Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MONGO 2

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

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

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 19:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 03:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC).

MONGO (talk · contribs · logs)

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

Statement of the dispute

User:MONGO is consistently incivil to Wikipedians who are sceptical of the official US government (and/or mainstream media) version of the events of 9/11, and who are therefore somewhat hastily identified as "conspiracy theorists". This is unfortunate because they may make very excellent contributions to Wikipedia and are being discouraged from participating by what is often a hostile rhetorical posture. They have better things to do than put up with repeated bullying and attempts to impugn their motives.

It is precisely this aspect of Mongo's behaviour that has recently occasioned me (User:Thomas Basboll) to withdraw from actively contributing to Wikipedia. The purpose of this RfC is to help decide whether that is an acceptable outcome (i.e., the lesser of two evils). I hope this won't become a discussion about how thick my skin is but, rather, a discussion about how thick anyone's skin should reasonably have to be in order to participate in Wikipedia.

An RfC is needed especially because of the broad base of respect that Mongo has in the WP community. This respect is well-deserved and comes as the result of his substantial contributions to article content. While these contributions cannot, of course, justify his incivility, it should be taken into account in handling this dispute. That is, it should be kept in mind that Mongo's behaviour expresses an established interpretation of Wikipedia policy. As a result of his standing in the community, and also because he presents a forceful "no nonsense" persona in discussions, Mongo's approach is winning adherents. He sets a standard that others follow.

It is important to stress that this RfC is not about Mongo's overall qualities as a Wikipedian. It is about what has been called his "excessive zeal", lack of restraint, and, to my mind, poor judgment in dealing with people who are critical of the established view of 9/11.

Desired outcome

That Mongo retract and apologize for his offensive and bullying remarks, resolve to make a special effort to remain civil on 9/11 related articles, and help to raise the standard of discussion about these articles in general. Alternatively, that Mongo stop editing the disputed articles.

That a more welcoming tone be enforced as the standard way of dealing with POV edits (as already stipulated by policy). By withdrawing from editing article content, I imagine I represent a largely silent group of would-be Wikipedians whose factual knowledge would serve as the basis for useful contributions if the level of civility in this area were improved. Indeed, this case should begin the process of overturning what seems to have become a tacit consensus to suspend WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL in the case of suspected 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Other marginalized views share the same fate, of course, so a much larger principle can in fact be tested here.

Description

I started editing Wikipedia on July 19, 2006, and immediately ran into Mongo. I quit on March 3, 2007 because I had had enough of his hostility toward my edits. The final straw for me was this exchange [1] on Mongo's talk page, and its subsequent development/escalation at AN/I [2]. Mongo's view seems to be that his original edit summary was justified, that my objections were themselves uncivil, and that his own "physical" posturing could not be construed as any sort of threat. On his view, it was simply a justified demand that I go away.

In addition to asking Tyrenius for help, which soon led to an AN/I (when Mongo impugned Tyrenius's motives for getting involved), I asked Tom Harrison to informally mediate between us [3]. The results were unsatisfactory and I then stopped editing. I interpret Mongo's view to be that, "in the context of the disagreements we generally have," there should be no presumption of good faith between us. On this view, even a polite (if terse) suggestion to end the discussion for today (i.e., "have a nice day") should be read as an offensive gesture (i.e., "fuck you".)

Mongo also does not make any practical distinction between NPOV violations (at least in the case of so-called 9/11 conspiracy theories) and vandalism, though WP policy is clear on this. This leads him to treat those who make good-faith attempts to get an article to reflect their view of things as he would treat people who are trying to make Wikipedia look bad (or just generally irritate the Wikipedia community). He treats even the latter with unnecessary rudeness, which risks feeding the trolls. (See discussion here [4].)

In assessing this incident, it may be useful to look back at the historical context Mongo refers to. From the beginning (at the top of this archive [5]), Mongo has approached my edits in terms of the POV he believed they implied and in violation of WP:AGF [6]. This led him to forcefully resist edits that would eventually be adopted by the community. Mongo has also rebuffed all objections to his treatment of me. [7][8].

