with "conform with court rulings" -- in every other respect it is a jewel of consensus.
The tone of the Talk at Intelligent design, with its entrenched adversarial camps is absolutely infuriating. Do something. Do something. Do something. Do something.
--Championdante (talk) 00:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Excellent example of a very typical reception. Gnixon (talk) 04:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Another example of unacceptable behavior by a certain group of editors that needs to stop. Cla68 (talk) 02:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. As Gnixon said, this is not unusual, but it does need to stop. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 20:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Felonious Monk, et al.

I have been involved in the discussion of Wikipedia's intelligent design page. I am not an opponent of intelligent design but I am very staunchly opposed to intelligent design being presented as though it is a scientific theory.

The acolytes of Discovery Institute have tried to present their opinion of intelligent design as though their opinion constitutes a scientific theory. They should not be permitted to use Wikipedia to perpetrate that deception.

The opening paragraph of the intelligent design page should be rewritten to state the definition of ID, as set forth in Of Pandas and People, and then make it clear that the proponents of ID hold the opinion that ID is the "best" explanation for "certain features of the universe and of living things". And it should probably also be made clear that a CONCLUSION reached by using the reasoning technique named "inference to the BEST explanation" does not constitute a scientific theory.

If the proponents of ID will stop trying to present their opinion of ID as though their opinion constitutes a scientific theory then the acrimony over Wikipedia's ID page will disappear.

In summary, the definition of ID must be separated from the opinions of ID proponents and opponents.

Scott610 (talk) 04:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Championdante (talk) 13:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. interesting take that might help the article. though unlikely to be allowed based on the current enviornment of confrontation highlighted by championdante. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Did you take a look back at the archives and see how many hundreds of kilobytes are devoted to this very question? Did you see how many hundreds of other editors have forged the current compromise you see in the article? No offense, but why should your personal opinion take precedent over literally hundreds and hundreds of others?--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Dear Filll: You wrote, "No offense, but why should your personal opinion take precedent over literally hundreds and hundreds of others?" I believe that a revision should be considered by the editors because John G. West and Casey Luskin, both of the Discovery Institute, have recently taken personal responsibility for the assertion that intelligent design is the "best" explanation for "certain features of the universe and of living things." The reference to their assertion should AT LEAST be linked to the document that they wrote. I strongly object to the hyperlink reference to their "best" leading the reader to an anonymous source (i.e., Discovery Institute's question and answer page about ID) when the identities of the people offering that opinion are known. The hyperlink could be revised to cite the document written by West and Luskin or, as I have proposed, the paragraph which contains their "best" could be rewritten to directly reference West and Luskin. Sincerely, Scott610 (talk) 07:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. I'm not sure why this belongs here but...ID has evolved since it was first introduced in Pandas. As was shown in the Kitzmiller trial, Pandas was made by replacing "creation science" and "creation scientists" with "intelligent design" and "design proponents" (leading to the famous transitional species cdesign proponentsists). Since then, the idea has been developed (especially by people like Dembski and Behe) into a much more sophisticated formulation, or rather, family of formulations. Elliot Sober divided ID into two - "mini-ID" (certain features...), and all the add-ons (which often contradict one-another; Behe's recent work is incompatible with what Wells has presented). I don't know off the top of my head what definitions Pennock and Forrest have used recently, but I'm pretty sure they didn't go back to Pandas. Guettarda (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make a final statement before I unwatch all pages related to this dispute. Unlike my other comments, I have given this one some thought as it is The Final Word. Instead of my typically confused ramblings, this will actually contain some useful information. I will swing back and forth, but in the end I suggest a few practical things that will avoid similar problems in the future.

First, a plea to all our great article writers. It may be worth to occasionally remind yourself of the people around the world reading the articles you write. The wonderful thing you are all doing here is to make information freely accessible to the world. I doubt that when you one day retire and look back on what you did on Wikipedia, you would wish you had spent more time on criticizing the arbcom or gathering evidence, and so on. I'm just asking, if the pursuit of intrawiki justice is being somewhat overvalued by many of us? These internal disputes are extremely addictive, and we all want to be vindicated, but one year from now, will we all look back and be proud of what we achieved during this time, or will we lament the articles we could have written instead?

