| Revision as of 18:40, 25 June 2006 editKurykh (talk | contribs)Administrators41,199 edits →Outside view: added outside view← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:50, 25 June 2006 edit undoMerzbow (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers7,854 edits →Outside view by SCZenzNext edit → | ||
| Line 108: | Line 108: | ||
| Users who endorse this summary (sign with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>): | Users who endorse this summary (sign with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>): | ||
| # ] 18:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC) | # ] 18:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| # ] 18:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Outside view of physicq210 == | == Outside view of physicq210 == | ||
Revision as of 18:50, 25 June 2006
In order to remain listed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. 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: {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 05:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC).
Please note: This template is for listing disputes about actions that are limited to administrators only, specifically these actions:
- protecting and unprotecting pages
- deleting and undeleting pages
- blocking and unblocking users
For all other matters (such as edit wars and page moves), please use the template at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Example user.
- (MONGO | talk | contributions)
Statement of the dispute
This is a summary written by users who dispute this sysop's conduct. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.
Description
This RfC stems from a block following a content dispute amongst several editors over whether the Collapse of the World Trade Center article should characterize individuals who suggest the collapse may have been caused by a controlled demolition as "Some conspiracy theorists", "Some conspiracists", "Some independant researchers", just "Some", or otherwise:
- - User:Morton devonshire
- - User:EyesAllMine
- - User:MONGO
- - User:Pokipsy76
- - User:Tom harrison
- - User:Pokipsy76
- - User:MONGO
Together with this last edit, MONGO blocked Pokipsy76 for 48 hours. Explanations for the basis behind this block have varied from just "trolling" in the block log to;
- 'POV pushing' - "Your POV pushing days are numbered as far as the 9/11 articles are concerned. You routinely revert for no reason except to push your nonsense. I have blocked you from editing for 48 hours."
- 'vandalism' - "I think you should reconsider your position and recognize that two other admins saw the block for what it was...a block for vandalism."
However, MONGO has also stated that the block was specifically for reverting him;
- I just blocked User:Pokipsy76 for 48 hours since he routinely reverts me everytime I edit the 9/11 articles.
- If unblocked and you revert me one more time, I'm going to block you for a week.
MONGO has also subsequently blocked SkeenaR and CB Brooklyn for personal attacks against him in the ongoing argument on the same page. While there WERE personal attacks and incivility (on both sides), admins are "strictly prohibited" from blocking "editors with whom they are engaged in a content dispute". MONGO was clearly in a content dispute with these editors, and thus should not have been the one evaluating whether their personal attacks/incivility warranted blocking while his own did not.
Powers misused
- Blocking (log):
Applicable policies
- Blocking policy
- Use of blocks to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. That is, sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute.
- The links provided in the description above clearly establish the existence of a content dispute between MONGO and Pokipsy76. Further, MONGO directly stated that he blocked Pokipsy76 for reverting his edits in that dispute. The subsequent blocks of SkeenaR and CB Brooklyn by MONGO also fall directly under what is "strictly prohibited" by this policy despite in those cases being based on actual personal attacks rather than false claims of "vandalism".
- Neutral point of view
- The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one.
- In direct contradiction of this quotation from the policy MONGO has asserted that the 'most popular' view, that believers in controlled demolition are "conspiracy theorists" (which is derogatory and clearly objected to), should be asserted in the article. Calling them only 'some' or even "independant researchers" (which does not imply either legitimacy or illegitimacy) would have been a more neutral presentation.
- Vandalism
- The neutral point of view is a difficult policy for many of us to understand, and even Misplaced Pages veterans occasionally accidentally introduce material which is non-ideal from an NPOV perspective. Indeed, we are all blinded by our beliefs to a greater or lesser extent. While regrettable, this is not vandalism.
- Again, this policy quotation directly contradicts MONGO's claim that these (, , , , , , , , , , ) edits were "vandalism".
Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
Summary
To date many users have treated this as something like a 'popularity contest' between MONGO and 'people who believe the WTC was brought down by a controlled demolition'... with predictable results. I ask that you instead reject this false (I do not share that belief) and improper evaluation and look at the actual evidence. Unless you can honestly say that you believe this edit (for which Pokipsy76 was blocked) was "vandalism" you should stand up and say that it was not. Unless you believe that admins are allowed to control content by blocking those who revert them you should stand up and say that they are not. MONGO has apparently come to believe that these positions are accepted... because all too often they go unchallenged. In truth that is not his fault, but rather ours for failing to adhere to the principles we claim to stand for. Please don't continue to say that you 'oppose calling things vandalism that are not' or that 'admins do not control content' if you are unwilling to stand behind those positions.
