Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MONGO

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 sysop and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. 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: {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 03:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC).

Please note: This template is for listing disputes about actions that are limited to administrators only, specifically these actions:

  • protecting and unprotecting pages
  • deleting and undeleting pages
  • blocking and unblocking users

For all other matters (such as edit wars and page moves), please use the template at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example user.

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this sysop's conduct. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

[edit] Description

This RfC stems from a block following a content dispute amongst several editors over whether the Collapse of the World Trade Center article should characterize individuals who suggest the collapse may have been caused by a controlled demolition as "Some conspiracy theorists", "Some conspiracists", "Some independant researchers", just "Some", or otherwise:

Together with this last edit, MONGO blocked Pokipsy76 for 48 hours. Explanations for the basis behind this block have varied from just "trolling" in the block log to;

'POV pushing' - "Your POV pushing days are numbered as far as the 9/11 articles are concerned. You routinely revert for no reason except to push your nonsense. I have blocked you from editing for 48 hours."
'vandalism' - "I think you should reconsider your position and recognize that two other admins saw the block for what it was...a block for vandalism."

However, MONGO has also stated that the block was specifically for reverting him;

I just blocked User:Pokipsy76 for 48 hours since he routinely reverts me everytime I edit the 9/11 articles.
If unblocked and you revert me one more time, I'm going to block you for a week.

MONGO has also subsequently blocked SkeenaR and CB Brooklyn for personal attacks against him in the ongoing argument on the same page. While there WERE personal attacks and incivility (on both sides), admins are "strictly prohibited" from blocking "editors with whom they are engaged in a content dispute". MONGO was clearly in a content dispute with these editors, and thus should not have been the one evaluating whether their personal attacks/incivility warranted blocking while his own did not.

[edit] Powers misused

  • Blocking (log):
  1. User:Pokipsy76
  2. User:SkeenaR
  3. User:CB Brooklyn

[edit] Applicable policies

  • Blocking policy
    Use of blocks to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. That is, sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute.
    The links provided in the description above clearly establish the existence of a content dispute between MONGO and Pokipsy76. Further, MONGO directly stated that he blocked Pokipsy76 for reverting his edits in that dispute. The subsequent blocks of SkeenaR and CB Brooklyn by MONGO also fall directly under what is "strictly prohibited" by this policy despite in those cases being based on actual personal attacks rather than false claims of "vandalism".
  • Neutral point of view
    The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one.
    In direct contradiction of this quotation from the policy MONGO has asserted that the 'most popular' view, that believers in controlled demolition are "conspiracy theorists" (which is derogatory and clearly objected to), should be asserted in the article. Calling them only 'some' or even "independant researchers" (which does not imply either legitimacy or illegitimacy) would have been a more neutral presentation.
  • Vandalism
    The neutral point of view is a difficult policy for many of us to understand, and even Wikipedia veterans occasionally accidentally introduce material which is non-ideal from an NPOV perspective. Indeed, we are all blinded by our beliefs to a greater or lesser extent. While regrettable, this is not vandalism.
    Again, this policy quotation directly contradicts MONGO's claim that these ([8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]) edits were "vandalism".

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

  1. Here Pokipsy76 questioned the validity of the block and MONGO directed him to AN
  2. Here Pokipsy76, CBDunkerson, and others tried to persuade MONGO that this kind of behaviour was improper, but MONGO mantained his position, with support from most commentators, and requested that an RfC be filed.

[edit] Summary

To date many users have treated this as something like a 'popularity contest' between MONGO and 'people who believe the WTC was brought down by a controlled demolition'... with predictable results. I ask that you instead reject this false (I do not share that belief) and improper evaluation and look at the actual evidence. Unless you can honestly say that you believe this edit (for which Pokipsy76 was blocked) was "vandalism" you should stand up and say that it was not. Unless you believe that admins are allowed to control content by blocking those who revert them you should stand up and say that they are not. MONGO has apparently come to believe that these positions are accepted... because all too often they go unchallenged. In truth that is not his fault, but rather ours for failing to adhere to the principles we claim to stand for. Please don't continue to say that you 'oppose calling things vandalism that are not' or that 'admins do not control content' if you are unwilling to stand behind those positions.

