Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/MONGO 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.

Contents

[edit] Response to Bov's view

I think you misinterpret my sentiments. I was not talking only about conspiracy theorists, but any editor who pushes or gives undue weight to non-notable fringe or unverified (unverifiable?) stances, and thinks that it is Wikipedia's responsibility to give them a soapbox from which to push these views. Whether the view is "Matt Drudge is gay", or "Chimpy did MIHOP", it's all the same horse hockey to me, and it has no place on Wikipedia. WP is not a soap box, is not an investigative journalism organ, and is not a rumor mill. It is an encyclopedia, which reports verifiable information given by reliable sources. I also do not consider "POV pushing" to be a perjorative comment. It is an accurate description of the behavior of quite a few editors. - Crockspot 21:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Mongo has reverted the addition of the claim that the collapse of WTC 7 was "an obvious controlled demolition, ordered by owner Larry Silverstein" [1] and the addition of the sentence "you momma is a whore" [2] on the same grounds ("rvv"). They are surely not the same sort of edit.--Thomas Basboll 06:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I should also point out that Bov is one of a number of editors who was canvassed by the caller of this RfC. - Crockspot 21:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify: that number includes Tom Harrison and Mongo. I informed a handful of editors that I believed would be immediately interested when I posted the RfC.--Thomas Basboll 06:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Since you specifically named MONGO in the RFC, and named Tom as "trying to resolve the dispute", you were required to notify them. Aside from them, you only notified a very selective group of editors who would be sympathetic and didn't bother to notify me (despite my involvement on the pages in question). --Aude (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I apologize for the oversight. I'm glad that you have found your way over here. I did consult the canvassing guideline before sending out those messages, and interpreted them to be more concerned about disturbing people (to whom the messages are sent) than somehow biasing an RfC. Also, it seemed to me that the first order of business was to find someone who might certify the dispute (so the RfC even gets off the ground) before bothering people with its existence. I can see my interpretation of "canvassing" isn't quite the same as yours. Again, sorry about the oversight. If it does last beyond tonight (which it may not), perhaps we can inform relevant editors on both sides together.--Thomas Basboll 06:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I had previously asked Thomas to inform me, so you can remove me from the list of the canvassed. Tyrenius 06:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question for Crockspot

Do you think Mongo deserves a medal for his treatment of me? --Thomas Basboll 06:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't think you were treated all that badly. As I implied on the project page, civility can be difficult to maintain at times, but you were not that badly abused in this case. The words "thicker skin" come to mind. Crockspot 16:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
You are here saying that Mongo does not deserve a reprimand. That's one possible assessment of his behaviour, which, if it is the community's view, tells me what I can expect here, and that's what I'll base my decision on whether to stay or go on. Thanks for your input. But your outside view suggested that Mongo's treatment of me was praiseworthy because my work here is "foolish", "wacky" and "tricky". You also seem to think that it would be a good thing if I were "prevented" from contributing. Is that really your view of my work?--Thomas Basboll 06:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
To clarify, I was speaking in general, not about you specifically, because I do not edit 9/11 articles, and am not involved in the dispute. Just drawing from my own general observations on a certain "style" of editor, ie., POV pushers, whatever their POV. Some editors are more "crusty" than others. It's the way of the internet. I think you should just acknowledge that MONGO is one of the crusty ones, and move on. - Crockspot 14:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
MONGO does not seem to have a very thick skin for perceived slights, so it's double standards to ridicule Thomas for not having one. It's known as having feelings and being human. Tyrenius 06:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Depends on the slight. Backstabbing is a big slight.--MONGO 17:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question for JungleCat

Are you suggesting that my edits constitute lying?--Thomas Basboll 06:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I think what he's objecting to is your attempt to use Wikipedia as a soapbox to promote theories which are not substantiated by any credible source. Post-Modernism has its limits -- just because we may not all perceive things in the same way does not mean that there is no such thing as the facts, and frankly, there is zero reputable support for the claims you peddle, and here at Wikipedia, it's credible sources that we rely upon, not deconstructionist syllogism.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 06:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Can you provide an example or two of me peddling an unsupportable claim?--Thomas Basboll 06:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Sure, this is but one example:

"A hypothesis is very often presented along with the prima facie evidence for it. This evidence is of course provisional and does not constitute proof; it merely informs subsequent investigations and (importantly in this case) it helps us to understand the content of the hypothesis. As with any other article, we are here to help each other understand (i.e., make sense of) the topic. A synthesis of, say, three presentations by conspiracy theorists, along with official responses and mainstream media commentary, without any intention of advancing either the truth or falsity of the proposition that the World Trade Center was brought down by controlled demolition runs afoul of no policy I am aware of."

***--Thomas Basboll 18:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC) from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center. That sort of synthesis is strictly prohibited by our rules. See Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 20:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd suggest anyone interested to search the paragraph in the linked talk page and read the relevant short discussion for themselves. It's pretty well explained there. SalvNaut 21:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Like SalvNaut says, I explain that what I mean by "synthesis" is simply bringing together multiple sources, as I did (and had been done before me) in the collapse of the WTC article. It is not synthesis that we aren't allowed to do, it is OR. Unoriginal research by synthesis is what an encyclopedia article is. In any case, even if I had misunderstood the OR policy when stating it here, I don't see a comment on a talk page as an example of peddling a claim. Minimally, that would involve an edit to an actual article.--Thomas Basboll 22:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some thoughts on Mongo's response

First, I was struck by and, of course, appreciate the apology. Your wording did come across as an attempt to intimidate and you were told that that's how it came across at the time. For some reason, however, you have waited until now to apologize. You have had no shortage of opportunities (an AN/I, an informal mediation, an awareness of this RfC in the making) to avoid taking the community's time with an RfC. All you had to do was apologize, plainly and simply, in the hours immediately after the remark was made.

Even now, you don't say you will stop the behaviour for which you are apologizing. Indeed, you justify it further, by suggesting that on the whole and in the long run it's better to treat people like me as you do than to risk treating real conspiracy theorists with respect. That environment is not an appealing place for people like me to work in, as I'm sure you can understand.

I happened to start in one corner of WP. The alternative explanations for the WTC collapse were a topic I found interesting, and where WP's differences from other media itself seemed to be interesting. It's what got me started. Your behaviour ensured that I didn't have the time and, importantly, the desire to expand my contributions. I was not welcomed. To propose that I could always contribute elsewhere (i.e., on articles you and I don't feel strongly about) is, for all intents and purposes, to propose I go away. There's a principle at stake here. Any group of articles, frequented by a committed group of editors, will offer conditions under which your argument would apply. People who hold unpopular POVs can be asked to contribute to pages that they are less interested in. That is as good as asking them to "stop editing" ("around here" if you will).

You say I want to introduce "conspiracy rhetoric" and cite a place where I suggest incorporating "facts" that are until now only available in conspiracy theory articles. You then offer a now familiar argument:

Many who trust the known evidence feel highly insulted when others, armed only with their predisposed belief that the known evidence may be or is incorrect, attempt to insert their predisposed beliefs into these articles...and try and cite questionable authorities who lack the credentials or the facts to back up their claims.

But you have never shown that the insult you felt from my presence had this basis. That is, you have never shown that I have attempted to insert predisposed beliefs or cite questionable authorities. Like I say above, the problem with your approach is, in part, that you treat me like that simply by association. And so everyone who thinks like me, and watches you and I work, quickly loses the desire to participate in the project. That is an important reason not to treat people like that even where you are right about their aims.

I would therefore like to hear your view on the policy issues I raise. You say I "appear to be a POV pusher" that it "looks like" I want to use WP as a soapbox. You then say you "don't know for certain that is the case". Now, policy states that the term "POV pushing" is considered incivil and should be applied only in "unambiguous cases". Similarly, you justify you actions by noting that your struggle is aimed at NPOV violations, but you repeatedly call these violations "vandalism", again, directly in violation of the relevant guidelines. Why?

WP is [may be] about to lose an editor because of a stubborn insistence on the right to treat fools like fools, even while admitting that the editor in question may be no fool. The difference between this case and the (I imagine) many other cases before it, is that the editor has decided to articulate his reason for leaving in elaborate detail. What you do with that is a matter for the WP community of the future to deal with. It is because I believe in the idea of WP that I bother. Like I say, I find the project interesting. Right now, however, it isn't living up to its ideals.

Best, --Thomas Basboll 07:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:VAND...see "Sneaky vandalism"
  • "Vandalism which is harder to spot. This can include adding plausible misinformation to articles, (e.g minor alteration of dates), hiding vandalism (e.g. by making two bad edits and only reverting one), or reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages."
Indeed, this removal (which you cited in your comments as well) was my attempt to revert sneaky vandalism...plausible misinformation. It was also libel. As mentioned by me in my response and by Aude, if you only edit a very few articles and you routinely try to increase the coverage of speculative material in them, then the appearance is (for what shold be obvious reasons) that you are soapboxing or a POV pusher. It is just that simple. I also do think you are very thin skinned, and if you don't mind me saying, I suggest you not misuse Rfc in some attempt to out your main competition. I believe this Rfc is without merit, but I do respect your right to file it, even though I find it not likely to do anything to alter my beliefs about what your motivation on wikipedia are, or convince me that my beliefs of what your motivations are, are incorrect. I can't see that any further discussion on this matter from me will be of benefit to either of us.--MONGO 18:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
It's up to you how much you want to discuss this and how much you want to justify your actions. Like I say, I'm learning alot about this community right now, and I see that as a benefit to me, and, ultimately I hope, to the community. I don't see you as competition. That would imply a clash of "competing" POVs. I assume (in good faith) that we are both trying to present the facts to the best of our abilities.
Your way of going about it is not very constructive as I see it. So this RfC is exactly that: a request from one editor to the community for commments on the behaviour of another editor. It is possible that the community, on the whole, will deem your actions justified. So far, however, no one has really defended your treatment of me. They've basically just defended your right to do as you please.
While I have documented your routine behaviour, I would still like to see you document my "routine" attempts to introduce speculative material and to explain how, even if a great many examples of this could be found, your lack of courtesy towards me is justified. Its effect is likely to be drive me off: so its justification must be that editors like me are not wanted around here or at least that we will not missed if we go. You stop short of drawing that implication.
Finally, as I've said, I'm not very interested in the community's assessment (or yours) of the thickness of my skin, just as I was not interested in the "risks" implied by your "physical persona". I am an interested in an intellectual environment that makes such things irrelevant.--Thomas Basboll 12:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Since your first day of editing, my perception is that you have wanted to include more conspiracy theories in the 9/11 articles. Rfc's can and do look at the actions of the person named, and the reason there are outside views are to allow those who have outside views to state their oppinions on the matter, regarding all named parties. I fail to see that my commentary to you was incivil, and I really think it is a low blow to bring forth a user conduct Rfc based on the "evidence" you have cited. I definitely see this as a frivilous Rfc.--MONGO 08:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I've been surprised by your suggestion that filing an RfC itself constitutes a "blow". If this RfC ends up vindicating your actions then your reputation is only strengthened. If my evidende is flimsy and my filing is frivolous then, well, that too will be obvious. It's not clear right now that you do in fact have the communities support on that, but you are certainly not alone in thinking I'm way out in left field with this one. I hope you can be made to see that your treatment of me has been incivil. Note that, as you now put it, you formed a negative opinion of me (unless your opinion of 9/11 CTs is neutral) on my first day of editing. That simply doesn't jibe with WP:AGF.--Thomas Basboll 08:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Thomas Basboll, 9/11 CT, and Crockspot's outside view

I agree with Thomas Basboll's general sentiments above, and, although my direct communication with MONGO in the past has been minimal (from my perspective, although apparently not from his), I have had similar experiences in the 9/11 area, and I think this discussion needs to be seen in that wider context.

I strayed into 9/11 subjects by chance, as I often do with different subjects on wiki. Far from having any predisposition to bear on it, I had never even heard of Steven E. Jones, let alone Alex Jones or any others of their ilk beforehand, having virtually nil prior interest in such matters. However, I edit plenty of articles I have had no prior interest in, so I didn't see this as being any different, and presumed that the normal policies of WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR etc. should and could be applied. I soon came to realise that was not quite the case, when I encountered a hard core of editors, for whom, it was obvious, if you weren't with them, you were against them, in their undisguised intent to rid wikipedia of all mention of "9/11 conspiracy theories", or rather, as that wasn't feasible, to get rid of as many as possible and reduce to a minimum what remained. This wasn't on a case by case basis, but from an a priori decision that applied to them all regardless. I found that what would normally pass as an innocuous edit became fastened on relentlessly, inevitably by more than one user, with extreme and partial interpretations of policy to justify reversion.

I found this behaviour as much POV pushing as the POV pushing it was apparently opposing. One argument, repeated in this RfC, is that certain ideas should not be permitted in wikipedia because they are not proven. If something has sufficient note, then it is up to wikipedia to present it and for editors to work to that end, regardless of personal preference or prejudice. Wikipedia gives facts and lets the reader judge for themselves. This seems to have been discarded in favour of purifying what information readers are even allowed to access. That is censorship, and in this area of wiki has been drummed home relentlessly, until it has begun to seem a norm, so that editors acting normally seem extreme. As regards 9/11, the facts may or may not be what certain outspoken, or deluded, or whatever you choose to call them, people have said, but it is a fact that they have said these things, and that is what needs to be recorded from a NPOV, particularly as there is such widespread interest in and publicity about them, which would normally be seen as an obvious cause for inclusion, not exclusion.

"Free access to the sum of all human knowledge" also includes a knowledge of what is false, as well as what is true. We don’t exclude theories that the sun goes round the earth, because we now know them to be false. We show the different proponents and their ideas and their relationship. If something is ridiculous, a properly written article will state the facts and the truth should be apparent, or at least the inadequacies and contradictions will be revealed. As has been pointed out in the RfC, there seems no great hysteria about the views expressed in articles such as Global warming, Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations, RMS Titanic, David Irving or Loch Ness Monster, nor for that matter the recording of unproven ideas held by another bunch of conspiracy theorists, who "believe Jesus to be the Son of God". I'm not being facetious, just pointing out that people’s beliefs can be valid encyclopedic material, and don’t have to be proven realities to be so. Christian ideas are a more extraordinary concept about material events than common or garden Conspiracy Theorists’. Or if you prefer, observe the distinct lack of concern over the presence of Chariots of the Gods?.

Crockspot's outside view is typical of the 9/11 arena, and pure sophistry, where skewed arguments seek to belittle another editor from the opening jibe, "Since we are discouraged from discussing the thickness of the skin of the caller of this RfC." By rephrasing Thomas's comment in an unnecessarily pedantic way, Crockspot obviously indicates that the caller of the RfC is a little risible, but I doubt if Crockspot would advocate its corollary, that we should discuss the thinness of the skin of the subject of the RfC. If this seems surprising to suggest, but his statement didn’t, then that is an indication of an unlevel playing field from the start. Every established wikipedian will of course empathise with "difficulty being civil with editors who act foolishly, push wacky notions, and use every trick they can to push those notions", but that conveniently obscures the first point of enquiry, which is about MONGO’s treatment of Thomas Basboll. If Crockspot thinks the definition applies to Thomas, then he should provide substantial diffs to substantiate it. Crockspot neglects to mention that, despite the difficulty he mentions, the great majority of experienced wikipedians do nevertheless manage to remain civil nearly all of the time, and consider this to be required behaviour. A difficulty isn’t an excuse to continually get away with something: it’s a reason to try harder to find a way of dealing with it properly.

The third part of Crockspot’s view manages also to make a rhetorical statement to which there is only one response possible as determined by him in advance: "If MONGO's behaviour is preventing legions of conspiracy theorists from making 'important contributions' to Wikipedia, then we should give him a medal, a cigar, and our undying thanks." Well, if that is true, then of course we should give him the medal, the cigar and the thanks. The problem is that there is no evidence that it is true or that it has prevented anything of the sort. I am not disputing there are extreme conspiracy theorist POV pushers out there, wanting to find a platform here, but that applies to numerous subjects, and that is precisely what wiki is structured to deal with, which, left to its normal processes, it actually manages to do rather well without “MONGO’s behaviour”. Despite Crockspot’s dramatic portrayal, the enemy are not at the gate. George Orwell wrote rather well about the tactic. All it does is creative a defensive "them or us" mentality – you’re either one of the good guys or you're one of the conspiracy theorists, in which case you're beyond the pale, and you get what you deserve. The consequences of this attitude normally lead to editors being warned and blocked. The fact that it is defended in cases such as this not only engenders disillusion, but turns some potential friends into excommunicated enemies, as well as handing them ammunition to fire back from afar.

Editors should think very carefully about the real implications before endorsing Crockspot’s view. Crockspot first hints that Thomas is oversensitive, i.e. by implication he should not be making a fuss over how MONGO acts, i.e. MONGO is not really that uncivil. He next smooths the way by going through the motion of asserting the importance of civility, in order to immediately excuse a lack of it with a strawman argument, so that lack of civility becomes understandable. He finally turns incivility into a virtue.

An endorsement of Crockspot’s view is a voice of support, whether intended or not, for abusive behaviour as the means of addressing problems on wikipedia. MONGO is not Horatius defending the bridge. What Crockspot leaves out of his advocacy are the recommended modes of dealing with such matters, for which we have WP:DR, WP:MC, WP:3RR, WP:AN, WP:AN/I, WP:AIV and WP:CN, WP:RFC, WP:ArbCom, admins, bans and blocks, to name the first that come to mind. In fact the only thing we don’t have is WP:MONGO’s behaviour, which doesn’t short-cut the others: it devalues them and also users’ faith in a working system. It is not legions of conspiracy theorists that MONGO's behaviour is preventing from making important edits – those people will get dealt with anyway, as they always are. It is over the years maybe dozens of ordinary editors, for whom an inimical environment is created.

However, as I’ve already said, I am certainly not laying all the burden of blame for the 9/11 sink-pit on MONGO and I sympathise that he has suffered off wiki abuse, for which he is of course entitled to our support, but the fact that he has been a victim does not give him the right to victimise and, one would have hoped, would have made him more aware of the effects of that kind of insidious pressure on others. One person alone would not have had such a pervasive effect, but a caucus of editors who unfailingly turn up to support each other, without ever seeming to differ in their views, certainly would and do, generating an arena which amplifies his flaws and makes them next to impossible to address. What the "anti 9/ll-CT-POV-pushers" have succeeded in doing – and this is quite a feat of propaganda – is to instil as a reality their own myth of a particular danger in this area, which justifies their extreme tactics to supposedly address it. They thus succeed in enlisting the general approval of moderate, but uninvolved editors. I had that kind of impression myself before I naively tried to edit some of these articles. If anyone is in doubt, and hasn’t done so yet, please go there and try. The subject could certainly do with an influx of sound editors.

My own experience there was undoubtedly my most unpleasant on wikipedia to date. I could of course have continued to address that situation, but to be quite honest I have better things to do with my life. I have no wish to interact with some of the editors I encountered there. In fact for a time it became sufficiently disagreeable to be a contributing factor for me to back off from wiki altogether. This was not even from any frustration of being unable to make a point that I knew was correct, but which was being thwarted. I was quite successful finally in making that point, which resulted in WP:BLP being applied wiki-wide in the way that it is now, but you would think I'd committed a criminal act. Now, if it makes me feel like that, and I'm an admin, you can guess how many people wouldn't even dare speak up in the first place, or would easily get out-manoeuvred by someone who knew how to play the system, or would get beaten down by heavy handedness. Does anyone remember wikipedia being quite an intimidating place when they first started editing – without anything even going amiss, and how easy it could be to inadvertently do the wrong thing, not realising certain RL expectations and behaviour didn’t necessarily translate smoothly into an equivalent in wikiworld?

I have had no interest in editing 9/11 related articles since my first brief foray around seven months ago. Probably I would drop by if it were possible to do so and find a civil environment, but I prefer to interact with editors where I know there can be a mutual exchange and a degree of flexibility to solve problems. It makes it a pleasure to work on wiki, rather than an endurance test. I would have preferred to have stayed out of this RfC altogether, as I have far more pressing RL demands right now, and was hoping someone else would certify it. But Thomas Basboll has always seemed a reasonable enough individual to me, and I feel he is actually being driven away, which is a disgrace. Far from being thin-skinned, he has my utmost admiration for his fortitude of staying the course there for so long.

I believe MONGO when he says it is not his intention to drive Thomas away, because I don’t think MONGO properly realises how he comes across. I regret to have to say that I was appalled at his bullying manner long before I ever had anything at all to do with him. He exerts it to get his own way, and it's time he understood it's not acceptable. Personally I actually find his gross abuse rather more palatable than the more insidious methods of other operators in the field, but I guess Thomas Basboll doesn’t. I also recognise that MONGO can be generous, and recall him offering to help Thomas to get one of the controversial articles to FA status. A reconciliation would be a good outcome, and the one that Thomas obviously wants to achieve so that he can continue to participate in the collegiate atmosphere that every editor is entitled to. If the only way to achieve this is to ban a whole clutch of editors, including MONGO, from 9/11 subjects, I don’t think the result would be the unmitigated disaster they would like us all to believe.

Tyrenius 21:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how my support of the facts can be POV pushing. Furthermore, your certification of this RFC is based on what? I fail to see how you could be seen as anyone except someone with an axe to grind. You were in a dispute with myself, Tom Harrison and Tbeatty regarding information we supported in the Steven E Jones article. Unable to get your way, you accused us of violating BLP policies...you even emailed Jimbo Wales regarding this. The false witness you provided about myself and others makes it impossible to AGF with you. "Gross abuse"?...excuse me while I laugh that one off. I have repeatedly commended Mr. Basboll for a job well done on the Collapse of the WTC article and I did offer to assist him in getting the alternative account of that article to FA, mainly I was planning on working on the formatting and little else. The examples cited by Mr. Basboll in his opening comments of my "incivilities" are simply ridiculous...there are no personal attacks in them, nor threats, nor harassment in any way. He has chosen to work on articles where the issues get heated at times...he doesn't work on any other articles. He must see me as the prime obstacle in his efforts to insert more and more CT mishmash in the articles, so by trying to elininate my ability to particpate, this makes it easier. If he finds my commentary to be abusive, then he should step into my shoes for a week and see the amount of harassment both on this site and off that I have had to endure. I challenge you to find one egregious personal attack I have uttered to him.--MONGO 21:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Tyrenius was directly involved in attempting to resolve this dispute at a key point, as documented in the RfC. After Mongo is through laughing off and otherwise ridiculing objections to his behaviour perhaps we can discuss what sort of tone we would like to have here at Wikipedia, and what sorts of editors we wish to run off. I see Mongo as the prime obstacle in making the experience of contributing to Wikipedia an enjoyable one. Since Mongo has described this RfC itself as "borderline harrassment", I am not surprised to learn that he sees of lot of this sort of thing here at Wikipedia. Except in the most recent case, which if interpreted as a physical threat is by definition a personal attack, I have not accused Mongo of personally attacking me. I have accused him of incivility.--Thomas Basboll 12:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if I should be getting defensive here or not. I think not, except to say that I did specify that IF MONGO's behavior.... THEN we should.... yada yada yada. I don't edit 911 articles, so my observations are not directed at anyone specific, they are simply a conglomeration of my own observations and experiences on Wikipedia. I just happened to be the first one to see this RfC posted, and made a quick and glib view statement. As I said on this page, the RfC caller seems like a very civil and nice person, and I have no wish to see them leave WP. I truly do believe that they would find a lot at WP to enjoy if they expanded their horizons here a little bit, and let the water run off their back. There is a lot worse behavior going on around here than anything that MONGO could muster, and Thomas should probably count his blessings that he has not been the target of that behavior. - Crockspot 21:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
If by "A lot worse behavior" you mean, even very sophisticated, forms of vandalism, then I do not agree with your last statement. Vandalism is dealt with on Wikipedia, Mongo actions at stake are not. Mongo constantly questioned Thomas's (and mine too) motives, he made most of his edits having been like a marathon in mud (bear in mind that most of edits by Thomas that were "finalized" through extensive arguing on talk pages are staying in articles to this day). And Mongo's final action was purposed to exactly what happened, to make Thomas leave Mongo's surrounding (this includes certain 9/11 articles). SalvNaut 10:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a response to MONGO's post above. POV pushing is by definition "my support of the facts". That is what every POV pusher is doing - presenting what they consider to be the facts. Under NPOV it is not up to the editor to determine the facts, include the facts and exclude falsehoods. Under NPOV the only thing for the editor to determine is what are the major sources and to represent their viewpoints. If there are differing views from those sources, "all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions." Clearly CT is a significant published point of view, having worldwide coverage. Much of the consensus on this RfC is posited round the fact that CT is wrong, i.e. not true, and therefore should not be included. The fact that this principle directly conflicts with NPOV is a reason for ArbCom to consider this and its implications.

