Misplaced Pages

:Requests for adminship/Wikidudeman - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wikidudeman (talk | contribs) at 19:44, 30 July 2007 (→Discussion: rep). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:44, 30 July 2007 by Wikidudeman (talk | contribs) (→Discussion: rep)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Wikidudeman

Voice your opinion (talk page) (31/6/2); Scheduled to end 18:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman (talk · contribs) - I am nominating Wikidudeman to be an administrator. I have interacted with Wikidudeman for about six months on several pages and have been impressed with his dedication and willingness to work with others. His recent work on Parapsychology, Ebonics and Homoeopathy shows that he has sufficient maturity and diplomacy to deal with even very difficult and controversial issues. A good editor with a solid track record. Tim Vickers 18:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Co-nomination from: User:VanTucky - My first experience with Wikidudeman was when I began editing the extremely controversial Parapsychology article, what was recently at the center of an ArbCom case. During the case,and in the midst of continued edit warring, Wikidudeman took it upon himself to create a neutral space for all the users involved to try and collaboratively write a new draft of the article that would be acceptable to all parties and adhere to policy. He successfully arbitrated this endeavor and Parapsychology is now a Good Article. Simply put, without his neutral administration of an enormous rewrite, the article would be a nasty mess to this day. His actions also pretty much single-handedly convinced me of the merit of adhering to harmonious editing practices such as proposing controversial changes beforehand. He has continued this tradition of collaborative draft writing with the also-controversial Homeopathy article. While this type of work is not vandalfight or other traditional admin work, it has irrevocably demonstrated that Wikidudeman has all the qualities of a superb admin. Maturity, neutrality in decision-making, adherence to both the letter and the spirit of Misplaced Pages policy, and a zeal for improving articles and maintaining the stability and quality of Misplaced Pages as a whole. VanTucky 19:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Co-nomination from: User:Altruism - A fair, mature, diplomatic and dedicated editor who has amply demonstrated all these qualities, especially in his adept manoeuvring of controversial articles like Parapsychology, Homeopathy etc. To sum it up, a truly deserving editor. Thank You. --Altruism 05:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination, Thank you. Wikidudeman 18:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Candidate’s optional statement - Hello. I am Wikidudeman. I joined Misplaced Pages in the end of July 2006 and since then have contributed time to numerous articles, backlogs and projects. I have done my best to suppress and fight vandalism, improve articles and unofficially mediate disputes. However, it has recently become clear that my ability to help Misplaced Pages would be greatly improved if I had the extra editing capabilities that come from having the Mop.

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A:My work as an admin would involve helping with numerous backlogs including CAT:CSD, CAT:DFUI, as well as helping over at WP:AN3 and WP:AFD. I would also work at WP:UAA and WP:RFU as well, though they are rarely backlogged. I would of course continue my anti-vandalism efforts, quickly blocking obvious vandals(after warnings) or aiding in blocking vandals reported by other users at WP:AIV. Also, aside from working on the backlog of candidates for speedy deletion, I would monitor recent creations and delete pages that would qualify for speedy deletion per WP:SD after going through the necessary processes.
2. What are your best contributions to Misplaced Pages, and why?
A:I doubt I could name my top contribution. I have over 6,000 edits and have created several articles and uploaded about a dozen images so far. The Anabolic steroid article would be one of the articles that I consider to have benefited drastically from my work. I have over 450 edits to that article and since last year I have (along with the help of other editors) brought it from a start class article to a Good article and hopefully soon to be featured article. The Parapsychology article is also a notable one. I (along with the many other editors) have brought it from a disputed article with frequent edit wars, to a stable Good Article. I called upon all major editors to that article and helped them work out an article that they would not edit war over and that they could live with. The Bodybuilding article is another one which I have dedicated a lot of time to. I also frequently make numerous edits to various articles correcting their formats and citations. I am currently working on Misplaced Pages:Autoconfirmed Proposal, which would make it more difficult for repeat sock puppets to vandalize semi-protected pages.I am also currently working on a total re-write of the Homeopathy article with cooperation of all of its major contributors. When I came to the article, it was in bad shape with POV tags everywhere and relevant information missing, however since then I have gotten all of the previously conflicting editors to engage in a constructive discussion of the article at a draft in my user space. BTW, If anyone wants to help they can come to User talk:Wikidudeman/Homeopathdraft and join the discussions.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A:I have not been in any actual "conflicts" that resulted in edit wars or violations of policy on my part. I have been in disagreements and debates with other editors about numerous topics, most of which were quickly resolved, however, I can't think of any long term "conflicts". Concerning disagreements and debates that became heated, I have been in a few. One that comes to mind was with Adam Cuerden after he deleted the Anabolic steroid article because he believed the first paragraph was a copyright violation and concluded that it all must be copyrighted. We had a heated discussion on the matter and almost immediately the article was restored by Tim Vickers, later this was confirmed in a Deletion review. At the time I was unaware that articles could be restored once deleted and from this ordeal I learned that deletions can always be undeleted. Considering I was under the impression I would have to write the entire article over again (which took several months) I believe I handled the situation very well, as the most heated thing I said was that "Adam, You don't know what you're talking about." Since this I try to remember that anything that is done can be undone and anything that is undone can be re-done very easily on Misplaced Pages. I try to remember this when someone does something that I believe is wrong or harmful so as to avoid being stressed by the situation.

Optional question from AGK (talk · contribs);

4. Could you provide examples of Administrator-related work, such as XfD participation/closing, and vandalism reports (e.g., at WP:AIV, WP:AN3 or WP:UAA)? ~ Anthøny 19:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
A: If I understand the question correctly and you're asking for examples of work at XfD etc then I have about 44 contributions to WP:AIV probably several more times as many to XfD. I generally remove them from my watchlist once they have closed however an example would be the Chris Benoit murder-suicide which I nominated for deletion and can be found here Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Benoit family tragedy. The result was no consensus, possibly due to a high amount of new users from message boards who were told to vote to keep the article. I personally didn't have any opinion of whether or not it should be deleted or merged, I nominated it because there was a consensus against creating such an article on the talk page of Chris Benoit. That would be one example, however I probably have contributed to around 100 various debates for WP:AFD, however once they have closed I generally remove them from my watchlist.

General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Wikidudeman before commenting.

Discussion

Support

  1. Everything I look for in a candidate; good answers, solid stats, and vandal-fighting experience. †Ðanieltiger45† 18:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support, as nominator. Tim Vickers 18:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support: exemplary, cool head, polite, scrupulously fair, diplomatic, an excellent nominee Peter morrell 18:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support Great user, I have no concerns.--Hirohisat 19:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support, seems to have an all-around experience here. No concerns raised. Sr13 19:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support as co-nom. VanTucky 19:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support - a look at this User's contributions show that his interests are wide and his capabilities numerous. His behavior is often exemplary. Strongly support for adminship. - LuckyLouie 19:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support per nom. Politics rule 19:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support Good answer to question 1. Seems like your going to do a load of stuff.--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 20:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support Would make a great admin based on contribs, nothing really to dislike except the whole barnstar thing which kind of worries me. But hell yes, support. Cheers, JetLover 20:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support – the arguments below, whilst perhaps a little unnerving, are (in my eyes) not enough to counter the obvious nack for Mop-related activities Wikidudeman has developed during his time here on Misplaced Pages. Best of luck! Cheers, Anthøny 20:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support- I've seen him around and I trust him with the burden. I also think that the barnstars were just a coincidence. --Boricuaeddie 20:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support - with one reservation (not worthy for neutral); I feel admins need explain every edit, so I would hope Wikidudeman will enable the edit summary reminder feature. Otherwise, everything is great and have had good impressions of this editor. Safe with the tools. LessHeard vanU 20:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support - Garion96 (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support. No reason not to. A great user who will make an even better administrator. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  16. YES! Giggy UP 22:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support I really don't have any issues with this editor. Jmlk17 22:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support. Good candidate, though i have few run-ins with him, but those that i have had are good. J-stan 23:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support No issues. -Lemonflash 00:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support Based on the user's contribution history, this user is bigger than me. the_undertow 00:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support A great contributer, experienced and civil. Good luck! Dfrg.msc 00:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support I've worked with Wikidudeman on both the Anabolic steroid and Parapsychology articles and believe he would make a good admin. Lara♥Love 02:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support A solid Wikipedian who gets the job done. -- Sharkface217 03:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support Whole lot of good - ticks all the boxes (ie. contribs, answers etc.) ck lostsword•T•C 05:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support as co-nominator. --Altruism 05:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. A great editor. --Siva1979 05:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support Another editor with special knowledge in a given area and more prone to bouts of WikiLove than abuse, certainly no complaints from here. Quick review of last 1000 contribs suggests a mature and well-considered editor who would do well with the mop in some of Misplaced Pages's darkest corners. Orderinchaos 06:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support - friendly and kind editor who deserves the mop. -- Anonymous Dissident 07:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  29. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 12:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support per AFD interactions Corpx 17:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support - Good User ...--Cometstyles 19:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support Track is good Harlowraman 19:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose. The nomination says His recent work on Parapsychology, Ebonics and Homoeopathy shows that he has sufficient maturity and diplomacy to deal with even very difficult and controversial issues (emphasis added). What's this about Ebonics? I see no recent edits by Wikidudeman in its history. But his absence from its edit history is not something I regret. Wikidudeman had a long and highly distinctive involvement in the closely related article African American Vernacular English, as will be seen in AAVE/Archive 3, in subsequent archives, and in the current talk page. I have seen some very worthwhile contributions by him to other, unrelated articles and their talk pages, but am disturbed by the combination of his utter wrongheadedness over AAVE (the myth that it's "rudimentary" , and other nonsense exploded decades ago), his obvious lack of serious reading about it (even what was written in some of the clearer parts of an admittedly flawed article, parts that he didn't question), his utter unconcern about this lack of reading, and his confidence in the rightness of having the article reflect his ignorance. These archived talk pages are tiresome and longwinded (their creation wasted a hell of a lot of man-hours) and make occasionally unpleasant reading. Still, I urge people to skimread them. (Of course I, as one of his opponents within them, am not lily-white myself: you'll see me losing my cool, calling names, etc.) An administrator should have a strong commitment to having articles reflect the fruit of fairly recent mainstream academic study (which disagrees over details but agrees that AAVE is in no way inferior to standard English), not his own received ideas and not (or only fleetingly) piffle uttered on the subject by this or that celebrity. Wikidudeman may have changed since March or thereabouts, when (to my great relief) he seemed to have lost interest in that article; I certainly hope that he has done so. -- Hoary 11:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Hoary has ably described Wikidudeman's participation in the lengthy conflict at AAVE. I am surprised that Wikidudeman states I can't think of any long term "conflicts" in answer to Question 3, above, since the record of the AAVE article shows otherwise: a months-long (at least), many bytes, multi-participant dispute that included a poorly conducted mediation attempt (that is, poorly conducted by the mediator), a misguided attempt by Wikidudeman to move AAVE to Ebonics, a parallel misguided attempt by Wikidudeman to delete the existing Ebonics article, and much very heated language on all sides. Maybe our definitions of "long-term" and "conflict" differ sharply... In the end, the dispute died only because Wikidudeman seemed to finally lose interest, not because of any resolution engineered or even suggested by him. Throughout, his comments were inflammatory (as were my own, I'm sure, though I'm not running for Admin), unfocussed, obstructionist and unhelpful. Wikidudeman's comments were also, at times, offensive, stereotyping, and ignorant. I can't see how Wikidudeman's conduct in that dispute bodes well for his potential career as an Administrator. And given the record of his involvement in the above-mentioned mediation and AfD, and his record of half-hearted commitment to edit summaries, I remain to be convinced that Wikidudeman knows and understands Misplaced Pages policy sufficiently to operate successfully as an Admin. Pinkville 15:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. oppose per Hoary and Pinkville. JoshuaZ 15:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per Hoary, Pinkville and Pedro, below. FeloniousMonk 16:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Hoary and Pinkville gave me pause, but Pedro's comments below put me over the top. However, none of their comments would have mattered if not for my observations with regards to User talk:Wikidudeman/Homeopathdraft. OrangeMarlin 16:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    Concerning my attempts to improve the AAVE and Ebonics articles, I had the impression at the time I stopped editing those articles that the disputes were resolved, not because I lost interest. All I was doing was trying to make the article less POV by adding the fact that AAVE has encountered a significant amount of controversy. When I came upon the article, the language of it seemed to be apologetic in support of AAVE and dismissive of any sort of criticism of it. I went through the normal dispute resolutions, refrained from personal attacks, and kept a cool head as outside observers (including Tim Vickers) can testify. I felt the article was not POV so I attempted to improve it and went through the accepted avenues to do so. I also throught the Ebonics article should be merged with the AAVE article and also went through the accepted avenues to do that as well. I don't quite understand the oppositions of Hoary, Pinkville or Joshuaz. Wikidudeman 18:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    OrangeMarlin, I notice you linked User talk:Wikidudeman/Homeopathdraft however I don't quite understand if you're linking it because you support my attempts to improve that article or oppose them. Wikidudeman 18:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    Concerning edit summaries, I generally do a lot of my work to improve articles on sub-pages of my userpage often where I am the only person viewing the edits and changes. Up to a month or two ago I rarely added edit summaries to such pages however I've been starting to do so now. Up to a few months ago I also didn't often add edits summaries to minor edits, however I've started to do that always now as well. So I do appreciate that constructive criticism concerning my previous lack of use of edit summaries. Right now I have my options set to automatically remind me whenever I fail to add an edit summary so that I won't forget. Wikidudeman 18:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per Hoary and Pinkville; the candidate's answers to the questions do not seem to match up well with other users' experience of the editor. Jkelly 18:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose I was also part of the team that came up against Wikidudeman on the AAVE page, but it's not the disagreement with him or even his stubbornness and ignorance displayed in the discussions, it's his judgement. In the conflict, his attempts at dispute resolution showed a poor understanding of Misplaced Pages policies: he did an RfM first, nominated a page for deletion when he wanted it merged, added a disputed item to an article's to-do list, and evenwikilawyered. Now, granted, he wasn't ignorant in all policies (this was a discussion, not an edit war); people can learn from their mistakes and the AAVE dispute was potentially an intense lesson for Wikidudeman in the procedures for conflict resolution, but his discussion style was unbecoming of an editor. Wikidudeman would call long replies to his comments "rants" (saying he didn't have enough time to read them) and had complete disregard for verifiable sources (and sourcing in general). His failure to bring up this conflict here means he is either not honest with himself about it or is completely oblivious to the conflictive nature. From what else I see of Wikidudeman, it seems as though AAVE was an exception to otherwise good editor but while I see Wikidudeman doing a great job on all things sysop, any conflict resolution tools he is granted may, I think, not be used wisely. Ƶ§œš¹ 19:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    Thank you for your input. Firstly, I want to mention that my nominating the Ebonics article to be deleted was a reaction to the fact that at the time of the nomination, the information between the two articles was redundant. Secondly, Concerning the difference posted where you say I was "Wikilawyering", Wikilawyering is one thing that I am definitely opposed to. The argument was concerning the name of an article and I was arguing that the article should be named not by what a technical or obscure academic term for the word was, but what most people referred to it as. I.E. "Ebonics" not "African American Vernacular English". Thirdly, You say that you are opposing me because of one instance where my conflict resolution was subpar, and acknowledge that this seems to be an exception in my editing, Perhaps you should take note of my recent dispute resolutions in relation to the Parapsychology article and currently the Homeopathy article. I believe that you are welcomed to your opposition however I believe it's only fair that you take into account my more recent contributions. Thanks. Wikidudeman 19:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Strong Oppose. In the recent paranormal arbitration case, Wikidudeman was heavily biased toward the (pseudo)skeptical side of the debate in a way that I feel is inappropriate for someone who wishes to be an admin - a cursory understanding of neutrality being a prerequisite in my opinion. For example, re the point that skeptical editors had engaged in edit warring, Wikidudeman said, "I have never seen this occur or seen evidence of it occur". A comment which, given the constant edit warring of the named "skeptical" parties in that case, displays either monumental ignorance (hence not fit to be an admin) or monumental dishonesty (again not fit to be an admin). That is, one need only take a cursory glance at the edit history of the EVP article (one major basis for the case) to see that the named "skeptical" parties (LuckieLouie, Minderbinder, ScienceApologist) had engaged in repeated edit warring (including the use of sock-puppets), and gang edit warring to try to force their POV into the article. Given that Wikidudeman could not form anything like a correct/neutral opinion in such an easy case, there seems to me no way he could be trusted to form one more difficult cases. He would, I fear, simply be another pseudoskeptical administrator who would be wheeled in when a debate was going against the pseudoskeptics in order to threaten and intimidate users. It is therefore hard for me to resist the conclusion that this is merely an attempt by the pseudoskeptical community in Wiki to get another of their "own men" on the inside so that they can force their POV into articles despite many (most) of their views about content being soundly rejected by the arbitration committee. That Wikidudeman agreed wholeheartedly with so many points that were rejected by that committee is, I think, a further reason why he is unsuitable to be an admin. Davkal 19:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    Hello Davkal, I appreciate your input. I don't know what you mean by "pseudoskeptical" or anything like that, I want to point out that during the few weeks all of the major contributors (Including supporters and opponents of the idea of parapsychology) you never once added any input as far as I can remember. While a lot of edit warring did occur prior to my successful resolution of the disputes, I never once engaged in edit warring. I'm not sure I can gain anything from your criticism since you seem to be pegging me as a "Pseudoskeptic" from the get go, I do appreciate your input. Wikidudeman 19:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


