Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gnixon

This user makes POV pushing edits to controversial articles such as Wikipedia:Featured article review/Intelligent design, Intelligent design, Evolution, Creation-evolution controversy, Physics, Abortion and the discussion pages for each. This user's edits and commentary contravene WP:NPOV, WP:POINT, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR. He has also posted unfounded complaints on WP:AN/I about other editors regarding WP:STALK, WP:CIVIL, WP:TALK and other issues in order to harass and intimidate those users with opposing viewpoints. In addition, Gnixon has engaged in WP:CANVAS, WP:NPA and failing to utilize WP:AGF.

No further editing to any Evolution or Creation articles. One month ban from editing. No further posting to AN/I without discussing with two independent administrators.

This user has been reverting edits by other users to push his own POV, refactoring talk pages, posting inappropriate and harassing complaints to AN/I, joining in an canvass to remove an article from FA status, and engaging in edit wars to push POV. Gnixon has a habit of utilizing the Wikipedia process to file complaints to reduce

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive222#Block_request First ANI]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive230&action=edit§ion=21 Second ANI]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=123457394 Attempt to resolve second ANI]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive95#WP:CIVIL Third ANI]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evolution&diff=prev&oldid=76609499 Reverting of removal of NPOV tag--asked to discuss but still places tag]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gnixon&diff=prev&oldid=76641779 Uncivil remarks after being warned about NPOV tagging]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evolution&diff=prev&oldid=113106114 addition of POV material to Evolution article]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Objections_to_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=117458421 POV-pushing]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Objections_to_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=118399660 Created POV tone by claiming removal of POV]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Objections_to_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=118407577 Further POV-pushing]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Objections_to_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=118420262 Personal attack in edit summary]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Objections_to_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=118517056 POV-pushing]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Evolution&diff=prev&oldid=119268659 Refactoring] Talk:Evolution without discussion

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Evolution&diff=prev&oldid=119268659 Editing someone else's comments in same discussion]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Evolution&diff=prev&oldid=119268659 Major refactoring without discussion]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Evolution&diff=prev&oldid=119268659 Deleting other user's formatting]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Evolution&diff=prev&oldid=119272961 Major refactoring without discussion]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Creation-evolution_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=119283223 POV without any concurrence anywhere]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creation-evolution_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=119588803 Addition of POV statements to discredit author]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creation-evolution_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=119589935 Addition of POV statements to discredit author]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Evolution_as_theory_and_fact&diff=prev&oldid=119592608 Incorrect POV interpretation of theory and fact]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Evolution_as_theory_and_fact&diff=prev&oldid=119606319 Editing editor's contribution to Talk section]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creation-evolution_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=119609253 Making POV even harsher]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Creation-evolution_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=119618149 Attempting to characterize an author by their religious affiliation]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creation-evolution_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=119614476 Edit warring]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Evolution&diff=prev&oldid=119652382 Massive refactoring with personal attack on edit summary]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Creation-evolution_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=120032857 POV pushing] to make a point

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGnixon&diff=121226496&oldid=121199433 Reprimand from Admin]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Adam_Cuerden&diff=prev&oldid=134847264 Another reprimand]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Level_of_support_for_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=120098422 POV pushing though subtle by describing scientists as boneheads]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Intelligent_design&diff=prev&oldid=120396514 POV pushing]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Objections_to_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=120501088 Revert of deletion of a POV image]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rbj&diff=prev&oldid=120547723 Supporting an POV editor that has been banned by the community]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Intelligent_design&diff=prev&oldid=120612491 Equating the Matrix to Intelligent design in a manner to push the POV]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Intelligent_design&diff=prev&oldid=121006703 Deleting a talk page commentary and classifying it as rude], and stalking the editor