The purpose of this RfC is really to re-assert the general Wikipedia value of civility over particular and predictable local disputes of the moment. Every time popular figures announce their support for the 9/11 Truth Movement, or every time an anniversary brings new background coverage of "9/11 conspiracy theories" in the media, the related Wikipedia articles will become points of fresh contention about (for most of us) familiar issues. The question is whether we want Mongo's trademark hostility to be part of these flare-ups. I would prefer we develop a more civil way of meeting the 9/11 Truth POV here at Wikipedia. We know it is out there; let's deal with it constructively. And let's do so in a manner that is becoming of an intellectual community.

Evidence of disputed behavior

Makes incivil edit summary: [9].
Forcefully rebuffs attempts to resolve conflict:[10].
Bites newbie suspected of 9/11 conspiracy sympathies: [11].
Characterizes conspiracy theories as "nonsense" in edit summary: [12].
Reverts good faith (albeit clearly POV) edit as "lies": [13].
Needlessly uses the pejorative "POV pushing" to justify revert: [14].
Mongo often reverts good-faith 9/11 Truth POV edits as vandalism ("rvv"). In so doing he equates them with this edit [15] and this one [16], which are clearly of a different order. Do note that there is nothing wrong with his editorial judgment in the examples I have selected. The problem is simply that his edit summaries are unhelpful, unwelcoming, and counter to policy. This is example [17] and this one [18] are typical. In some cases he (correctly) reverts substantial attempts to improve WP as vandalism ("rvv") without further explanation: here [19] and here [20], for example. In this case he seems to revert as part of what is clearly a content dispute but calls it simply vandalism:[21]. In a recent example, he explicitly made the charge of vandalism on the involved user's talk page: [22] [23] (falsely informing the user that this sort of edit "is considered vandalism".)

Applicable policies and guidelines

WP:CIVIL
WP:AGF
WP:NPA
WP:NPOV dispute (Mainly for its point about the incivility of the term "POV pushing" [24].)
WP:VANDALISM: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia. For example, adding a personal opinion once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated."

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Thomas Basboll 19:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tyrenius 06:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

bov 20:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SalvNaut 21:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guinnog 23:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Piperdown 11:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mongo is mean. Babalooo 23:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ombudsman 04:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
—Alde Baer 04:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC) Cautiously endorse, with strong emphasis on the fact that this RfC is not in the least about MONGO's great editing capabilities (or about 9/11 or conspiracy theories), but about several failures to AGF, including somewhat inappropriate accusations of pushing a POV and of vandalism, as demonstrated above.[reply]

Response

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

The last thing I want to do is be the one who would drive off contributors either due to what Mr. Basboll refers to as "bullying" or "incivility". Basboll did a pretty decent job updating the Collapse of the World Trade Center article and he deserves credit for that. But throughout his effort there, there seemed to be minor attempts in that article and in the September 11, 2001 attacks article to incorporate conspiracy theories regarding the events. I wouldn't call Mr. Basboll a conspiracy theorist, but he is certainly fascinated by them, at those related to the events of 9/11/2001. No doubt, a large number of people worldwide, especially outside the U.S. believe the U.S. government, or some shadowy enterprise possibly in association with the government, were behind either the entire event, or at least minimally involved. Plainly speaking, there is no proof of this, just as there is no proof of UFO's, or Bigfoot or Nessie. The undue weight clause of the NPOV policy is clear in regards to how unsubstantiated information is to be presented...as seen here. Mr. Basboll needs to understand that public opinion regarding conspiracy theories surrounding the events of 9/11/2001 are just that; opinions. The overwhelming majority of engineers, scientists, researchers and investigators have concurred that the "official explanation" of the events are factual. Even the extremely minor disagreements regarding exactly how buildings collapsed that some engineers dispute are about the precise manner of collapse, not that they were actually blown up or that the U.S. Government was behind it. Main articles such as the Collapse of the Word Trade Center and the September 11, 2001 attacks follow the undue weight principle of the NPOV policy...there is a brief mention of the conspiracy theories and a link to "daughter" articles which provide exhaustive detail...namely, the Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center and 9/11 Conspiracy theories. After making improvements to the Collapse of the World Trade Center article, Mr. Basboll worked extensively on these daughter articles. He then reverted back to inform us of his original goal, namely to try and add more conspiracy theory rhetoric. I do believe that his facination with the conspiracy theories is not an indication that he is a conspiracy theorist. But in keeping with the undue weight clause of NPOV, the polls and opinions of non-experts on these matters is no more noteworthy than a brief mention, if that. What we have to rely on is the facts of the case, and to add unsubstantiated and misleading things to the articles is not in keeping with undue weight. Mr. Basboll has chosen to edit only one very specific grouping of articles, all of which are related the events of 9/11/2001...these articles have been places where a lot of major disagreements have occurred, some of them hostile...he should know that there are passionate feelings about these subjects and people respond to them in various ways. Many who trust the known evidence feel highly insulted when others, armed only with their predisposed belief that the known evidence may be or is incorrect, attempt to insert their predisposed beliefs into these articles...and try and cite questionable authorities who lack the credentials or the facts to back up their claims. That Mr. Basboll doesn't wander out into other areas of Wikipedia and instead sticks to only a select few, and has presented overtones and made attempts to increase the coverage of the conspiracy theories, makes him appear to be a POV pusher. That he edits nowhere else, makes it look from my viewpoint that he wishes to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. I don't know for certain that this is the case. Regardless, I have never once threatened to have Mr. Basboll blocked for his attempts to include more CT in the articles, nor have I ever asked him stop editing. In fact, I told him that the only person keeping him from editing was himself. However, in light of past exchanges between us, I do apologize that my wording came across as intimidating or in any way harassing. I would also caution him about referring to me as a man of a "particular kind of science" at best or similar in future postings.--MONGO 17:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Crockspot 22:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
StuffOfInterest 20:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tbeatty 23:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 02:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mmx1 00:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
rogerd 01:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Musical L inguist 01:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
– Riana ^ऋ 04:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah 13:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Aude (talk) 23:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. Note, though, that few of those obsessed with the 9/11 conspiracy theories are anything like as reasonable as Thomas Basboll. Guy (Help!) 06:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my belated input. I only just learned about this disgraceful RfC.--Mantanmoreland 18:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Phaedriel - 18:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
—Alde Baer 04:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view

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

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Outside view of User:Crockspot

Since we are discouraged from discussing the thickness of the skin of the caller of this RfC, I will remain brief. Civility is important, but I myself have difficulty being civil with editors who act foolishly, push wacky notions, and use every trick they can to push those notions. If MONGO's behavior is preventing legions of conspiracy theorists from making "important contributions" to Wikipedia, then we should give him a medal, a cigar, and our undying thanks.

Users who endorse this summary:

Crockspot 19:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
StuffOfInterest 19:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pablothegreat85 21:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
rogerd 21:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 22:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MortonDevonshire Yo · 22:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Phaedriel - 23:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Musical L inguist 23:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Antandrus (talk) 05:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah 14:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Aude (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RxS 20:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tony Fox (arf!) 22:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel Bryant 04:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Tbeatty 18:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vsmith 02:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weregerbil 12:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Haemo 02:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot "buy him a beer", but such errors are forgivable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mmx1 00:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Buy him a beer! :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I gave up editing on conspiracy articles a long time ago precisely because the ridiculously stupid POV pushers will have your hide in a sling if you stick around there long enough. Someone needs to step in and give them the biggest clue stick in existence to the head. Major, major kudos and all kinds of make up thank yous to MONGO for being brave (stupid?) enough to stand up to these dolts. --Durin 22:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. WP:SPADE appplies. Guy (Help!) 06:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. People adding encyclopaedic content should always be nurtured, but there are those who simply want to add conspiratorial theorising. Almost anything can be the subject of a conspiracy theory if you're prepared to adopt that mindset, but it makes for a nonsense encyclopaedia article: resistance is valuable and should be encouraged. Sam Blacketer 08:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we continue to allow editors who are here soley to misinform (the 9/11 truth squad, which includes both of the instigators of this RFC) edit? Ban everyone who focuses on their VERY IMPORTANT INFORMATION being POV-pushed and these problems go up in smoke. Also, guess how many good editors would return?Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I read this Mr. Crockspots comments. He is very mean too. Babalooo 23:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Geologyguy 02:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does he smoke cigars? Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 13:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mantanmoreland 18:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We need to ensure WP:UNDUE is maintained, despite pressures from nuts, extremists, and fringe groups. Crum375 21:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree get him a medal, cigar and a Margarita.--Dakota 21:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bravo. --Golbez 22:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ding ding ding. we have a winner. Dman727 06:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see your medal, cigar, beer, and Margarita, and raise you a shrubbery. Raymond Arritt 14:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest a Scooby-snack as well. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bishzilla 00:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Hows bout we shitcan this latest "lets lynch MONGO" session and get back to work. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 00:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--RWR8189 02:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks MONGO. · j e r s y k o talk · 03:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conspiracy theories have no place in a serious encyclopedia. Real conspiracies, such as the Iran-Contra 1986 Ronald Reagan affair, always come up to the surface. People who believe in imaginary conspiracies should be treated as Umberto Eco treated the “diabolicals” in Foucault's Pendulum. —Cesar Tort 04:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Chuck Sirloin 19:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Tevildo 19:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view of User:bov

The above post, in my opinion, shows a part of the deeper problem as espoused by people like MONGO -- personal beliefs that anyone who does not support the official version of events on 9/11 is "foolish," "wacky" and hence uses tricks to edit. Such views are getting in the way of what wikipedia is supposed to be about - a npov source for information, rather than personal views suppressing information which is not agreed with by individuals. Even Time Magazine, amidst their critical coverage, has admitted that the movement is not a fringe group. Trying to paint challengers as "wacky" or simply prevent their contributions about this social phenomenon is neither npov nor encyclopedic. Importantly, challengers to the official version editing on wikipedia do not try to delete or block those presenting the official viewpoints of events - we have no agenda to "hide" the arguments used by the Bush Administration. Yet those who feel they need to defend that official version feel they must suppress viewpoints which challenge it or constantly label them with the brand of "conspiracy theorist". This is not neutral, a simple presentation of the evidence but is clearly biased.

Users who endorse this summary:

bov 20:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SalvNaut 21:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tyrenius 21:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC) (except I don't know about Time Magazine, I'm not part of "we" and obviously some people do have agendas)[reply]
Thomas Basboll 12:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Piperdown 11:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ombudsman 19:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mongo is too mean to people. Babalooo 23:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view of User:SalvNaut

I've read Mongo's posts on Wikipedia since early times of my editing here. During my history as a Wikipedia editor I many times observed the following: most editors (possibly all, especially newcomers) do observe each other very carefully and (sub)consciously learn from eachother editorial and disputing habits. Me being no exception here. Today I see myself in the past having been little-tolerant to different POVs, dismissive, even rude. Another perspective is when I was starting to edit 9/11-connected articles, it was simply natural to me that one has to fight his reasons on Wikipedia, fight using tough, zeal words, non-compromised arguments.

I do not blame my faults on others, infinitely stupid of me that would be. Nevertheless, I rarely then realized that one's argument can be presented to others in more civil, even more effective way, when well thought before, when expressed clearly, and when arguments of others were responded to with respect to them (it often shines new light on one's own thoughts).

I like to think that I've learned, at least some of the above, since. I have no doubt that it happened because I many times saw great examples of good behavior from other editors.

For sure Wikipedia is about diversity. Some might think that we need described-above-Mongo-like behavior, too. However, if some day in future there is more than half Mongo-like editors on Wikipedia, then I'm afraid that this disproportion will start to deepen and it will be destructive to Wikipedia. Less newcomers will have their chance to learn, to shape themselves as civil editors and disputants.

That is why I think that this RfC (demands of which are quite modest) should be supported by the community. The community can't forget about its educative role and values it wants to promote.

Users who endorse this summary:

SalvNaut 00:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
bov 05:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tyrenius 21:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC) That is how it should work (I don't know anything about your actual edits).[reply]
Thomas Basboll 12:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lovelight 09:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ombudsman 19:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mongo and others are too mean. Babalooo 23:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view of User:Junglecat

From what I have seen, it seems apparent that there are some users who want Wikipedia to contain what I wouldn’t call knowledge, but false descriptions of events in human history. I know people have said that Wikipedia is not in the truth business. Well guess what? We are not in the lie business either. Attempting to use this respectable encyclopedia to promote deceptions against true knowledge shouldn’t be tolerated. In fact, the removal of POV violations that were in direct conflict with our policies & guidelines is something that should be rewarded. I am in support of anyone who will refuse to allow this project to be used as a platform or soapbox to spread propaganda lies. After all, that is not what this project of building this encyclopedia is all about. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 02:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

rogerd 02:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CWC 05:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
StuffOfInterest 10:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah 14:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Crockspot 16:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Musical L inguist 22:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel Bryant 04:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MortonDevonshire Yo · 19:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vsmith 02:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
– Riana ^ऋ 03:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mmx1 00:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This endorsement (if it was meant to be just that) has been moved to the talk page here.
Junglecat speaketh the truth.--Mantanmoreland 18:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
— MichaelLinnear 04:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bishzilla 00:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Pascal.Tesson 03:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
—Alde Baer 04:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC) Obviously.[reply]
Torturous Devastating Cudgel 00:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view of User:Guinnog

MONGO is a good man and a good editor of Wikipedia. He has allowed his convictions about 9/11 to override his ability to assume good faith. We depend on the contributions of volunteers to improve our encyclopedia and it therefore behoves us to treat new (and established) contributors with courtesy. I certainly still regret the incident a few weeks ago where I removed a vandalism warning MONGO placed (I believed inappropriately) on a new user's talk page, as this was discourteous to MONGO, who was trying in his own way to protect the integrity of the encyclopedia. However, I also believe that MONGO should exercise more care to distinguish real, unambiguous vandalism from the good-faith attempts of others to improve articles. We can undo or refine unhelpful edits without labelling the editors who make them as "vandals" or "POV-pushers". It often becomes a judgement call between assuming good faith and protecting the project from poor edits. I believe we can do both.

We may also wish to consider reviewing how the NPOV policy is enforced in 9/11-related articles to try to prevent situations like this in the future. Do, or should, 9/11 related articles have a special status in the project? If they do, this should be discussed and defined properly. The current system causes problems for bona fide editors wishing to contribute to certain articles, as well as to those who take on the task of watching these articles, as this case makes clear.

It may be partly a cultural thing; as an internationalist Wikipedian, I see no intrinsic philosophical difference between those wishing to add verifiable information on alternative theories on 9/11, and those who edit articles such as Global warming, Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations, RMS Titanic, David Irving or Loch Ness Monster (all of which I watch) in certain directions. So long as they follow policy (and I have seen no evidence that Thomas has not done so), their contributions should be respected and they too should be treated with respect. We must renew our commitment to being able to disagree without losing respect for those we disagree with.

No good-faith editor should be intimidated or browbeaten as Thomas feels he has been. Even outright vandals (which Thomas is not, by any stretch of the imagination) deserve to be treated with courtesy. It should surely be unacceptable to say, as MONGO did, "...when you say "have a nice day" in the context of the disagreements we generally have, that is the slang way of saying, "Fuck you"...surely you know this. Interestingly, no one ever seems to say anything like that when confronted with my physical presence...something about my persona generally makes that a risky choice to make". I do not think he should have been blocked for saying this, but I do not think he should be encouraged to believe this is an acceptable or collegial way to interact with people here either.

Users who endorse this summary:

Guinnog 16:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SchmuckyTheCat 18:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SalvNaut 20:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tyrenius 21:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC) There's no excuse for that kind of response. It demands immediate retraction.~[reply]
Thomas Basboll 12:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 13:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lovelight 17:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
-- Zleitzen^(talk) 02:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC) MONGO is a great contributor, one of the best, and I agree with his mainspace edits here. However, his statement which included "f**k you" and made reference to his physical presence is totally unacceptable. That this hasn't been roundly condemned reflects poorly on various editors elsewhere on this page. If he hasn't already, I recommend that MONGO retract that statement and vow not to stoop to those depths again.[reply]
How you know Mongo is a good man? All I read was mean things from Mr. Mongo. Babalooo 23:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
—Alde Baer 04:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC) Very well put and to the point.[reply]

Outside view of User:Aude

As stated on WP:RFC, an "RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors". This view considers all involved editors, which is important to understanding the situation at hand.

Single purpose account (SPA) users may be looked at with suspicion, often as exhibiting POV pushing and tendentious editing behavior. It is indeed permitted for users to edit only articles on a particular topic, but also reasonable for Wikipedians to exercise added scrutiny of such editors. On 9/11 articles, there are a number of single purpose editors -- all conspiracy theory proponents. A coincidence? Sometimes, a spade is a spade, and some (not naming names) do exhibit tendentious editing behavior. User:Thomas Basboll has also been a 9/11 SPA, and (fairly or not) may be viewed with some suspicion, extra scrutiny, and (fairly or not) limited patience. Basboll would do well to diversify his contributions, to include other topics, should he not want to be treated with such extra scrutiny and suspicion.

If MONGO was solely editing 9/11 topics, he would be viewed with the same suspicion. Instead, MONGO has made numerous excellent contributions to other topics he's interested in. In editing Retreat of glaciers since 1850, he has demonstrated that he puts NPOV and other interests of the Wikipedia project ahead of his own POV. On 9/11 articles, he also puts the interests of Wikipedia (as a respectable encyclopedia) ahead of anything else and adheres to WP:NPOV, WP:RS, NPOV#Undue weight, and other relevant policies.

Users who endorse this summary:

Aude (talk) 09:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
StuffOfInterest 11:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 11:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent point, endorsed by someone who was originally regarded with extra scrutiny herself. Musical L inguist 13:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Crockspot 13:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RxS 14:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC) This is a point that I wanted to make since this was opened. There's a small group of editors who are not here to write an encyclopdia, but to push a POV...they shouldn't be suprised when they get "push back". The more tendentious among them do more damage here then any number of vandals.[reply]
Phaedriel - 16:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC). Excellent point indeed, and as further proof of the truth in Aude's words, I simply invite anyone interested to check at MONGO's own userpage the extensive list of articles created and/or improved by him in a solid wiki-career spanning over two years, of which only a marginal part refers to political issues.[reply]
Tony Fox (arf!) 16:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
rogerd 16:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MortonDevonshire Yo · 23:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pablothegreat85 01:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very good point and well written, Aude. Sarah 04:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel Bryant 04:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
– Riana ^ऋ 17:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tbeatty 18:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vsmith 02:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Haemo 02:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent point. I've worked with MONGO on a number of articles that have become featured articles. He is an effective leader and his dedication to improving Wikipedia is exemplary. Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Peter Grey 16:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC) It should be noted that the encyclopedic content is not an "official US government" account; it is mis-characterized as such to give a false impression of a NPOV issue in an attempt to put folklore on an equal footing with reality.[reply]
Mmx1 00:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. --Durin 22:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Geologyguy 02:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's done a lot of great work on national parks articles as well. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 13:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mantanmoreland 18:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
— MichaelLinnear 04:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MONGO great editor. Bishzilla 00:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Pascal.Tesson 03:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Torturous Devastating Cudgel 00:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Assume good faith, but not to the point of naïveté. Guy (Help!) 11:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view of User:Mangoe

I'm of two minds about this. On the one hand, I've been in the position of having to deal with 9/11 conspiracy material before, and I can understand how it is maddening to have to shoot down the same allegations over and over again. On the other hand, I do not see that the supposed values of someone's other edits or contributions to Wikipedia are important here. Perhaps it would be better to defend the articles like a mother bear defending her cubs, but for better or worse, that's not the model of discourse the project espouses. So I support the call to temper language.

Users who endorse this summary:

Mangoe 18:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guinnog 18:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tyrenius 21:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC) Roll on stable versions.[reply]
Lovelight 14:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view of User:Tbeatty

The issue stems from the 9/11 conspiracy theories. While the movement is interesting and deserves attention, the theories they espouse simply do not warrant inclusion in the accounts of 9/11. They have their own accounts of the events and they have their own articles. The problem is that while they want to challenge the "mainstream version of events" with alternate theories, they want them included in the mainstream articles. This dichotomy is emblematic of the problem of inclusion. The reality is that they are a non-scientific minority opinion and deserve the same treatment as the Flat-Earth Society. They are interesting as an organization. They deserve coverage as an organization/movement. But their opinion on the factual accounts of 9/11 simply don't belong in the mainstream 9/11 articles. We don't have the Flat Earth Society's views in the General Theory of Relativity article. MONGO has consistently fought the disinformation being introduced to the accepted scientific view of the events surrounding 9/11 and for that he should be commended.

Tbeatty 18:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RxS 18:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC) Excellent thumbnail, should be required reading.[reply]
MortonDevonshire Yo · 19:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC) Well put. After all, we don't put Holocaust denier's claims, as Tyrenius suggests we do, in the mainstream Holocaust article in an effort to "balance" the perspective on whether the Nazis killed millions of Jews. Okay, if you want to have articles on David Irving, that's fine, but don't expect Irving's views to get a full airing in the historical-factual account of the Holocaust. Similarly, don't expect us to give the same weight to the outlandish views of 9/11 deniers like Jim Hoffman, Paul Thompson, or Alex Jones similar weight in the historical-factual account of the September 11 attacks. Nobody is suggesting that these fringe views get no coverage -- what we are suggesting is that they take their proper place in our encyclopedia.[reply]
Crockspot 22:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 23:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC) For some outstanding reason, the word "integrity" comes to mind. Well said indeed.[reply]
Vsmith 02:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah 03:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
StuffOfInterest 17:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Musical L inguist 18:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
rogerd 20:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Haemo 02:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like this interpretation of UNDUE. Daniel Bryant 04:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very good points made. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mmx1 00:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well put. --Durin 22:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Aude (talk) 23:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. The problem is mainly that MONGO is one of the few editors prepared to continue resisting this drive to include conspiracy theories in articles where they have no place. Guy (Help!) 15:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. -Will Beback · † · 22:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed.--Mantanmoreland 18:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While presenting 'all knowledge', we need to do so in a balanced fashion, in proportion to the prevalence of the views verifiably published in the mainstream. We must ensure WP:UNDUE is maintained, despite pressures from nuts, extremists, and fringe groups. Crum375 21:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously. — MichaelLinnear 04:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well put. A place for everything, but not everything all over the place. Raymond Arritt 14:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Crum375 puts it well. CWC 15:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Phaedriel - 18:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support MONGO and also Flat Earth Society. Bishzilla 00:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Pascal.Tesson 03:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RWR8189 02:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RCT 21:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view of User:Seabhcan

This is not a dispute between a "conspiracy theorist" and an "anti-conspiracy theorist" as some editors have suggested here. Thomas is not pushing any conspiracy theory.

The issue is Mongo's destructive behaviour. Mongo's policy is to label anyone he disagrees with as a "conspiracy theorist" and describe as "nonsense" or "cruft" any piece of information he is unaware of, or dislikes. This does not amount to 'defending' an official version of events as a classical "anti-conspiracy theorist" should do. This is because Mongo is too ill-informed as to the official version of events to knowledgeably distinguish these from the "conspiracy theories". He has previously admitted to me that he has not read the official US government reports on 9/11. He does not know what is 'true' and what is not, nor does he seem to care. He rejects information sourced even from these reports, if it contradicts his personal view.

What Mongo defends is his own half-understood, half-heard and contradictory version of reality. This version exists only in Mongo's head, and only he is the arbiter of fact on this. Ever editor who objects to Mongo's 'facts' is labeled a 'conspiracy theorist'. Mongo's definition of conspiracy is to contradict Mongo.

... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 14:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC) (I don't spend much time on Wikipedia these days, and may not respond to questions.)[reply]
SalvNaut 17:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC) To some extent we all are like that. However, in that case this is very important to be pointed out. That's why I fully endorse Seabhcan's view.[reply]
Lovelight 17:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NathanDW 15:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Piperdown 23:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Babalooo 23:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view of User:Bishzilla

_ROARR!!

Please type "Well put!" below. Bishzilla 00:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Hell fuzzy yes. – Riana _ऋ 01:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Well put!" How can resist when Bishzilla even say "please"? Raymond Arritt 01:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well put! - I fully endorse this view. - Crockspot 02:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Well put!" below. CWC 03:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes... "Well put!" JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 03:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Well put!" below. --rogerd 03:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well put! indeed. —Alde Baer 04:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. The first comment on this RfC that seems to have united both sides of the dispute. Walton ^{Need some help?} 10:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Well put!" below. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is my own half-understood, half-heard and contradictory version of reality. It is also well put.--Mantanmoreland 21:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you little users. "Incisively expressed" work too, HINT. Support MONGO! Give award! Bishzilla | ROARR!! 04:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
"Well put" and "incisively expressed". Give award to MONGO and Zilla. Musical L inguist 07:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strikingly stated. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A perfect summary of RFC in general and this one in particular. Utgard Loki 11:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But of course. Guy (Help!) 10:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I presume Zilla did it for the lulz? Daniel 08:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. Zilla Outside ROARR to support great wikipedian User:Bigfoot. [Sentimentally.] Bigfoot good friend! Bishzilla 15:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
"Well put!" "Support MONGO! Give award!" lol Sarah 15:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view of Anynobody

I feel that MONGO's character has been well spoken for except for one aspect, he iswas a WP:SYSOP. That means if he really had it in for "conspiracy theorists" he could have been doing more than making poorly worded, but nonetheless true, statements to them.

MONGO you do great work in general, but can I suggest not calling edits of an opposing view vandalism? Even less than believeable posts about particle beams and mini nukes bringing down the towers are still about the subject in general. Also these editors really believe the things they are saying, so calling it vandalism is twice as harsh to them. This is what I'd call vandalism related to the subject of the article it appears on:[29] That's all I can add that hasn't been discussed by other outside editors before.

Outside view by Walton

I can see the point of both sides of the dispute here. On the one hand, fringe conspiracy theories (often provided without sourcing, or with sources that do not meet WP:RS) have no place in a mainstream Wikipedia article, as per WP:NPOV#Undue weight and similar clauses. If the users in question want to add these theories, they need to write about them in an NPOV manner and back their statements up with mainstream, reliable sources. On the other hand, MONGO acted incorrectly in characterising these edits as "vandalism". WP:VAND applies only to clear bad-faith edits. Most of the users involved in this dispute are not acting in bad faith. So I don't propose any reprimand for anyone involved here. MONGO should try to be more civil, and the other users involved should stop adding inappropriate POV material to articles.

Motion to close

Thomas Basboll has moved that we close this discussion. It is evident that MONGO's actions, if not always his language, enjoy widespread support, it is also evident that Thomas feels unable to work with MONGO, which is a shame as opinion also appears to be, in general, that Thomas is not one of the more problematic 9/11 editors. Regardless, there does not appear to be much more to do here, other than to politely request that MONGO apply his mastery of the language to be perhaps slightly more creative in his summaries, even when dealing with users whose conduct does not appear to deserve it.

Motion to close,

Guy (Help!) 11:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll second that. --StuffOfInterest 11:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree. CWC 13:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Sarah 16:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close it. --Tbeatty 01:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close. The project is not advanced by indefinitely maintaining a page where people can complain about Mongo. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. Anynobody 05:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The support for in comparison to the support against MONGO's actions here makes extending this any longer unneeded. Daniel 06:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

Consensus appears to be "nothing to see here, move along please". MONGO should please refrain from being overtly rude to vandals, POV-pushers and trolls, however richly they may deserve it, but as complaints go this one has no legs. Guy (Help!) 21:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.