Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tyrenius (talk | contribs) at 21:09, 20 April 2007 (→Some thoughts on Mongo's response: ===Response to Thomas Basboll, 9/11 CT, and Crockspot's outside view===). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Response to Bov's view

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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

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)

• I should also point out that Bov is one of a number of editors who was canvassed by the caller of this RfC. - Crockspot 21:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Question for Crockspot

Do you think Mongo deserves a medal for his treatment of me? --Thomas Basboll 06:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think you were treated all that badly. As I implied on the project page, civility can be difficult to maintain at times, but you were not that badly abused in this case. The words "thicker skin" come to mind. Crockspot 16:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Depends on the slight. Backstabbing is a big slight.--MONGO 17:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Question for JungleCat

Are you suggesting that my edits constitute lying?--Thomas Basboll 06:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I think what he's objecting to is your attempt to use Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, it's credible sources that we rely upon, not deconstructionist syllogism.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 06:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide an example or two of me peddling an unsupportable claim?--Thomas Basboll 06:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Some thoughts on Mongo's response

First, I was struck by and, of course, appreciate the apology. Your wording did come across as an attempt to intimidate and you were told that that's how it came across at the time. For some reason, however, you have waited until now to apologize. You have had no shortage of opportunities (an AN/I, an informal mediation, an awareness of this RfC in the making) to avoid taking the community's time with an RfC. All you had to do was apologize, plainly and simply, in the hours immediately after the remark was made.

Even now, you don't say you will stop the behaviour for which you are apologizing. Indeed, you justify it further, by suggesting that on the whole and in the long run it's better to treat people like me as you do than to risk treating real conspiracy theorists with respect. That environment is not an appealing place for people like me to work in, as I'm sure you can understand.

I happened to start in one corner of WP. The alternative explanations for the WTC collapse were a topic I found interesting, and where WP's differences from other media itself seemed to be interesting. It's what got me started. Your behaviour ensured that I didn't have the time and, importantly, the desire to expand my contributions. I was not welcomed. To propose that I could always contribute elsewhere (i.e., on articles you and I don't feel strongly about) is, for all intents and purposes, to propose I go away. There's a principle at stake here. Any group of articles, frequented by a committed group of editors, will offer conditions under which your argument would apply. People who hold unpopular POVs can be asked to contribute to pages that they are less interested in. That is as good as asking them to "stop editing" ("around here" if you will).

You say I want to introduce "conspiracy rhetoric" and cite a place where I suggest incorporating "facts" that are until now only available in conspiracy theory articles. You then offer a now familiar argument:

Many who trust the known evidence feel highly insulted when others, armed only with their predisposed belief that the known evidence may be or is incorrect, attempt to insert their predisposed beliefs into these articles...and try and cite questionable authorities who lack the credentials or the facts to back up their claims.

But you have never shown that the insult you felt from my presence had this basis. That is, you have never shown that I have attempted to insert predisposed beliefs or cite questionable authorities. Like I say above, the problem with your approach is, in part, that you treat me like that simply by association. And so everyone who thinks like me, and watches you and I work, quickly loses the desire to participate in the project. That is an important reason not to treat people like that even where you are right about their aims.

I would therefore like to hear your view on the policy issues I raise. You say I "appear to be a POV pusher" that it "looks like" I want to use WP as a soapbox. You then say you "don't know for certain that is the case". Now, policy states that the term "POV pushing" is considered incivil and should be applied only in "unambiguous cases". Similarly, you justify you actions by noting that your struggle is aimed at NPOV violations, but you repeatedly call these violations "vandalism", again, directly in violation of the relevant guidelines. Why?

WP is about to lose an editor because of a stubborn insistence on the right to treat fools like fools, even while admitting that the editor in question may be no fool. The difference between this case and the (I imagine) many other cases before it, is that the editor has decided to articulate his reason for leaving in elaborate detail. What you do with that is a matter for the WP community of the future to deal with. It is because I believe in the idea of WP that I bother. Like I say, I find the project interesting. Right now, however, it isn't living up to its ideals.