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Pokipsy76 12:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. CBD 15:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. SkeenaR 07:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. EyesAllMine 11:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this statement

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC). I believe the edit discussed was part of a pattern of stale reverts, which in my book is all but vandalism. I aso believe that MONGO should have had any other adminstrator block Pokipsy76 forever for exausting the communities patience with his stale revert warring and useless conspiracy-theory mongering. As such, I endorse this statement, as it is a stunning vindication of MONGO's actions and a condemnation of Pokipsy76's. I also ask that all of the process wonks who insist that MONGO be destroyed for his willingness to do what needed to be done review WP:ENC. How does having a bunch of fringe lunatics tenaciously editing an important article such that it is less informative and more nutzoid help the encyclopedia at all?
  2. Don't block in a dispute you're involved in. Pokipsy76 almost certainly deserved to be blocked, but it is a cardinal rule of adminship that you get someone else to do it. I know I would have. But using your admin mop to beat people over the head (or threaten to do so) is a no-no. Stifle (talk) 11:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Agreeing with the above. --Masssiveego 05:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. I agre with Stifle. Dionyseus 21:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

I'll break this down for those that have taken the time to voice concerns. Pokipsy76 (talk · contribs) reverted edits that I had been working on that had cite template references in the Collapse of the World Trade Center article [19], [20], restoring to a version that had embedded links. I had recently redone all the references in the article to make them use the cite template style, for uniformity and to eliminate the embedded links. Not that this is a big concern, as embedded links work fine, but again, this was about maintaining some sort of uniformity. I asked him to not do this [21] and also had asked people to not do this on the article talk page. [22] Pokispy76 has also been warned not to refer to other editors changes as vandalism.[23]...his response to that was "ROTFL!",[24] so he didn't seem to take that with much seriousness. More recently, Pokipsy76 perfomed the following edits in which there was no concensus for, ([25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35]. In these edits, Pokipsy76 altered the term conspiracy theories to various other wordings, but was later reverted by myself, Tom Harrison, Jersey Devil, and others. Aside from User:TruthSeeker1234, who was blocked indefinitely for using a malicious sockpuppet strawman account, no one else seems to have disagreed with this wording. In fact, the only comment I can find to the discussion page for the Collapse of the World Trade Center, in which he mentions anything about the wording conspiracy theories is here, aside from the most recent additions he added, which were mainly about me. So I see no concensus for his changes at all. He was warned and he got blocked by me...there is a point that if you have no concensus to make a change, and haven't even argued about it all on the discussion page of that article, that reverts, repeatedly changing to a nonconcensus version, is disruption. After being blocked, Tom Harrison reviewed the block as did Pschemp, [36] and after the unblock notice was removed by her, Pokipsky76 put it back[37].Pschemp removed it again, [38], Pokipsky76 reposted it [39], so Pschemp ended up protecting his talk page. I see little more than disruptive editing patterns from this editor to the point of exhausting the communties patience.

SkeenaR (talk · contribs) posted information about me that is public knowledge, but then, after CB Brooklyn (talk · contribs) decided to deride it, [40], Skeena then insulted me [41] and later coyly said that I should have the right to answer about his misleading innuendo by adding links to websites that discuss the federal government watching over articles [42]. When SkeenR previously made a mountain out of a molehill about my place of work, I discussed it with him on his talk page, months ago, so he is well aware that this was not to be taken and used to misrepresent me.[43] SkeenaR was well aware that this kind of misrepresentation of my editing is a personal attack, in the manner that he was performing it and by posting it in article discussion pages. Due to prior knowledge of this, I blocked him for misrepresenting me in this malicious fashion.