Neutral

  1. Neutral So I think I'm going to stuff my personal reputation here with this, as this editor is so good and contribs are fab. But barnstars to RFA regulars (including one to myself) in the few days prior to this RFA reeks of a violation of WP:CANVASS. I'm really sorry, as it looks like I'm throwing WP:AGF out the window, but I can only comment based on my personal beliefs. For what it's worth if it where not for this I would have been a strong support. I'm ready to get shot down in flames for this, but I doubt my oppose will change. Pedro |  Chat  19:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, I give barnstars to most good editors I encounter during deletion debates, RFA's, Vandalism fighting, etc. I frequent RFA's and often vote and thus I view the contributions of users who vote and give them barnstars respectively. I respect your opinion but I'm sorry you view it as some sort of attempt to sway votes. A quick look at my talk page archives will confirm that I've been doing this for a while now. I don't quite understand exactly how a barnstar could sway a vote to begin with.Wikidudeman 19:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    I'm not going to shout you down with flames Pedro, you have in the past certainly demonstrated your civility and assumption of good faith. Your concerns might have some merit if taken out of the context of Wikidudeman's contribution pattern as whole, but I myself can attest to the truth of his response. I don't think his proclivity for spreading some WikiLove is a fault. VanTucky 19:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    Man, this is so gutting to oppose such a good editor. It's just the timing and the ammount in a concentrated burst. Let's hope I'm out of line and the closing 'crat ignore this. But I have to comment based on my conscience and my personal beliefs. I'm sorry. Best wishes. Pedro |  Chat  19:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    While I do respect your opinion, and appreciate constructive criticism, I'm not sure I can correct in my actions concerning this opposition. I give barnstars to most good editors I encounter anywhere. I will continue to do so. Wikidudeman 19:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    As an award recipient, I had no knowledge of this RfA until I saw yesterday's listing. These awards are not related to this RfA at all. It is perhaps a coincidence that he gave out these awards prior to this nomination. Sr13 20:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I have moved the entire conversation to Neutral from Oppose so as not to lose a great potential admin who may have made small error of timing / judgement that should not affect the rest of the discussion. Pedro |  Chat  20:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral, leaning to support. Good candidate in general, but my discussion with him at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Booyabazooka, and subsequent follow-up on his talk page here, leaves me concerned about his judgment. Someone who relies excessively on WP:UCS, an essay which is not part of policy, and WP:IAR, a policy which (IMO) should be used sparingly and only in uncontroversial circumstances, may well be too cavalier in using the admin tools, and may not follow policy and procedure. I don't feel that this candidate is sufficiently committed to following the policies and guidelines laid down by community consensus. Nevertheless, I don't have any direct evidence to suggest he would be a bad admin, so I won't oppose. Walton 20:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    My views on this were elaborated clearly in our talk page discussion found here User_talk:Wikidudeman#UCS_and_IAR. You ceased discussing it with me for some reason, however I thought that we were in an agreement. Misplaced Pages is a very dynamic project who's rules are frequently changing and begin reworded. I'm NOT supporting some wanton disregard for policy, However, WP:IAR is here to prevent "Wikilawyering" and strictly interpreting the rules to a point it harms the project. If you come upon a situation where a super strict interpretation of the rules could result in a negative effect for wikipedia then it's best to use common sense opposed to strictly following a specific rule which could be reworded tomorrow. That's my opinion on that. Wikidudeman 20:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    I can't speak to the particular talk page in question, but out of hundreds of talk comments I have seen from Wikidudeman, I have never seen him use those links until now. VanTucky 20:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    It takes a very subtle knowledge of the policies(or style guidelines) to identify when they are being used or not being used. For instance WP:NPOV discourages structuring and segregating articles into "Criticism" sections, However in my experience this is the best way to promote equality and peace in articles and discourage edit warring. An example is the Parapsychology article which splits areas and has a "Criticism" area. WP:NPOV would discourage this, however based on experience I find it the best (and only) way to avoid disputes and edit wars. Wikidudeman 20:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)