Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/MONGO

Hipocrite
Hipocrite, I strongly disagree with your comments. Specifically your implication that 'all those people' should be treated the same. You provide no evidence whatsoever that Pokipsy76 was blocked for 'adding POV conspiracy theories' (he was not) but then say that the block on him was proper (though administered by the wrong person) since 'all those people' do so. MONGO was actually the one edit warring to keep a POV presentation in the article. The wording, "Some conspiracy theorists disagree", may well be the most popular point of view, but WP:NPOV specifically says that we should not write from the 'most popular' or 'consensus' (as MONGO has put it) POV, but rather a neutral point of view. Pokipsy76's form of, "Some disagree", was clearly neutral. Your rewrite was neutral as well. MONGO's was not. And your argument that it is ok to block Pokipsy76 because other people were POV pushing is just plain wrong. What did >Pokipsy76< do wrong? Not other people. THAT person. --CBD 16:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I apologize for my late response. The following are diffs and stats that demonstrate that user has no value to this encyclopedia and should be blocked for exausting the communities patience:


 * Edits to article not about 9/11, building demolition or conspiracy theories:
 * - revert warred over by user
 * - valuable, I guess.
 * wrong Minor grammer error, but valuable.
 * A bunch of POV warring over Italian electioneering, with some conspiracy theory thrown in.
 * Tennacious editing about 9/11
 * and scores of others are just meaningless additions of words to make it seem like the conspiracy theories are accepted by some reasonable people, which they are not.
 * and others use unnaceptable not-reliable sources.
 * revert warring.
 * So, you tell me why we need this editor here - that he adds value to the encylopedia, on balance. I mean, if we were to ban him from conspiracy theories and 9-11 in general, sure. Do you want to mentor him to teach him to stop pushing minority pov? If you want to volunteer to do so, I believe you could help him - but please don't tell me he's a good and valuable user with a history of helping. He's not. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 13:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I am completely disconcerced of this totally absurd review of my editing history. I have no words. It must also have required a lot of time to do this "research" (given the fact that I never met Hipocrite in the articles I edited before)... Hipocrite, why do you do this?--Pokipsy76 14:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * A simple analysis of just the first 3 links cited (for people who understand that matter) shows how Hipocrite is trying to force a negative POV on me without even knowing what he is talking about.--Pokipsy76 14:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I spent this time because this revert was in such incredible bad faith (not interested in NPOV, just MPOV) that I decided that the cadre of povpushers needed to be dealt with. You filed the RFC, not me. If you think that you can go after MONGO for blocking you and not have your limited history of valuable contributions to mathematics and philosophy compared with your worthless povwarring in 9/11 articles, you are sorely mistaken. He blocked you, I'm justifing the block. It's about you. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 14:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you explain to me why do you think that MONGO can legitimately declare war against the "POV pushers" while I can't do what you call "povwarring" against *his* POV pushing and must be "blocked forever"? Is it just because his "POV ushing" is on the political side you like best? Is it because he is a friend? Please explain where this completely asymmetric way of considering the "POV warring" come from.--Pokipsy76 23:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Please explain also what does this have to do with me.--Pokipsy76 09:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Questions for physicq210
When you say


 * "Debated and controversial information continuously inserted (and deleted) by Pokipsy76 and others demonstrates numerous violations of WP:NPOV due to the nature of such edits, involving lack of reliable and reputable evidence of such claims". 

what "information continuously inserted (and deleted) by Pokipsy76" are you referring to?

And when you say:


 * "These edits and ideas advanced by Pokipsy76 and others, commonly constituted as "conspiracy theories" by many, are not (and should not) to be "given equal weight" according the WP:NPOV#Undue weight and should be discussed here"".

what "ideas advanced by Pokipsy76" are you referring to?

And when you say:


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

you are not referring to me, right? (Or otherwise what were my "inflammatory statements"?) [ --Pokipsy76 19:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe that you know your editing history well enough to know what I am talking about. You need not feign ignorance. --Physicq210 18:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I really don't know what you are talking about Physicq and I invite you to stop assuming bad faith. It's not fair to make accusation and insinuation about people without being able to prove them. I asked politely to have more explanation and I would like to think that you will be able to provide the diffs to support what you have written above. Do you think you are able to do that? Is it too much to ask for having people that make accusation and insinuation to prove them?--Pokipsy76 07:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not assuming bad faith, contrary to your claim. We all know that you, me, and everyone else here are trying their hardest to come to a decent, concise compromise on this controversial article.

Evidence is as follows:

 

and

 

These (and others, many triggered by the now-banned TruthSeeker1234 and related sockpuppets), and many others back up my assertions (or past assertions). I do not believe that my statements are of any use now, now that no one is engaged in a edit war with this article.

However, I stand by my statements. They are not an insult to your dignity, Pokipsy (in fact, they are on the contrary), but as a balanced analysis of the (perceived) wrongdoing of both sides. Please do not consider my comments as a personal insult. They are an analysis of all parties involved (including myself, I guess).

Pokipsy76, take heart in the fact that the senseless editing and reverting has stopped and everyone's tempers have cooled after the banning of TruthSeeker. Consider now the time to end this fingerpointing and accusations to help improve the article using a diplomatic stance. --Physicq210 19:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Thank you for the reply and for being polite.
 * 2) Please note that according to the quotes you gave there is nothing that allows to speak of me as a "conspiracy believer" or as someone who add "unsourced statements" as your words suggested.
 * 3) When you say "These (and others, many triggered by the now-banned TruthSeeker1234 and related sockpuppets), and many others back up my assertions (or past assertions)" you suggest (without any proof) a lot of false things:
 * the total reverts of mine (we counted them) are more ore less the same number of MONGO's and are also the same number of tom harrison's.
 * The fact that truthseeker engaged some of the revert warring is completely irrelevant here
 * I don't see how you can see that the revert warring was triggered by truthseeker or by the "sockpupputs"
 * It's not clear at all who are these "sockpuppets" that triggered the revert warring where i did take part.
 * It's really not fair to suggest false situations (without being able to prove them) to support your prior assertions and to bring thruthseeker and his faults into a discussion about my faults.
 * 4) I can agree on defining my reverts "wrongdoing" or "edit warring" but of course then we have a lot of edit warriors in this situation. If you look in my history you will discover that my first edits in 9/11 articles were always characterized by discussions in the talk page. Unfortunately the other editors (who often were also admins) were more interested in reverting without explanation than in discussing (and so it is now). So I understood that I had to adapt my behavior to that of the people who had the power. If you want this things not to happen you should start preventing admins to engage POV wars.
 * --Pokipsy76 20:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * How many times do I have to tell you that Tom Harrison's reverts are inadmissible. But since you keep bringing it up, if your reverts equaled mine plus Tom's, then YOU are the one edit warring.--MONGO 08:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * My reverts in these "edit wars" equal yours and my reverts equal also tom harrison's (in fact tom harrison did a bit more than me).--Pokipsy76 09:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The point is that various claims that Pokipsy76's block was warranted because he 'edit warred' or 'was disruptive' over a long period of time ring hollow given that MONGO (and Tom) engaged in comparable actions. Individual judgement calls might rate either a 'worse offender' than the other, but not significantly so. Personally, I see nothing in the blocking policy which remotely justifies such a block, but if the bar were lowered to the point that 'disagreeing' of the sort shown by Pokipsy76 equals 'disruption' then just about everyone heavily involved in that page ought to have been blocked... along with hundreds of other Wikipedians on a daily basis. You can always 'justify' something after the fact by saying, 'the person did not behave in a saintly and perfect manner at all times'... but that's an obvious double standard. --CBD 11:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Contrary to your assertions, the claims do NOT ring hollow if you are using MONGO's and Tom Harrison's actions as justification. Pokipsy did attempt to unilaterally insert debated information, without consultation, leading to the blocks. However, if you were to say that the information was debated, was agreed upon and inserted, and then reverted, then you have justification for Pokipsy's case. I'm not saying that the blocks were justified either, though. --Physicq210 22:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * An "attempt to unilaterally insert debated information" is not a blockable offence. Every one of us who edits regularly 'unilaterally inserts debated information' on a daily basis. It's called 'editing' and is actively encouraged. If it weren't then MONGO and Tom still did the exact same thing. That's the point. Anything you say Pokipsy did 'wrong', no matter how low you set the bar for 'wrongdoing' (and 'made edits someone disagreed with' is a pretty darn low bar)... he wasn't alone. Both sides inserted info or phrasing the other did not agree with. Both sides edit warred. Et cetera. There was no justification for that block... and if we retroactively redefine blocking policy to invent one then it applies equally to alot of other people... including the involved admins. The only way you arrive at 'Pokipsy should have been blocked and MONGO should not' is to use the original (and IMO actual) reason stated by MONGO... that the block was issued because a regular user reverted an admin. And that's not going to fly. Ever. --CBD 23:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have stated that I used incorrect summary in the rationale for the block. My perception, and I am entitled to it, is that Pokipsy76 is a POV pusher of anything that will minimize the known facts and evidence that is supported by the scientific community and the mainstream press and help foster a foothold of conspiracy theory cruft in wikipedia article space. His behavior is not to be compared to Truthseekers by any measurement, however. Your constant harping about the wrongful blocks have been noted by me, and I have made adjustments...my guess is that you would like to see me deadminned, which is something that arbcom can decide if you wish to take that route. If you wish to really discuss wrongful blocks, then I direct you to this lengthy discussion...not that I wish to deflect what you see as a gross wrong doing on my part...just that maybe you should be working on making alterations to the blocking policies to ensure that those admins that make errors in judgement will be properly punished as you feel they should.--MONGO 07:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Your perception is that I am a POV pusher. My perception instead is that I just try to keep neutral point of view against people that try to change wording and remove informations to push anti-conspiracist POV. So let's stop accusing people to push POV and let's just debate and respect the policies.--Pokipsy76 09:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "my guess is that you would like to see me deadminned" - Which is not the case. I don't want you to be de-adminned. I want people to acknowledge and respect Wikipedia's existing policies regarding blocks. Not just the 'do not block people you are in a dispute with' but also 'do not block people just because they are in a dispute'... or if the latter 'does' become accepted as (unwritten) practice it ought to be applied to both sides of the dispute. --CBD 09:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As I have said ad nauseam, I do NOT support Pokipsy being blocked by MONGO specifically because of his efforts to improve the article. I am merely talking about Pokipsy's actions that led to the block. If I may take it further, I oppose MONGO's blocking of Pokipsy to stifle a viewpoint. Please do not distort my comments. I sympathize with Pokipsy's concerns. --Physicq210 03:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Physicq please recognize that it's not true that (as you say) "Pokipsy did attempt to unilaterally insert debated information": I have being "revert warring" to prevent people (MONGO's party) to unilaterally add debated wording in the old version of the article  (that was as it was since a long time). The only exception can be this were I was opposing to MONGO's reverting without giving any justification.--Pokipsy76 09:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