CB Brooklyn (talk · contribs) has been edit warring with numerous editors over the past week on the 9/11 articles.[44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], adding links to pictures of sheep[52], personal insults [53] and misrepresentations of others [54], [55], the last few links have zero to do with making the article better. In fact, the edits made by CB Brooklyn appear to be a strong POV effort against concensus and nothing more. I blocked CB Brooklyn and when he used an anon IP, while blocked to further misrepresent me, [56], I extended his block from 24 hours to one week.

People need to understand that the only thing the conspiracy theorists want is to POV push unproven, unsubstantiated information into the articles on 9/11 using any means they can. They will discredit their opposition, edit war, evade blocks, pretend to be the innocent victim and they almost universally are single purpose editors. As with our biographies, the 9/11 articles are not benign and they are what the world sees that help this project establish it's credibility. As wikipedians, we need to do our utmost to ensure unproven, unverifiable misinformation doesn't pollute these articles. Otherwise, we might as well just surrender and let the articles become bastions of nonsense.--MONGO 05:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

[edit] Outside view of Hipocrite

The individuals continuously reinserting material that I would term "conspiracy theory," are unwilling to follow our NPOV policy - specifically, "Giving 'equal validity.'" my edit, my first to the article, which is in perfect adherance with our NPOV policy proves that they are not seeking to improve our encyclopedia whatsoever, and the lot of them should be blocked indefinetly for whatever justification someone can find to block POV-pushing editors who have no desire to improve the encyclopedia but rather to get their own conspiracy theory included in it. Review their edit histories, and compare to that of Mongo, myself, and Tom Harrison. Isn't obvious what the goals here are?

However, the individual making such a block should have been an uninvolved adminstrator. Mongo was wrong to have blocked this user without getting outside input and approval. Getting frusterated at individuals who act with the intent to frusterate is excusable, but correctable. Mongo should not have blocked, and for the penalty of the wrong person implimenting a right block, he should be punished with the below slap on the wrist:

*slap*

  1. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Voice-of-All 18:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. pschemp | talk 20:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. ZeroTalk 20:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. , Although the slap was too hard. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  6. --MONGO 21:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  7. David D. (Talk) 22:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  8. --Phædriel ♥ tell me - 23:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  9. I'm getting tired of saying this: this is yet another spurious RfC against a good contributior. 172 | Talk 07:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
    An RfC is not necessarily spurious because one disagrees with it, particularly when one endorses an outside view that agrees with part its premise. If an RfC is spurious, then we imply that to even request comments on the question is a misleading and indirectional thing to do. -Splash - tk 16:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  10. LotLE×talk 08:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC). Seems about right. Maybe something like, say a symbolic 15 minute block for MONGO's impulsiveness (timed for during his sleep schedule... if he actually sleeps :-)).
  11. --Jersey Devil 01:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  12. AnnH ♫ 11:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  13. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  14. -Splash - tk 16:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC), but not the bit about explicitly going excuse-hunting for blocks. -Splash - tk 16:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  15. Yes, that'll more or less do it. Stifle (talk) 11:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  16. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  17. Physicq210 19:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  18. Blnguyen | rant-line 04:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC).
  19. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  20. — Nathan (talk) / 22:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  21. David Mestel(Talk) 05:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC) I particularly commend MONGO for being NPOV on his own RfC, and endorsing a summary that reprimands himself.
  22. Well put. Antandrus (talk) 22:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  23. Lordwow 03:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC) I agree with this statement, and second the comments of David.Mestel.
  24. ViridaeTalk 13:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by SCZenz

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 who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

As an editor in physics articles, I have significant experience with fighting the (very difficult) battle against those who wish to give undue weight to very minor viewpoints. The disputed section, in my opinion, should not be present at all, because it does not appear that anyone has cited it from a reliable source. It is quite reasonable to revert the addition of such material; if a citation is requested but not provided and there is consensus to do so, it may even be reasonable to revert it as vandalism after a time.

However, the dispute as to how to characterize people promoting the minor "controlled demolition" viewpoint was lame on all sides. "Conspiracy theorist" is not an NPOV characterization of a person, but "some" or "independant researcher" gives undue weight to the view. (I would suggest leaving the material out entirely, unless there is evidence that the point of view is held by a group or individuals who are notable in some way; then cite them specifically by name and indicate clearly any relevant lack of qualifications on the subject.)

MONGO seems to have been fighting the good fight, more or less, but it seems to have frustrated him somewhat. Threatening to block other users for reverting him is a clear problem, and frankly blocking people for adding minority views is generally a very bad idea; my understanding under Wikipedia rules is that reverting such edits is a much more appropriate response (as "that didn't improve the article in my view, see talk page" rather than vandalism rollback). Any blocks in this case should've been handled by neutral admins, or at the very least MONGO should welcome review by other admins of any blocks. I am a bit concerned by his response to CBD's intervention [57] [58], which sought to bring a neutral admin's view into the picture rather than to "wheel war."

I strongly suggest that MONGO chill out and not directly use his administrator powers in regard to this dispute for a time. At the same time, I commend him and the other editors who are working to prevent the over-representation of minority views.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. SCZenz 18:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Merzbow 18:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 20:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. CBD 20:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 23:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  6. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  7. --MONGO 21:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  8. Simply labelling people you dispute with as "nutters" does not give carte blanche to abuse your admin powers. This has become far too common. Having said that, I make no judgement about the rights or wrongs of the issue, and I believe MONGO has been acting in what he perceives to be the best interests of the encyclopaedia. Grace Note 10:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  9. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  10. --Jersey Devil 01:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  11. --Guinnog 07:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  12. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  13. SCZenz hits just the right balance for me. Thatcher131 23:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  14. -Splash - tk 16:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  15. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  16. Physicq210 19:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  17. GunnarRene 19:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  18. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 03:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  19. ViridaeTalk 13:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view of physicq210

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 who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

Debated and controversial information continuously inserted (and deleted) by Pokipsy76 and others demonstrates numerous violations of WP:NPOV due to the nature of such edits, involving lack of reliable and reputable evidence of such claims. These edits and ideas advanced by Pokipsy76 and others, commonly constituted as "conspiracy theories" by many, are not (and should not) to be "given equal weight" according the WP:NPOV#Undue weight and should be discussed here.

However, MONGO may be held liable due to use of undue use of his admin privileges in blocking Pokipsy76, SkeenaR, and CB Brooklyn with only minor violations and without the multiple warnings as detailed by WP:BLOCK. Therefore, as Hipocrite described above (and with whom I agree), blocking of said editors should be from a neutral party, not from MONGO, to preserve WP:NPOV and everyone's sanity. If blocking is necessary, neutral admins should be contacted to review said blocks to avoid "heat of the moment" actions. However, I do not advocate and utterly oppose any effort to remove MONGO's admin status without compelling reason (in which this is not one of them).

In short, both sides may be held liable for uncivil conduct, misuse of editing (and in MONGO's case, admin) priviliges while editing Wikipedia. Both sides have subverted established policies, and both mush either rescind, retract, or apologize for inflammatory statements cluttering the talk pages, and ask for second, nay third opinions.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Physicq210 18:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Merzbow 18:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Gmaxwell

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.

You shouldn't block someone you are in a content dispute with... if they deserve a block someone else should handle it.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Gmaxwell 18:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Bastique 19:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Cyde↔Weys 20:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. --CBD 20:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 23:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  6. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  7. Straight from policy. Voice-of-All 04:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  8. — Jun. 27, '06 [10:21] <freak|talk>
  9. Totally. So MONGO's wrist is slapped and we can move on. Next time get someone else to block the offender. Grace Note 10:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  10. Hiding Talk 10:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  11. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  12. --Guinnog 07:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  13. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 21:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  14. -- Omniplex 12:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  15. -Splash - tk 16:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Absolutely. When involved in the content of an article, blocking users who don't go with your flow is just bound to cause grief. Avoidance of such grief can be achieved by pinging one of the other admins. An exception might be when one is mediating the dispute itself rather than actually wishing particular content in or out.
  16. EyesAllMine 19:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  17. Torinir 04:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  18. Per Splash. Stifle (talk) 11:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  19. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  20. — Nathan (talk) / 22:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  21. Dionyseus 21:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Tom Harrison

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.

