Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tim Smith

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.

This request for comment was filed at 19:14, December 29, 2006. Having been endorsed wihtin 48 hours it has met the threshold for consideration by the community.

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

Statement of the dispute

Tim Smith, a pro-intelligent design contributor who was involved in supporting censured pov-pushers Asmodeus and DrL in the recently concluded Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist, has been conducting a campaign promoting the intelligent design viewpoint on particular points at Uncommon Dissent and at International Society for Complexity, Information and Design. At Uncommon Dissent he has engaged in minor edit warring, misusing dispute tags, and attempting to expand the conflict by misrepresenting the situation at other venues. He has subsequently begun to advocate against editors with whom he disagrees in inappropriate ways, appearing in disputes in which he is not a party solely to defame the editor he dislikes.

Description

Against broad consensus from credible, long term contributors knowledgeable on the topic of ID, Tim Smith has been conducting a low-grade edit war and misusing WP processes to use the intelligent design movement's (an extreme minority POV within the realm of science) definition of a specific term ("Darwinism") to the exclusion of the majority's (the scientific community's) use of the term. He has repeatedly and wilfully ignored for over two months all policy (WP:NPOV#Undue_weight / WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience / WP:NPOVFAQ#Giving_.22equal_validity.22), reason, and evidence (sources and cites) that he is either mistaken or favoring (giving undue weight to) a minority POV. And a minority POV which has an established history (as determined in the Dover trial ruling) of misusing terms to achieve their goals.

Despite being shown he is promoting a particular viewpoint unduly, he has resorted to (mis)using dispute tags and misrepresenting the situation at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts in order to drum up support to gain the upper hand in the content dispute.

He has recently begun a campaign to discredit and mallign editors with whom he disagrees, including commenting on administrator notice boards in support of blocks against users involved in disputes in which he is not involved.

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

  1. 10:19, 26 December Misrepresenting the situation, misuse of process to expand the conflict
  2. 13:33, 22 December Continued misuse of dispute tag
  3. 22:51, 21 December Again favoring the spin of the ID movement over the majority view
  4. 22:01, 19 December Restoring dispute tag despite consensus on talk (including 3 admins) that the tag was being misused
  5. 14:56, 18 December Reverting again to the minority ID community's spin
  6. 00:30, 18 December Reverting again
  7. 21:34, 10 December Favoring minority view unduly
  8. 21:14, 28 November Misusing "fact" tags to favor ID's use of the term over that of the scientific community's
  9. 09:51, 28 November Reverting again to restore pro-ID spin
  10. 09:15, 28 November Again misusing "fact" tags to favor ID's use of the term over that of the scientific community's, now at the ISCID article
  11. 17:09, 27 November Again reverting to restore ID spin
  12. 18:11, 26 November Reverting again
  13. 23:22, 24 November 1st insertion of pro-ID definitions
  14. A similar pattern occurred at International Society for Complexity, Information and Design from August 10 through November 28:
  15. Evidence of Wikistalking User:ScienceApologist to a 3RR discussion in which he was not involved. Tim Smith also made a blatant misrepresentation of parts of the dispute documented by the user he is stalking. After having his mistake pointed out, he went further in his mischaracterizations and admitted to his attempts at policing User:ScienceApologist.

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. WP:NPOV#Undue_weight
  2. WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience
  3. WP:NPOVFAQ#Giving_.22equal_validity.22
  4. WP:NOT
  5. WP:CON
  6. WP:HARASS

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. 00:06, 29 November Guettarda trying to set the policies and facts straight
  2. 00:32, 29 November FeloniousMonk commenting on the validity of Tim Smith's objections and editing style
  3. 01:20, 29 November FeloniousMonk providing sources
  4. 01:22, 20 December FeloniousMonk on the use of the dispute tag
  5. 06:47, 20 December Guettarda on the use of the dispute tag
  6. 07:18, 20 December Arthur Rubin on the use of the dispute tag

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. FeloniousMonk 19:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Guettarda 21:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. ScienceApologist 16:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

  1. •Jim62sch• 20:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Proabivouac 09:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. JoshuaZ 23:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

Overview

My response is in four parts: a summary of the dispute at ISCID, an account of the dispute at Uncommon Dissent, comments on the accusations in the "Statement of the dispute" above, and a suggestion for how to resolve the conflict.

Summary of the dispute at ISCID

In my first edit to ISCID, made August 10, I fixed typos, added more fellows and chat guests, reworded criticism per the cited sources, requested citations for several claims, and described ISCID's justification for its review policy. Six minutes later, that edit was reverted wholesale by FeloniousMonk. (After an hour, he restored some of the changes.) Other users joined in, and amidst two more wholesale reverts (), incivility and failure to assume good faith, a personal attack, and some discussion, we hammered out a compromise, and the dispute subsided.

A few months later, FeloniousMonk claimed that "most of ISCID's fellows serve as fellows at the DI as well". In fact, none serve as fellows of the DI proper, and most do not serve as fellows of the DI's CSC either. After his assertion was removed, he claimed that "the most notable" ISCID fellows serve as DI fellows, an ambiguous and misleading statement, since Alvin Plantinga and Frank Tipler are notable ISCID fellows who are not DI/CSC fellows. I added wording to convey the actual proportion of joint fellows, but he reverted to "the most notable". Eventually he settled on a strictly factual version.

Finally, in accordance with WP:V, I requested a source for the claim that the society promotes intelligent design. According to FeloniousMonk, this request was somehow a misuse of the {{fact}} tag.

Account of the dispute at Uncommon Dissent

As background, the 2004 book Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing is a collection of essays from fifteen contributors, edited by William Dembski. "Darwinism" is an ambiguous term: respected evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote that "The term 'Darwinism', ... has numerous meanings depending on who has used the term and at what period", and according to our article, it can refer to evolution by natural selection, to evolution more broadly, or even to other ideas not directly associated with the work of Darwin. Consequently, we need to say what the contributors mean by it.

In my first edit to the article, on November 25, I quoted the introduction's characterization of Darwinism (taking care to explicitly attribute the characterization to the book), requested citation for a claim, corrected the figure of thirteen contributors to fifteen, and added relevant external links. Eleven hours later, that edit was reverted without explanation by Jim62sch. The quote from the book, the citation request, and the external links were removed, and the figure of fifteen contributors was returned to the erroneous value of thirteen. I requested that reverts be explained and asked for feedback on my changes, but Jim62sch never replied, vanishing from the article and its talk page. (I see he has now popped up here to endorse FeloniousMonk's "Statement of the dispute".)

Noting on the talk page the ambiguity of "Darwinism" and quoting the introduction's characterization of it, I resubmitted my edit, adding a general description of the term using wording from the first sentence of Darwinism. Five minutes later, Guettarda replaced that wording, and four minutes after that, JBKramer made the unsourced claim that the fifteen contributors use "Darwinism" to mean "the theory of evolution". Neither of them explained their edits on the talk page, so I posted there, noting that the introduction does not use "Darwinism" to mean evolution generally, but what it calls "Darwinian evolution", and that additionally, the fifteen contributors might not all use "Darwinism" in the same sense.

FeloniousMonk then removed my citation request for the claim that "the book rejects the broad acceptance of evolution within the scientific community" with the summary "rm misused "fact" tag. You've got to be kidding me, read the book's title". He offered no further explanation, so I noted that the title does not establish the claim; it says "Darwinism", not "evolution", and "find...unconvincing", not "reject". The title indicates only that each contributor finds unpersuasive one or more aspects of what that contributor terms "Darwinism". I emphasized the need for citations, and called for discussion rather than dismissal of citation requests and reversion to unsourced claims.

My next edit, re-requesting the citation and restoring the general description from Darwinism, was reverted two minutes later by ScienceApologist, who proceeded, like Jim62sch before him, to vanish from the article and its talk page. (He too has now popped up to endorse FeloniousMonk's summary, even listing himself as having "tried and failed to resolve the dispute". His sole contribution was a revert.)

On the talk page, I explained that in addition to giving a general description of "Darwinism" and quoting the introduction's characterization, I was open to quoting notable outside commentary on what the book means. What is not acceptable, I said, is for editors to repeatedly insert unsourced claims about what they think the book means, to repeatedly remove requests from other editors to supply sources for their claims, and to do so without engaging in talk-page discussion, sometimes reverting without any explanation at all.

I next tried leaving untouched the claim that the contributors use "Darwinism" to refer to the theory of evolution, simply adding the general description from Darwinism and requesting sources for the claims under dispute. The edit was soon reverted and the citation requests removed, this time with a summary beginning "rv per talk" by Guettarda, who had never edited the talk page, where I had been calling for discussion. I now posted a summary of WP:V, asked that the other editors abide by it, and again requested citations.

