Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/MONGO 2

message: I think you misinterpret my sentiments. I was not talking only about conspiracy theorists, but any editor who pushes or gives undue weight to non-notable fringe or unverified (unverifiable?) stances, and thinks that it is Wikipedia's responsibility to give them a soapbox from which to push these views. Whether the view is "Matt Drudge is gay", or "Chimpy did MIHOP", it's all the same horse hockey to me, and it has no place on Wikipedia. WP is not a soap box, is not an investigative journalism organ, and is not a rumor mill. It is an encyclopedia, which reports verifiable information given by reliable sources. I also do not consider "POV pushing" to be a perjorative comment. It is an accurate description of the behavior of quite a few editors. - Crockspot 21:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mongo has reverted the addition of the claim that the collapse of WTC 7 was "an obvious controlled demolition, ordered by owner Larry Silverstein"   and the addition of the sentence "you momma is a whore"  on the same grounds ("rvv"). They are surely not the same sort of edit.--Thomas Basboll 06:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify: that number includes Tom Harrison and Mongo. I informed a handful of editors that I believed would be immediately interested when I posted the RfC.--Thomas Basboll 06:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you specifically named MONGO in the RFC, and named Tom as "trying to resolve the dispute", you were required to notify them.  Aside from them, you only notified a very selective group of editors who would be sympathetic and didn't bother to notify me (despite my involvement on the pages in question). --Aude (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize for the oversight. I'm glad that you have found your way over here. I did consult the canvassing guideline before sending out those messages, and interpreted them to be more concerned about disturbing people (to whom the messages are sent) than somehow biasing an RfC. Also, it seemed to me that the first order of business was to find someone who might certify the dispute (so the RfC even gets off the ground) before bothering people with its existence. I can see my interpretation of "canvassing" isn't quite the same as yours. Again, sorry about the oversight. If it does last beyond tonight (which it may not), perhaps we can inform relevant editors on both sides together.--Thomas Basboll 06:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had previously asked Thomas to inform me, so you can remove me from the list of the canvassed. Tyrenius 06:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to Bov's view

message: Do you think Mongo deserves a medal for his treatment of me? --Thomas Basboll 06:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are here saying that Mongo does not deserve a reprimand. That's one possible assessment of his behaviour, which, if it is the community's view, tells me what I can expect here, and that's what I'll base my decision on whether to stay or go on. Thanks for your input. But your outside view suggested that Mongo's treatment of me was praiseworthy because my work here is "foolish", "wacky" and "tricky". You also seem to think that it would be a good thing if I were "prevented" from contributing. Is that really your view of my work?--Thomas Basboll 06:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  To clarify, I was speaking in general, not about you specifically, because I do not edit 9/11 articles, and am not involved in the dispute. Just drawing from my own general observations on a certain "style" of editor, ie., POV pushers, whatever their POV. Some editors are more "crusty" than others. It's the way of the internet. I think you should just acknowledge that MONGO is one of the crusty ones, and move on. - Crockspot 14:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MONGO does not seem to have a very thick skin for perceived slights, so it's double standards to ridicule Thomas for not having one. It's known as having feelings and being human. Tyrenius 06:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on the slight. Backstabbing is a big slight.--MONGO 17:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question for Crockspot 

message: Are you suggesting that my edits constitute lying?--Thomas Basboll 06:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what he's objecting to is your attempt to use Wikipedia as a soapbox to promote theories which are not substantiated by any credible source.  Post-Modernism has its limits -- just because we may not all perceive things in the same way does not mean that there is no such thing as the facts, and frankly, there is zero reputable support for the claims you peddle, and here at Wikipedia, it's credible sources that we rely upon, not deconstructionist syllogism.    MortonDevonshire  Yo  ·  06:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you provide an example or two of me peddling an unsupportable claim?--Thomas Basboll 06:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd suggest anyone interested to search the paragraph in the linked talk page and read the relevant short discussion for themselves. It's pretty well explained there. SalvNaut 21:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like SalvNaut says, I explain that what I mean by "synthesis" is simply bringing together multiple sources, as I did (and had been done before me) in the collapse of the WTC article. It is not synthesis that we aren't allowed to do, it is OR. Unoriginal research by synthesis is what an encyclopedia article is. In any case, even if I had misunderstood the OR policy when stating it here, I don't see a comment on a talk page as an example of peddling a claim. Minimally, that would involve an edit to an actual article.--Thomas Basboll 22:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question for JungleCat 

message: After reading Aude's view, I was suprised at the content (and status) of the page on single purpose accounts. First, it is neither a policy nor a guideline but an essay. Second, it is primarily intended to prevent people to go beyond "gentle scrutiny" into straightforward suspicion, which Aude seems to be suggesting I deserve (or may as well expect). Most single purpose accounts, it seems, are perfectly respectable, and being an SPA is not in itself counter to the community's standards. As I said above, in my thoughts on Mongo response, I pretty much got bogged down in my attempts to improve the WTC articles. This was precisely because my edits were unfairly (at least according to the essay Aude cites) treated with suspicion from day one. It also greatly reduced my desire to make more general contributions until I figured out what this project is really all about. That's something I'm learning now.--Thomas Basboll 09:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh my Thomas, do not worry. It's simple: 3 months from now, after you'll have contributed to hundreds of other articles you will bring this RfC again and everything will be different then, your arguments will have different meaning then, of course. You'll find your place here, in this not-at-all authoritarianistic society. <sarcasm off> If I may, I'd recommend you watching this interview with John Dean by Keith Olbermann. SalvNaut 16:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In his sarcasm, SalvNaut has accidentally hit on an important point. It wouldn't hurt to spread your wings a little and branch out. Use the "random article" button if you just can't think of another topic to edit. There is almost always some improvement that can be made to any article. I know of a handful of editors who have thousands of edits to a small handful of articles. When I have the occasional disagreement with them, and I look at their contribution history, I can't help but privately question their motives and neutrality. Editors may not state it, but they do get left with a negative impression. One has to question whether it is either healthy for the editor or in the interests of the Project for an editor to be so obsessed with making specific edits to specific articles, to the exclusion of any other contribution. You seem like a right civil and friendly fellow. I certainly wouldn't want you to be R-U-N-N-O-F-T of Wikipedia. I think you'll find that if you spread yourself around a little, you'll find a lot more joy to appreciate around WP, and other editors will be less likely to come to snap judgements about you. - Crockspot 16:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of your points are fair. They could probably constitute on "A guide to healthy editing". However, personally I would feel uncomfortable with suggesting what to do to a person I know very little of. If, let's say, Stephen Hawking was hiding under a nickname and was editing only Black hole article, and was adding reasonable, sourced, but unpopular statements, should he be seen suspicious? Hmmmm. It is a difficult question, indeed. SalvNaut 17:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair point. I am sure some would see Hawking's edits as suspicious. What "should" happen and what "does" happen are not always in sync, due to simple human nature. Then there are the wishes of Lord Rove that some of us are bound by blood oath to follow... oh crap, did I say that out loud? - Crockspot 18:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Single Purpose Accounts 

message: Despite my attempts to avoid it in my description of this dispute, many of the comments on this RfC are so far about Mongo's overall qualities as an editor and value to the WP project. I have not called these into question. What I have asked the community to comment on are some specific elements of his specific treatment of me. His behaviour has been defended as though it was directed against the most ill-conceived and ill-intentioned edits imaginable. Just keep in mind that this sort of defense of Mongo's actions is not so much advice to me, but a (self-)description of the community. You are telling someone who feels he has been treated badly to expect more of the same, perhaps even something worse. And you are not suggesting that the community will, in those cases, come to his defense ... especially not if I don't start making some, let's say, "real" contributions of broader benefit to the project. It may reflect relatively well on Mongo that I should "count my blessings" (i.e., that Mongo's is not the worst behaviour), but it's not much of a reason to stay around.--Thomas Basboll 10:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you keep trying to promote conspiracy theories in every article you work on, I expect people will respond in about the same way they have, and about the same way they respond to others doing the same thing. As this RfC develops, you will be able to gauge how the community may react in the future. As you say, it may not give you much of a reason to stay around. Tom Harrison Talk 13:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Focus of this RfC 

