Anti-ID group (IDCAB) begins again?, Can't tell you how much I missed that friendly bunch. Options

[Sxeptomaniac]

I had really hoped they'd keep themselves under control after FeloniousMonk's desysopping a while back, but they appear to be back at it again.

Cla68 seems to have stirred them up by trying to add a "Scientific theories" category to the Intelligent Design article. Don't think it was a really good idea, but it doesn't justify the reaction.

Now Hrafn has decided to tag various articles as being Creationism stubs, including James Tour, a guy who has specifically said that he's not an intelligent design supporter. He signed a petition, so therefore he's a creationist, even if he says otherwise, right? Never mind that he's done nothing else related to creationism, and all indicators are that he never will. Now Guettarda's gaming to try to keep the tag in (since when is the burden of evidence on the one removing material from a BLP?).

I really did not want to get involved with these people again, but I'm not letting them go back to messing with BLPs like they did in the past.

This post has been edited by Sxeptomaniac:

[lilburne]

Don't know who Hrafn is but this was an enjoyable encounter.

[Kwork]

Don't know who Hrafn is but this was an enjoyable encounter.

I had an encounter or two with Hrafn, and I tend to agree with his POV. The problem is that he wants to be sure that nobody misses his point. For instance, if I were editing that particular biographical article, I would stop at saying in the lead at: "David Berlinski (born 1942) is an American educator and author of several books on mathematics. Berlinski is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture." The stuff about intelligent design could come later. After all it seems that the man has done other things, some of them perhaps of value. There is plenty of time to discuss the intelligent design nonsense later.

It is a common problem on WP. Its like the Bobby Fisher article. Sure the guy was a jerk, but since he was famous as a great chess player, there is no need to put his personality problems in the lead. But in the Bobby Fisher article it is a long lead, and the negative stuff comes at the end, so its not so bad. Hrafn is pushing to get the most problematic stuff about David Berlinski right in the first sentence, and that seems unnecessary.

[EricBarbour]

Don't know who Hrafn is but this was an enjoyable encounter.

I had an encounter or two with Hrafn, and I tend to agree with his POV. The problem is that he wants to be sure that nobody misses his point.

Hrafn is not an "atheist", he is a raving, drooling lunatic. You were confused into thinking he was an honest atheist, because his abusive activities are so erratic.

(He tagteams with Cirt occasionally. Plus, he spends a lot of time grooming the Unification Church articles,
thus making himself sometimes look like a rabid conservative. I was confused by this too. He's just rabid.)

Some crackpots love Miley Cyrus, some crackpots love Sonic the Hedgehog, and some crackpots love ID/creationism. It's just a focus for their OCD, the actual subject matter isn't relevant.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: