Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:37, 29 November 2006

Evidence presented by User:Travb as of this posting is in regards to edits made by a Cplot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has been blocked twice for 3RR and now for a week for disruption. Cplot was going around adding a nonexistant category (]) to talkpages, was questioned about it here and after I blocked him for a week when he again added the category in one of his edits, I posted my block for review at AN/I and was unanimously supported. So, indeed, I am glad to help keep just another troll who is here for disruption out of Misplaced Pages.--MONGO 21:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Are there exceptions to AGF?

(This has turned into a bit of an essay. Sorry.)

In Mongo's explanation of his treatment of me, I get the sense that he is suggesting that there are exceptions to the principle of assuming good faith. It looks as though his "skeptical" approach of "always questioning information that is not mainstream" implies not assuming good faith unless mainstream views are being presented.

Leaving aside the question of whether the specific edits I proposed can be reasonably taken as "promotional of expanding the discussion related to alternative theories regarding the collapse of the World trade Center" rather than indicative of a desire to make an article more informative, my question is whether even a clear indication that an editor believes that, say, a conspiracy theory belongs in an, at present, wholly mainstream article would license the suspension of principles like WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:BITE or WP:CIVIL. A more reasonable approach, I would think, would be to approach such edits, at least at first pass, as honest errors, i.e., mistakes in judgment. (In practice, this would mean reverting them and providing a detailed explanation: in many cases this explanation could be reused, costing no typing time.)

Now, Mongo goes on to say that his were not the only "guarded" responses to my suggestions. In fact, I would say Mongo's introductory salvo was "barbed", and I mean this in a very specific way that User:Toiyabe brought to my attention: "I think a lot of people are waiting to see if you crack under pressure and say something nutty." In this case, Mongo was even handing me something sufficienty nutty to say -- all I had to do was take the bait. What Mongo was doing was trying to gauge my motives: and that, I think, is the opposite of assuming they are upright and decent. He was approaching me with what he calls "skepticism".

Also, I am struck (and have heard this from Mongo before) by the idea that he "accomodated" me and carried out edits "for me", as if civility is about doing favours for each other. I naturally assumed that requesting a proper edit, well on the side of caution, in a locked BLP would be accepted. Mongo's approach to WP is, shall we say, "personal". He takes things personally and he engages with edits by way of the persons making them. (The idea that I "had my way" with an article reflects a similar attitude: it presumes that I am here to build up my ego, rather than to learn and teach.)

As he notes, I've talked at length with Mongo about this on several occasions, but to no avail. I am, of course, still new enough to perhaps have misunderstood the "community spirit" of this thing. My point, however, is this: given Mongo's personal and skeptical editing style is Seabhcan really doing anything wrong? Is he not just engaging with the lovable monster of a persona that Mongo has constructed for himself for the purpose of editing and administering the Misplaced Pages? After all, Tom Harrison has been more than right to say that I am "in a better position to judge Mongo's behavior" with some experiences now behind me. The trouble is that I was more or less ready to take Seabhcan's playful ribbing approach, i.e., to see Mongo's terse rebukes as good natured jabs for a higher purpose. And, yes, to begin to hit back a little. You know, get in the spirit of things.

But then this arbitration comes up and the fun is over. So I ask again, wouldn't it be better just not to suspend NPA, and not to take things personally? Wouldn't it be better to actually assume good faith in these cases and accept the results of that "civilization", even if this comes at the cost of introducing a few more notions from beyond the mainstream so revered by "skeptics"?

WP may make the internet not suck. But this thing, I'm afraid, makes WP suck a bit more than it needs to.

Best, --Thomas Basboll 22:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you may feel I have disrespect for you edits. I can tell yu are well educated, as am I, so from my perspective, when I see evidence that anyone wants more inclusion of what is oft-times referred to as "conspiracy theories", my natural response is skepticism. My initial opinion of your efforts were that your intention were to increase the coverage of conspiracy theories,perhaps only as a way to discredit them, but I saw them as allowing them too much credit. I can definitely see how from your persepctive that you felt bitten by my dismissive responses. I assure you, had yur efforts on the Collapse of the WTC article been along the lines I had originally thought they were going to be, myself and others would have reverted your work...as Tom harrison mentioned, you were able and we trusted you to do a good job on what was a very contencious article..you endured very little reversion of your work and little has changed since you comleted yur rewrite....it's not a matter of "us" giving "you" our "permission" to do the changes...but you must take into context that fact that you were left to freely edit a difficult article with very little badgering from editors who may have originally suspected that you were "just another POV pusher". I have also been mostly supportive of your edits on the Steven E, Jones article...to be fair, aside from the debate when I tried to get the hypothesis of controlled demo on the WTC article deleted, I really can't see how you should feel that I have been an obstacle to your efforts.--MONGO 22:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)