message: Morton Devonshire mischaracterises my argument: "we don't put Holocaust denier's claims, as Tyrenius suggests we do, in the mainstream Holocaust article in an effort to "balance" the perspective" and then 'defeats' it by refuting his own distorted interpretation of it. I didn't suggest putting any Holocaust denier's claims anywhere. I didn't even mention the subject. I assume then that this is a hypothetical application of the point he thinks I am making, but he has not understood the point in that case. I was specifically addressing the point made by "Outside view of User:Junglecat":
:From what I have seen, it seems apparent that there are some users who want Wikipedia to contain what I wouldn’t call knowledge, but false descriptions of events in human history. I know people have said that Wikipedia is not in the truth business. Well guess what? We are not in the lie business either. Attempting to use this respectable encyclopedia to promote deceptions against true knowledge shouldn’t be tolerated. 
Junglecat thinks that unless something can be proved to be true, then it shouldn't be included at all in wikipedia. It was this extreme view that I was showing as false. In fact Morton agrees with me:
:Nobody is suggesting that these fringe views get no coverage -- what we are suggesting is that they take their proper place in our encyclopedia.
So, incredibly, Morton leaves a post which appears to show me in the wrong — by condemning something I didn't say at all, whilst simultaneously endorsing the thing I am saying, but making it appear that I hadn't said it. Is it any wonder, subject to such perverse mentality, that people simply can't stand dealing with such things any more?
Tyrenius 08:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess is that he used "Holocaust deniers" in reference to your thoughts regarding coverage of both factual and fictional infomation and letting the reader decide...though I won't speculate on his full correlation. For the record, there is no coverup of conspiracy theories on the events of 9/11...there are several articles that examine this phenomenon in exhaustive detail, one of which has even been peer reviewed and found to be adequate...I don't know if it would become a featured article as it may not be stable enough, but anyone could surely nominate it for featured article review and see what happens.--MONGO 09:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you also state, for the record, which article you are talking about. And what your position on its inclusion in Wikipedia is? Also, do you think the source of the instability that might bar it from feature status is made up of people, like me, who you characterize as extreme POV pushers of 9/11 conspiracy theories?--Thomas Basboll 20:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center has been peer reviewed. None of the other articles you have worked on have. If you or anyone wants to nominate it for Featured Article, you can. Don't put words in my mouth.--MONGO 06:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't gotten to the point of seeking FA status for the articles I work on, in part because I think you are right about the instability of many of the articles I've worked on. Right now, for example, some dubious sources are slipping back in seemingly in order to include the most speculative versions of the hypothesis. The strength of the article, which was built by limiting ourselves to statements of the theory made in non-self-published works, is therefore being eroded a bit. References to places like whatreallyhappened.com are returning. My sense at this point, however, is that these references are not being suggested by proponents of the hypothesis. At the end of the day, I think a commitment to civility would also improve the stability of the article.--Thomas Basboll 06:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I posted on the talk page there that I agreed with Durin that the article actually should be deleted, but I wasn't interested in nominating it, wouldn't participate in any discussion on the deletion or interfere with the efforts to get it to FA. However, I also stated essentially that since the article is based mostly on what didn't happen, cherry-picking sources to make the implausibility of controlled demolition more palatable makes the article a POV fork of Collapse of the World Trade Center. I have pretty much stayed off that article and the related CT articles about 9/11 to avoid endless arguments. Unfortunately, some people who want more CT in the main articles force endless arguments there as well and I think that I have done an excellent job dealing with a wide range of arguments presented there, some absolutely ridiculous and others less so. I think you misinterpret strong disagreements and my bluntness, for incivility. We might be dealing with a culture clash...where I come from, being to the point and being direct and sometimes blunt are the norm. Looking at WP:CIVIL and the examples you have provided as the basis of this Rfc, I really don't know what you're trying to accomplish at this point...none of my "infractions" are egregious enough to waste yours and mine time with this Rfc. Both of us could be working on articles. But for the record, I do see you as a single purpose editor...bluntly speaking. Certianly, as I have stated, you did do a good job on Collapse of the WTC and I have stated I appreciate that...I also apologized for what you claim are my supposed incivilities...what more is supposed to happen? I beleive that you see me as one of the prime obstacles in opposition to attempts to expand conspiracy theories in the 9/11 articles...if that is the case, then this Rfc is an abuse of process.--MONGO 07:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what to say. You didn't apologize until I began to "waste" our time with this RfC. More importantly, where I come from the sentence, "I apologize for what you claim are my supposed incivilities" isn't really an apology, especially when it is made (and has only ever been made) in the context of a dispute resolution that is then immediately characterized as "an abuse of process". BTW, I have gone to great lengths (this RfC is part of them), to learn the norms of Wikipedia rather than simply follow the norms that apply in my RL corner of the world. In light of policy, I have been confused by your behaviour, and the broad base of support you have for it, ever since I arrived. Wikipedia guidelines simply don't describe the way you work on 9/11 articles, i.e., you don't seem to follow those norms in that area. What I would like to see happen is a closer match between your conduct and policy.--Thomas Basboll 07:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you believe that telling me that I was a man of a particular kind of science was civil? Do you feel that posting subheadings on my usertalk stating Your inflammatory edit summaries...etc....was civil? Do you believe that you are somehow completely innocent, or that I provoked you to be incivil? Again, I see this Rfc as one way to try and eliminate your opposition from keeping you from doing what you want. It's a big enterprise, Mr. Basboll...there are lots of articles to work on...why the facination with just these few? I could see why a geologist would be interested in articles about geology, but precisely what expert talents do you bring to the articles related to the events of 9/11?--MONGO 08:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not an expert-based encyclopedia and a comparison of credentials is out of place (see ). This largely explains the "particular kind of science" remark. For some reason, you thought it was relevant to mention that you are "a man of science" (and allude to your cv). My response was to point out that that could mean many things, some of which don't very much impress me. For example, practitioners of popular "skepticism" (as practiced by, e.g., James Randi) sometimes describe themselves as "men of science". They have a lot of fans, but I'm not one of them. Not because they are wrong (they are very often right), but because they use a particular kind of rhetoric (hence a particular kind of science), that does little to right the wrongs they indentify. I'm not sure it is incivil to say, as part of a dispute, that I was not impressed to hear that you are "a man of science". I was saying "spare me your resume". And I don't generally claim to be innocent (do read my responses to your concerns about Beguiled; I don't assume that only the innocent can complain), and I do believe that your actions have caused me, perhaps foolishly, to sharpen my tone. This RfC is an attempt to soften it.--Thomas Basboll 08:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You missed my point. User:Peltoms is an expert glaciologist and only works on articles related to that field...I was curious since you only work on a few 9/11 related articles. I figured you must be an expert on the matter to have so much interest just in these very specific articles. Am I just imagining that you want to add more conspiracy theories to them? My comment that I am a man of science was merely to indicate to you that I believe in science, not science fiction....I failed to understand, (aside from what seems to be the obvious), why you would insinuate that I am perhaps a dullard by characterizing me as a "particular" man of science. Maybe more of the culture clash in our wording.--MONGO 09:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Outside view of User:Tbeatty - Morton Devonshire's comment