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abortion&diff=prev&oldid=121050594 POV pushing]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gnixon&diff=prev&oldid=121229689 Accusation of sweeping changes to an article similar to Evolution]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gnixon&diff=prev&oldid=121226996 Civility]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Orangemarlin&diff=prev&oldid=123162887 Civility]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gnixon&diff=next&oldid=123511267 Civility]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Physics&diff=prev&oldid=121231422 Edit warring and POV pushing]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Creation-evolution_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=121290057 Editing another person's comments on talk page]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/members&diff=prev&oldid=121296706 POV pushing and complaining]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rbj&diff=prev&oldid=121334939 Claiming a cabal on controversial issues]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rbj&diff=prev&oldid=121555750 Support for a community banned editor in POV editing]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=121712055 Uncivil commentary]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Intelligent_design&diff=prev&oldid=121746095 Highly POV edit proposal for lead of controversial article]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evolution&diff=prev&oldid=123097791 Major edits to Evolution without consensus or discussion]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TxMCJ&diff=prev&oldid=123152576 Uncivil attack on editor]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TxMCJ&diff=prev&oldid=123153195 False accusation]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gnixon&diff=prev&oldid=123405751 Uncivil attack on editor]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Intelligent_design&diff=123158625&oldid=123157969 Uncivil attack on admin]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KillerChihuahua&diff=prev&oldid=123428283 Uncivil attack on another admin]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gnixon&diff=prev&oldid=123511394 Uncivil commentary]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Intelligent_design&diff=prev&oldid=127583897 Trying to remove editors from editing article]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Physics&diff=prev&oldid=127754345 Large edits without consensus or discussion]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gnixon&diff=prev&oldid=128854420 Uncivil commentary]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TimVickers&diff=prev&oldid=138778765 Personal attack]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SlimVirgin&diff=prev&oldid=143895330 POV pushing on Intelligent design]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abiogenesis&diff=prev&oldid=143972576 POV pushing]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abiogenesis&diff=prev&oldid=143976112 POV pushing]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Intelligent_design&diff=prev&oldid=144500085 POV pushing and personal attack]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Intelligent_design&diff=prev&oldid=144503921 After being canvassed to join this FAR, accuses others of being "owners"]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Intelligent_design&diff=prev&oldid=144505624 False accusations, not assuming good faith]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abiogenesis&diff=prev&oldid=144508490 POV pushing]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Intelligent_design&diff=prev&oldid=144507902 POV pushing by asking to replace editors]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Intelligent_design&diff=prev&oldid=144742262 POV pushing after being canvassed to join]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Origin_of_life&diff=prev&oldid=144747434 POV proposal]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Integral&diff=prev&oldid=144749190 Massive edits without consensus or discussion]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Intelligent_design&diff=prev&oldid=145073878 Personal attack and POV pushing]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Physics&diff=prev&oldid=145106149 Massive edits without consensus or discussion]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Intelligent_design&diff=prev&oldid=145136171 Attempted removal of uncivil personal attack]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Physics&diff=145125914&oldid=143909859 Four days of massive edits without consensus or discussion]

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGnixon&diff=145452279&oldid=145335279 Implied retaliation threat]

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

:#WP:NPOV

:#WP:CIVIL

:#WP:NPA

:#WP:POINT

:#WP:STALK

:#WP:TALK

:#WP:VERIFY

:#WP:CANVASS

:#WP:AGF

(provide diffs and links)

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gnixon&diff=prev&oldid=120595570 Attempt for peace]

:#Attempt to resolve by TxMCJ

:#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=123457394 Resolution attempt]

:#Orangemarlin 00:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

:#Filll 00:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

:#Adam Cuerden ^talk 09:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

:#•Jim62sch• 10:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

:#FeloniousMonk 15:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC) Gnixon does a good of appearing superficially reasonable and dedicated to WP:NPOV but is ultimately obdurate and invariably argues agressively against genuinely neutral presentations of intelligent design. His technique is repeatably to pretend to be upholding the scientific point of view while insisting that others justify the mainstream view to his satisfaction - which of course is never forthcoming since the fundamental problem is that he simply prefers the intelligent design point of view despite never admitting as much. This is apparent becausem he is quick to rush to support every intelligent design pov pusher who comes to the article, yet has never taken a stand for any on the mainstream science side. Aside from being evidence of hidden bias, this is unfortunate because these pov pushers are not only huge wasters of time but almost invariably abusive.

