Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Quantumentanglement


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 04:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 04:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC).


 * Quantumentanglement (talk • contribs • logs )

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute
Quantumentanglement is a fairly new user who so far has exhibited deep WP:FRINGE issues by stating that there were no Arabs aboard Flight 77 (a hijacked 9/11 plane). The user seems to be acting in good faith, but is not understanding Wikipedia's core policies.

Desired outcome
Quantumentanglement stops trying to add fringe theories about 9/11, stops asking for an unattainable level of sourcing for others while giving dubious sources himself, and stops cross-posting about the issue. In other words, that Quantumentanglement would simply drop the issue of no Arabs being aboard the 9/11 plane barring the unlikely event he can come up with considerably better proof and sourcing, and prove that a sizable minority holds this point of view (per WP:UNDUE)

Description
See statement above

Evidence of disputed behavior
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)
 * User propagandist site for own point of view. He and the site
 * Claiming his sources are primary, and others' sources are not (a ridiculous statement, in light of the situation)
 * User provides proof as a passenger list from CNN which excludes any Arabs. Of course, no mention that this was a list of victims, with the hijackers purposefully left out.
 * Quantum (as IP) provides another source with exactly the same problem as above.
 * User simply not getting the point. Keeps repeating that he'll listen if documents are provided, yet a glutton of a list is provided right above that.

Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * WP:UNDUE
 * WP:FRINGE
 * WP:RS
 * WP:WORLD
 * WP:CONSENSUS
 * WP:POINT

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
 * The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * #,, MONGO (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Mr Which ??? 22:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Rklawton (talk) 00:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

 * Aye. It's not particularly evil, this, just a darn nuisance. I would suggest that Quantumentanglement find another topic to edit for a bit. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 14:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this comment sums up the issue. Mr.  Z- man  19:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Response by User:Quantumentanglement
''This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.'' ''

1. The article is provided because it has a link to the primary source, which is official and undeniable in its nature. Your or my judgment of that article is just that, a judgment.

2. Claim is inappropriate word with regards to the issue. I'm claiming nothing; I've provided the official documents which state what they state. If the official documents of US government or military are not acceptable sources on Wikipedia, then I've completely failed to understand some of our basic principles. As a matter of fact, if that is the case, I'll stop my contributions instantly.

3. I've repeatedly asked for "citation" which will put those nasties aboard the flight, I'm not here to provide one for the editors involved; I'm here to point to the irrationalities and demand the proper sourcing and referencing. That said, I'm not sure what's the point, since I didn’t insist on that reference in any way.

4. Again, that is the second article that is provided for same reason, it has a link to the primary source that needs to be verified. The main reason those two articles are provided lays in a fact that they carry the documents which contest the content of article. Editors were asked numerous times to provide the list, reference, source which will refute or dispute the primary source. None were provided. Not a single one verifiable and reputable source was provided. If there is a need, I'll state the obvious, there is no way to refute this primary source. I see this is a huge problem for some, but personal views are just that, personal views and they have nothing to do with the improvement of the articles or Wikipedia.

5. As you see above, you've provided nothing and the fact that no one provided anything is why we have this request? IMO, this request is unfounded, meaningless and made with bad faith.

Other users who endorse this summary

 * The edit history supports the statements in Quantumentanglement's response. Nonetheless, this is a community first and an encyclopedia project second so I would encourage Quantumentanglement to read carefully Haemo's objections and try to be mindful of them in the future because if you can not get along with Haemo, then you may as well quit. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 01:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

View by Haemo
''This is a summary written by users somewhat directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an another view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Views" section, except to endorse a view.''

This dispute focuses around Quantumentanglement's views about the 9/11 attacks &mdash; specifically, his belief that there is no evidence putting the named hijackers on board the planes in Question, specifically Flight 77. In order to promote this fringe theory he has repeatedly misinterpreted our guidelines, especially verifiability, in the manner expressed here. In essence, his interpretation, and the source of this argument, boils down to the claim that our guidelines state that "any source which states that there were arabs on board without having a primary source itself is worthless".

This is simply, and unequivocally wrong. Our guidelines do not say that, in any way, shape, or form. The level of sourcing demanded by this request goes far, far beyond anything Wikipedia &mdash; indeed, academia &mdash; requires for sourcing. Because of this misinterpretation, Quantumentanglement has engaged in an extensive campaign requiring a primary source which would "refute" an autopsy report touted by 9/11 conspiracy theorists as "evidence" there were no Arabs on Flight 77. Despite being spurious and speculative original research, since there are no reliable sources claiming this as evidence of the claimed interpretation, the claim is based on a faulty interpretation of our guidelines and holds no weight to begin with.

In trying to correct this misinterpretation, I, and the other editors and administrators who watch over this article, have been subjected to numerous personal attacks including claims of abuse of admin power, calling other users "government shills" who are "receiving money to obstruct editors from improving this article", and accusations of vandalism against editors reverting his POV editing. While this kind of behavior is not atypical for this subject area, and this page in particular, it is by no means acceptable behavior on the part of another editor.

This needs to stop; Quantumentanglement's editing has been classically tendentious and has wasted the time and good will of a large number of editors whom he has been abusive and incivil too. His current behavior is not helping the encyclopedia, and unless he fundamentally changes his approach to editing &mdash; and acknowledges that Wikipedia is neither a battlefield upon which to right wrongs, nor a soapbox to promote his views, he will not be here to build an encyclopedia. I urge him strongly to diversify his areas of experience, understanding our guidelines and policies, and cease trying to promote fringe theories using Wikipedia as a vessel.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Haemo (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Mr Which ???  22:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Especially as he seems to be ignoring my request to leave 9/11-related articles alone. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 22:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Rklawton (talk) 02:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) As someone who's followed the debate without participating, I think this sums it up nicely.  Dchall1 (talk) 14:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

View by Mr Which ???
If User:Quantumentanglement does not cease attempting to force fringe theories on 9/11-related articles, he should be blocked from editing to prevent his disruptive editing.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Mr Which ???  22:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Rklawton (talk) 00:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

View by User:Rklawton
At best, User:Quantumentanglement has misinterpreted a primary source (thereby demonstrating why we don't use primary sources). Specifically, he has interpreted the sentence "attached file contains the names of the 58 victims of AA Flight 77 that were identified here at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology" (emphasis added) to mean that no Arabs were aboard Flight 77. Indeed, he has based his entire argument upon this and the observation that a separately published "victims" list also does not contain Arab names. It is my contention that Quantumentanglement's interpretation falls beyond the bounds provided by WP:AGF and are instead intended to be deliberately disruptive. As a result, I propose an indef block on this account. Rklawton (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Rklawton (talk) 02:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Mr Which ???  04:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC), in lieu of my above proposal.

View by User:Raymond_arritt
I came to this situation as an outsider who has deliberately avoided editing 9/11-related articles. The facts have been accurately described by Haemo and Rklawton so I'll not add further details. My correspondence with User:Quantumentanglement makes me think he is capable of editing constructively, which is not at all to say that he is editing constructively. I've been trying to nudge him in the direction of Wikipedia's community standards but frankly it hasn't been working -- his attitude is that everyone else doesn't understand policy and is acting unfairly, which is classically symptomatic of tendentious editing. He needs to pull back from the brink, fast, or his experience here will be short-lived. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Outside view by User:SandyGeorgia
No matter what the edits, I am appalled that an RfC would be filed on a user who registered an account five days before, who has less than 100 edits now, and who had fewer than that when this request for comment was opened. This is one of the fastest cases of WP:BITE I've ever seen. Even Wikiquette alerts would be premature with such a new user, but would have at least been less bitish than this.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * Sandy Georgia (Talk) 07:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Giles Bennett (Talk, Contribs) 10:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * One of the policies not cited was WP:AGF.--Blue Tie (talk) 20:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ombudsman (talk) 04:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by User:UBeR
Evidence fails to show that the user was being destructive in any fashion. Given the user is a new user to Wikipedia, I find this RfC meritless.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * UBeR (talk) 08:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Outside view from Raul654
This RFC is not necessary. RFCs are for established users. Quantumentaglement is a single purpose fringe-POV-pushing account, and possibly a reincarnation of some previous user. If he misbehaves such that he warrants a block, go ahead and do it.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * Raul654 (talk) 17:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree wholeheartedly with this...disruptive editors get warnings and then if they fail to understand and abide by our policies, they get blocked.--MONGO (talk) 18:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with the sentiment, although I'm not in a position to know if Q is a reincarnation. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Wholeheartedly agree, per also the discussion on Sandy's page. Mr Which ??? 23:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Rklawton (talk) 23:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks to have been a mistake to file RFC. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.