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

message: Mongo's treatment of me and others, as well as the behaviour he inspires in others (who award him, not just metaphorical medals and cigars, but also very real barnstars for his efforts [more recently also beers, cheers!]), has been defended in a number of ways. Some have argued that there is simply nothing to explain, i.e., that he has not been especially incivil to me. A more plausible defense, which depends on what we mean by "especially" incivil, is that, since I have chosen to edit a particular set of articles in a particular way, I should have expected, and can continue to expect, to have my motives impugned and my edits bluntly rebuffed.
That is, the argument goes, if I want to edit in a civil environment, I will have to find other articles to work on or other contributions to make. All this turns on the assumption that there might be degrees of incivility and, more importantly, acceptable levels of it. And there seems to be a suggestion that a number of factors, including (as Mongo has argued) my formal expertise, might be brought into play (and therefore potentially drawn into question) to assess the situation. This, as a number of editors have pointed out, quite reasonably focuses attention on my role in causing this dispute. 
While I don't think the claim that I actually am a tendentious editor is worth pursuing, some have suggested that Mongo, and others, can reasonably suspect that I am one, or would become one if somebody (like Mongo) didn't keep me firmly in line. (Mongo, for example, has suggested that it was at his insitence that I finally began to respect RS.) Part of this dispute resolution process is going to have to involve getting a clear indication from the community about whether my editing really is characteristic enough of tendentious editing to make Mongo's suspicions reasonable. I'm going to look into ways of doing that, perhaps through the editor review process. But I don't want us to forget a more basic question: even if I were the worst kind of POV-pusher, is Mongo's way of keeping me in line, as I just put it, the right one?
In any case, I thank those who have contributed to the RfC so far. Many things to think about.--Thomas Basboll 09:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Sense of this RFC so far (by Basboll) 