:#Odd nature 19:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

:# JoshuaZ 19:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

:# KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

Orangemarlin has long had a personal problem with me. A great deal of his time on Wikipedia is spent attacking and mocking creationists and intelligent design advocates who show up on pages like Evolution and Intelligent design. There have been two relevant outcomes:

• 1) some other users, who similarly believe creationists are idiots who deserve to be attacked and mocked, admire Orangemarlin and support him
• 2) since I've spoken up in favor of treating creationists/IDers civilly and respecting their comments, Orangemarlin has taken a great dislike towards me

I assume there will be criticism of me here from users such as Filll, Jimsch2, Felonious Monk, and Odd Nature, with whom I've had similar disagreements recently over the hostile environment they create at pages such as Wikipedia:Featured article review/Intelligent design. One could also look at Talk:Mohammed for editors with whom I had unresolved differences. I had a regrettable personal clash with User:TxMCJ a few months ago, which involved Orangemarlin. Other than that, I believe I've been able to resolve amicably any disagreements I've had with others.

If there are critical comments from any of the more rational editors who frequent, say Intelligent design, or from any neutral 3rd party, I'll take this RfC more seriously and respond more fully, with diffs, etc. Gnixon 14:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

People reading this RfC should be sure to click on some of Orangemarlin's links above to see if the text of the hyperlinks accurately describe what they link to. Gnixon 15:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. LuciferMorgan 00:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
2. The diffs do support Gnixon's view. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the forum for discussing the proper way to respond to editors who promote some pseudoscience, but let me assure you that my comments are always genuine. In any case where mainstream science seems to be short of defenders, trust me, I'll be there. Gnixon 15:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reasonable advice, but could you please be more specific about how I should change the presentation of my arguments? I'm fairly certain that I've never supported any view, and I try to always concentrate on the articles. If you could show me an example of where I've slipped and how I could have done better, it would be most helpful. Gnixon 16:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Sandy, for taking the time to write up your analysis of the diffs. I agree with what you've written (is it proper for me to endorse?), and I don't think it would be too hyperbolic to say you've restored my faith in this community and my interest in contributing to Wikipedia.

You listed two items under "Worth examining." Both of them ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Intelligent_design&diff=prev&oldid=121006703], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Evolution_as_theory_and_fact&diff=prev&oldid=119606319]) were instances of me deleting some or all of a comment by Orangemarlin from a talk page because of incivility. One was an attack directed at a new user, while the other was an attack against me. The guidelines on talk page commentary (WP:TPG) say it is acceptable to delete uncivil comments, and if memory serves, I picked up the practice on Talk:Intelligent design from some of the users who endorsed this RfC. Nevertheless, I was uncomfortable with deleting others' comments, even if uncivil, and soon stopped doing it---those two diffs (which occurred several months ago and were a couple days apart) may be the only examples of me ever deleting others' uncivil comments. For what it's worth, I've found it's much better, in most environments, to simply and politely remind others that our policy is to avoid incivility. In any case, I'm open to advice on how to best deal with incivility directed towards me or others. Gnixon 16:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not close this RfC until I've had a chance (within the next couple days) to respond here on the record. Gnixon 16:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

:On second thought, I won't bother unless people think this would be productive. If so, please let me know. Gnixon 05:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

I've been alerted to this fracas by one of the participants. I don't know Gnixon, but s/he seems like a good person. I respect some of the people who have initiated this process. I haven't performed a complete analysis of all of the information here (i.e., the huge number of links), but it does seem prima facae to be a storm in a teacup. My advice to all here is to calm down, back off, respect each other, and do nothing that would inflame this conflict. I'm totally fed up with energy that goes into this kind of activity rather than improving our wonderful project.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Tony 03:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
2. RelHistBuff 08:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
3. Addhoc 15:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
4. Except, I have examined the info here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
5. late, but nevertheless. Northfox 19:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

My advice to Gnixon is to keep editing the articles, however to change the manner in which he presents arguments. I recommend that he avoids saying that he supports any view and merely expresses ideas on how the article should be improved.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Addhoc 15:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
2. Tony 15:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

Because it’s curious that an editor could violate Wikipedia’s core policies and guidelines over 70 times, and yet have no blocks and no admin warnings on his talk page, I took an interest in reviewing the abundance of diffs on this RfC, even though the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for comment weren’t followed, and the RfC shouldn’t have continued.

