User talk:Tisthammerw

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Archives 2 Calling FeloniousMonk disruptive 3 Request for Mediation 4 Anecdotal Evidence 5 Judgement (RfC) 6 Bogus criticism of ID 7 Calvin 8 Mediation Case: Natasha Demkina 8.1 Dreadlocke's remarks 8.2 Escalation 9 Wikipedia:Mediation IC 10 Medation: Natasha Demkina Article 11 NPA warning on User talk:Askolnick 12 Demkina RFM 13 Intelligent Design Talk 14 Maybe you will come back someday? 15 Thanks for the additions, however....

[edit] Archives

1. Archive #1 -- Mostly accusations from someone called FeloniousMonk, who has proven to be a somewhat disruptive editor against my attempted reforms.

   Wade, I never meant to be a force acting against your reform. I would like nothing more than to do whatever I can to help you reform from being a disruptive editor and grow into a good editor. FeloniousMonk 23:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

   If you think I am "disruptive" you can start by setting a good example. For instance, you have ignored Wikipedia policy to suit your own point of view, this has to stop. You willfully ignored WP:CITE when you reinserted the challenged material on the irreducible complexity page, for example.[1] And when I put up an RfC after you ignored Wikipedia policy, you removed the RfC.[2] You have also ignored WP:NOR by inserting original research in the intelligent design article, replacing it with different original research when I objected.[3] --Wade A. Tisthammer 17:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

   Incidentally, this isn't the first time he deleted an RfC of mine.[4] --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Calling FeloniousMonk disruptive

Ec suggested that you archive, not that you engage in personal attacks. Grow up, Wade, leave your bitterness and persecution complex in the schoolyard. Ec's request to you was very simple, with a very good piece of advice: "keeping it so visible might not be conductive to moving on." So, what do you key in on and misinterpret? Why, "A simple link to an archive should be enough to remind [emphasis added] everyone of past discussion", of course. And you wonder why you get nowhere on the ID and IC pages -- your behaviour is disruptive and not conducive to the success of the project. Jim62sch 22:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

And it's not just ID and IC pages he's disrupting. Recently Wade joined forces with four other disruptive editors who are fighting to reference self-published material on personal web pages in the Natasha Demkina article [5]. He entered the fray as an assigned "mediator," but his mediation has been disruptive and anything but impartial. He continues to dismiss our explanations why he's wrong by saying we haven't explained how he's wrong. He simply ignores what we post and pretends that we haven't answered him. He is currently attempting to redefine "primary source" to allow pro-paranormal editors to cite a crackpot's self-published personal web page. Askolnick 17:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

May I ask that you give an explanation for your accusations? In what way am I disruptive? By acting as a mediator in trying to satisfy the desires/concerns of both sides? Many times you do not answer me regarding why you find my compromises unacceptable. For instance, you're original objection was that personal web pages cannot be given as secondary sources. My compromise was to use the web page of this apparently prominent adherent as a primary source (in turn, the other side would have to relinquish their demand to have it as an external link) for a statement about this person that was already in the Wikipedia entry (the statement depended instead on a secondary source). Using it as a primary source is allowable under WP:RS, thus apparently satisfying your WP:RS concern regarding personal web pages and secondary sources. You did not answer many of the questions I asked regarding why you find this compromise unacceptable (as of this post). For instance, are you now saying Josephson's criticism should no longer be included in the Wikipedia entry? If you do think it should remain in the Wikipedia entry, why not rely on a primary, first-hand source since this is allowable under WP:RS--the basis of your original objection? --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

What personal attacks are you talking about? That I called FeloniousMonk disrputive? FeloniousMonk has been disruptive, e.g. deleting RfC's he doesn't like. [6] Incidentally, if calling someone disruptive is a "personal attack" FeloniousMonk is guilty of that as well (e.g. the second time he removed one of my RfC's[7]). --Wade A. Tisthammer 22:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You missed the point. Again. Jim62sch 23:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, Wade talks a good story here, but his history tells a far different one. What he calls my disruption has actually been in fact a response to attempt to put right his disrupting creationism-related articles, which anyone can see he has a long history of [8] [9].

His intentional misrepresentions of me here and at Talk:Irreducible complexity constitute a personal attack. His repeated restoring of the personal attack after it was removed [10] [11] [12] clearly justifies our identifying him as chronically disruptive long ago and only compounds the evidence against him now. His continued disruption is quickly wearing out the community's goodwill. FeloniousMonk 23:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You just accused me of making a personal attack when I made this post. Would you mind telling me what that attack was? I said you were disruptive, yes. But you have been disruptive. What do you call willfully ignoring WP:CITE and putting back uncited challenged material? [13] What do you call deleting the RfC I put in response to that?[14]

Additionally, you yourself have called me disruptive the second time you removed my RfC. [15] You have also accused me of being disruptive on numerous other occasions. --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

What is "the point"? And what personal attacks are you talking about? You could make yourself a bit more clear here. --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, Wade, let me do the analysis for you: "applies Wikipedia policy rather selectively" would be an ad hom, not an observation as you are implying dishonesty; "...appealing to an imagined consensus...", is clearly ad hom as it implies a certain level of either incompetence, stupidity, or a delusion disorder; "...whether this news blog qualifies might be open to debate--at least for FeloniousMonk..."; another ad hom as the second portion of the comment could have been left out were not your sole purpose to cast aspersions on FM; "...it has been my experience that FeloniousMonk himself often exaggerates..."; ad hom (implication of dishonesty) and, as with the rest, an accusation made without citation. Do you get it now? Jim62sch 10:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Wade A. Tisthammer, the point was that there was no need to criticise other editors, when you had an opportunity to burry the hatchet. You could have tried to put this behind you. Instead, you chose to keep this conflict going. -- Ec5618 23:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Bury the hatchet? FeloniousMonk has hardly pulled back from his criticism of me. There was no opportunity for us to put it behind us. Besides, he has been disruptive. As I said before, what do you call willfully ignoring WP:CITE and putting back uncited challenged material? [16] What do you call deleting the RfC I put in response to that?[17] --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

There was every opportunity. Every single time you dredge up these accusations, no matter how valid you may feel they are, you are choosing to exaccerbate the situation, instead of trying to mend it. There was every opportunity to 'take the right road', as it were. -- Ec5618 23:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

In fairness I must admit your point may have some validity, and I have often refrained from making such recriminations. But further experience suggests there is no hope for mending the situation. It appears there was no opportunity, because even when I refrained FeloniousMonk has been unrelenting in his accusations, attacks and disruptiveness. FeloniousMonk has been disruptive as I've pointed out before (with citations). He has ignored Wikipedia policy and has been disruptive. It seems like this sort of thing should be pointed out given that he constantly accuses me of such things in my own talk page. --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

RFC is meant to resolve disputes, not perpetuate them.

There was (and continues to be) broad consensus among regular contributors to these articles that your objections repeatedly raised are specious, and your repeated rejection of supporting cites indicates bad faith on your part.

Despite this you continued to make the same arguments for months that went nowhere, prompting myself and others to deem you a disruptive chronic malcontent.

We gave you every chance to redeem yourself at Talk:Intelligent design and contribute in a more positive manner, but you persisted in ignoring consensus. Your first RFC found little traction and produced no results. There was broad consensus that your objections had little or no merit. By raising subsequent RFCs you compounded the allegation of disruption in raising bad faith objections. Again, RFC is meant to resolve disputes, not perpetuate them. Any misuse of RFC should expect to be removed. Your claims that they were not meant to subvert consensus and continue your pov campaign are more than a little disengenous. FeloniousMonk 23:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

As other editors have pointed out[18], the article on intelligent design is "policed by the bitter opponents of the subject of the article." Many editors have come by and tried to reform the article, but they are met with opposition from the overzealous opponents who police the entry, after which the would-be reformers quit (as I did). It is thus not surprising you have managed to form a "consensus" regarding my objections that the minority view has been distorted and that the article contains original research.

And how have I persisted in ignoring consensus? You have failed to explain what you mean by this. If by "ignoring consensus" you mean I maintain my position in spite of the tyranny of the majority, then I guess I'm guilty. But this hardly seems like a fair criticism given what actually happened there. For instance, there was the claim that "the fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design that every irreducibly complex object requires a designer" which appeared to be original research. You maintained to include the challenged material without a cite, thus running contrary to WP:CITE. And even when I provided a citation showing this "fundamental assumption" did not exist the "consensus" (assuming one existed, since you have not always been able to provide prove the existence of the alleged consensus [19] [20]) ignored the citation and proceeded merrily on. (See here when you first brought up the "fundamental assumption" claim and ignored my citation, see also here when the claim continued to remain in spite of my citation.) Do you actually expect me to be convinced here with such behavior?