Mongo deserves credit for being willing to actively follow these pages and debunk the nonsense that people try to add. He also deserves active support from those of us who do not want the encyclopedia used as a link farm for conspiracist websites. This is not a content dispute between two groups of reasonable people. This is a persistent effort across several pages to add fringe views, innuendo, and speculation, with links to videos and books. The consensus is against it, the conspiracy-believers' actions have long since become disruptive, and they have resorted to sockpuppetry, deliberately adding false information, and attacking Mongo in an attempt to use his personnal information to discredit him.

I remember a comment from a few months ago on an RfA page. A prominent administrator had mentioned an item of his/her personnal information. Someone tried to use it to make an insinuation about the administrator's motivation in contributing here. The remark was oblique, less direct than what was said about Mongo, but the meaning was clear. The remark was promptly and correctly nuked off the page with near unanimous support. I think the principle of removing these things and blocking if neccessary is well-established and supported by precedent. Mongo was entirely open about his actions. They have been brought to ANI several times by those who have been unable to gather a consensus on the article talk page. They were unable to gather a consensus on ANI either.

The time spent on these pages far outweighs the reward for working on them, for everyone but the people who add their theories and links. There seem to be more people willing to tell Mongo how to do that work than are willing to do it themselves. Tom Harrison Talk 20:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me qualify that a little bit; I mean my remarks to be in defense of Mongo, not in criticism of other well-meaning admins. Our actions are subject to each other's review, as they should be. No one has an obligation to follow articles they are not interested in, and certainly Alex Jones' latest expose is not very interesting to very many of us. There will always be more people reviewing a particular action than carrying it out. I am sorry to have suggested that they are hypocrites who legitimately, if mistakenly, disagree with me. Tom Harrison Talk 14:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  1. ZeroTalk 20:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Precisely. We must avoid any and all attempts that would introduce dubious and innapropriate content into the encyclopedia. I support those who would defend the encyclopedia in the face of neutrality violations without any second thoughts.
  2. User:Zoe|(talk). Exactly. Unless other admins are willing to take on the scut work that Mongo is doing, they have no business tsk-tsking when he does what is right.
  3. --Aude (talk contribs) 21:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Couldn't agree more. The conspiracy pages are a cesspool of POV-advocacy by a loose group of people calling themselves "The Truth Movement". MONGO is doing Yeoman's work in keeping edits that violate Wikipedia policy (i.e. WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NOR) from entering the encyclopedia. He deserves kudos, not slaps, for that tough job. Morton DevonshireYo
  5. Agreed completely. The persistence of a small group in inserting their POV does not mean that they should be accorded undue weight or treated with white gloves despite repeated violations of wiki rules. Other admins have shied away from the work MONGO is doing. For example, an egregious 3rr violation (5 in 24 hours; 7 in 24.5 hours - an obvious attempt to game the system) was passed over for over 8 hours on the 3RR noticeboard, while many later complaints were followed up and blocks applied, before MONGO stepped in. Unless other editors are willing to brave the vitriol and personal insults thrown by this small group, MONGO should not be reprimanded for applying correct enforcement of wiki rules.--Mmx1 23:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  6. Excellent summary. Rx StrangeLove 02:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  7. JDoorjam Talk 05:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC) Absolutely. The 9/11 family of articles is a difficult place to keep sane. Keeping nutso theories off of the article pages (or at the very least confined to one area as they are now) is a tough job that requires a hard policy line. I invite any admins who haven't already to watch-list September 11, 2001 attacks, 7 World Trade Center, and the rest of them, and sit in on some of these sessions for a month or so. You'll see the fact that conspiracy theorists aren't blocked on sight for disruption is a testament to the patience of admins like Mongo who are trying to keep some semblance of wikisanity on the related pages.
  8. pschemp | talk 05:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  9. --MONGO 21:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  10. Jaranda wat's sup 21:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  11. --Phædriel ♥ tell me - 23:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  12. Well said. 172 | Talk 07:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  13. This makes a lot of sense David D. (Talk) 07:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  14. --Jersey Devil 01:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  15. AnnH ♫ 11:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  16. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  17. Agree, with the caveat that Mongo should not attempt to do this alone. He can alsways count with other admins help when there is a need to block. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  18. -Will Beback 03:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  19. Physicq210 19:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  20. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  21. I have found MONGO enormously helpful and responsive when I requested help (as a new person on Wikipedia). His messages to other users {users that were problematic to me) have been uniformly constructive and tackful to that user. My experience of MONGO's behavior on Wikipedia is totally at odds with the complants lodged against him above. I see him as being extremely respectful of Wikipedia and its policies, being watchful of their abuse. I agree totally with the outside view expressed above, by Tom Harrison. KarenAnn 22:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Addendum -- I'm not an administrator and in reading the above directions again, I see that I should not have commented. I apologize. KarenAnn 22:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by --Aude

