Knowledge (XXG):Requests for comment/Intelligent Design

2578:. 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. 3272:, 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 Knowledge (XXG), it's a real problem. ++ 4289:

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,

3405:

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 Knowledge (XXG) policies on the ID page. Instead, it's become a question of whether or not Knowledge (XXG) 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.

2227:

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.

3072:

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."

3166:

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

2693:

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.

4362:

look back on what you did on Knowledge (XXG), 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?

2244:

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.

4385:, 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. 2648:

environment at Knowledge (XXG). 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 Knowledge (XXG).

3849:

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 Knowledge (XXG) Review have very reasonably objected to being described as "Knowledge (XXG) Review editors" or "Knowledge (XXG) Review members" as though that defines their behaviour, and similarly they should not stereotype other users.

4063:

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.

2722:

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. .

4056:

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.

3350:

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.

2253:

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.

3174:

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

1853:, 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. 4401:, 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 3486:

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

4113:, 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. 1955:(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.) 4052:

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.

4653:

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. . .

4055:

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;

4028:

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

3079:

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

3071:

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

2465:

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

2239:

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

2230:

The fact is that the behavior standards on Knowledge (XXG) 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

1033:

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 Knowledge (XXG) Review. So regardless of whether Random is actually

854:

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"

441:

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,

4652:

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

4388:

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

4288:

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

4119:

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

3821:

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

3465:

As has been pointed out many times, the way content is added to and remains in Knowledge (XXG) 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

2977:

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

2226:

I believe that because the Knowledge (XXG) 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

93:

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

4681:

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

4486:

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

4481:

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

4352:

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

4265:

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

3828:

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

3722:

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,

3485:

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

2700:

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

1543:

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

1529:

Endorse comments about the Moulton affair and the Knowledge (XXG) 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

1270:

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

4440:

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,

4067:

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

4062:

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

4051:

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

3389:

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

3349:

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

3173:

This is a horrible mistake from Knowledge (XXG)'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

3165:

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

3075:

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

2766:

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

2252:

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 Knowledge (XXG)) of intelligent design articles do not themselves seem to have any evidence for an ability to do any

2182:

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

4361:

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

3629:

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

2721:

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

2692:

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

2235:

on Knowledge (XXG) 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

326:

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

2279:

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

2256:

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

2248:

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 Knowledge (XXG) issues and stop bothering the experts.

2082:

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

1849:

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

4105:

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

3404:

I'm not sure what mechanisms there are in Knowledge (XXG) for dealing with an article that has absorbed a POV as a defended norm. Knowledge (XXG) policies, as a rule, are based on the assumption that ongoing, legitimized (e.g. sourced), civil discussions will over time achieve a proper balance

2647:

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

2585:

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

1501:

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

1397:

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.

2243:

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

4202:

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

3848:

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

413:

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

3793:

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

1804:

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

1233:

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

426:

The real issue as not the ID editors, most of whom have been productive and trusted Knowledge (XXG) 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

291:

What I would like to see out of RfC is that OrangeMarlin, Guettarda, Jim62sch, and others act in a more collegial manner according to Knowledge (XXG) policies. We have numerous incidents where the above named editors, amongst others resorted to name-calling, and well-poisoning. They need to

4075:

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,

3860:

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 –

3852:

From a recent Knowledge (XXG) 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

4392:

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:

752:

Stop undermining the ability of Guettarda, OrangeMarlin, Filll, and Jimsch62 to continue contributing to Knowledge (XXG) by referring to them and others in Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject intelligent design as a "ID cabal" and by raising weak or exaggerated concerns over their behavior.

322:

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.

1796:

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

855:

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.

2236:

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.

4540:. 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. 1193:

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

1112:

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,

2054:

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

4325:), 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 3727:; 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. 26:

This is a bare-bones RFC that will allow for this discussion and resolution of the numerous conflicts surrounding a series of editors that have edited Intelligent Design, along with a series of editors that have found themselves at odds with the first group.

4106:

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!

3254:, 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. 361:

are fundamentally incorrect when it comes to Knowledge (XXG) 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 Knowledge (XXG)'s not the best place to be for them.

3829:

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.

2581:

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.

345:

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.

4389:

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).

1393:

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.

4666:

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.

3381:

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

1841:

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

3353:...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 1492:, 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. 2083:

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.

4198:

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 Knowledge (XXG) to perpetrate that deception.

4194:

I have been involved in the discussion of Knowledge (XXG)'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.

1833:

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.

4080:

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

3263:

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

2844:

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.

3161:

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.

177:(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.) 4552:

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.

3856:

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 Knowledge (XXG) in a collegiate manner.

3466:

support for the content in question. Perhaps this is one of Knowledge (XXG)'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.

1415:

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.

3868:

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

2045:

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

4500:

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:

1140:

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.

4321:). 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" ( 2101: 3772:

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.

3295:

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.

1740:

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

4621:, 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. 3496:

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.

3181:

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 Knowledge (XXG) that needs defending, and it's really

4436:

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!

3385:

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

1474:) 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. 4605:

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

2978:

the vehemence with which much of the debate on Intelligent Design is pursued in venues outside Knowledge (XXG)). Pseudoscience has always been a tricky matter for Knowledge (XXG), but we're equal to it. --

1862:

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.

4575:

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

2205:

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.

3630:

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.

3833:

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.

4115:

But it is making Knowledge (XXG) 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.

318:

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.

4203:

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.

4206:

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 Knowledge (XXG)'s ID page will disappear.

41:

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.

4461:, 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. 4373:

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

2015:- 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 - 1824:

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.

4524:

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:

1658: 3211: 57:

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.

3343:(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) 1671: 381: 310:

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 Knowledge (XXG) to promote your pro-Nazi humour.

2982: 3208: 2979: 1668: 4029:

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. .

3251: 1145: 3064:

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

4110: 327:

particularly, one of its users (who rightly or wrongly, is currently blocked from Knowledge (XXG), although there was discussion on unblocking him) affect their good sense.

2160:

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.

2927:

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.

2586:

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.

1389:

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

414:"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. 1438: 400:

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.

1402: 1412:

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

4536:

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

4618: 4487:

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

2034:

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.

4317:

was made by replacing "creation science" and "creation scientists" with "intelligent design" and "design proponents" (leading to the famous transitional species

4068:

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.

397: 4445:, 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... 4244:

interesting take that might help the article. though unlikely to be allowed based on the current enviornment of confrontation highlighted by championdante. --

373:'s threats against another editor, threats for which Jim62sch was sanctioned for. This created a hostile enviroment that eventually forced the user to retire. 4405:

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.

3378:

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

3218:

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.

3854: 455:

of anyone who has good-faith concerns about their behavior they are creating the very same "enemies" that they claim to be defending Knowledge (XXG) from.

3186:

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. --

777: 3822:

with intelligent design and others allegedly creating a non-helpful backdrop of drama and poor feelings, as well as some alleged personalized disputes.

1420: 3319: 3305: 3284: 3258: 3241: 3227: 2092:

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 .

359:

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.

1843: 3978:

Extremely tired of the OMG Cabal! bullshit. No apologies for the language; also extremely tired of the OMG Think of the Children! language police.

51:

That articles on Knowledge (XXG) serve our goals of collecting and developing educational content and to disseminating it effectively and globally.

794:

Stop undermining attempts at DR that seek to address any behavior beyond that of Guettarda, OrangeMarlin, Filll, and Jimsch62, such as their own.

354:

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.

1378: 1361: 1353: 910:- Knowledge (XXG) ia an encyclopedia, not a social networking site where the aim is to increase your edit count and become an administrator. 4516:

Non-ridiculous issues are raised, but argued for very badly. Some editor, although making valid points, may be unwilling to work within our

4072:

boasts that addressing Ludwigs2 will be "child's play" -- then morphs the argument into one of Verifiability. This is not a friendly spot.

1271:

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.

2781:

Utilizing the term "ID cabal" to describe a group of editors that edit articles based upon scientific reasoning and are opposed to giving

3566:. This behavior by these editors on my talk page appears to match what others have experienced and described in this RfC and elsewhere 3289:

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

4682:

this arena. In WP, I care far more about BLP and maintaining a professional tone in these articles than in such esoterica, about which

4686:

seems to accurately represent the opinions of reliable sources on anyways (Ludwig, you may want to refocus your efforts elsewhere). -

4520:-based model. Tremendous amount of time is wasted on dealing with these editors, and arbitration may be needed before it is resolved. 3551:

Since that time, Filll and Jim62sch have continued to post rude or hostile comments on my talk page, directed at me or other editors

380:

and of not working within Knowledge (XXG)'s rules regarding civility and NPA, and accusing opponents in editing as Anti-Semitic: See

4595: 3758:

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'.

4739: 4715: 3178:

way that will happen is if the conflict reduces parts of Knowledge (XXG) to such shambles that the other side gives up in disgust.