My certification, as explained by Thomas Basboll, is that I was involved in an incident he cites.

You have accused me of "backstabbing" (again). This is an obvious personal attack. Furthermore, you completely misrepresent the situation you refer to. I was not in a dispute with you, Tom Harrison and Tbeatty regarding information you supported in the Steven E Jones article. I have never edited that article or contributed to the talk page of that article. I issued a warning to Morton Devonshire for a negative unsourced comment in Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center about Jones, which Morton had inserted 7 times.[3] This is the other side of the 9/11 CT editing picture, which seems to be being somewhat brushed under the carpet. However, far from trying to exclude any such information, I said, "I agree that this needs to be stated about Jones in the article, but appropriately. It also needs to be referenced, so please find a suitable reference, and work in a collegiate manner with fellow editors."[4]

The issue MONGO is referring to is in fact about an unsourced highly derogatory comment about Jones on Morton Devonshire's talk page by TBeatty, which I refactored.[5] He provocatively repeated the allegation in a reworded form with a source which did not justify it, so I reverted and blocked him for 24 hours to prevent a repetition. MONGO queried this and I explained my reasons, inviting him to change the block if he saw fit.[6] Netsnipe disagreed with my block, but by then it had ended anyway. MONGO then said it was a "grey area" and even suggested it might go to RfC.[7] Then Tom Harrison said he thought the block was a mistake.

As I understood such matters were a Foundation dictate and not open to negotiation, I emailed Jimbo, explained the background and said, "As I have been opposed by 3 other admins, Netsnipe, Tom Harrison and MONGO, I don't want to engage in a massive row, even though I know some other admins would support me. I would like to ask whether you feel this statement should be allowed. If not, can I have your endorsement to remove it, so the matter is clarified for everyone? If the statement is OK by you, I'd be grateful if you could fill me in on where I've misunderstood the policy."

JoshuaZ retroactively supported the block. Jimbo then posted on TBeatty's talk page, "I fully and completely endorse this block. That is not to say that every single case of this type deserves a block; admins must make careful judgments about particular cases. (And this is why also think it was appropriate for MONGO to question it.) However, since Tbeatty continues to come out with this claim that this is about "the opinion of the admin was that the source was inadequate" I see no sense of understanding what the problem is at all, and frankly people who cannot comprehend the need for absolutely meticulous attention to detail when writing about living persons have no business editing wikipedia at all."

All of this can be found at User_talk:Tbeatty/Archive3#Block.

MONGO's description of this incident gives a completely false account of it. As far as I was concerned, the matter was clarified and we move on. MONGO is obviously the one with the axe to grind. He has been unable to let go. Rather than seeing the benefit for wikipedia of the clarification of policy, he is concerned for some slight he perceives. He has completely over-reacted with accusations of "back stabbing". His uncivil attitude has been excused because of the work he does defending wiki against POV pushers. I was defending wiki against a BLP violater, and MONGO still asserts his position with the same belligerence. Five months later he still sees this short-lived incident in exaggerated terms: "Your email to Jimbo and lies and misrepresentations made to him about me and several other editors was as cheap a shot as any done by anyone I have encountered here on Wikipedia."[8] That sort of thing and the email he sent me at the time, "you're simply not a trustworthy human being" is what I mean by gross abuse. It is abuse and it's hardly subtle. It is an "egregious personal attack".

Tyrenius 09:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You blocked me for saying "Steven Jones misrepresented the truth" on a user's talk after leaving an improper warning on my talk page and also being involved in the discussion. I was discussion Steven Jones reliability as a source. I did not even know you were an admin since you were engaged in such a discussion. The block was backed up by Jimbo during the height of new BLP policies as an example of how rigorous he wanted to be. Your continued reliance on this backing as somehow an endorsement of the action is misguided. Your action was inappropriate. Jimbo simply endorsed blcoking people for BLP violations and upheld it because he didn't want the smackdown you were facing to stifle rigorous BLP enforcement. An admin being desysopped for enforcing BLP was not what he wanted at the time. Your actions were so far beyond the pale that I do not understand why you keep bringing it up. You have not blcoked anyone since then for such a non-infraction nor can you point to one because it doesn't exist. --Tbeatty 02:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
You are as inaccurate as MONGO in your recall of events. You first said a public figure had "suspensions for lying"[9] which I refactored. I warned you in the edit summary and on your user page about this. You then changed it to the equally unacceptable "suspension for misrepresenting his research", and removed the warning from your talk page with the comment, "be gone".[10] On the basis of this, you were blocked as a preventative measure because it was my judgement that you were likely to repeat this inaccurate allegation. MONGO, having declined my invitation to unblock you if he thought that was correct, then informed you, "perhaps your wording in your comment needed to be toned down".[11] You then went ahead and restated it: "That means his first statement was a lie, and he backed away from it. Tyrenius believes that saying it was a lie is defamatory. It is not. it is true. [name removed] lied. I said it again." Finally, after I informed MONGO of Jimbo's email reply to me, MONGO removed your comment altogether.[12]
I was involved in no discussion with you or anyone else about the reliability of Steven Jones as a source. I had not had not previously interacted with you at all. Admins do not get de-sysopped for making one 24 hour block which a second admin is invited to reverse and declines to do so, and a third admin also endorses (JoshuaZ).[13] You're talking nonsense. Your speculation about Jimbo's motives is completely wishful thinking on your behalf. It is quite clearly your actions that were beyond the pale, and continue to be with your refusal to admit you were wrong. I don't keep bringing it up: MONGO does with his accusation of "back stabbing". I'm simply answering that.
I warned someone else pretty soon after you for a BLP infraction.[14] It's now standard that if people repeat improperly sourced derogatory comments about living people, they're likely to get blocked.
Tyrenius 23:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
And then he told you to stick it and repeated it exactly (instead of refacotring and sourcing it like I did) and you took no action. Sorry but it simply doesn't fly. You misused your admin tools and your backpedaling just doesn't fix it. It doesn't fly that you weren't involved with CTer discussions when you were watching MDs talk page for such discussions and STARTED the thread I commented on. Here's the thread you started and I commented on. [15][16][17]Here's where you get at Morton right before blocking me. Your revisionism is starting to equal those we were commenting on. --Tbeatty 04:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The objection was to "evil succubus" as a description which was removed, so yet again you foul up on any accuracy.[18] You're quite right: he then attacked me. So I'm doing quite a good job here being attacked by both sides. Perhaps you could tell Hipocrite down below at #Blatant vandalism. He seems to think I'm the truther's greatest friend, but they don't seem to agree. You've given a link to my asking Morton to leave edit summaries,[19] a link to one of my supposed truther friends Lovelight calling me a tyrant and accusing me of a vendetta against him[20] (same accusation that you and Morton are fond of - you have something in common with the truthers, after all), a link to a post on Morton's page 8 days previously which was nothing about Jones at all,[21] and a later post to that, where I ask Morton to discuss things.[22] Then apparently I "get at Morton". I issued him a warning. Have you heard of WP:3RR? He inserted exactly the same unreferenced statement 7 times. Far from disagreeing about the information itself, I said, "I agree that this needs to be stated about Jones in the article, but appropriately. It also needs to be referenced, so please find a suitable reference, and work in a collegiate manner with fellow editors."
This was nothing whatsoever to do with you, so I don't know why you're mentioning it. You can keep on making accusations, but nothing you say backs them up. I suggest you back off.
Tyrenius 09:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

A) He repeated the evil succubus line. You did nothing, not even and a talk page warning. B). I gave links where you were involved in discussions on Morton's talk page regarding truthers. I gave links to where you discuss Steven Jones suspension (that was the material Morton added, it wasn't 3RR). C). I commented on Jones reliability as a source in the same thread that you started and you blocked me inappropriately. You're claims of "not being involved" are ludicrous. I don't know how many ways or times I have to say it. You are the one who brought it up here, as well. --Tbeatty 14:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

A) Tom harrison made the decision on the follow up. He deleted the text. You obviously feel he did not act properly over this matter.[23] B) You seem to be exceptionally obtuse about this matter. I agreed Morton's point about Steven Jones should be in the article and asked him to provide a reference, as I've pointed out already. C) It's amazing how everyone who gets blocked thinks it's inappropriate, no matter what they've done. You seem to have what is generally know around here as a very thin skin. Tyrenius 18:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me, but you brought up the "evil Succubus" incident as highlighting your infallibilty as an admin. I am just pointing out how it isn't even close to how you (mis)handled my comments about Steven Jones misrepresenting his research as being peer reviewed. Pawn it off on Tom if you like but stop saying it highlights how you handled similar events. No warning and no blocks is nowhere close to your impromptu warning and hasty inappropriate block of me. If I seem to be obtuse to you, perhaps it is the blunted foil I am forced to spar against. I only think that your blcok was inappropriate as was the warning for the number of reasons stated above. I have no idea what you misrepresented to Jimbo but if it's similar to your succubus misrepresentation, MONGO is understandably upset. I saw your point and is why I restated it. Admittedley flippant but that just brought out your anger. The fact that it made you angry is more a reflection of your thin skin and your POV than anything to do with me. You keep bringing this block up as somehow an example of proper behavior on your part. It clearly was not and it is necessary to let the gentle reader know it. As for your observation that people you block seem to think it was inappropriate might cause some internal reflection on your part. Hopefully the angle of reflection isn't so obtuse as to find you lacking the ability to see your shortcomings. --Tbeatty 05:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Kindly stop your mischaractisations. Infallibility doesn't come into it. You seem to think I am prejudiced. I was simply showing you that I'm not. I'm not pawning it off on Tom. I haven't said he did anything wrong in his response. You're the one that seems to think it should have been handled differently (at least when you thought it was my responsibility), so take it up with him. I have misrepresented nothing to Jimbo, so kindly withdraw that one as well, or prove it. You can see what I said, as it's reproduced higher up on this page. MONGO has nothing to be upset about. It is astonishing that he continues to harbour this and bring it forth at every opportunity. I don't recall saying I am angry - weary would be more accurate at having to deal with constant fabrications. Another misinterpretation you make is that people I block think it's inappropriate. I wasn't referring to people I block. I was referring to people blocked by any admin. I don't think I have ever had a block overturned, though, as in your case, I freely invite this. If you're not happy with Jimbo's comment on your action, then take it up with him, which you have so far signally failed to do. Tyrenius 15:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I only wish you had handled my case as you (and Tom) handled your example of similiar "appropriate response". If the "evil succubus" incident is an example of how you should have behaved, (and it is), then it is clear that how you behaved in my case was completely inappropriate as they were exact opposites. All you needed to do is apologize for your misuse of tools and process and there would be no issue here and we could all move on. Instead you have chosen to defend the indefensible and mumble allegations of fabrications and misrepresentations. The shtick is getting old. --Tbeatty 02:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
You have made constant attacks on me in this thread, and every time I ask you to provide substantiation, you make a different attack. This is completely unacceptable behaviour. As far as "misuse of tools and process" and choosing to "defend the indefensible", I'll remind you of the original discussion, which is reproduced below, where you originally made such statements. It seems there are those who consider that you are the one who is defending the indefensible. Maybe you should make a post on their talk pages to let them know how you feel. Tyrenius 01:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I retroactively endorse Tyrenius' block. While I strongly appreciate the work you have done keeping the 9/11 related articles NPOV and keeping the conspiracy cruft to the minimum we cannot make potentially defamatory comments on Wiki which can create serious legal issues. Regardless of your or anyone else's opinion of Jones(mine is very dim) you can't put possibly defamatory on your pages. Wikipedia is about writing an encyclopedia not personal advocacy. If you want to accuse someone of lying please do so on a personal webpage. JoshuaZ 03:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, of course, WP:LIVING is non negotiable, but the comment was made in usertalk pages here and on one other page...so I highly doubt that any issues of libel would have occurred...and I find a lot of this situation to now have gone into the realm of surreal. If we went around deleting/blocking every single person that has made a comment as Tbeatty did, we'd be very busy indeed. Now that the policy has been made more strict, I intend to uphold it of course as it is written. Indeed, at some point, comments such as "mine is very dim" may become borderline attacks as well...something I hope we can avoid, but I think you can see where I am going with this. There is a range of reasonableness that we need to expect, and from what I can see, I would have thought it would have been better had Tyrenius gotten someone else to do the block...but what's done is done and the best thing is to move on.--MONGO 04:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
After more thought I've decided to bring this matter up WP:BLP to discuss there. The point you raise especially in regard to the long term effects is very good. JoshuaZ 05:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

- Regarding your most recent comment, while I would have probably refactored again and sent a note to you, knowing violation of WP:BLP is not acceptable under any circumstances. This is a foundational matter and so we can't afford to be loose about it. JoshuaZ 05:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

--That's complete BS. Sourcing a negative statement for the first time is not grounds for blocking. Ever. Point me to a legitimate blcok that happened when someone readded a statement with a source and was immediately blcoked because the opinion of the admin was that the source was inadequate. The blcok is indefensible. THere is a HUGE difference between policing articles for WP:BLP and blocking editors who add content you disagree with. --'Tbeatty 06:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I fully and completely endorse this block. That is not to say that every single case of this type deserves a block; admins must make careful judgments about particular cases. (And this is why also think it was appropriate for MONGO to question it.) However, since Tbeatty continues to come out with this claim that this is about "the opinion of the admin was that the source was inadequate" I see no sense of understanding what the problem is at all, and frankly people who cannot comprehend the need for absolutely meticulous attention to detail when writing about living persons have no business editing wikipedia at all.
The first comment was bad enough. But to come up with a "source" which does not back up the claim *at all*, and to continue to make the claim, is just so far beyond unacceptable that if you don't understand it, I don't know what else to say about it.--Jimbo Wales 09:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


I guess we can put that little stat to rest. [24][25]. (changed to other case)--Tbeatty 03:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Not so. It wasn't overturned. I chose to end the block because One Night In Hackney, whose complaint instigated it, reported that Gaimhreadhan had been editing collegiately in the mean time. Fred Bauder looked at the block and kept it (email to me). Tyrenius 01:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Asking you to apologize is attacking you? Pointing out your improper admin actions is an attack? I simply said no one has been blocked for what you blocked me for either previously or since. As I told you before, Jimbo basically defended BLP and told you not to do the block again. And you haven't despite the pathetic example that you neither blocked nor warned, that you then blamed on Tom after trying to say it was the same as your block on me. As for being overturned, AN/I reversed one and Fred reversed the other. You then complained about the overturning on Fred's talk page. It was nice of you saving the AN/I admins' time by actually reversing your own mistake but that doesn't change the result of AN/I. If you would have been big enough to recognize the conflict of interest and your overzealousness in my case, your credibility at this RfC wouldn't be so low and perhaps some of the scores of people that sided with MONGO might have been a little more sympathetic. If you would just refrain from blocking and harassing people and let the editors contribute without your interference we wouldn't be wasting all our time in RfC's, and AN/I's and BLP Noticeboards reviewing your questionable actions. --Tbeatty 02:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I refer you to the ArbCom ruling which I have also cited below on Civility. It states:

Users are expected to be reasonably courteous to each other; see Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Unwarranted accusations and assumptions of bad faith constitute incivility.

Your posts above are a continuous breach of civility, and you have used this RfC as an opportunity to continuously attack me, mostly, as I have pointed out, with inaccurate reports of events and with no assumption of good faith towards me and my actions. Amongst your attacks are the following:

  • Your action was inappropriate.
  • Your actions were so far beyond the pale
  • You misused your admin tools and your backpedaling just doesn't fix it
  • Your revisionism is starting to equal those we were commenting on
  • you blocked me inappropriately.
  • You're claims of "not being involved" are ludicrous.
  • you brought up the "evil Succubus" incident as highlighting your infallibilty as an admin
  • you (mis)handled my comments
  • hasty inappropriate block of me
  • If I seem to be obtuse to you, perhaps it is the blunted foil I am forced to spar against.
  • I have no idea what you misrepresented to Jimbo but if it's similar to your succubus misrepresentation, MONGO is understandably upset.
  • a reflection of your thin skin and your POV
  • how you behaved in my case was completely inappropriate
  • your misuse of tools and process
  • you have chosen to defend the indefensible and mumble allegations of fabrications and misrepresentations
  • your improper admin actions
  • your overzealousness
  • If you would just refrain from blocking and harassing people and let the editors contribute without your interference

I would be grateful if you withdraw such comments. I would point out that my block of you, although initially questioned, was endorsed by an admin JoshuaZ and subsequently accepted, after Jimbo's endorsement, by other admins involved, namely Tom Harrison and MONGO, who deleted your comment.

Jimbo did not tell me not to do the block again. This statement is false. Otherwise, please provide a quote and diff to substantiate your remark.

I have already pointed out that I have not blamed Tom Harrison for the other incident you mentioned. You have ignored my comment and continue to misrepresent my position.

As you still seem to be asserting that your interpretation of the source is justifiable, this unfortunately indicates that you have not learnt from the event, and do in fact fail to "comprehend the need for absolutely meticulous attention to detail when writing about living persons."

Tyrenius 02:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You want everyone else to withdraw, retract and apologize. Yet you are unwilling to even offer the same in return even in the face of the most lopsided RfC I have seen. What have you learned from that? So the answer is a simple 'no.' All my comments were in response to your own. I find your continuing defense of the indefensible to be tedious. --Tbeatty 02:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On Single Purpose Accounts

After reading Aude's view, I was suprised at the content (and status) of the page on single purpose accounts. First, it is neither a policy nor a guideline but an essay. Second, it is primarily intended to prevent people to go beyond "gentle scrutiny" into straightforward suspicion, which Aude seems to be suggesting I deserve (or may as well expect). Most single purpose accounts, it seems, are perfectly respectable, and being an SPA is not in itself counter to the community's standards. As I said above, in my thoughts on Mongo response, I pretty much got bogged down in my attempts to improve the WTC articles. This was precisely because my edits were unfairly (at least according to the essay Aude cites) treated with suspicion from day one. It also greatly reduced my desire to make more general contributions until I figured out what this project is really all about. That's something I'm learning now.--Thomas Basboll 09:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh my Thomas, do not worry. It's simple: 3 months from now, after you'll have contributed to hundreds of other articles you will bring this RfC again and everything will be different then, your arguments will have different meaning then, of course. You'll find your place here, in this not-at-all authoritarianistic society. <sarcasm off> If I may, I'd recommend you watching this interview with John Dean by Keith Olbermann. SalvNaut 16:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
In his sarcasm, SalvNaut has accidentally hit on an important point. It wouldn't hurt to spread your wings a little and branch out. Use the "random article" button if you just can't think of another topic to edit. There is almost always some improvement that can be made to any article. I know of a handful of editors who have thousands of edits to a small handful of articles. When I have the occasional disagreement with them, and I look at their contribution history, I can't help but privately question their motives and neutrality. Editors may not state it, but they do get left with a negative impression. One has to question whether it is either healthy for the editor or in the interests of the Project for an editor to be so obsessed with making specific edits to specific articles, to the exclusion of any other contribution. You seem like a right civil and friendly fellow. I certainly wouldn't want you to be R-U-N-N-O-F-T of Wikipedia. I think you'll find that if you spread yourself around a little, you'll find a lot more joy to appreciate around WP, and other editors will be less likely to come to snap judgements about you. - Crockspot 16:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Many of your points are fair. They could probably constitute on "A guide to healthy editing". However, personally I would feel uncomfortable with suggesting what to do to a person I know very little of. If, let's say, Stephen Hawking was hiding under a nickname and was editing only Black hole article, and was adding reasonable, sourced, but unpopular statements, should he be seen suspicious? Hmmmm. It is a difficult question, indeed. SalvNaut 17:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Fair point. I am sure some would see Hawking's edits as suspicious. What "should" happen and what "does" happen are not always in sync, due to simple human nature. Then there are the wishes of Lord Rove that some of us are bound by blood oath to follow... oh crap, did I say that out loud? - Crockspot 18:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


I have big problems with that essay, and as far as editing articles is concerned, it should be utterly disregarded. Not everyone is a polymath; a lot of people are going to edit what they care about, and not care about a wide range of material. That is OK. People who appear out of nowhere and instantly gravitate to project discussion are another story, of course.

It seems obvious that anyone who pops into one of the 9/11 articles immediately upon arrival in Wikipedia and does any non-trivial change is editing with a strong POV. It simply stands to reason. They may have a good POV or bad POV, but if they gravitate immediately to such an article, it's because they "know" that the content is "wrong". We want to discourage this; but if people get their heads handed to them for this, they are going to assume that it's because the other side is just trying to defend the "lies" in the current article and so forth. Biting the newbies is more of a problem with these articles than anywhere else. Mangoe 19:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

And to comment on the Hawking example above, I think it depends on what kind of material Hawking was adding. Did he edit warred against consensus and/or had been blocked for his editing patterns? You know, there's a couple different single purpose accounts. There's the guy who really loves baseball and only edits articles about baseball, and then there's the guy who hates the designated hitter rule and only edits to push his POV on that issue. The difference is too obvious to elaborate on except to say that we love one of them and the other is likely to get runnoft at some point. RxS 19:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Focus of this RfC

Despite my attempts to avoid it in my description of this dispute, many of the comments on this RfC are so far about Mongo's overall qualities as an editor and value to the WP project. I have not called these into question. What I have asked the community to comment on are some specific elements of his specific treatment of me. His behaviour has been defended as though it was directed against the most ill-conceived and ill-intentioned edits imaginable. Just keep in mind that this sort of defense of Mongo's actions is not so much advice to me, but a (self-)description of the community. You are telling someone who feels he has been treated badly to expect more of the same, perhaps even something worse. And you are not suggesting that the community will, in those cases, come to his defense ... especially not if I don't start making some, let's say, "real" contributions of broader benefit to the project. It may reflect relatively well on Mongo that I should "count my blessings" (i.e., that Mongo's is not the worst behaviour), but it's not much of a reason to stay around.--Thomas Basboll 10:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

If you keep trying to promote conspiracy theories in every article you work on, I expect people will respond in about the same way they have, and about the same way they respond to others doing the same thing. As this RfC develops, you will be able to gauge how the community may react in the future. As you say, it may not give you much of a reason to stay around. Tom Harrison Talk 13:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sneaky Vandalism?