And if course, if you don't want to discuss my objections further, you can stop bringing them up as you did here. [21] I also brought the issue up here:

Perhaps you find my request to adhere to Wikipedia policy disruptive. But if you honestly think so, you have the option of not continuing the discussion. Notice that most--if not all--of my posts in this page have been in response to people who have brought up the subject somehow. If you don't want trouble, don't ask for it

You said, "Your first RFC found little traction and produced no results." Indeed, considering you removed it. [22] Or perhaps you are talking about a different RfC. If so, which one? You still seem without grounds to ignore WP:CITE as you did [23] and also without grounds for removing the RfC. [24] Your belief that the Request for Comments (RfC) I made regarding WP:CITE would continue the dispute (regarding whether a citation is needed for the challenged material) is not adequate justification. And if anyone is guilty of bad faith here it is you, for willfully ignoring WP:CITE and removing the RfC on the issue. --Wade A. Tisthammer 18:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

You recently filed a Request for Mediation; your case has been not been accepted. You can find more information in the rejected case archive, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rejected 1.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay ^{Talk • Contact}, Chairman, 12:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

(This message delivered by Celestianpower (talk) on behalf of Essjay.)

I agree that, given the new RfC, it may be best to let it run its course. --Wade A. Tisthammer 17:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anecdotal Evidence

If still interested, please see [[25]]. The Invisible Anon 18:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Nail on head. See [[26]]

The Invisible Anon 20:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Judgement (RfC)

I get a little annoyed when people with whom I've had no contact try to color my opinion on other people with whom I have no contact. For the purposes of this RfC I do not feel it is wise for me to publically "pass judgement" on specific attitudes and conduct of specific individuals. I believe that some of the individuals that were opposing your actions were behaving in a manner inconsistent with Wikipedia guidelines. I reviewed most of your comments and found nothing in them insulting or out of line, however they were also not phrased in a way to prevent conflict escalation (that is, unfortunately, rather difficult to do).

I think you would have had better luck had you originally argued that the claim that Behe wrongly claimed to be original on the concept was original research. Even if it's blatently obvious (he wrote a book called "Irreducible Complexity" in 1950s), if no reputable source has ever called him on this, it should NOT be in Wikipedia.

Personally I think the concepts are obviously at least somewhat related and that it might be nice for someone to do a writeup about this on another venue. I am highly annoyed by the Intelligent Design crowd's pushing of pseudoscientific philosophies as science, however I'm equally annoyed by attacks by "scientific" oriented persons on Behe in ways that are insubstantiated by the evidence. - JustinWick 23:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bogus criticism of ID

I believe that there is so much that is blatently wrong with the Intelligent Design movement, at least in terms of its claims to be "scientific" that there is no need to fabricate, distort, or exadurate claims. A lot of individuals on Wikipedia are very upset with what ID/Creationism proponents are trying to do to squelch the effectiveness of actual science education, and unfortunately it leaks in and taints what should be NPOV. I think it's very good for you to combat this tendency, provided you are willing to adapt a scientific viewpoint (on Wikipedia that is what is appropriate for things of this area). There's a lot of morons out there on both sides of every debate, and it's very accurate that many of the individuals pushing ID (the less prominant ones) often make assertions that are mentioned in some of the remarks you are at odds with, I am not convinced that they are substantiated by actual published positions by Intelligent Design "theorists."

It's a sad day to me when people who pride themselves on being "logical" end up getting so screwed up over what should be a rather simple matter. ID is not falsifiable, and therefore falls into the category of Philosophy rather than Science. It's no more "wrong" than existentialism or postmodern artistic expression is. Some people would rather put their human emotions and politics before their better judgement, and honestly people like to think that all ID proponents are uneducated hicks from Kansas, which is unfortunate.

As for me I'm a bit of an oddball - I have some books from the discovery institute, I'm pretty ticked off at ID, I have a degree in Physics, and I believe in God.

