Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-21 Violations of WP:Civil on Talk:Evolution

Mediation Case: 2006-05-21 Violations of WP:Civil on Talk:Evolution

Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information

Request made by: Sangil 18:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

Talk:Evolution

Who's involved?

* Sangil (myself)

* Slrubenstein (an Admin)

* Graft (an Admin)

* WAS 4.250

* Plumbago

* thx1138

* and other users

What's going on?

I have recently been trying to participate in a discussion on the Evolution talk page. It seems, however, that my views are in contradiction to the beliefs of some of the editors there, and they have repeatdly tried to silence me by resorting to personal attacks. For examples see 'Evidence'.

I have posted a warning to these users regarding WP:Civil, which has been ignored.

What would you like to change about that?

My request is that some administrator step in to stop this rather crude bullying, ans allow all views to be expressed equally (as long as they are expressed in a civil manner). I don't know what form of intervention would be preferable, but I feel that the current situation is not acceptable. I also beleive that User:Slrubenstein's attempt to "educate" users is rather problematic, and is in violation of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not in regard to WP not being a soapbox. IMHO both Slrubenstein and Graft, being admins, should be subject to some sort of disciplinary action (by Arbitration if need be) as they have most obviously acted in an un-admin like manner, and have repeatedly violated WP policy.

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

I have no problem in solving this publicly. In any ase I can be reached via my email.

Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself, and accept a mediation assignment in a different case?

This is, following the Categorical Imperative, the idea that you might want to do

what you expect others to do. You don't have to, of course, that's why it's a question.

Of course

Mediator response

It seems to me that this case is inappropriate for mediation because the other sides don't appear to be interested in this. I will attempt to contact all invovled and ask if they are interested; if so I'm happy to mediate this case if others have no objection. --Xyrael ^T 08:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

This isn't going anywhere. It seems to me that both sides are arguing the same point at each other. Therefore, I propose a solution that you all agree to try and be more civil, and forget past grievances. Older discussions should be restarted on the article's talkpage, from the beginning, with a fresh assumption of good faith. This isn't great, but it's the best we have right now as this page has degraded. Please sign below if you're happy with this, as otherwise we're not moving. Thanks. --Xyrael ^T 10:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It appears this case has fallen into inactivity, so I am closing it. Should further trouble arise, I would recommend that a new case request is filed. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 06:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

Please report evidence in this section with {{Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Evidence}} for misconduct and {{Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Evidence3RR}} for 3RR violations. If you need help ask a mediator or an advocate. Evidence is of limited use in mediation as the mediator has no authority. Providing some evidence may, however, be useful in making both sides act more civil.
Wikipedia:Etiquette: Although it's understandably difficult in a heated argument, if the other party is not as civil as you'd like them to be, make sure to be more civil than him or her, not less.

Slrubenstein

• think there is still value to being able to tell ignorant dogmatics like Sangil that their points are addressed in the article
• Now, Sangil may never be educated by the article, but smarter or less dogmatic readers who listen to creationist (or "ID") arguments because they are very open-minded or naive may indeed be educated by our article

WAS 4.250

• You display no such knowledge. You display gross ignorance. Who gave you the degree? Genesisversity

Plumbago

• he was countering your ridiculous statement

thx1138

• That's complete BS
• You posted a blatant lie. What kind of response did you expect?

Graft

• Arguing with you is like trying to hit a puppy by throwing a live bee at it
• I was going to do what WAS did and insult Sangil's education, but no need

These edits are taken from Talk:evolution#Kinds and Talk:evolution#Misconceptions_sections

Compromise offers

This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.

Comments by others

While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.

Hi. Seeing the mediation request, I stopped by Talk:Evolution and read the "Kinds" section. A few quick observations:

• Wikipedia is a place where we explain other people's views, not argue our own. Sangil seems to be interested in debating evolution, which is out of bounds. If there is any place for debate here, it is over what other people believe about things.
• My understanding of the topic is that the vast majority of scientists in the field support the modern evolutionary synthesis. If the views that Sangil is espousing are an important minority view, then he should propose verifiable proof of that and ask politely for inclusion of a paragraph on the minority view.
• The comments quoted by Sangil above are indeed uncivil. Editors should always keep a cool head and refrain from personal attacks.
• I don't want to diminish the previous point, but it's worth mentioning that it takes two to tango. Sangil, I saw no evidence in your comments that you joined the discussion out of a sincere desire to find consensus on some edit that would improve the article. Especially on a page with such a contentious history, it is important to demonstrate good faith, so that others are not unduly strained in assuming it.
• I commend User:Jefffire for trying to bring things back on topic, and encourage all editors to similarly avoid unnecessary debate.