Above, Mongo suggests we read WP:VAND's section on "sneaky vandalism". Like he says, it states, that this is "Vandalism which is harder to spot. This can include adding plausible misinformation to articles, (e.g minor alteration of dates), hiding vandalism (e.g. by making two bad edits and only reverting one), or reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages." He then says that this revert was an attempt to revert sneaky vandalism (and was therefore correctly summarized as "lies"?). It was, says Mongo, "plausible misinformation". But was it "hard to spot" and did it look anything like a "minor alteration of dates"? Clearly not. It was an NPOV violation with perhaps some OR and RS violations thrown in. Like Mongo says, "it was also libel." All these things could have been dealt with courteously, with the hope that the editor in question could be made to understand the criteria for including material in an article. It seems more likely to have been an ill-conceived good-faith edit.--Thomas Basboll 19:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

How do you feel about your comments to User:Beguiled...do you think that your comments to him (especially since there is not one instance in which this editored added libel), were newbie biting? Are you really suggesting that adding overt libel is an "ill-conceived good-faith edit?--MONGO 06:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, as I understand the policy, as long as the editor actually believes the claim (in this case about Silverstein) then it is made in good faith; in so far as it is libel it is of course ill-conceived. WP:AGF tells us to assume the first and WP:BLP tells us to correct the second. No policy justifies reverting such edits as "lies". In fact, WP:CIVIL and WP:BITE cautions us against such behaviour.
I take it you are referring to this remark by Beguiled. I responded to it on my talk page here when he made it. Beguiled never did get back to me about the attack I may have made but I expect it was this exchange ([26] [27]), which we have already talked about, and which ended when you rightly pointed out that there was a risk of biting [28]. I acknowledged that my remarks stemmed from my irritation with Beguiled's unconstructive edits (I stand by that assessment) and thanked you for the headsup [29]. It is possible (but not likely) that your intervention helped us to avoid an escalation to something more personal; in any case, until I posted the draft of this RfC, I heard nothing more from Beguiled. The difference between Beguiled's complaint about me, and mine about yours, is that we have a long-standing dispute.
Whatever your view of my remarks to Beguiled, my position remains as I put on my talk page. That is, the desired outcome of this RfC is that you will participate in the effort to raise the level of civility, which will include telling other editors to remain civil and pointing out their incivility to them. The fact that you have been incivil in the past does not prevent you from doing so. If I have attacked Beguiled, the same would apply to me.--Thomas Basboll 08:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
In other words, since this guy believes (as if we know what he beleieves) that Mr. Silverstein ordered the WTC buildings to be demolished then we should assume good faith that unreferenced libel such as that should stand? In this thread, not only are you newbie biting, but you are also insulting this editor, who by the way, hasn't libeled anyone. I fail to grasp how you can attack my efforts to follow the WP:BLP guidelines and yet tip-toe around your derogatory insults to Mr. Beguiled.--MONGO 08:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea how you can turn my statement, namely,
as long as the editor actually believes the claim (in this case about Silverstein) then it is made in good faith; in so far as it is libel it is of course ill-conceived. WP:AGF tells us to assume the first and WP:BLP tells us to correct the second,
into your restatement, namely,
we should assume good faith that unreferenced libel such as that should stand,
which I read to mean,
we should assume good faith and let unreferenced libel such as that stand.
What I said was that (1) we should assume good faith, which means we should assume that he believes Silverstein ordered the demolition of the buildings and that (2) because no reliable source for that statement exists (and a very reliable source is needed), we should revert with a summary that says, e.g., "reverting the insertion of a potentially libelous claim without reliable source". That would be civil. An incivil way of saying (arguably) the same thing is to summarize the revert with the word "lies", which is what you did.
In my account of the incident with Beguiled I offered a complete set of diffs, including the discussion we had about it at the time. Like I said, I still believe your remarks were well placed then. I don't think that bars me from criticizing your behaviour.--Thomas Basboll 20:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Special status?

It seems there is a substantial body of opinion that MONGO is to be commended for "defending" the NPOV of 9/11-related articles. As I suggested in my comment in the RfC, does this imply that we now need to draft up WP:911, to formalise the special status that it seems several editors believe 9/11-related articles should have, presumably over-riding the current provisions we have on NPOV, AGF, NPA and BITE? --Guinnog 19:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say everyone gets their licks in on 9/11 releated articles and until I see you or Thomas start an RFC on certain editors that want more CT coverage in those articles I'll consider this RFC just another front in that effort. I think it's pretty clear that Mongo hasn't got any special status considering his Arbcom experience. RxS 22:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
"Gets their licks in"? Whatever happened to policy and collegiality? --Guinnog 02:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mini-survey of other controversial pages and how controversy is dealt with

(This is only a sampling of pages I am familiar with; please feel free to add others you are aware of)

Name "Controversies section" called Comments
Abortion Abortion#Abortion debate Links to main article Abortion debate. Fair summary in article.
Chinook helicopter crash - Compare this earlier version with "Other theories" section which I removed on basis of undue weight
Evolution Evolution#Social and religious controversies Links to main article Creation-evolution controversy. Fair summary in article.
Global warming Global warming#Controversy and politics Links to main article Global warming controversy; fair summary in article
The Holocaust The Holocaust#Holocaust denial Links to main article Holocaust denial; fair summary in article
John F. Kennedy assassination John F. Kennedy assassination#Assassination theories Links to main article Kennedy assassination theories. Fair summary in article (and fair mini-summary in John F. Kennedy as well).
Pan Am Flight 103 Pan Am Flight 103#Alternative theories Links to main article Alternative theories of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. Short summary in main article.
RMS Titanic RMS Titanic#Alternative theories and curses Links to main article Titanic alternative theories; fair summary in article
TWA Flight 800 TWA Flight 800#Alternative theories May currently present undue weight to "Alternative theories" in my opinion. Update; currently undergoing revision by User:Lipsticked Pig towards a more NPOV article.
September 11, 2001 attacks September 11, 2001 attacks#Conspiracy theories Links to 9/11 conspiracy theories. Discussed here.

--Guinnog 16:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy to identically recreate the Holocaust Denial section in the 9/11 article. I fear, though, that such characterization would not be acceptable but it is a 'fair summary' as you state above.
“ 9/11 conspiracy theories are the assertion that terrorists did not commit the terrorist acts on 9/11 or that the Bush Administration was complicit in the attack; that there never was a centrally planned attempt to attack the United States; or that there were no mass killings at the World Trad Center. Those who hold this position often claim that Bush Administration knows that the attacks did not occur as stated and are engaged in a conspiracy to further their political agenda. As the attack is considered by historians to be one of the most documented events in recent history, these views are not accepted as credible, with organizations such as the American Historical Association stating that 9/11 conspiracy theories are "at best, a form of academic fraud."[106] Public espousal of conspiracy theories is a sport in several countries, including Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.

9/11 conspiracy theorists often prefer to be called "revisionists." Most scholars contend that the term is misleading. Historical revisionism is a mainstream part of the study of history; it is the reexamination of accepted history, with an eye towards updating it. In contrast, negationists may willfully misuse historical records; as Gordon McFee writes: "Revisionists depart from the conclusion that an attack occured and work backwards through the facts to adapt them to that preordained conclusion. Put another way, they reverse the proper methodology ... thus turning the proper historical method of investigation and analysis on its head."[107] Public Opinion Quarterly summarized that: "No reputable historian questions the account of 9/11, and those promoting conpiracy theories are overwhelmingly anti-Semites and/or neo-Nazis."

9/11 conspiracy theories have become popular among Muslim opponents of Israel. The doctoral dissertation of XXX raised doubts that aiplanes were used for the 9/11 attacks and suggested that the number of Jews killed in the 9/11 attacks was less other ethnica groups.[108][109] XXX has not espoused this position since his appointment as YYYY , and has denied being a 9/11 Conpiracy Theorist. In late 2005 Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad described the 9/11 attacks as "the myth of the Armerican massacre."[110][111] Mainstream Iranian television, such as the Islamic Republic of Iran News Network, broadcasts cartoons and other programs suggesting that the 9/11 attacks are a Jewish conspiracy created primarily as a justification for the existence of the State of Israel.

 ”

--Tbeatty 18:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think it is at least an arguable proposition that we could give the "conspiracy theories" more weight in the 9/11 article by making a slightly longer summary of the above Conspiracy theories article, and without lending undue weight to the importance they carry in the public consciousness or breaking any of our policies on article content. More to the point of this RfC, I don't see how espousing such a belief would automatically make one a "POV-pusher", far less a "vandal". I don't see any evidence that Thomas did anything wrong, and certainly nothing that justifies MONGO's apparent anger with him. --Guinnog 17:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Huh? All this proves is that the editors of those pages haven't adopted as strong a stand as editors of 9/11 articles as far as maintaining undue weight regarding nonscientific and inaccurate information. I also fail to see ay evidence that I am angry with Mr. Basboll. Furthermore, the it becomes more apparent every day that the main purpose of this RFc is to try and wiggle more conspiracy theory information into main articles in an overt effort to suppress me based on weak arguments about my egregious incivility. This is a misuse of process.--MONGO 17:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
The point is that the tone of a longer paragraph should be identical to the tone afforded the Holocaust deniers in the Holocaust artcile. Yet that would be unacceptable to the proponents, whence the short one sentence description is a compromise. --Tbeatty 18:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The standard of Main Article for the factual-historical account and Daughter Article for the conspiracy theory view is acceptable -- in that way, we describe the opposing point of view without pretending that it has equal validity to the historical record. The problem, however, is that editors like Thomas Basboll and Lovelight want to move the conspiracy theories into the Main Article. That's the point I was trying to make when I said that we don't put Holocaust denier claims into the Holocaust article. Such a concept violates our rules against undue weight.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 21:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have been around the block on Wikipedia and I think these articles are more typical in how they deal with controversy. I don't personally have any wish to expand the coverage of alternative theories in our 9/11 coverage, although I do think our current coverage is less than perfect. But I do want to stand up for someone else's right to edit in that direction, so long as they follow policy. This doesn't mean the article will even end up reflecting their wish, as consensus and policy will still decide that. Morton, didn't you even read the Holocaust example I gave? My point was that they do describe (briefly and fairly) the main claims of the Holocaust deniers on the main Holocaust article.
MONGO, I wouldn't wish to suppress you, and I don't even think your incivility was that egregious. I do think you were uncivil (indeed you've admitted that and apologised for it), and I am trying to see where the incivility came from. I'd like to think that we can use this process to try to improve things on the 9/11 articles with a view to this sort of thing not happening again. As I said, I don't have a particular interest in moving the POV of the articles, but I do think it would be good to reaffirm that normal Wiki policies like AGF, BITE and NPA continue to apply in this corner of Wikipedia. My ideal outcome for all this would be a general rapprochement and an all-round commitment to raising some of these articles to FA standard, along with a return to normal and civil editing on 9/11 articles. Wouldn't that be great? --Guinnog 22:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You can hardly claim consensus when only one editor was willing to keep it there. "It lasted hours before the community restored the consensus version" is more akin to reality. --Tbeatty 03:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I really don't want to argue with you, for many reasons. This reminds me of why I don't edit 9/11 articles; I was foolish perhaps to accept Hipocrite's challenge and try to draft a proposal. Ah well. I've stripped all the opinion out of the table entry; let readers make their own judgement on this one from the links I think. --Guinnog 04:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I can certainly agree with you here. It reminds me of why I have to edit 9/11 articles. I wish you well in your post 9/11 editing career. --Tbeatty 05:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The flat Earth analogy (response to Tbeatty)

While I think there are better analogies, Tbeatty's comparison of my interests with an interest in flat Earth theories (though I will admit I find, say, the Controlled Demolition Hypothesis a bit more plausible), may be instructive. After all, there is an article on the Earth and an article on the Flat Earth; there is an article on the collapse of the World Trade Center and an article on controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center. In both cases, the second article constitutes a cool, objective, balanced, informative presentation of an idea, while the first is an article on the facts. In both cases, the first article links to the second (and vice versa, of course).

Now, what was Mongo's approach to the creation of the controlled demolition article? Well, after being created as a content fork from the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, it was immediately nominated for deletion. It passed. Mongo then immediately nominated it again. It passed. It was then nomitated a few months later. Here is what Mongo said and voted:

First AfD (started Sept. 11, 2006)

Delete POV fork, and yes the main article can have about 100kbs of junk science taken out and the issue of splitting up is resolved.--MONGO 04:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Second AfD (started Sept. 23, 2006, less than 24 hours after the first closed, by Mongo)

Article forked from 9/11 conspiracy theories due to length of that article, but since the split, this article has become a hopeless quagmire of conspiracy theory nonsense, and even simple demands that the article try to meet NPOV have been met with further POV pushing. This is simply not what wiipedia is about...wikipedia is not for soapboxing, and is not an indiscriminate collection of misinformation. Delete.--MONGO 04:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC) [emphasis added by T.B.]

Third AfD (started January 2007)

Comment I don't work on that page, for the same reasons mainstream engineers don't bother to spend much time rebuttaling the CT misinformation....it's not worth their time. My comment isn't a reflection on many who have put time into the page either because they find the issue interesting or because they are determined to create a NPOV article of the event. I still think it should be retitled to Conspiracy theories regarding the collapse of the World Trade Center, however. As the article won't be deleted...I "vote"....Rhubarb--MONGO 21:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The article has stood the test of time, and been favourably peer reviewed (even Mongo made some constructive remarks). I present this in puzzlement over how Tbeatty's view can support commendations for Mongo's behaviour.--Thomas Basboll 19:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

PS. Rereading the second AfD, which Mongo started, reminds me that this was an important episode in my relations with him. If I find time, I'll identify some highlights, but surf through for instances of "basboll" and you may see what I mean.--Thomas Basboll 20:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Also in response to the points raised by Tbeaty and Morton, we do in fact have sections in articles like The Holocaust#Holocaust denial (which is a fair summary of the main article at Holocaust denial, as policy suggests it should be). I think the Holocaust will be just as emotive a subject for many editors as 9/11, and yet the "Conspiracy theories" section of September 11, 2001 attacks consists of only a single sentence, which looks odd. We should, I think, endeavour to follow fairly our own rules on article content, unless there is an appetite to make the 9/11 articles a special case with special rules, something I personally would resist adopting. --Guinnog 21:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
There is certainly not a 1:1 correpsondence of Flat Earth and real Earth articles. IF there were more than 1 flat earth article with goofy theories, it would be a POV fork of Flat Earth. We don't have the Flat Earth Theory of Gravity or the Flat Earth Theory of Planetry Motion or the Flat Earth Theory of Tides. Flat Earth, like the 9/11 conspiracy stuff deserves an article as the groups is notable, but it's science is not supported by any reputable scientific group. This is the exact analogy as to the 9/11 conspiracy stuff. COntrolled Demoltion, energy beams from space, Free fall, etc, etc, are simply not science. It's notable for the people who believe it has some credence (i.e. one article) but not for any of the theories. Anything more than 1 article is a POV fork. --Tbeatty 21:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
And yet even here your argument falls down, as we have in the section Earth#Human_viewpoint a full discussion of Gaia, Flat Earth theories and the like. So the "goofy theories" are in fact mentioned in proportion to their notability, and their goofiness is left to the reader to evaluate, which is I think in line with policy.--Guinnog 21:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh please. A historical account is quite the difference between saying that it is a valid scientific viewpoint today. There is no "Some scientists believe he earth is flat and the it is actually a living being named Gaia." --Tbeatty 22:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
And nor should there be. We can mention, cover, or write about things without lending them extra credibility. Indeed on many articles (like the example I gave of the Holocaust), we absolutely have to. The Flat Earth example you chose was perhaps a less good comparison with 9/11, as you say it is a far more clear-cut case and inherently less likely to cause controversy here.--Guinnog 22:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that you're equating Flat Earth and Holocaust denial with Controlled demolition...they are not in the same class. Maybe it's because 9/11 is still fresh in our memory and the effects are still with us but CD theories have nothing on Holocaust denial and Flat Earth by any notability standard...number of adherents, age or cultural awareness (not to mention any real science). Give it 20 years and if people are still pouring molten metal out of soup pans and asserting what Silverstein really meant then you may have a point. But for now it's pretty meaningless in any real context. Right now you have a small group leveraging the cynicism of people attitudes toward Bush. Finding a counter example is no way to make your point, apples and oranges. RxS 22:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
If in 20 years, people are still doing experiments like this and this, I'd probably still have a problem. Crockspot 23:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I would like to see their Free body diagram for the experiment. LOL! ;-) JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 23:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for contributing a live example of the trolling that contributes to making this area of wiki so unpleasant to work in. Tyrenius 08:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Trolling?--MONGO 08:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Yes, comments which do not help to contribute any serious material for the encyclopedia, but whose content and tone of voice in the middle of a contentious discussion will obviously only annoy people and be disruptive. Tyrenius 08:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how you can refer to their comments as trolling though. How does that help us?--MONGO 09:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't your comment fall into that category? Considering the nature of RfC I find it unpleasant when editors (especially admins) take it upon themselves to characterize other editors comments as 'trolling.' It limits participation and that should not be the goal. --Tbeatty 16:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Some seem not to understand what Tyrenius meant by trolling. I'll contribute then with some "trolling" on my side, so others can see how it is to be diverged from the topic of this RfC:
So, again discussion went on mocking controlled demolition, giving excuses for applying different standards to it (because 9/11 is still fresh in our memory and the effects are still with us). If we are already there why not to discuss serious scientific arguments by CD proponents released in a form of petition to NIST, or arguments of those whose job was to look closely on NIST report (like "Comments on NIST NCSTAR1 DRAFT" by Prof. James Quintiere, or AIA informing NIST that their report does not provide enough data to develop any changes in building safety standards).
You just prefer not to see that NIST report is a bad science, that it uses circular reasoning, that it is findings are based on computer simulations, which were never released although they were asked for several times by engineers, that few physical experiments that were made did not confirm, or strengthen, their proposed scenario. Not to mention that NIST never explained bizarre features like the collapse itself, WTC 7 collapse, molten metal streaming, over 1000 K temperatures in the rubble 5 days after the collapse seen on infrared images.
Now please imagine arguments in the same spirit about official version of the events of the day (foreknowledge, air defense response (lack of)). I'll spare you those for now.
So, you will defend this status of NIST report, or official version of events of 9/11, in the name of what? Because undermining its soundness gives arguments to conspiracy theorists? And you will do this with any means? justifying rudeness, assuming bad faith, etc? SalvNaut 11:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment for Tyrenius: My comment above (although it was light-hearted) was not trolling. I work as an engineer, and when I see some performing backyard experiments and try to pawn it off as proof of an event, and that by magnitude, they are off the scale completely, I just find it a joke at best. And perhaps it is a prime example of the disinformation that some would like to infest Wikipedia with. Seriously, no wonder this project is getting slammed from outside sources. Some think that we are a disaster infested with moon bats. [30] And I see why some would think that. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 17:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I must admit that smile appeared on my face when I clicked on the link that Crockspot had posted. However, it's not the time to smile for those who think critically of mainstream explanation of the collapses. Isn't it sad that those people feel like making these real-model experiments? Shouldn't it be described properly in the NIST report? (actually NIST did some real-model testing, but models failed to fail). SalvNaut 20:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view of User:Tbeatty - Morton Devonshire's comment

Morton Devonshire mischaracterises my argument: "we don't put Holocaust denier's claims, as Tyrenius suggests we do, in the mainstream Holocaust article in an effort to "balance" the perspective" and then 'defeats' it by refuting his own distorted interpretation of it. I didn't suggest putting any Holocaust denier's claims anywhere. I didn't even mention the subject. I assume then that this is a hypothetical application of the point he thinks I am making, but he has not understood the point in that case. I was specifically addressing the point made by "Outside view of User:Junglecat":

From what I have seen, it seems apparent that there are some users who want Wikipedia to contain what I wouldn’t call knowledge, but false descriptions of events in human history. I know people have said that Wikipedia is not in the truth business. Well guess what? We are not in the lie business either. Attempting to use this respectable encyclopedia to promote deceptions against true knowledge shouldn’t be tolerated.

Junglecat thinks that unless something can be proved to be true, then it shouldn't be included at all in wikipedia. It was this extreme view that I was showing as false. In fact Morton agrees with me:

Nobody is suggesting that these fringe views get no coverage -- what we are suggesting is that they take their proper place in our encyclopedia.

So, incredibly, Morton leaves a post which appears to show me in the wrong — by condemning something I didn't say at all, whilst simultaneously endorsing the thing I am saying, but making it appear that I hadn't said it. Is it any wonder, subject to such perverse mentality, that people simply can't stand dealing with such things any more?