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

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

message: I had previously stated in a discussion prior to your comment as to whether you felt the U.S. Government was culpapble...this wasn't incivil..I was curious if you thought so, mainly because you were trying to argue for more inclusion of CT, or questioning the known evidence...in my mind, if someone does this, they usually believe in some U.S. government conspiracy...so my question to you wasn't incivil at all...I have no idea why it would be construed as such. Had you responded that you were sure about a government conspiracy or that you believed in some other shadowy enterprise rather then the known record, then I would have known where you were coming from. You act as if I have tried to supress coverage of CT throughout wikipedia...this is not the case. I even offered to help you get the Controlled demolition hypothesis article to featured...I supported most of your work on the Collapse of the WTC article...personally, for the life of me, I can't figure out what your beef is.--MONGO 20:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mongo, here is the third thing you ever said to me on my second day of editing the article. I will gladly break it down for, if you want. But please look at what I had been saying until then. The two things you had said previously. And then your "curious" question. It is because you can't see it yourself that this RfC is necessary.--Thomas Basboll 21:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

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

text: PS You have a tendency to grant things and then forget it. So, for example, you have already said that, yes, it was a rhetorical question, but you now go back to the (untenable) idea that it was a "simple question".--Thomas Basboll 07:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A rhetorical question

message: Please read this arbitration case.  This was a single purpose editor who tried to get his particular POV added to certain articles.  He was a "conspiracy theory" advocate but for a different event (not 9/11).  This is my concern with a number of editors that contribute to the 9/11 articles.  --Tbeatty 05:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The RPJ case seems to be very different from Mongo's. Mongo is not a single purpose editor, but a highly respected member of the Wikipedia community, with a long history of solid contributions to Wikipedia. I don't think our reasons to ban RPJ are reasons to accept the behavior of Mongo. The issues are quite different. That said, it seems RPJ was banned because of his policy violations, not because of his POV as such. That is, the case didn't seem to turn on "conspiracy theories" at all, but on his approach to editing. That might also be a lesson to us here. It isn't really a question of what Mongo and I believe brought the WTC down; it's a question of how we discuss the content of the articles related to that event.--Thomas Basboll 06:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the RPJ case has anything related to MONGO.  MONGO has a long history of solid contributions on multiple topics.  Others do not.  Others have single topic edits with a bent to include conspiracy theories that are not supported by reliable sources.  I think the RPJ case serves as fair warning.  --Tbeatty 06:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To whom?--Thomas Basboll 06:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Single topic editors with a bent to include conspiracy theories.  --Tbeatty 06:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So it has no bearing on this RfC?--Thomas Basboll 06:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: PS It doesn't look the SPA aspect was very important to the RPJ case.--Thomas Basboll 06:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but SPA's doing conspiracy theory POV pushing does. It's in the editing history.--MONGO 06:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whose editing history?--Thomas Basboll 06:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Clarification: if you mean RPJ's history then we go back to what I said above, namely, that neither the SPA issue nor the CT issue seem to have been decisive. He could have done what he did after editing broadly and on topic unrelated to CTs and still been banned.--Thomas Basboll 06:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Are you accusing someone here of being in this category? ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 13:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) But not here. On the question of RPJ's single purpose account, ArbCom found that RPJ's edits were disruptive and did not constitute a useful contribution to WP; it did not find specifically that it was a problem that he had an SPA (nor did it set out to determine whether that was a fact). It also did not base its decision on any principle about SPAs. That is, an editor may try to add material, even conspiracy theories, to a narrow set of related articles in a non-disruptive way. RPJ seems not to have done that. But that doesn't mean that a CTSPA (if you will) is necessearily a disruption.--Thomas Basboll 13:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have to accuse anyone. Contribution histories are available to everyone. You can easily find the single-topic editors that are pushing conpsiracy nonsense.  It's disruptive by definition. --Tbeatty 13:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No it is not. It is precisely not disruptive by definition, as essays like WP:TEND and WP:SPA make clear.--Thomas Basboll 13:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: This] edit was cited specifically as being particularly agressive and egregious by ArbCom. I think I can find an almost word for word equivalent in some of the 9/11 discussion pages about including CT in the main article. --Tbeatty 13:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's see.   This.  And This can be perfectly innocent, or it can represent a user pushing an agenda.  I think CTSPA's fit in there somewhere.  --Tbeatty 13:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think you're misunderstanding what I saying. I'm not saying RPJ was not disruptive. I'm saying that neither his POV nor his SPA was the problem. Certainly not "by definition" (that's the force of the words "this can be perfectly innocent"). It was edit-warring, etc. that got him trouble.--Thomas Basboll 13:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't understand how any of this applies to Mongo. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 14:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good.  Because it doesn't.  I'm glad we agree.  --Tbeatty 15:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why did you bring it up? ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 16:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it has everything to do with this RFC.  --Tbeatty 16:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the connection. Please explain. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 16:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't see the connection between CTSPA's and RPJ?  --Tbeatty 16:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the connection between that case and this. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 18:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You guys don't play dumb very well. Just because a particular editor's name appears at the top of an RfC does not limit the focus of that RfC to that particular editor. If this case makes it to arbitration (which isn't very likely), this concept will become painfully clear. Seabhcan, I know that you are fully aware of this fact, but Thomas may not be. If you're really trying to help Thomas, you'll discourage him from leading the parade right into the lion's mouth. - Crockspot 20:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still no-one will clarify what these hints are. Tbeatty started discussing SPA's out of the blue. Who is a SPA? Not Mongo surely. So who are you accusing? ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 22:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If an editors goal is to bring "The Truth(tm)" to Wikipedia in the form of conspiracy theories and that is their sole contribution, don't be surprised if editors react in a less than accepting fashion and don't be surprised if the community and/or ArbCom decide Wikipedia is better off without those contributions.  User:Lovelight is certainly being taught that lesson and his methods are eerily similiar to RPJ.  If an editor believes Lovelight is a "victim" they need to do some more self-assessments.  Some editors believe that MONGO is somehow at fault for confronting these CT SPA's (a phrase Thomas Basboll coined), but in fact he is only the tip of the spear.  IF an editor believes that MONGO has been unfair, I suspect a review of their edits explains why.  This RFC has nothing to do with MONGO except as an implmementer of the will of the community.  In this case, a self examination might be more appropriate than bringing RfC's on other editors.   --Tbeatty 02:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: That explanation supports my contention below that Mongo has been given an exemption from CIVIL for people deemed by the community to be conspiracy theorists. If this is true, we need to recognise this fact and move on. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 14:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong again.  --Tbeatty 15:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: How so? I'm still in the dark on your opinion. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 15:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're wrong in saying that my explanation supports anything you said.  I've tried to shed as much light as I can.  Cosnidering that my outside view is on the RFC page and is endorsed by a number of people, the dimness you are experiencing seems to be rather unique.   --Tbeatty 04:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RPJ 