I hope that helps. --William Pietri 16:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Disclaimer: I briefly added to the discussion in question, but to avoid unnecessary debate refrained from responding to comments about my contribution. While the discussion was of some use in pointing out the need for work on the misconceptions section, Sangil seemed to be extremely sensitive about possible incivility by others while being pretty cutting himself. His statement that "I feel I should say that it is my custom to alert editors on the Talk page before i make changes to an article. If no one responds, I will take it as an approval of my actions. Any reverting done after I have been ignored on the Talk page would be cause for mediation. And given your rather uncivil behaviour, I would not recommend you this course of action." suggested intentional disruptive use of procedures rather than any attempt to achieve consensus. ...dave souza, talk 08:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• My "BS" comment may have been uncivil, but my comment accurately accusing Sangil of lying certainly wasn't. thx1138 09:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree. To lie is to knowingly say something false with the intention to deceive. You believe some of his statements are incorrect, but that's only a third of the way there. Why not assume good faith and treat it as an earnest error? And even if you have reason to suspect that all three criteria are met for a lie, there are more polite ways to raise the issue than outright accusation. E.g., "I don't see how you can sincerely say both X and Y." --William Pietri

You really need to look at context. Sangil said "Yes, it's universally known that thx1138's (rather vulgar) personal opinion is equivalent to scientific proof. How sad. Like I said before, if you have nothing intelligent to say, better not say anything. This particular response of yours makes me quite embarrased for you." To that (violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA), thx1138 replied "You posted a blatant lie. What kind of response did you expect?". In that context, I rather doubt that "I don't see how you can sincerely say both X and Y" is a useful alternative. As a whole, Talk:Evolution tends to get heated, but Sangil jumped in spoiling for a fight, and was the first to dish out insults. While I don't see how mediation could work in this case, I don't see anything to mediate. Yes, there was incivility - WAS's statement about Sangil's claimed credentials may actually be on par with some of Sangil's insults. But if there is anything to discuss, that discussion should start with Sangil's incivility and personal attacks. Guettarda 13:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

As you can see in my comment at the beginning of the section, I did look at the context, and did quite literally start with Sangil's mistakes. But "he started it" only explains incivility; in my book, it doesn't excuse it. You're welcome to doubt as you please, but in my experience, when somebody shows up looking for a fight, a few polite responses will generally get them to move along. Rude remarks, on the other hand, give them an avenue for engagement and escalation. --William Pietri 05:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• I don't know whether it's even a good idea for me (or anyone) to comment here but what the heck! When I stopped by the Evolution page during a recent changes check I saw the "discussions" on the talk page in which Sangil was posing his "challenges" to the scientific consensus re evolution. It became clear quite quickly that he was not actually attempting to improve the editing of the article but was, instead, engaged in trolling and arguing from personal belief in an apparent attempt to make converts. It's my understanding that trolling is not appropriate on these or any pages. Perhaps Sangil needs to be more fully informed about what constitutes an appropriate contribution to the talk page. Ande B 00:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I am rather puzzled by how some users have formed the idea that I "seems to be interested in debating evolution", "I saw no evidence in your comments that you joined the discussion out of a sincere desire to find consensus on some edit that would improve the article", or "he was not actually attempting to improve the editing of the article", etc. I have a full-time job and I do not enjoy wasting time on futile and childish arguments, and certainly not "trolling" (where have I "trolled" exactly?). I had originally planned to discuss the article itself, and more specifically what I had seen as problems with it (e.g. the acceptance of neo-darwinism as absolute truth without considering its faults, and the specific section referring to the 2nd law of thermodynamics). The vast majority of my comments on the talk page specifically dealt with these two issues. My views may not be concensual, and I agree that of course I may be wrong, but I was certainly not "trolling" or "spoiling for a fight" until I was personally attacked by such users as WAS and thx1138, whom I had offended in no way until then (thx1138 - your "That's complete BS" comment, which is a personal attack, was not preceded by any such attack on my part- therefore what you claim above is false).