Collapse of the World Trade Center, currently listed as a good article, has attracted a number of people advocating a "controlled demolition" theory. I have dealt with these editors on other 9/11 articles, but don't have the time and patience that's involved with closely monitoring Collapse of the World Trade Center. MONGO, Tom Harrison, and others have devoted quite alot of time to Collapse of the World Trade Center, applying due diligence with respect to Wikipedia policies. These "controlled demolition/conspiracy" editors keep trying to insert poorly cited material that violate WP:RS, WP:NPOV#Undue weight, Wikipedia:Consensus, and other policies. MONGO is only enforcing these policies. Furthermore, it's well within MONGO's right to have this personal information deleted. Please take a look at Personal information deletion on meta, which describes an overarching policy across all Wikimedia projects. There is indeed precident for his removing the comments from the talk page. --Aude (talk contribs) 22:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. --Aude (talk contribs) 22:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. ZeroTalk 07:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC) Personal attacks and slander will never be acceptable on wikipedia. Not under any circumstances. The community exsists to build the encyclopedia.
  3. I'll ensure that future blocks have a concensus of community support.--MONGO 21:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Splash - tk 16:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Splitting hairs on this though: enforcing those policies is right. Blocking users when involved so closely with them is not. If AN(I) was clearly against what they were doing, then another admin would have been on call pretty easily if asked. -Splash - tk 16:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. As per Splash. No one is disputing the admirable (and thankless, I may say) work Mongo and Tom are doing in these articles. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Guinnog

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 who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

I met User:MONGO when I browsed into Talk:7 World Trade Center and challenged him (and some other editors) about what I saw as their censoring, almost bowdlerising, any coverage of the various special doubts that have been raised over that particular building's collapse on 11 September 2001.

Two things were obvious; one was that there was a lot of heat and frustration on both sides of the argument, which was largely between editors who wanted to insert reference to the "Controlled demolition hypothesis" into the article, and those (MONGO and several others) who didn't.

The second was that the group, (which I will call for convenience MONGO's side, without any implication that he was their leader or that they are any sort of conspiracy) was succeeding, albeit at a cost to their tempers and sometimes civility, in holding a line very effectively, which they (perhaps rightly) regarded as the most likely POV. As I had just come from editing a series of articles (Loch Ness Monster, Apollo moon landing hoax accusations, and some others) on controversial subjects towards a more NPOV, where to be honest I might have appreciated the same unified stance against those who insert minority views into articles, I was interested.

