User:Thomas Basboll/Sandbox
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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: 06:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC).
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
Contents |
[edit] Statement of the dispute
User:MONGO seems to committed to the idea that anyone who takes a serious interest in 9/11 conspiracy theories deserves no respect. This is unfortunate because a great many people who are sceptical about the official US government version of the events of 9/11 (and are therefore somewhat hastily identified as conspiracy theorists) may make very excellent contributions to Wikipedia. But they of course have better things to do than put up with repeated bullying and attempts to impugn their motives. This sort of rhetoric has recently caused User:Thomas Basboll to withdraw from actively contributing to Wikipedia. The purpose of this RfC is to help decide whether that is an acceptable outcome (i.e., the lesser of two evils).
[edit] Desired outcome
That Mongo retract and apologize for his offensive and threatening remarks, resolve to make a special effort to remain civil on 9/11 related articles, and help to raise the standard of discussion about these articles in general. Alternatively, that Mongo stop editing the disputed articles (which is what Thomas has so far elected to do).
This case can perhaps also be used to test of what seems to have become a tacit consensus to suspend WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL in the case of suspected 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Other marginalized views share the same fate, of course, so a much larger principle can in fact be tested here.
[edit] Description
Thomas Basboll started editing Wikipedia on July 19, 2006. On March 3, 2007, he decided to quit because he had had enough of the hostility that his edits were being approached with by a number of editors, most notably Mongo. Mongo's style, it should be noted, seems to be generally accepted and is often even applauded. Some have suggested that editors like Thomas should find a way to bear it, or perhaps work on Wikipedia in ways that are less likely to provoke Mongo. But is Mongo's behaviour really within the norm for the editing environment here at Wikipedia? Isn't it needlessly hostile? In this case, Mongo has so far been able to push an editor he disagrees with out of his way by almost physical means.
The final straw for Thomas was this exchange [1] on Mongo's talk page, and its subsequent development/escalation at AN/I [2]. Mongo's view seems to be that his original edit summary was justified, that Thomas's objections were themselves uncivil, and that his own "physical" posturing was not a threat but simply a justified demand that Thomas go away. In addition to asking Tyrenius for help, which led to him filing an AN/I, Thomas asked Tom Harrison to informally mediate between them [3]. The results were unsatisfactory and Thomas stopped editing permanently at that point. Mongo's view remained that, "in the context of the disagreements we generally have," there should be no presumption of good faith between Thomas and Mongo. Even a polite (if terse) suggestion to end the discussion for today (i.e., "have a nice day") should be read as an offensive gesture (i.e., "fuck you".)
In assessing this incident, it may be useful to look back at the historical context Mongo refers to. From the beginning (at the top of this archive [4]), Mongo has approached Thomas's edits in terms of the POV they implied and in violation of WP:AGF [5]. This led him to forcefully resist edits that would eventually be adopted by the community. Mongo has also rebuffed all objections to his treatment of Thomas [6] [7].
[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior
[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines
[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
[edit] Other users who endorse this summary
[edit] 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.
{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:
[edit] Outside view
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.
{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:
[edit] 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.