I hope you continue in your efforts but try to be as non-confrontational as possible. Many of the individuals on the talk page are acting immaturely (they see you as the enemy rather than merely someone they disagree with) however that does not require a response of the same level. Best of luck in your long, uphill battle. Remember, on Wikipedia, truth is decided by democracy, so good luck! - JustinWick 03:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I find it rather amusing that individuals accusing you of "original research" blatently cite their own opinions of things rather than credible sources. Wikipedia should be conducted as if you know nothing about a subject other than where to steal information on it, and how to use the English language (for the English version of course). I haven't read through all of your long archived comments but what I read didn't seem to be a problem. - JustinWick 03:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Calvin

Sorry, Tisthammerw, for accidentally lumping your edit in with that of 208.11.8.10. Rick Norwood 21:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Mistakes happen. --Wade A. Tisthammer 15:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation Case: Natasha Demkina

You have indicated that you are willing to accept an assignment as a mediator. I have assigned this case to you. If you don't want to take the case on, just say so at the bottom of the request, delegate it to someone else and update the case list accordingly. Before you begin the mediation please read the suggestions for mediators. You can also review earlier mediation cases to get an understanding for possible procedures.

--Fasten 15:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Welcome! -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 01:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Wade, because your first posted comments made me concerned about your ability to mediate impartially, I read through your personal page and was stunned to see how warranted my concerns are. You are the last person who should be mediating a dispute between Wiki editors -- especially a dispute like this.

You personal talk page is overflowing with complaints from Wiki administrators and editors about your disruptive behavior in editing the Creationism and Intelligent Design and related articles, in order to push a Creationist POV. [27] Appointing someone with your history, of choosing disruption over compromise in the defense of pseudoscience, to mediate a similar dispute is as unwise as appointing a vampire to run a blood bank. It simply makes NO sense.

And if this history of disruption isn't cause enough to reject you as a mediator, there's also the matter of your clear and documented bias against the Wiki guidelines that are at the foundation of the dispute here. The dispute is almost entirely based on a disagreement over the need to follow Wiki guidelines against citing personal web pages as secondary sources. I wondered why you would enter the mediation appearing to have already agreed that the guideline should just be ignored. So I was hardly surprised to see that another editor complained about you violating these very same guideline [28] You had added a link, in the Second Law of Thermodynamics article, to your apologetic essay against critics of Creationism, which you had self-published on your own web site! [29]

Wade, that is not the only guideline you chose to ignore. You were provided guidelines for mediation and yet you immediately started mediation by ignoring them:

6. Try to be impartial and not to bring up your own opinion, unless that seems to be inevitable, e.g. when asked for a third opinion. You can also use such an opportunity to make people request a third opinion, put up a request for comment or conduct a survey, which may encourage them to get along without a mediator next time.

7. If you are not or no longer impartial please pass the case on to another mediator.

Indeed, you are currently embroiled in a heated dispute before the Mediation_Cabal! A review of this case shows you are anything but impartial and are probably the last person to be mediating such a similar case: [30]Here's how one of the complaining editors there describes your conduct:

Wade "has shown himself to be a chronic pro-intelligent design POV malcontent with a long history of disruption and ignoring both consensus and evidence while pushing his own particular brand of intelligent design POV at Second Law of Thermodynamics, Intelligent design and Irreducible complexity. Wade has a history of ignoring WP:CON and violating WP:POINT by repeatedly raising the same tendentious objections to well-supported article content and ignoring over and over and mischaracterizing or dismissing evidence when it is presented. Because of this he's earned a permanent place on the "crank list" of the regular long-term editors at these articles, including my own. I can't begin to count the innumerable manhours 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 found here: [1] [2]. The only time I will spend on this editor is in minimizing his disruptions and cleaning up his messes; my experience has proved that anything else is a complete waste. FeloniousMonk 02:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