Guettarda reacted incivilly, accusing me of insisting that the book "focuses soley on outdated ideas in biology", and FeloniousMonk seconded with further incivility and a failure to assume good faith. In fact, as had been repeatedly noted on the talk page, I intended the quote from our article on Darwinism ("a term for the underlying theory in those ideas of Charles Darwin concerning evolution and natural selection") as a general description of the term. The quote does not say just "Darwin's ideas", but "the underlying theory in those ideas", and I had already acknowledged that the term is ambiguous, and according to our article, can refer to evolution by natural selection, to evolution more broadly, and even to other ideas not directly associated with the work of Darwin.

Responding, I quoted several passages from the book, giving examples of the contributors' sometimes-nuanced views on evolution, as well as their use of "Darwinism". FeloniousMonk had finally posted critical sources for "Darwinism", so I started a new section, covering (1) the term's general meaning, (2) what critics say the contributors mean, and (3) what the contributors say they mean. The next day, FeloniousMonk reverted my edit wholesale, claiming undue weight, with no talk-page follow-up. I observed that on a page specifically devoted to the book Uncommon Dissent, WP:Undue weight allows us to spell out in great detail what that book says, provided we do not represent it as the truth. I implored the other users to work constructively with me to improve the article.

No one responded, so I tried again. Guettarda reverted with the summary "not an improvement, fully of weasal words", and no talk-page elaboration. I tried to address his objections in my next edit, giving explicit attributions in the text, but two minutes later, FeloniousMonk reverted, again wholesale, again without talk-page explanation.

At this point, I added a dispute tag to the article, giving my objections on the talk page, where I had been the only participant for three weeks. Other users spoke up at last, but before I could reply, FeloniousMonk removed the tag, thirteen hours after I had posted it.

I then explained in more detail my objections, and pointed FeloniousMonk, who had called the dispute tag "a ploy to gain the upper hand" and who now, incredibly, was telling me to "go find a source" for his claim, to WP:V, which says that "Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor" and that "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it".

Finally, I suggested that we stick closely to the sources, simply quoting them and letting readers draw their own conclusions. My attempt to do so, however, was reverted by FeloniousMonk. I tried again to add dispute tags, but FeloniousMonk removed them. It was then that I posted a Wikiquette alert, and following that, FeloniousMonk started this RfC.

Comments on the accusations

"minor edit warring": Throughout this dispute, I've tried to address the objections raised, and have taken care to explain my edits on the talk page, repeatedly calling for discussion and constructive engagement. In contrast, other disputants revert mechanically ( ), sometimes within minutes, often with brusque edit summaries and no talk-page elaboration, even removing citation requests and uncontroversial corrections in the process.

"misusing dispute tags": WP:V says very clearly that (1) articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, (2) editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor, and (3) the obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it. My use of {{fact}} tags is in accordance with this policy, and the removal of those tags and reversion to unsourced claims by the other disputants is in contravention of it. Faced with repeated reverts, I added neutrality and factuality tags pending resolution of the dispute. But these tags too were removed ( ).

"attempting to expand the conflict by misrepresenting the situation at other venues": In fact, I was merely following dispute resolution by seeking outside involvement; Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts is listed at WP:DR as an option for doing so. The alert I posted is factually accurate and supportable by diffs. Granted, it reflects my own concerns, but that's why I signed my name to it, and directed users to the talk page for more information.

"misusing WP processes to use the intelligent design movement's (an extreme minority POV within the realm of science) definition of a specific term ("Darwinism") to the exclusion of the majority's (the scientific community's) use of the term": There are two issues here: (1) what "Darwinism" means generally, and (2) how the book's contributors use it. Regarding (1), I've supported the inclusion of a general description of the term as providing valuable context, and in fact have repeatedly added to the article wording from the first two sentences of Darwinism to serve that role. It is actually other users who have removed that wording ( ). Regarding (2), I've stated that I'm open to quoting notable outside commentary on what the contributors mean. But it must be sourced and presented neutrally.

"repeatedly and wilfully ignored for over two months all policy (WP:NPOV#Undue_weight / WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience / WP:NPOVFAQ#Giving_.22equal_validity.22), reason, and evidence (sources and cites) that he is either mistaken or favoring (giving undue weight to) a minority POV": WP:Undue weight contains the following qualification:

None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them. Wikipedia is not paper. But even on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it should not be represented as the truth.