As proof of my above claim, when user dave souza responded to my edits, he did so out of disagreement, but he responded in a civil manner, and I believe I did the same (at least it is my hope he thinks so). Unfortunately not all users were as civil as him. Regarding my "I feel I should say that it is my custom to alert editors on the Talk page before i make changes to an article.." statement, this was a direct response to "just have to ignore people like Sangil". From my point of view, stating that I always discuss planned changes in the Talk page before changing the article itself is hardly "intentional disruptive use of procedures". And mind you, I have not made a single change to the article.

One last note: Guettarda - you said I was "the first to dish out insults". This is a plain lie. You are welcome to draw my attention to anywhere in Talk:Evolution, or the whole of Wikipedia for that matter, where I have attacked anyone personally without provocation.

-Sangil 13:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Dude, you're hilarious. If you read through the dispute, it's obvious that you were the first to start slinging insults. In addition, I quoted WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA violations on your part. But to top it all off, your evidence against thx1138 lists him calling you a liar. Obviously you consider that a violation of civility. Thus, you have intentionally violated civility (yet again). Which proves my point - you are the main problem here. Your entire mediation request is a joke. Quit wasting people's time. Guettarda 14:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• If you read through the dispute, it's obvious that you were the first to start slinging insults. - Where? This is a false accusation. Please either provide evidence or otherwise refrain from attacking me, "dude".
• But to top it all off, your evidence against thx1138 lists him calling you a liar. Obviously you consider that a violation of civility. Thus, you have intentionally violated civility (yet again). - What? I admit I'm having difficulty following your logic. I said that by calling me a liar he violated WP:Civil, and therefore I violated WP:Civil? What?
• Dude, you're hilarious, Your entire mediation request is a joke - are you actually attempting to violate WP:Civil right here in a mediation cabal regarding WP:Civil?

-Sangil 14:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Nope, I did not sling insults, I am not attacking you. You said "I think you are confusing Evolution with Neo-Darwinism" (links included in original). Since the modern synthesis is part of evolution (and is addressed in article lead), your references did not support your assertion. It appeared to me that you had not read the article that you were referencing to support your position. So I asked for clarification. How, pray tell, can that be an insult?
• What's difficult about my logic? You appear to consider it a violation of civility when thx1138 called you a liar, but when you call me a liar it isn't a violation of civility?
• You are hilarious - to claim that it's a violation of civility for thx1138 to call you a liar, but acceptable for you to call me a liar. It's a joke to complain about others when you are the main offender. I doubt I could do what you are doing with a straight face. Your comment about me "attempting to violate WP:Civil right here in a mediation cabal", when you have just called me a liar (despite the fact that I supplied quotes to support my assertion) is funny. So yeah, I realise, this is all a big joke to you. You can stop now. We figured it out. Ha. ha. You win. You can stop pretending, dude. Guettarda 17:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to explain my comments further. The views an editor holds about a particular topic are almost entirely irrelevant here. But in reading your comments, they seemed to me to be all about your views. If you feel that the article poorly reflects the scientific consensus or important minority viewpoints, that's great. Provide some verifiable evidence, like a New York Times article or a few recent papers published in reputable journals. But if you feel that the scientific consensus doesn't reflect your views, you need to take that up with the scientists, not Wikipedia's editors. If several people, including a neutral third party like myself, are interpreting your comments in the same way, a way you feel is a misinterpretation, you should take a good look at how you express yourself. Whether or not we're reading you wrong doesn't matter much; it's much easier to change the way you write than the way a lot of other people read. --William Pietri 18:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Sangil named me as a party to the dispute. It is true that I ultimately posted to the talk page that we should just ignore Sangil. I continue to believe this is a justified, appropriate, and constructive position. The Evolution article is one of a certain number of articles that is chronically if not constantly subject to contentious polemics. The reasons should be evident: there is a well-known movement against the teaching of the theory of evolution by so-called creationists or intelligent-design propnonents in the United States and in other countries. I doubt that a month goes by in which some anti-evolution evangelist has not appeared at this article to explain why it is either (1) wrong or (2) violates NPOV because it does not give adequate weight to the views of creationists. This is not a debate, it is a dogmatic polemic. It will not end with compromise or with some people's minds being changed, because it is not about rational or scientific debate, it is about dogma cloaked in bad science and bad logic. For this reason, mediation is a waste of time. I gave Sangil a couple of opportunities to demonstrate that he was well-informed and concerned with improving the article. It quickly became evident to me and every other dedicated contributor to the article that he is not. It is true that he has focussed on the question of the second law of thermodynamics, but all - all - of his comments revealed an ignorance of (1) science in general (2) the second law of thermodynamics and (3) the theory of evolution. In fact, his remarks about evolution and the second law are neither new nor original. I first heard creationists saying the exact same things 23 years ago! Bringing up the second law is nothing more than a disruptive tactic. Creationists did not care to be corrected 23 years ago and they are not interested in being corrected now, they use the second law only to stir up trouble. This is a time-proven tactic. Sangil's repeating erroneous claims made by creationists for at least the past two or three decades is at best didingenuous. Hence, there is simply no room for him in the discussion page. It is only a waste of time and space. We have seen this before, and we will see it again. Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia. Contributors to articles must have a committment to accurate well-informed articles that comply with our policies. Sangil does not fall into this category. He is just a POV warrior. And the best way to deal with such is to ignore them. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Slrubenstein -