message: Even if we suppose that all Mongo is doing is calling a spade a spade, i.e., that the arguments in this essay apply to this discussion, do note the following caution (which fills more than half the essay):
: ... although it is generally not uncivil or a personal attack to do so, calling a spade a spade may not be the most productive course.
:First, it is possible that you might be mistaken. For example, many editors make accusations of vandalism regarding good faith edits. While those edits may be objectionable for a host of other reasons, incorrect accusations may harm your long term prospects of working constructively with the editor with whom you disagree.
:Second, even in cases where you are correct about another user, accusations of POV pushing, tendentious editing, bad editing, and the like, while perfectly correct, may nevertheless lead to sufficient antagonism that constructive collaboration becomes impossible. While there is no policy against calling a spade a spade in most cases, consider whether civility, even if unearned, may help meet your goals.
This is basically an argument for calling a spade a spade only with caution, even when you are right. (Which I won't of course grant is the case here.)--Thomas Basboll 08:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:SPADE]] 

message: This RfC is going nowhere. Mongo enjoys insulting other editors and the community backs him up. Mongo has been effectively given a de facto exemption on civility policy. Perhaps the solution is to simply admit that and move on. 
Mongo, I suggest that the next time you bite a newby, you then inform them of this special exemption status. It will save the trouble of RfCs in the future. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 10:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aren't you currently under a NPA parole?--MONGO 10:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would that matter? If you believe Seabhcan's criticisms of you on this RfC cross the line (i.e., are insulting or disparaging even in the context of an RfC) then report him for the parole violation, or contact him on his talk page. Don't bring it up here; it looks like an attempt to discredit him. You've had space to say some pretty disparaging things about me here and I haven't seen that as personal attack for what I would think are obvious reasons. The same clearly applies to Seabhcan's remarks.--Thomas Basboll 11:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: That is a fairly unproductive reply, Mongo. But I'm serious about my above suggestion. The wikipedia community has clearly granted you a personal exemption from WP:CIVIL. I propose we simply recognise that fact and live with it. It would save everyone a lot of hot air. Or we can continue as we have, and I'm sure there will be a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MONGO 3 and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MONGO 4 in the next few months. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 11:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may think this is clear, but it's obvious that the majorty of persons on the obverse of this don't agree with your assessment. I see you are sure of futher Rfc's...that's nice, maybe most on the obverse of this and in discussion here feel that this one is unwarranted? Maybe, instead, you're not editing has prevented you from your usual sharp tongue commentary, saving you multiple blocks and even a community sanctioned ban. The level of personal attacks, ridicules, harassment and other commentary you uttered were the worst I have ever seen by an administrator.--MONGO 16:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, you make a good argument Mongo. I can see now that you are not uncivil at all. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 23:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: * Decline. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Tbeatty that it was going to be rejected. In what sense was I getting carried away?--Thomas Basboll 12:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter ('''0/5/0/0''') 