On a page specifically devoted to the book Uncommon Dissent, we can spell out in great detail what that book says, provided we do not represent it as the truth. As I've said, I'm open to quoting notable outside commentary, including that of critics. Per WP:V, however, we need sources for such commentary, and per WP:NPOV, we must present that commentary rather than asserting it as fact:

The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions. [my emphasis]

Nothing in the Pseudoscience or Giving "equal validity" sections of the NPOV FAQ overrules this basic requirement of WP:NPOV. Contrary to it, the other disputants have edited the article to assert (often-unsourced) critical views as the correct ones, and have repeatedly reverted efforts to attribute those views to those who hold them. Their resistance to presenting these views, rather than asserting them, is one of the biggest obstacles to resolving this dispute.

Suggestion for a resolution

In disputed matters, it helps to stick closely to the sources, simply identifying them, quoting what they say, and letting readers draw their own conclusions. For example, instead of writing:

The fifteen contributors use "Darwinism" to refer to the theory of evolution. The book rejects the broad acceptance of evolution within the scientific community.

and citing as support letters written before the book was published which say nothing about the book, we can identify the letters and their authors explicitly, and quote what they say:

Evolution has broad acceptance within the scientific community. In a letter written in 2000, philosophy professor and intelligent-design critic Barbara Forrest states that "Johnson, Demsbki, and their associates have assumed the task of destroying 'Darwinism'", which, she says, they use as a synonym for evolution. Biologist Paul R. Gross writes in a 2003 letter to Commentary magazine of David Berlinksi's "latest Commentary essay on 'Darwinism'—as it is often called by those who do not know much evolutionary biology".

With this approach, instead of drawing inferences from the sources, we tell readers what the sources say and let them draw their own inferences. My hope is that if the other editors follow this method, engage constructively, and avoid breaches of Wikiquette, we can bring the article into compliance with WP:V and WP:NPOV, and end this dispute.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Tim Smith 19:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Coppertwig 00:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Update

Since I posted the above response, FeloniousMonk, who filed this RfC, has added new sections ("Response to the suggestion for a resolution" and "Continuing POV promotion") to the end of the page, below the "Outside views". For discussion related to "Response to the suggestion for a resolution", see the talk page. Below is my response to "Continuing POV promotion", as well as to new accusations made by ScienceApologist in the "Statement of the dispute" above.

ScienceApologist's accusations

"has subsequently begun to advocate against editors with whom he disagrees in inappropriate ways, appearing in disputes in which he is not a party solely to defame the editor he dislikes"; "has recently begun a campaign to discredit and mallign editors with whom he disagrees": These accusations were added by ScienceApologist during an incident at WP:AN3, where he had been reported by Arthur Rubin for breaking WP:3RR. I saw Arthur Rubin's comment about not being able to find an earlier 3RR warning, and having firsthand experience with ScienceApologist's record in that regard, thought I would offer some background, noting that ScienceApologist not only has a history of 3RR warnings (e.g. ), but in a recent arbitration case was found to have edit warred and cautioned by the ArbCom. In reply to an administrator's remark about the diffs provided by Arthur Rubin, I commented on them, saying that they seemed clear enough. ScienceApologist then claimed that I had misrepresented his edits, disputing the first diff. But as I pointed out, by the definition of "revert" ("undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors"), that edit was clearly a revert, undoing the addition of a quote (beginning "At least 3...") by removing the quote. ScienceApologist never admitted to breaking 3RR, instead claiming that I was "Wikistalking" him. (I had merely commented and offered background at a 3RR report filed by another user.)

"Continuing POV promotion"

Per WP:NPOV, Langan's work should not be asserted as being the truth, but neutrally presented. That's what I've tried to do, taking care to use frequent qualifiers (e.g. "According to Langan", "claims Langan", "Langan argues") and footnoted citations. I've tried to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and I welcome constructive feedback on my edits and suggestions for improvement.