869:

Let's end this charade before things get worse, which they undoubtedly will if this sort of broad attack and witchhunt continues.--

17: 2918:

Endorse, with obvious exception of Amerique's "little dogs" comment, which I find offensive and an unnecessary labeling. (/humor)

3246:

We've seen it in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict (most of the "Allegations of Apartheid series" being a flagrant example), some

3886:

Update - link added to WR thread "ID Cabal Request for Comment" . For my earlier analysis of the situation Cla68 describes, see

1349: 1215: 791:

Guettarda, OrangeMarlin, Filll, and Jimsch62 all feel it is harassment and it is clearly an aggravating factor in this dispute.

1958:

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.

1801:, I don't see any of the editors involved in recent major disputes outside of the group from Wikiproject:Intelligent design. 1283: 1000:

and the number of times he shows up at WikipediaReview to comment in threads about ID editors, particularly Sceptre's thread,

3841: 3608: 3508: 2943:

good start, and it receives my full endorsement, but it won't solve the problem. the labeling is symptomatic, not causal. --

1657:

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:

1198:

Odd Nature has a tendency to label anyone who does not agree with them as supposedly being "friends" or "pals" of one another

1011: 1009: 1007: 1005: 1003: 1001: 948: 238: 4424:

Since he sent me that very nice letter, I will return the favour and defend him somewhat... Namely, what he wanted to do on

754: 330: 4126:, with its entrenched adversarial camps is absolutely infuriating. Do something. Do something. Do something. Do something. 3390:

even say that their pride is unjustified, because (within the worldview that's been developed over there), they probably

2735:

If the labeling of other editors ends, it would solve a major part of my problems with several editors in this dispute.

85:

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

4469:

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

445: 442:

insultingly, harassingly, or intimidatingly toward you, this does not give you an excuse to do the same in retaliation.

377: 2183:

see specific issues and the community to comment on specific issues, hopefully leading to specific behavior changes.

3887: 3491: 2736: 2303: 2270: 928: 549: 3692: 3281: 3672:- as far as this sort of behavior should be curtailed, and is what gives the appearance of a 'cabal' of editors. 3574:

I'll put it simply. This type of behavior by this group is unacceptable, and, if still ongoing, needs to stop.

3232:

Not as clear cut as pro-science v. pro-mainstream v. pro-fringe v . pro-ID v. pro-deletion v. pro-inclusion. --

1856:

I have undermined no attempts at DR, and neither have the other named editors. I responded to the previous RfC

1850:

saying about their behavior all along. I have attempted to open up dialog on WP, only to be rudely turned away

4695: 4676: 4661: 4647: 4338: 4298: 4283: 4253: 4239: 4220: 4180: 4171: 4157: 4137: 4095: 4037: 4009: 3995: 3982: 3973: 3952: 3939: 3926: 3898: 3880: 3811: 3782: 3767: 3753: 3735: 3708: 3695: 3678: 3669: 3655: 3639: 3624: 3602: 3583: 3567: 3451: 3437: 3417: 3195: 3150: 3142: 3129: 3116: 3101: 3053: 3040: 3027: 3014: 3001: 2966: 2952: 2938: 2922: 2913: 2900: 2886: 2872: 2854: 2839: 2822: 2804: 2776: 2761: 2747: 2730: 2710: 2678: 2660: 2633: 2620: 2601: 2540: 2518: 2505: 2491: 2446: 2432: 2424: 2411: 2394: 2377: 2357: 2344: 2331: 2307: 2289: 2274: 2215: 2196: 2187: 2177: 2146: 2134: 2126: 2000: 1987: 1975: 1962: 1952: 1940: 1923: 1902: 1892: 1872: 1773: 1754: 1710: 1696: 1682: 1652: 1638: 1622: 1609: 1589: 1572: 1553: 1538: 1524: 1510: 1496: 1483: 1462: 1333: 1312: 1296: 1259: 1242: 1219: 1179: 1158: 1134: 1097: 1076: 1060: 1047: 986: 965: 952: 932: 919: 902: 886: 864: 849: 836: 816: 730: 717: 704: 691: 678: 669: 655: 643: 630: 627: 619: 609: 591: 567: 553: 540: 531: 518: 508: 491: 483: 464: 273: 256: 242: 222: 206: 194: 174: 162: 149: 135: 121: 2079:

I am happy and willing to assume good faith of any user on this project, I merely ask they do the same of me.

4731: 4488: 4457:, even when you are right, is a Bad Idea. It is particularly bad when a user, who is not well-versed in the 4275: 4235: 4133: 4091: 3965: 3803: 3315: 2483: 2420: 2323: 2095: 1798: 1769: 1729: 1450: 1325: 1292: 1279: 1171: 1154: 1089: 1056: 978: 961: 878: 860: 700: 579: 563: 252: 117: 4580: 4548:

We need to just forget about this current mess and instead focus on avoiding these problems in the future.

773: 4711: 4249: 3665: 3447: 3291: 3237: 2706: 2193: 2131: 1959: 1594:

Intelligent design has been stable for a long time. I'm not even sure why we're fighting these battles.

1358: 726: 527: 488: 382:

Knowledge (XXG):Requests_for_arbitration/Jim62sch/Evidence#Personal_attacks_and_incivility_by_Orangemarlin

131: 1733: 4111:

Knowledge (XXG):Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#inappropriate_content_hiding_on_Intelligent_Design

4004: 3865:

Editors should avoid labelling other editors, and take care to be civil in a way that avoids harassment.

3704: 3048: 2961: 2629: 2555: 2441: 2299: 2266: 2041:. You're being very hypocritical here, given the parties' massive failure to assume good faith (general 2020: 1996: 1705: 924: 713: 545: 4482:

used as evidence against him in a secret arbitration, and I vehemently insist that his going mad about

3247: 403:

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

4658: 4209:

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

4034: 3979: 3935: 3895: 3877: 3763: 3023: 2997: 2919: 2882: 2757: 2727: 2616: 2501: 2429: 2340: 2285: 2173: 1679: 1520: 1507: 812: 675: 614: 316:

This post by Guettarda attacking numerous editors without evidence. He made the false statement that

308:

Discussion between Neil and Guettarda, where Guettarda instantly poisons the well, by saying to Neil

203: 145: 4614: 4458: 3479: 1235: 4334: 4290: 4212: 3948: 3598: 3358: 3036: 2835: 2772: 2514: 2390: 2353: 2024: 1888: 1345: 1211: 1130: 1043: 1026: 915: 845: 687: 624: 479: 460: 305: 261: 158: 4591: 4561: 3837: 3510:

about discussion he had had with the press about the situation in Knowledge (XXG) surrounding the

3501: 2786: 2782: 2575: 2571: 2295: 4683: 4294: 4231: 4216: 4129: 4123: 4087: 4082: 4077: 4048: 3991: 3750: 3732: 3650: 3539: 3409: 3329: 3311: 3187: 3134: 3111: 3011: 2944: 2910: 2416: 1949: 1934: 1765: 1692: 1664: 1645: 1563: 1489: 1456: 1390: 1288: 1275: 1253: 1150: 1052: 957: 942: 856: 696: 585: 559: 394:

This user has a very checkered past when it comes to resolving disputes here on Knowledge (XXG).

248: 232: 171: 113: 4626: 4569: 2559: 1810: 347: 1812: 596:

Just the section about Guettarda's labelling me a Neo-Nazi apologist(!), which was ridiculous.

4707: 4691: 4474: 4245: 4177: 3910:

I for one am truly have tired of the cabal bit. I'm sure we could find enough editors on the

3778: 3675: 3661: 3530:

all arrived at my user talk page within a day of each other to take me to task on my comments

3443: 3301: 3233: 3147: 2896: 2818: 2790: 2744: 2702: 2686: 2587: 2548: 2363: 2142: 2012: 1983: 1869: 1781: 1663:

If the RFC was an attempt to clarify the nature of the dispute, it has failed. I concur that

1618: 1595: 1493: 1406: 822: 722: 651: 537: 523: 339: 180: 127: 4565: 4398: 4025: 3487: 3467: 3375:

apply to a particular kind of source which happens (mostly) to be deeply opposed to the topic

2563: 1725: 1114: 1109: 4672: 4643: 4587: 4397:

You may be surprised that as an atheist you find this article in violation of our policy on

4353:

in the end I suggest a few practical things that will avoid similar problems in the future.

4153: 4001: 3794:

substance here, to be honest. And I would like to see both sides just walk away from this.--

3700: 3635: 3433: 3223: 3045: 2958: 2905:

I resent all labelers and label-enablers... and all their cronies and their little dogs too.

2850: 2625: 2438: 2016: 1992: 1702: 1549: 1479: 1471: 1401:

I don't think the whole Moulton issue is being discussed here (it's being better handled at

1201:, so I suspect that some of the other named users are also similarly not actually involved. 997:

Considering Random832 nominated the RFC of Sceptre, Sxeptomaniac and SirFozzie for deletion

709: 77:

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

4454: 4442: 4429: 4162:

Another example of unacceptable behavior by a certain group of editors that needs to stop.

