Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Gnixon: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 14:53, 18 July 2007 editGnixon (talk \| contribs)2,977 edits →Response ← Previous edit		Revision as of 15:01, 18 July 2007 edit undoFeloniousMonk (talk \| contribs)18,409 edits →Other users who endorse this summary: endorse, wholeheartedlyNext edit →
Line 114:		Line 114:
	:#] 10:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)		:#] 10:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
	:#] 12:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)		:#] 12:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
			:#] 15:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC) Gnixon does a good of appearing superficially reasonable and dedicated to WP:NPOV but is ultimately obdurate and invariably argues agressively against genuinely neutral presentations of intelligent design. His technique is repeatably to pretend to be upholding the scientific point of view while insisting that others justify the mainstream view to his satisfaction - which of course is never forthcoming since the fundamental problem is that he simply prefers the intelligent design point of view despite never admitting as much. This is apparent becausem he is quick to rush to support every intelligent design pov pusher who comes to the article, yet has never taken a stand for any on the mainstream science side. Aside from being evidence of hidden bias, this is unfortunate because these pov pushers are not only huge wasters of time but almost invariably abusive.

	==Response==		==Response==

Revision as of 15:01, 18 July 2007

In order to remain listed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: ~~~~), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 17:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC).

Gnixon (talk · contribs · logs)

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

Statement of the dispute

This user makes POV pushing edits to controversial articles such as Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Intelligent design, Intelligent design, Evolution, Creation-evolution controversy, Physics, Abortion and the discussion pages for each. This user's edits and commentary contravene WP:NPOV, WP:POINT, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR. He has also posted unfounded complaints on WP:AN/I about other editors regarding WP:STALK, WP:CIVIL, WP:TALK and other issues in order to harass and intimidate those users with opposing viewpoints. In addition, Gnixon has engaged in WP:CANVAS, WP:NPA and failing to utilize WP:AGF.

Desired outcome

No further editing to any Evolution or Creation articles. One month ban from editing. No further posting to AN/I without discussing with two independent administrators.

Description

This user has been reverting edits by other users to push his own POV, refactoring talk pages, posting inappropriate and harassing complaints to AN/I, joining in an canvass to remove an article from FA status, and engaging in edit wars to push POV. Gnixon has a habit of utilizing the Misplaced Pages process to file complaints to reduce

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.)

Applicable policies and guidelines

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

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

Other users who endorse this summary

Jim62sch 10:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Cult of the Sacred Or_nge 12:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
FeloniousMonk 15:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC) Gnixon does a good of appearing superficially reasonable and dedicated to WP:NPOV but is ultimately obdurate and invariably argues agressively against genuinely neutral presentations of intelligent design. His technique is repeatably to pretend to be upholding the scientific point of view while insisting that others justify the mainstream view to his satisfaction - which of course is never forthcoming since the fundamental problem is that he simply prefers the intelligent design point of view despite never admitting as much. This is apparent becausem he is quick to rush to support every intelligent design pov pusher who comes to the article, yet has never taken a stand for any on the mainstream science side. Aside from being evidence of hidden bias, this is unfortunate because these pov pushers are not only huge wasters of time but almost invariably abusive.

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.

Orangemarlin has long had a personal problem with me. A great deal of his time on Misplaced Pages is spent attacking and mocking creationists and intelligent design advocates who show up on pages like Evolution and Intelligent design. There have been two relevant outcomes:

1) some other users, who similarly believe creationists are idiots who deserve to be attacked and mocked, admire Orangemarlin and support him
2) since I've spoken up in favor of treating creationists/IDers civilly and respecting their comments, Orangemarlin has taken a great dislike towards me

I assume there will be criticism of me here from users such as Filll, Jimsch2, Felonious Monk, and Odd Nature, with whom I've had similar disagreements recently over the hostile environment they create at pages such as Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Intelligent design. One could also look at Talk:Mohammed for editors with whom I had unresolved differences. I had a regrettable personal clash with User:TxMCJ a few months ago, which involved Orangemarlin. Other than that, I believe I've been able to resolve amicably any disagreements I've had with others.

If there are critical comments from any of the more rational editors who frequent, say Intelligent design, or from any neutral 3rd party, I'll take this RfC more seriously and respond more fully, with diffs, etc. Gnixon 14:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view

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.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

I am reminded here of the expression somebody once said about "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone". This is a perfect example of that, because if anyone is without sin, it would be Or_nge Marlin... I am one of Or_nge Marlin's greatest fans, and can't believe anyone would be so impudent as this GNixon character as to speak to his betters in such a fashion... i have never seen anything like this GNixon on wikipedia... Just look at the arrogance and incivility in this edit from the above example list for example... 68. Personal attack and POV pushing... This is what really convinced me, this is the icing on the cake... Just look at the unrivalled arrogance of this character... Here we see, with perfect civility, he was clearly advised by Filll , a much better and more clever user than he is, that he has discredited himself with a bunch of jerks and horse puckey... And how does he respond? He (incredibly) states that "he doesn't know" why Fill "can't understand".... WHAT??? The NERVE of that guy!!! Can't he show at least the same level of decorum that is shown to him? And then there's this, don't even get me started on this completely unacceptable opinion GNixon expressed on his user talk page: 55. Uncivil commentary. What a lack of manners, this truly shows bad upbringing. I say we throw the book at this asshat, and ban him permanenetly. Then the truly Good and Noble editors can get back to writing a truly neutral, unbiased article on Intelligent Design for the edification of users like me, without all of this unacceptable, unwarranted interference. Cult of the Sacred Or_nge 12:35, 18 July 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.