Having said that, let's crack this case once and for all.

I have mostly been supportive of the editors that are keeping our science articles accurate. However, we must all admit that mistakes were made. The first example is maybe not so serious, but Project Merz is a list of Wikipedians with the user name Merz or a variation thereof (e.g., Merzbow, Merzul, Merzeban, etc.) who were suspected of "supporting intelligent design"... In my case, I only realized something was wrong, when I woke up in the morning and checked my mail. There was a fan-letter in my inbox. It was beautifully written, it talked about revolutions and overturning consensus, it mentioned Socrates and Galileo... His own name meant nothing to me at the time, but the editors, who had banned him, weren't exactly pleased with my comments.

There might actually be a reason why atheist Wikipedians may be confused with ID-advocates. Many prominent atheists, most notably Richard Dawkins, agree with the fundamental premise of the ID movement, in contrast to Kenneth R. Miller and Stephen Jay Gould, that science provides answers to questions about whether intentionality can be ascribed to certain natural processes. (Excuse the obfuscating formulation, I can't say "give answers about the existence of God", which is what I really mean, because ID does not officially talk about God).

In the future, whenever someone claims they are atheist, please do not question their sincerity, and most of all, do not say this is a well-known tactic. The best is to not comment on it at all, but if the person seems genuinely perplexed, then an answer like the following might help:

You may be surprised that as an atheist you find this article in violation of our policy on neutrality, but note that this article is based on mainstream sources, and these sources maintain that science and religion are non-overlapping. Atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, who believe that a true understanding of science leads to atheism, or ID supporters, who believe that the opposite conclusion can be drawn from scientific inquiry, are both minority views heavily criticized by the academic mainstream. Therefore, it isn't really that surprising that as an atheist you may find this article biased.

I would personally have appreciated such a response. As to the other Merz, the context seems very different and wasn't about ID itself, but now ...

Since he sent me that very nice letter, I will return the favour and defend him somewhat... Namely, what he wanted to do on Rosalind Picard was completely in line with the letter and spirit of WP:BLP: we do not take an eventualist approach when it comes to biographies living people. We do not unbalance a biography by focusing the article on a single event, and then tell other people "you are welcome to supply the rest". Absolutely not!

Moulton's mistake, of course, is that he appeals to nebulous notions of "ethics" rather than our core content policies. What he should have done is to dump the entire list of Rosalind Picard's publications on the talk page and say "if you have any clue about this work, go ahead and write about it, otherwise, citing WP:BLP, I kindly ask you to get the fuck off this biography." Of course, he couldn't have said that when he is completely alone, which is why we have noticeboards...

The problem is that new users are not aware of community-wide noticeboards.

Arguing against consensus, even when you are right, is a Bad Idea. It is particularly bad when a user, who is not well-versed in the secret arts of policy shortcuts, tries to argue against long-time editors. If we want to avoid things like this happening again, we need to make much better use of community-wide noticeboards, which I will return to below.

Given that I'm aware of the problems and I certainly don't approve of many things that I see, why am I still defending Filll and Orangemarlin. Well, one thing is that time and time again, as Amerique said, you find these guys on the right side in important disputes. I'm sorry to offend the WikiGods, but there are certain things that matter more than intrawiki obsessions like "oh, he was canvassing, oh, he is gaming the system", and racism is one such thing. I was extremely annoyed that this was used as evidence against him in a secret arbitration, and I vehemently insist that his going mad about statements that can only be interpreted as racist is something we should respect. That incident should be forgotten as most editors have since given valid explanation that they are not racist, but if anyone wants to take Orangemarlin to task, even after his apology, then there are other examples where you can freely dig for diffs, so can we at least let that issue to rest? (And I do fully apologize for accusing people of racism, this thing gets me really emotional, and these guys look scary!)