3475: 3471: 2740: 2245: 2232: 2202: 1742: 452: 351: 4727: 4654: 4599: 4529: 4425: 4271: 4167: 4064: 4030: 3961: 3931: 3891: 3873: 3799: 3759: 3619: 3579: 3523: 3511: 3125: 3096: 3019: 2993: 2878: 2867: 2753: 2723: 2612: 2535: 2497: 2479: 2336: 2319: 2281: 2169: 2154: 2121: 1971: 1918: 1584: 1516: 1503: 1373: 1321: 1167: 1085: 974: 874: 808: 639: 503: 418: 199: 141: 4517: 4305:

I'm not sure why this belongs here but...ID has evolved since it was first introduced in

2567: 1667:

is a reasonably well written article, so clearly something good is coming of this mess.

4586:

Help fixing articles with too strong anti-fringe slant! There is currently a request by

3408:

I have no idea what to do about that, but it does strike me as worth pointing out... --

4330: 4059: 3944: 3911: 3594: 3515: 3032: 2831: 2768: 2510: 2386: 2349: 2211: 2087: 1884: 1750: 1187: 1126: 1108:

Multiple members of the Arbcom specifically said at Sceptre's RFAR to file a RFC first:

1039: 1022: 911: 841: 795: 789: 787: 785: 783: 781: 683: 660: 602: 475: 456: 299: 154: 3215:

Struck through in view of subsequent accusations with which I will not be associated.

1110:

Knowledge (XXG):RFAR#Arbitrators.27_opinion_on_hearing_this_matter_.281.2F4.2F0.2F2.29

749:

Start assuming the good faith members of Guettarda, OrangeMarlin, Filll, and Jimsch62.

4478: 4374: 3987: 3915: 3746: 3728: 3716: 3688: 3645: 3533:

and to accuse me of threatening to "out" them. After apparently losing the argument

3519: 3277: 3106: 3068:

editors feel welcome to contribute to controversial areas such as ID and Homeopathy.

3007: 2934: 2906: 2667: 2649: 2641: 2400: 1945: 1928: 1688: 1627: 1560: 1444: 1301: 1247: 1225:

If RFAR cases are filed, people will comment upon them. You've done that. You also

1065: 938: 891: 573: 388: 370: 366: 228: 211: 167: 4687: 4418: 4410: 4378: 3774: 3505: 3297: 3255: 2892: 2814: 2280:

relevant field could be very useful, however I'm not convinced that it's required.

2184: 2139: 2038: 1980: 1898: 1614: 1239: 648: 514: 74: 4513:

So they have to explain economics, and so on, but stuff like this goes on and on.

3914:

article who've edited said article for some time and propose a "Britney cabal".

3368:

editors do not consider arguments that are not (to their mind) 'properly sourced'

1435: 1417: 1142: 4668: 4639: 4537: 4382: 4346: 4149: 3631: 3429: 3219: 2846: 2231:

opposite interpretations of the very same posts. Who's to say who is right? The

1545: 1531: 1475: 1467: 558:

Only the bolded section in "how to fix it." Users should be civil to eachother.

54:

That editors be able to edit such content with a minimum of conflict and strife.

4377:

is a list of Wikipedians with the user name Merz or a variation thereof (e.g.,

2294:

I tried to clarify what I meant by "expert". It's not the same as the sense of

1502:

patient use of all stages of dispute resolution would be more appropriate. . .

4723: 4470: 4267: 4163: 4069: 3957: 3795: 3613: 3575: 3527: 3459: 3121: 3090: 2861: 2562:

is being used as a methodology to trump many other core principles, including

2529: 2475: 2454: 2315: 2192:

Yes, behaviour and issues should be the focus, not who is "right" or "wrong".

2115: 1967: 1912: 1578: 1367: 1317: 1163: 1081: 970: 870: 635: 497: 407: 2554:

Since my name is being tossed about herein, I may as well respond. Per what

102:

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

4598:. Go to that article, show what is wrong with it. Edit war, if necessary. A 2207: 1746: 1718: 597: 4449:

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

4413:, the context seems very different and wasn't about ID itself, but now ... 451:

The users involved need to understand that by their behavior, and assuming

3428:

Full disclosure: I requested of Ludwig that he post this "afterthought".

4496: 4494:

Second, and this is the more important thing, I recently started editing

4109:

Further, flinging charges of continuing Original Research at Ludwigs2 on

3684: 3273: 2929: 1844:

Knowledge (XXG):Requests for comment/Moulton#Outside view by Sxeptomaniac

776:

stop using discussing Guettarda, OrangeMarlin, Filll, Jimsch62 and other

4583:, might be needed as the problem is often that of a perceived ownership. 3442:

not sure I completely agree, but interesting observations by ludwig. --

2098:

for the most likely concern), you are welcome to change your behaviour.

432:(as I said, this is a first draft, and will be added to in the future) 295:

This is a first draft, and I will reserve the right to add more to it.

4722:

I agree with some of this. Obviously, I do not agree with all of it.--

4702:

Editors who find this an interesting view, but don't necessarily agree

2877:

Labeling any group of editors a "cabal" is clearly a personal attack.

2094:" If you don't with to use WR, for whatever reason (and may I suggest 4409:

I would personally have appreciated such a response. As to the other

66:

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

4625:

That's it, finally, and I apologize for this egregious violation of

4024:

expresses eloquently Ludwigs' failure to understand the guidance on

4021: 3836:

It was therefore disappointing to find that a subsequent thread at

4505:

Ridiculous issues are raised as NPOV violations. Most recently on

3546: 3531: 2042: 31:

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

2752:

I consider the label "ID cabal" to be a personal attack, so yes.

2437:

Agreed, and I'm a Friendly, not an Expert. I know my place : )

4550:

Mistakes were made, we are aware of them, and we can solve them.

4117:

Not bad for a page that hasn't changed substantially since 2005.

2461:

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

1340:

is this standard RFC format? Isn't that what talk pages are for?

743:

Sceptre, Sxeptomaniac, SirFozzie, LaraLove, Giggy, and Random832

94:

or serves as a non-helpful backdrop of drama and poor feelings.

4176:

As Gnixon said, this is not unusual, but it does need to stop.

2767:

keep. And yes, I realise that I've been part of the problem.

2201:

Mediation is a good way to halt attacks and focus on content.

292:

ESPECIALLY avoid using loaded terms to describe other editors.

3252:

Category:Signatories of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism"

2257:

groups make efforts not to intrude on the other's territory.

4511:

It is biased because it uses the phrase "nominal dollars"...

3474:, etc. and if they edit within the policies and guidelines ( 3371:'properly sourced' is interpreted in such a way that it can 1687:

unfocused and unproductive accurately summarises this RFC.--

4602:

type debate would be far more instructive than arbitration.

3723:

it devolves into "soap opera". I say, let it go to ArbCom

2957:

A good start indeed, and one I think all could agree with.

4365:

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

4085:

IS NOT A NEUTRAL PRESENTATION OF OTHERWISE NEUTRAL FACTS.

3076:

are written not by collaboration, but by power politics.

2696:

My recommendation on how to limit this disruption is for

1659:

Image:I IZ SERIUS ADMNIM THIZ IZ SERIUS BIZNIS lolcat.jpg

1222:- fixed, don't know why I couldn't find that diff before. 3357:

to be defined there in terms of its critics. Shades of

1424:

tweaked slightly per Gnixon on 22:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

4610:

us, how we should deal with these difficult situations.

3569: 3564: 3562: 3560: 3558: 3556: 3554: 3552: 3543: 3536: 3534: 1864: 1860: 1857: 1851: 1837: 1835: 1818: 1815: 1808: 1806: 1230: 1226: 1199: 998: 797: 768: 766: 764: 762: 760: 758: 756: 314: 376:

OrangeMarlin has a history of treating wikipedia as a

4428:

was completely in line with the letter and spirit of

3006:

Knowledge (XXG) is very much equal to pseudoscience.

2524: 2039:

who do you think you're kidding?; everything is dead

3607:For the record, I was made aware of this statement 3364:at any rate, the loop operates (in part) like this 1403:

Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Moulton

4477:. Well, one thing is that time and time again, as 2789:is a personal attack and is uncivil. So I agree. 2240:from above is unreasonable and overtly insulting. 4016:Re afterthought - structural critique by Ludwigs2 1137:As I read it, this is what the arbcomm asked for. 993:Response to Random832's claim of being uninvolved 398:Knowledge (XXG):Requests_for_arbitration/Jim62sch 4148:Excellent example of a very typical reception. 3397:I think this was characterized, somewhere, as a 1029:) 08:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC) More to the point - 4613:Consider supporting a strong implementation of 4526: 4447: 4395: 4022:#afterthought - structural critique by Ludwigs2 2466:concerned, and create needless bad feelings. 1115:Knowledge (XXG):RFAR#Intelligent_design_editors 3830: 2891:Yup. "ID cabal" is just as bad as "ID fan". - 1196:some of the users on one so-called "side" have 1013:he's clearly involved himself in this matter. 778:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject intelligent design 774:Knowledge (XXG):Harassment#Off-wiki_harassment 4076:wikilawyering, rapid-fire triumvirate on the 1339: 247:Accurate and neutral summary of the problem. 8: 741:What I'd like to see out of this RFC is for 4000:per KC, it's bullshit and I'm tired of it. 3825: 2071: 1859:and remain neutral regarding the deletion. 3845: 3401:though I'd have to hunt for the source... 3209:Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 2980:Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 1669:Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 138:The desired outcome portion, at this time. 1034:part of the harassment, s/he's certainly 992: 780:members at WikipediaReview as seen here: 1238:is thoroughly and rightfully rejected. 365:OrangeMarlin also shares a history with 2050:to, but as KillerChihuahua points out: 306:User_talk:Guettarda#Oh_for_God.27s_sake 3328:afterthought - structural critique by 2027:. To accuse us of cabalism is absurd. 1788:Regarding the statement of the dispute 4532:put it, are haunting many talk pages. 3423:Editors who endorse this afterthought 2030:Regarding the "shitstorm" comment, I 7: 2813:and all alleged cliques and cabals. 1266:Response to this R832's outside view 1121:Other users who endorse this summary 1017:Other users who endorse this summary 384:for more evidence of this behavior. 106:Other users who endorse this summary 18:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for comment 4528:The ghosts of previous editors, as 3542:showed up and left a veiled threat 3504:, I responded to a comment made by 429:Posts no evidence to support that. 4266:hundreds and hundreds of others?-- 2739:would be another major piece, and 24: 4701: 4596:Scientific Dissent from Darwinism 3500:During the first week of May, on 3250:biographies in this topic space, 1558:The "desired outcome" is a joke. 4465:Why I ended up on the other side 1732:, I think this case is ripe for 424:This statement has said it all. 4459:secret arts of policy shortcuts 3310:A GOOD STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES 2065:Response to Odd nature by Giggy 1678:It always was a waste of time. 821:Of course, I'd appreciate this. 4369:Atheism and Intelligent Design 4047:I entered the neighborhood of 4043:View by newcomer Championdante 3482:) then there isn't a problem. 3248:WP:COATRACK#The Attack Article 2607:Users who endorse this section 2470:Users who endorse this section 2314:I basically agree with this.-- 2261:Users who endorse this section 2164:Users who endorse this section 2109:Users who endorse this section 2060:Users who endorse this section 1878:Users who endorse this section 1544:improve the RfC or abort it. 1429:Users who endorse this section 1205:Those Who Endorse this section 803:Those Who Endorse this section 470:Those who endorse this section 1: 4633:Editors who endorse this view 4579:Decide if a new noticeboard, 4560:Concerned editors, watchlist 4226:Editors who endorse this view 4143:Editors who endorse this view 3905:Editors who endorse this view 3741:Editors who endorse this view 3589:Editors who endorse this view 3201:Editors who endorse this view 3084:Editors who endorse this view 2988:Editors who endorse this view 2743:would help round things out. 1793: 1760:Editors who endorse this view 1488:Since I've generally avoided 731:23:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC) 274:19:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC) 4260:Editors who oppose this view 4191:Dear Felonious Monk, et al. 3842:ID Cabal Request for Comment 3268:the thing you're "battling" 3207:This rings true. Thanks. -- 3170:carrying on across pages. 2973:Outside view by Tony Sidaway 2737:Knowledge (XXG):Don't assume 2716:Users who support this idea: 1265: 534:- especially the conclusion. 3789:Comment on Ling.Nut section 3709:21:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC) 2001:21:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC) 718:21:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC) 4756: 3831:#View by User:Rocksanddirt 2037:And regarding good faith: 4740:21:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC) 4716:21:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC) 4662:23:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC) 4648:20:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC) 4284:20:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC) 4254:20:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC) 4240:13:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC) 4221:04:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC) 4181:20:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC) 4172:02:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC) 4158:04:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC) 4096:03:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC) 3996:03:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC) 3983:20:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC) 3974:13:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC) 3953:00:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC) 3940:23:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC) 3927:23:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC) 3899:07:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC) 3881:21:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC) 3812:18:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC) 3783:14:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC) 3768:00:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC) 3754:12:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC) 3736:12:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC) 3696:00:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC) 3679:23:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC) 3670:15:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC) 3656:14:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC) 3640:14:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC) 3625:06:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC) 3603:06:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC) 3584:03:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC) 3399:deficiency of efficiency, 3320:22:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC) 3306:14:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC) 3285:01:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC) 3259:22:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC) 3242:21:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC) 3228:12:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC) 3212:08:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC) 3196:07:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC) 3151:23:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC) 3143:06:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC) 3130:03:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC) 3117:03:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC) 3102:06:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC) 3041:00:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC) 3028:02:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC) 3015:21:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC) 3002:23:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC) 2983:16:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 2953:03:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC) 