In conclusion, you are clearly unacceptable as mediator of this dispute. I would also like to know WHY IN THE WORLD you were picked?! Askolnick 16:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Why in the world have you gone on this smear campaign against me? You have made these accusations not only here but elsewhere (in the discussion section, and the mediation cabal). In trying to get articles like intelligent design and irreducible complexity to conform to Wikipedia policy (e.g. WP:NOR and WP:CITE), it is true I have met stiff resistance and heated emotions. Notice what my attempted reforms actually were however. For instance, even the simple request of a citation for a challenged claim constitutes as trying to transform the article into a "a one-sided propaganda piece" according to one editor[31]. FeloniousMonk (the person you quoted) has repeatedly launched personal attacks against me, even to the extent of going behind my back to make these insults among visiting editors.[32] A couple articles seemed to be written and policed by its bitter opponents, making even minor changes difficult. For instance, I removed challenged material that had no source under WP:CITE since I waited over a month for a citation (WP:CITE says "any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor"), but the material was quickly included still without a citation and an imagined consensus was appealed to.[33] After I put up an RfC on this very issue, one of the editors subsequently deleted the RfC. [34] and added some name calling to boot. When I tried to get original research removed from the intelligent design article, it was replaced by more original research.[35] When I ask for specifics as to how I am disruptive, what POV I am pushing etc. my requests are often denied. Environments like these are what I've had to operate in.

Askolnick, I would like you to provide evidence for your accusations. I've grown a bit tired of personal attacks as of late. What Creationist POV have I allegedly been pushing? How have I been disruptive? Does trying to get an article to conform to WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:CITE constitute "disruption" if the policies and guidelines are violated against a theory/belief a certain group of editors doesn't like? Rehashing other people's attacks on my character is not very civil or productive. You have not, for instance, apparently taken into account the environment I've had to operate in me (e.g. the person you quoted that accused me of being "disruptive" is also the same person who ignored WP:CITE and deleted the RfC I put up in response).

Why was I chosen? I put up a request for the mediation cabal and there was the option of volunteering for someone else. I chose "yes" and I was chosen. Currently the heated dispute in the mediation cabal is about a citation (some text written by Ludwig von Bertalanffy) that does not seem to support the claim in question. People from the RfC's seem to agree with me, but certain people "policing" the Wikipedia entry do not. Is my objection reasonable? You can visit this page and judge for yourself.

[edit] Dreadlocke's remarks

Hi Wade, I don't know if you noticed it (there's so much stuff on the ND talk page) but I responded to your post on policies and guidelines here: Analysis. - Dreadlocke 20:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced that your side is right regarding Wikipedia policy and guidelines, but I am saying both sides have some good points. I am optimistic, however, you will not take my non-acceptance of your side and my attempt for your side to see the others' point of view as grounds for some nasty personal attacks against me--and for that I thank you. --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely not. I certainly would not use personal attacks against you, or anyone else for that matter. I regret having gotten caught up in Mr. Skolnick's personal attacks, which caused me to say things I would never normally say. If you look through the history of what I wrote, I was completely civil and polite, withstanding or ignoring the constant assaults on my honesty and character by Mr. Skolnick. At one point, I stopped answering him at all, but since he kept up his personal attacks and unfounded accusations - just really rude and unwarranted stuff (like he did with you), I felt I had to defend myself. I certainly hope I haven't given the impression that I engage in personal attacks. No worries on that.

So, where do you think my views of Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines are incorrect? It seem the Wikipedia policy regarding Self-published sources is the key policy that applies to Josephson's web page, even if it's considered a "personal website". And is there doubt that Josephson is a "professional researcher in a related field"? I've more analysis of the WP:RS guideline too. Anyway, I probably shouldn't be posting this here..it can moved if need be. Thanks Wade! - Dreadlocke

Just fyi, I modified my Cabal Mediation request a while back to ask for a "Third Opinion". I meant to make the change after what happened to Rohirok, but I believe I made it right after you began mediating. As far as I'm concerned, and contrary to askolnick's latest assertion....you're still the Cabal Mediator on this case..if you want to be! Based on Suggetions for Mediators lines 6, 15 and 17.. :) Dreadlocke 22:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

You're joking Dreadlock, right? Based on Suggetions for Mediators items 6 and 7, Tisthammer is virtually required to pass the case on to a mediator who is more willing to be impartial:

6. Try to be impartial and not to bring up your own opinion, unless that seems to be inevitable, e.g. when asked for a third opinion. You can also use such an opportunity to make people request a third opinion, put up a request for comment or conduct a survey, which may encourage them to get along without a mediator next time.

7. If you are not or no longer impartial please pass the case on to another mediator.

Because Tisthammer is arguing in favor of your position, Dreadlocke, of course you don't want him to step down. But mediators are not supposed to argue for anyone's positions. They're supposed to remain impartial -- especially at the time they introduce themselves as the new mediator! Tisthammer doesn't see why that is necessary. Whether he realizes it or not, that's why he effectively is no longer a mediator in the Natasha Demkina dispute.