The diffs provided don’t always show violations, and many appear favorable to Gnixon. Some of the admin statements are from the main contributor to one of the articles where many of the alleged violations occurred—an involved party. I didn’t find any warning to Gnixon from any uninvolved admin, and it doesn't appear that serious attempts have been made to find a resolution or that mediation has been pursued. While other editors have been warned, Gnixon has been supported by uninvolved admins in every instance I examined. Also, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hrafn42&diff=145468113&oldid=145023138 one editor asked to join this RfC] responded that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Orangemarlin&diff=prev&oldid=145475732 s/he didn’t have anything to bring to the RfC] on Gnixon.

I recommend that all involved editors pursue mediation, and if that isn’t successful, then it might be beneficial for ArbCom to examine all of the parties and issues (including this RfC) thoroughly. I don’t find cause for the desired outcome of banning Gnixon from editing, but I do recommend that he find less tense of areas of Wikipedia to edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Some examples from the diffs posted originally (I have repeated the original descriptions of the diffs even when/if I may not agree with them; not all included – I stopped reviewing after a pattern emerged):

;My favorite

1. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Creation-evolution_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=121290057 Editing another person's comments on talk page] – Common sense please, and a sense of humor.

;Support for Gnixon at ANI, no admonition of Gnixon, or FM (an involved party) is the only admin to make a statement about Gnixon

1. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive222#Block_request First ANI] – Gnixon’s complaint was “founded”, Orangemarlin was warned, nothing against Gnixon here.
2. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive230&action=edit§ion=21 Second ANI] – bad diff, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive230#Harassment_and_stalking] – view expressed that TxMCJ was a single purpose account who followed Gnixon to other topics, “consistent with malicious wikistalking on the part of TxMCJ”.
3. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=123457394 Attempt to resolve second ANI] – response from FM, an involved party, calling Gnixon an “aggressive and overly assertive editor” who should “grow a thicker skin”.
4. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive95#WP:CIVIL Third ANI] – nothing here except admin acknowledgement of unpleasantness on the featured article review, nothing against Gnixon at all.
5. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gnixon&diff=prev&oldid=121229689 Accusation of sweeping changes to an article similar to Evolution] – from FM, an involved party
6. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Intelligent_design&diff=123158625&oldid=123157969 Uncivil attack on admin] – Why wasn’t he blocked?
7. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KillerChihuahua&diff=prev&oldid=123428283 Uncivil attack on another admin] – Why wasn’t he blocked?
8. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TxMCJ&diff=prev&oldid=123153195 False accusation] – AN/I showed support that Gnixon was "maliciously" stalked.

;Possibly misunderstood

1. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGnixon&diff=121226496&oldid=121199433 Reprimand from Admin] – Reprimand? By FM, an involved admin
2. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Adam_Cuerden&diff=prev&oldid=134847264 Another reprimand] – Appears to be a mild personal impression by someone who happens to be an admin, not commenting in any admin capacity, on the talk page of another editor. Doesn't seem to be a reprimand or an admin reprimand. {{user|TimVickers}} later had [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGnixon&diff=141502141&oldid=138397741 this conversation with Gnixon.]
3. :[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TimVickers&diff=prev&oldid=138778765 Personal attack] – related to above
4. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Intelligent_design&diff=prev&oldid=144503921 After being canvassed to join this FAR, accuses others of being "owners"] – There was no canvassing
5. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Intelligent_design&diff=prev&oldid=144742262 POV pushing after being canvassed to join] – There was no canvassing

;Purported personal attacks or incivility don’t seem to evidence same

1. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gnixon&diff=prev&oldid=76641779 Uncivil remarks after being warned about NPOV tagging] – uncivil? “I hoped you would show me a page illustrating consensus on usage of the tag, rather than just explaining your personal preference.”
2. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Objections_to_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=118420262 Personal attack in edit summary] – “OM, please stop arbitrarily reverting my changes. Your reason didn't even make sense. I didn't restrict to theistic evolution--I just made a tighter sentence. Pleae reread it.)”
3. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Evolution&diff=prev&oldid=119652382 Massive refactoring with personal attack on edit summary] – (rv rv. OM, do you honestly think my refactoring of Mandaclair's discussion wasn't useful, or did you want an excuse to delete the two new topics I added?)