2939:02:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC) 2923:19:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC) 2914:21:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC) 2901:03:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC) 2887:23:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC) 2873:06:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC) 2855:04:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 2840:03:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 2823:03:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 2805:02:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 2777:02:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 2762:21:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 2748:20:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 2731:16:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 2711:00:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC) 2679:19:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC) 2661:22:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC) 2634:14:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC) 2621:19:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC) 2602:18:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC) 2558:has said, in a nutshell, 2541:02:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC) 2519:18:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC) 2506:17:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC) 2492:16:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC) 2433:20:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC) 2425:04:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC) 2412:16:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC) 2395:23:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC) 2378:18:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC) 2358:18:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC) 2345:17:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC) 2332:16:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC) 2308:15:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC) 2290:15:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC) 2275:15:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC) 2216:19:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 2197:02:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC) 2188:13:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC) 2178:13:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC) 2147:10:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC) 2135:02:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC) 2127:10:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC) 2088:provisional posting rules 1988:10:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC) 1976:03:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC) 1963:02:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC) 1953:15:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC) 1941:15:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC) 1924:10:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC) 1903:10:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC) 1893:03:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC) 1873:03:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC) 1774:21:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC) 1755:15:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC) 1697:03:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC) 1683:20:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC) 1672:03:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC) 1653:13:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC) 1639:16:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC) 1623:10:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC) 1610:18:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC) 1590:10:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC) 1573:23:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC) 1554:23:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC) 1539:22:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC) 1525:21:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC) 1511:21:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC) 1497:21:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC) 1484:20:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC) 1463:19:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC) 1439:19:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC) 1421:19:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC) 1379:10:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC) 1362:23:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC) 1354:19:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC) 1334:15:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC) 1313:15:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC) 1297:04:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC) 1284:19:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC) 1260:15:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC) 1243:20:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC) 1220:18:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC) 1180:13:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC) 1159:04:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC) 1146:12:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC) 1135:08:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC) 1098:13:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC) 1077:15:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC) 1061:04:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC) 1048:08:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC) 987:13:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC) 966:04:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC) 953:06:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 933:15:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC) 920:04:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC) 903:22:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC) 887:18:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC) 865:18:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC) 850:17:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC) 837:17:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC) 817:17:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC) 705:21:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC) 692:06:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC) 679:04:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC) 670:22:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC) 656:10:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC) 644:03:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC) 631:02:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC) 620:18:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC) 610:00:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC) 592:19:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC) 568:18:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC) 554:16:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC) 541:16:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC) 532:16:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC) 519:10:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC) 509:09:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC) 492:09:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC) 484:02:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC) 465:00:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC) 257:04:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC) 243:06:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 223:22:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC) 207:19:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC) 195:17:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC) 175:16:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC) 163:21:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC) 150:20:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC) 136:20:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC) 122:20:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC) 4696:22:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 4677:22:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC) 4339:17:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC) 