Tyrenius 08:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

My guess is that he used "Holocaust deniers" in reference to your thoughts regarding coverage of both factual and fictional infomation and letting the reader decide...though I won't speculate on his full correlation. For the record, there is no coverup of conspiracy theories on the events of 9/11...there are several articles that examine this phenomenon in exhaustive detail, one of which has even been peer reviewed and found to be adequate...I don't know if it would become a featured article as it may not be stable enough, but anyone could surely nominate it for featured article review and see what happens.--MONGO 09:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Could you also state, for the record, which article you are talking about. And what your position on its inclusion in Wikipedia is? Also, do you think the source of the instability that might bar it from feature status is made up of people, like me, who you characterize as extreme POV pushers of 9/11 conspiracy theories?--Thomas Basboll 20:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center has been peer reviewed. None of the other articles you have worked on have. If you or anyone wants to nominate it for Featured Article, you can. Don't put words in my mouth.--MONGO 06:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I haven't gotten to the point of seeking FA status for the articles I work on, in part because I think you are right about the instability of many of the articles I've worked on. Right now, for example, some dubious sources are slipping back in seemingly in order to include the most speculative versions of the hypothesis. The strength of the article, which was built by limiting ourselves to statements of the theory made in non-self-published works, is therefore being eroded a bit. References to places like whatreallyhappened.com are returning. My sense at this point, however, is that these references are not being suggested by proponents of the hypothesis. At the end of the day, I think a commitment to civility would also improve the stability of the article.--Thomas Basboll 06:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I posted on the talk page there that I agreed with Durin that the article actually should be deleted, but I wasn't interested in nominating it, wouldn't participate in any discussion on the deletion or interfere with the efforts to get it to FA. However, I also stated essentially that since the article is based mostly on what didn't happen, cherry-picking sources to make the implausibility of controlled demolition more palatable makes the article a POV fork of Collapse of the World Trade Center. I have pretty much stayed off that article and the related CT articles about 9/11 to avoid endless arguments. Unfortunately, some people who want more CT in the main articles force endless arguments there as well and I think that I have done an excellent job dealing with a wide range of arguments presented there, some absolutely ridiculous and others less so. I think you misinterpret strong disagreements and my bluntness, for incivility. We might be dealing with a culture clash...where I come from, being to the point and being direct and sometimes blunt are the norm. Looking at WP:CIVIL and the examples you have provided as the basis of this Rfc, I really don't know what you're trying to accomplish at this point...none of my "infractions" are egregious enough to waste yours and mine time with this Rfc. Both of us could be working on articles. But for the record, I do see you as a single purpose editor...bluntly speaking. Certianly, as I have stated, you did do a good job on Collapse of the WTC and I have stated I appreciate that...I also apologized for what you claim are my supposed incivilities...what more is supposed to happen? I beleive that you see me as one of the prime obstacles in opposition to attempts to expand conspiracy theories in the 9/11 articles...if that is the case, then this Rfc is an abuse of process.--MONGO 07:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to say. You didn't apologize until I began to "waste" our time with this RfC. More importantly, where I come from the sentence, "I apologize for what you claim are my supposed incivilities" isn't really an apology, especially when it is made (and has only ever been made) in the context of a dispute resolution that is then immediately characterized as "an abuse of process". BTW, I have gone to great lengths (this RfC is part of them), to learn the norms of Wikipedia rather than simply follow the norms that apply in my RL corner of the world. In light of policy, I have been confused by your behaviour, and the broad base of support you have for it, ever since I arrived. Wikipedia guidelines simply don't describe the way you work on 9/11 articles, i.e., you don't seem to follow those norms in that area. What I would like to see happen is a closer match between your conduct and policy.--Thomas Basboll 07:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Do you believe that telling me that I was a man of a particular kind of science was civil? Do you feel that posting subheadings on my usertalk stating Your inflammatory edit summaries...etc....was civil? Do you believe that you are somehow completely innocent, or that I provoked you to be incivil? Again, I see this Rfc as one way to try and eliminate your opposition from keeping you from doing what you want. It's a big enterprise, Mr. Basboll...there are lots of articles to work on...why the facination with just these few? I could see why a geologist would be interested in articles about geology, but precisely what expert talents do you bring to the articles related to the events of 9/11?--MONGO 08:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not an expert-based encyclopedia and a comparison of credentials is out of place (see [31]). This largely explains the "particular kind of science" remark. For some reason, you thought it was relevant to mention that you are "a man of science" (and allude to your cv). My response was to point out that that could mean many things, some of which don't very much impress me. For example, practitioners of popular "skepticism" (as practiced by, e.g., James Randi) sometimes describe themselves as "men of science". They have a lot of fans, but I'm not one of them. Not because they are wrong (they are very often right), but because they use a particular kind of rhetoric (hence a particular kind of science), that does little to right the wrongs they indentify. I'm not sure it is incivil to say, as part of a dispute, that I was not impressed to hear that you are "a man of science". I was saying "spare me your resume". And I don't generally claim to be innocent (do read my responses to your concerns about Beguiled; I don't assume that only the innocent can complain), and I do believe that your actions have caused me, perhaps foolishly, to sharpen my tone. This RfC is an attempt to soften it.--Thomas Basboll 08:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
You missed my point. User:Peltoms is an expert glaciologist and only works on articles related to that field...I was curious since you only work on a few 9/11 related articles. I figured you must be an expert on the matter to have so much interest just in these very specific articles. Am I just imagining that you want to add more conspiracy theories to them? My comment that I am a man of science was merely to indicate to you that I believe in science, not science fiction....I failed to understand, (aside from what seems to be the obvious), why you would insinuate that I am perhaps a dullard by characterizing me as a "particular" man of science. Maybe more of the culture clash in our wording.--MONGO 09:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

(back to left) No, I did catch your point. I don't think my expertise is relevant. I am obviously interested in the collapse of the WTC and find minority positions, popular myths, social movements that try to influence scientific resarch, etc. interesting. My academic background does explain it (and I had it posted on my user page until recently), but I am not going to ask anyone to believe in my credentials. There was a rather famous incident recently that shows that it is unwise to make too much out what people say their expertise is. I note that Peltoms does not mention his credentials on his user page. I would treat him with respect anyway, because I don't need him to explain to me why he has chosen to concentrate on glaciers here at WP. We all have limits, mostly defined by time and desire. I don't see why Peltoms should need to explain his SPA (if that's what he has).--Thomas Basboll 11:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

In the essay on single purpose accounts, I just stumbled on a sentence that might explain the disagreement about expertise above: "many people with expertise in a specific area quite reasonably make contributions within that area alone." Mongo may have interpreted this to mean only people with expertise in a specific area can reasonably make contributions within that area alone. He therefore, perhaps, feels justified in demanding to know what my area of expertise is (I do, admittedly, contribute only to a specific set of related articles.) My reading of this sentence is a bit different. Since there is no way to know whether any particular user (especially one that doesn't use his real name) really is an expert in some field, all users can reasonably confine their contributions to specific areas. They have to follow policy and guidelines of course. But there is nothing, on the face of it, suspicious about having an SPA.--Thomas Basboll 19:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] response to Aude

Single topic editors? Aude, I'm aware of your contributions, but when it comes to 911 related articles you act and work as a "damage control unit", always there to make sure that official take of events stands to no scrutiny (of course, other editors may recognize themselves here too). Whether you think that you're just making "corrections", you're actually enforcing very hard lined, very disturbing pov… I've snapped recently because of, non other, then Morton, for his talk page and Arthur's "well intended" template don't go together. You know, Aude, your opinion about "truthers" stated at Morton's corner is not helpful at all, you're not only aware of the libel, but you actually support it? Hopefully we'll resolve this issue with terminology soon… I'm certain that fellow wikipedians know the libel in label when they see one… That said, neutrality of 911 articles is disputed for years now, status quo is unbearable. We've been very patient, we've listened to; "not yet and perhaps later…" for quite some time… I'd say it's sad when you enforce the pov while accusing of pov. Lovelight 09:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Crockspot

Folks that have endorsed Crockspot's tender perspective are (obviously) deeply biased pov pushers. After all this time, i find this little hegemony disquieting, this pattern worrying. You see, the way some of the mongos behave might lead to the conclusion that talk about circus is not so unfounded after all. Tendentious edits aside, we are discussing incivility, and the way some "conspiratorial" editors deal with their "truthful" counterparts is not acceptable. Dismissing someone's opinion (based on facts, mind you) with ridicule, insult or worse is not acceptable behavior. Especially so if you create the label (and libel as well). Lovelight 14:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Obviously? The mongos? Libel?--MONGO 17:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if I explain my perspective a little better, you'll better understand where I and others are coming from. My view really is an outside one, because I am not involved in the underlying dispute. I try to improve the project wherever I can, lately by adding more reliable sources, and improving and completing the citation of existing sources. I want to change the perception in the academic community from Wikipedia is not a reliable source to Wikipedia is a wonderful gateway to finding reliable sources. If a tenth-grader sitting in a library reads something on Wikipedia, he should be able to find a footnote with enough information to walk over to the reference desk and find that source, and it should be one that's reliable enough that he can cite it in his term paper. I work very hard at this. At the same time, I have to defend the project against editors inserting poorly sourced claims, which are detrimental to the project. My experience there is mostly in BLP articles. The editors I'm dealing with (and I can think of at least a dozen) insist on inserting claims that a subject is gay, or is Jewish, or anything negative that can be dug up on some blog, without meeting the criteria that WP:BLP requires for such claims. Of course, they will usually find some twisted way of interpreting clear and simple policy that "supports" the inclusion. At the same time, they will nitpick apart any positive claims in the articles, and remove well-cited sources (one that I may have spent ten or fifteen minutes verifying and converting from just a url to a full citation the week before). For example, one person removed a well-sourced and fully cited paragraph, because the url gave them an abstract rather than a free full article from a major magazine. When I look at the edit histories of these editors, they tend to be a mix of new and long-time editors, and their edits tend to gravitate around a handfull of articles related to the subject at hand. (One appears to have one other unrelated interest, which itself is too disturbing for me to even get into here.) That is tendicious editing. And when one of those editors starts wasting my time, and edit warring over something that is clearly against policy, sometimes they are going to get the figurative back of my hand. I don't have time to waste dealing with bullshit from people who clearly have an axe to grind or an agenda or view to push. I would much rather be finding old Time magazine articles about Vietnam battles and adding them to articles. Do I get uncivil at times? Yes. Do I feel bad about it afterwards? Sometimes, but certainly not always. Have I ever apologized for being uncivil? Many times. I think many of us have been in this headspace. We try to be good editors, and be civil, but we're human, and don't have unlimited patience, nor an unlimited amount of assumption of good faith for people who seem to be obsessed with particular views on particular topics. Especially when we are busy trying to do technical improvements, and these disputes are interfering with that work. Could MONGO be more civil? Yes, I think we all could, and I think most of us try. If there is a perfect editor on Wikipedia, I would like to know their username so that I can become their disciple. Crockspot 18:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with with almost all of this post. I especially agree with distinction between Wikipedia as a reliable source and Wikipedia as a reliable source of reliable sources. When I recommend Wikipedia to people, that's what I tell them. It's also the spirit in which I contribute. So, for example, Mongo and I first met when what I wanted in the collapse of the World Trade Center article was NIST's explicit rejection of the controlled demolition hypotheses (cited in the final report), rather than a vague suggestion that "some people" "are critical" of the official version of events and that they are sometimes called "conspiracy theorists" (a sentence that, because I had looked back at the record, seemed to have been the result of very trying discussions). Mongo would simply have none of it until I took a stand on whether the U.S. gov't was culpable (as I document in the RfC).
If what Crockspot means is that incivility, while never perhaps justified, is sometimes understandable, then I also agree with that. In fact, if I were an avid POV-pusher, or of course a vandal, then I would expect some incivility now and then. It would still not be a good idea, however. The reason to keep a cool head is to avoid feeding trolls, as I understand it. I, in any case, am not here to push a POV; I am here to contribute to reliably sourced articles. I have approached WP exactly in the spirit that Crockspot is advocating. I am not perfect (as Mongo has been pointing out above) and I have accepted criticism of my behaviour (from Mongo, for example) and called it "well placed" (as documented above).
If I am reluctant to fully endorse what Crockspot is saying it is in part because he has chosen to say it on the occasion of this RfC. After all, if he is to explain Mongo's incivil treatment of me (and those like me) then the following description must also apply to me: (1) what I do "is tendicious editing." (2) I "[waste people's] time, and edit war over something that is clearly against policy". (3) I deal in "bullshit" and (4) I "have an axe to grind or an agenda or view to push." None of this fits my edit history.
As I read Crockspot's remarks he is ultimately not really defending Mongo. He is saying that Mongo has been incivil in the cases I describe and that an apology would be in its place (though not required). He is saying that Mongo should be more civil. But he also seems to be saying that Mongo is already trying to be more civil. Very little of his response to this RfC, or to my previous requests to him to be more courteous to me, indicate that Mongo agrees with Crockspot about this. He, and others, have been telling me I am getting what I deserve and it is ridiculous for me to complain about it, or that I am simply too thin-skinned, etc., to edit here. I was especially saddened to see Tom Harrison give up on the project of offering me reasons to stay. But, for now, I'm taking Crockspot's view as an indication that there are like minds on both sides of this RfC.--Thomas Basboll 20:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I think what I am trying to say is that whether or not you are one of these tendicious editors, you may have been perceived as one due to your edit history bearing all the characteristics. - Crockspot 21:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

(back to the left) Well, I'm always learning, so I looked it up.[32].

  • I have never been blocked and have therefore never returned from a block. That's the first two characteristics out of the way.
  • I have rarely reverted the "vandalism" of others. That is, I have almost never called it that (once, I think, I qualified it with the word "apparent"). Certainly not repeatedly. Interestingly, Mongo does "repeatedly undo the 'vandalism' of others", forgetting that "Content disputes are not vandalism. Wikipedia defines vandalism very carefully to exclude good-faith contributions. Accusing other editors of vandalism is uncivil unless there is genuine vandalism, that is, a deliberate attempt to degrade the encyclopaedia, not a simple difference of opinion."
  • I always find somebody that will assume good faith without having to remind them (some have showed up here).
  • I don't think I've ever accused other editors of “suppressing information”, “censorship” or “denying facts”. I have, admittedly, suspected editors of trying. (I've always thought that especially the charge of censorship misunderstands the possibilities of the basic technical and social platform that Wikipedia is built on.)
  • I don't challenge the reversion of my edits, demanding that others justify it. I normally take issues to the talk pages and discuss in the ordinary way.
  • My citations generally back all the facts I add, and I try to keep my interpretations and inferences out of it.
  • I don't repeat the same argument over and over again, without persuading people. I do sometimes hear people say the same thing to me over an over again without persuading me. I like to think I come up with newer and better answers each time (often providing additional sources).
  • I don't delete the cited additions of others with the complaint that they did not discuss their edits first. In fact, Mongo would have me do much more of this (as he does).

That's my humble opinion of myself, i.e., I am not, and don't have the characteristics of a tendentious and/or problem editor. I'd be willing to look at some examples of behaviour that, if that had been all or most of what I ever did here, would look troubling. But my edit history certainly can't be used to suggest I bear all the characteristics, even if that was meant as a hyperbole.--Thomas Basboll 21:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

At quick glance of contribution history (and I haven't even looked at yours) if I see a limited number of articles being edited, and disputes in the edit summaries, without investing further time in investigating each individual edit, that is a snap judgment that I might make. I'm sorry you felt abused. I won't make the judgment whether you deserved it or not. Shit happens. How much longer do I need to coddle your nuts here, dude? - Crockspot 22:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh is that what you're doing? Yes, do please stop.--Thomas Basboll 22:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
To Crockspot:
Well, you've wrote about "legions of conspiracy theorists", a bit strange statement from more than one perspective… Look, I'd like to work on encyclopedia, nothing more, and nothing less. Our failure to balance 911 articles is just that… a failure. Vandalism we are experiencing speaks for itself, that main article is locked since… since ever? We shouldn’t redirect every contradiction, every inconsistency to the "conspiracy" articles. If senator questions 9/11 then his questioning deserves to be recognized, if fall of building 7 rise serious doubts then… and so on. All that aside, Crockspot, you must be aware that you've actually prized mongo's behavior? What to heck! Let's just give him a star! Encourage him… after all he is "excellent tool" for dispersing & "preventing legions of conspiracy theorists"?! Who would that be? Every editor that decides to share his concerns? Hope you understand my reaction. It's a matter of perspective, and each one of us is able to shift its own perspective. If you would kindly put yourself in standpoint of concerned citizen who is asking questions just so that he would end up labeled as "conspiracy theorists" with all those fantastic colors we ourselves decided to throw in that picture? I'm not sure how many guidelines are broken here, but it's more than one. And mongo, my apologies for that one, you know that I'm actually ok with you being yourself. It really isn’t my fault that every now and then we have these long diatribes;) about your performance. Come to think of it, have you noticed the lack of editors which would endorse the "other side"? Where are these editors I ask you? I've met more than one during our fruitful conversations; it looks as some of them departed… I'd say that it is sad to loose fine editors (no need for names, right?) because brute force and manhunt... Needless to say, this manhunt can refer to mongo too; some of us have very strong convictions, we shouldn’t be (harshly) judged because of those. However, we should all strive to leave passion out of this. As for civility, I'm really for some broad approach on that one… but there was an arbcom on all this recently, so I'll restrain from repeating.
PS
"We try to be good editors, and be civil, but we're human, and don't have unlimited patience, nor an unlimited amount of assumption of good faith for people who seem to be obsessed with particular views on particular topics." – hey, crockspot, this statement of yours is universally acceptable. I fully endorse that statement. Lovelight 20:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Come to think of it, have you noticed the lack of editors which would endorse the "other side"? Where are these editors I ask you? I've met more than one during our fruitful conversations; it looks as some of them departed… I'd say that it is sad to loose fine editors (no need for names, right?) because brute force and manhunt... This sounds like conspiracy theory to me. Maybe you should name some names, so we can verify your claim. - Crockspot 21:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Further, do you really think I believe that MONGO is singlehandedly responsible for routing legions of conspiracy theorists from Wikipedia? Actually, you might in the light of the comment I quoted above. You're reading too much into a sarcastic remark. - Crockspot 21:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
No, and you are well aware of the nature of your praise, I'm sorry, perhaps you've expressed your opinion a bit recklessly? As for the first part, no there are no conspiracy theories, just facts. Here, one recent example, I'll even throw in a quote: "To Thatcher131, sorry it came to this, but I can only take being ganged up on for so long, especially when all the admins responding to my complaints on ANI were on Mortons friends list.". I'm not sure if it is prudent to pursue this further…, it is not my intention to start feud. We had enough of those… Lovelight 21:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Hardly a forward observation team, let alone a legion. - Crockspot 22:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Drop here, BLACKLISTED LINK REMOVED there, and we end up in torrent. Lovelight 22:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My Sense of this RFC so far (by Basboll)

Mongo's treatment of me and others, as well as the behaviour he inspires in others (who award him, not just metaphorical medals and cigars, but also very real barnstars for his efforts [more recently also beers, cheers!]), has been defended in a number of ways. Some have argued that there is simply nothing to explain, i.e., that he has not been especially incivil to me. A more plausible defense, which depends on what we mean by "especially" incivil, is that, since I have chosen to edit a particular set of articles in a particular way, I should have expected, and can continue to expect, to have my motives impugned and my edits bluntly rebuffed.

That is, the argument goes, if I want to edit in a civil environment, I will have to find other articles to work on or other contributions to make. All this turns on the assumption that there might be degrees of incivility and, more importantly, acceptable levels of it. And there seems to be a suggestion that a number of factors, including (as Mongo has argued) my formal expertise, might be brought into play (and therefore potentially drawn into question) to assess the situation. This, as a number of editors have pointed out, quite reasonably focuses attention on my role in causing this dispute.

While I don't think the claim that I actually am a tendentious editor is worth pursuing, some have suggested that Mongo, and others, can reasonably suspect that I am one, or would become one if somebody (like Mongo) didn't keep me firmly in line. (Mongo, for example, has suggested that it was at his insitence that I finally began to respect RS.) Part of this dispute resolution process is going to have to involve getting a clear indication from the community about whether my editing really is characteristic enough of tendentious editing to make Mongo's suspicions reasonable. I'm going to look into ways of doing that, perhaps through the editor review process. But I don't want us to forget a more basic question: even if I were the worst kind of POV-pusher, is Mongo's way of keeping me in line, as I just put it, the right one?

In any case, I thank those who have contributed to the RfC so far. Many things to think about.--Thomas Basboll 09:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for evidence for or clarification of Mongo's claims

In his response Mongo claims that "throughout [my] effort [on the collapse of the WTC article], there seemed to be minor attempts in that article and in the September 11, 2001 attacks article to incorporate conspiracy theories regarding the events" (my emphasis). It's a relatively weak claim (i.e., "there seemed to be minor attempts") and should be easy to document. The first problem is that I didn't work on the 9/11 article at all during the effort he describes (my brief start there a few weeks ago was soon ended by the incident that went to AN/I). I did work on the Steven E. Jones article and the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, of course, but it would be a bit odd to object to "incorporating conspiracy theories" into them. So we are left with a need for some instances in my work on the WTC article of these "minor attempts to incorporate conspiracy theories" into the account of the collapses. I'm not yet claiming that such instances don't exist; I just want to know what Mongo means more precisely before I decide. After that, as always, the question of whether his way of dealing with them is appropriate remains open.--Thomas Basboll 14:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Desired outcomes and next steps

(I prefer an open process. The following should not be taken as a threat of adminstrative action but as an indication of my sense of the possible. My mind is not made up.)

If this RfC does not have its desired effect, the next step in this dispute resolution process, as far as I can tell, will be arbitration. As I've said before, the alternative is that I simply withdraw from Wikipedia altogether, lesson learned. If that happens, this RfC will at least have managed to produce a record of the reasons that a particular kind of editor had for leaving under a particular set of circumstances. That may be of use to the community in the future.

I remain convinced that Wikipedia is an important development in the growth and history of human knowledge. I am in many ways happy to have been a part of it at this still young stage, and hope the project one day realizes its lofty ambitions.

The desired outcome was to win from Mongo an apology, a retraction, and a special commitment to civility. This RfC has confirmed my sense that many editors see him as an example to follow, which is why these three results would, to my mind, be so important. At this point, there doesn't seem to be very much hope in this regard, however.

Mongo has of course, albeit only arguably, apologized. But he has specifically refused to retract his remarks and offered no special commitment to civility. On the contrary: he has promised to stay the course. In my view, he has apologized for the effect of his remarks but not their force. It is a bit like saying, "I'm sorry I broke your nose but not that hit you so hard," the implication being that there was more likely something wrong with the nose than with the speed and direction of the fist. Many of Mongo's supporters seem to concur, and if I continue to contribute to Wikipedia as I have been, then I can expect continuous confrontations with Mongo and others, in roughly the same spirit. That won't happen. Mongo might see the status quo as largely acceptable; I see our confrontations as a disruption to the community.

This makes the content of an appeal to ArbCom pretty clear. I will have to ask the Commitee to secure the apology, retraction and commitment I'm looking for, or ban Mongo from the 9/11 articles. Either way, I will have to ask for some sort of civility patrolling (perhaps by a group of volunteer adminstrators). That failing, I will of course exile myself from Wikipedia. This town clearly isn't big enough, as it were.

My case to ArbCom will likely begin with the incivil edit summary ("extreme POV push"), which will lead to the intimidating "physical presence" remark (including the AN/I and failed mediation attempt with Tom Harrison). The key to that episode, to my mind, is Mongo's use of "the context of the disagreements we generally have" as a framework for interpreting my "have a nice day". This mistakenly (and regrettably) led him to think that I was telling him to "fuck himself", to which he responded as follows:

Interestingly, no one ever seems to say anything like that when confronted with my physical presence...something about my persona generally makes that a risky choice to make. I now encourage you to never post to my talk page again.

Now, even if we assume that "the disagreements [Mongo and I] generally have" could give anyone a reason to interpret "have a nice day" like that, we can certainly deem Mongo's response to be an attempt to intimidate. When I pointed this out to him, through Tyrenius, and asked him to offer an assurance that no threat was intended, while at the same time assuring him that no offense was meant, he rebuffed Tyrenius and balked at the very idea of such assurances. He continued to balk right up until his response to this RfC, which he still maintains is ridiculous. Only then did he offered the minimal apology I discussed above: a statement of puzzled regret rather than sincere remorse.

Now, either I have completely misunderstood both the spirit and the letter of Wikipedia policies, or Mongo and/or the 9/11 articles are exempted from them, or Mongo needs to stop working on those articles. It may be necessary to bring this case to ArbCom to decide which of these three possibilities is the reality.