• doubt that a month goes by in which some anti-evolution evangelist has not appeared at this article to explain why it is either (1) wrong or (2) violates NPOV because it does not give adequate weight to the views of creationists. - well that's too bad, but it's the way WP works. You can accept these claims or reject them, month after month, but you certainly cannot decide that since you alone know the absolute truth, there is no need to concern yourself with the opinions of other people. And regarding myself- actually just because I think the theory (yes! it's still just a theory!) of neo-darwinism has faults, does not make me a creationist. If a scientific theory has faults, they should be mentioned in an encyclopedic article.
• but all - all - of his comments revealed an ignorance of (1) science in general (2) the second law of thermodynamics and (3) the theory of evolution. - this is your opinion. I tried to show why my claims have scientific basis, but you plainly made no effort to listen.
• In fact, his remarks about evolution and the second law are neither new nor original. Are you kidding?!? Had they been "new nor original" you would have accused me of OR! Of course they are not "new or original"!

Most importantly, your response is not relevant here. I did not seek mediation because you did not accept my views. That is normal. The name of this discussion is Violations of WP:Civil on Talk:Evolution, as I believe you, and some other users, had violated WP:Civil. Please respond to the point.

Regards

-Sangil 14:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Sangil, when you write "If a scientific theory has faults, they should be mentioned in an encyclopedic article," that's true but misleading. What you personally have is a perception of a fault. Whether it is an actual fault is hard to know, and figuring that out is not Wikipedia's job; that's the job of scientists in the field. Also, it seems a little inconsistent of you to demand that others acknowledge their role in the problem when you repeatedly refuse to acknowledge yours. If you'd like to see gracious behavior, your easiest path is to start by demonstrating it. --William Pietri 18:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Sangil, Since I was the one who used the word "trolling," I think I should be the one to explain why the term was used. I cannot speak for what others have posted but to the extent their comments might help further an understanding I will refer to them.

What is trolling on one site may not be trolling on another. Your comments re the 2LoT, for example, would no doubt be welcomed by a cheering squad at the Discovery Institute's (extremely censored) "talk" pages. But on pages or sites specifically intended to represent the current scientific consensus regarding an issue, asserting widely discredited misunderstandings is generally regarded as trolling because, most of the time, that is exactly what it is. Only on rare occasions do such discredited assertions arise out of true ignorance, rather, they tend to be deliberate attempts to proselytize for a fringe, pseudo-scientific, or political / cultural position. This is how your comments have been perceived, and there is ample evidence that you are, indeed, trolling, whether you recognize it or not.