4299:07:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC) 4138:00:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC) 4122:The tone of the Talk at 4038:20:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC) 4010:00:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC) 3452:22:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC) 3438:19:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC) 3418:19:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC) 3157:Outside view by Ludwigs2 3054:00:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC) 2967:00:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC) 2666:"Reply to Cla68": huh? 2447:00:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC) 2222:View by ScienceApologist 2011:I actually asked for an 1711:00:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC) 36:Statement of the dispute 4309:. As was shown in the 3826:#Viewpoint of SirFozzie 3060:View by involved Gnixon 2072:#Response by Odd nature 1799:Talk:Intelligent design 1736:; IMHO the real debate 1647:The Hand That Feeds You 4534: 4451: 4407: 4319:cdesign proponentsists 3846:#Outside view by Cla68 3838:Knowledge (XXG) Review 3514:article. Soon after, 3502:Knowledge (XXG) Review 3292:The Skeptical Inquirer 2057: 1828:Response to Odd nature 1724:As I have also stated 737:Response by Odd nature 331:Link to ANI discussion 287:Viewpoint of SirFozzie 2556:User:ScienceApologist 2052: 2021:User talk:Jimbo Wales 4556:Instead, I propose: 4432:: we do not take an 3394:doing a good job. 4323:certain features... 4120:jewel of consensus. 2025:User talk:Phaedriel 1530:be kept on target-- 4684:Intelligent design 4441:otherwise, citing 4357:Pursuit of Justice 4124:Intelligent design 4083:Intelligent design 4078:Intelligent design 4049:Intelligent design 3817:View by dave souza 3359:white man's burden 2701:that crap out". -- 2233:Civility guideline 2013:edit overlap check 1665:Intelligent Design 1490:Intelligent design 1391:Intelligent Design 446:WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND 4735: 4279: 3969: 3807: 3345: 3013: 2912: 2803: 2687:User:Rocksanddirt 2600: 2549:User:Orangemarlin 2487: 2376: 2327: 2144: 2090:, specifically, " 1985: 1951: 1939: 1782:User:Sxeptomaniac 1608: 1425: 1407:User talk:Moulton 1329: 1258: 1175: 1104:Response to Ali'i 1093: 982: 882: 835: 676:Kim van der Linde 653: 618: 340:User:Orangemarlin 270: 266: 193: 173: 4747: 4736: 4733: 4638:It's the Truth. 4619:quality versions 4453:Arguing against 4280: 4277: 4187:View by Scott610 4007: 3970: 3967: 3924: 3921: 3918: 3844:", and that the 3808: 3805: 3715:Outside view by 3653: 3648: 3458:Outside view by 3415: 3412: 3341: 3335: 3332: 3193: 3190: 3140: 3137: 3114: 3109: 3051: 3010: 2964: 2950: 2947: 2909: 2809:This applies to 2802: 2800: 2795: 2676: 2673: 2670: 2658: 2655: 2652: 2599: 2597: 2592: 2488: 2485: 2444: 2409: 2406: 2403: 2375: 2373: 2368: 2362:Right on dude. 2328: 2325: 2300:ScienceApologist 2267:ScienceApologist 2203:Formal mediation 2143: 2086:Please see WR's 2017:User talk:Alison 1984: 1948: 1937: 1933: 1931: 1708: 1648: 1636: 1633: 1630: 1607: 1605: 1600: 1571: 1536: 1459: 1453: 1447: 1423: 1330: 1327: 1310: 1307: 1304: 1256: 1252: 1250: 1186:Outside view by 1176: 1173: 1094: 1091: 1074: 1071: 1068: 983: 980: 925:ScienceApologist 900: 897: 894: 883: 880: 834: 832: 827: 667: 652: 617: 588: 582: 576: 546:Kyaa the Catlord 369:, and supported 357:Statements like 271: 268: 264: 220: 217: 214: 192: 190: 185: 170: 4755: 4754: 4750: 4749: 4748: 4746: 4745: 4744: 4732: 4704: 4635: 4600:Rosalind Picard 4546: 4467: 4426:Rosalind Picard 4422: 4371: 4359: 4350: 4276: 4262: 4228: 4189: 4145: 4065:User:Dave_souza 4045: 4018: 4005: 3980:KillerChihuahua 3966: 3922: 3919: 3916: 3907: 3819: 3804: 3791: 3743: 3720: 3651: 3646: 3644:Same as giggy. 3623: 3591: 3512:Rosalind Picard 3463: 3425: 3413: 3410: 3338: 3333: 3330: 3203: 3191: 3188: 3159: 3138: 3135: 3112: 3107: 3100: 3086: 3062: 3049: 2990: 2975: 2962: 2948: 2945: 2920:KillerChihuahua 2871: 2796: 2791: 2787:fringe theories 2718: 2690: 2674: 2671: 2668: 2656: 2653: 2650: 2645: 2609: 2593: 2588: 2552: 2539: 2523:Per point 1 of 2484: 2472: 2458: 2442: 2430:KillerChihuahua 2407: 2404: 2401: 2369: 2364: 2324: 2298:, for example. 2263: 2224: 2166: 2158: 2125: 2111: 2067: 2062: 2009: 2007:View by Sceptre 1935: 1929: 1922: 1880: 1830: 1790: 1785: 1762: 1743:its parent page 1722: 1706: 1701:Good analysis. 1680:KillerChihuahua 1646: 1634: 1631: 1628: 1601: 1596: 1588: 1559: 1532: 1457: 1451: 1445: 1431: 1387: 1384: 1377: 1342: 1326: 1308: 1305: 1302: 1268: 1254: 1248: 1207: 1191: 1172: 1123: 1106: 1103: 1090: 1072: 1069: 1066: 1019: 995: 979: 898: 895: 892: 879: 828: 823: 805: 739: 661: 615:Nousernamesleft 586: 580: 574: 507: 472: 438: 422: 419:User:Odd nature 411: 392: 343: 303: 289: 284: 262: 218: 215: 212: 186: 181: 108: 100: 91: 83: 72: 64: 48: 46:Desired outcome 38: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4753: 4751: 4743: 4742: 4719: 4718: 4703: 4700: 4699: 4698: 4679: 4664: 4650: 4634: 4631: 4623: 4622: 4611: 4603: 4584: 4577: 4573: 4545: 4542: 4522: 4521: 4514: 4466: 4463: 4421: 4415: 4370: 4367: 4358: 4355: 4349: 4343: 4342: 4341: 4303: 4302: 4301: 4261: 4258: 4257: 4256: 4242: 4227: 4224: 4188: 4185: 4184: 4183: 4174: 4160: 4144: 4141: 4127: 4121: 4118: 4103: 4102: 4086: 4060:User:Guettarda 4044: 4041: 4017: 4014: 4013: 4012: 3998: 3985: 3976: 3955: 3942: 3929: 3923:sch 3917:Jim 3912:Britney Spears 3906: 3903: 3902: 3901: 3871: 3870: 3866: 3818: 3815: 3790: 3787: 3786: 3785: 3770: 3756: 3742: 3739: 3719: 3713: 3712: 3711: 3698: 3683:Exactly so. ++ 3681: 3673: 3658: 3642: 3627: 3617: 3605: 3590: 3587: 3462: 3456: 3455: 3454: 3440: 3424: 3421: 3387: 3386: 3383: 3379: 3376: 3369: 3347: 3346: 3337: 3326: 3325: 3324: 3323: 3322: 3308: 3287: 3261: 3244: 3230: 3202: 3199: 3158: 3155: 3154: 3153: 3145: 3132: 3119: 3104: 3094: 3085: 3082: 3061: 3058: 3057: 3056: 3043: 3030: 3017: 3004: 2989: 2986: 2974: 2971: 2970: 2969: 2955: 2941: 2925: 2916: 2903: 2889: 2875: 2865: 2857: 2842: 2825: 2807: 2779: 2764: 2750: 2733: 2717: 2714: 2689: 2683: 2682: 2681: 2675:sch 2669:Jim 2657:sch 2651:Jim 2644: 2638: 2637: 2636: 2623: 2608: 2605: 2551: 2545: 2544: 2543: 2533: 2521: 2508: 2494: 2471: 2468: 2457: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2435: 2427: 2414: 2408:sch 2402:Jim 2397: 2380: 2360: 2347: 2334: 2312: 2311: 2310: 2277: 2262: 2259: 2223: 2220: 2219: 2218: 2199: 2190: 2180: 2165: 2162: 2157: 2151: 2150: 2149: 2137: 2129: 2119: 2110: 2107: 2106: 2105: 2099: 2084: 2080: 2066: 2063: 2061: 2058: 2008: 2005: 2004: 2003: 1990: 1978: 1965: 1956: 1943: 1926: 1916: 1905: 1895: 1879: 1876: 1867: 1866: 1854: 1847: 1839: 1829: 1826: 1792:I believe the 1789: 1786: 1784: 1778: 1777: 1776: 1761: 1758: 1721: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1699: 1685: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1655: 1641: 1635:sch 1629:Jim 1625: 1612: 1592: 1582: 1575: 1556: 1541: 1527: 1513: 1499: 1486: 1465: 1441: 1430: 1427: 1386: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1371: 1364: 1356: 1341: 1338: 1337: 1336: 1315: 1309:sch 1303:Jim 1299: 1286: 1267: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1245: 1223: 1206: 1203: 1190: 1188:User:Random832 1184: 1183: 1182: 1161: 1148: 1138: 1122: 1119: 1105: 1102: 1101: 1100: 1079: 1073:sch 1067:Jim 1063: 1050: 1018: 1015: 994: 991: 990: 989: 968: 955: 935: 922: 905: 899:sch 893:Jim 889: 867: 852: 839: 819: 804: 801: 800: 799: 792: 770: 750: 738: 735: 734: 733: 720: 707: 694: 681: 672: 658: 646: 633: 622: 612: 594: 570: 556: 543: 535: 521: 511: 501: 494: 486: 471: 468: 437: 436:How to fix it? 434: 421: 416: 410: 405: 391: 386: 342: 337: 335: 302: 300:User:Guettarda 297: 288: 285: 283: 280: 279: 278: 277: 276: 259: 245: 225: 219:sch 213:Jim 209: 197: 178: 165: 152: 139: 124: 107: 104: 99: 96: 90: 87: 82: 79: 71: 68: 63: 60: 59: 58: 55: 52: 47: 44: 37: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4752: 4741: 4737: 4729: 4725: 4721: 4720: 4717: 4713: 4709: 4706: 4705: 4697: 4693: 4689: 4685: 4680: 4678: 4674: 4670: 4665: 4663: 4660: 4656: 4651: 4649: 4645: 4641: 4637: 4636: 4632: 4630: 4628: 4620: 4616: 4612: 4609: 4604: 4601: 4597: 4593: 4589: 4585: 4582: 4578: 4574: 4571: 4567: 4563: 4559: 4558: 4557: 4554: 4551: 4543: 4541: 4539: 4533: 4531: 4525: 4519: 4515: 4512: 4508: 4504: 4503: 4502: 4499: 4498: 4492: 4491:look scary!) 