(Like I say, I post this mainly to, well, keep everyone posted. I imagine I know what most of you think the reality is. But feel free to comment if you haven't already. Or even if you have.)--Thomas Basboll 15:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Considering the direction that consensus appears to be taking on this RfC, I think that you would find it an uphill battle just getting the Arbitration Committee to accept this case for arbitration. The committe is not bound by consensus, but the members do come from the Wikipedia community, and do tend to reflect the existing consensus of the community. I think this RfC is successful in the respect that we are discussing these issues, and are all probably a little more sensitive to your concerns, if only marginally in some cases. I know that I for one will try a little bit harder to be more civil, and I suspect that MONGO will as well. But to be honest, the specific remedies that you seek are probably not going to be mandated by any Wiki authority. If the disappointment of that is too much for you to be able to continue contributing to the project, I am sorry you feel that you have no other choice. But it is, in fact, your choice. No one is forcing you, or I believe even wants you to bail on the project. Someone else mentioned in another context that the only control you have over another editor's behavior is how you choose to react to them. Pretty wise words that we should all live by. - Crockspot 18:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I have to say I share your pessimism. That's why a unilateral and unambiguous gesture from Mongo has always been the best solution. My hope, such as it is, is of course that the consensus that is being reached among this subset of Wikipedians does not reflect that of the larger community. If I thought otherwise I would stop now and I will stop if I come to think otherwise. An unfavourable ArbCom ruling would certainly be decisive. I will ultimately accept the decision of ArbCom as a reflection of the community's standards (i.e., practical interpretations of policy) at that time.
  • It is not that I feel forced to leave, BTW: it is that I have no desire to keep editing under the current conditions. That's just a personal preference; it has to do with I how I want to spend my time. The point, really, is that nothing forces anyone to stay. What would keep me from bailing is a basic intellectual joy that this platform is technically capable of providing but, at present, seems socially incapable of maintaining conditions for (especially if you are right). What I want to do is edit these articles in a civilized atmosphere, among other editors who are interested (even passionate) about the subject matter, but who respect the presence of very divergent points of view, which seems simply to be an obvious and unavoidable fact about these topics.
  • I do not want to spend my time turning the other cheek (in the true sense of the phrase) to bullying or having, again and again, to stand up to bullies on behalf of newbies. It is because people are not only bearing over with Mongo, but, even in the context of this rather specific and detailed RfC, applauding him (medals, cigars, and beer! just like a hero in a good war flick) for his all around solid manhandling of (obvious) undesirables. It's just not pleasant.
  • That said, yes, I hope that this RfC will have the effect of improving civility on the 9/11 articles even if I don't stay around. That might eventually give me a reason to return, of course. But I don't think either of us should hold our breath. --Thomas Basboll 19:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I've pointed out the examples in which you have been incivil...the first real incivility between us was when you posted on my talkpage that I was a man of a particular kind of science, at best...if I took the time, (since I know they exist) I could exhaustively search your contributions history and find other examples of your imperfections...which is all we have here regarding me. I have yet to see any reliably believable apology from you as well...in fact I see none. The purpose of this Rfc is clear...you expect no one to argue with you about your contributions...you expect everybody to embrace your efforts with open arms and say, gee thanks. The people that have posted here condeming my efforts have all either been openly trying to add more conspiracy theories to these set articles, or have stated they want more coverage of it. I might very well be banned from editing them...and so might you...so might all those who want to misuse Wikipedia to promote their biases over the known evidence and in doing so, violate the undue weight clause of NPOV.--MONGO 19:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Like I have said from the beginning, I accept the possibility that I may somewhere along the line be banned. There are some very simple things you could do and say to avoid even putting that option on the table. I am not intentionally trying to misuse Wikipedia, but since I am very definitely trying to use it, I am open to the idea that I am wrong about this. Because you don't distinguish very clearly between, say, RS violations and "conspiracy cruft", I am not convinced that this is just about my interpretation of policy and use (or possible misuse) of Wikipedia. I think I am confronted with a POV that differs from mine, though not, I should add, exactly in the way you think we differ. I don't think the only way out of this is for one of us to be banned. It seems to me like you think that's the only way forward. I have suggested a kinder, gentler course. So far, to no avail.--Thomas Basboll 20:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure the answer lies behind Door Number 1 in your list of choices. This RFC confirmed it. --Tbeatty 19:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Particular Kind of Science: an apology

As others may also have noticed, I obviously hit a nerve with that "particular kind of science" remark, so I've just spent some time retracing it. It should be kept in mind that it didn't come out nowhere. Mongo had defended his early treatment of me, in part, as follows: "You have to understand that I am first and foremost a man of science." [33] Also, Mongo didn't immediately indicate he had taken offense, i.e., that an apology would be in order. (I'm not sure when he cited it as instance of my incivility for the first time.) What he said was that he couldn't take someone who said that to him seriously. [34] Since he hadn't been taking me seriously up to that point, this didn't really strike me as important at the time (so I missed the "I don't appreciate accusations to the contrary" part, it seems). So I simply elaborated my sense of his notion of "science" in an obviously polemical way. [35] Do note that most of this communication was happening because I was objecting to his treatment of me on his talk page and I saw this elaboration as part of that effort. But it was clearly an unnecessary step in my argument to explicitly reject Mongo's assurances about his qualifications to engage in intellectual discussion. While I didn't strictly speaking intend to insult Mongo, I did intentionally reject a positive image he was trying to present of himself. That was uncalled for. There may have been room precisely in that self-image for a rapproachment. I was pretty ticked off at the time, which is of course no excuse. So I apologize.--Thomas Basboll 20:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A rhetorical question

I had previously stated in a discussion prior to your comment as to whether you felt the U.S. Government was culpapble...this wasn't incivil..I was curious if you thought so, mainly because you were trying to argue for more inclusion of CT, or questioning the known evidence...in my mind, if someone does this, they usually believe in some U.S. government conspiracy...so my question to you wasn't incivil at all...I have no idea why it would be construed as such. Had you responded that you were sure about a government conspiracy or that you believed in some other shadowy enterprise rather then the known record, then I would have known where you were coming from. You act as if I have tried to supress coverage of CT throughout wikipedia...this is not the case. I even offered to help you get the Controlled demolition hypothesis article to featured...I supported most of your work on the Collapse of the WTC article...personally, for the life of me, I can't figure out what your beef is.--MONGO 20:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Mongo, here is the third thing you ever said to me on my second day of editing the article. I will gladly break it down for, if you want. But please look at what I had been saying until then. The two things you had said previously. And then your "curious" question. It is because you can't see it yourself that this RfC is necessary.--Thomas Basboll 21:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
PS. I don't understand where you're ocming from when you say, "You act as if I have tried to supress coverage of CT throughout wikipedia." I don't think I'm acting like that. I have said you treat people you suspect of promoting CTs in an incivil manner. You do sometimes say that suppression of CTs would be good for Wikipedia, but I haven't really made a big deal out of that. I've said that your behaviour makes people who are interested in what you call "conspiracy theories" lose interest in contributing usefully to Wikipedia.--Thomas Basboll 21:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
My comment was a rhetorical question after you started talking about controlled demolition. I knew then where you were headed...but I can't possibly imagine why my comment is a personal attack or even incivil! Do you really expect me to come up with a "politically correct" alternative to conspiracy theorists?--MONGO 22:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The problem is precisely that you think once someone starts talking about controlled demolition some special code of conduct goes into effect. I expect you to remain polite even when talking conspiracy theorists, but I also expect you not to immediately insinuate that a new editor has a POV you think is ridiculous. It is incivil, but it borders on a personal attack directed at "affiliations" (formally, it would have been a PA if you had said, "So, in a nutshell, you are a member of the 9/11 Truth Movement?"). It certainly looked like an attempt to discredit my views. Which is why I didn't answer.--Thomas Basboll 22:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
You're putting words in my mouth...I didn't ask you if you belonged to the 9/11 Truth Movement. It wasn't incivil...it was a simple question. You are making a mountain out of a molehill.--MONGO 07:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Note the subjunctive: "it would have been ... if you had said." I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm drawing a line in the sand between a mountain and a molehill. You attacked my motives by association. There is no (explicit) rule against exactly that sort of attack, but there is one against discrediting views by reference to affiliations. I was pointing out that a very small difference in expression would have brought you more explicitly into NPA territory.--Thomas Basboll 07:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
PS You have a tendency to grant things and then forget it. So, for example, you have already said that, yes, it was a rhetorical question, but you now go back to the (untenable) idea that it was a "simple question".--Thomas Basboll 07:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RPJ

Please read this arbitration case. This was a single purpose editor who tried to get his particular POV added to certain articles. He was a "conspiracy theory" advocate but for a different event (not 9/11). This is my concern with a number of editors that contribute to the 9/11 articles. --Tbeatty 05:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The RPJ case seems to be very different from Mongo's. Mongo is not a single purpose editor, but a highly respected member of the Wikipedia community, with a long history of solid contributions to Wikipedia. I don't think our reasons to ban RPJ are reasons to accept the behavior of Mongo. The issues are quite different. That said, it seems RPJ was banned because of his policy violations, not because of his POV as such. That is, the case didn't seem to turn on "conspiracy theories" at all, but on his approach to editing. That might also be a lesson to us here. It isn't really a question of what Mongo and I believe brought the WTC down; it's a question of how we discuss the content of the articles related to that event.--Thomas Basboll 06:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the RPJ case has anything related to MONGO. MONGO has a long history of solid contributions on multiple topics. Others do not. Others have single topic edits with a bent to include conspiracy theories that are not supported by reliable sources. I think the RPJ case serves as fair warning. --Tbeatty 06:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
To whom?--Thomas Basboll 06:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Single topic editors with a bent to include conspiracy theories. --Tbeatty 06:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
So it has no bearing on this RfC?--Thomas Basboll 06:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
PS It doesn't look the SPA aspect was very important to the RPJ case.--Thomas Basboll 06:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
No, but SPA's doing conspiracy theory POV pushing does. It's in the editing history.--MONGO 06:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Whose editing history?--Thomas Basboll 06:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Clarification: if you mean RPJ's history then we go back to what I said above, namely, that neither the SPA issue nor the CT issue seem to have been decisive. He could have done what he did after editing broadly and on topic unrelated to CTs and still been banned.--Thomas Basboll 06:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Here. If an editors only purpose here is to add conspiracy theory nonsense to a small single-topic, it is disruptive. --Tbeatty 13:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you accusing someone here of being in this category? ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 13:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) But not here. On the question of RPJ's single purpose account, ArbCom found that RPJ's edits were disruptive and did not constitute a useful contribution to WP; it did not find specifically that it was a problem that he had an SPA (nor did it set out to determine whether that was a fact). It also did not base its decision on any principle about SPAs. That is, an editor may try to add material, even conspiracy theories, to a narrow set of related articles in a non-disruptive way. RPJ seems not to have done that. But that doesn't mean that a CTSPA (if you will) is necessearily a disruption.--Thomas Basboll 13:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't have to accuse anyone. Contribution histories are available to everyone. You can easily find the single-topic editors that are pushing conpsiracy nonsense. It's disruptive by definition. --Tbeatty 13:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
No it is not. It is precisely not disruptive by definition, as essays like WP:TEND and WP:SPA make clear.--Thomas Basboll 13:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
This] edit was cited specifically as being particularly agressive and egregious by ArbCom. I think I can find an almost word for word equivalent in some of the 9/11 discussion pages about including CT in the main article. --Tbeatty 13:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Let's see. This. And This can be perfectly innocent, or it can represent a user pushing an agenda. I think CTSPA's fit in there somewhere. --Tbeatty 13:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I think you're misunderstanding what I saying. I'm not saying RPJ was not disruptive. I'm saying that neither his POV nor his SPA was the problem. Certainly not "by definition" (that's the force of the words "this can be perfectly innocent"). It was edit-warring, etc. that got him trouble.--Thomas Basboll 13:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand how any of this applies to Mongo. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 14:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Good. Because it doesn't. I'm glad we agree. --Tbeatty 15:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Then why did you bring it up? ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 16:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Because it has everything to do with this RFC. --Tbeatty 16:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the connection. Please explain. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 16:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
You don't see the connection between CTSPA's and RPJ? --Tbeatty 16:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the connection between that case and this. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 18:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
You guys don't play dumb very well. Just because a particular editor's name appears at the top of an RfC does not limit the focus of that RfC to that particular editor. If this case makes it to arbitration (which isn't very likely), this concept will become painfully clear. Seabhcan, I know that you are fully aware of this fact, but Thomas may not be. If you're really trying to help Thomas, you'll discourage him from leading the parade right into the lion's mouth. - Crockspot 20:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Still no-one will clarify what these hints are. Tbeatty started discussing SPA's out of the blue. Who is a SPA? Not Mongo surely. So who are you accusing? ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 22:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
If an editors goal is to bring "The Truth(tm)" to Wikipedia in the form of conspiracy theories and that is their sole contribution, don't be surprised if editors react in a less than accepting fashion and don't be surprised if the community and/or ArbCom decide Wikipedia is better off without those contributions. User:Lovelight is certainly being taught that lesson and his methods are eerily similiar to RPJ. If an editor believes Lovelight is a "victim" they need to do some more self-assessments. Some editors believe that MONGO is somehow at fault for confronting these CT SPA's (a phrase Thomas Basboll coined), but in fact he is only the tip of the spear. IF an editor believes that MONGO has been unfair, I suspect a review of their edits explains why. This RFC has nothing to do with MONGO except as an implmementer of the will of the community. In this case, a self examination might be more appropriate than bringing RfC's on other editors. --Tbeatty 02:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
That explanation supports my contention below that Mongo has been given an exemption from CIVIL for people deemed by the community to be conspiracy theorists. If this is true, we need to recognise this fact and move on. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 14:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Wrong again. --Tbeatty 15:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
How so? I'm still in the dark on your opinion. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 15:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
You're wrong in saying that my explanation supports anything you said. I've tried to shed as much light as I can. Cosnidering that my outside view is on the RFC page and is endorsed by a number of people, the dimness you are experiencing seems to be rather unique. --Tbeatty 04:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:SPADE

Even if we suppose that all Mongo is doing is calling a spade a spade, i.e., that the arguments in this essay apply to this discussion, do note the following caution (which fills more than half the essay):

... although it is generally not uncivil or a personal attack to do so, calling a spade a spade may not be the most productive course.
First, it is possible that you might be mistaken. For example, many editors make accusations of vandalism regarding good faith edits. While those edits may be objectionable for a host of other reasons, incorrect accusations may harm your long term prospects of working constructively with the editor with whom you disagree.
Second, even in cases where you are correct about another user, accusations of POV pushing, tendentious editing, bad editing, and the like, while perfectly correct, may nevertheless lead to sufficient antagonism that constructive collaboration becomes impossible. While there is no policy against calling a spade a spade in most cases, consider whether civility, even if unearned, may help meet your goals.

This is basically an argument for calling a spade a spade only with caution, even when you are right. (Which I won't of course grant is the case here.)--Thomas Basboll 08:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by Seabhcan

This RfC is going nowhere. Mongo enjoys insulting other editors and the community backs him up. Mongo has been effectively given a de facto exemption on civility policy. Perhaps the solution is to simply admit that and move on.

Mongo, I suggest that the next time you bite a newby, you then inform them of this special exemption status. It will save the trouble of RfCs in the future. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 10:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Aren't you currently under a NPA parole?--MONGO 10:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Why would that matter? If you believe Seabhcan's criticisms of you on this RfC cross the line (i.e., are insulting or disparaging even in the context of an RfC) then report him for the parole violation, or contact him on his talk page. Don't bring it up here; it looks like an attempt to discredit him. You've had space to say some pretty disparaging things about me here and I haven't seen that as personal attack for what I would think are obvious reasons. The same clearly applies to Seabhcan's remarks.--Thomas Basboll 11:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
That is a fairly unproductive reply, Mongo. But I'm serious about my above suggestion. The wikipedia community has clearly granted you a personal exemption from WP:CIVIL. I propose we simply recognise that fact and live with it. It would save everyone a lot of hot air. Or we can continue as we have, and I'm sure there will be a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MONGO 3 and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MONGO 4 in the next few months. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 11:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
You may think this is clear, but it's obvious that the majorty of persons on the obverse of this don't agree with your assessment. I see you are sure of futher Rfc's...that's nice, maybe most on the obverse of this and in discussion here feel that this one is unwarranted? Maybe, instead, you're not editing has prevented you from your usual sharp tongue commentary, saving you multiple blocks and even a community sanctioned ban. The level of personal attacks, ridicules, harassment and other commentary you uttered were the worst I have ever seen by an administrator.--MONGO 16:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah, you make a good argument Mongo. I can see now that you are not uncivil at all. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 23:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

While I see your point, Seabhcan, I want to leave it to ArbCom to decide whether Mongo actually has that exemption. I think you are right to point out that this RfC sure makes it seem that way. I think I can frame the complaint in such a way that it will be clear whether Mongo is allowed to be incivil in pursuit of his cause. You may very well be right that this RfC has run its course.--Thomas Basboll 11:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

There is, of course the distinct possiblility that this Rfc isn't really about my incivilities to you, but instead, and as it appears, is a referendum as to whether Wikipedia wants an overindulgence of conspiracy theories in the articles. The vast majority of those that have supported your stance Thomas, have either actively engaged in trying to add CT to the articles, or have excpressed a desire that there be more. Conincidence? Is it not also a coincidence that you spammed several editors about this Rfc who were not involved in this dispute...editors you knew would likely support you side...even though, obviously, the consensus of support is not in your favor. Maybe, there is the distinct possiblility that this Rfc is ridiculous...that nothing I have done is worth this level of harassment from YOU? These are distinct possiblilities I suspect. I might be wrong of course.--MONGO 16:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I already offered my interpretation of WP:CANVASS on your talk page. This RfC is about how to treat people you (often too hastily) identify as "conspiracy theorists". It is not about what the content of the articles should be. I think one way of pursuing your aims might be to get a policy about conspiracy theories in place here at WP. It could then explicitly state the exemption that Seabhcan is proposing is already implicitly in place. I, of course, think there are good reasons that no such policy exists: it would not be in the spirit of Wikipedia.--Thomas Basboll 15:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe MONGO doesn't have an exemption but tit-for-tat exchanges aren't going to result in unilateral action. Furthermore, just maybe, the community views the disruption that MONGO has been addressing as far more injurious to the project than any slight or incivility. Nobody applauds personal attacks or incivility but the constant barrage of nonsense has to stop. --Tbeatty 13:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If medals, cigars and beers aren't applause, I don't know what it is. I think the barrage is more likely to stop if we stop applauding Mongo and meet nonsense, whenever it arises, with patience and civility. Mongo's patience has run out. He should therefore stay away from this topic.--Thomas Basboll 13:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I think you miss the point. The applause isn't for incivility. It's for confronting POV pushers and conspiracy theorists that want to use Wikipedia as their personal soapbox for their pet theories. "Nonsense Patrol" is a thankless task (even less thanks than vandals, as you can actually call them "vandals"). A barnstar/cigar/beer is the most thanks he will get for performing this dirty yet necessary task. --Tbeatty 03:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Thomas, I have been very civil and generous with you in this RfC, and I agree with JzG on the project page that you are much more reasonable and logical than the average CTer, but your continued call for MONGO to be banned from CT articles is starting to smack of harrasment. I would wager that ARBCOM, after looking over this RfC, would not vote to even accept hearing this case. You've made your point, and the consensus of opinion appears to disagree with you. If you really want to take this to ARBCOM, I suggest you go over and make a request now, because this RfC has a snowball's chance of changing direction, and you might as well get your answer from them sooner rather than later. I've heard enough filibustering of the same points over and over. And please don't interpret this as a threat, but if by some remote chance you are successful in getting MONGO banned from those articles, don't be shocked if three or four MONGOs immediately step in to replace him. - Crockspot 19:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I think you have been civil, yes, and thank you. I will make my decision about ArbCom soon, and apologize for the apparent filibustering. As I explained above, I'm just trying to run this thing in an open manner, thinking out loud. Feel free to wait to make any further comments/contributions until the process advances formally. I have thought about the possibility of that Mongo will be replaced, if banned. (Though if anyone who had participated in this process did undertake to fill his shoes, that would show contempt for the decision, I think.) That's why I think ArbCom will have to come up with some way of enforcing also a special commitment to civility on all the relevant articles in the period immediately after the decision. Thanks for taking the time to air your concerns.--Thomas Basboll 10:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
You mean like the contempt for the Arbitrators decision that you show here: "I stand by my statement in the RfA, which I withdrew when an arbitrator called it frivilous. --Thomas Basboll 23:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)."  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 06:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
A number of editors, with a variety of opinions on the subject of the RfC, expressed concerns about the appropriateness of drawing ArbCom into what seemed simply to be a personal dispute between MONGO and I. Reflecting on their advice, and noting that at least one arbitrator interpreted my request as frivolous, I respectfully (i.e., out of respect for ArbCom) withdrew my request that they settle this question once and for all. In doing so, I did not retract my statement of the dispute. As I explained to you here, ArbCom has not ruled on my dispute with MONGO by rejecting my request. I had misunderstood the scope of ArbCom's interests. I hope this clarifies matters a bit. Certainly, I have not expressed contempt for ArbCom.--Thomas Basboll 07:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Let's not get too carried away here. It was well on it's way to being rejected. In fact, this is about as rejected as it gets. --Tbeatty 12:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/5/0/0)

I agree with Tbeatty that it was going to be rejected. In what sense was I getting carried away?--Thomas Basboll 12:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Basboll's aims

Your goal has been to eliminate my ability to particpate in the 9/11 articles, all along. You obviously perceive me as your prime obstacle to adding more CT to them, and well, don't like the fact that I rebuff you almost everytime.--MONGO 16:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
This still assumes that my aim is to push CTs. I have asked you clarify that claim here. Yes, you do rebuff me almost every time. You may want to check the dictionary definition of "rebuff": e.g., "unkind or contemptuous refusal or rejection (of an offer, request, friendly gesture, etc.)".--Thomas Basboll 10:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
No one can say what your aims are. The results of your actions, however, is that conspiracy theories are pushed. I don't believe it's nefarious, just misguided. --Tbeatty 13:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure that my work has resulted in "pushing" CTs. It has improved the articles that touch on CT issues. But it is, in any case, exactly your admirable assumption of good faith that should lead Mongo, and others, to approach my work, and that of others, with greater respect. Reverting something as "extreme POV pushing" or "vandalism" if you believe it is just a misguided edit is not constructive. In fact, even if you think it's nefarious you should try to be more polite. BTW, I think Mongo is trying to say all kinds of things about what my aims are. (See from "You goal has been ... " above.) I asked him not to do so a long time ago.--Thomas Basboll 15:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hipocrite's edit on Outside View of Crockspot