Second, and this is the more important thing, I recently started editing Expelled and this time I stayed on for a little while, and observed what's really going on in these articles. This has radically changed my position on what should be done and what the root problems are. Two important facts:

• Ridiculous issues are raised as NPOV violations. Most recently on Expelled: It is biased because it uses the phrase "nominal dollars"... So they have to explain economics, and so on, but stuff like this goes on and on.
• Non-ridiculous issues are raised, but argued for very badly. Some editor, although making valid points, may be unwilling to work within our source-based model. Tremendous amount of time is wasted on dealing with these editors, and arbitration may be needed before it is resolved.

The result of this is that policy-respecting editors on these pages find it hard to believe that sometimes there are people with a different view, who may still be making valid points:

The ghosts of previous editors, as PelleSmith put it, are haunting many talk pages.

That is, when similar points are made legitimately by well-meaning editors, they inherit the karma of a previous trouble-maker. This might explain what happened to Gnixon. I'm not saying that the above dynamics completely justifies all the diffs that Cla68 could gather, but I am equally unimpressed by editors coming and lecturing Filll et al. on how they should behave without suggesting any solutions to the actual problems on those articles.

We need to just forget about this current mess and instead focus on avoiding these problems in the future. Mistakes were made, we are aware of them, and we can solve them. However, arbitration and diff-gathering processes are completely useless in this case, no civility measure or other ruling will change someone's attitude and magically fix the articles, and these are the real problems.

Instead, I propose:

1. Concerned editors, watchlist WP:NPOV/N, WP:RS/N, and WP:BLP/N!
2. Figure out a way that new users are made aware of the above noticeboards. I had no idea about the existence of such things when I started editing. I knew about RfC, but that is too bureaucratic for a new user.
3. Decide if a new noticeboard, WP:OWN/N, might be needed as the problem is often that of a perceived ownership.
4. Help fixing articles with too strong anti-fringe slant! There is currently a request by Itsmejudith on WP:NPOV/N about Scientific Dissent from Darwinism. Go to that article, show what is wrong with it. Edit war, if necessary. A Rosalind Picard type debate would be far more instructive than arbitration.
5. Help defending articles that are neutral. In particular, if someone is losing their temper with a policy-disrespecting editor, join the conversation and explain politely about our policies. That would also show us, how we should deal with these difficult situations.
6. Consider supporting a strong implementation of WP:FLAGREV, such as quality versions, so that people wouldn't have to revert so hastily. With quality revisions we could allow users to more freely change articles, the decision of whether to update the flag could be made with wider community input.

That's it, finally, and I apologize for this egregious violation of WP:TL;DR.

1. It's the Truth. Merzul (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Basically, I like it. Helpful and thought provoking. A couple of quibbles, for now will mention that we didn't just say to Moulton "you find other sourced content to avoid undue weight being given to the necessary mention of Picard's being used to support ID" (she's still on the petition, as updated this spring) We looked for sources, and found them. Which the superior Mr Moulton failed to do. Perhaps's he's not very good with google. More was found recently, which is good. But the reason the article wasn't deleted as non notable is that we found mentions of the lady's work in the mainstream press. . . dave souza, talk 23:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Yeah, I agree with at least the spirit, and I'm symp(emp)athetic toward those trying to deal with cranks, etc. However, given the extent of bad blood, I question whether the proposed model can be implemented without intervention from above. Gnixon (talk) 22:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Heh. Dawkins is adamant in his belief that claims that a supernatural being influenced the material world can, in fact, be examined and shown to be vanishingly unlikely. The semantics of examine vs. test, and theory vs. assertion, are for some reason the cause of titanic battles over terminology in this arena. In WP, I care far more about BLP and maintaining a professional tone in these articles than in such esoterica, about which Intelligent design seems to accurately represent the opinions of reliable sources on anyways (Ludwig, you may want to refocus your efforts elsewhere). - Merzbow (talk) 22:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. I agree with some of this. Obviously, I do not agree with all of it.--Filll (talk | wpc) 21:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]