Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tim Smith

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: ~~~~), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 09:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC).

---

• Tim Smith (talk · contribs · logs)

---

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

Statement of the dispute

Tim Smith, a pro-intelligent design contributor who was involved in supporting censured pov-pushers Asmodeus and DrL in the recently concluded Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist, has been conducting a campaign promoting the intelligent design viewpoint on particular points at Uncommon Dissent and at International Society for Complexity, Information and Design. At Uncommon Dissent he has engaged in minor edit warring, misusing dispute tags, and attempting to expand the conflict by misrepresenting the situation at other venues.

Description

Against broad consensus from credible, long term contributors knowledgeable on the topic of ID, Tim Smith has been conducting a low-grade edit war and misusing WP processes to use the intelligent design movement's (an extreme minority POV within the realm of science) definition of a specific term ("Darwinism") to the exclusion of the majority's (the scientific community's) use of the term. He has repeatedly and wilfully ignored for over two months all policy (WP:NPOV#Undue_weight / WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience / WP:NPOVFAQ#Giving_.22equal_validity.22), reason, and evidence (sources and cites) that he is either mistaken or favoring (giving undue weight to) a minority POV. And a minority POV which has an established history (as determined in the Dover trial ruling) of misusing terms to achieve their goals.

Despite being shown he is promoting a particular viewpoint unduly, he has resorted to (mis)using dispute tags and misrepresenting the situation at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts in order to drum up support to gain the upper hand in the content dispute.

Evidence of disputed behavior

(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.)

1. 10:19, 26 December Misrepresenting the situation, misuse of process to expand the conflict
2. 13:33, 22 December Continued misuse of dispute tag
3. 22:51, 21 December Again favoring the spin of the ID movement over the majority view
4. 22:01, 19 December Restoring dispute tag despite consensus on talk (including 3 admins) that the tag was being misused
5. 14:56, 18 December Reverting again to the minority ID community's spin
6. 00:30, 18 December Reverting again
7. 21:34, 10 December Favoring minority view unduly
8. 21:14, 28 November Misusing "fact" tags to favor ID's use of the term over that of the scientific community's
9. 09:51, 28 November Reverting again to restore pro-ID spin
10. 09:15, 28 November Again misusing "fact" tags to favor ID's use of the term over that of the scientific community's, now at the ISCID article
11. 17:09, 27 November Again reverting to restore ID spin
12. 18:11, 26 November Reverting again
13. 23:22, 24 November 1st insertion of pro-ID definitions
14. A similar pattern occurred at International Society for Complexity, Information and Design from August 10 through November 28: [1]

Applicable policies and guidelines

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

1. WP:NPOV#Undue_weight
2. WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience
3. WP:NPOVFAQ#Giving_.22equal_validity.22
4. WP:NOT
5. WP:CON

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

1. 00:06, 29 November Guettarda trying to set the policies and facts straight
2. 00:32, 29 November FeloniousMonk commenting on the validity of Tim Smith's objections and editing style
3. 01:20, 29 November FeloniousMonk providing sources
4. 01:22, 20 December FeloniousMonk on the use of the dispute tag
5. 06:47, 20 December Guettarda on the use of the dispute tag
6. 07:18, 20 December Arthur Rubin on the use of the dispute tag

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. FeloniousMonk 19:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Guettarda 21:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
3. ScienceApologist 16:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

1. •Jim62sch• 20:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Response

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.

Back next week to respond; sorry for the wait. Tim Smith 00:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by User:Amarkov

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 do see that User:Tim Smith has made some biased edits. However, adding dispute tags is not bias. If there is an unsourced assertion, then it may be tagged as needing citation. If that gives the impression of undue weight, good; that's what it's supposed to do. If something has no citation, it should be treated as suspect, and not be given equal validity with things that do. If you think that he didn't tag everything he should, giving the impression that the others were more valid, then tag those too. Don't claim that requesting citations is biased.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Mathmo ^Talk 06:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: There has been a problem since the invention of the {{fact}} tag that when editors don't get their way they go through and "fact-tag-bomb" the article to make a point. The point is that when the consensus of the editors is that a point is referenced, that a citation is already provided, etc. and singular editors don't like the consensus, that shouldn't give said singular editors the green light to go add fact tags to articles as if to ignore the discussions. --ScienceApologist 16:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

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.