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

message: #What about these lies? <I>Chief of Staff Andrew Card claimed that after he told Bush about the second World Trade Center crash, "it was only a matter of seconds" before Bush "excused himself very politely to the teacher and to the students, and he left" the classroom. Card also stated that Bush "quickly excused himself to a holding room." [San Francisco Chronicle, 9/11/02] In a different account, Card said, "Not that many seconds later the president excused himself from the classroom." [MSNBC, 9/9/02] Sandra Kay Daniels, the teacher whose second-grade classroom Bush visited on 9/11, told the Los Angeles Times that after Card informed Bush of the second crash, Bush got up and left. "He said, 'Ms. Daniels, I have to leave now.' ... Looking at his face, you knew something was wrong. I said a little prayer for him. He shook my hand and left." Daniels also said, "I knew something was up when President Bush didn't pick up the book and participate in the lesson." [Los Angeles Times, 9/11/02]  </I> There OK? They must be for there is no article about the many lies to top USA government told about what happned that day. Babalooo 23:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You make the subject of lies, so I supply some lies by top USA officials about 9/11. <B><I>"We are not in the lie business either. Attempting to use this respectable encyclopedia to promote deceptions against true knowledge shouldn’t be tolerated. "</I></B> This is the topic of this page right? If to believe everything President Bush and his partners say about 9/11 or not?  Why are these proved lies not in the article? Thank you to answer about trolling. Babalooo 05:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  For Junglecat 

message: Once again, in the interest of an open process, I have posted a first draft of a hypothetical complaint to ArbCom in my sandbox. Please check it out, and feel free to comment, or to wait until it is filed. The final complaint may of course look very different, but this is a good way of summarizing my understanding of the result of this RfC so far.--Thomas Basboll 09:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I read it.  Wikilawyering at its worst -- using process and rules to drive away a valued contributor because of a personal grudge.  Do be aware that a complaint to arbcom will bring scrutiny on all involved editors. Raymond Arritt 17:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for taking the time. I think it needs to be tightened up a bit, perhaps with Wikilawyering in mind. I am aware of the risks, and it is good of you to caution anyone who thinks of stepping in on my behalf. I'm going to try to present it so that it will be pretty obvious whether or not I have an axe to grind.--Thomas Basboll 18:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Draft of ArbCom complaint 

message: "Conduct may be founded on the hard rock or the wet marshes, but after a certain point I don't care what it's founded on." (F. Scott Fitzgerald)
After realizing how much time we're spending on this and are likely to ask ArbCom to spend on it as well, I have filed a somewhat simple request for arbitration. Either civility matters or it doesn't. If it doesn't, we really don't have anything to talk about.--Thomas Basboll 00:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFARB 