In no way is any of this TruthSeeekers fault, no matter how it might be rationalized. This is not about him-at all. And that is regardless of whether or not his involvement was an aggravating factor in this situation. SkeenaR 06:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, it was TruthSeeker's insistence to force through debated information that led all of us into this mess in the first place. --Physicq210 22:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's false: two of the revert warring that have being cited here (one of which lead to the block) were triggered by the MONGO's party trying to add the word conspiracy/conspiracists in the section title and inside the section.--Pokipsy76 09:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I was talking about the big scheme of things, not the insertion of conspiracy/conspiracist. --Physicq210 18:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If you are talking about things related to me I can't see any big scheme: the "revert warring" were I was involved were just those about conspiracy/conspiracist and controlled demolition theory/conspiracy theories, there was nothing else. If you think there is something else I really don't know what you are thinking about and I invite you to be more explicit. I also don't see why do you see a problem in truthseeker insistence to isert information and not in MONGO insistence to delete or change the wording.--Pokipsy76 19:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying that MONGO isn't wrong, contrary to your comments. I regret dragging up TruthSeeker's antics in the first place.


 * By the way, stop thinking that the world is against you. We all believe that you are partly right on your grievances. After looking through the entire talkpage, I see that you have grilled and criticized almost everyone about their outside views, especially those that contained balanced analyses on both sides (i.e., those that criticized you in addition to criticizing MONGO). We all criticized MONGO and hauled him over the coals, yet I don't see him doing the same thing. --Physicq210 21:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Is it that hard to discuss insertion of a term and put it up for a vote, instead of revert warring? This mud-throwing is getting ridiculous. --Physicq210 18:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately there are people (and admins) that dislike debating and prefer reverting.--Pokipsy76 19:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please elaborate on your point. Sorry if I sounded rude on this request. --Physicq210 21:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

My comments
I feel the following information might be relevant to this RfC, since people might assume the 9/11 Truth Movement is small, without reputable people. (I've noticed several comments suggesting this.) Commenters should become familiar with the facts:

According to a national scientific Zogby poll, 45% of Americans want a new 9/11 investigation, including investigating the possibility of government officials being involved in the attacks. 42% of Americans believe the government is covering up 9/11. 43% of Americans are not aware that a third building (WTC 7) completely collapsed on 9/11.

A group of scholars, college professors, and former high level government insiders are seriously questioning the events of 9/11. For instance, this paper has been peer reviewed by two physicists and will be published in a book about 9/11.

Since this is a "special case" (meaning many people not aware of the actual facts), I feel bringing the content of the debated material itself into this page (without initiating a discussion) would be helpful. I admit not being familiar with all of wikipedia's policies and hope that my comments are appropriate.

CB Brooklyn 23:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There has been extensive discussion as to why the poll is not a reliable source. Among the reasons,
 * Zogby only provides the results of questions #23-28, while they also mention that the poll asked "approximately 81 questions" . What happened to the first 22 and last 54 questions?
 * There are also serious flaws with how the questions were worded, as discussed extensively on talk pages - Talk:7_World_Trade_Center and Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories/Archive_9
 * --Aude ( talk contribs ) 23:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Zogby International is a reputable, scientific, polling organization. Certainly their results are reliable. I doubt very much that any editors in these 9/11 pages are experts at poll writing. The questions Zogby asked were balanced and fair. But my mentioning the poll was only for the purpose of letting commenters know about it. When 42% of the country believe the government is covering something up, and the mainstream media doesn't report it, it's obvious there's a coverup. Besides, according to this Washington Post article, government "documents explicitly list the "U.S. Home Audience" as one of the targets of a broader propaganda campaign."

Also, I'd like to mention this article, as it specifically talks about 9/11 and wikipedia. As time goes on, more and more people will come to edit wiki's 9/11 articles with real, factual information. And they'll be counting on administrators to push a NPOV. (Note: I personally do not necessarily agree with everything in the above article.)

CB Brooklyn 23:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Reuters found the LA 9/11 conference this weekend important enough to cover it. CB Brooklyn 00:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Please let's just speak about the policy violations!--Pokipsy76 07:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. But my mention of the above was just to let others know that the information is being taken seriously by many people. Understanding this is extremely important. CB Brooklyn 07:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but just because a majority of Americans believe there was a coverup doesn't mean that there is definitely one. Before Copernicus and Galileo, a majority of people believed that the earth was the center of the universe. Obviously, we know for a fact that this is false. I'm not saying that there is definitely not a coverup, but don't expect to convince people with only a poll. --Physicq210 18:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Tom Harrison's comment
I do the scut work that MONGO is doing all the time. I've always waited to block vehement proponents of very minor views until they egregiously violated the rules, or worked with others to force them to 3RR violations (after due discussion was ignored). I told Mongo to do what I do, nothing more and nothing less, because I think it's important that we follow our own rules&mdash;don't tell me I have no right to ask him to do that! -- SCZenz 06:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think he wasn't absolutely demanding that...basically, if you don't work the 9/11 articles as close as some of us do, there is no way you can fully understand the level of disruption. It ebbs and flows, sometimes nothing much is going on, and other times, it's a war zone. The links above clearly demostrate what I have stated all along...that the articles have been linked to various off wiki sites as a call to arms to go plaster wiki with conspiracy theory cruft. Though many edits get reverted quickly, they are still almost in the realm of vandalism...no, no pictures of penises, but the lack of reliable reference material to support these additions, and the constant attempts to insert it, is really borderline.--MONGO 06:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand that very well; there are occasionally ugly flare-ups in physics articles too, and additions that aren't obviously rubbish but aren't technically vandalism. We usually deal with them by getting help in keeping an eye on such silliness and reverting it; very rarely are blocks used, and these are usually for specific and blatant violations of 3RR and NPA after a rubbish-adding user responds angrily to our success at removing the rubbish.
 * I did my best to review the situation in the articles, and what it looked to me was that the immediate cause of the blocks was edit warring over terms like "conspiracy theorist" vs. "independent researcher," which I have to say I still believe is a content dispute.
 * I'm not saying that you're a bad guy or that your work isn't important, only that you went a little to far to shrug it off and say it was fine. Tom's view, and even more so the comments of some who agreed with him, not only said it was fine but said that those of us who disagreed had no standing to do so.  Well, I have the experience to say so, and I say you should be more careful next time. (And nothing more; that's that as far as I'm concerned.) -- SCZenz 07:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This is similar to my position. Frustration is understandable, but not an excuse. That is why I have urged you (MONGO) to take a break from this topic. However, I also go a bit further than SCZenz in saying that this absolutely was a content dispute by any evaluation, and your own position in it was not neutral point of view. Rather you have argued for using 'most popular point of view'... which is no more in line with policy than 'over-representing minority viewpoints'. I am also troubled by your clearly false claims of 'vandalism', the way you have threatened users for not accepting your POV, et cetera. That various users have said effectively (in the vernacular of my native Iowa), 'all them thar conspiracists are POV pushers so they ought to be indefinitely blocked even if we aint provided no actual evidence of any sort of wrongdoing by thisun', is a sad comment on the state of Wikipedia. --CBD 11:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you still misunderstand. MY stress level is always at zero, regardless of how it may appear. I will continue to defend wikipedia from POV pushers of nonsense as long a sthey intend to try and take over the articles. Yes, that's right, POV pushers of nonsense. Naturally, I'll call you to do all my blocks for me.--MONGO 11:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, ok... in that case, you do an excellent impression of someone who is stressed out. :]
 * By all means, continue to 'defend Wikipedia from POV pushers of nonsense'... just don't block people for reverting you or when you've been arguing with them, and if it wouldn't be too much trouble, maybe not call them that... since it aint exactly 'civil'. Clean hands MONGO. That's the important thing. You have to be able to say, 'I had no personal stake in this or animus against the person'... and have it be believable. Which it isn't when you insult them on a regular basis. --CBD 12:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no better description for their advocacy. They are not independent researchers...that would mean they are trying to actually do some real research. There is no other description to use that is accurate. If they feel insulted by the term, then they are going to have to deal with many many editors that agree with me and find nothing offensive or incivil about it at all. They don't like it becuase they want credibility here and they do not understand that this is not a blog. I recommend to you to not wheel war with me over blocks..all you did was comment on my talk page, not even mentioning that you were going to reduce their block periods. If you feel the term conspiracy theorists is so perjorative, then go to the appropriate pages and argue that it be forbidden.--MONGO 13:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You're just wrong MONGO. If you can't even think of civil terms to refer to the people you are disagreeing with you are lost and need to find a different way. Personal attacks, incivility, completely groundless blocks (and the block you placed for these two edits was completely groundless), blocks on people you are in a dispute with, specious accusations of 'vandalism', et cetera... are not 'the only way'. They aren't even an allowed way. The fact is that you are every bit as guilty of 'personal attacks', 'incivility', and 'POV pushing' as those you are in conflict with... you have been pushing a more popular POV, but that's absolutely not what the NPOV policy calls for. As to 'wheel warring' - given that your blocks were unquestionably improper in the first place I'll take my chances. I only 'took ownership' of them to clear the conflict of interest. I did reduce the duration of one back to the original because I felt that the extension was unwarranted... the user posted only to complain that the block was improper. Which it was. Again, I'll take my chances on that being acceptable. There are better ways to deal with conflict. They are written into our policies and have a long tradition of success. --CBD 18:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That wording was not supported by concensus. You accuse me of blocking based solely on those two edits? I know the editor's history, it has been summarized and your banging a dead drum. Is this a coverup for wheel warring with me? YOU are the one that engaged in that, not me.--MONGO 18:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Coverup? Tell whomever you like. I'm not worried. I certainly can't have objected to your actions to 'cover up' something which I then did several days later.. barring time travel anyway. As to 'I know his history'... yeah, and? You can't block for 'history' either. Since people started questioning your block you have dragged in edits other than those two... from a MONTH before the block. Which are completely irrelevant... especially since those edits weren't 'vandalism' either. --CBD 20:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

They are not irrelevent if the editor has potentially exhausted the communities patience, as at least one editor here is advocating. To demonstrate this factor, previous editing history is always examined. I feel like I am talking to a person about forest fires (for which I have much experience suppressing) and that person hasn't even sat near a campfire. I worked on the 9/11 articles and worked to ensure Collapse of the World Trade Center had a standardized reference format that eliminated embedded links, I want to make the article an FA...but who has time when the conspiracy theorists continue to try and add misinformation that fails to meet policy. It's a lot of work just trying to maintain a neutral article.--MONGO 21:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Cover-up, conspiracy, or just ordinary folks trying to 'hold the line'?
Whether we call it a coverup or not, a look at the discussion page Talk:7_World_Trade_Center shows why Tom Harrison is showing an interest. He, Durin and --Aude have been trying to prevent any non-trivial improvement of the article. They have repeatedly reverted without working towards compromise, without making any proper arguments for their actions, and without regard for Wikipedia policy. I have certainly found their activity frustrating and discourteous.

Whether we call it a coverup or not, it seems clear that there is a substantial group of admins dedicated to 'holding the line' on 9/11 related articles, regardless of policy, common sense or courtesy.

MONGO's mistake (if it is judged to be one) may best be seen in the context of this group repeatedly and consistently doing this and getting away with it over a long period.

I totally accept that MONGO acted in good faith here, although he may have been wrong to enact the block. The wider issue which needs solved is whether (for example) Tom Harrison is entitled to say

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

which (to me) clearly breaches WP:AGF and seems to bear no relation to the civil discussion and compromise I have tried to engage in on my efforts to improve the article. Indeed, his views here seem to be endorsed by eight other users!


 * Tom, thank you for your additional comment on the main RfC page. I'm glad to see you can assume good faith. Labelling everybody you disagree with as a conspiracy theorist, a POV-pusher or an adherent to such-and-such a theory is exactly the sort of thing you, Durin, MONGO and so on quite rightly ridicule in the folks you are debating with here. To fall to this level is to lose the high ground, and without the high ground there is nothing to fight for any more. --Guinnog 14:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

What we have here, it seems to me, is a case where the good guys in the argument have allowed themselves to get into an "end-justifies-the-means" frame of mind, where any attempt to edit certain articles will be met by organised resistance, including if necessary dishonesty, sophistry and edit-warring. This is clearly not in anybody's best interests. MONGO is just another victim of this unhappy circumstance.

What we need is a steer (maybe even from the very top?) on whether these articles have some special significance and should therefore follow different rules from the rest of the project. This should be done in an open and accountable way. If it was decided that they should be protected, for instance, that would be easy to understand.

As long as the present sorry state continues, incidents like this are bound to continue to happen. --Guinnog 07:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Guinnog...I truly do respect your edits and I think you recognize that. I remind you that this Rfc is about my blocks, not Tom Harrison. As far as the poll in which you are mentioning, I have to concur with Tom Harrison and the others. I can't say that it shouldn't have any inclusion, but I find it not entirely nonnotable. For outsiders, what I am discussing is a Zogby Poll which asked questions to a random sample of Americans about some of the issues regrading the events of 9/11. I can't find the link right now, but again, we can resume this elsewhere and concentrate on my blocks here.--MONGO 07:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree on all your points, which is why I put it in talk. Just trying to add some context for the situation, so that others reading can see where this whole situation came from. --Guinnog 14:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Zogby polls are scientific and are representative of the entire country. CB Brooklyn 07:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably at least as much as any poll anyway. We certainly don't have a policy against accepting polls as verifying belief, within all the usual disclaimers about their design etc. --Guinnog 14:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Response to MONGO's post
Because understanding the content of the articles involved is important to understanding the situation, I make references below.

First, I will say that MONGO has been bullying a lot of people for a long time. I read his discussions in the 9/11 talk pages many months ago, and his views are nowhere near NPOV. He personally attacks me and others (directly or indirectly) and then blocks me for insulting him back. Because of that, I do not take anything he has to say seriously.

This edit was based on information here and here. When a 20 yr physics professor (Steven E. Jones) from a major university, who writes a paper that's been peer reviewed by two physicists (a paper that mainstream scientists refuse to officially challenge), says that he has scientific evidence of thermite in WTC steel samples, then he should be taken seriously. However... I was understanding and realized that the actual analysis results has not yet been released, so I self-reverted my own post as is shown here.

AFA here, the comment I left explains it all. Only one or two of those entires were blog/opinion sites. And I removed them. On top of that, I removed many more links just to satisfy others. All of those 9/11 links are 100% relevant to Jones. 99% of people visiting this page will be doing so for Jones' 9/11 related work. Morton devonshire had no right deleting those links. Morton is an administrator, and because of his post here, I do not take anything he has to say seriously, either. I reverted him here, then he removed the links as is shown here. I reverted again, and five days later he removes the links again. (This final removal is the one MONGO refers to.)

AFA here, I reverted my own edit again as is shown here. (This is when I started deleting other links that I have added in the past.)

AFA here and the remaining three links MONGO listed, I was merely trying to reach a consensus.

My post here describes further how frustrating it is when having to deal will namecallers. Here's an example of what I and many others put up with: 

'''The above eight links are a clear example of how these individials (two of whom are administrators) are violating the NPOV. Not to mention being outright rude.'''

One final point: Many of the people involved have been doing nothing but deleting information. I am one of the few who actually adds original content.

CB Brooklyn 07:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Steven Jones has not had his work published by a reliable third party source. It has not appeared in a single repsected trade journal, nor has it been published by his own university. Whether he can show that thermite can sever box columns or not has nothing to do with proving that this happened. Not once have you provided a single piece of evidence that demostrates that controlled demolition happened at the WTC. See..WP:NOR, WP:NOT and WP:RS.--MONGO 07:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Also to clarify, Morton Devonshire is not an administrator.--MONGO 07:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Jones' paper was published on Jones universities website. MONGO's other comments are completely false and a clear sign he should not be in the 9/11 pages. Basically, it boils down to WTC 7. Those who think this collapse was caused by fire will take MONGO's side. All others will not. (NOTE: WTC 7 was NOT hit by an airplane.) CB Brooklyn 07:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That is not BYU's printing company. It is just a website he or others set up to link to 9/11 websites. The websites you continue to link us to are not even close to being in the realm of reliable sources--MONGO 08:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it is not "just a website he or others set up to link to 9/11 websites". (That is just speculation by you not based on any facts.) The fact is it's on BYU's Physics and Astronomy Research site under "Energy and Archaeometry". Which other sites are not "realm of reliable sources" as you call it? CB Brooklyn 08:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That is a sublink...he works in that department...his own univiersity doesn't support his claims, neither do the engineers there. Nothing he has written on the matter has been published by a single neutral third party source...did you read the links I provided? Jones's work is inadmissible here since it violates WP:OR. Reliable sources is a guideline...I didn't make it up...go complain to Jimbo Wales.--MONGO 08:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The article is about Jones. Jones wrote that paper. Jones works at BYU. The paper is on BYU's website. You don't think the paper should be linked here from the site at BYU? There is something seriously wrong with your thinking and you need serious help. There is no evidence showing engineers at BYU do not support Jones. CB Brooklyn 08:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As a tenured professor at the university, he can post what he wishes there...as far as "need serious help" I direct you to WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL...futhermore, the engineers at his own university do not support his claims..--MONGO 08:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * As far as the BYU engineers, it has already been explained here that the Dean of the Engineering College had no ground to claim the opinions of his entire faculty. In addition, they are scientists. In they really disagree then they should provide evidence and challenge Jones. Also, the dean removed those statements from the engineering college's website. You need to look deeper into the issues and not automatically trust websites. You have to look at all the information for yourself. The "need serious help" was not meant as a personal attack. Instead, it was meant to direct your way of thinking. You were incinuating that Jones' paper did not have a right to be on his own wiki page. That is total nonsense.  CB Brooklyn 09:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

No, Jones's paper does not belong in article space as a cited reference as it hasn't been published. It isn't notable and that's not total nonsense, it's policy. It can be mentioned that he wrote his opinions, but not sure how that fits into anything if we can't cite it. Many of those websites you link to are purely ones that are controlled by a few webmasters and they are not science based, I'm sorry, but they are simply not. Don't try to back out of the comment about me being in need of serious help...a personal attack such as that is easily identified for what it is.--MONGO 11:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I will let your statements above speak for themsleves. CB Brooklyn 14:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on MONGO's response
I noted that MONGO's response did involve a lot of accusations not directly connected with the block and the reason given for it, and to make them appear connected he tried to change again the reason (stated before as "for vandalism", "for reverting" and "for POV pushing") to "exausting the patience of community". To do this he tried to put into the case facts that are far in time, connected with other discussions, other voices, other matter... all this just to build up a bad image of myself. So I will reply to all of his assertions:


 * '' reverted edits that I had been working on that had cite template references in the Collapse of the World Trade Center article, , restoring to a version that had embedded links. I had recently redone all the references in the article to make them use the cite template style, for uniformity and to eliminate the embedded links. Not that this is a big concern, as embedded links work fine, but again, this was about maintaining some sort of uniformity. I asked him to not do this and also had asked people to not do this on the article talk page.

1) I just reverted MONGO's revert 2) I also explained the motivation: MONGO didn't provide any justification 3) I didn't consider at all the problem of the embedded links, just I was disappointed by the unmotivated revert to truth seeker (that instead did comment his edits with "clarity, POV") made by MONGO.


 * ''Pokispy76 has also been warned not to refer to other editors changes as vandalism....his repsonse to that was "ROTFL!", so he didn't seem to take that with much seriousness.

It was the beginning and I was not familiar with the meaning of vandalism, and I hadn't a correct word to describe the behavior of the people that I was accusing (and I also find disappointing that threat for misusing the words). What's the problem and what's the relevance with this RfC?


 * ''More recently, Pokipsy76 perfomed the following edits in which there was no concensus for, (,, , , , , , , , , . In these edits, Pokipsy76 altered the terms conspiracy theories to various other wordings, but was later reverted by myself, Tom Harrison, Jersey Devil, and others.

MONGO here is forgetting to specify that all these edits were *reverts*: I was reverting to the original article the edits that didn't have the consensus, were poorly justified and seems to be POV pushing. I was not alone in doing these reverts.


 * ''Aside from User:TruthSeeker1234, who was blocked indefinitely for using a malicious sockpuppet strawman account, no one else seems to have disagreed with this wording. In fact, the only comment I can find to the discussion page for the Collapse of the World Trade Center, in which he mentions anything about the wording conspiracy theories is here, aside from the most recent additions he added, which were mainly about me. So I see no concensus for his changes at all.

User:Raemie, me, User:TruthSeeker1234, User:Friday , User:EyesAllMine have opposed to this wording, the original article didn't have this wording and therefore MONGO was clearly trying to push that wording (that is, by the way, not NPOV) against the consensus and without any discussion.


 * ''He was warned and he got blocked by me...there is a point that if you have no concensus to make a change, and haven't even argued about it all on the discussion page of that article, that reverts, repeatedly changing to a nonconcensus version, is disruption.

Here MONGO could be talking about himself because he was tryng to make changes (not me) and he clearly didn't have the consensus. Moreover it is not clear what does he mean by "he was warned": the only warning I recived was about embedded links, but I've not been accused of restoring embedded links.


 * ''After being blocked, Tom Harrison reviewed the block as did Pschemp, and after the unblock notice was removed by her, Pokipsky76 put it back. she removed it again,,  Pokipsky76 reposted it , so Pschemp ended up protecting his talk page.

I don't see the relevance of these facts: I was not familiar with the mechanism of blocking and unblocking and User:Pschemp's action - in the way it was done (without any kind of comment on my talk page) - appeared to my eyes as some kind of vandalish action, I really needed some time to realize that she was working as an admin (and this disappointed me)... but what is the relevance to the case we are discussing of?


 * ''I see little more than disruptive editing patterns in this editor to the point of exhausting the communties patience.

What about WP:AGF? Isn't all this putting togheter facts to build a bad point of view completely contrary to the spirit of WP:AGF? I have not being collecting facts digging in the history of MONGO, I just ask for a specific violation and would like to speak about this.--Pokipsy76 07:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You may have been "reverting" but this was against the other editors that clearly disagreed with your changes. You claim that your version "controlled demolition" as opposed to "conspiracy theories" is the older one, well, who knows, the article has been around for a long time. The point is, if there was a concensus to have the words "controlled demolition" there instead of "conspiracy theories" then why are you having to change it (revert) after numerous other editors have? I also tried, but failed, to find that you had made any real attempt to discuss this matter on the article talk page, to try and establish concensus. Instead, you revert to your version repeatedly.--MONGO 07:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) To see that "controlled demolition" as opposed to "conspiracy theories" is the older version just look at the history (since November 2005 )
 * 2) I am not saying that the older version had a consensus, I am saying that you were tryng to make it change without the consensus ("if you did have a consensus then why are you having to change it (revert) after numerous other editors have?")
 * 3) Have you done "any real attempt to discuss this matter on the article talk page to try and establish concensus" or "instead you reverted to your version repeatedly"?
 * 4) Do you realize that you keep accusing me of the same identical behaviour that you had?
 * --Pokipsy76 08:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No, you are trying to change it..and have been off and on for some time now. I haven't reverted that information nearly as often as you as there have been many others that disagreed with your edits, period. What part of that do you not understand? If you are doing all these reverts, what else explains it...and I see...almost no attempts by you on the discussion page to get a concensus for your change. The older versions don't even have a section to this stuff. We made the mistake months ago even allowing it in, now that we have, that's not enough, you want more, and then when we give you more, that still won't be enough.--MONGO 08:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) I was trying to *keep*, not to change. You were trying to change so you nedded to do some "attempts on the discussion page to get a concensus for your change", not me.
 * 2) In this RfC all the edits of the case have been listed: you did 2 revert and I did 2 reverts.
 * 3) In doing other reverts I was never alone otherwise I couldn't be successfull due to the 3RR, and I think there is not so much difference between the number of reverts of mine, of yours, of tom Harrison or of TruthSeeker. If you think there is a significative difference and you think this is relevant for something please do the counting and explain how is it relevant.
 * 4) I didn't "want more": I was just trying to avoid changes that seemed to me to be POV pusing. Maybe you are speaking about someone else.
 * --Pokipsy76 09:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Pokipsy76...your first edit to the Collapse of the World Trade Center article is here......I see that a short edit war about the terms to be used was going on for a few edits prior to your revert. Before that, the section doesn't even get a mention...there is in places, no link whatsoever to alternative theories...something I think should be reinstated.--MONGO 07:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * "controlled demolition" is NPOV. "conspiracy theories" is not. CB Brooklyn 08:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

About the Outside view by Aude
This user is trying to suggest the idea that there was a dispute between people that tried to *add* "conspiracy theories" in the article and people who defended the correct information. Maybe it has happened some times ago but this view doesn't describe the present situation: the article has had the small section about the controlled demolition theories since november 2005 and today there are users (as MONGO, Tom Harrison, Morton Devonshire) that repeatedly try to push POV in the section removing names and internal links of the people involved, trying to introduce the word "conspiracy" as much as they can  without any discussion, in a case deleting completely the section  and (last) blocking users that opposed to this edits. This is definitely not the way to work in wikipedia and should not be supported.--Pokipsy76 09:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * In other words, myself and others have opposed your choice of wording? Therefore, you admit there is no concensus for your wording, and you have had to edit war to force your wording into the article.--MONGO 11:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * To make an edit war it is necessay to have two parties both edit warring. I have no problem if you like to see my *and your* behaviour as an edit war.--Pokipsy76 11:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The edit war is between you and numerous other editors...meaning, you are edit warring. They are reverting you...and this is going on at various articles. Believe whatever you want if that makes you feel better, but fencing with you here is becoming a circular argument. It's not a personal thing, your edits have been reverted by many others on a regular basis now, so that will probably continue.--MONGO 13:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It has already been shown that I was not alone in the disputes we are talking about and I don't see where do you see these "numerous other editors" that are warring against me and what would this be relevant for.--Pokipsy76 13:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hipocrite and mmx1 causing severe TROUBLE
as can be seen in the edits here, Hipocrite and mmx1, who are both in middle of a heated debate here, are removing pertinent information from that site. This behavior starting following a self defense verbal attack on mine.

For these people to remove this information while in a debate, they obviously don't understand right from wrong.

Hipocrite just threatened me with the 3rv rule, which obviously does not apply in this situation. In anything, his account should be banned until he learns proper behavior.

CB Brooklyn 16:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyone in a heated debate is definitely not going to have a NPOV. For Hipocrite to have wanted my post above put back here (meaning he thinks he's in the right) is another clue to his inability to know how to edit properly. CB Brooklyn 16:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * What has that got to do with this Rfc? Take that to the appropriate talk pages please.--MONGO 21:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment on Hiding's view
While I am totally in favour of cutting MONGO some slack here, and have never doubted that he acted in good faith, I think WP:IAR needs to be used with great care and moderation, especially by admins. --Guinnog 06:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why do we have so many "official policies" and why everybody keep invoking them so often if there is a single one that allows anybody to ignore all of them!!--Pokipsy76 08:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:IAR exists to balance the fact that sometimes the right thing to do per process isn't the right thing to do for the good of Wikipedia. It's not to be used lightly, as Guinnog says, especially by admins, and I'm not using it to excuse MONGO's actions.  What I'm trying to point out is that sometimes what is best for Wikipedia is not always what process says, and I'm asking people to consider if this is one of them.  Is this an excusable slip by MONGO, or is it symptomatic of something more meaningful?  What are we looking for to come out of this RFC?  MONGO was certainly in error in issuing the block, but if that is the only error, then it is one I feel we can apply WP:IAR to in this singular instance.  If MONGO continued to block people in a dispute, then it would be something to worry about. Hiding Talk 13:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Um... Hiding, when you say, "If MONGO continued to block people in a dispute", how do you get from the three blocks listed in the 'Statement of the dispute' to "If"? :] --CBD 14:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Do we view the whole situation as three incidents or as one? Hiding Talk 14:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'd definitely call it at least two 'incidents' since the later two blocks were made days after the start of discussion about the first block and on different grounds. However, MONGO's insistence that 'there wasn't a content dispute because their content was wrong' (see below) indicates to me the existence of an ongoing fundamental problem. --CBD 18:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's impossible to have a content dispute if most of my reverts are done to eliminate information taken from websites that fail to stand up to our guidleine regarding reliable sources. The term conspiracy theorists is generally only percieved as derogatory to those it is applied to. Our own article that discusses these beliefs is titled 9/11 conspiracy theories.--MONGO 18:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * A dispute about any non-vandalism content is a 'content dispute'... whether one side (or both) honestly believes (or is objectively correct) that they are following 'reliable sources' policy, 'verifiability' policy, 'neutral point of view' policy, or whatever does not matter in the least. It is still a content dispute and is still supposed to be handled through dispute resolution. Not revert warring. Not blocks. Indeed, I don't think I've ever seen a content dispute where both sides didn't think they were following policy... that's what makes it a dispute. --CBD 18:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The definition of vandalism may not cover the issue but if numerous editors have forced Pokipsky76 to continue to revert the term conspiracy theorists to some otrher wording, then the only person that is edit warring is Pokipsky76. There is a point, depending on the circumstance, whereby continued reverts to a perferred version over the edits of numerous other editors becomes disruptive and skims the points that begin to be vandalism. The letter of the law extends as far as it can, there are always grey areas.--MONGO 18:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * MONGO, c'mon... that's just ridiculous. If three people 'on one side' revert a sentence twice each and three people 'on the other side' revert it twice each... then all six people were edit warring. Not just Pokipsy76 or just 'the other side'. Your presentation of the situation is unbalanced to the point of falsity. Pokipsy76 reverted that sentence >twice<. You reverted that sentence twice. If he was edit warring then you were edit warring. And it absolutely was a content dispute. --CBD 19:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Did you say that Pokipsy76 reverted twice? I count 8 times.(,, , , , , , . I'd prefer you not tell me I am being ridiculous.--MONGO 19:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You are citing random reverts related to other disputes. I have just done the count of the reverts related to the dispute on the section title (that was not under discussion in this RfC but is in your citations above): I did 7 reverts, you did 6 and your friend Tom harrison did 8 reverts. See it yourself here. It is not a good strategy to extend the problem to reverts in general: I am pretty sure that the total number of your reverts is much greater than mine. You are definitely not in a position to accuse me of edit warring.--Pokipsy76 20:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Very tedious. In the content dispute for which you blocked him Pokipsy76 reverted twice and you reverted twice. In other incidents from weeks earlier which you now drag in, Pokipsy76 reverted eight times... and you have reverted hundreds of times (as indeed has every user with thousands of edits). Any way you slice it your block of Pokipsy76 would have been improper even if you hadn't been involved in an active content dispute with him. If his actions were blockable then so were yours.... and those of about 99% of active Wikipedians on a daily basis. --CBD 22:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Somewhere between your edit summary "Game playing" and your bolding for empahsis, you lost me. We are talking about reverts of not just the conspiracy theory wording, but other reverts done by Pokipsky76 in which he had previously reverted me when I had added content that was both sourced and verifiable...this is a pattern he has used with not just me, but other editors...why on earth you mention rollbacks and reverts that are not done in the article in question is a mystery to me. Are you unable to demonstrate the difference between POV pushing and referenced changes and to understand when habitual alterations made just for the sake of emphasizing a minority view which violate the undue weight section of NPOV are done with enough repetiveness to border upon exhausting the communities patience?--MONGO 22:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Please provide diffs to prove that "this is a pattern he has used with not just me, but other editors".--Pokipsy76 23:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, >I< was talking about the two reverts which took place immediately before your block. >You< are dragging in reverts of different sections from three weeks earlier. If you want to include those then he reverted eight times... and so did you. Should I place a 48 hour block on you for "exhausting the communities patience" (sic)? Given the edit warring by both there is actually more grounds for that than your block on him... you have been blocked before. He hadn't been. How can someone who had never been blocked before have exhausted the community's patience? Because he reverted twice just before the block and six times three weeks earlier? Just as you did? Nuh-uh, not going to cut it. No matter how you try to spin this it is still groundless. There was no justification for that block. None. Nadda. Zippo. You blocked him for daring to revert you. You actually threatened him with another block for a week if he reverted you even one more time. That's bunk. No justification for it. Ever. You have to learn to accept that because what you did isn't even remotely allowed. Alot of people have carefully averted their eyes from that truth because they like you, but a truth it is nonetheless. The friends who say, 'oh maybe he should not have made it but it was a good block otherwise' are unintentionally doing you a dis-service. It (by which I mean the first of the three) wasn't a good block. It was a horrifically bad block and you absolutely should never do something like that again. --CBD 23:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

CBD, the end result of your quasi-fascist determination to apply policy will ultimately be your undoing. The block was reviewed by two other admins, they both concurred and the latter one, I have never heard of till that time. Claiming that my "fiends" are backing me up, and your complete misunderstanding of the events that span across months and several articles is a massive loss of good faith about other admins and editors on your part. I'm tired of providing the diffs, I already covered it on the obverse side of this page. He was blocked, it was reviewed by two others, the block was not overturned. In other words, according to you...I and two other admins were wrong.--MONGO 23:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh well. Best of luck to you. --CBD 01:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay.--MONGO 14:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Appeal to authority ("The block was reviewed by two other admins") is a typical feature of people that are unable to defend their position.
 * 2) In this specific case the appeal to authority is completely groundless. One of the other two admin cited by MONGO was Tom harrison, also involved in the content disputes and in the revert warring (he actually did more reverts than you and me) and involved (as we can read by his words) in what he perceive as a global war againts the conspiracists: not so much surprise if he support you even if you are wrong. The second admin is User:Pschemp: she decided the block was correct just on the base of the discussion here where there has been no explanation by MONGO of the specific action that would justify the block, she removed the unblock tag without even commenting and when asked for explanation here she wasn't able to discuss the subject ("If you don't agree with [my actions], file a complaint. I am not discussing this anymore") and the best she could do was to say on the block was that "at least three admin supported it" (appeal to authority) forgetting that two of the three were actually the admin whose right to block me I was disputing. Why should it be a surprise if she was wrong too?
 * 3) Last: the agreement on the block of this two admins is definitely not relevant once the case has been exposed in this RfC and we have several admins and users expressing their position on the block, and surely you have more than three people that have expressed against the block. So, using your authority argument, "according to you all these people were wrong"?--Pokipsy76 07:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

This edit I did, only changed the wording of some of the rest of the passage and I left independent researchers in. Nor did I remove independent researchers here, or here. I did add or revert to conspriacy theorists here, here, here. I didn't have to change the wording but three times compared to your 8 becuase others had already changed what you had written. Maybe you need to request a name change for our article that relates to this situation, namely the one named 9/11 conspiracy theories and try and reach concensus there and that would give you some better contol over what happens in the Collapse of the World Trade Center article.--MONGO 20:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * MONGO the 8 reverts you collected on my sides makes no sense here: they are random reverts related to different disputes. If I would collect your reverts from all the disputes where you were involved I think we would get much more than 8. For example here are your edits in the content dispute about the section title "controlled demolition claims Vs conspiracy theories":,,,,,, togheter with your 2 reverts above you have reached 8 reverts. Who was edit warring?--Pokipsy76 20:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'm going to strike my view, CBD is right. There's a problem here.  Whilst I think what you did is excusable, I think it's only excusable if you admit it was wrong.  I agree it's a bit stupid having to get another admin to issue what is a pretty straight forward block, but the reason we are required to do it is to prevent us being judge, jury and executioner.  We guarantee an outside view and allow discussion, consensus and dispute resolution.  Hiding Talk 20:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Then don't go around telling people that it's oklay on occassion to ignore all rules, something I don';t agree with as a "rule" anyway. I'm afraid many here simply do not understand what has been going on in the articles related to 9/11...and has been referred to repeatedly as the "mother of all conspiracy theories". As Tom Harrison has said, essentially, this is not a discussion between two sets of reasonable people"...indeed, there is nothing reasonable about POV pushing nonsense peddlers trying to take over this website with a bunch of unproven allegations that have zero basis in fact. The lot of them should be happy they haven't been blocked for good.--MONGO 20:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's fine to ignore all rules on occasion, and I'll continue to point that out as and when. If you don't agree with it, then don't do ignore rules. If you think you're in the right, then there's no problem asking someone to do the work.  It's not fine to jump down people's throats just because you don't agree with what they say.  If you're getting stressed mate, have you thought of taking a wiki-break? Hiding Talk 20:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not stressed, merely defending myself...would you not do the same? You cite WP:IAR and then throw it away when you think it doesn't apply. If I did ignore all rules, then I would have reverted "independent researchers" everytime I saw it pop up in the article, which I didn't...nor do I issue blocks for no good reasons.--MONGO 21:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As the above writing by MONGO shows (togheter with the tom harrison's view), the problem is that MONGO (and tom harrison as well) is not able to deal with content disputes on 9/11 with discussion and diplomacy, he sees the disputes as a war and behaves like a solider. Several people have tried to use diplomacy with him but he was like a wall. I think this is not the way to work in wikipedia.--Pokipsy76 20:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I demonstrated three times I DIDN'T change the wording of independet researchers when working on that section...can you show me ONE time you didn't change conspiracy theories to some other wording? If you find the term so insulting, then you should strive to change the title of the wiki article that addresses these issues...namely (again) 9/11 conspiracy theories. Lastly, this Rfc is NOT about Tom Harrison.--MONGO 21:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * MONGO, you don't seem to accept that the blocks you issued were wrong because you issued them. Personally, I'm prepared to excuse admins who do things for the right reasons, that's the basis of WP:IAR, if they acknowledge their actions and act civilly.  You seem to feel as if you are being persecuted here, which isn't my general impression.  People are merely trying to point out that yes, you did what you did, and yes it was both right and wrong, and please don't do the wrong part again, and if you accept thta, on my part I feel that's that.  Everything you did was acting for the benefit of Wikipedia, but the blocks you issued were questionable.  Had you sought another admin to issue the blocks, there would be no problem.  If you can't see that, then maybe there is an underlying problem.  You are within your rights to question me, but I believe I have stated why I have changed my view.  We also seem to have fundamentally opposing views of WP:IAR. Hiding Talk 13:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * In trying to not do comparative analogies with other admin actions, instead trying to not misdirect this away from me, I want to remind you that all this was originally posted on the discussion page of an article and I moved it to AN/I...I then requested this Rfc in the hope that other admins and editors would be able to explain to me why the blocks were wrong. In my honest opinion, I haven't been convinced. Yes, I see that many editors here have voiced serious concerns, some of which, not speaking of your objection of course, but some of these objections are coming from those that have an axe to grind. There are some well respected admins and editors who have voiced concerns, such as you, that I have behaved wrongly in essence. I've been looking over the block logs of lots of people and there appears to be a problem. I counted over 25 blocks in the last month by various admins that blocked people that they percieved as being "trolls" or "blocked due to personal insults to me" (meaning they were blocking someone that had insulted them) and I was amazed at the number of long and even indefinite blocks which in a few cases were circumspect. What I am getting at here, is maybe there is a better peer review process then what we have, besides long and time consuming Rfc's and other worthless arguments carried out on the admin noticeboards. Simple policy dictates that we don't block editors that we are in content disputes with. In my eyes, I don't think that it is possible to have a content dispute with someone if they are not adding content that can be reliably referenced. The other thing is, and I'm not saying that Pokipsky76 is guilty of this, but there has been a call to arms by various websites to come to wiki and add informatiion gleemed from unreliable websites...so edits that support conspiracy theory claims, automatically get a raised eyebrow from myself and numerous other editors. My perception is that Pokipsky was routinely reverting me and POV pushing word changes that gave his side of the debate more credence than they deserved, since the preponderance of evidence does not support their claims, and nary a single reputable newpaper of scientific journal endorses their viewpoint. In that light, continued, almost day to day edits to various articles, always trying to slightly tweak wording to make the alternative opinions seem more substantive than they are, begins to become disruptive. Other admins and editors that have worked with me on these pages have all also stated this from time to time. I can say again, that as an admin, my choice of wording for the blocks may have been bad, but since I have never believed, based on what I have tried to write above, that there is or has been a "content dispute" is still my sentiment. Their edits don't fall into the realm of vandalism unless one twists the definition some, and understands what their MO is. I'm sure this won't suffice for you and others that don't have a real feeling for what goes on daily in the 9/11 articles, but it's about as good as I can do.--MONGO 13:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * MONGO, I agree with everything you did. I understand why you gave the blocks, agree with why you gave the blocks, I just think you need to work out if it wouldn't have been better to get someone else to do it.  To me, WP:IAR exists to prevent circumstances like this where it descends into wiki-lawyering over what is a content dispuite. That said, whilst everything you did here was in good faith, it looks wrong, and sometimes I guess justice not only should be done, it should be seen to be done. My biggest question mark is over your tone, but you admit your tone is lacking, so like I say, you made some mistakes, and all I'm asking is that you learn from them. Hiding Talk 15:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * When MONGO says that "[Pokipsy76] continued, almost day to day edits to various articles, always trying to slightly tweak wording to make the alternative opinions seem more substantive than they are, begins to become disruptive" he is saying the false: I was always opposing to the changes form the original articles made by MONGO and tom harrison that since long time are "trying to slightly tweak wording to make the alternative opinions seem less substantive" as anybody can see looking at the histories. MONGO is keeping accusing me of  behaviours that belong just to him.--Pokipsy76 17:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Pokipsy76, don't take Hiding's easy acceptance of MONGO's claims about you personally. An unfortunate paradox of WP:AGF is that assuming 'good faith' of one user often implicitly involves assumption of bad faith towards another. When MONGO repeatedly calls you a "single purpose editor" most people who know him and not you simply assume this to be true... though a look at your edits proves that it clearly is not. Likewise, I haven't seen anything to support his claims that you were 'vandalizing', 'adding conspiracy theory nonsense to articles', 'opposing NPOV', et cetera. All of your edits that I have reviewed seem reasonable - though you should avoid revert warring with MONGO and others. Continue making good edits and eventually enough people will recognize your name from such that these false characterizations will be rejected out of hand. --CBD 18:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, revert warring and wheel warring are bad. The latter is far worse, but some choose to think otherwise because they think more highly of themselves than they should. If you become an admin someday, ensure you don't wheeel war, as it can lead to being desysoped.--MONGO 21:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * MONGO, while I sympathize with your frustration in regards to my criticism, well meant though it is, it should be clear by now that these (rather transparent) attempts to provoke me are not going to be effective. You just aren't skilled enough at being insulting... which is actually a good thing. My actions were not 'wheel warring' under most definitions of the term - particularly as there was no repetition of the same actions and I had attempted to discuss the issues with you prior to acting. If you want to define 'wheel warring' as 'any reversion of an admin action' (which is a definition that does have some merit) then you can accuse me of such... but might be better advised to make some sort of clear presentation as to why you think my specific actions were wrong rather than continuing to follow up to my messages in various places with 'snarky' comments like this. --CBD 22:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You think my comments are snarky, but yours are not. You are lowering yourself now to insulting me, and that makes your argument simply weaker...surely you know that. You not once told me that you were going to overturn my blocks, you merely protested them. Perhaps that is all that is required according to the standard, but my opinion on the matter is notable, whether you like it or not. No not wheel warring in the strictest sense, but no more borderline than my own blocks and that is how I feel about it. Spell it out next time and you won't have to worry about any ambiguities.--MONGO 23:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Did no-one ever consider an RFC, or maybe better, requesting page protection, whilst a compromise position was hammered out on the talk page. If what was objected to was one phrase, then surely it would have been better to get a direct quote from a reliable source using the phrase.  Whilst I understand all of MONGO's actions, I do believe there are better ways of handling these issues. Hiding Talk 06:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Certainly a valid point. I am of the opinion that enough people find the term "conspiracy theorists" or similar to be perjorative that we are best off just having the passage say "some" or "some people". I would be opposed to using the terminology of "independent researchers" as, in my opinion, their research is not based on the factual evidence and is more of an attempt to refute the known evidence. The other argument was in relation to whether the section even deserved any mention at all, since none of the conflicting arguments are supported by the main stream media, scientific journals or other peer reviewed sources from which we can reliably reference the information. Some of the conflict dealt with changing the section heading from conspiracy theories to controlled demolition, and I and others felt that mentioning contolled demolition was a violation of the undue weight clause of NPOV policy. If the section remains at all, the heading will probably continue to be a source of conflict.--MONGO 06:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment to Outside view by Gmaxwell
The Outside view by Gmaxwell doesn't say nothing but a soft rephrasing of the block policy when it says
 * sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute

so I can't figure out the meaning of endorsing it or not endorsing it: isn't it an official policy? Are there people that think that the block policy is junk opposed to people that think it is not? Can someone explain to me what does it mean for an user not to endorse the block policy?--Pokipsy76 08:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * My interpretation is that endorsement of that statement indicates an agreement that said policy is applicable to this situation, and has been violated. — Jun. 28, '06  [14:06] < [ freak]&#124;[ talk] >
 * I don't see how anyone could even try to suggest that such a clear policy doesn't apply to this case!! There is really no room for ambiguity or for alternative interpretations of the words.--Pokipsy76 14:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Tom harrison's view
Tom harrison wrote:


 * This is not a content dispute between two groups of reasonable people. This is a persistent effort across several pages to add fringe views, innuendo, and speculation, with links to videos and books. The consensus is against it, the conspiracy-believers' actions have long since become disruptive, and they have resorted to sockpuppetry, deliberately adding false information, and attacking Mongo in an attempt to use his personnal information to discredit him.

My opinion is that this single phrase is just a sort of propaganda:
 * 1) what is cited in this RfC is clearly a content dispute, he cannot say it is not
 * 2) what is called "a persistent effort across several pages to add fringe views, innuendo, and speculation, with links to videos and books" has nothing to do with the case under discussion where nobody was trying to add anything
 * 3) he says "the consensus is against it" but the consensus must be considered in specific cases not on what he perceives as "a persistent effort to add things" and in the case we are discussing here we can just see that there was no consensus on MONGO and Tom harrison changes, if they had the consensus about *other cases* in their "war against conspiracists" it is completely irrelevant here
 * 4) it's not clear on what grounds can he call me or SkeenaR "conspiracy belivers" and if he is not talking about us I don't see the relevance of what these "believers" have done
 * 5) it's not clear on what grounds can my edits or the edits of SkeenaR be considered "disruptive"
 * 6) who are they who "resorted on sockpuppetry"? We actually know about a single case and Tom is trying to suggest that the conspiracy believers (as a category - assuming it was clear who are the users included) make sockpuppets.
 * 7) who is Tom talking about when he speaks about "adding false information"? Surely Tom is not speaking about me or SkeenaR (otherwise please provide the diffs), so what is the relevance? Tom is speaking about the "conspiracy believers" but who are this "conspiracy believers" who do all this bad things and what is the relevance for my or SkeenaR's case?

--Pokipsy76 16:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. It was this readiness to lump together everybody who wants to change these 9/11-related articles in any way as "conspiracy-believers" that first drew me into this; it simply violates WP:AGF, one of our core values. On tricky issues like this, we have to be especially careful to keep to our core values. --Guinnog 16:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Err... how can Tom Harrisons view be an outside view "by users not directly involved with the dispute"? Tom, you have been involved in the dispute ever since I can remember. Tom has acted together with MONGO on several occasions, gaming in revert wars etc. And as an admin you have never once reminded MONGO of any of the WP politics that you should be familiar of - never once asked MONGO to stop threatening with blocking/or blocking opponents in the disputes. I am sorry, but I still dont get this as I wrote here:  and EyesAllMine 18:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Because this Rfc is not about Tom Harrison, it is about my blocks.--MONGO 20:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * MONGO is correct. This RfC was filed specifically to gather comments on MONGO's actions. While Tom Harrison has made some similar actions they aren't included in the 'statement of the dispute' and thus aren't the subject here. Hence, Tom's view is 'outside' despite his heavy involvement. This RfC was opened because MONGO requested it (contrary to some of the claims of nefarious motives which have been made subsequently)... I generally dislike RfCs and would have preferred to avoid this hostility - ditto for the idea of opening another one on Tom. The idea is to educate and persuade (though somehow that never seems to happen - hence my distaste for them). Which theoretically benefits Tom as well since he is participating here. --CBD 22:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's good to see that you're here to educate Tom and I...makes me feel much better since I know all of us are trying to build a fact based and neutral encyclopedia that, unfortunately, sometimes is a focus of attention for those that would wish to use any means possible to ensure their extreme fringe minority viewpoints, that cannot be reliably referenced, get a disporportionate menton in article space. It's unfortunate that relatively respected editors are subjected to efforts that both undermine their credibility and their commitment to the project's integrity, when frivilous Rfc's are filed just because fringe theories are disallowed beyond the applicable mention accorded to their limited plausibility and factual accuracy.--MONGO 23:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry to have been vague about my references above: the references where adressing MONGOs behaviour, not Tom Harrison, as I am perfectly aware of this Rfcs purpose. Still I want to point out that Tom is not an outsider in this respect. EyesAllMine 11:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess, but...
...as Mongo says, this is not my RfC. Start one on me if you want to discuss my behavior. Tom Harrison Talk 21:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right, but as you said yourself, "Our actions are subject to each other's review, as they should be", and it's true that you've been a supporter of MONGO's in the disputes and you have been supporting him here (as I, in my own way, am trying to do too; he is an excellent user who deserves support). As I said on your talk page, I am delighted that you can move away from a black/white approach to this issue. Please, let's sort this out as amicably as we can, and get on with improving the encyclopedia. --Guinnog 23:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

MONGO
Mongo is a skilled editor who has contributed much to the encyclopedia. However, I have found his behaviour to be unacceptable anytime he disagrees with anything. He incessantly hurls innuendos, insults, threats, ridicules people and their beliefs, is rude and uncouth to the extreme, engages in edit wars, blocks verifiable information from being presented while allowing unsourced information to be presented if he likes it, seemingly participates gleefully in unnessecary flame wars, unjustifiably blocks people, and basically acts disrespectfully on contentious issues, all while using administrative powers to facilitate it. I don't mean to sound harsh. I'm not really sure what else I could put in this RFC that actually has any meaning. This seems like the culmination. He has been involved in almost every article I have participated in, and this is what has been presented to me. I've seen other articles he's edited in, and his behaviour has been similar in some, though not as severe as in the 9/11 related articles. His work on parks related articles and other things of that nature I think are absolutely top notch. He's got a good sense of humor, and personally, I'd be happy to share the same space with him if he toned it down and quit trying to make everything fit his POV at the expense of other peoples dignity. If any body demands proof of anything I just said, I will provide it, though most of this stuff has already been cited above. I don't mean to make this a personal attack, I'm just trying to be honest and get at the root of what I see as the problems. I have acted poorly myself sometimes, and I'm trying to improve on that. Like I said, I would be happy to work with Mongo here if these issues can be resolved. SkeenaR 07:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You mustn't take personal information as you did and attempt to misrepresent that evidence in a deliberate attempt to discredit others. It is as hostile an act as one can do almost in this forum and never has to be tolerated. Others have told you, that this is the case and I told you previously to not do that, but you did it anyway, hence, your block. Next time it happens, I'll ensure someone else does the block, but with precedence, that will probably result in a longer block than last time. Do a through read through of WP:NPA. Thanks.--MONGO 07:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok Mongo, it's fair to not want to have personal information presented about you. I apologize for that aspect of it, although I will qualify that by saying that I didn't think it was anything you wanted to keep confidential as per your previous revelation of said info. I used that information during a completely pertinent discussion. I will NEVER bring that up again, though I reserve the right to not be gagged and include at any time during discussion information such as as the related external links. SkeenaR 08:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's the misrepresentation of that personal information that is key. My intention was no different than if someone working on an article on glaciers admitted that he was a glaciologist. Had I known personal details about me would have been misrepresented, I wouldn't have made this innocent mistake. If it makes you feel any better, I am not a person of importance in the real world. Be well.--MONGO 08:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what your actual position in the real world is, but you are obviously important here. If you respect your position, so will everybody else. SkeenaR 10:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

uncivil behavior
His uncivil behavior continues...

Is has already been explained to him that the term "conspiracy theorist" is uncivil.

He uses this term (again) in the comment section here.

I retaliate here. (It's hard not to relatiate at this point.)

He then reverts breaking wiki's policy by marking it as minor as is seen here.

See my talk page for more nonsense.

It is obvious that this MONGO character is looking to get expelled from wikipedia.

I'm keeping CBD updated on this on his talk page.

CB Brooklyn 07:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Look CB, I didn't like saying those things, but I had to say my piece. We should try to let this cool or we might perpetuate the storm. That's one reason I waited a while to say anything. SkeenaR 07:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * CB, chill. We are here to discuss MONGO's actions, not rage about insults to dignity. We all know how MONGO acted unjustly to block you. Try taking a break from this article, cool down, and come back when you're ready to avoid using accusatory statements (I'm not saying that you're wrong, but do keep a cool head).

question - "(cover up history)" ?
NOTE: this is not a flame--this here just looked, well, odd. The RfC I'm guessing was deleted in error by MONGO and then readded. But the deletion log comment was "(cover up history)"? What does that mean? NOT TROLLING. Just saw it and it popped out. rootology 08:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)