The previous mediator realized his mistake, admitted it, apologized, and stepped down. Tisthammer would do the same thing if he has any integrity.Askolnick 01:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

If you'd check the [36], you'd see that the person who posted the entry said, "A third opinion is welcome." I seemed to have been asked for a third opinion, thus in accordance with #6. Besides, I have not taken sides as to whether the web page in question constitutes a "personal" one, though I'm actually leaning towards your side on that. While the compromise I proposed would satisfy your opponent to a limited extent, it would also seem to satisfy your WP:RS objection, since the page is being used as a reference for the following, "Brian Josephson charged that Demkina's four matches represented a statistically significant result in favor of her abilities, since the odds against her matching that many at random were 50 to one" thus using the web page as a primary source for what Josephson claims. The question of whether the page is a “personal website” now becomes moot, because personal web pages are acceptable for primary sources. Puzzlingly, you still seem (I say “seem” because you have not given me a straight answer why you find the compromise unacceptable) consider the Josephson source as a secondary source even when it is done to merely cite what this very person claims. May I ask why? Do you suspect that the writer of the web page is not Josephson? --Wade A. Tisthammer 05:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice try at further disruptive, misleading arguments. Unfortunately for you, Wiki's records won't let you get away with such revisionism.

"If you'd check the mediation cabal entry, you'd see that the person who posted the entry said, "A third opinion is welcome." I seemed to have been asked for a third opinion, thus in accordance with #6."

If one checks, one will see that Dreadlocke added that request two days after you began posting your opinions on the Natasha Demkina Discussion page! [37] and a day after I began protesting your support for Dreadlocke's point of view. Your argument is clearly dishonest. You did not begin posting your opinions because they were formally requested. You began posting them in violation of Mediation Cabal guidelines two days before Dreadlocke welcomed for a "third opinion." When you tell others "if you check" something, be prepared for them to do so and to call you on it when you misrepresent the truth. Askolnick 18:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

My apologies. I did not know he added the "third opinion" section a couple days later I made my first post in the talk section. Nonetheless, (1) I would appreciate you stop using personal attacks (in doing so you violate Wikipedia policy yourself; see WP:NPA and see also WP:AGF) (2) you seem rather presumptuous regarding what my opinions are regarding Natasha Demkina. I—like you—am skeptical of paranormal claims. I—like you—do not believe Natasha Demkina has "x-ray eyes." I—like you—lean more towards the web page constituting a “personal website.” I have merely been trying to get you to see the other side's point of view (as I did with your adversary--who responded with much more civility). Instead you have responded bitterly with attacks on my character and paranoid accusations like, "Instead, he [Josephson] argues that we're a bunch of unethical crooks. That appears to be why Tisthammer wants the link added." --Wade A. Tisthammer 18:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, Wade, I mentioned that I had changed my request to include a "third opinion" after you began mediating. I hope I didn't mislead you and draw you into another attack by Askolnick. IMO, at the start you didn't post a strong opinion at all, you said "on the surface" it looks like it might be ok - not really a ringing endorsement of my side. You then began taking a more in-depth look at the issues, causing you to actually lean towards the Askolnick side of things. Changing my mediation request after you began mediating doesn't disqualify you from mediating with a view towards a "third opinion" no matter how you started. I also don't believe taking a "third opinion" approach from the start, even without a request to do, violates the Cabal Mediation guidelines. Rule 6 states "Try..not to bring up your own opinion, unless that seems to be inevitable.." Rule 6 gives an example of "seeming inevitable" but clearly there are other times when an "inevitable" presence of opinion is called for. That's in the judgement of the Mediator. There is no hard and fast requirement for No Third Opinion in the informal Cabal guidelines, no matter how much Askolnick harps on that issue. Rule 17 allows you to continue mediating even if you're rejected by some disputants. - Dreadlocke 23:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I will stop criticizing you when you STOP making false statements -- or else prove to us that you used your psychic powers to see that Dreadlocke was going to ask you for your "opinion" two days before he posted a request for a "third opinion." Clearly, when you decided to offer your opinion instead of mediating, you knew no one asked for it. Yet you claimed today that you only expressed your opinion because Dreadlocke asked for it. I think this lack of honesty pretty much permeates your attempt to "mediate" the Natasha Demkina dispute. You are no more a mediator than Saddam Hussein is president. It is merely a claim no longer based in reality. Askolnick 20:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. Wade was merely confused by the timing of my request for a "third opinion", that's not any indication of a "lack of honesty" on his part. Additionally, he did not really give a true opinion when he started. "On the surface" is just that..a preliminary look before an opinion is formed. Dreadlocke 23:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Askolnick, I admit my mistake. Apart from this, where have I given false statements? And what "opinion" are you talking about? I haven't taken sides towards the "personal website" issue. And if anything, I've leaned towards your side on that issue. I will ask you further to stop being so bitter and refrain from attacks on people's character. Again, please see WP:NPA and WP:AGF. --Wade A. Tisthammer 00:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Escalation