Hipocrite says, "Why do we continue to allow editors who are here soley to misinform (the 9/11 truth squad, which includes both of the instigators of this RFC) edit? Ban everyone who focuses on their VERY IMPORTANT INFORMATION being POV-pushed and these problems go up in smoke."[36] Presumably as a certifier I am one of the two instigators, and therefore part of the "9/11 truth squad", by which I take it he means those who think CT are the truth and should be pushed. As I don't hold to those things, that effectively invalidates his support for the view. It is a personal attack without any foundation to say I am "here solely to misinform". My edit record speaks for itself. How exactly does this edit qualify me his squad?[37] The fact that this RfC consensus is underpinned by such false assumption is the reason why it is invalid and why this whole case needs dispassionate examination by ArbCom to look at the facts, not invent them. Tyrenius 07:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The false assumption is that there was rationale for this Rfc to begin with. There is no way, based on our prior situation and the fact that Mr. Basboll knew to come to you when he and I had a dispute, that your "efforts" to resolve the dispute between myself and Mr. Basboll was likely to be welcomed...Musical Linguist and you discussed this matter in exhaustive detail. I therefore see your certification of this Rfc as invalid. I think the consensus of those on the obverse of this page believe that my actions have not been egregious enough to warrant this time wasting and insulting rfc. I can't speak for Hipocrite, but I don't think he is pointing his finger at you per se.--MONGO 10:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
The fact of life, Mongo, is that you are consistently uncivil to people you disagree with. The people 'on the obverse' don't think you are not being uncivil, but they agree with you that incivility is permitted for certain editors.
The point I was making above, before you were uncivil to me in reply, was that you can expect many more pointless RfCs in future while you continue to be uncivil to certain editors. I personally would not waste my time starting an RfC because I know that the community supports you. But others will. This is the life you have chosen for yourself, now you must live it. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 14:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't recall any finding of fact that MONGO is consistently uncivil to people he disagrees with. Trying to frame the debate with that point as fact is a disingenuous representation of all the editors that oppose your view. Incivility is not allowed 'for certain editors.' There is no cabal. --Tbeatty 18:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
If Mongo had been consistently uncivil, he probably would have been placed on personal attack parole as a remedy at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan#Remedies. Tom Harrison Talk 18:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Unless, of course, the community supported his behaviour, which it does. I'm not complaining about this situation. Thomas and I are clearly in the minority in suggesting civility applies to all. But I am proposing that this fact be recongnised. It would save everyone a lot of needless typing in future. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 18:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
You are in the minority by suggesting Mongo is consistently uncivil. You can try to recast it as persecution if you want to, but as you said above, this is what you have chosen for yourself. Tom Harrison Talk 18:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Your statement that I have `chosen persecution for myself' neatly proves my point. Thank you. If you are unable to see what I am talking about, then I'm afraid we cannot progress. See you at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MONGO 3. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 19:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I certainly do point the finger at Tyrenius. Your participation in this RFC was designed soley to misinform. You did not tried and failed to resolve this dispute. That you are not a charter member of the 9/11 truth squad, rather just their enabler, does not excuse your support of their outrageously disruptive behavior. Ask yourself - if everyone who endorsed this farce were banned, and those bans stuck, would the encyclopedia be BETTER or WORSE. Yes, we'd lose your good contributions, but it would get rid of the shit that the rest of your compatriots are here to spread. Why are you supporting disruption? Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm obviously doing things I'm unaware of. Perhaps you could point out what I've enabled, what outrageously disruptive behaviour I've supported, and who exactly are my compatriots. As I don't have anything to do with 9/11 articles, I'm a bit in the dark here. By the way your tone is somewhat uncivil, although that does seem to be becoming increasingly acceptable round here. Tyrenius 08:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd really like to hope that Hipocrite is aware that he is a hipocrite. The language he is using, level of intolerance to different thoughts, negative emotions lacking solid arguments all make me feel sick when reading those on Wikipedia. Have you ever been wrong Hipocrite? Or rather how soon have you forgotten that? Oh, and plz teach me how to instantly tell better from worse. You've already taught me how to make any adversary to lose his desire to discuss. SalvNaut 20:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I may have discovered an instance of what Hipocrite means by saying I am the enabler of the 9/11 truth squad, where I support their outrageously disruptive behaviour and spread shit. Could it be this instance, where I threaten to block Lovelight for calling the US Secretary of State an "evil succubus" and he calls me a tyrant with a vendetta against him?[38] But hang on a moment, according to Morton Devonshire I have a grudge against him too[39] and he's on the other side of the CT debate, isn't he? This is getting very confusing: I seem to be being accused by both sides of prejudice, so I'm not sure which side I'm really on at all. I'm seriously starting to consider the possibility that I might not be on either side, but I'm simply acting in the interests of Wikipedia without favouritism. However, that seems to be an increasingly unfashionable thing to do. Tyrenius 09:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You believe that "the interests of Wikipedia" include the content being added by the 9/11 truth squad. You are wrong. If you were to, oh, WP:IAR and block people to make things better, in addtion to me, who else would you get rid of? Answer clearly does not include MONGO, answer clearly does include, oh, bov, SalvNaut, Babaloo (obvious sockpuppet of banned Rootology), and Lovelight (community banned). I'll be as clear as I can - there are both psycopaths and reasonable editors saying you are damaging the encyclopedia. Listen to the editors, ignore the psycopaths. I know it's tough, with you being the resolute defender of civility and all - and I know things that happend in September 2006, before MONGO was desysoped are very, very relevent, but come on now, everyone but you is getting the joke. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
You're making things up again. Please find where I said I "believe that 'the interests of Wikipedia' include the content being added by the 9/11 truth squad". I'm not wrong, because I never said it in the first place. I believe NPOV should be followed. It is a non-negotiable policy which you seem to have little interest in applying. It states:
All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources).[emphasis as in the original]
Which bit of that don't you understand exactly? You will notice it does not require the wikipedia editor to make their own judgement as to the truth or otherwise of the significant view. There are many significant views that may well be untrue, but still have an effect or are held by many people. If you don't like that policy - and clearly you don't - then there is no obligation to stay here, but while you do, please follow it, and other policies, including WP:CIVIL, which also seems to elude you.
Tyrenius 17:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Ahh, the "civil for thee, but not for mee" is finally here. I note the above is a "unique" perspective on civility. It pedantically lectures a contributor with a four year edit history on NPOV, in terms as incivil as any seen round these parts ("You're making things up again.", "you seem to have little interest in applying," "Which bit of that don't you understand exactly?") Tyrenius, when will you warn Tyrenius for his gross incivility? To your ludicrous points asserting that NPOV requires that we include the tiny minority viewpoints esposed in self-published internet websites by insane conspiracy theorists? "HA" Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
You seem to think you know what I believe. I think I know better about that than you do. If you're not making it up, then show me where I said what you claim.
If you understand the application of NPOV then you will understand that that is my concern, and not the inclusion of the views of any specific group. Do you understand that is my concern?
Though you're happy to make accusations, you've failed to provide any examples for "what I've enabled, what outrageously disruptive behaviour I've supported, and who exactly are my compatriots."
Could you tell me where I have ever said, "NPOV requires that we include the tiny minority viewpoints esposed in self-published internet websites by insane conspiracy theorists"?
If not, perhaps you'd like to withdraw these accusations.
Tyrenius 21:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
You have provided absolutly no information whatsoever regarding your beliefs. Feel free to go ahead and tell us your personal 9/11 theories at your convience, or just leave us to infer from your actions to date. Your constant support of tiny-minorty POV, fringe sources, your ongoing infatuation with harassing MONGO and your persistant coddling of outrageously disruptive editors (rootology sock - still unblocked) is the only evidence that has been presented, and it certainly points in one direction. If you were truly concerned about the "application of NPOV," you would had demonstrated such by opposing the insertion of tiny-minority viewpoints in mainstream articles by disruptive, pov pushing editors. You have not demonstrated such, QED. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
As you say, I have presented absolutely no information whatsoever about my beliefs for the very good reason that they have no part to play in NPOV, which you as "a contributor with a four year edit history" are presumably aware of? I do not have personal 9/11 theories. I see yet another string of unsubstantiated accusations. Please provide your evidence for "constant support of tiny-minorty POV, fringe sources"? As I've said before, if you have nothing to substantiate them, then kindly withdraw them. So far you've provded no evidence whatsoever, merely a fiction of your own devising. I have nothing to do with any rootology sock. I don't know what you're talking about. Where do you get that one from? If you've got a problem with a sock, then report it to WP:AN like everyone else. I'm still waiting for MONGO to withdraw his attack on me of "backstabbing". Tyrenius 21:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Considering the overwhelming rejection of the charges made in this RfC and the rejection by arbCom of the underlying accusations, I'm sure MONGO is anxiously anticipating your apology for endorsing and certifying those frivolous and baseless charges. --Tbeatty 05:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

That concludes my participation in this most recent farcical attack on MONGO. You may have the last word. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hipocrite, you may have the wrong end of the stick. Neither Tyrenius nor me (and I feel safe in speaking for him like this) have expressed support for any particular POV on the 9/11 issues. I think it is would be more useful to explore where and how our policies on NPOV, AGF and NPA intersect in this area of the project, than to accuse Tyrenius of things which he quite clearly has never done. Furthermore, there is no intention whatsoever to "attack" MONGO; as far as I can see this RfC was brought by Thomas as a way of seeking community feedback on MONGO's treatment of him. I am far more interested in the underlying principles here, and in how we can best improve how we handle situations like this in the future, than in MONGO's outburst of incivility, regrettable though it was. As Tyrenius says, and as I said to you earlier, if there are specific concerns about socks or whatever, please take them forward in the usual way or ask someone else to. --Guinnog 22:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Riiiiigghhhhhtt. You have openly expressed that the 9/11 CT be given more coverage in the main articles. You even went so far as to vilify me for adding a vandal warning template to a now blocked editor when he accused Silverstein of authorizing the destruction of WTC 7...repeating that he was potentially trying to make a good faith edit, even if it was unreferenced libel. That edit by that now blocked editor was far worse than Tbeatty ever did because Tbeatty's comment was in a usertalkpage not article space. So indeed, when that editor did add libel and unreferenced vandalism, all you actually did do was chastise me over nothing.--MONGO 22:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Let us discuss Original Resarch by synthesis. Imagine, if you will, a poll. This poll asked a question to which one of the options was "I am aware of [WTC7's collapse] and think the Commission should have investigated it." Design an NPOV section that provides appropriate weight to this question, using only reliable sources. Allow me to give you the correct answer ahead of time - "If relevent at all, the only sentence that can be written without OR by synthesis is 'in a survey, x% of those polled said that the collapse of WTC7 should have been investigated by the commission.'" Your suggestion was that we write "Despite FEMA's preliminary finding that fire caused the collapse, some doubt about the collapse and the way it was investigated exists among US citizens, according to a Zogby poll in May 2006 6. When asked a question that critics regard as poorly designed, 38% of 1,200 telephone interviewees indicated "I am aware of it and think the commission should have investigated it". Critics of the poll point out that the investigation of the precise reasons for the collapse were outwith the remit of the commission." Please evaluate your prior statement paying specific attention to our policy on OR by synthesis. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
MONGO, I apologised to you for that at the time, again on AN/I, and I mentioned it on the obverse too. I misread the situation, as I think you did too. To me it's been quite thoroughly dealt with. I do hope you aren't still annoyed about it. Hipocrite, you are right, that was a rubbish suggestion of mine and was quite rightly shot down in flames a year ago. However, although that suggestion wasn't adopted, I think that now the coverage in the article is much better than it was. This is a team effort, and my point was that we should be applying policy to this, and not throwing around accusations of ill-will at other editors. --Guinnog 23:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] For Junglecat

  1. What about these lies? Chief of Staff Andrew Card claimed that after he told Bush about the second World Trade Center crash, "it was only a matter of seconds" before Bush "excused himself very politely to the teacher and to the students, and he left" the classroom. Card also stated that Bush "quickly excused himself to a holding room." [San Francisco Chronicle, 9/11/02] In a different account, Card said, "Not that many seconds later the president excused himself from the classroom." [MSNBC, 9/9/02] Sandra Kay Daniels, the teacher whose second-grade classroom Bush visited on 9/11, told the Los Angeles Times that after Card informed Bush of the second crash, Bush got up and left. "He said, 'Ms. Daniels, I have to leave now.' ... Looking at his face, you knew something was wrong. I said a little prayer for him. He shook my hand and left." Daniels also said, "I knew something was up when President Bush didn't pick up the book and participate in the lesson." [Los Angeles Times, 9/11/02] [40] There OK? They must be for there is no article about the many lies to top USA government told about what happned that day. Babalooo 23:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    OK, I don't get what you are saying, and this looks like trolling because your statement has nothing to do with my view. Am I correct? JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 04:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
You make the subject of lies, so I supply some lies by top USA officials about 9/11. "We are not in the lie business either. Attempting to use this respectable encyclopedia to promote deceptions against true knowledge shouldn’t be tolerated. " This is the topic of this page right? If to believe everything President Bush and his partners say about 9/11 or not? Why are these proved lies not in the article? Thank you to answer about trolling. Babalooo 05:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)



[edit] Draft of ArbCom complaint

Once again, in the interest of an open process, I have posted a first draft of a hypothetical complaint to ArbCom in my sandbox. Please check it out, and feel free to comment, or to wait until it is filed. The final complaint may of course look very different, but this is a good way of summarizing my understanding of the result of this RfC so far.--Thomas Basboll 09:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I read it. Wikilawyering at its worst -- using process and rules to drive away a valued contributor because of a personal grudge. Do be aware that a complaint to arbcom will bring scrutiny on all involved editors. Raymond Arritt 17:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time. I think it needs to be tightened up a bit, perhaps with Wikilawyering in mind. I am aware of the risks, and it is good of you to caution anyone who thinks of stepping in on my behalf. I'm going to try to present it so that it will be pretty obvious whether or not I have an axe to grind.--Thomas Basboll 18:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFARB

"Conduct may be founded on the hard rock or the wet marshes, but after a certain point I don't care what it's founded on." (F. Scott Fitzgerald)

After realizing how much time we're spending on this and are likely to ask ArbCom to spend on it as well, I have filed a somewhat simple request for arbitration. Either civility matters or it doesn't. If it doesn't, we really don't have anything to talk about.--Thomas Basboll 00:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blatant vandalism

Part of the series on
Alex Jones (help·info)
Saving America from the NWO
Saving America from the NWO
Alex Jones (radio)

Prisonplanet.com
9/11 + The Neo-Con Agenda Symposium
InfoWars
Infowars.com
America Destroyed By Design
TerrorStorm
Information Clearing House
Martial Law: 9/11 Rise of the Police State
9-11: The Road to Tyranny
Dark Secrets: Inside Bohemian Grove
Dark Secrets Inside Bohemian Grove
Police State 3
Cremation of Care
Nwowatcher
[edit]
Moloch is prominent in the second section of Allen Ginsberg's poem, Howl.
Moloch is prominent in the second section of Allen Ginsberg's poem, Howl.

I was reminded by the "Outside view of User:Bishzilla" (an attempt to bring a touch of levity and humour to this RfC which I am sure was well-intentioned) of the occasion last August when two participants in the RfC vandalised a template designed to ease navigation between articles pertaining to Alex Jones, who I believe is some sort of writer on 9/11-related matters. The subject of this RfC and one of their more vocal supporters both edited the template after it had been vandalised without commenting or repairing the vandalism. It took another admin (Cyde) to undo the vandalism and protect the template, which he did with the comment "Protected Template:Alex Jones: It's a sad day when a template has to be protected because of ADMINISTRATOR vandalism."

I'm sure this was also meant to be funny. (Those with the bit can see the incident in the deleted history of Template:Alex Jones.) --Guinnog 14:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a sad day when any 9/11 article gets vandalised by an administrator. --Tbeatty 15:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
You're saying that now but you didn't see fit to repair the vandalism at the time. Presumably you thought the cheerleader image was an appropriate and encyclopedic thing to have on a navigation template about a writer? --Guinnog 15:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I think what happened to the template was a bit of a misinterpretation by Cyde. No one who was involved in that issue did anything wrong deliberately. I might not remember the facts completely, but what I do remember is that there was no overt maliciousness involved.--MONGO 20:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The template in question is reproduced below. Perhaps you'd like to explain exactly what Cyde misinterpreted when he wrote, "Protected Template:Alex Jones: It's a sad day when a template has to be protected because of ADMINISTRATOR vandalism." The template was started by Tom harrison, an admin. The cheerleader image was added by Morton devonshire, who made 11 edits to it. Tbeatty then tried to reposition the template (1 edit). MONGO, then an admin, made 3 edits such as "Trying to establish left margin to prevent run into text in articles so lets see if I can fix this problem". He didn't find the image a problem, however. Tom harrison then made another 5 edits, "integrating multimedia" and adding "Moloch the Owl". Cyde left a note, "Don't you dare fuck around with the encyclopedic content like you did with Template:Alex Jones. As an administrator you really should know better." on the talk page of Tom harrison, who apologised. MONGO said, "Hum, not sure what was done that was so "wrong" personally."[41] I would like to know if MONGO's staunch supporters find anything wrong with vandalising templates. Tyrenius 21:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the Tfd for when the template was deleted? I searched but can't find it...it would be easier if an admin simply looked at the page history. I made corrections to the margin...I really do have to confess stupidity as I didn't pay attention to the images in the template. As I said, at least as me, I wasn't trying to do anything malicious...the template is now deleted, so it's kind of old news now anyway...have you done no wrong on Wikipedia?--MONGO 09:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I will answer your question only after you have demonstrated that you have never gone WP:FISHING. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
That's an irrelevant comment. This RfC is about reviewing behaviour. Tyrenius 23:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
There was an RFAr on MONGO's behavior between now and then (actually, there were two). Are you digging up ancient history to defend your truther friends? I think so! Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Stop giving a false impression. I don't have any truther friends. Tyrenius 08:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
You may not have any Truther friends, but they have a great friend in you. --Tbeatty 14:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for re-creating the template here -- I had forgotten about it. Although Jones is a bit of an oddball (to put it lightly), he is, in his own oddball way, a bonafide Apple-Pie-Eatin'-Chevy-Drivin'-Live-Free-Or-Die American Patriot. There is no more fitting juxtaposition than to pair Jones with an iconic American image like a Dallas Cowboy Cheerleader. P.S. Don't they have senses of humor in Old Europe? P.S.S. The MONGO Arbcom was withdrawn after being universally rejected and derided by the Arb Panel, so all of this is moot anyway.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 02:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Look at all those blue links. I thought you could do better than that. School kids that read that crap will have to be in school twice as long as other kids just to unlearn all that crap. --Tbeatty 02:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
And there we have it, folks, that's what has apparently been endorsed by this RfC. Vandalising the encyclopedia? Just a bit of "humor". Anything goes, in the war against "truthers". A sad day, indeed, Tbeatty. --Guinnog 03:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Where did I endorse vandalising the encyclopaedia? I don't recall saying humour or anything related to it. I was commenting on the still large number of articles that are apparently still in a pre-deletion stage. The war on the truth is being waged by the CTers as they try to rewrite history with that garbage. --Tbeatty 04:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
So you say, but on this occasion it was Morton and Tom who vandalised, and you and MONGO who edited the article without fixing the vandalism. Care to explain? --Guinnog 14:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll answer that after you justify your uploading of Image:AndrewGreig.jpg in violation of our copyright policy. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Certainly. It wasn't near the vandalism that the Truthers had been adding and it was necessary to show the cheerleading that was going on instead of serious encyclopaedic content. --Tbeatty 15:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) Thanks for your honesty, Tbeatty. I think there are better ways to improve the encyclopedia than vandalising it to make a point though. Down these "end-justifies-the-means" roads lies only conflict. I don't think it bears much comparison with my uploading a fair-use photo of an author which was later deemed to be replacable. Neither do I think the danger from what you guys call "truthers" in any way justifies "special measures" in the way that you seem to believe. --Guinnog 15:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

What special measures? If they are overt trolls they will probably end up being blocked. If they are just "trolling" then they are tolerated far longer than they should be..I mean, look at some of the outlandish commentary some of this folks leave on the 9/11 articles talkpages...it's pretty obvious when they sign up a new account and immediately proceed to these talkpages or editing in unscientific junk that they are here for one reaosn only...POV pushing. It's not like there is some grand coverup going on as far as coverage of the 9/11 Truth Movement, the Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center or 9/11 Conspiracy theories...that information is covered in exhaustive detail...I feel some of it is soapboxing, and I feel it simply helps them advertise their junk science, but well, the articles are still there. We have, here on Wikipedia, far more coverage of this stuff than anyone will ever find in any other encyclopedia or will probably ever find in the American Society of Civil Engineers articles.--MONGO 17:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
First, thank you for your explanation (which I missed until now), which is appreciated. As for "I wasn't trying to do anything malicious", I never thought for a moment that you were.
The "special measures" I mentioned were the ones Thomas is complaining about. They consist of, as best I can sum it up, a well-intentioned but (I believe) unhelpful and anti-Wiki unofficial policy to prevent any mention of the "alternative theories" (call them what you will) on the main 9/11 articles. As I pointed out above, this goes rather against the norm on other articles on controversial subjects. I agree with you that much of what the CT believers believe is junk science; however, as Ty has pointed out this is not the point. As an encyclopedia, we do not judge true and false. We present the beliefs and who believes them, always citing reliable sources and giving due weight. Due weight policy would imply (in my view) slightly more mention than they have at present, I would say, but my view on the content issue is immaterial. What matters is keeping policy in line with practice and vice versa.
If the Holocaust article can include a brief explanation of Holocaust Denial, arguing that the 9/11 article should do likewise does not make one a POV-pusher, nor entitle one to be belittled and ridiculed. If there is to be a special case made of 9/11 articles, policy should reflect this. It would be a great thing if this process could somehow lead to the improvement of the article. At the very least if we can clarify how the various policies interact in this area would be something. --Guinnog 22:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I take it, then that you support the inclusion of an appropriately critical examanation of the nonsence than the 911 truth squad supports? Please draft a paragraph for inclusion on the article that is sourced, accurately reflects the various points of view (and the relative prominence of each) that is reliable for inclusion in the main article that can link to the sub article. Please note that Holocaust denial is expressly declared "...not accepted as credible." Please be certain to include similar language which states that 911 truther theories are "not accepted as credible," as we are both aware they are not. It is, of course, your obligation as the individual interested in adding this information to provide sources to this assertion, but, since you state above that you accept that 911truthiness is no more credible than holocaust denial, I have the highest hopes you can write an NPOV paragraph that mentions the utter contempt that 911truthinessers are held in by the public and the scientific community at large. Get cracking. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Touche. I accept your challenge. See you at Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks#Proposal for a (slightly) longer paragraph on conspiracy theories. --Guinnog 22:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I see now that this was just a bit of fine language signifying nothing (although Morton liked it). Serves me right for assuming good faith. Your last sentence is a mixture of misrepresentation (I did not state that I "accept that 911truthiness is no more credible than holocaust denial") and evidence that you fail to understand WP:NPOV, one of our core policies. I suggest you read it over. Get cracking. --Guinnog 14:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Esquese me? I haven't commented on your proposed paragraph because I can't go to the library and read your references untill this evening, unless there's an internet-available version of Bazant, Zdenek P. and Mathieu Verdure. "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions" in Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE, and an internet-available version of "Globalization, Culture, and Identities in Crisis", The American Era: Power and Strategy for the 21st century. Cambridge University Press" available for my perusal. Or, if you'd like to type both of those works in by hand and put them on my talk page, that'll work also. Otherwise, I'll comment when I'm good and ready. I would note that it's the Rootology sock being disruptive on that page. Perhaps you should do something about that, already. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My revert to the project page

Somehow I got the impression this morning that babalooo was banned, so I removed his endorsements. Another editor pointed out my presumptive error. I reverted my changes. As they used to say in the Vietnam War: Sorry 'bout that. - Crockspot 17:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remembering the good times

(The following text is probably a bit long. It is an attempt to reply to those who say that my edit history is "transparently" that of a POV-pusher, i.e., you just have to glance at it and you know what I'm up to. I've here put myself in a more favourable light. Obviously, there are some who will not believe me. But I think they then, at the very least, need to take up this challenge. I.e., show me where I behaved less well than I think I have in regard to content and NPOV.--Thomas Basboll 21:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC))

I imagine that the main reason people start thinking about the collapse of the World Trade Center today is because they've heard someone claim it was a controlled demolition. So that is also going to be the main reason that readers consult Wikipedia's article on that topic. While there are probably a few readers who are just plain curious, the majority will, I think, be coming here to learn about the straight, factual account of how the buildings collapsed, and they will do so with some specific questions in mind.

  • Did a third building really collapse? How much is known about how it collapsed?
  • What was that theory about pancakes?
  • Did the buildings really collapse at "near free fall speed"? If they did, why didn't the lower stories offer more resistance? What actually did happen to the lower stories?
  • Hasn't every aspect of these collapses been studied to death? How were they studied? Are there any open questions?
  • Have engineers and fire investigators looked at the claims that explosives were in involved? What have they determined?
  • What has been written about the collapses by engineers who did not participate in the official inquiries?

I came to Wikipedia looking for answers to these questions. Some of them are questions of a straightforwardly factual nature, and some are questions about the present state of our knowledge about the collapses. And notice that the answers to these questions have changed significantly since the day of the events they are about, most notably when the NIST report was published a year and a half ago.