"created the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe article": As background, the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe, or CTMU, rose to media attention in 1999, when its author, Christopher Michael Langan, was profiled in Esquire magazine. Since then, the CTMU has been described or mentioned by Popular Science, The Times, Newsday, 20/20, and other mainstream media sources. The Wikipedia article I posted about the theory in September 2005 proceeded mostly peacefully and largely unchanged, save by my own additions, until July 2006, when it was nominated for deletion. The article described the history of the CTMU, overviewed its structure, and summarized its take on various philosophical topics. As well as providing references and (eventually) numerous footnoted citations, I sought to qualify the claims of the theory to the theorist, describing Langan's arguments rather than asserting them as truth.

"conducted a disruptive campaign to prevent its deletion"; "caused some notable disruption of WP:DRV in trying to single handedly have the article undeleted": Numerous editors argued to keep at the AfD and overturn at the DRV. Among users who had edited before the start of the AfD, just over 60% favored deletion, and the DRV was even closer, with the result eventually endorsed on a one-vote majority. (At that time, DRV used majority rule.) Explaining his decision to me, Xoloz, the DRV closing admin, used the qualifier "without impugning you personally" and said: "You put forth a noble effort in arguing the best possible case for your position based on the record at hand."

"it was determined by the community that the topic should not be covered by WP": The AfD and DRV deleted the article. They did not determine that the topic should not be covered by Wikipedia (e.g. at Christopher Michael Langan). In fact, ESkog, the AfD closing admin, explained his decision to delete in part by saying that the CTMU could be "covered completely" at the article on Langan, even offering to temporarily undelete the article so that it could be merged.

"resurrecting a disruptive long-AFD'd topic as a series of redirects": Redirects from related words and topics are standard practice, as are redirects for mispellings or alternative spellings, and for case-insensitive Go-button matching. The redirects I made (from Cognitive Theoretic Model Of The Universe and Cognitive-theoretic model of the universe to Christopher Michael Langan) are routine. Please see "What do we use redirects for?"

"seeking to force Langan's intelligent design rhetoric into the Uncommon Dissent article": I have never added mention of Langan or his "rhetoric" to the Uncommon Dissent article. Of course, since Langan contributed a chapter to the book, a neutral presentation of what he says would not be out of place there.

"whitewashing of Langan's legal woes": I reworked the lawsuit section for factuality and neutrality. The text was filled with inaccuracies, claiming, for example, that Langan left the Mega Society in 1997 (he was still a member in 2001), that the 2002 suit was filed against Langan and his wife (it was filed only against Langan), that the Langans renamed "their organization" the Mega Foundation after the 2004 decision (the Mega Foundation had existed since 1999), and more. The presentation was also non-neutral, relaying the Complainant's contention from the Forum decision but not the Respondent's, and omitting to mention that the Complainant was found not to be entitled to three of the five domain names that it sought. Unfortunately, FeloniousMonk reverted my changes wholesale, reinstating the errors I had fixed and the biases I had corrected. As a result, and despite protests from multiple users, many of these problems remain with the section to this day, in violation of WP:NPOV, WP:A, and WP:BLP.

As I said, I've tried to engage constructively in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I hope the other editors will do likewise so that we can work together to improve the articles in question. Tim Smith 21:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Outside view by User:Amarkov

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

I do see that User:Tim Smith has made some biased edits. However, adding dispute tags is not bias. If there is an unsourced assertion, then it may be tagged as needing citation. If that gives the impression of undue weight, good; that's what it's supposed to do. If something has no citation, it should be treated as suspect, and not be given equal validity with things that do. If you think that he didn't tag everything he should, giving the impression that the others were more valid, then tag those too. Don't claim that requesting citations is biased.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Amarkov blahedits 23:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Mathmo Talk 06:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Coppertwig 00:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: There has been a problem since the invention of the {{fact}} tag that when certain editors don't get their way they go through and "fact-tag-bomb" the article to make a point. When the consensus of other editors is that a sentence/fact/POV is referenced, citations/references are already provided, etc. and singular editors don't like this consensus, that shouldn't give said singular editors the green light to go add fact tags to articles and ignore the consensus. --ScienceApologist 16:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by user User:Puddytang

Let me state at the start that I am not a proponent of intelligent design, nor am I in any way affiliated with Langan or User:Asmodeus. However, I am an inclusionist, and I experience a horrible wrenching feeling whenever I see that an interesting article has been deleted by ScienceApologist et al to Wikipedia's detriment--but that's neither here nor there for this particular dispute.

Reading the talk page for Langan, it is obvious who is at fault here:Arthur Rubin, •Jim62sch•, 151.151.21.104, KillerChihuahua, Guettarda, User:FeloniusMonk and ScienceApologist have a clear agenda that has a negative effect on the quality of the article.