4490: 4485: 4480: 4476: 4472: 4464: 4462: 4460: 4456: 4450: 4446: 4444: 4438: 4435: 4431: 4427: 4420: 4416: 4414: 4412: 4406: 4404: 4400: 4394: 4390: 4386: 4384: 4380: 4376: 4368: 4366: 4363: 4356: 4354: 4348: 4344: 4340: 4336: 4332: 4328: 4324: 4320: 4316: 4312: 4308: 4304: 4300: 4296: 4292: 4287: 4286: 4285: 4281: 4273: 4269: 4264: 4263: 4259: 4255: 4251: 4247: 4243: 4241: 4237: 4233: 4232:Championdante 4230: 4229: 4225: 4223: 4222: 4218: 4214: 4210: 4207: 4204: 4200: 4196: 4192: 4186: 4182: 4179: 4175: 4173: 4169: 4165: 4161: 4159: 4155: 4151: 4147: 4146: 4142: 4140: 4139: 4135: 4131: 4130:Championdante 4125: 4116: 4112: 4107: 4100: 4099: 4098: 4097: 4093: 4089: 4088:Championdante 4084: 4079: 4073: 4071: 4066: 4061: 4057: 4053: 4050: 4042: 4040: 4039: 4036: 4032: 4027: 4023: 4015: 4011: 4008: 4003: 3999: 3997: 3993: 3989: 3986: 3984: 3981: 3977: 3975: 3971: 3963: 3959: 3956: 3954: 3950: 3946: 3943: 3941: 3937: 3933: 3930: 3928: 3925: 3913: 3909: 3908: 3904: 3900: 3897: 3893: 3889: 3885: 3884: 3883: 3882: 3879: 3875: 3867: 3864: 3863: 3862: 3858: 3855: 3850: 3847: 3843: 3839: 3834: 3832: 3827: 3823: 3816: 3814: 3813: 3809: 3801: 3797: 3788: 3784: 3780: 3776: 3771: 3769: 3765: 3761: 3757: 3755: 3752: 3748: 3745: 3744: 3740: 3738: 3737: 3734: 3730: 3726: 3718: 3714: 3710: 3706: 3702: 3699: 3697: 3694: 3690: 3686: 3682: 3680: 3677: 3674: 3671: 3667: 3663: 3659: 3657: 3654: 3649: 3643: 3641: 3637: 3633: 3628: 3626: 3621: 3616: 3615: 3610: 3606: 3604: 3600: 3596: 3593: 3592: 3588: 3586: 3585: 3581: 3577: 3572: 3570: 3568: 3565: 3563: 3561: 3559: 3557: 3555: 3553: 3549: 3547: 3545:(full thread 3544: 3541: 3540:FeloniousMonk 3537: 3535: 3532: 3529: 3525: 3521: 3517: 3513: 3509: 3507: 3503: 3498: 3494: 3492: 3489: 3483: 3481: 3477: 3473: 3469: 3461: 3457: 3453: 3449: 3445: 3441: 3439: 3435: 3431: 3427: 3426: 3422: 3420: 3419: 3416: 3406: 3402: 3400: 3395: 3393: 3384: 3380: 3377: 3374: 3370: 3367: 3366: 3365: 3362: 3360: 3356: 3351: 3344: 3340: 3339: 3336: 3327: 3321: 3317: 3313: 3312:Championdante 3309: 3307: 3303: 3299: 3294: 3293: 3288: 3286: 3283: 3279: 3275: 3271: 3267: 3262: 3260: 3257: 3253: 3249: 3245: 3243: 3239: 3235: 3231: 3229: 3225: 3221: 3217: 3216: 3214: 3213: 3210: 3205: 3204: 3200: 3198: 3197: 3194: 3185: 3179: 3177: 3171: 3169: 3163: 3156: 3152: 3149: 3146: 3144: 3141: 3133: 3131: 3127: 3123: 3120: 3118: 3115: 3110: 3105: 3103: 3098: 3093: 3092: 3088: 3087: 3083: 3081: 3077: 3073: 3069: 3067: 3059: 3055: 3052: 3047: 3044: 3042: 3038: 3034: 3031: 3029: 3025: 3021: 3018: 3016: 3012: 3009: 3005: 3003: 2999: 2995: 2992: 2991: 2987: 2985: 2984: 2981: 2972: 2968: 2965: 2960: 2956: 2954: 2951: 2942: 2940: 2936: 2932: 2931: 2926: 2924: 2921: 2917: 2915: 2911: 2908: 2904: 2902: 2898: 2894: 2890: 2888: 2884: 2880: 2876: 2874: 2869: 2864: 2863: 2858: 2856: 2852: 2848: 2843: 2841: 2837: 2833: 2829: 2826: 2824: 2820: 2816: 2812: 2808: 2806: 2801: 2799: 2794: 2788: 2784: 2780: 2778: 2774: 2770: 2765: 2763: 2759: 2755: 2751: 2749: 2746: 2742: 2738: 2734: 2732: 2729: 2725: 2720: 2719: 2715: 2713: 2712: 2708: 2704: 2699: 2694: 2688: 2684: 2680: 2677: 2665: 2664: 2663: 2662: 2659: 2643: 2642:User:Jim62sch 2639: 2635: 2631: 2627: 2624: 2622: 2618: 2614: 2611: 2610: 2606: 2604: 2603: 2598: 2596: 2591: 2583: 2579: 2577: 2573: 2569: 2565: 2561: 2557: 2550: 2546: 2542: 2537: 2532: 2531: 2526: 2522: 2520: 2516: 2512: 2509: 2507: 2503: 2499: 2495: 2493: 2489: 2481: 2477: 2474: 2473: 2469: 2467: 2463: 2462: 2456: 2452: 2448: 2445: 2440: 2436: 2434: 2431: 2428: 2426: 2422: 2418: 2417:FeloniousMonk 2415: 2413: 2410: 2398: 2396: 2392: 2388: 2384: 2381: 2379: 2374: 2372: 2367: 2361: 2359: 2355: 2351: 2348: 2346: 2342: 2338: 2335: 2333: 2329: 2321: 2317: 2313: 2309: 2305: 2301: 2297: 2293: 2292: 2291: 2287: 2283: 2278: 2276: 2272: 2268: 2265: 2264: 2260: 2258: 2254: 2250: 2247: 2241: 2237: 2234: 2228: 2221: 2217: 2213: 2209: 2204: 2200: 2198: 2195: 2191: 2189: 2186: 2181: 2179: 2175: 2171: 2168: 2167: 2163: 2161: 2156: 2152: 2148: 2145: 2141: 2138: 2136: 2133: 2130: 2128: 2123: 2118: 2117: 2113: 2112: 2108: 2103: 2100: 2097: 2093: 2089: 2085: 2081: 2078: 2077: 2076: 2074: 2073: 2064: 2059: 2056: 2051: 2049: 2044: 2040: 2035: 2033: 2028: 2026: 2022: 2018: 2014: 2006: 2002: 1998: 1994: 1991: 1989: 1986: 1982: 1979: 1977: 1973: 1969: 1966: 1964: 1961: 1957: 1954: 1950: 1947: 1944: 1942: 1938: 1932: 1927: 1925: 1920: 1915: 1914: 1909: 1906: 1904: 1901: 1900: 1896: 1894: 1890: 1886: 1882: 1881: 1877: 1875: 1874: 1871: 1865: 1861: 1858: 1855: 1852: 1848: 1845: 1840: 1838: 1836: 1832: 1831: 1827: 1825: 1822: 1820: 1817: 1813: 1811: 1809: 1807: 1802: 1800: 1795: 1787: 1783: 1779: 1775: 1771: 1767: 1766:Championdante 1764: 1763: 1759: 1757: 1756: 1752: 1748: 1744: 1739: 1735: 1731: 1727: 1720: 1716: 1712: 1709: 1704: 1700: 1698: 1694: 1690: 1686: 1684: 1681: 1677: 1673: 1670: 1666: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1656: 1654: 1651: 1649: 1642: 1640: 1637: 1626: 1624: 1620: 1616: 1613: 1611: 1606: 1604: 1599: 1593: 1591: 1586: 1581: 1580: 1576: 1574: 1570: 1569: 1567: 1562: 1557: 1555: 1551: 1547: 1542: 1540: 1537: 1535: 1528: 1526: 1522: 1518: 1514: 1512: 1509: 1505: 1500: 1498: 1495: 1491: 1487: 1485: 1481: 1477: 1473: 1469: 1466: 1464: 1461: 1460: 1454: 1449: 1448: 1442: 1440: 1437: 1433: 1432: 1428: 1426: 1422: 1419: 1413: 1410: 1408: 1404: 1399: 1395: 1392: 1385:View by Ali'i 1380: 1375: 1370: 1369: 1365: 1363: 1360: 1357: 1355: 1351: 1347: 1344: 1343: 1335: 1331: 1323: 1319: 1316: 1314: 1311: 1300: 1298: 1294: 1290: 1289:FeloniousMonk 1287: 1285: 1281: 1277: 1276:PouponOnToast 1274: 1273: 1272: 1261: 1257: 1251: 1246: 1244: 1241: 1237: 1232: 1228: 1224: 1221: 1217: 1213: 1209: 1208: 1204: 1202: 1200: 1197: 1189: 1185: 1181: 1177: 1169: 1165: 1162: 1160: 1156: 1152: 1151:FeloniousMonk 1149: 1147: 1144: 1139: 1136: 1132: 1128: 1125: 1124: 1120: 1118: 1116: 1111: 1099: 1095: 1087: 1083: 1080: 1078: 1075: 1064: 1062: 1058: 1054: 1053:FeloniousMonk 1051: 1049: 1045: 1041: 1037: 1032: 1028: 1024: 1021: 1020: 1016: 1014: 1012: 1010: 1008: 1006: 1004: 1002: 999: 988: 984: 976: 972: 969: 967: 963: 959: 958:FeloniousMonk 956: 954: 950: 947: 944: 940: 936: 934: 930: 926: 923: 921: 917: 913: 909: 906: 904: 901: 890: 888: 884: 876: 872: 868: 866: 862: 858: 857:PouponOnToast 853: 851: 847: 843: 840: 838: 833: 831: 826: 820: 818: 814: 810: 807: 806: 802: 798: 796: 793: 790: 788: 786: 784: 782: 779: 775: 771: 769: 767: 765: 763: 761: 759: 757: 755: 751: 748: 747: 746: 744: 736: 732: 728: 724: 721: 719: 715: 711: 708: 706: 702: 698: 697:Championdante 695: 693: 689: 685: 682: 680: 677: 673: 671: 668: 666: 665: 659: 657: 654: 650: 647: 645: 641: 637: 634: 632: 629: 626: 623: 621: 616: 613: 611: 608: 607: 606: 601: 600: 595: 593: 590: 589: 583: 578: 577: 571: 569: 565: 561: 560:PouponOnToast 557: 555: 551: 547: 544: 542: 539: 536: 533: 529: 525: 522: 520: 517: 516: 512: 510: 505: 500: 499: 495: 493: 490: 487: 485: 481: 477: 474: 473: 469: 467: 466: 462: 458: 454: 449: 447: 443: 435: 433: 430: 428: 420: 417: 415: 409: 406: 404: 401: 399: 395: 390: 389:User:Jim62sch 387: 385: 383: 379: 374: 372: 371:User:Jim62sch 368: 367:User:Jim62sch 363: 360: 355: 353: 349: 341: 338: 336: 333: 332: 328: 324: 320: 319: 315: 312: 311: 307: 301: 298: 296: 293: 286: 281: 275: 272: 260: 258: 254: 250: 249:FeloniousMonk 246: 244: 240: 237: 234: 230: 226: 224: 221: 210: 208: 205: 201: 198: 196: 191: 189: 184: 179: 176: 172: 169: 166: 164: 160: 156: 153: 151: 147: 143: 140: 137: 133: 129: 125: 123: 119: 115: 114:PouponOnToast 112: 111: 110: 109: 105: 103: 98:Personalizing 97: 95: 88: 86: 80: 78: 76: 69: 67: 61: 56: 53: 50: 49: 45: 43: 42: 35: 33: 32: 28: 19: 4708:Rocksanddirt 4624: 4607: 4555: 4549: 4547: 4535: 4527: 4523: 4510: 4506: 4495: 4493: 4483: 4475:Orangemarlin 4468: 4452: 4448: 4439: 4433: 4423: 4408: 4402: 4396: 4391: 4387: 4375:Project Merz 4372: 4364: 4360: 4351: 4326: 4322: 4318: 4314: 4310: 4306: 4246:Rocksanddirt 4211: 4208: 4205: 4201: 4197: 4193: 4190: 4178:Sχeptomaniac 4114: 4108: 4104: 4074: 4058: 4054: 4046: 4019: 3872: 3859: 3851: 3840:was titled " 3835: 3824: 3820: 3792: 3724: 3721: 3676:Sχeptomaniac 3662:Rocksanddirt 3612: 3573: 3550: 3499: 3495: 3484: 3464: 3444:Rocksanddirt 3407: 3403: 3398: 3396: 3391: 3388: 3372: 3363: 3354: 3352: 3348: 3342: 3290: 3269: 3265: 3234:Rocksanddirt 3206: 3183: 3180: 3175: 3172: 3167: 3164: 3160: 3148:Sχeptomaniac 3089: 3078: 3074: 3070: 3065: 3063: 2976: 2928: 2860: 2827: 2810: 2797: 2792: 2783:undue weight 2745:Sχeptomaniac 2703:Rocksanddirt 2697: 2695: 2691: 2646: 2594: 2589: 2584: 2580: 2553: 2528: 2525:my statement 2464: 2460: 2459: 2382: 2370: 2365: 2255: 2251: 2242: 2238: 2229: 2225: 2194:Orderinchaos 2159: 2132:Orderinchaos 2114: 2091: 2070:Response to 2069: 2068: 2053: 2047: 2036: 2031: 2029: 2010: 1960:Orderinchaos 1911: 1907: 1897: 1870:Sχeptomaniac 1868: 1823: 1819:despite this 1816:this one was 1803: 1791: 1780:Response by 1737: 1723: 1644: 1602: 1597: 1577: 1565: 1564: 1533: 1494:Sχeptomaniac 1455: 1443: 1414: 1411: 1400: 1396: 1388: 1366: 1359:Orderinchaos 1269: 1195: 1192: 1107: 1035: 1030: 996: 945: 907: 829: 824: 742: 740: 663: 662: 604: 603: 598: 584: 572: 538:Sχeptomaniac 524:Rocksanddirt 513: 496: 489:Orderinchaos 450: 440: 439: 431: 425: 423: 412: 402: 396: 393: 378:Battleground 375: 364: 358: 356: 344: 334: 329: 325: 321: 317: 313: 309: 304: 294: 290: 235: 187: 182: 128:Rocksanddirt 101: 92: 84: 75:User:Moulton 73: 65: 40: 39: 30: 29: 25: 4588:Itsmejudith 4434:eventualist 3701:Ottava Rima 3080:functions. 