At the very top of the Evolution talk pages is this advisory:

IMPORTANT - If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of the theory of evolution please do so at talk.origins or Wikireason. This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time.

You have utterly ignored this admonishment. Your first comments (as best I can tell from the talk page history) are placed in the middle of an on-going discussion where you immediately invoke Hoyle as some sort of expert on evolution when he is not. In fact, his poorly considered ideas about evolution have tarnished his reputation as a scientist. He is beloved, of course by creationists and those who wish to cite to "authority" for their anti-evolution beliefs. You then launch into a statement that shows no comprehension of the 2LoT as it applies to any part of evolution. These are the types of comments that are usually made by those who are truly ignorant about the subject or who are simply soap-boxing. Since you later claim to have some sort of academic or professional expertise in the subject, you cannot defend these comments as being made out of ignorance or in innocence.

When you were asked Did you read the article, that is a valid question arising from your own comments; it is not unusual for a person to join in on the talk pages prior to reading the complete text of an article. It should not be taken as an insult, although you chose to take it that way. And your immediate response was to continue to attack evolution, contrary to the warning at the top of the page.

You say that you had at first intended to address "editing" issues but you never did. And it appears that your concerns about "editing" were focused on convincing others to insert gross mis-statements of fact and science into the article. You have asserted that The article presents unproven theories as fact. The article does no such thing. The article describes evolution as it is understood by those who actually understand such things. That you do not agree with these opinions is of no consequence. Now the article may need to be improved and some language may need to be clarified but that is what these editors have been trying to do in a collaborative fashion. Your editing "suggestions" have not been helpful and, since you continued to make such strident assertions after others attempted to answer your questions or correct your misunderstandings, it appears that your interest is in arguing the "truth" of evolution. When Slrubenstein went to some length to address your questions, you accused him of being "patronizing." But it is you, Sangil, who appear to be the most patronizing participant in these discussions, discrediting not just the editors but essentially all scientists who have contributed to the development and understanding of evolutionary theory.

Clearly, evolution is a contentious religious and political subject in the US today. It is not contentious within the science communities, however. Though you can find cranks and fringe practitioners in any profession, when it comes to evolution, the attacks come predominantly from religious and political fronts. Thus the need for the warning against trolling at the top of the page. I hope you can accept the foregoing as an attempt at an explanation and not as some sort of personal attack. And, just in case you weren't aware, most of us have plenty of work to do outside of WP and I, for one, don't enjoy putting effort into these types of disputes. Ande B 20:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Since Sangil is citing me as responding in a civil manner, and he believes he did the same (at least hopes I think so), I should point out that his response to my contribution struck me as mildly insulting misdirection, but as I'd indicated the article talk page is not a forum for debate, so I reminded myself not to feed the troll and did not reply. Slrubenstein's patient efforts to educate were evidently having no effect. ...dave souza, talk 16:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Calling insistant repeated gross ignorance "gross ignorance" is calling a thing by its right name

my comment

(I happen to have an Academic degree in Bioinformatics, a field directly dealing with Genetics, Probability, and Statistics, as well as Computer Science) You display no such knowledge. You display gross ignorance. Who gave you the degree? Genesisversity? WAS 4.250 00:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I concur that this was incivil. One possible explanation is gross ignorance; another is being well-informed but misguided or mistaken. If you assume good faith, you should go for the more charitable explanation. And even if gross ignorance is the only possible explanation, there are more polite ways ot say that. Lastly, I have a hard time believing that you were making a sincere inquiry into the source of his degree; your last two sentences seem designed only to insult, which is certainly incivil. --William Pietri 18:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed the part about "insistant" and "repeated". After how many repeated attempts to insist on grossly ignorant statements, each politely corrected and painstakingly explained, is it possible to tell the blunt truth to someone? More polite ways of saying were not sinking in. Even now he is in denial about the quality of his facts, maybe partly due to excessive politeness. WAS 4.250 18:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I read the whole discussion two or three times, and I don't see excessive politeness as the problem. Insulting him won't make him less insistent. Instead, I think the right option is the one taken by some other editors like Jeffire and Graft: say that you don't see the discussion moving toward a useful change to the article and stop participating. Regarding denial, perhaps you could demonstrate your lack of that by apologizing for the slur on his degree? --William Pietri 19:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding denial, perhaps you could demonstrate your lack of that by apologizing for the slur on his degree? I accept your position as an appropriate outside authority on whether or not I should apologize. Therefore, I apologize. But I just can't see it for myself. I am red-green color blind and I am exquisitely aware of the ability of perceptions to differ. WAS 4.250 23:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

