Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:41, 11 June 2008

Not the way to do this

RFCs are for a dispute with a single person, for the hope of getting that person to change. Simply lobbing complaints at the ID project isn't going to change anything because there's a lot of noise to have to wade through for an individual editor to figure out what it is that we would like for them to do differently. If there is a particular editor whose ongoing behavior is of a concern, bring an RFC specifically about that person. --B (talk) 20:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That's RFC/U. This is different and is about a generalized conflict. If you would like to raise a concern with an individual editor, please feel free to do so. PouponOnToast (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Additional items

I think the RfC is a good start, but it misses some elements. Here are a few that come immediately to mind.

• Copious allegations of "POV-pushing" for and against Intelligent design
• Allegations of "incivility," "tendentious editing" and "disruption."
• Strident debate, continued over many months, about whether or not Intelligent design, particularly its lead, is consistent with WP:NPOV. Some insist it is; some insist it isn't.
• Related debates on a host of articles including Evolution, Objections to Evolution, and Rosalind Picard.

I'm sure there are other issues that should be brought up, but I'm not sure how to include them now that the initial post has been endorsed by multiple users. It would be very helpful if someone would do the grunt work of identifying the dozens of parties to the dispute and notifying them of the RfC. Gnixon (talk) 00:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Very good

This is the best effort I've seen to resolve the situation and I hope it works. One question - is this entirely about Intelligent design or does it extend to behaviour by the editors outside the topic, especially when they disrupt Misplaced Pages process spaces such as AN/I and AN? Until the RfAr I didn't even know the people involved were ID supporters (I have little-to-no interest in the subject) - I had simply thought they were a group of people behaving like bullies that should be dealt with. When I look at the ID dispute, other people who support ID do not behave in such a manner. The canvassing on a recent RfA and bizarre accusations of racism were just the symptoms of a much wider problem which I've seen unfolding for a few months now. Orderinchaos 02:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that concern is in scope, given the convoluted history that led us here. Of course, you'll need diffs to support the view you have formed if you want others to concur. GRBerry 03:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Once I get these damned assignments and presentations out of the way I'll have time to look :P Orderinchaos 03:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Never mind all this, it seems the thing's going the way I'd hoped anyway in scope terms. I'll put together something in the next few days once I have some free time. Orderinchaos 09:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Please reconsider

I have noticed that User:LaraLove and User:Dtobias and User:Ncmvocalist and possibly a few others have protested their inclusion in this dispute and the associated administrative actions, including one or more of the associated, impending and threatened RfCs. These editors object on the grounds that they are not related to this dispute and want to opt-out of it.

However, I will respectfully point out that this is exactly the situation that the members of the ID Wikiproject, and even a group of editors that are not members of the ID Wikiproject, face in the ID RfAr filed by User:Sceptre, User:SirFozzie et al . The same is true of the impending RfCs and potential Arbcomm actions. As User:Durova noted, this form of mass group administrative action where the group has poorly defined boundaries sets one or more precedents, and might not be the best conceived approach to settling any underlying dispute .

The ID RfAr broadly supposedly targets the ID Wikiproject, naming in particular User:Filll (who is no longer a member), User:Orangemarlin (who is no longer a member), User:Guettarda, User:KillerChihuahua, User:Jim62sch, and User:Ali'i even implies that User:JoshuaZ (never a member), User:Baegis, User:Odd nature, User:dave souza (never a member), User:Raymond Arritt (never a member and scrambled his password because of repeated intimidation, including the ID RfAr filing), User:Badger Drink (never a member), User:ScienceApologist (never a member), User:QuackGuru (never a member), and User:FeloniousMonk are also to be included in this broad attack. The RfAr makes allegations of evil collective behavior. There are all kinds of vague and unsubstantiated claims in the RfAr, even though at this writing it has been open for about 13 days, which should be more than enough time to produce at least some minimal evidence of substantial wrong-doing, which has not yet been forthcoming. All of these editors are treated as some sort of evil monolith, and all are blamed for a mistake made by any single editor, and any purportedly uncivil wording of any given editor is attributed to all the members of this ill-defined group.

As User:Thatcher stated on May 30, 2008: "And remember that your conduct in bringing the case will be looked at just as closely as the conduct of those you name in the case, so using the RFC as an opportunity for flamewars and personal attacks is going to be self-defeating." If we going to allow a precedent where 14 editors can be named as targets of a vague catch-all WP:COATRACK-y assault, then the side bringing these complaints will have to endure a similar treatment and scrutiny of their actions associated with this dispute or leading to this dispute, as Thatcher so fairly and presciently states. In fact, since I have been attacked mainly for doing nothing more than defending other members of this purported and mystical "cabal", then those same standards will have to be applied to all. So by that standard, clearly User:LaraLove and User:Dtobias are suitable targets for one or more administrative actions. In addition, User:LaraLove was deeply involved in provoking, enabling and defending some of the behaviors that are part and parcel of this dispute, so should be included on that basis as well. I do not know the particulars of Ncmvocalist and any potential others who might be more tenuously involved, but given that there are demands by SirFozzie and Sceptre et al that they be allowed to attack the widest possible group of editors, then it is only fair that the exact same standards be applied to both sides in this dispute.

I would repeat the previous appeal of User:FeloniousMonk for all involved to just disengage and walk away from this RfAr, the RfC drafts, and any further impending administrative actions, which he made in the deleted RfC Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Sceptre, Sxeptomaniac, SirFozzie, B. I forsee nothing but wasted time and irritation from this series of RfAr proceedings, RfCs and Arbcomm proceedings. As Thatcher stated, everyone's behavior is going to be under investigation and scrutiny if this goes ahead. No one should be allowed to "opt out", and probably no one will be allowed to "opt out". Any mistake or misunderstanding or ill-considered remark made on Misplaced Pages, or possibly on other sites such as Misplaced Pages Review, will be open to examination and second-guessing and potential misinterpretation. Highly improper and uncivil comments like Sceptre's gleeful edit summary that was used when he opened this RfAr are going to be criticized. I would ask everyone on all sides to please use some rationality here and please walk away from this potential huge time sink and impending disaster. All those attacking the ID Wikiproject should not feel so smug, since it is quite likely that a serious examination is going to turn up evidence of bad behavior on the anti-ID Wikiproject and pro-WR side that is not going to necessarily reflect them in the best possible light.

What can be done to resolve this

(1) Stop talking about the members of the ID Wikiproject off-wiki (2)Start assuming good faith of all ID Wikiproject members (3) Stop calling the ID Wikiproject a cabal (4) Stop undermining the credibilitiy and ability of ID Wikiproject members to function effectively.

I personally feel harassed and would like it to stop. I feel I am being driven off the project, since I am constantly being undermined through exaggerated accusations. I have withdrawn from RfAs and RfBs and other polls because of this harassment. I have withdrawn from editing all evolution, creationism and intelligent design articles and all other controversial articles because of this harassment. What more can I do but just leave the project?

So I ask all concerned: Please reconsider.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)