;Worth examining

1. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Intelligent_design&diff=prev&oldid=121006703 Deleting a talk page commentary and classifying it as rude], and stalking the editor – Removal of talk page comments, but it doesn’t seem wise to be calling attention to Orangemarlin’s posts like this; I didn’t come across anything of this magnitude from Gnixon.
2. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Evolution_as_theory_and_fact&diff=prev&oldid=119606319 Editing editor's contribution to Talk section] – Warrants explanation and examination. But, if the other statements are considered attacks by Gnixon, then by that standard, so is the edited statement by Orangemarlin.

; A proposal from Gnixon to end warring at Intelligent design, suggesting they all leave the article alone, including himself. A wise suggestion?

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Intelligent_design&diff=prev&oldid=127583897 Trying to remove editors from editing article], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Intelligent_design&diff=prev&oldid=144507902 POV pushing by asking to replace editors]

;Can’t determine based on one diff, apparently Gnixon has never been warned, blocked or reported.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creation-evolution_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=119614476 Edit warring], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Physics&diff=prev&oldid=121231422 Edit warring and POV pushing], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evolution&diff=prev&oldid=123097791 Major edits to Evolution without consensus or discussion], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Physics&diff=prev&oldid=127754345 Large edits without consensus or discussion], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Physics&diff=145125914&oldid=143909859 Four days of massive edits without consensus or discussion]

;The following diffs, listed originally as “POV pushing”, are to talk page commentary, not article edits:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Objections_to_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=118517056 POV-pushing], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Creation-evolution_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=119283223 POV without any concurrence anywhere], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Evolution_as_theory_and_fact&diff=prev&oldid=119592608 Incorrect POV interpretation of theory and fact], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Creation-evolution_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=119618149 Attempting to characterize an author by their religious affiliation], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Level_of_support_for_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=120098422 POV pushing though subtle by describing scientists as boneheads], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Intelligent_design&diff=prev&oldid=120396514 POV pushing], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rbj&diff=prev&oldid=120547723 Supporting an POV editor that has been banned by the community], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Intelligent_design&diff=prev&oldid=120612491 Equating the Matrix to Intelligent design in a manner to push the POV], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abortion&diff=prev&oldid=121050594 POV pushing], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Intelligent_design&diff=prev&oldid=121746095 Highly POV edit proposal for lead of controversial article], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SlimVirgin&diff=prev&oldid=143895330 POV pushing on Intelligent design], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abiogenesis&diff=prev&oldid=143972576 POV pushing], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abiogenesis&diff=prev&oldid=143976112 POV pushing], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Creation-evolution_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=120032857 POV pushing] to make a point

;Refactoring allegations were apparently attempts to install hats, and four of these are one diff, repeated

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Evolution&diff=prev&oldid=119268659 Refactoring] Talk:Evolution without discussion, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Evolution&diff=prev&oldid=119268659 Editing someone else's comments in same discussion], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Evolution&diff=prev&oldid=119268659 Major refactoring without discussion], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Evolution&diff=prev&oldid=119268659 Deleting other user's formatting], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Evolution&diff=prev&oldid=119272961 Major refactoring without discussion]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
2. LuciferMorgan 22:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
3. This is looking a bit incestuous, but I trust Sandy 100% in the performance of a disinterested analysis. Tony 03:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
4. I haven't checked all links, but for what I have seen, Sandy summarizes the discussion quite well. Northfox 19:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

1. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Adam_Cuerden&diff=prev&oldid=134847264 Another reprimand] – Appears to be a mild personal impression by someone who happens to be an admin, not commenting in any admin capacity, on the talk page of another editor. Doesn't seem to be a reprimand or an admin reprimand. {{user|TimVickers}} later had [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGnixon&diff=141502141&oldid=138397741 this conversation with Gnixon.]
2. :[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TimVickers&diff=prev&oldid=138778765 Personal attack] – related to above

As a comment on this, as far as I can remember I have never interacted with Gnixon in editing an article and cannot offer any valid assessment of this how this user edits and interacts with other editors. Consequently, I would be uneasy with any of my comments or discussions being used as part of this RfC. Tim Vickers 22:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.