A typical grossly ignorant statement by you

To sum it up- when you put together the two points I have described above, it becomes clear that the 2nd law (again, in its broader sense) does contradict the neo-Darwinist theory. Random deviations cancel each other out statistically, This does not mean they don't exist. It does mean they have no lasting effect on the system, and thus clearly cannot be the driving force for new species. What's more, while Evolution Theory in general is taken for fact by the vast majority of scientists, the neo-Darwinist theory is far from rock-solid, as it lacks any evidence and is at odds with statistical principles that are widely accepted in many fields of scientific study. I believe that the article should reflect new-Darwinism's rather numerous misgivings.

-Sangil 22:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

A quote about Genesisversity

Sweeney, I have been to the Creation Evidences Museum in Texas a few times - it's hilarious to hear people who are quite serious when they make idiotic claims such as:

Fire-breathing dragons are living dormant at the bottom of the seas, awaiting Armageddon.

Rattlesnake bites used to be beneficial to people "before the Flood".

The Earth was surrounded by a canopy of ice that was superconducting, ferromagnetic, and fiber optic.

Humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time, and left footprints in what is now the Paluxy River near Glen Rose, Texas.

Pre-flood humans would easily run 200 miles a day between what is now Glen Rose and what is now the Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex.

Self-proclaimed "Dr." Carl Baugh has built up quite a following at the Creation Evidences Museum, near Texas' Dinosaur Valley State Park near Glen Rose. Initially, Baugh's "museum" was in hut, then eventually moved to a mobile home, and the last time I went a few years ago, he had a double-wide trailer. Baugh's alleged science degrees are all bogus, from a series of unaccredited creationist "universities" - what are colloquially known as diploma mills set up by Baugh's friends, including at least 3 which were Churches. In fact, the picture of the "university" on Baugh's website is actually a photo of what was then Burleson Baptist Temple, which has been renamed The Church At Burleson, if I recall correctly (in Burleson, Texas). When I visited to check on Baugh's obviously bogus credentials, the church wasn't open that day - there were no signs indicating that the church was any kind of university from the outside, and nothing visible in the foyer that showed it to be a university. During the week, they did answer the phone with the university name. When pressed for details about the "university", they referred callers to creationist Clifford Wilson's "university" in Missouri, which was the source of their study materials.

The double-wide museum has a collection of fossils and sideshow paraphenalia (such as a suit from someone once billed as the tallest man in the world, if I recall). There's a mural on one side depicting creation as Baugh sees it, and a fish tank with some fish (Pacu?) that are either related to pirhanas or are a species of pirhanas that are larger than usual (maybe some that eat mostly fruit). Baugh has an idea fixee that "pre-Flood" animals grew larger, and apparently some of his followers believe the fish have grown to extraordinary size through some simulation of pre-Flood conditions. Baugh has a medical hyperbaric chamber in the trailer that had two poisonous snakes (the "pre-Flood" atmosphere was supposed to be denser since it was contained within the ice canopy shell surrounding the Earth). Baugh had an oscilloscope attached to it sweeping a trace across for visual effect, apparently, since the test connectors weren't actually connected to anything.[1] WAS 4.250 17:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Motion to Close

This is obviously a joke. Sangil presents "evidence of incivility" and turns around and uses the same terminology he considers incivil. What is there to mediate here? What is the desired outcome? What outcomes are possible? I don't see anything that the MedCab can achieve here. Guettarda 17:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Methinks he was hoping one or several of you got some sort of slap on the wrist. I don't think he clearly saw that what he was doing was tantamount to provocation, whether he realized it or not. --Ramdrake 18:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Setting aside Sangil's issues (about which I write extensively above) I think one good outcome would be people apologizing for their own incivilities, of which there certainly were some on the talk page. It would be nice if Sangil also accepted his role in the problem, though. --William Pietri 18:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