Tim's arguments are well reasoned, and in many cases his wording is superior to that in the article--his is actually sourced. As of today, one of the pstatements he put a FACT tag on is still there and still unsourced. However, his edits are reverted aparently without even looking at the arguments or the edits as evidenced by the fact that they kept reinserting a "quote" which wasn't actually a quote at all.

They insisted on including this OR section about a lawsuit and it is only gone now because the founder of wikipedia personally came and removed it.

Anyone who dissagrees with them is automatically accused of being a "meat puppet" for Langan.

They cite "consensus", but ignore the fact that consensus of the Afd CTMU was that that information would be moved to Langan's article. Apparently Langan's ideas have no place in an article on Langan!--a clear misuse of "undue weight".

If the argument seems to be going against them, they just pull the Trump card "we should just delete the whole article."

They seem to think that Tim is a rabid ID proponent, but his edit history shows that he has edited other articles on philosophy as well as on another person who was billed as "the smartest person in the world."

These users have been asked before not to do these behaviors. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience: *ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is cautioned to respect all policies and guidelines, in spirit as well as letter, when editing articles concerning some alternative to conventional science. This applies in particular to matters of good faith and civility. For the Arbitration committee. Thatcher131 02:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC) 5.1) FeloniousMonk is counseled to consult with other administrators with respect to disruptive users and to cooperate with them in a collegial way. Passed 6 to 0 at 17:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC) 7) ScienceApologist is counseled to be more patient and diplomatic with users who may edit their own article or advance original research. Many users err, but eventually become valued contributors. Passed 6 to 0 at 17:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC) It's clear that they didn't follow these reccomendations in this case. (But since they are both administrators I guess they can just consult each other: viola consensus!)

I'm sure that these editors motivations are good, And I am sure they are competent scientists and valuable contributors to Wikipedia in their own areas of expertise. However Wikipedia would probably benefit if they refrained from editing or deleting articles of a philosophical or theological nature like this one. In truth they are hurting their own cause--rather than a nuetral article on CTMU on wikipedia, the only sources with any information on it are websites that support ID.

Thanks for letting me rant -- Puddytang 04:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Some of these same users were party to a looong arbitration last year Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience Findings of fact were:

Listed findings pass:

   1a) Notability
   2) Locus of dispute.
   5) Subjects which require academic expertise (3-0-4) passes (new)
   7) Eric Lerner.
   8) Self promotion by Elerner.
   9) Pseudoscience
   10) Tommysun shows a pattern of aggressive biased editing...
   11) ScienceApologist is uncivil
   11a) Deprecation by ScienceApologist
   12) Iantresman is uncivil
   13) Iantresman's editing style
   14) ScienceApologist has edit warred
   15) Iantresman's orientation
   16) ScienceApologist failure to extend good faith
   17) Category:Fringe subjects without critical scientific evaluation

Remedies

Listed remedies pass:

   5a) Tommysun banned from editing articles which relate to science and pseudoscience (7-0)
   6) Tommysun placed on probation (7-0)
   7a) Elerner is banned from editing Eric Lerner, Plasma cosmology, Aneutronic fusion, and any pages, excepting talk pages, related to his real-life work;
       note given the breakdown of conditional votes, the indefinite ban 7a passes (5-0-2) while the one year ban fails (4-0)
   8b) Iantresman placed on Probation (8-0)
   11) ScienceApologist cautioned (5-0)

Puddytang 05:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit]

Outside view by User:Tox

Using a dispute tag when there is a clear dispute going on is definitely not bias. And citation tags are frankly underused throughout all of Wikipedia. Any fact that can be labelled "citation needed" needs a citation.

In fact, a lot of the argument seems to revolve around Tim Smith's request for a citation for the statement "'Darwinism', which they use to refer to the theory of evolution." Such an assertion would obviously need sources, if it weren't so useless it needs to be deleted.

Obviously, in a general scientific context in which evolution is not being challenged, I know what it means, but that's entirely different from the context of the views being expressed in a book challenging it. Having seen numerous arguments and whatnot over creationism versus evolution, in such cases there are so many different nuances to what is meant by both "Darwinism" and "evolution" in that particular debate or book, et al, that this sentence is replacing one contextually ambiguous term with another.