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

message: None of the 3 closing conditions currently applies. Tyrenius 00:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Arbitration was opened and rejected, both satisfying #3.  Basboll's request and Mongo's comments satisfy #2. --Tbeatty 01:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MONGO and I do not agree (I can't imagine either of us endorsing this motion to close). Since the request was withdrawn, DR has not proceeded to some other form. That leaves us with 1. But MONGO's addenda clearly showed that discussion has not ended.--Thomas Basboll 06:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Withdrawing a request does not mean it didn't proceed.  It proceeded and was stopped right before being rejected, but it did proceed.  So what was that request to close that you started on the talk page?  --Tbeatty 02:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no need for a lawyer here. The only reason the page is still active is that MONGO has refused simply to accept the consensus in his favour along with my withdrawal from editing, and has instead taken a last opportunity to object to the whole process and attack the motives of the users who have raised concerns about his conduct. While Guy's motion was well-intentioned, it didn't summarize the discussion in a way that both MONGO and I could agree to. Most notably, I don't think the consensus is that I am not a problematic editor, nor that it is a shame that I am withdrawing from Wikipedia. I asked the community to help me decide whether my withdrawal is "the lesser of two evils". Clearly only a minority believe even that; most believe that MONGO's cause is the greater good. For his part, MONGO continues to see even this RFC as an act of harassment. I have onbviously been told that there is no serious will to make room for me here and that MONGO should be allowed to do as he pleases. That's what an RFC is for. If I really, really, really want to be here, I'm going to have to find a way to take it further. My appeal to ArbCom was obviously a mistake: I thought that there was a simple and obvious question of a personal attack and the need for a retraction. I now understand that such simple matters are seen as purely personal and ArbCom doesn't deal with them. The broader issue (which is what this RfC tried to raise) is whether editors like me should be allowed to edit in the same spirit as everyone else, or whether they can continue to expect a hostile reception.--Thomas Basboll 07:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr. Basboll, this Rfc has not apparently gone the way you may have wished, even though you spammed a few editors who you believed would be sympathetic to your "plight"., , , , , the first four of which, weren't involved in this dispute between you and me. The arbcom case was withdrawn by you when you saw that there was no one taking it and the last comment by the fifth declining arbitrator was "Decline, as frivolous"...but now you are considering taking this further? Is there a point at which you will find something else to do on Wikipedia and stop beating a dead horse?--MONGO 08:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have many other things to do but, yes, I'm still considering finding a place at Wikipedia. You and those who support you have shown no desire to help me find such a place. ("Go edit somewhere else," let's agree, is not helpful.) I will not work in a community were your treatment of me, and others like me, is accepted. So "taking it further" simply means working towards overturning the consensus to accept your conduct. You might consider having me banned for harassment or disruption or something like that. That would send a clear message. But as I understeand DR, I'm doing exactly what I'm supposed to. That is, I'm raising issues in the appropriate fora and staying out of the articles where the dispute arose. In any case, if you could accept your community's support more graciously, I don't think my last remark (or this one) would have been necessary.--Thomas Basboll 09:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The best way to get people "on your side" would be to go and edit and stop beating a dead horse. I have accepted the community's support and I do appreciate it. You need to stop displacing issues. Not once have I asked you to not edit 9/11 articles...not once...yet that is indeed what you and a few others have suggested to me.--MONGO 09:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have asked you either to be polite or (if you can't do that) to stay away. You have been told by the community not to worry too much about being polite. One reason for this RfC, however, was to try to get your (well-deserved) supporters to help me explain to you that "rv lies" and "rv extreme POV pushing" is essentially telling the editor who made the edit to not edit 9/11 articles. That's why we have WP:BITE and WP:CIVIL. Your editing drives people away. You are responsible for that conduct whether or not you actually say "go away" or not, and regardless of whether it is your intention.--Thomas Basboll 09:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: PS. I'm not sure what you mean by "on my side". I am on the side of encyclopedic content. I don't want to belong to a side. I don't want anyone to support me. I want your conduct to change.--Thomas Basboll 09:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm only going to write this once...so read it: This Rfc is petty. I will always refer to libel placed in articles as either that or lies...that is what they are, Mr. Basboll...surely you don't support libel do you? If someone is POV pushing, that is what they are doing, Mr. Basboll. Read WP:CIVIL...this Rfc isn't "civil"...the attempt at arbcom by you wasn't "civil", your efforts to secure an advocate aren't "civil"...the civil thing to do would be to go and edit the articles and stop beating a dead horse, Mr. Basboll. If there is any conduct at this point that needs changing, it's yours. Next time, don't spam potentially sympathetic editors to your cause if they are not involved in the dispute...that is an "uncivil" thing to do. See you on the article talkpages.--MONGO 10:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will read WP:CIVIL again if you will read WP:CANVAS and justify your repeated assertion that contacted editors who did not mind being contacted constituted "internal spam".--Thomas Basboll 10:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think Aude, or Tbeatty or Morton Devonshire a number of other editors would have minded being told about this Rfc...but you didn't bother to do so...Aude even questioned you about this already.--MONGO 10:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More close discussion