Wade, this issue's time in MC is ripe. It needs to be referred up the chain, either RFM or RFA, I'm not sure which. If RFM, then it needs to be fast-tracked. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 22:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think mediation can succeed while it's mired in hyperbole and accusations of bias. I intend to file an RFM for formal mediation. Please respond to me if you object. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 17:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no objections, but be sure to get Askolnick's consent before you proceed. --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

All parties already agreed to mediation per se before I submitted by medcab req, so it shouldn't be a problem. Thanks. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 20:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Wade A. Tisthammer 22:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Mediation IC

Wade, why am I a party to your mediation request? See the following diffs and note that you are going to look mighty foolish as I never opposed your idea as such, I merely said that the wording sucked and that Paley could not write. The first and second diffs would subvert any argument on your part for including me in something I haven't the time for.[38][39][40] [41] [42]

As for KC, she never even commented on that particular section, so why the hell you included her is beyond me.

Your real beef is with FM (and maybe SA), but both of their reasons are valid. You also seem to forget that Dave Souza tried to help you by informally mediating, and you basicaly blew him off.

Bottom line, including KC and I, indicates sloppy research at best, and intentionally posting disengenuously at worst. That starts to wander into RfC territory, because I makes me (and no doubt others) think that you are, as Ezra Pount noted of Bertrand de Born, "a stirrer of strife".

Jim, I do not consider your contributions "specious." Let's not forget e.g. your interpretations of the quote in question [43] (an interpretation I disagree with, but your contribution was there). I added you on the list of involvement because, at the time, you were the most actively involved person in this issue. I did not "blow off" Dave Souza but basically agreed with him regarding the forerunners section. Contrary to what you seem to suggest, KC (KillerChihuahua) was involved with this issue and made a number of posts on it (e.g. here and here). I only wish trying to get controversial pages to conform to Wikipedia policy and guidelines did not stir up so much bitterness and strife. --Wade A. Tisthammer 01:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Medation: Natasha Demkina Article

In this mediation case it appears I have not been very successful. To be honest, part of the blame lies on me for making a few mistakes at this first attempt of mine to work as a mediator here, but I have also encountered a rather bitter and uncooperative party (namely Askolnick with his personal attacks and little smear campaign against me). I do not believe I can succeed here, so I feel I must bow out. You can see my concluding remarks here. If you wish, I am free to try again at this Mediation Cabal thing. --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that you're interested in handling further mediation cases. Just pick any case you like. --Fasten 14:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPA warning on User talk:Askolnick

Hey -- just a friendly reminder. When you warn someone be sure to sign your comment by adding ~~~~ at the end. Also, you should always subst: user warning templates: for instance, add {{subst:NPA}} instead of just {{NPA}}; it makes the servers run better. Thanks! Mangojuice 05:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I've never given anyone warning before, so I supposed I'm a little inexperienced in that regard. --Wade A. Tisthammer 14:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Demkina RFM

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Natasha Demkina, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Note: I know you're not technically involved with the article any more, but your recent involvement is relevant. You can get involved with RFM or not, I just need to give all parties a notice, and you're certainly one. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 18:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

If you're interested, I would appreciate your vote on the source dispute for the Natasha Demkina draft. Thanks! Dreadlocke 17:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for participating in the poll. The poll got kind of messy and may be somewhat hard to read through, but here is the draft rewrite of the article, including information sourced from Josephson's critique. Any feedback you have is more than welcome! Thanks. Dreadlocke 05:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligent Design Talk

Hello Wade! It looks like you've not been involved with Wikipedia for quite some time. If you are still around, please go have a look here and give us your opinion. Thanks! Bagginator 11:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maybe you will come back someday?