I thought I could maybe mediate towards achieving some kind of balance on the article on WTC 7. Not a chance! It seemed that the group of editors who had taken on the task of watching for vandalism had become so tired and irritable that they saw any attempt to add content as merely a red flag to be disposed of, by any means necessary. As an example of what I mean, the suggestion of a referenced mention of what seems a fairly noteworthy poll [59] was outright rejected by some editors who clearly hadn't read the poll itself. They were just doing it on principle. A meritorious principle too, even. All the same, I had serious concerns then about how NPOV policy was being addressed, as well as about whether it was being addressed. It certainly left me quite frustrated when all my attempts to reason with MONGO's side were met with kneejerk reactions, and I also felt sorry for both sides in the dispute who clearly weren't having much fun.

I watch Celtic F.C. and Rangers F.C., with a view to keeping them free of sectarian hate speech, so I do sympathise with MONGO here in his similarly thankless task. I've never doubted that he is an excellent editor, a tireless and courageous admin, and of course a human being too.

I think that in blocking a user he was involved in a dispute with, he acted unwisely, an error for which the discussion here (and the 15 minute ban) seem an adequate sanction. I'm confident he won't make the same mistake again.

I also think there needs to be a review of the way the NPOV policy is enforced in 9/11-related articles to try to prevent a situation like this recurring in the future. Do, or should, 9/11 related articles have a special status in the project? If they do, this should be discussed and defined properly. The current system is frustrating to bona fide editors, as well as to the admins who take on the task of watching them.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Guinnog 15:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. CBD 23:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Torinir 00:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. EyesAllMine 15:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Hiding

Admins shouldn't block people with whom they are involved in a dispute. However, on occasion all wikipedians may ignore all rules.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~): # Hiding Talk 10:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

  1. ZeroTalk 13:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC) IAR comes with making decisions on good common sense. MONGO has good common sense.
  2. Splash - tk 16:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Only the first sentence. The second sentence implies it is ok to cause grief and upset that was avoidable by seeking 1 of 1000 admins and not ignoring the rules put there to help avoid grief and upset.

[edit] Revised outside view by Hiding

MONGO probably did the right thing, but he did it the wrong way, and whilst that's acceptable, it needs to be addressed. Dealing with such incidents is frustrating and stressful, but that shouldn't conflict with doing the right thing the right way. Mistakes happen, but they need to be learnt from. Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Hiding Talk 20:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. --Guinnog 23:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Splash - tk 16:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Much better. MONGO was doing the right thing editorially, but concluded the process the wrong way.
  4. Right on the money. Stifle (talk) 10:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. — Nathan (talk) / 22:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  7. ViridaeTalk 13:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Jersey Devil

There has been a strong effort on Wikipedia by some individuals to turn 9/11-related articles into mouthpieces for minority "conspiracy theorist" point-of-view articles. In some cases, people strongly involved in the "truth movement", such as James H. Fetzer of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, have come on here to edit articles and use Wikipedia as a tool to spread their point-of-view.

I have just spent several frustrating hours trying to revise and improve the entry on "Scholars for 9/11 Truth", only to discover that my rewrites were being over-ridden by someone at Wikipedia. I find that offensive. The present entry has a warning label stating, "The neutrality of this article is disputed." From what I can discern from reviewing the "Talk Page", persons with scant or biased knowledge of the society appear to be determining the contents. So I agree with the warning but not for the reasons that may have motivated it. Here is what I tried to post in its place.-James H. Fetzer And his edits... [60] [61] [62]

The Collapse of the World Trade Center article is a perfect example of this kind of unrelenting imposing of beliefs on articles that are suppose to be neutral. I suggest people view its page history. [63] This kind of unrelenting pushing of views, use of sockpuppets, personal attacks against users, etc... It is very reminecent of the Larouchite posters a while back in Larouche-related articles which ended in an AbrCom decision which ended it (a word of warning for those "9/11 truth" users).