Some of them are likely to change again. For example, NIST will at some point publish its report on WTC 7 and Zdenek Bazant (or someone inspired by him) will perhaps one day model the mechanism of progressive collapse in greater detail. Both developments are predicted by defenders of the official story to lay alternative hypotheses "to rest". Defenders of controlled demolition are of course ready for another "mirage", as Kevin Ryan puts it.

Because I did not get satisfying answers to these questions when I first came, I have, over the past nine months or so, been improving the "coverage", as some of you have put it, of these issues in Wikipedia. I have been making Wikipedia a better source of information for people who are interested in the questions I mentioned, and in the developing answers to them.

I have not "pushed" any particular view or theory. If anything, I would say that my most successful work (and the work that was most difficult to do intellectually) consisted of presenting the received view (aka "the official account") of the collapses, especially the work of locating the key parts of the NIST report and writing adequate summaries that were also readable for laypeople. I am rather proud of this work, and I appreciate the kind words that people (from all sides) have made in support of it.

I had a lot of help from a number of other editors in making sense of the information I was finding, and presenting it in an encyclopedic manner. While the distinction was by no means a new one for me, I certainly improved my ability to distinguish facts and unfacts from known facts and unfacts, and to convert the latter into prose, leaving the former on the side.

Once I got the hang of it (and some of the technicalities of the wiki platform), I was able to branch out a bit. Because of my earlier work, I suddenly knew a whole lot not only about the collapses but about a growing movement of so-called "conspiracy theorists" who have a radically different understanding of them, and, it would seem, of the world in which they occured.

There were already a number of articles about these people (i.e., I did not create those articles). I decided also to contribute what I knew in this are to the project while it was still fresh in my mind. A lot of it consisted in cleaning the articles up, wikifying them in various ways, and turning them into coherent readable prose. But it also consisted in better representing the viewpoints that were being paraphrased and quoted (on both sides). While there is still room for improvement, most of the contributions I've made remain stable.

(My prose is sometimes a bit overwrought, and I always smile when I see an editor simplify my language and remove one or another precious phrase ... like "one or another" ... I always wince when such an editor decides to get a jab in about my overwrought "editorializing" style ... but such is working here.)

I was once asked to get involved in a developing content dispute about a BLP article (Steven E. Jones). Here, again, the solution was to write some stable NPOV prose about the issue, rather than to pull the article in one direction or the other (i.e., make him look good or bad). It has become a pretty good bio, and is subject now only to occasional flare-up about how much his "conspiracy theory" is emphasized in the lead, or what template should be attached.

I tell this story because it is the bright side of my work here. It is, I would hope, a model story of what contributing to Wikipedia could be like. But as you can of course tell, I have left out a key element of the true story, i.e., the subject of this RfC.

MONGO does not see my work here as I just described it, and he is not the only one. Because his mind has been made up from day one (that's what he says), I have had to do most of this work "against" him. I have, as he rightly points out, come to see him as an "obstacle" (though not to what he thinks). So the result of my labours has been not just a handful of better articles, and one new article (a content fork from an existing article), but a lot of, well, talk. And that talk has gotten me labelled as not only a "conspiracy theorist" but a "POV pusher" and a disruptive one to boot. It has also resulted in an uncomfortable moment when I thought an editor was trying to physically intimidate me. The air from that moment still hasn't cleared, despite the very simple, very human mechanism that exists for doing so.

I am certain that the reason that mechanism has failed is pride, and I am also certain that pride is one of my own vices. But another reason it failed is the system of alliances that fosters pride. As a famous first lady once said of something else, it takes a village. Both to make people feel proud of themselves and to take that pride away from them.

MONGO has received countless barnstars of every stripe, colour and animation. The only barnstar I have ever received was for my "tireless contributions to articles about 9/11 conspiracy theories", which almost seems like a backhanded compliment today. That certainly seems to be the focus people think I have. The truth is, I have an interest in the collapse of the WTC. It puzzles me. I will probably never "believe" in controlled demolition if it does not win the consensus of the engineering community, but I also don't yet understand how progressive collapse could bring about the visible results. Not yet. By exploring these questions I'm learning all sorts of things about materials science and structural engineering that makes me look at buildings in general in a new light. For a time, Wikipedia has been part of my inquiries, and, in large part, its influence has been a positive one.

Unfortunately, editors like me aren't really welcome here. At least not in practice. I am hoping that that will change. In fact, I am still hoping that it is about to change.

Dear MONGO, if you have gotten this far without balking too much, please know that I respect your substantial contributions to Wikipedia. They are incomparably more impressive than mine. But I am asking you to stay away from the 9/11 articles and let more moderate spirits on both sides of the factual issues work towards consensus. We can deal with the incessant and predictable return of the Truth in all its guises. What we cannot deal with is the crossfire you occasion, even if unintentionally. It makes Wikipedia suck.--Thomas Basboll 20:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Perhaps you should go edit something else. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there is that view. Thanks for the suggestion. This was actually an attempt to explain why I don't just do that.--Thomas Basboll 21:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't find anything, because I was destroyed by the giant wall of text and hoped that you wrote it in the summary style - I read the intro and exit paragraph, and assumed that you were saying that things were great before MONGO showed up and enforced NPOV, and that things would be great if he just left you alone. I might argue (wait, I do argue) that things were great before the truthers and their "I'm just curious about how some people say George Bush is Hitler" friends (that's you!) showed up and that if you just left the article alone things would be great. Is there something in the middle of the giant block of text I missed? Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Yup. It's right in the middle. Whenever you have time.--Thomas Basboll 21:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Try reading it then. Also, please remain civil, and refrain from misrepresenting the positions of others. If you can show me where Thomas has said "I'm just curious about how some people say George Bush is Hitler", please show us where. If not, please tone down your language in the interests of having a civil discussion. There are many articles where I could sympathise with the view that a stable version would be a plus; I'm not sure the 9/11 articles would fall into that category. Or do you think they're FA-quality as they are? --Guinnog 21:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Could you summarize, please. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
"I'm just a soul whose intentions are good; oh lord, please don't let me be misunderstood." --Thomas Basboll 21:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I make Wikipedia suck? What sucks is when you could have just let a few (a very few, dammit) comments I have made be simply what they really were, no big deal. What sucks is when people bring capricious and meritless Rfcs and arbcom cases over much todo about nothing, distracting me when I had momentum going across a number of different areas of Wikipedia, areas besides the articles related to 9/11, that are important to me...articles about parks and details about those things that aren't well documented, that I haven't had the energy or desire to work on because I have been distracted by this *%$#@*&%. What sucks is when I offer an apology, yet that isn't good enough. What sucks is your ongoing request (demand) I stop editing articles related to the events of 9/11 and I never once ask you to stop editing anything or anywhere. The choice to leave is yours to make, no one is twisting your arm. Get over yourself.--MONGO 03:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, what sucks is that the apology I was offered came only when I filed what you continue to call a "capricious and meritless RfC". That sucks even now, as you shout at me while I walk away. You didn't ask me to leave, not directly. But your community did. Our dispute, like you say, is a distraction. It is over for now.--Thomas Basboll 05:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Did a third building really collapse? How much is known about how it collapsed?
The two main towers and the WTC 7 collapsed.
  • What was that theory about pancakes?
Pancake theory was put out as an original hypothesis before analysis. After anaylsis, it was discounted by engineers who analysed the collapse.
  • Did the buildings really collapse at "near free fall speed"? If they did, why didn't the lower stories offer more resistance? What actually did happen to the lower stories?
Yes, they fell at near free fall speeds as the collapse and collapsing mass had dynamic forces that far exceeded the static forces the weakened strucure was designed to support. Resistance of each floor was insignificant compared to the collapsing andincreasing mass. Think bowling ball on house of cards. Lower stories were crushed by upper stories.
  • Hasn't every aspect of these collapses been studied to death? How were they studied? Are there any open questions?
They have been studied extensively. WTC 7 studies are not complete. The open questions are technically beyond the scope of an encyclopdeia. Needless to say, there are no conspiracy hypothesis that are supported by scientific evidence.
  • Have engineers and fire investigators looked at the claims that explosives were in involved? What have they determined?
Yes. Explosives have a shock wave and they know the radius at which widnows would get blown out. The lack of this type of damage rules out any significant explosive device. Other studies also rule out explosives.
  • What has been written about the collapses by engineers who did not participate in the official inquiries?
NIST is a made up of permanent engineers that are not political appointees. They use experts that are not employed by the government. The engineers are independant but the data is, by necessity, from the government. Just like weathermen use government satellite photos but make independant judgements. This is why such hypothesis such as pancake collapse can be both presented and then refuted as evidence is analyzed. It's also why conspiracy theories are so ridiculous.

All of these answers have been presented before and they are almost all from the NIST FAQ. The fact that these answeres are apparently ignored (not refuted, ignored) is why it is so frustrating dealing with editors who continue to try and add material that asks these same questions (asks, but not no answers from a reliable source). There are no reputable sources that contradict the above answers. Continuing to present them in the article as unsettled questions violates a number of Wikipedia policies. This is the main reason that the community has so vocally supported mongo in this RFC. You also mentioned Steven Jones. The conpsiracy theory for 9/11 is what makes him notable as well ashis cold fusion research (but not nearly asmuch as Pons and Fleishman). His theory belongs in his bio as a short mention due to it's controversial nature, not it's scientific or engineering insight. It has no business anywhere near a 9/11 article. The same is true for the energy weapon theories and the other unscientific conspiracy theories. For an analogy, imagine that everytime a biologist discovered a new facet to the theory of evolution, creationists rushed to add how this proved that God exists, evolution is wrong and added new creationist theories to the evolution article. Imagine them rehashing every question ever asked about evolution on the talk page and demanding that their particular creation theory be mentioned in the evolution article. This is exactly what we have with 9/11. And while Basboll and Tyrenius and Guinogg and Seabhcan claim not to be "creationists" (Truthers), they certainly work to keep the "creationist" (truther theories) discussion alive on the "evolution" (9/11) article. --Tbeatty 04:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Not unique to the 9/11 articles. A similar phenomenon takes place in anything related to global warming. The same points keep getting brought up and refuted and brought up again and refuted again and brought up again and refuted again and brought up again and refuted again over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over, endlessly, ad infinitum, till death do us part, for heaven's sakes amen. I guess dealing with such things is the "cost of doing business" for some topics. Raymond Arritt 04:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Global warming is tough business for sure. I admit...until relatively recently, I was a global warming skeptic...not the part about whether it was true or not, but the part about how much humans were responsible for it. What I have found, in my own self education is that we have higher CO2 levels than at anytime in at least the last 600,000 years...this has been confirmed by ice cores and other data. The nature of this CO2 is a human origination...due to fossil fuel use and deforestation primarily. What I don't understand is why (particularily in the United States) this has become a lefty vs. righty political issue. It's an issue that needs everyone to be on the same plate. I have to admit that Al Gore's An Inconvienent Truth had a few things that I thought were soapboxing...namely, the discussion on sea level rise and the graphic animations that were used as demostrations of such. From what I have studied about glacier retreat, virtually no glaciologists predict that all the worlds glaciers, especially those where 90% of the glacial ice is located (Greenland and Antarctica) is going to simply disappear in even 500 years. So the fear factor showing tremendous sea level rise was poorly presented. Sea level rise is already a concern and has been for any city near or at sea level, and other communities such as low lying islands, but the evidence that sea levels will rise at either a fast enough rate or high enough that it will not be something we can adapt to in most cases is well documented...so the graphic animations in that movie were a bit misleading. What is a real problem is that the United States consumes 40% of the worlds energy and has made little effort to implement using renewable fuel sources, establish higher emission standards or implement and make a part of the culture the ethics of conservation. We waste too much energy in the U.S.--MONGO 06:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Tbeatty's comment is characteristic of why we have this dispute. He immediately answers the questions, rather than considering whether the articles at the time when I began to work on them answered them. They did not. One of the most important contributions I made, for example, was to sort the outdated pancake collapse theory from the current column failure theory, precisely because it had been refuted. Likewise, the question is not whether controlled demolition has been refuted or not (of course it has!), but whether the article informed the reader of that fact in the clearest possible way. My history with MONGO is a history of this misunderstanding. It did not get cleared up this time either.--Thomas Basboll 06:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I answered the questions because there were scientific answers to the question. They've been there the whole time. From day one. They may have been incomplete (i.e. pancake theory) but in no case and at no point did it involve conspiracies or explosives. My point is that we don't have to include a conspiracy theory summary every time a quesiton seems to be answered incompletely. The universe is not completely understood and every engineering question can be layered back to one more level and at some point it won't be understood. But the answer isn't a conspiracy theory. When the theory was "pancake collapse" and discrepancies appeared, the answer didn't become sophisticated conspirancy theory involving planted explosives. Similarly, eyewitness recollections of molten metal does not mean thermite bombs were placed througout the building. We shouldn't be expanding those sections as they are not reliable and they give the false impression that the exploration of these tangents has scientific validity. --Tbeatty 09:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
21:07, July 21, 2006. ("Day One"). Just for the record. [42]--Thomas Basboll 09:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
How many times do you have to be commended for your work on Collapse of the World Trade Center before you believe it?--MONGO 06:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I've never put much stock in praise. Notice that you have been given the benefit of the doubt because of your uncontroversial contributions. I have not. In any case, the praise would mean more if my work on controlled demolition wasn't immediately cited as an exception. My answer to Tbeatty was intended to correct the impression that the questions that motivated my editing were bad ones, i.e., ones that had already been answered, when in fact getting the articles to answer them made them better.--Thomas Basboll 06:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, indeed. Global warming, the Holocaust, Apollo landings, anything like that there will be potential for controversy. That's why we have the policies we have on NPOV and verifiability. The comparison I did above shows that other articles handle controversy without (in most cases) presenting undue weight to minority theories. There is no need, I believe, for any further safeguards to apply for 9/11 articles, and I sympathise with Thomas's experience here, as he seemed like a reasonable chap and a good editor.
Tbeatty makes an interesting comparison with Evolution; once again the comparison fails though, as we have there the Evolution#Social and religious controversies section, fairly presenting the controversy as a well-balanced part of the main article, as it should be. I think "work to keep the ... (truther theories) discussion alive on the ... (9/11) article" is an unfair representation of what I have done. I'd rather say that I have bristled sometimes recently at the tactics MONGO and his cohort have used with those they disagree with.
I am however slightly encouraged at the progress which has been made at Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks#Proposal for a (slightly) longer paragraph on conspiracy theories on improving the article, something we should all care about more than our respective amours propre. At the end of the day, if the relevant articles are improved and the danger of such incidents happening again is reduced, then I think we have a result. --Guinnog 06:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Again, we can use the evolution article as guide. Treat the conspriacy theories as a social enigma rather than anything substantively scientific. This is basically what you have opposed due to NPOV. What you seem to be calling for is equivalent to expanding te evolution aticle by adding more intelligent design theories into the evolution article. --Tbeatty 09:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry you fail to understand the point I am making; isn't the fact that every comparison you make supports my (and Wikipedia's) idea that NPOV implies mentioning these alternative theories somewhat suggestive? Are you completely unable to see this? It is such a basic principle and core policy of Wikipedia that if you can't see it, I don't know if I can explain it to you any better. Scan up the page until you come to a table, and read what it says, maybe that will help you to understand. --Guinnog 16:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry that you fail to understand the point that I (and the majority of those commenting on this RFC) that every comparison you point out supports the consensus view here (after all, wikipedia is about consensus). It supports everything I've said. For the same reason we don't need to expand the Evolution article with creation theories from Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Ancient Roman times and Greeks. It broadly talks about religious and social implications of Evolution and quite properly forks off a different article. Whether you believe in evolution or not is irrelevant to the fact that alternative theories not supported by significant scientists don;t belong in Wikipeida. It is not a hard concept to grasp. Similarly, the 9/11 articles are about 9/11. Not all the the various theories. There is no reason to expand it beyond mentioning there are those who don't believe it was carried out by 19 hijacker terrorists. That's it. That's all that's necessary. Want to expound on the Controlled Demolition Theory? Add it to that article. Want to talk about laser beams from space, controlled by the government, we have a conspiracy theory article where it can be mentioned. But don't link non-sequitir subjects such as the attacks of 9/11 with a fringe minority that has nothing to do with the actual events and not supported by and significant scientists or engineers. --Tbeatty 03:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I didn't. Nor did I vandalise templates. --Guinnog 14:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
NPOV is not about balance, or presenting "all sides". It is about presenting all "notable" sides with the proper weight they deserve, and presenting them in a neutral (non-advocating and non-damning) voice. I'm surprised that you don't know this by now. - Crockspot 16:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
And I'm surprised that you don't seem to understand it. Here's the main principle "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)." It is a fairly simple principle, though applying it equably often leads to debate, as in this case. You might also find Wikipedia:Content forking to be of interest if you aren't familiar with it, as would appear to be the case. --Guinnog 16:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. The fact is that even the more extreme CT achieve notability through international media coverage.[43] That means they merit inclusion. It doesn't mean they merit approval or belief. It is quite objectionable to see how much dialogue on this page assumes if an editor includes something in wikipedia it is because they have a vested interest in the content. This may well be the case for some editors. It does not mean it is automatically the case for all editors. It may well, however, say something about the editors who make such an assumption. Tyrenius 16:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
The reliable source you point to demonstates that "Loose Change is a sharp, slick film with an authoritative voiceover, but it drowns the truth in an ocean of nonsense." Propose a paragraph that discusses the view of this reliable source, making note of the fact that the article disputes every allegation made in the film. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
That is exactly what it should say from the source. I don't edit 9/11 articles, so I'm not going to write something. I'm just disputing the POV that such things should be excluded by default. Tyrenius 17:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Everyone appears to be on the same page, then. Have you reviewed the contribution history of your co-endorser with respect to accurately reflecting reliable sources without engaging in OR by synthesis or POV by insinuation? Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
You and I are on the same page, but there are those that brand any attempt to implement NPOV in this way as CT POV-pushing and condemn editors doing so as members of the "truth squad", which you are now in danger of being included in. You seem to have done the contribution review already. Tyrenius 15:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I would also note that some editors have a vested interest in the exclusion of certain content. This is equally disruptive. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 17:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Who has a vested interest in exclusion of substantive information? What would those interests be? --Tbeatty 03:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there is an understanding of what 'significant' means. It has nothing to do with the number of people who believe it. The question is whether it is held by a signiicant number of notable persons in their field. In this case, there would have to be a significant number of engineers. If we're talking about evolutionary theory, it's a significant number of biologists. If it's global warming, the test is significant number of climatologists. 'Loose change' has nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11. It should not be mentioned in the 9/11 attakcs articles. It DOES belong in the conspiracy theory pages as the press reports make the notable, but they offer nothing significant to the attacks on 9/11. Blogs are treated exactly this way. There are A LOT of bloggers. But the majority of them are not verifiable experts in their field and therefore there views are not significantly notable. The 9/11 conpsiracy theories fall in this category. Lots of 'em. None by experts and therefore not significantly notable viewpoints. If we follow Tyrenius' lead that covereage=significance, we should add Olympic Oppression of Gypsies and Irish Travellers in the Olympics article [44]. According to your test, it's a viewpoint held by Gypsies and Irish Travellers and it's published. The small problem that experts on the Olympics don't espouse that opinion is what keeps it out, not the viewpoint of a "significant" number of Gypsies and Irish Travellers. I'm sure that a significant number of Gypsies and Irish Tavellers have a viewpoint on including 9/11 conspiracy theories in the 9/11 articles, but as this RFC has shown, the consensus (and expert opinion) is that the views of the Gypsies and Irish Travellers are not relevant to the 9/11 articles. --Tbeatty 03:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I suggest taking this to Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view after reading Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ then. --Guinnog 14:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
As is evident from this RfC, it is you who have misunderstood NPOV. I suggest you reread this RfC and then NPOV and propose the changes you want to see. --Tbeatty 15:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments (2)

The undue weight clause of NPOV makes it clear. In articles about scientific things for which we have known evidence that is not refuted, it doesn't matter how many non experts believe things that are not factual, all that matters is the number of credible facts that refute it...in the case of the 9/11 conspiracy theories, there are no known facts that refute the mainstream account. This has been shown time and again. It's not my fault that these other articles have more conspiracy or non-scientific analysis than they do...maybe the editors on those pages have been less successful in establishing the parameters regarding undue weight as it pertains to the facts of the case. But those same persons here who have repeatedly told us they are not here to promote further coverage of CT must be incorrect in this assessment, because that is exactly what I see going on here on this very page.--MONGO 19:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Mongo, you fought me tooth and nail to make sure that this:
Some people doubt the mainstream account of September 11th and say there has been a cover-up. This group of individuals, called "A New Generation of Conspiracy Theorists" by New York Metro, (ref to New York Magazine article) disagree with the findings of U.S. Government engineers and accounts published in mainstream media sources, and raise questions they say are not adequately answered in the official 9/11 Commission Report.
did not get replaced with this:
The NIST report states that it "found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001." (reference to NIST report) Nonetheless, the collapse of the World Trade Center has become a central issue in the 9/11 truth movement and the controlled demolition hypothesis is a staple of 9/11 conspiracy theories.
How does what you're saying bear on that decision?--Thomas Basboll 20:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, instead of helping me to reject 911blogger and the Journal of 9/11 Studies as reliable sources to support claims about the controlled demolition hypothesis, you raise the completely general point that "none of it has been published in respectable peer reviewed journals or been properly vetted" (here). Since statements about the hypothesis have been found, among other places, in an ASCE journal of engineering, you have implicitly supported the notion that it doesn't matter whether we cite Time Magazine, an engineering journal, the NIST report or 911blogger. Why? (Tom Harrison, feel free to add your thoughts on this.)--Thomas Basboll 20:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
These statements refute the information. As far as when I fought you "tooth and nail", when was that Thomas? last week, a month ago, when you first showed up and almost immediately started in with the CT issues? Not long ago, you made it pretty clear what your intentions were...it is pretty unambiguous.--MONGO 20:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I guess it may as well have been a rhetorical question. You might learn something from trying to articulate your reasons for the edits you suggest and reject, rather than your opinion of the editors who suggest them, or reject yours.--Thomas Basboll 20:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Close?

As a number of commentators have pointed out, the result of this RfC is pretty clear. MONGO has massive support for his conduct on the 9/11 articles. This gives him little reason to change his ways and me little reason to continue to contribute, as Tom Harrison predicted above. In fact, others have put the point in somewhat stronger terms, outright suggesting I take my edits elswere. That is, there is also massive disapproval of my work here.

On that basis, I will take an indefinite wikibreak. If I return, it will either be elsewhere on Wikipedia or in order to take up these issues again. I would like to emphasize Guinnog's very constructive suggestion on the way out: we should find a more durable solution to this standing problem. Perhaps you'll have that solution in place before I return. Do drop me a line if that happens ... or if you have anything else on your mind.