Users certifying the basis for this dispute
(sign with ~~~~)
Other users who endorse this statement
(sign with ~~~~)
Response
This is a summary written by the sysop whose actions are disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the sysop's actions did not violate policy. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign.}
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
Outside view of Hipocrite
The individuals continuously reinserting material that I would term "conspiracy theory," are unwilling to follow our NPOV policy - specifically, "Giving 'equal validity.'" my edit, my first to the article, which is in perfect adherance with our NPOV policy proves that they are not seeking to improve our encyclopedia whatsoever, and the lot of them should be blocked indefinetly for whatever justification someone can find to block POV-pushing editors who have no desire to improve the encyclopedia but rather to get their own conspiracy theory included in it. Review their edit histories, and compare to that of Mongo, myself, and Tom Harrison. Isn't obvious what the goals here are?
However, the individual making such a block should have been an uninvolved adminstrator. Mongo was wrong to have blocked this user without getting outside input and approval. Getting frusterated at individuals who act with the intent to frusterate is excusable, but correctable. Mongo should not have blocked, and for the penalty of the wrong person implimenting a right block, he should be punished with the below slap on the wrist:
- slap*
Outside view by SCZenz
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 who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.
As an editor in physics articles, I have significant experience with fighting the (very difficult) battle against those who wish to give undue weight to very minor viewpoints. The disputed section, in my opinion, should not be present at all, because it does not appear that anyone has cited it from a reliable source. It is quite reasonable to revert the addition of such material; if a citation is requested but not provided and there is consensus to do so, it may even be reasonable to revert it as vandalism after a time.
However, the dispute as to how to characterize people promoting the minor "controlled demolition" viewpoint was lame on all sides. "Conspiracy theorist" is not an NPOV characterization of a person, but "some" or "independant researcher" gives undue weight to the view. (I would suggest leaving the material out entirely, unless there is evidence that the point of view is held by a group or individuals who are notable in some way; then cite them specifically by name and indicate clearly any relevant lack of qualifications on the subject.)
MONGO seems to have been fighting the good fight, more or less, but it seems to have frustrated him somewhat. Threatening to block other users for reverting him is a clear problem, and frankly blocking people for adding minority views is generally a very bad idea; my understanding under Misplaced Pages rules is that reverting such edits is a much more appropriate response (as "that didn't improve the article in my view, see talk page" rather than vandalism rollback). Any blocks in this case should've been handled by neutral admins, or at the very least MONGO should welcome review by other admins of any blocks. I am a bit concerned by his response to CBD's intervention , which sought to bring a neutral admin's view into the picture rather than to "wheel war."
I strongly suggest that MONGO chill out and not directly use his administrator powers in regard to this dispute for a time. At the same time, I commend him and the other editors who are working to prevent the over-representation of minority views.
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
Outside view of physicq210
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 who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.
Debated and controversial information continuously inserted (and deleted) by Pokipsy76 and others demonstrates numerous violations of WP:NPOV due to the nature of such edits, involving lack of reliable and reputable evidence of such claims. These edits and ideas advanced by Pokipsy76 and others, commonly constituted as "conspiracy theories" by many, are not (and should not) to be "given equal weight" according the WP:NPOV#Undue weight and should be discussed here.
However, MONGO may be held liable due to use of undue use of his admin privileges in blocking Pokipsy76, SkeenaR, and CB Brooklyn with only minor violations and without the multiple warnings as detailed by WP:BLOCK. Therefore, as Hipocrite described above (and with whom I agree), blocking of said editors should be from a neutral party, not from MONGO, to preserve WP:NPOV and everyone's sanity. If blocking is necessary, neutral admins should be contacted to review said blocks to avoid "heat of the moment" actions. However, I do not advocate and utterly oppose any effort to remove MONGO's admin status without compelling reason (in which this is not one of them).
In short, both sides may be held liable for uncivil conduct, misuse of editing (and in MONGO's case, admin) priviliges while editing Misplaced Pages. Both sides have subverted established policies, and both mush either rescind, retract, or apologize for inflammatory statements cluttering the talk pages, and ask for second, nay third opinions.
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
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 who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign.}
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.