If you do, give me your opinion of this list I posted at Intelligent Design that was archived.

Ive offered the following as meeting WP:V and WP:RS in regards to the sentence in dispute at the Intelligent Design article, "All leading proponents of Intelligent Design are affiliated with the Discovery Institute." The San Francisco Chronicle, August 28 2005 calls Norris Gravlox, "a leading proponent of the intelligent design theory" the Tribeca Film Festival calls Jack Cashill, "a leading proponent of intelligent design." The Orlando Weekly from September 1st 2005 calls Mat Staver, "leading proponent of teaching intelligent design in public schools" and on May 26, 2006, the Legal Times calls John Umana, "a leading proponent of intelligent design" establishing WP:V and WP:RS.Bagginator 05:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I've been rather frustrated by certain people "policing" articles willing to push their POV agendas to the extent of violating Wikipedia policies (e.g. refusing to provide a citation for a challenged claim). I actually backed off the "All leading proponents of Intelligent Design are affiliated with the Discovery Institute" claim when the opposition--in a stunning turn of events--provided a verifiable citation that supported the claim (an apparent expert on the subject claiming that all of them are affiliated with the Institute). I confess the claim still sounds fishy to me; we were able to provide apparent counterexamples of "leading" ID proponents not being members of the organization, but none of them seemed to have the “expert” authority. Still, I'll stop by and add my two cents. --Wade A. Tisthammer 14:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that I very much appreciate the reasoned response instead of the personal attacks that some folks resort to. It is as though i'm attacking their families, instead of their arguments. Anyway, i'm not as familiar with Wikipedia policies as you are so i'm going to have to defer to your judgement for now on this. If you are correct though it is a sad state of affairs that someone's opinion cannot be challenged because of the relative impossibility to do so. What I mean to say is, there is almost no chance a reliable source would ever call someone a leading proponent of intelligent design and also say that they are not affiliated with the Discovery Institute. And even if such a source could someday be found, what are the chances the sentence wouldn't simply change to associated instead of affiliated and then demands be made that a verifiable source be found that uses the specific word associated? I think you get my point. I'm not giving up just yet though. Someone from the AMA has offered to help me and i'm going to research Wikipedia policy with them, get their opinion, and see how to proceed from here. Thank you for putting in your two cents in such a respectful manner. I enjoy disagreement as long as it is agreeable disagreement.Bagginator 07:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the additions, however....

Hey, just saw your modification to Evanescence. While you've done a good job here, I question the necessity of devoting that much of article space to what amounts to a relatively minor early controversy. There simply does not need to be that many quotes to get across a fairly simple point. I'm going to attempt to pare it down a little, and I encourage you to find ways to do the same. Lets keep this to one large paragraph or two small ones at most, eh? Thanks! -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 10:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The reason I put those in there was simply to restore what was taken out--taken out because the citation to a few claims no longer existed. That it was taken out when no adequate source was then available is understandable, but I don't think it's unreasonable to put it back in. "That" much is only a single paragraph (at least the text I included), and the controversy did get its share of press. Thus, "comprehensive yet concise" seemed to be the way to go.

When I originally saw the section, it left out a number fairly important facts relevant to the controversy to the extent that it made it look as if the belief of Evanescence being a Christian band was based merely on rumors (indeed, I believe that word is still there in the section). The truth is somewhat different, and thus the section as it was struck me as giving a bit of a false impression. To get the full picture one ought to know the actions and words that the group previously made (consider in particular Ben Moody's words before and after, since they seem especially relevant)--and "that" only takes a paragraph. I hope you won't mind its inclusion, though I agree some of the section could be trimmed a little bit. If it were up to me I would’ve made the section shorter. I was worried that tampering with it further might upset some people. (I felt I was pushing my luck as it was, painting the full picture as I did.) --Wade A. Tisthammer 04:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, no, you are right, it does paint a clearer picture. I've done some minor work to it...not much shorter, but a bit less choppy. Hope you are okay with it. I still think it could work with fewer quotes, but I'm actually fine with it as-is. Thanks! -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 08:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)