Happy editing.--Thomas Basboll 23:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You have my full support Thomas. Your work here has been most appreciated by those of us to take rationality and impartiality seriously. Mongo's 9/11 edits will be swepted away in the fullness of time. Yours found the bedrock of worthwhile articles. Good luck to you. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 09:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Yup...When the legend becomes fact...print the legend.[45]--MONGO 09:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Is that your personal motto? Figures... ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 09:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Seabhcan...everything we know is controlled by dark sinister forces. Surely you know this!--MONGO 09:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Ha ha. Not where I live. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 09:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Mongo Only Pawn In Game of Life.[46]--MONGO 09:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Everything is a conspiracy with you isn't it. Thomas has never promoted conspiracy theories, yet you keep bringing it up. You are obsessed. You're like the village gay-basher whos secretly queer. I bet you listen to Alex Jones every night. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 10:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
If you are going to continue to engage in endless personal attacks, maybe we need your arbcom remedy implemented.--MONGO 10:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
You also have 'issues' with authority, Mongo. Fight your own battles and stop running home to Mammy. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 10:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
It's not my fault the authorities did what they did to you and me...I expected only a civility finding and would have accepted that for myself as well. That you cannot remain civil for the few posts you do make these days, indicates you have learned nothing from the experience.--MONGO 11:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
You are equally uncivil to Thomas. You have always tried, and now succeeded, in bullying him away. Some day you will feel shame. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 11:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
It is a shame that you feel unable to contribute to this encyclopedia if you are run into the type of conflict you have experienced here. I again advise you that you might see some benefit to editing a topic other than this one. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I have a hard time with this argument. I want to say, "You run me out of your angry little town and then you advise me to stay in your beautiful country?" I don't get it.--Thomas Basboll 20:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's correct. If you can't work productively on anything related to 911, we welcome your contributions where you can work productively. I do not contribute to finance articles because of the idiots who provide me far too much personal stress at said articles. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Just so we're on the same page. I should not contribute to 9/11 articles because of these idiots (not mentioning any names) who provide me with far too much personal stress? --Thomas Basboll 20:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Yup. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Wow. --Thomas Basboll 20:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Learning when and how to walk away is a skill I need to learn but is obviously one that is required. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
This, one will think closely on. Thanks for taking the time to comment on my RfC.--Thomas Basboll 20:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
As I said quite a lot of bytes back, you seem like a very civil fellow, and I think you would find a lot of enjoyment at WP if you just wandered around and tried some other topics. For example, when I get stressed, I format the existing URLs in random articles to full citations. It's tedious, but it makes articles look really neat with great footnotes, and it isn't something that anyone could find a problem with. It's pure improvement, with no blowback. I hope you'll stick around. There is a lot of cool shit on Wikipedia, and I learn something new every day. - Crockspot 21:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of cool stuff, there are a ton of pages that can be improved here: Wikipedia:Unusual articles. -- JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 22:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

In general, I think Wikipedia will retain useful contributors only if it welcomes them where they happen to show up. Otherwise, they will probably return to other parts of the Internet. Like the blogosphere, for example. I hadn't written a blog post in ages, and doing that just now felt quite good by comparison with what I have done here. Others who are rebuffed upon arrival might return to more technical wikis or forums or listservs (i.e., everything this place is WP:NOT). There is an exception to this rule, however. Vandals love causing trouble. Conspiracy theorists (in the pejorative sense of that word) love getting confirmation that they're being repressed. Like trolls, the more you feed them the louder they get.--Thomas Basboll 15:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Per Thomas' comments here, I have moved to close the RfC, please endorse as you see fit. I regret that Thomas feels unable to carry on here, as I see him as one of the moderating influences in this area, negotiating between the obviously batshit and WIkipedia policy, but that is incidental to MONGO's own conduct, which, give or take the language he sometimes uses, enjoys broad support. Guy (Help!) 11:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Addendum to closing

Has there ever been a time in which an Rfc was "closed"? My editing and desire to contribute have been severely reduced due to this capricious Rfc, brought on by those whose main concern has little to do with issues of civility, but instead, a desire to eliminate either my ability to contribute to 9/11 articles, or my desire to do so. A close examination of the discussion page will provide clear evidence that I was asked or the desire was expressed that I no longer edit these articles by one or more of those that have brought this Rfc. Furthermore, the discussion has centered not around incivility, but instead the incorporation of more conspiracy theory coverage in these articles. If anything is incivil, it is this Rfc, it's abuse of the dispute resolution process in which there was nothing more than a content dispute and in which there have been heated discussions by many different parties.--MONGO 13:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I can assure you my concern is with civility and I have no desire or interest in excluding you from 9/11 articles, in which I do not personally participate due to the unpleasant editing environment there. You have accused me of "back stabbing", "an axe to grind" and "false witness".[47] You gave a completely false account of the circumstances you referred to as I have pointed out.[48] You have failed to either withdraw your accusations or substantiate them. You have offered no proof that I have given "false witness", nor justified why you have characterised my asking Jimbo for clarification over a Foundational issue as "back stabbing".
This RfC has proved that anyone who does not actively oppose the presence of CT material in wikipedia will be vilified as a member of some wacky 9/11 "truth squad". The desire to exclude such material per se is an overt violation of WP:NPOV, and the relentless ad hominem arguments are a blatant breach of WP:NPA.
The first outside comment justified any lapses of civility on the basis that you were stopping "legions of conspiracy theorists" from adding nonsense. Put like that, of course, any responsible editor would have to endorse. The fact is that this is a false premise to start with. User:Morton devonshire started keeping a record of CT related articles on 31 May 2006.[49] To date he has listed around 70 deleted 9/11 CT-related articles. In that time there have been in the region of 20,000 articles deleted from Wikipedia. That puts things in perspective.
The "legions" are not CT-pushers, but, as anyone who attends to CAT:CSD will know, autobiographers, bands and firms. If incivility is tolerated over CT, then the justification for it is even greater for these other subjects, and that is not a good precedent to endorse.
You are quite right that this RfC has got sidetracked. It has not properly addressed the issues, because it has not even seen what those issues are.
Tyrenius 15:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry that you have also missed the opportunity to use the RfC to address the issues MONGO substantiated earlier. This would have been a good opportunity for you to apologize for the circumstances outlined previously and cleaned the slate. As for the CT material, no one actively opposes its presence in Wikipedia. It simply doesn't belong in the factual articles accounting the events surrounding 9/11. There are plenty of CT articles that explore these theories in excruciating detail. --Tbeatty 03:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Mongo made the personal attack. It's up to him to apologise. It's about time you accepted you were in the wrong over BLP issues. It is a fact that there are CT, so they belong in a factual article. Check out WP:NPOV sometime. Tyrenius 04:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
It's mentioned that CTers exist in the articles. That seems to be unsatisfactory to them. I understand NPOV just fine, and I simply turned the table on the perception of your actions. It's clear that you don't seem to understand that your perception of MONGO is the same as others perception of you. I thought it might be more effective if I helped you discover this through introspection (harsh at times, I admit). IMO, repeating WP jargon such as "NPOV" and "BLP" is less effective than recognizing our own shortcomings through self-realization. But since that was ineffective and you seem to prefer the jargon, WP:KETTLE is probably the article that will help you most with respect to this RfC. --Tbeatty 04:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Tyrenius, your endorsement of this Rfc is based on what exactly? Exactly how did you do anything to resolve a dispute? You didn't have the same dispute with me, all you did was come to Basboll's aide after he asked you to...this is not the same issue. Basboll knew you would be sympathetic to his cause both due to your joint desire, openly expressed, that you both would like to see more CT in the factual articles and due to his knowledge that you and I had a disagreement in the past. You have stated that you asked Basboll to inform you about the Rfc once it was filed...when was that exactly. the Rfc was up for almost two days before you did sign on, yet you had edited a lot of others things before signing on, that seems rather odd. Furthermore, we have articles on 9/11 Conspiracy theories already, yet you claim we don't? Check out undue weight of NPOV...we are not going to represent fantasies in articles in which we can produce facts...fantasies are relegated to sub articles with a passing mention in main articles, if that. Don't misrepresent the NPOV policy.--MONGO 04:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
My endorsement is based on the same issue as Thomas Basboll's, namely your incivility, actually a direct attack, where on the particular occasion he cites, you said to me: "Your email to Jimbo and lies and misrepresentations made to him about me and several other editors was as cheap a shot as any done by anyone I have encountered here on Wikipedia."[50] I discussed this on your talk page. The participants in this RfC have obviously accepted that this relates to the same incident. As for the other things you mention, what has that got to do with my email to Jimbo and your comments about it? Kindly inform me of the "lies and misrepresentations" I made, or withdraw your remarks. Tyrenius 23:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the RfC has not been especially productive. It has been interesting and even a little heartening to see how many people have rallied round to support MONGO, in spite of his incivility, but I can't help seeing it as a missed opportunity to move towards normal editing and application of Wikipedia policies on 9/11 articles. Any understanding of this matter which agrees with the "legions of conspiracy theorists" idea is fundamentally flawed; even if this were true (and I agree with Tyrenius that it is not), the "end justifies the means" approach which many appear to have endorsed is a very dangerous precedent to set for the future. It's also been interesting (if somewhat depressing) to see that besides incivility, the "anti-CT" brigade have used means including template vandalism to push their POV in the past. --Guinnog 00:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
The "end does not justify the means" and that is what the majority of commenters here agree on. The "end" here seems to be to include 9/11 conspiracy theories into factual accounts of 9/11 by any means available. This relentless effort to add material they admit is untrue into historical accounts serves what purpose? We can only speculate on what agenda is served by this approach but we can see who they agree with. Applying WP:DUCK here seems the logical approach. The dangerous precedent would be to allow the POV pushers to have their way with articles and turn everything 9/11 into anti-Bush/anti-American foreign policy conspiracy tirades. Thanks to MONGO and others this will not happen and Wikipedia will be saved. --Tbeatty 03:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree totally with Tbeatty's comment here. Wikipedia's reputation is extremely important. Fringe theories are just that - they do not belong in the mainstream articles. Why would someone want the true account of a past event (and a big one at that) to contain something false? Question the motives of who want to do just that. The last time I checked, Wikipedia was an encyclopedia based on reliable sources. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 22:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Then we must agree to differ. The last time I checked, neither our policies nor other controversial articles followed your interpretation of how things ought to be. True and false are not ours to judge, but should be left up to the reader, after appropriate sources have been given. --Guinnog 14:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
We do agree then. Reliable sources have already judged true and false. We report the reliable sources. And we've already shown how the controversial sides are handled identically in the 9/11 articles and other articles. --Tbeatty 17:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Second addendum

MONGO made the following statement about me:

"Your email to Jimbo and lies and misrepresentations made to him about me and several other editors was as cheap a shot as any done by anyone I have encountered here on Wikipedia."[51]

He has neither shown that there were "lies and misrepresentations" about him and several other editors made by me to Jimbo, nor withdrawn the remark, despite my request above. Tyrenius 02:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Nor have you apologized. --Tbeatty 02:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Tyrenius...you warned Tbeatty about this edit here...Tbeatty then found a source and adjusted his comment here...your block rationale was that the source didn't actually support the newer wording Tbeatty had added. This is all, of course, on a usertalkpage, in regards to a bio article on Steven E Jones and not in article space. I questioned the block since you were somewhat involved in the dispute. You and I agreed then to drop it and I stated I don't revert admin actions except in extreme circumstances. Tom Harrison was also not pleased about the block and discussed it with you...Regardless, you emailed Jimbo, and I felt compelled after you informed me to also email him to reassure him that my intentions were to support policy...I would never had emailed him had I believed that my actions had been represented correctly by you to him in your email...and is the reason he qualified his comment regarding the block on Tbeatty [52] shortly after explaining his position regarding BLP [53]
"Without making any comment on the current issue, I just wanted to say that I did not mean to imply that "BLP applies to userpages" -- at least not in full, not just stated flatly like that. At the same time, libelling people on userpages is a bad iea, and in fact, using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea."
My impression is that you misrepresented our actions to Jimbo...this may very well not be the case. But you repeatedly told me in several emails that you felt you had to email Jimbo since we were violating policy. That is what you stated to me and that is why I feel you misrepresented and lied about my actions.
At the same time, you were having a dispute with Morton Devonshire regarding his userpage and his repeat insertions of content you disputed...he apparently added a comment in article space 7 times that you found to be problematic. Shortfuse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) created a sort of project and soon listed Morton and myself as editors to watch. I subsequently nominated it for Mfd just for that reason, yet you offered him guidance about how to proceed in dispute resolution, and only gently reminded him of our policies regarding civility.[54] Shortfuse went straight to arbcom with his complaint over Morton and there you advised that "there are other steps that need to be taken before ArbCom, and I have advised ShortFuse to take them". I was surprised you didn't block him or at least issue a stern warning as you had Tbeatty earlier...for attacking myself and Morton, even though you were obviously aware he had created a page which was an attack on us [55] and even voted to delete it. However, in comparison to the tone you had with Tbeatty earlier, you are much more gentle in offering advice and support to Shortfuse.--MONGO 08:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Trolls are ignored. Disruptive trolls are blocked. Pick one. Hipocrite - «Talk» 10:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You said that I had made "lies and misrepresentations" about you and "several other editors" to Jimbo. This is a serious accusation to make. I asked you to prove it by showing what these lies and misrepresentations were. You now say, "My impression is that you misrepresented our actions to Jimbo...this may very well not be the case." At the time, I sent you a copy of the email which I sent to Jimbo, so you have the evidence in front of you. It simply states the disagreement over my action, and requests Jimbo to clarify the issue. There is no accusation in the email that you violated policy. Therefore there were no lies and misrepresentations, and I would be grateful for your confirmation that there were none. If you wish to discuss the other matters you raised, I suggest we do so in another venue, such as our talk pages. Tyrenius 02:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll repeat, since you seem to only read what you want..."But you repeatedly told me in several emails that you felt you had to email Jimbo since we were violating policy. That is what you stated to me and that is why I feel you misrepresented and lied about my actions."--MONGO 04:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
If I said something to you, then that is not the same as saying it to Jimbo, and you have accused me of lying and misrepresenting to him, not to you. In fact, I made no accusations to you in emails that you were violating policy. What I said was, "I am concerned about the statement currently on Tbeatty's talk page, and have asked Jimbo about this as below. I hope in the light of his reply that I can count on your support, and preferably your initiative, in removing the offending material, where it occurs. Thanks." You have accused me of lying and misrepresentations to Jimbo. As this did not occur, I would be grateful if you will withdraw your statement. Tyrenius 12:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I was going by what you told me. There really isn't anything more to say on the matter.--MONGO 16:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it's pretty clear that Tyrenius didn't lie. Even what you say Tyrenius told you can't be the lie you think it is: it is a statement about what he felt you were doing, not about what you were doing. He clearly asked Jimbo to make up his own mind based on the easily available facts. Why not do the gentlemanly thing here and acknowledge that there was no misrepresentation? Why not end the conflict, rather than perpetuate it by sticking to your explanation of your original misunderstanding?--Thomas Basboll 14:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

MONGO, you have accused me of backstabbing, lying and misrepresentation. You justify this by saying you were going on what I told you. What I told you was that I asked Jimbo for a clarification of Foundation issues on this matter. That does not in any way justify your comments. I have asked you to withdraw them, but you have not. I refer you to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan/Proposed decision. The section Civility states:

Users are expected to be reasonably courteous to each other; see Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Unwarranted accusations and assumptions of bad faith constitute incivility.

The section MONGO's habitual over-reaction states:

In many instances he has reacted inappropriatly ... freely characterizing opponents in a derogatory manner

I do not not consider that you have taken these findings on board in your conduct, but you have in fact ignored the findings of ArbCom and continued to act contrary to their conclusions about you.
Tyrenius 01:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You can file a request for clarification on the case if you wish. Bauder was in support of some kind of civility parole on me then, so maybe communicate your concerns directly to him even. I have to go on what you told me in emails as the basis for stating that you lied and misrepresented me and others.--MONGO 07:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
You have already stated you are going on what I said in emails, but again you have failed to provide any text from such emails (and feel free to do so) to substantiate what you say. Nor will you retract your comments. You have suggested recourse to ArbCom. I regret that you are not able to resolve the matter at this stage. If you have no evidence to validate your position, then I think this RfC can go no further. Tyrenius 00:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Good idea. Maybe its time you attacked someone else for awhile. Your ongoing harassment here is unbecoming an admin.--MONGO 07:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The conversation above makes it quite clear that you have made the attacks. I am asking you to withdraw them. Asking someone to withdraw an unfounded attack is not harassment. Admins are meant to enforce WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Tyrenius 11:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
No, I think he's pretty much nailed it with very much warranted comments. --Tbeatty 02:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
This sounds like a BLP violation on a talk page that you warned him about. Why not just block him? You've done it before, about the word "lying" no less, and claimed it was a righteous block. --Tbeatty 03:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More close discussion

None of the 3 closing conditions currently applies.[56] Tyrenius 00:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration was opened and rejected, both satisfying #3. Basboll's request and Mongo's comments satisfy #2. --Tbeatty 01:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
MONGO and I do not agree (I can't imagine either of us endorsing this motion to close). Since the request was withdrawn, DR has not proceeded to some other form. That leaves us with 1. But MONGO's addenda clearly showed that discussion has not ended.--Thomas Basboll 06:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Withdrawing a request does not mean it didn't proceed. It proceeded and was stopped right before being rejected, but it did proceed. So what was that request to close that you started on the talk page? --Tbeatty 02:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
There's no need for a lawyer here. The only reason the page is still active is that MONGO has refused simply to accept the consensus in his favour along with my withdrawal from editing, and has instead taken a last opportunity to object to the whole process and attack the motives of the users who have raised concerns about his conduct. While Guy's motion was well-intentioned, it didn't summarize the discussion in a way that both MONGO and I could agree to. Most notably, I don't think the consensus is that I am not a problematic editor, nor that it is a shame that I am withdrawing from Wikipedia. I asked the community to help me decide whether my withdrawal is "the lesser of two evils". Clearly only a minority believe even that; most believe that MONGO's cause is the greater good. For his part, MONGO continues to see even this RFC as an act of harassment. I have onbviously been told that there is no serious will to make room for me here and that MONGO should be allowed to do as he pleases. That's what an RFC is for. If I really, really, really want to be here, I'm going to have to find a way to take it further. My appeal to ArbCom was obviously a mistake: I thought that there was a simple and obvious question of a personal attack and the need for a retraction. I now understand that such simple matters are seen as purely personal and ArbCom doesn't deal with them. The broader issue (which is what this RfC tried to raise) is whether editors like me should be allowed to edit in the same spirit as everyone else, or whether they can continue to expect a hostile reception.--Thomas Basboll 07:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Basboll, this Rfc has not apparently gone the way you may have wished, even though you spammed a few editors who you believed would be sympathetic to your "plight".[57], [58], [59], [60], [61], the first four of which, weren't involved in this dispute between you and me. The arbcom case was withdrawn by you when you saw that there was no one taking it and the last comment by the fifth declining arbitrator was "Decline, as frivolous"...but now you are considering taking this further? Is there a point at which you will find something else to do on Wikipedia and stop beating a dead horse?--MONGO 08:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I have many other things to do but, yes, I'm still considering finding a place at Wikipedia. You and those who support you have shown no desire to help me find such a place. ("Go edit somewhere else," let's agree, is not helpful.) I will not work in a community were your treatment of me, and others like me, is accepted. So "taking it further" simply means working towards overturning the consensus to accept your conduct. You might consider having me banned for harassment or disruption or something like that. That would send a clear message. But as I understeand DR, I'm doing exactly what I'm supposed to. That is, I'm raising issues in the appropriate fora and staying out of the articles where the dispute arose. In any case, if you could accept your community's support more graciously, I don't think my last remark (or this one) would have been necessary.--Thomas Basboll 09:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The best way to get people "on your side" would be to go and edit and stop beating a dead horse. I have accepted the community's support and I do appreciate it. You need to stop displacing issues. Not once have I asked you to not edit 9/11 articles...not once...yet that is indeed what you and a few others have suggested to me.--MONGO 09:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I have asked you either to be polite or (if you can't do that) to stay away. You have been told by the community not to worry too much about being polite. One reason for this RfC, however, was to try to get your (well-deserved) supporters to help me explain to you that "rv lies" and "rv extreme POV pushing" is essentially telling the editor who made the edit to not edit 9/11 articles. That's why we have WP:BITE and WP:CIVIL. Your editing drives people away. You are responsible for that conduct whether or not you actually say "go away" or not, and regardless of whether it is your intention.--Thomas Basboll 09:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
PS. I'm not sure what you mean by "on my side". I am on the side of encyclopedic content. I don't want to belong to a side. I don't want anyone to support me. I want your conduct to change.--Thomas Basboll 09:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm only going to write this once...so read it: This Rfc is petty. I will always refer to libel placed in articles as either that or lies...that is what they are, Mr. Basboll...surely you don't support libel do you? If someone is POV pushing, that is what they are doing, Mr. Basboll. Read WP:CIVIL...this Rfc isn't "civil"...the attempt at arbcom by you wasn't "civil", your efforts to secure an advocate aren't "civil"...the civil thing to do would be to go and edit the articles and stop beating a dead horse, Mr. Basboll. If there is any conduct at this point that needs changing, it's yours. Next time, don't spam potentially sympathetic editors to your cause if they are not involved in the dispute...that is an "uncivil" thing to do. See you on the article talkpages.--MONGO 10:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I will read WP:CIVIL again if you will read WP:CANVAS and justify your repeated assertion that contacted editors who did not mind being contacted constituted "internal spam".--Thomas Basboll 10:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think Aude, or Tbeatty or Morton Devonshire a number of other editors would have minded being told about this Rfc...but you didn't bother to do so...Aude even questioned you about this already.--MONGO 10:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

(back to left) I've suggested talking about this before to you, and I explained my reasoning to Aude. Can we start the discussion there, now that you also mention him? Since you already characterized the RfC as harassment in its draft stage, I had reason to think that the people you mention would feel inconvenienced by solicitations. I had also made certain that Tom and you were informed so that you could inform people as you chose. And I invited you to participate in drafting the RfC so that any common ground we might have could be clearly presented as such, and the dispute located precisely. My concern was with inconveniencing the editors I was contacting, and the community as a whole, not with skewing the consensus. Finally, I invited Aude to help me inform interested parties when the RfC was certified. That turned out not to be necessary.--Thomas Basboll 11:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An example of the problem

MONGO says: "I will always refer to libel placed in articles as either that or lies...that is what they are, Mr. Basboll ... read WP:CIVIL" WP:CIVIL says: "Petty examples that contribute to an uncivil environment [include] ... calling someone a liar, or accusing him/her of slander or libel. Even if true, such remarks tend to aggravate rather than resolve a dispute." Now if MONGO just did that, and did it every once in a while, then this RFC would be petty and frivilous. But MONGO does it consistently, insistently, self-righteously, and, apparently, with the support of the community. Once this uncivil environment has been put in place and justified by this means, more serious examples of incivility are more likely to happen, and they do happen. That's what this RFC is trying to change.--Thomas Basboll 11:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The Motion to Close on the project page justifies some of the main reasons for bringing the RfC. It makes the following points:
  1. MONGO's actions enjoy widespread support
  2. MONGO's language does not enjoy the same widespread support
  3. It is a shame if Thomas feels unable to work with MONGO
  4. Thomas is not one of the more problematic 9/11 editors
  5. MONGO is requested to be "slightly more creative" (which I take to mean more reasoned and polite) in his summaries
  6. The last applies even when he is dealing with problematic editors
Tyrenius 12:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
That's your interpretation as far as I am concerned. What you don't seem to see as plainly evident is that the overwhelming consensus is that I haven't done anything to warrant this petty, vindictive and incivil Rfc. Making a mountain out of a molehill.--MONGO 21:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.