2626:John Nevard 1993:Ottava Rima 1515:Well said. 710:Ottava Rima 427:discussing. 62:Description 4655:dave souza 4617:, such as 4615:WP:FLAGREV 4544:What to do 4530:PelleSmith 4489:these guys 4484:statements 4399:neutrality 4311:Kitzmiller 4070:User:Hrafn 4031:dave souza 3932:PhilKnight 3892:dave souza 3874:dave souza 3760:PhilKnight 3524:dave souza 3480:WP:CANVASS 3020:PhilKnight 2994:Odd nature 2879:Odd nature 2754:Odd nature 2724:dave souza 2613:Odd nature 2498:Odd nature 2455:User:Filll 2337:Odd nature 2282:PhilKnight 2170:PhilKnight 2155:PhilKnight 2055:deduction. 1805:evidence. 1517:PhilKnight 1504:dave souza 1236:WP:BADSITE 1229:and later 809:Odd nature 408:User:Filll 200:dave souza 142:Odd nature 4592:WP:NPOV/N 4562:WP:NPOV/N 4455:consensus 4331:Guettarda 4101:Addendum: 3945:Guettarda 3647:LaraLove| 3595:Everyking 3516:Guettarda 3108:LaraLove| 3033:Guettarda 2859:Per Dan. 2832:Shot info 2811:all sides 2769:Guettarda 2576:WP:FRINGE 2572:WP:VERIFY 2511:Guettarda 2496:Spot on. 2387:Shot info 2350:Guettarda 2296:WP:EXPERT 1885:SirFozzie 1734:mediation 1346:Random832 1212:Random832 1127:Guettarda 1040:Guettarda 1023:Guettarda 912:Shot info 842:Guettarda 684:Everyking 664:Wizardman 476:SirFozzie 457:SirFozzie 453:Bad Faith 155:Guettarda 4627:WP:TL;DR 4581:WP:OWN/N 4570:WP:BLP/N 4507:Expelled 4497:Expelled 4479:Amerique 4345:View by 4291:Scott610 4213:Scott610 3988:ZayZayEM 3775:*Dan T.* 3725:en masse 3717:Ling.Nut 3520:Jim62sch 3298:*Dan T.* 3008:Amerique 2907:Amerique 2815:*Dan T.* 2698:EVERYONE 2685:View by 2640:View by 2560:civility 2547:View by 2453:View by 2153:View by 2048:supposed 2043:Dalekian 1946:Amerique 1930:LaraLove 1794:Cabalism 1717:View by 1689:ZayZayEM 1350:contribs 1249:LaraLove 1231:withdrew 1216:contribs 1038:in it. 1036:involved 949:contribs 939:Casliber 937:Cheers, 348:WP:CIVIL 282:Response 265:HEFFIELD 239:contribs 229:Casliber 227:Cheers, 168:Amerique 89:Cabalism 81:Civility 4688:Merzbow 4566:WP:RS/N 4419:Moulton 4379:Merzbow 4313:trial, 4026:WP:TALK 4006:Tropics 3869:merits. 3506:Moulton 3468:WP:NPOV 3411:Ludwigs 3382:sources 3331:Ludwigs 3270:against 3256:GRBerry 3189:Ludwigs 3136:Ludwigs 3050:Tropics 2963:Tropics 2946:Ludwigs 2893:Merzbow 2828:Endorse 2564:WP:NPOV 2443:Tropics 2383:Endorse 2185:GRBerry 2140:Viridae 2102:Lol wut 1981:Viridae 1899:Sceptre 1883:BINGO. 1707:Tropics 1615:JoshuaZ 1240:GRBerry 908:Endorse 649:Viridae 628:Fierce! 625:Mike H. 515:Sceptre 70:Moulton 4669:Gnixon 4640:Merzul 4594:about 4568:, and 4538:Gnixon 4518:source 4443:WP:BLP 4430:WP:BLP 4417:About 4383:Merzul 4347:Merzul 4327:Pandas 4315:Pandas 4307:Pandas 4150:Gnixon 3632:Gnixon 3526:, and 3488:ArbCom 3476:WP:NPA 3472:WP:NOR 3430:Gnixon 3355:forced 3266:become 3220:Gnixon 2847:Gnixon 2798:Marlin 2793:Orange 2741:WP:NPA 2595:Marlin 2590:Orange 2574:, and 2371:Marlin 2366:Orange 2246:WP:BLP 2023:, and 1936:|Talk| 1603:Marlin 1598:Orange 1546:Gnixon 1534:Cailil 1476:Merzul 1468:Merzul 1255:|Talk| 830:Marlin 825:Orange 723:NewbyG 352:WP:NPA 188:Marlin 183:Orange 4724:Filll 4576:user. 4471:Filll 4268:Filll 4164:Cla68 3958:Filll 3796:Filll 3614:giggy 3576:Cla68 3528:Filll 3490:case 3460:Cla68 3122:Cla68 3091:giggy 2862:giggy 2568:WP:RS 2530:giggy 2476:Filll 2316:Filll 2116:giggy 1968:Cla68 1913:giggy 1908:BINGO 1579:giggy 1436:Ali'i 1418:Ali'i 1368:giggy 1318:Filll 1227:filed 1164:Filll 1143:Ali'i 1082:Filll 971:Filll 871:Filll 636:Cla68 498:giggy 444:from 16:< 4728:talk 4712:talk 4692:talk 4673:talk 4659:talk 4644:talk 4608:show 4473:and 4411:Merz 4403:both 4335:talk 4295:talk 4272:talk 4250:talk 4236:talk 4217:talk 4168:talk 4154:talk 4134:talk 4092:talk 4035:talk 4020:The 4002:Doc 3992:talk 3962:talk 3949:talk 3936:talk 3896:talk 3890:. . 3888:here 3878:talk 3800:talk 3779:talk 3764:talk 3747:Ling 3729:Ling 3705:talk 3666:talk 3652:Talk 3636:talk 3609:here 3599:talk 3580:talk 3448:talk 3434:talk 3373:only 3361:... 3316:talk 3302:talk 3238:talk 3224:talk 3184:hard 3176:only 3168:also 3126:talk 3113:Talk 3046:Doc 3037:talk 3024:talk 2998:talk 2959:Doc 2935:talk 2897:talk 2883:talk 2851:talk 2836:talk 2819:talk 2773:talk 2758:talk 2728:talk 2707:talk 2630:talk 2617:talk 2515:talk 2502:talk 2480:talk 2439:Doc 2421:talk 2399:Yep 2391:talk 2354:talk 2341:talk 2320:talk 2304:talk 2286:talk 2271:talk 2212:talk 2208:Bwrs 2174:talk 2032:knew 1997:talk 1972:talk 1889:talk 1770:talk 1751:talk 1747:Bwrs 1730:here 1728:and 1726:here 1719:bwrs 1703:Doc 1693:talk 1619:talk 1550:talk 1521:talk 1508:talk 1480:talk 1472:talk 1458:Love 1446:Lara 1405:and 1322:talk 1293:talk 1280:talk 1168:talk 1155:talk 1131:talk 1086:talk 1057:talk 1044:talk 1031:what 1027:talk 975:talk 962:talk 943:talk 929:talk 916:talk 875:talk 861:talk 846:talk 813:talk 772:Per 745:to: 727:talk 714:talk 701:talk 688:talk 640:talk 599:Neıl 587:Love 575:Lara 564:talk 550:talk 528:talk 480:talk 461:talk 350:and 269:TEEL 253:talk 233:talk 204:talk 159:talk 146:talk 132:talk 118:talk 4734:wpc 4590:on 4329:. 4278:wpc 3968:wpc 3853:on. 3806:wpc 3751:Nut 3733:Nut 3685:Lar 3548:). 3392:are 3274:Lar 3066:all 2930:DGG 2785:to 2486:wpc 2326:wpc 2096:Tor 1745:. 1568:man 1561:Mr. 1409:). 1328:wpc 1174:wpc 1092:wpc 981:wpc 881:wpc 674:-- 4738:) 4730:| 4714:) 4694:) 4675:) 4657:, 4646:) 4629:. 4564:, 4509:: 4381:, 4337:) 4297:) 4282:) 4274:| 4252:) 4238:) 4219:) 4170:) 4156:) 4136:) 4128:-- 4094:) 4033:, 3994:) 3972:) 3964:| 3951:) 3938:) 3920:62 3894:, 3876:, 3810:) 3802:| 3781:) 3766:) 3707:) 3687:: 3668:) 3660:-- 3638:) 3620::O 3611:. 3601:) 3582:) 3571:. 3538:, 3522:, 3518:, 3493:. 3478:, 3470:, 3450:) 3436:) 3318:) 3304:) 3276:: 3240:) 3226:) 3128:) 3097::O 3039:) 3026:) 3000:) 2937:) 2899:) 2885:) 2868::O 2853:) 2838:) 2830:-- 2821:) 2775:) 2760:) 2726:, 2709:) 2672:62 2654:62 2632:) 2619:) 2570:, 2566:, 2536::O 2527:. 2517:) 2504:) 2490:) 2482:| 2423:) 2405:62 2393:) 2385:-- 2356:) 2343:) 2330:) 2322:| 2306:) 2288:) 2273:) 2214:) 2176:) 2122::O 2075:. 2019:, 1999:) 1974:) 1919::O 1910:. 1891:) 1846:). 1821:) 1772:) 1753:) 1738:is 1695:) 1643:— 1632:62 1621:) 1585::O 1566:Z- 1552:) 1523:) 1506:, 1482:) 1434:-- 1416:-- 1374::O 1352:) 1332:) 1324:| 1306:62 1295:) 1282:) 1218:) 1210:-- 1178:) 1170:| 1157:) 1141:-- 1133:) 1117:. 1096:) 1088:| 1070:62 1059:) 1046:) 985:) 977:| 964:) 951:) 931:) 918:) 896:62 885:) 877:| 863:) 848:) 815:) 729:) 716:) 703:) 690:) 642:) 566:) 552:) 530:) 504::O 482:) 463:) 448:. 255:) 241:) 216:62 202:, 161:) 148:) 134:) 126:-- 120:) 4726:( 4710:( 4690:( 4671:( 4642:( 4572:! 4333:( 4293:( 4270:( 4248:( 4234:( 4215:( 4166:( 4152:( 4132:( 4090:( 3990:( 3960:( 3947:( 3934:( 3798:( 3777:( 3762:( 3749:. 3731:. 3703:( 3693:c 3691:/ 3689:t 3664:( 3634:( 3622:) 3618:( 3597:( 3578:( 3446:( 3432:( 3414:2 3334:2 3314:( 3300:( 3282:c 3280:/ 3278:t 3236:( 3222:( 3192:2 3139:2 3124:( 3099:) 3095:( 3035:( 3022:( 2996:( 2949:2 2933:( 2895:( 2881:( 2870:) 2866:( 2849:( 2834:( 2817:( 2771:( 2756:( 2705:( 2628:( 2615:( 2538:) 2534:( 2513:( 2500:( 2478:( 2419:( 2389:( 2352:( 2339:( 2318:( 2302:( 2284:( 2269:( 2210:( 2172:( 2124:) 2120:( 2104:? 1995:( 1970:( 1921:) 1917:( 1887:( 1842:( 1814:( 1768:( 1749:( 1691:( 1650:: 1617:( 1587:) 1583:( 1548:( 1519:( 1478:( 1470:( 1452:❤ 1376:) 1372:( 1348:( 1320:( 1291:( 1278:( 1214:( 1166:( 1153:( 1129:( 1084:( 1055:( 1042:( 1025:( 973:( 960:( 946:· 941:( 927:( 914:( 873:( 859:( 844:( 811:( 725:( 712:( 699:( 686:( 638:( 605:龱 581:❤ 562:( 548:( 526:( 506:) 502:( 478:( 459:( 267:S 263:S 251:( 236:· 231:( 157:( 144:( 130:( 116:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

:Requests for comment/Intelligent Design - Knowledge (XXG)

Index