Best, --Thomas Basboll 07:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:VAND...see "Sneaky vandalism"

• "Vandalism which is harder to spot. This can include adding plausible misinformation to articles, (e.g minor alteration of dates), hiding vandalism (e.g. by making two bad edits and only reverting one), or reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages."

Indeed, this removal (which you cited in your comments as well) was my attempt to revert sneaky vandalism...plausible misinformation. It was also libel. As mentioned by me in my response and by Aude, if you only edit a very few articles and you routinely try to increase the coverage of speculative material in them, then the appearance is (for what shold be obvious reasons) that you are soapboxing or a POV pusher. It is just that simple. I also do think you are very thin skinned, and if you don't mind me saying, I suggest you not misuse Rfc in some attempt to out your main competition. I believe this Rfc is without merit, but I do respect your right to file it, even though I find it not likely to do anything to alter my beliefs about what your motivation on wikipedia are, or convince me that my beliefs of what your motivations are, are incorrect. I can't see that any further discussion on this matter from me will be of benefit to either of us.--MONGO 18:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Response to Thomas Basboll, 9/11 CT, and Crockspot's outside view

I agree with Thomas Basboll's general sentiments above, and, although my direct communication with MONGO in the past has been minimal (from my perspective, although apparently not from his), I have had similar experiences in the 9/11 area, and I think this discussion needs to be seen in that wider context.

I strayed into 9/11 subjects by chance, as I often do with different subjects on wiki. Far from having any predisposition to bear on it, I had never even heard of Steven E. Jones, let alone Alex Jones or any others of their ilk beforehand, having virtually nil prior interest in such matters. However, I edit plenty of articles I have had no prior interest in, so I didn't see this as being any different, and presumed that the normal policies of WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR etc. should and could be applied. I soon came to realise that was not quite the case, when I encountered a hard core of editors, for whom, it was obvious, if you weren't with them, you were against them, in their undisguised intent to rid wikipedia of all mention of "9/11 conspiracy theories", or rather, as that wasn't feasible, to get rid of as many as possible and reduce to a minimum what remained. This wasn't on a case by case basis, but from an a priori decision that applied to them all regardless. I found that what would normally pass as an innocuous edit became fastened on relentlessly, inevitably by more than one user, with extreme and partial interpretations of policy to justify reversion.

I found this behaviour as much POV pushing as the POV pushing it was apparently opposing. One argument, repeated in this RfC, is that certain ideas should not be permitted in wikipedia because they are not proven. If something has sufficient note, then it is up to wikipedia to present it and for editors to work to that end, regardless of personal preference or prejudice. Misplaced Pages gives facts and lets the reader judge for themselves. This seems to have been discarded in favour of purifying what information readers are even allowed to access. That is censorship, and in this area of wiki has been drummed home relentlessly, until it has begun to seem a norm, so that editors acting normally seem extreme. As regards 9/11, the facts may or may not be what certain outspoken, or deluded, or whatever you choose to call them, people have said, but it is a fact that they have said these things, and that is what needs to be recorded from a NPOV, particularly as there is such widespread interest in and publicity about them, which would normally be seen as an obvious cause for inclusion, not exclusion.

"Free access to the sum of all human knowledge" also includes a knowledge of what is false, as well as what is true. We don’t exclude theories that the sun goes round the earth, because we now know them to be false. We show the different proponents and their ideas and their relationship. If something is ridiculous, a properly written article will state the facts and the truth should be apparent, or at least the inadequacies and contradictions will be revealed. As has been pointed out in the RfC, there seems no great hysteria about the views expressed in articles such as Global warming, Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations, RMS Titanic, David Irving or Loch Ness Monster, nor for that matter Chariots of the Gods? or the recording of unproven ideas held by another bunch of conspiracy theorists, who "believe Jesus to be the Son of God". I'm not being facetious, just pointing out that people’s beliefs can be valid encyclopedic material, and don’t have to be proven realities to be so. Christian ideas are a more extraordinary concept about material events than common or garden Conspiracy Theorists’. Or if you prefer, observe the distinct lack of concern over the presence of Chariots of the Gods?.

Crockspot's outside view is typical of the 9/11 arena and pure sophistry, where skewed arguments seek to belittle another editor from the opening jibe, "Since we are discouraged from discussing the thickness of the skin of the caller of this RfC." Obviously, indicates Crockspot, rephrasing Thomas's comment in an unnecessarily pedantic way, this editor is a little risible, but I doubt if Crockspot would advocate its corollary, that we should discuss the thinness of the skin of the subject of the RfC. If this seems surprising to suggest, but his statement didn’t, then that is an indication of an unlevel playing field from the start. Every established wikipedian will of course empathise with "difficulty being civil with editors who act foolishly, push wacky notions, and use every trick they can to push those notions", but that conveniently obscures the first point of enquiry, which is about MONGO’s treatment of Thomas Basboll. If Crockspot thinks the definition applies to Thomas, then he should provide substantial diffs to substantiate it. Crockspot neglects to mention that, despite the difficulty he mentions, the great majority of experienced wikipedians do nevertheless manage to remain civil nearly all of the time, and consider this to be required behaviour. A difficulty isn’t an excuse to continually get away with something: it’s a reason to try harder to find a way of dealing with it properly.

The third part of Crockspot’s view manages also to make a rhetorical statement to which there is only one response possible as determined by him in advance: "If MONGO's behaviour is preventing legions of conspiracy theorists from making 'important contributions' to Misplaced Pages, then we should give him a medal, a cigar, and our undying thanks." Well, if that is true, then of course we should give him the medal, the cigar and the thanks. The problem is that there is no evidence that it is true or that it has prevented anything of the sort. I am not disputing there are extreme conspiracy theorist POV pushers out there, wanting to find a platform here, but that applies to numerous subjects, and that is precisely what wiki is structured to deal with, which, left to its normal processes, it actually manages to do rather well without “MONGO’s behaviour”. Despite Crockspot’s dramatic portrayal, the enemy are not at the gate. George Orwell wrote rather well about the tactic. All it does is creative a defensive "them or us" mentality – you’re either one of the good guys or you're one of the conspiracy theorists, in which case you're beyond the pale, and you get what you deserve. The consequences of this attitude normally lead to editors being warned and blocked. The fact that it is defended in cases such as this not only engenders disillusion, but turns some potential friends into excommunicated enemies, as well as handing them ammunition to fire back from afar.

Editors should think very carefully about the real implications before endorsing Crockspot’s view. Crockspot first hints that Thomas is oversensitive, i.e. by implication he should not be making a fuss over how MONGO acts, i.e. MONGO is not really that uncivil. He next smooths the way by going through the motion of asserting the importance of civility, in order to immediately excuse a lack of it with a strawman argument, so that lack of civility becomes understandable. He finally turns incivility into a virtue.

An endorsement of Crockspot’s view is a voice of support, whether intended or not, for abusive behaviour as the means of addressing problems on wikipedia. MONGO is not Horatius defending the bridge. What Crockspot leaves out of his advocacy are the recommended modes of dealing with such matters, for which we have WP:DR, WP:MC, WP:3RR, WP:AN, WP:AN/I, WP:AIV and WP:CN, WP:RFC, WP:ArbCom, admins, bans and blocks, to name the first that come to mind. In fact the only thing we don’t have is WP:MONGO’s behaviour, which doesn’t short-cut the others: it devalues them and also users’ faith in a working system. It is not legions of conspiracy theorists that MONGO's behaviour is preventing from making important edits – those people will get dealt with anyway, as they always are. It is over the years maybe dozens of ordinary editors, for whom an inimical environment is created.

However, as I’ve already said, I am certainly not laying all the burden of blame for the 9/11 sink-pit on MONGO and I sympathise that he has suffered off wiki abuse, for which he is of course entitled to our support, but the fact that he has been a victim does not give him the right to victimise and, one would have hoped, would have made him more aware of the effects of that kind of insidious pressure on others. One person alone would not have had such a pervasive effect, but a caucus of editors who unfailingly turn up to support each other, without ever seeming to differ in their views, certainly would and do, generating an arena which amplifies his flaws and makes them next to impossible to address. What the "anti 9/ll CT POV pushers" have succeeded in doing – and this is quite a feat of propaganda – is to instil as a reality their own myth of a particular danger in this area, which justifies their extreme tactics to supposedly address it. They thus succeed in enlisting the general approval of moderate, but uninvolved editors. I had that kind of impression myself before I naively tried to edit some of these articles. If anyone is in doubt, and hasn’t done so yet, please go there and try. The subject could certainly do with an influx of sound editors.

My own experience there was undoubtedly my most unpleasant on wikipedia to date. I could of course have continued to address that situation, but to be quite honest I have better things to do with my life. I have no wish to interact with some of the editors I encountered there. In fact for a time it became sufficiently disagreeable to be a contributing factor for me to back off from wiki altogether. This was not even from any frustration of being unable to make a point that I knew was correct, but which was being thwarted. I was quite successful finally in making that point, which resulted in WP:BLP being applied wiki-wide in the way that it is now, but you would think I'd committed a criminal act. Now, if it makes me feel like that, and I'm an admin, you can guess how many people wouldn't even dare speak up in the first place, or would easily get out-manoeuvred by someone who knew how to play the system, or would get beaten down by heavy handedness. Does anyone remember wikipedia being quite an intimidating place when they first started editing – without anything even going amiss, and how easy it could be to inadvertently do the wrong thing, not realising certain RL expectations and behaviour didn’t necessarily translate smoothly into an equivalent in wikiworld?

I have had no interest in editing 9/11 related articles since my first brief foray around seven months ago. Probably I would drop by if it were possible to do so and find a civil environment, but I prefer to interact with editors where I know there can be a mutual exchange and a degree of flexibility to solve problems. It makes it a pleasure to work on wiki, rather than an endurance test. I would have preferred to have stayed out of this RfC altogether, as I have far more pressing RL demands right now, and was hoping someone else would certify it. But Thomas Basboll has always seemed a reasonable enough individual to me, and I feel he is actually being driven away, which is a disgrace. Far from being thin-skinned, he has my utmost admiration for his fortitude of staying the course there for so long.

I believe MONGO when he says it is not his intention to drive Thomas away, because I don’t think MONGO properly realises how he comes across. I regret to have to say that I was appalled at his bullying manner long before I ever had anything at all to do with him. He exerts it to get his own way, and it's time he understood it's not acceptable. Personally I actually find his gross abuse rather more palatable than the more insidious methods of other operators in the field, but I guess Thomas Basboll doesn’t. I also recognise that MONGO can be generous, and recall him offering to help Thomas to get one of the controversial articles to FA status. A reconciliation would be a good outcome, and the one that Thomas obviously wants to achieve so that he can continue to participate in the collegiate atmosphere that every editor is entitled to. If the only way to achieve this is to ban a whole clutch of editors, including MONGO, from 9/11 subjects, I don’t think the result would be the unmitigated disaster they would like us all to believe.

Tyrenius 21:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

On Single Purpose Accounts

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

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)

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)

I have big problems with that essay, and as far as editing articles is concerned, it should be utterly disregarded. Not everyone is a polymath; a lot of people are going to edit what they care about, and not care about a wide range of material. That is OK. People who appear out of nowhere and instantly gravitate to project discussion are another story, of course.

It seems obvious that anyone who pops into one of the 9/11 articles immediately upon arrival in Misplaced Pages and does any non-trivial change is editing with a strong POV. It simply stands to reason. They may have a good POV or bad POV, but if they gravitate immediately to such an article, it's because they "know" that the content is "wrong". We want to discourage this; but if people get their heads handed to them for this, they are going to assume that it's because the other side is just trying to defend the "lies" in the current article and so forth. Biting the newbies is more of a problem with these articles than anywhere else. Mangoe 19:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

And to comment on the Hawking example above, I think it depends on what kind of material Hawking was adding. Did he edit warred against consensus and/or had been blocked for his editing patterns? You know, there's a couple different single purpose accounts. There's the guy who really loves baseball and only edits articles about baseball, and then there's the guy who hates the designated hitter rule and only edits to push his POV on that issue. The difference is too obvious to elaborate on except to say that we love one of them and the other is likely to get runnoft at some point. RxS 19:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)