Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2005-12-27 Second Law of Thermodynamics

Request for cabal mediation

Initial request

Request made by: Ignignot 18:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the issue taking place?: Second law of thermodynamics, we have a sub-talk page Talk:Second_law_of_thermodynamics/creationism.

Who's involved?: Ignignot, User:Tisthammerw, User:FeloniousMonk, User:Jheald, User:Infinity0, User:DJ_Clayworth, User:Duncharris, User:Bmord, User:KillerChihuahua... may have missed a few.

What's going on?: Months worth of arguments over inclusion of creationism related information in the article.

What would you like to change about that?: End the revert war, give a final answer that can be pointed to.

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?: I'd rather you not work discreetly, but you can try my talk page.

Comments by others

Comment from Tisthammerw

The argument, pseudoscience or not, is a significant minority view, so it might deserve a brief mention (ideally one sentence) or to the very least the links should remain. --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from KillerChihuahua

The argument is not a significant view, not even a significant minority view. There are probably more flat-earthers than those holding this view. Further, the view is completely incorrect and is off-topic, by consensus of all except Wade, who agrees it is completely incorrect (although he wants to clarify exactly how the view is incorrect) but feels it is on-topic in some way. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Remove me from this. This is not mediation. I don't know what to call it, but it isn't mediation. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from FeloniousMonk

tisthammerw (talk · contribs) (Wade A. Tisthammer) is a chronic malcontent with a long history of disruption and ignoring both consensus and evidence while pushing his own particular pov at Second Law of Thermodynamics and Intelligent design. Because of this he's earned a permanent place on the "crank list" of many editors, including my own. I can't begin to count the innumerable man hours of good faith contributors he's wasted with bad faith objections, constantly shifting goalposts, and mendacious justifications for it all arising out of his own personal research [1] [2].

The only time I will spend on this editor is in minimizing his disruptions and cleaning up his messes; his history proves anything else is a complete waste. FeloniousMonk 22:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FeloniousMonk, it is you who are disruptive. For instance, some challenged material was removed because it lacked a citation, in accordance with Wikipedia policy. You willfully ignored Wikipedia policy by reinserting the challenged material without a citation (see here and here). You appealed to an imagined consensus, and when I put up RfC's on this issue you removed them--twice! (See here for instance).

FeloniousMonk, your harassment of me has got to stop. It's bordering on obsessive. You should know that my "personal research" has not infiltrated to the Wikipedia articles--whereas your own original research has been repeatedly added to Wikipedia entries (e.g. here). --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediator response

The edits on Creationism should be put in other places. Mainly this is on physics topics and there are a lot of other possibilities to create new articles on Creationism and relationship with/or/and second law of thermodynamics. I am waiting your response.

I suggest you create new articles for Creationism and relationship with/or/and second law of thermodynamics and let the article of second law of thermodynamics free of ambiguous links. -- Bonaparte talk 13:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Concur this does not belong in the Thermodynamics article, this is what most editors have been saying. He took them to Creationism yesterday; I'm not certain that will be their final home but its moving into the appropriate arena at least. I am concerned that were a separate article created, it might go into POV Fork territory. Thanks for your time and input. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]