While I have heard of Dembski and know he is an ID advocate, that is all I know about him. I have never read any of his work. Reading that sentence tells me nothing about the nuances of either his position or those of the other contributors. I receive no information on the content of the book, which is what the article is supposed to be about. Tim Smith, on the other hand, inserted a direct quote on what the book considers Darwinism to mean. I'm not confused into thinking that is the general meaning of Darwinism by his wording and am immediately informed about the book. Why was his edit here controversial? Why was it reverted?

For a controversial book on a controversial topic, I absolutely agree with Tim Smith's proposed solution, and what looks like his MO all along, to use quotes from the book that directly show what the contributors are saying, and then use quotes from critiques of it. In fact, when the accusers finally bothered to use sources for the statement discussed above, Tim Smith created a section doing just that. A true POV-pusher would have deleted them outright.

Indeed, Tim's own views on the subject are hardly clear from his edits or talk page entries, while the accusors' most certainly are. —Tox 11:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Wechselstrom 04:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Of course, per mine above. -Amarkov blahedits 04:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Coppertwig 00:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Response to the suggestion for a resolution

The notion that "in disputed matters it helps to stick closely to the sources, simply identifying them, quoting what they say, and letting readers draw their own conclusions" on its face sounds perfectly acceptable and reasonable. But in cases of describing carefully organized disinformation campaigns, such as intelligent design (as the Dover trial ruling noted it), "stick closely to the sources" often results in promoting one side's distorted representation of the actual state of affairs. That is the case here.

It is well documented with no shortage of sources that ID proponents intentionally use the catch-all, hot button phrase "Darwinism" to refer to evolution in general. It is an intentionally nebulous and amorphous cipher, meant to stir their readers rather than be informative and never used by scientific community in the same sense.

ID claims to be a scientific theory, but is viewed by the scientific community as unscientific pseudoscience The NPOV policy has a specific clause for for dealing with pseudoscience, WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience, which says "The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly."

To follow that policy the article needs to be very specific in describing the terms Darwinism and evolution. Which the current passage clearly does: "Darwinism", which they use to refer to the theory of evolution. The book's introduction characterizes Darwinism by the central claim that "an unguided physical process can account for the emergence of all biological complexity and diversity.

Whereas Tim Smith's preferred version "Darwinism", characterized in the book's introduction by the central claim that "an unguided physical process can account for the emergence of all biological complexity and diversity", but which critics say they use synonymously with evolution without knowing much about evolutionary biology. creates a hierarchy of fact - the views of the ID proponents are "true" and "undisputed", whereas the view of the scientific community is "controversial", held by "critics" and therefore more likely to be false, an implication that is both inaccurate and inappropriate, getting WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience exactly backward.

This issue is only going to be resolved by only by proper application of policy where the article reflects that the use of the term "Darwinism" by ID minority represents their particular viewpoint and is rejected by the majority: the scientific community. Repeatedly insisting otherwise on the talk page and doggedly reinserting a dispute tag is not going to make this issue go away.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. FeloniousMonk 19:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. •Jim62sch• 20:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Guettarda 20:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Proabivouac 09:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. <<-armon->> 14:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. JoshuaZ 22:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. WAS 4.250 08:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Continuing POV promotion

Tim Smith has failed to heed the community's input seen in this RFC, the preponderance of which is not supportive of his activities. Not only has he continued on the same path but has esclated his efforts, which now include resurrecting a disruptive long-AFD'd topic as a series of redirects and further promoting Langan's own rhetoric at the expense of accuracy and neutral descriptions.

That Tim Smith first created the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe article , then conducted a disruptive campaign to prevent its deletion, then more disruption in seeking to have it undeleted , then recreated pages with slightly different titles redirecting to Christopher Michael Langan, followed by whitewashing of Langan's legal woes and seeking to force Langan's intelligent design rhetoric into the Uncommon Dissent article all constitutes a clear pattern of POV promotion for Langan and his views, thus misusing Wikipedia as a soapbox.

This pattern of promoting Langan's fringe views on Wikipedia goes against the very goal and spirit of Wikipedia. Tim Smith is strongly urged to desist in this disruptive pattern and to avoid Langan-related articles in the future.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. FeloniousMonk 20:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Guettarda 20:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. JoshuaZ 22:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. WAS 4.250 08:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Closing comments

This RFC was archived after an extended period of inactivity with no additional statements of dispute. --Muchness (talk) 12:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI