Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/MONGO

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  Zogby polls are scientific and are representative of the entire country. CB Brooklyn 07:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Cover-up, conspiracy, or just ordinary folks trying to 'hold the line'? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Also to clarify, Morton Devonshire is not an administrator.--MONGO 07:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: I will let your statements above speak for themsleves. CB Brooklyn 14:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to MONGO's post 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  About the Outside view by Aude 

message: 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)
replies: text: What has that got to do with this Rfc? Take that to the appropriate talk pages please.--MONGO 21:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hipocrite and mmx1 causing severe TROUBLE 

message: 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:
# what is cited in this RfC is clearly a content dispute, he cannot say it is not
# 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
# 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
# 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
# it's not clear on what grounds can my edits or the edits of SkeenaR be considered "disruptive" 
# 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.
#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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Because this Rfc is not about Tom Harrison, it is about my blocks.--MONGO 20:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Tom harrison's view 

message: ...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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Thanks, I guess, but... 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: MONGO

message: 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)
thread_title:  question - "(cover up history)" ?