These rfcs have become a kind of attack against users who try and revert these edits in 9/11-related articles. The purpose, for this one for instance, is to try and stop Mongo from stoping what has been going on in these articles. You can expect, weeks from now, when Mongo gets into another dispute with another "9/11 truth" user for that latter to say "you are a troublemaker...as a matter of fact you are such a troublemaker that you had an rfc launched against you for your behavior"...without the context of the situation of course, with the purpose to manipulate more unexperienced Wikipedians to think Mongo is in fact the instigator in the situation. And this will work, in effect to deter Mongo's involvement in these articles. I for one am tired of seeing these types of rfcs launched.

With regards to Mongo's behavior. I strongly suggest that you Mongo, step back for a second before pressing that "save page" button. Sometimes, your edits do come out looking hostile. And, it is also Wikipedia policy that you must as an Administrator consult another administrator if it is a content dispute in which you are involved. It is a hassle, I know, but I for one do believe that process is important.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. --MONGO 05:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. --Aude (talk contribs) 21:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC) - Here's another quote from the serendipity link that helps give insight to what we're dealing with here. I caveat this to say that I do make distinctions among the various editors (Pokipsy76, SkeenaR, CB Brooklyn, EyesAllMine, Guinnog, and others). For example, I'm aware of Guinnog's contributions to other topics on Wikipedia. While others are here only for one purpose. Anyway, here's the quote:
  3. 172 | Talk 21:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
“ There is no guarantee that any page on Wikipedia is true, especially if some person or group has an interest in concealing the truth.

There are several pages on Wikipedia dealing with 9/11. One presents the official story and is thus mostly fiction. Other pages appear to attempt to present the evidence and to discuss various theories as to what really happened. However anyone can edit Wikipedia pages, and it is clear that a cabal of trolls has been systematically suppressing attempts to present evidence which conflicts with a certain way of viewing the events of 9/11. These trolls particularly wish to suppress evidence that the Pentagon was not hit by a Boeing 757 (and thus was not hit by AA Flight 77). Links placed on Wikipedia 9/11 pages to articles on this website have repeatedly been removed (censored) by those who apparently do not want others to read what is here.

Now we find that there are ongoing attempts to suppress the presentation on Wikipedia of information concerning Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Wikipedia has long been a tool for those who wish to suppress the truth about 9/11, and who wish rather to delude and confuse and to divert attention away from considering who was really responsible for the mass murder of 9/11. As long as Wikipedia's 9/11 pages are censored by those wishing to suppress the truth about 9/11, and are skewed toward presenting one particular view, Wikipedia is not to be trusted

Those who, after reading and thinking about 9/11, agree with the presentation of the evidence (and the drawing of conclusions, where possible) on this website, and on others such as that of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, are encouraged to edit Wikipedia's 9/11 pages so as to oppose the intellectual dishonesty, slander and disinfo tactics of these trolls and to direct attention rather to real attempts to examine what actually happened on 9/11, why it happened and who was behind it. Only when there is a widespread understanding of these matters can there be any chance of saving the U.S. and the rest of the world from the lying, murderous tyranny intended for the entire planet by those who planned and carried out the atrocity of 9/11. — From Is Wikipedia Stifling 9/11 Truth?

 ”
  1. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Splash - tk 16:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Physicq210 18:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Torturous Devastating Cudgel

Marginal views from, and lets not mince word, a group of cranks should not be given as serious a venue on Wikipedia as they have. Although MONGO should have gotten someone else to intervene and block the disruptive users, he most certainly acted to the betterment of the community. For Christ sakes, the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, which has about .1% mainstream credibility has more content in it than the Collapse of the World Trade Center article which has about 99.9% credibility. Its incidents of article hijacking like this that give Wikipedia a poor reputation, and kudos to MONGO for having the balls to do something about it.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. --Aude (talk contribs) 21:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Splash - tk 16:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Cranks can get their own websites for their crankiness once it exceeds proportionality with the rest of the material.
  4. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Right on target. 172 | Talk 21:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. Amen. Antandrus (talk) 22:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Stifle

Let's go write the encyclopedia, eh?

Users endorsing this statement (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Stifle (talk) 11:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Morton devonshire 00:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Blnguyen | rant-line 04:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 17:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.