If I may be so bold as to make a suggestion about how to approach these sorts of requests for sanctions: In the Anglo-American legal systems, Sangil's request would most likely be considered a request for "equitable" relief. WP appears to me to operate, to a large extent, on equitable rather than legal principles. One of the standards for seeking equitable relief is that the one seeking equity must also do equity. One oft used phrase is "Those who seek equity must have clean hands." Equity doesn't mean that two wrongs make a right, it simply means that sanctions based on arguments of equity are not granted to those who have engaged in inequitable behavior themselves. In other words, only those innocent of inequitable behavior will be granted equitable relief. It is up to the WP administrators as to whether they want to adopt equitable standards or not but I thought this concept might be a useful one to consider. Ande B 21:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

My response:

• It would be nice if Sangil also accepted his role in the problem - I am not sure what my "role" was, but I guess it's one (or both) of the following:
  1. I have offended someone. If this is the case I apologize.
  2. I was attempting to "troll", or "stir up a debate", or whatever. Although it seems some people are having a hard time believing it, my original intention was to improve (well, in my opinion) the article. Once I came under attack, which seemed to me (and still does) more like a lynch, it became pretty difficult to focus on the article- especially as it was obvious no one was really listening. In any case I guess I could have clarified my intentions better.
• I still do not understand why my edits are "tantamount to provocation". I did not change anything in the article itself. I did not attack anyone personally. I merely stated that neo-darwinism has faults which should be mentioned, and that it is not the same thing as Evolution proper. I was concerned regarding one section in the article which specifically deals with 'Misunderstandings about modern evolutionary biology', and I think in that context my edits were rather relevant (it was later admitted by other users that the section is problematic). One may accept what I say or reject it. It was obvious most of the editors did not accept my views, and so I did not change the article. When it became clear the discussion was no longer being productive, I stopped replying (even though some comments regarding me being an "ignorant dogmatic" were extremely offensive. To tell the truth, I still can't believe an Admin would express himself in such a manner). The reason I requested this mediation is solely because of such comments. It has nothing to do with anyone accepting or rejecting my views. It appears to me that rather hastily I was pigeonholed as a "creationist", and therefore my views were automatically assumed to be ludicrous, and more importantly, my intention was assumed to be hostile - which of course it was not.
• I still think that Slrubenstein's attempt to "educate" users is extremely problematic. To my understanding of WP:NOT, it is not the role of WP to educate anyone, but rather to present facts, and let each person decide for himself where the truth lies.

In conclusion, if one took the time to look at my other contributions to Wiki, which usually regard a subject even more controversial than evolution - The Arab-Israeli Conflict - one would see that even when it is clearly obvious a user intends to provocate, I always reply to the point and in a polite manner. In all my time there, I have never once been accused of "trolling", "provocation", or what have you. It is my belief (which no one has to accept) that the atmosphere on Talk:Evolution was rather less pleasant for someone who thinks differently than the concensus. If this would have improved in any way because of this mediation, I would consider it a success.

-Sangil 17:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Sangil, I accept your statement that you were motivated by benign intentions and I can fully understand that once a person has felt they are under attack they will respond to that apparent threat. This type of thing probably derails more talk pages than any other type of dispute. From what I can see, all sides felt they were being abused. The mediator's suggestion that we all seek a fresh start, I think, is a healthy one. Ande B 19:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It's been made clear to me that some involved don't want any further contact with Sangil. This is perfectly within their rights, but those who wish to restart discussions on the article's talkpage should indicate their acceptance of this solution, and then get going more productively. In my opinion this'll work. --Xyrael ^T 14:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for assuming that Sangil's contributions were motivated by willful dishonesty instead of just a failure to fact-check and read the archives of that talk page. Sangil, if you're still wondering what your role was, it was to post information without thoroughly checking its accuracy, including checking the archived talk pages to see if it had been discussed before. thx1138 11:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)